#based on how i've seen them treat series-negative people

[vivid-bluez]

Helluva Boss' Worldbuilding is Awful

This is going to be a different post than what I normally post. It will be a bit more negative than how I normally word things but I want to get my thoughts out there since it's something I've been hyper fixating on for awhile.

Helluva Boss is a web series on YouTube currently in its 2nd season created by Vivienne Medrano, it serves as a spin-off of her other creative property Hazbin Hotel which was recently picked up by A24 and will air its first season on Prime next month. I wanted to discuss the worldbuilding of Helluva Boss, how and why I think it doesn't work, and why that hurts it's storytelling. This essay isn't meant to be only dunking on Viv or people who still love the show, I'm not writing this to be mean. I'm writing this because I do have a soft spot for these shows, Helluva Boss S1 is a comfort show to me and Hazbin was my first foyer into indie animation. I respect Medrano for what she was able to accomplish with her shows and I write this as my own form of a love letter to the show that I want so badly to improve and be the best it can be.

The Hierarchy

Both Hazbin and Helluva take place in the same universe and are set in the same location, Hell. Hell is a concept that's been around for a long time and has had several stories written about it, it has multiple different interpretations and depictions throughout the years. Medrano's version of Hell seems to be based on Dante's Inferno version of Hell, a story that depicts Hell as having multiple layers with the sins being condensed to their own rings. Medrano's version only has 7 rings as opposed to Dante's 9 rings, one ring for each of the 7 deadly sins.

Medrano's Hell is depicted as a hierarchical society with very strict rules that those within the hierarchy must obey. Those at the bottom of the hierarchy are treated like garbage by those above them, with very little one can do to transcend the position they were born into. Furthermore, dating someone underneath you in the hierarchy, especially if you're higher on it like in the Ars Goeita, is seen as disgraceful and disgusting. The hierarchy is depicted below:

This hierarchy, as confirmed by Medrano in an interview and further established in Helluva, is the official ranking of the denizens of Hell. It seems fine until you realize that the Sinners, former humans who sinned in life and got themselves into Hell, are above all of the Hellborn in status. The reason it doesn't really make sense is because Hell is meant to be a place where sinners are tortured for eternity for their sins, with the Hellborn usually being the ones doing the torturing. So why are they above the Hellborn? Why do mortal souls outrank those of actual demons? We're never given an answer for this, it's really odd.

My other problem with the hierarchy is that its established rules are often broken and bent when the writers feel like it. The most prominent example is when it comes to Higher Demons having relationships with Lower Demons. In the first season; Blitz, an Imp, someone at the bottom of the hierarchy, and Stolas, a member of the Ars Goeita and a Prince, being in a sexual relationship with each other is seen as disgusting and shocking by those around them.

When Stella is calling Stolas out for cheating on her she seems more upset that it was with an imp, with most of her insults being based around that.

"Do you want to fuck this one (referring to their imp butler) too?!" - Stella (S1E2 LooLoo Land) "Fucking IMP SUCKER!" - Stella (S2E4 Western Energy)

When Stolas and Blitz are called out in Ozzie's for their relationship, the characters don't seem to point out that he's cheating but again, who he's cheating with.

"ARE YOU SLEEPIN' WITH AN IMP?!" - Wally Wackford (S1E7 Ozzie's) "Whew! My dark lord, how the mighty do fall." - Asmodeus (S1E7 Ozzie's)

All of these moments make it clear that having a relationship with someone outside of your social class, especially those at the literal bottom of the barrel, is frowned upon heavily in Hell's society.

So why are Ozzie and Fizz, and also Bee and Tex, able to be so public about their relationships and nobody cares?

Tex, a hellhound on the same level of status as the imps arguably even lower, is dating Beezlebub, a Deadly Sin and queen of the Gluttony Ring. They don't hide their relationship at all, with Tex introducing her as his girlfriend at a public event and Bee acting very lovey-dovey to him in public. Shouldn't there be a scandal about this? The class difference is arguably more than Blitz and Stolas, with Stolas only being a demon Prince, Bee is a Queen and she's dating someone whom most of Hell considers to be little more than actual pets. No one looks at them weird or even makes a comment about it?

Fizz and Ozzie are in the same boat, a deadly sin, the King of Lust is dating an imp. They at least somewhat point this out in the universe (Newspaper articles of Ozzie being a hypocrite and characters calling their relationship the worst-kept secret in Hell) but they don't get nearly the same amount of venom and societal ridicule that Stolas and Blitz got. When Asmodeus confirms in front of an entire crowd of Hellborns at Mammon's Clown Pageant in S2E7 MAMON'S MAGNIFICENT MIDSEASON SPECIAL, the crowd is... extremely accepting of it. With all of them cheering for Fizz and Ozzie and Mammon seemingly being the odd one out when it comes to ridiculing them for their supposedly forbidden love.

So what's the deal? Are higher demons and lower demons forbidden from dating each other or not? Because of how the show is written, it seems like it's only a problem when it's Stolas and Blitz. It's one example but still a glaring inconsistency in the worldbuilding that leaves several fans confused.

Hell not feeling like Hell

So outside of the hierarchy posing its own issues the actual setting also poses its own issues. A common criticism I've seen of Helluva and Hazbin is that Hell is just "Earth but red" and I'd have to agree with that honestly. You could replace the setting of Helluva as a group of assassins running a business in a major city like Los Angeles and change Stolas to being just a shady rich corporate backer and very little about the plot would change.

I'll just rapid fire some things that Hell has that make no sense in a place that's supposed to be evil, lawless, and a place of eternal suffering:

Fire Fighters

Hospitals that even lower classes can use.

Jails and Cops?? (What the fuck)

A fucking priest, officiating a wedding with a bible which implies there's a Hell Christianity?

Weddings and marriages that seem identical to Earth ones or Christian marriages (wouldn't Hell hate marriages for how they're tied to religion and God?)

Fucking Courts.

If these were one-off gags or something mentioned only once, I could let it slide. (Like Millie and Moxxie being married or Stolas and Stella getting a divorce) but when you drag out these plot points or repeatedly show things that make your world just feel like Earth but with a new coat of paint on it, It begins to feel like your world is just Earth but with a new coat of paint on it.

The worldbuilding in Helluva Boss feels like the worldbuilding in Cars where it just leaves more questions than it answers. (Why are sidewalks a thing in a world of sentient cars? They show an American flag so does that mean that the Car Civil War happened? THE POPE IS HERE IS THERE A CAR JESUS THAT DIED ON THE CAR CROSS FOR OUR CAR SINS??)

What is Demonic Law?

In Helluva Boss, the business the characters run is stated by multiple characters to be illegal. There are demons permitted to access the human world and imps are not one of them, making their business illegal. I.M.P's use of Stolas' grimoire is illegal it is not meant to be lent out to anyone, especially not to imps, Stolas even says so himself in S1E5 Harvest Moon. Stolas later affirms that the Imps need to be careful because if they get caught it could land all of them in trouble in S1E6 Truth Seekers:

"How the fuck did you get caught!? Were you not being careful? If you get in trouble I get in trouble!" - Stolas (S1E6 Truth Seekers)

So what's the deal with Stolas in S2E6 waltzing up to a DEADLY SIN and basically admitting that Blitz's running an ILLEGAL BUSINESS AND HE'S AN ACOMPLIS TO IT?? Asmodeus just... doesn't care that this demon prince just admitted to breaking demon law? Also, Blitz can advertise his business without worry that it could bite him in the ass, no one else at I.M.P. is concerned that they're running an illegal business that could land all of them in hot water? No one questions why a bunch of imps have access to the living world even though they're not supposed to?

Another thing they set up is Human Disguises, in S1E3 where Loona calls them out for going to the human world without using human disguises, making a big deal out of it. Whenever Loona goes to the human world she wears a human disguise as well as Verosika, her squad, and Stolas in S2E2.

"A human called me a possum! I am NOT a possum!" - Moxxie (S1E3 Spring Broken)

The human disguise rule is so inconsistent, why do Loona and Stolas wear theirs in Seeing Stars when Octavia is wandering around without one and the most people do is give her weird looks. The imps run around fine without them and no one cares or can see through their bad disguises The humans in the Hellverse are too stupid to notice the literal demons so why even bring up disguises at all? Why have human disguises be apart of Demon Law if it doesn't matter?

Demons being ...Nice?

A common response to criticism of this show is usually "It's Hell.". While I've already gone over why it sure don't feel like it but what's weirder still is yes, it's hell. Why are some people so fucking nice?

Moxxie doesn't want to kill an innocent mother and seems pretty soft, Millie and Moxxie are incredibly loving and caring to each other, when Blitz is younger, he has qualms against stealing, then we've got Beezlebub and Asmodeus who, by all accounts, are just nice people.

Bee becomes concerned for Blitz when he begins binge drinking (Aka, engaging in her sin) at one of her parties and Asmodeus has an entire speech about why consent matters and how lust shouldn't be forced. I'm not advocating for Ozzie to be a rapist or for Bee to be a one dimensional bitch but, it really doesn't make sense for the literal embodiments of sins to be so nice.

On that same note, there are villians in this show that we're mostly supposed to hate because they're.. mean?

Glitz and Glam, we hate them because they're hyper-competitive and mean to Fizz, but they're demons? Shouldn't we expect them to be mean? Stella is an abusive screaming harpy and awful to Stolas and we hate her for it, but she's a demon princess? Shouldn't that behavior be normal in Hell?

Certain demons being nice is fine, and it can give them depth, but when every 'good guy' is nice and chill and only the evil or villainousxczxc characters are cartoonishly evil it starts to become apparent that it's writer's bias.

Conclusion

While this isn't all of the worldbuilding issues that exist within Medrano's Hellverse, it's the big ones that I have the most problems with. For a show that's supposed to be made as a way to further build upon the world of Hell, Helluva does a very poor job at that and at points is even detrimental to Hazbin.

What I mean is, if Charlie needs a backer to the hotel, why doesn't she ask Ozzie or Bee? They seem like they'd be down for it since they're surprisingly anti-sin. Charlie no longer feels special because she isn't the only nice demon, she isn't the odd one out anymore since a lot of Hell's leaders also seem to be pretty chill and nice.

Again, this isn't a rant or something that I made to dunk on these shows, I love both of them still and I want them to be better. For Hazbin and Helluva to live up to their potential and be the best they can be, no work is above being critiqued, it comes with the territory and I wish more of the fandom was normal about someone having negative feelings towards parts of the show's writing and to stop putting good faith and bad faith criticism in the same boot and backing that shit into the Hudson.

[flores-desyatov]

How do you feel about F/D fanfiction? Personally for me, it makes me uncomfortable. I don’t like it when people treat real life people like they are fictional characters that they can project their fantasies onto & post them on the internet. I ask bc I saw someone in one of Bella‘s comments say that they were going to start writing ff about them & a bunch of others were encouraging them & I wanted to comment & discourage them, but I know how ff people are & they jump down your throat if you speak out against ff. I hope at the very least they would be respectful & not write explicit material about the two of them as I think that would be a pretty clear violation. It just worries me as their fandom is growing that it’s going to invite inappropriate behavior towards & about them. It’s something that’s alienated me from a lot of fandoms & I’m worried that that’s the path we’re on with F/D 😢

This is gonna be a long one so brace yourselves 🥲

I've seen comments like that on Bella's IG and TikTok. If they're joking then it's harmless but if they're being for real? Huge no for me.

I've also been in many fandoms before and I'm avid fanfiction reader. I've never been comfortable with the idea of fics based on real people even existing. Real people are not your dolls to play with. Some actors/public figures know these fics exist and don't seem to mind – at least they do not react negatively in the public eye beyond being super embarrassed about it – but that doesn't mean it's not inappropriate. Fiction exists for a reason. Especially since we all know fics are not always G-rated 🥴

Bella seems to me like the type of girly who at least surface level wouldn't care that much since she's a reader as well but I just don't even want that line to be crossed at all. Shipping is at least somewhat harmless to an extent but writing fics is too much.

However, if someone were to write a story based on Bella and Vanya then that's different. Since it'd be different characters. I've always thought the way they met then got together (as skating partners) would make for a good movie or limited series based on the conflicts they've had to face thus far. Good chance for character development too. But that's just my one year of film school talking.

[redr0sewrites]

i wanted to kinda talk about my opinion on some things related to Ana Huang and the romance genre in general- sorry for the rant!!!

finished king of sloth by ana huang and urgrhrgrhrhrh i actually really really enjoyed it!!!! (i say that ab everything i read tho tbh, i've just never been the type who criticizes the media i consume so PLEASE don't ever base ur opinions off of mine :)

my post isn't about the book specifically or even the author. i lowkey have a bone to pick and its NOT with ana huang or the book but moreso the reaction i've been noticing about the book (specifically from people who have been making fun of it and/or people who read it)! this isn't meant to start discourse or anything but i am open to polite discussion about some of the points im bringing up. this is generally focused around ana huang but also a lot of majority-feminine centric media has this same problem.

anyways, i'm gonna try to express how i feel as best i can without being rude or offensive ajshsjs-

it just lowkey irks me that sm people have been hating on ana huang now that she's getting attention, and since she's a romance writer, her fans and fanbase is mostly women and/or girls, (which is totally ok)!! however, i genuinely feel like this is just another barbie movie or sarah j mass or taylor swift scenario where the second something/someone that a lot of woman like starts to get publicity, people (mostly men) start excessively hating on it.

i have genuinely seen sm people dissing not only ana huang but her writing as well. now i don't know much about her as a person and i know that a lot of people are flawed so if she's genuinely done something wrong PLEASE lmk, i don't keep up w that stuff. and hey, maybe you just didn't like the book and thats ok too!!! its totally valid to not like something, but to make fun of an author and the people who enjoy her content just seems.. ehh.

a lot and i mean a LOT of people claim that she's only popular because of her smut but i actually enjoy her books more than just for the smutty/romance aspect. maybe that's just me, but i genuinely find it interesting and a lot of other people i know also enjoy it for the plot. and if u are reading for the smut that's ok as well, this is a totally safe space, and nobody should judge u on your reasons to read a book. the books are INTENDED to be fluffy and spicy and overall are just fictional romantic stories. they're smutty, funny books, not the bible. it shocks me how much people make fun of them.

i just keep seeing this trend of people negatively nitpicking anything and everything about authors and their writing ESPECIALLY when its romance and it just rubs me the wrong way. ive seen a LOT of people upset about huang including cameo's of her other characters in her latest book, and if you don't like those other characters so much then why... are u reading it??? THAT SOUNDS SO MEAN IM SORRY but its just so strange that people are upset about her including her own characters from her own series'?

its just disappointing that whenever someone or something becomes popular, there are always people who are just trying to be negative and diss it along with the people who enjoy it. i'm NOT making this post to be rude or offensive to people who genuinely don't like the author or the series, ur absolutely entitled to ur own opinion!!! however i have just seen this link SO MANY TIMES of people suddenly disliking something/someone bc a lot of woman seem to enjoy it and it just makes me a bit sad and disappointed.

(also side note can men stop hating on the romance genre and books they haven't even read? please??? can feminine people like anything anymore??? romance exists as such a successful genre bc the majority of readers are WOMEN who have to create fictional scenarios about being loved by seemingly "unachievable" men that are literally just doing the bare minimum. women fantasize about being treated with BASIC HUMAN RESPECT as though that isn't the standard, bc honestly, it isnt.)

THIS POST IS NOT MEANT TO EXCLUDE ANY OF MY FELLOW NON-FEMALE/NON-WOMAN OR GENDER NON CONFORMING FOLK WHO ALSO ENJOY ROMANCE!!!! THIS IS JUST A GENERALIZATION BASED ON THINGS I HAVE NOTICED, AND I AM NOT EDUCATED/HAVE A DEGREE ON THE MATTER!!!! THIS IS SIMPLY AN OBSERVATION!!!!! IF UVE READ THIS LONG, MWAH MWAH MWAH!!!

[vexture]

Personal Thoughts on DID and Monster.

(This is going to be based on how I see others in this fandom interact with The Magnificent Steiner, nothing brought this on, I was just thinking about it.)

When I first found out that Wolfgang Grimmer had a headmate, I was super stoked. I was aware of the elements of the series, I definitely didn't go in blind, nor was I disappointed in his portrayal, but I will say - the fandom doesn't handle him well at all. (Speaking as someone who has diagnosed DID.)

While his role is protector, not much else is touched on, especially in writing and art. He's almost always seen as aggressive or covered in blood, and yeah, super cool for the artists and stuff to even include him (because there are some who leave him out entirely), but there's a suspension that "blood covered angry DID alter" is all he'll ever be. It makes me kind of sad to see it.

It's understood that there isn't much about Steiner's source material, or much info about how he ended up with Wolfgang, and I know most don't want to portray him negatively, but in my experience when others do give it a shot, it's a really set stereotype. When doing research, there's only so much to understand from the clinical to the personal, and since this disorder is so varied, it's hard to do it right, but when expressing this disorder, there's always room for the headmate(s) in question to be positively touched on. Happiness is a right, and headmates should be seen as happy too.

But when all I see is art of him beating the shit out of someone (or that one art with the lady in the white void, that one made my skin crawl, if you know you know.) I kind of shrink back. Urasawa did his best handling Steiner and Wolfgang, and he did better than most media that depicts DID to date, in my opinion, but a fundamental thing about it, the humanity of the headmate got lost somewhere, so when seeing depictions, it seems like Steiner will always be someone who can never live past his initial role.

I've seen others in this fandom talk about Steiner like some kind of specimen, and Wolfgang like that too in some aspects, and while this manga/anime does tend to attract the deep thinkers and the analysts, there should be consideration for the ones who Urasawa's (while largely well) depiction ultimately affects. It's not perfect, but just like how others perceive Johan to be some master of deception (even though it was mostly inherent advantages for the decade and place, and the lack of actual joint investigation - ahem, Czech police) the same could be applied to how others see Wolfgang and Steiner. The generalization that Steiner is extremely violent and only violent is very negative and that can lead to a lot of misunderstanding when interacting with this fandom.

I've been in conversations where my headmates have chimed in only to be talked to like they were a part of a think piece or picked apart like they weren't human. A word of caution, when talking about Wolfgang and Steiner (or any person in fiction with DID, good rep or not) there will always be the internal biases that you'll have, to pick the character(s) apart and to analyze, but do your best to remember the life/humanity these headmates hold, even if you'd never get to talk to them. It genuinely affects how others see DID as a whole when all we have in fiction/fandom spaces is either violence or perceived incompetence from being looked at like we can't take care of ourselves.

Please treat your characters with extremely stigmatized disorders kindly, there are real people who will see your works and wonder if all they'll ever be is a stereotype.

[risingshards]

I'm so tired of spaces in fandom/online/in person/whatever that are so deadset on equating a piece of art's worth to a bunch of data sets that really have very little to do with the art itself.

Like I'll be in discussions online about wrestling. If you can believe it, pro wrestling has an absurd amount of discussion about the biznes data and stats of at all and none of it is about the actual enjoyment of the plots or wacky scenarios of the shows, just like "oh yeah the ratings are up YOY by 14.2% they're so hot right now this is so business when you business money" or "ohhh that wasn't good their ratings are down .03 2/3rd% on RateMyWrestling.gov this is not good for business money business" like DID YOU LIKE THE EPISODE OR DO YOU JUST LIKE TRACKING BUSINESS AND AGGREGATE STATS.

I was talking to another friend about a movie (one I ended up adoring) and their take on it having not seen it at all was that it was total dogshit because of like it's quantum aggregate on FartCritic or whatever, like why engage with anything when you can just point to some nebulously generated number and go "it good" or "it bad"???

Obviously I'm not immune to any of this too, I'll see the nebulously generated FartCritic scores and go like "oh wow so this is good!" or the opposite based on them sometimes. And because I'm an anxious loser I get way too caught up in these so I'm trying to just disengage from it all, but it do be hard when all the websites blare these numbers everywhere, or when game devs get paid extra by publishers based on their aggregate scores, it's all just exhausting. It feels like so many people just wanna treat entertainment as a series of stat games mostly based around saying how shit something is because [random number] or random financials that say nothing about the works themselves, about the merit in the text, it's all just boring negative data. And it's been this way for a looooong while so I don't think I'm saying anything new here I've just been really frustrated about this lately. My summer goal is to be less terminally online to avoid dealing with things that ain't good for my presently shaky mental health so wish me luck breaking bad habits!

[yurisorcerer]

This is an interesting one. I kept going back and forth on it while watching the premiere but I think I'd say my overall impressions are positive? It's complicated.

What we have here is a future setting where massive flooding has sunk a good chunk of humanity. The state of things is telegraphed via the small-seeming islands that our protagonists live on; lots of overgrown buildings, using oil lamps for light and heat, that kind of thing. In the midst of all this we're introduced to our lead, Natsuki, who's being lent a submersible by his "friend", the generally scummy Catherine. While diving for salvage into what used to be the city he grew up in, he finds an android sealed in a capsule. This is the titular Atri, and the rest of the episode is about Natsuki, Catherine, and innocent schoolgirl(?) Minamo interacting with her.

Their interactions are a bit fraught and this is where I started getting a bit skeptical. Catherine's first instinct is to sell Atri despite the fact that the robo-girl is clearly human in all but biology, and the idea is taken seriously throughout the episode. Our characters go so far as to head to an appraiser. My immediate first reaction to this was very negative, and it's definitely still possible that Atri (the show) will faceplant here, but I *think* what we're actually doing is drawing a parallel between Atri herself and Natsuki with regard to the commodification of bodies. Natsuki, you see, is disabled, and only gets around with a prosthetic leg (which is noted to be old and finnicky; it locks up on him a few times throughout the episode and he has to break out an extendable cane). Natsuki needs money for a replacement prosthetic, something that will just allow him to live a comparably normal life, and Atri is considered a faulty machine---the appraiser outright calls her a collector's item. There's a difference in what *kind* of struggles they're facing, but the connection is there, or at least the show seems to think it is. At the episode's conclusion, Atri offers "I'll be your leg!" to Natsuki. It's definitely meant to read as heartwarming, but it's a touchy subject to be sure, and I'm not sure how well the show handles it.

In general this seems like it could be a recurring problem. The series is definitely treating Atri's status as a trade good as a bad thing, but there's still something weirdly patronizing about the way she's immediately super grateful to Natsuki for, say, buying her shoes. (I would argue that if you're responsible for another human being, keeping them clothed is a pretty basic thing.) I think I'll want to give this a few more episodes, seeing how it handles this whole setup, before I come down firmly on one side of liking its writing or not.

The visuals are a much less complicated thing to enjoy, though. They're honestly just pretty great! I've seen a few people say that they're bad which really puzzled me, the character animation is excellent throughout this first episode and the environments are fantastic. It may just be the title and the fact that I've watched it recently, but some of the shoreside scenes actually reminded me a little bit of AIR, another A-title anime based on a visual novel, just in how well they convey the feeling of summer, even if the overall goals of these anime are clearly quite different. The CGI isn't the best, but it's kept to a minimum and restricted to places where it logically makes sense, such as the submersible itself, so I wasn't bothered. Also there's a visual trick early on where some of Natsuki's memories of living on the surface play out through the port windows of the sub, and that's just really a lovely thing.

Enjoyed this overall I'd say, looking forward to seeing how Natsuki deals with the legacy of his late marine geologist mean butch grandma over the next few episodes.

[littlerocks]

However I see two different approaches of the 911 fandom (obviously I'm referring to comments I find in the home, so I'm not talking about all the people who write, just the ones I find, which surely represents a small % of the whole fandom) between tumblr and twitter regarding the buddie and buck and tommy couples. In the sense on twitter, I find comments let's say of just "hate" in confornti of tommy, because he's with buck, how he relates to him or about the fact that he in the beginning treated hen and chim badly and various things, whereas here on tumblr (it may not be the case) but let's say I find it easier to find comments instead of people talking about it or well, or who talk about it in a neutral way, not necessarily being let's say offensive to those who like the couple buck and tommy (which for now are canon so I think regardless if people like buck with tommy or with eddie, you have to let's say accept it(?), then obviously everyone has their own preference and can love buck based on who he is with, whether with tommy or eddie or even both). For example on twitter I find comments let's say, not that they offend but let's say, like to say, that "they don't like" those who like the couple buck and tommy just because buck is with tommy and not with eddie, I don't say they write offensive coments of course, but let's say they don't write nice things (?), I don't really know how to say, let's say an offend but not too offend (?) (sorry I don't know how to say it).

I understand that, seeing tommy in the first few seasons he's not a wonderful person maybe, but certainly over the seasons I think he's matured, and the fact that yes, in the beginning he may have treated hen and chim badly, it doesn't mean that over the course of the series he may somehow like, have apologized or matured(?), sincerely, then I'm not saying it's not to blame him for how he treated chim and hen, however let's say that we don't know about tommy's past, even in 118 when he came in, and let's say it may be, I say it may be, that his behavior that he had towards hen and chim was let's say how it was done to him too(? ) (or was it due to the captain from before, before bobby came), I don't know, and just that we know very little about him and to hate him just because, okay, he was treating chim and hen badly, but otherwise he seems like a good person, so to hate him let's say so much, it seems a tad too much, I don't know.

Then anyway it may be that even here on tumblr, you can find negative comments about tommy, however here let's say i've seen few or it's a more neutral thing towards tommy unlike twitter, which let's say i get this thing come up more often. Nothing it was just a little vent ahhaa

Obviously I think there are negative comments towards eddie, and I don't like that either, because honestly I think for Buck, both eddie and tommy are people that he likes, for different reasons, tommy likes him, he's dating him/he's his boyfriend, eddie on the other hand, you know, they have a special bond, they have each other's back, every time, so I think commenting negatively on both eddie and tommy I don't like that much, that's

Then here's another thing, it's the theories, in the sense, both on twitter and here I read theories both about the buddie, of their bond, and how it can be fruit that they love each other/they have something than just a friendship, or how they are meant to be together, which are nice theories and I enjoy reading them, because I think that's the nice part of a fandom to read theories, to look for in the little scenes, with looks and various things, something that the writers don't want to tell us, or it's just us just wandering with the thought, and that's a nice thing, but if instead there are theories about tommy and buck, about their let's say destined to meet each other or various things, like I had read from a commentary a theory that said about how tommy kind of leaving 118 led to buck getting there, and how they were destined let's say to meet. I read that theory and I must say I liked it because it's such a beautiful thing to be able to imagine, to fantasize about these things. On twitter I had read comments talking about it in a kind of negative way about this thing, and I don't understand why as soon as you make theories about buddie then it's all right, then if you make them with tommy and buck instead you don't, it kind of bothers me this thing

[iamanartichoke]

I am just not feeling fandom these days, and it sucks.

I have gotten bored with just the surface-level series stuff and would love to engage more thoroughly and delve into some analysis, bc I definitely have Thoughts, but it's like, and the point would be what? Most of the toxic positivity side of the fandom are people I'd rather not engage with (or they've already blocked me for lord knows what) for a number of reasons, but I don't want my criticisms spiraling down into sheer negativity either. Plus, the volume of shitty takes written by people who genuinely think they're putting out some top-tier analysis is like - okay, clearly I am not viewing this story the way that most other people are viewing it, so fuck me I guess lmao.

And tbh, a lot of the toxic behavior that's gone on since the series dropped makes me genuinely uncomfortable. I'd rather not, like, post my criticisms on how Loki's trauma was handled, or how I feel like his arc and growth left much to be desired - only to have some pretentious fandom twat use my meta to armchair diagnose me as being traumatized or mentally incapacitated in some way and it's effecting how I interpret the material. Or, like, expressing genuine emotion in a post, only to have it screenshotted and mocked on someone's toxic stan blog.

So I'm like, well, okay, then I'll just keep my thoughts to myself and reblog another gifset I guess, except gifsets give me feels, and feels give me thoughts I'd like to talk about, and then I'm like, well, but, this isn't really the place for genuine discussion anymore, and around and around we go.

[flightfoot]

Do you think Alya will be a better deuteragonist and partner than Adrien? I've seen some people think so and I'm curious about what do you have in mind regarding that.

Not really? Especially since Adrien has all his family issues binding him up with the plot, and his whole identity issues giving him a lot of depth.

Mind you, I think Alya would make a fine superhero and protagonist. I dunno about her being better in the role than Adrien though, specifically with pairing her with Marinette. She and Marinette are very similar personality-wise, especially with how both of them look at a social problem and decide on a solution, then charge full-steam-ahead on implementing it (Alya's generally got a better track record on knowing what the problem is and what might help fix it though). They both stand up to bullies or anyone they think is in the wrong readily, rallying their classmates around them. They'd fulfil very similar roles more generally.

Though I guess with this asking about how Alya "will be" a better deuteragonist and partner than Adrien, it's not looking at how the series might be different if Alya was Marinette's partner from the beginning rather than Adrien, but how it would be now, since Alya's taking on a more prominent role in superhero fights.

In which case, no, I don't.

Alya's a fine partner, mind you. I'm hoping she continues to have a larger role, and it could be pretty cool to see her attempt to fill the void Chat leaves if he quits temporarily near the end of the season, as has been speculated.

I don't think it being a permanent or long-term change would be for the better though. Marinette and Alya are so similar I don't think it would be as interesting of a dynamic.

I also don't really like the whole "better partner" idea, because I'm not sure what is meant by that. Like, meaning that Alya's likely to come up with her own way around an obstacle and her own plan, especially when Ladybug's not around, or putting a spin on the existing plan? That could be cool and would let her have more agency instead of coming off as Ladybug's subordinate.

Or is it her being a "better partner" under the assumption that she'd never complain or feel negative emotions or have negative reactions if she felt she was being overlooked or treated poorly, since those are common Chat salt complaints?

I'm not going to advocate for ridding Adrien of his role in the narrative no matter what, since he's my favorite character. But my feelings about Alya potentially taking that role are gonna differ based on the details.

[dreamersleeps]

So, as someone whose father is very similar to Endeavor, I've never understood the notion that Horikoshi is trying to whitewash or excuse his abuse by giving him a character arc. Abusers are awful people, but it's not often that they're one-dimensional villains. Nobody ever talks about how confusing it is when your abuser wakes up and sees the damage they've caused, much less when they clumsily try to make ammends. It seems fans would rather it all be simple, when it's anything but in reality

/2 Are there ways it can be handled better? Of course. But a writer making an effort to explore the complexities of abuse through all its angels is far from abuse apology. It’s much more respectful (imo) to treat the situation like the confusing, complicated mess it is in reality, rather than reduce it to some simple cartoonishly evil bullshit that either limits the survivors of his abuse to being lifelong victims, or enables the continued abuse perpetuated by a former victim (i.e., Dabi)

Hello, I’d like to thank you for sharing your thoughts and opinions. I was actually surprised to open up Tumblr to see your messages in my inbox. I spent the past couple of days sitting on and thinking about it. I’m not sure if you were asking for my thoughts and opinions, but I’ve finally sat down and written my response. It’s late at night so I apologize if there are any statements below that are poorly worded or expressed. 

As you express, it’s a very complicated topic as a whole, because Endeavor, or Todoroki Enji is a complicated character. 

I can not and will not claim that I understand abuse like those who have experienced it. Additionally, It’s not in my place to tell people how to feel or think. However in response to what you shared, I will give some of my thoughts as a reader and fan of BNHA on the topics surrounding Endeavor. (Btw to the anon: some of what I have to say below will be my general opinions about the topic as a whole.)

When I try to write meta and other analysis pieces, I try my best to go back to the manga and base my analysis and arguments on the (official) translations instead of my opinions and thoughts from the beginning. I sometimes have to go back and re-read chapters to remind myself what is “canon” and then try to understand and express my interpretations on the matter. This is not to talk down on those who do not do this: this is just something I do for myself. I am most definitely influenced greatly by what others have to say but I also want to figure out my own interpretation of the story and characters.  

So, as someone whose father is very similar to Endeavor, I’ve never understood the notion that Horikoshi is trying to whitewash or excuse his abuse by giving him a character arc. 

I personally never really saw it as Horikoshi trying to excuse Endeavor’s abuse by giving him a character arc as well. As many others have stated, I don’t see it as a “redemption arc,” because it isn’t. 

I think that we all have to remember the diversity of the fans and readers of this and other fandoms. There are those who can personally relate to or understand what the Todoroki family has gone through, and others who are unable to. Those who are unable to fully understand certain experiences but can sympathize with the characters however even then, this lack of knowledge or exposure to the topic has led to people accidently expressing opinions that hurt or offended others. Additionally, based on what I’ve seen and read on Tumblr, there is quite a wide range of differing viewpoints from those those who can relate to the experiences of the Todoroki family.

Abusers are awful people, but it’s not often that they’re one-dimensional villains. Nobody ever talks about how confusing it is when your abuser wakes up and sees the damage they’ve caused, much less when they clumsily try to make amends. It seems fans would rather it all be simple, when it’s anything but in reality.

Abuse is complex. There is a very wide range of complicated feelings, emotions, thoughts and opinions that surround it. Everyone has a reason as to why they feel or think the way they do. Because we all have had different experiences and reactions to the events of our lives, we can not expect everyone to think similarly. 

Given that BNHA or shounen manga in general is catered towards a younger audience (compared to, lets say seinen manga) and Horikoshi is working with topics that are difficult to read or understand even for adults, I’d argue that part of the discourse may result from that. 

It seems like when we say that we like a certain character, people tend to automatically assume then that we approve of what they stand for and what they’ve done. I first watched the first two seasons of BNHA before I began reading it. I absolutely hated Endeavor in the beginning, however after I caught up in the manga and began to follow the chapter releases each week, ultimately the characters that really pulled me in to the story was Endeavor, Hawks, and Bakugou, arguably some of the most controversial characters of the series. 

Are there ways it could be handled better? Of course. But a writer making an effort to explore the complexities of abuse through all its angles is far from abuse apology. It’s much more respectful (imo) to treat the situation like the confusing, complicated mess it is in reality, rather than reduce it to some simple cartoonishly evil bullshit that either limits the survivors of his abuse to being lifelong victims, or enables the continued abuse perpetuated by a former victim (i.e Dabi) 

What truly drew me in was the complexities that came with their characters. I haven’t personally experienced abuse however I have lived through other experiences to recognize in my own understanding that life is both so negatively and positively complicated, confusing and messy. Some people want to see Endeavor fall, and others hope to see him actually change. These wishes are shaped by what we’ve seen or experienced throughout life. 

We like simple, clear cut, perhaps one dimensional characters because it’s easier to form an opinion about them. It seems like we struggle with characters like Endeavor and others because we are sometimes faced with the contradicting collision of our own thoughts, morals and beliefs with the actions and story of these characters. 

For some reason a lot of my analysis posts have revolved around Endeavor, Hawks, and Dabi and if anyone is interested, I personally believe that as much as we may love a character, whoever it may be, actions should and will be met with consequences. Tragedy does not excuse one’s actions. They may explain one’s actions but we are responsible for and should be held accountable for the consequences that result from it.  

If anyone was thinking it, this all does not mean that I think Horikoshi should be exempt from critique. And as you ask and answer, “Are there ways it could be handled better? Of course.” Additionally as I have written on the top of my blog, 

There will be posts found here that you may not agree with, however different perspectives are what keeps the meta conversation going. 

I think that many of us would prefer it if people would refrain from accusing, insulting or bullying Horikoshi and other fans because of their thoughts and opinions. Although it is understandable that it is difficult when we respond to the story and others emotionally, taking part in these types of activities is not the same as critiquing something. 

Boku no Hero Academia is still an ongoing manga. We get one chapter every one or two weeks at a time and so we only get little snippets of the full story. Based on new info and what we’ve read in past chapters, we make predictions, assumptions and have expectations about the future. However, I think that we all have to remember that the story of Enji, Rei, Touya, Fuyumi, Natsuo and Shouto is not complete yet. We are still in the midst of an unfolding narrative that Horikoshi is working closely with to present his readers. 

[janiedean]

I really, really love your metas! In "Why a Jaime/Brienne Endgame in the Books Makes More Sense Than One Might Think, Based on Previous Works of GRRM's" you wrote, that you have endless reasons to assume that both, J and B, will survive the whole series - can you please name some? Aside from this mentioned meta I've only read an explantion of the weirwood dream, which can be interpreted in both ways. Or can you link a good meta that explains other reasons? Thank you very much!

hey!

first of all thank you so much, glad that you appreciate my rants. ;) that said, sure I can go in-depth. in order (btw @ginmo has written also some excellent meta about this, just check on her blog), and also counting the weirwood dream which I’ve ranted on at length in that specific meta:

now, the first thing is how grrm strategically placed these two in the narrative, in the sense that:

brienne has spent her life being passed for a joke and she desperately wants for someone to see her worth as a person and she’d about kill herself for the people who manage to get as far as to gain her trust/love, jaime has spent his life loving people without getting much in return and with that trust being used/abused/thrown away and everyone taking it for granted... and we’re assuming they’re not set up to be together when as stated grrm has written them as romantic from the first moment?

(also, jaime’s entire first chapter in asos is basically ‘I find brienne attractive but since I never considered that I could be attracted to anyone but cersei I can’t understand I’m attracted to her so I’ll stare at her and think she’s ugly all along even if I really am attracted to her. brienne’s issues are also rooted in the fact that no one sees her as attractive. jaime does. hmmm?)

both of them start from a miserable situation from which they’re finding their own way up, not down - jaime is more obvious but brienne is too because she starts at the point where she’s so starved for recognition she would die for someone who just was nice to her but didn’t really gaf about her and now she’s... well, becoming a knight because sure af that is happening, I’m sticking with the theory that the knighting is book canon too -, and if they both end up miserable or one of them does it doesn’t work;

both of their chapters have heavy foreshadowing concerning possible marriage/having children/finding love - jaime wants to father his kids and at some point resents that other men are husbands and fathers but not him because he was always the warrior and he doesn’t say it happily, brienne is half-glad her first betrothed died because she thinks she’s not suited to typical feminine things/to fit into a woman’s role in society but she’s also sad at thinking she will never have children, these two are going to get together very soon, and I’m supposed to think they’re set up for failure? k but I can respectfully disagree;

also, this goes back to that meta I wrote in which I said that grrm does not do grim for grim’s sake and he’s actually way less cruel than it seems, likes a good love story and has more than once finished his other books with satisfying resolutions to that kind of storyline, but adding to that: in comparison to whatever calvinist crap message hbo wanted to send, I have to inform y’all that grrm is a currently agnostic lapsed catholic and it’s exceedingly clear in the way he explores/deals with redemptive themes.

now, let me break the jb narrative for a moment to inform you of a few things that as an atheist born and raised in a 99% catholic country whose literature’s funding works are heavily based on catholic themes/on stories rooted in catholicism:

the ‘you need to die to be redeemed’ narrative is 100% bullshit according to catholic morals and on top of that it’s opened to anyone at any time;

like, the basic distinction between catholic and calvinist approaches to the topic (and I can’t believe I’m defending catholicism but nvm that) is that calvinism preys on a narrative where your negative qualities define you and you cannot escape them (which is because calvinism accepts predestination ie the idea that seeing your lot in life you can deduce if you’ll go to heaven or hell, so if you’re poor/unsuccessful/you committed mistakes/a crime and so on you’re not redeemable and it’s proof you’re damned) and that meant that in societies with calvinist background the death = redemption narrative is extremely popular because it’s seen as ‘hey this person is wretched and they suck so they couldn’t have lived anyway and they did something good with it for once and it’s the best they could hope for’. catholicism, at the contrary, works on the basis that as we all have free will we can change for the better and if you repent for your sins/past wrongdoings/mistakes then that’s enough to be redeemed and if you do it on your deathbed.... you can still go to heaven, you’ll just have to atone for your wrongdoings (that’s the entire point of purgatory’s existence ie making people who repented near death or too late to gain heaven atone for their sins before they can enter heaven). and the moment you repent then you’re free to start your new life and do better and gain your place in heaven, which you’ll obtain in virtue of having turned a new leaf;

(again: not to be that person, but in luke’s gospel one of the two thieves crucified with him is like ‘can you save us since you’re the son of god’, the other thief is like ‘please he has done nothing and we have sinned we don’t deserve to be saved just please remember us when you go back to your father’ and jesus tells the second thief I won’t need to remember you because you’ll sit at my right. also, in dante’s divine comedy there’s a guy who had been excommunicated in the middle ages waiting to get into purgatory for having repented on his deathbed and in manzoni’s the betrothed ie italy’s funding novel the character who’s objectively better written is a dude so heinous for his crimes that he’s called THE UNNAMED and the moment this guy gets doubts and wonders if there’s any hope for him left the local arcibishop leaves everything saying that the moment someone like that is in need then they’re more important than his own parish, goes to receive unnamed guy, tells him that just wanting to be better is enough as far as god is concerned and he’s saved as far as he cares. like, as much as catholicism sucks for the entire rest of it and for how much the catholic church is the worst ideologically the fact that everyone can be redeemed is the basic staple of the entire thing.)

now, given the ^^^, this is where I tell you that most lapsed catholics/people who left catholicism for whichever reasons usually grew up catholic and if you grow up catholic you spend your first twelve years in church at least and if your parents/people around you are also catholic you will absorb it, good and bad, so if grrm grew up catholic, he grew up with that background. (I could again rant for hours about how atheist writers who grew up catholic differ from atheist writers who grew up protestant/calvinist because if you compare grrm and idk kurt vonnegut it’s glaring but this isn’t the place for it so nvm let’s go on)

now that I’ve told you this, I’ll get back to jaime and brienne’s canon survival chances. I needed to tell you that because...

all of the stories with redemptive themes in asoiaf (jaime, theon, sandor, whoever) are not by nature calvinist. whatever d&d think or hbo thought, none of them are written in a way where death is their best option/their only way to achieve redemption/to finish their story with dignity. theon has gone through hell and back and left and regained his sense of identity, he’s not built to die now, sandor has freaking gone to rehab and I’m 100% sure he survives the series and gets closure, while jaime is exactly a poster child for the above stuff I described. like, jaime is someone who’s fundamentally good who had the misfortune to spend his entire life jumping in different kinds of abusive situation one to the other (tywin’s parentage in general, his relationship with cersei throughout at least from the moment they were *experimenting* and like hell I’m going back on that sorry not sorry, guarding aerys, being with cersei at *her* terms and being forced to relieve his trauma all over and not having his needs met etc., tywin potentially ruining his only healthy relationship [with tyrion] and so on) who in turn has done exceedingly bad things/taken bad decision/committed heinous deeds that he regrets having done out of his bad reaction to all of that, not treating his ptsd and basically deciding to stop giving a fuck and embrace being the horrid person everyone thinks he is... until he meets brienne, remembers who he wanted to be because she’s posing an example of it and decides on his own to try and be better, which is... exactly... the entire fucking point. the moment he decides to try and be better and reclaims his dreams/the person he wanted to be/tries to do good he has automatically achieved a narrative status where he chose to be better and therefore the narrative is giving him a chance to be that, and usually those stories are meant to.... have the message that you can be better than the bad things you did and you can turn back the page at any point. like. jaime is written to show you that it’s not too late to get your shit together and not letting others/your surroundings define who you are;

on the other side, brienne is presented as extremely sympathetic from the beginning. also, grrm is very good at describing how shitty is your life if you grow up a woman who is not standard attractive, that everyone laughs at and who has endless insecurities for it.... and she’s the paragon of knighthood/everything good about chivalry in the goddamned series. brienne is legit one of the best people in these books and it’s not because I stan her - she’s kind, she’s just, she’s brave she’s everything a knight should be, she’s willing to change her mind when she misjudged people, she’s forgiving and life threw her crap all along and she’s still persevering from it. brienne is written in a frankly painfully objective way to eventually succeed at what she wants. if in affc she’s crying because she feels like she’s too much of a freak to be her father’s heir and she’s not woman or man enough for anything, the entire narrative point is that she has to succeed at both being a knight and a lady otherwise grrm can’t plant hints and believe me he can;

this means that jaime is headed on a redemptive path which in that kind of story when written by catholics or former catholics never ends up badly (also, aside: redemption is good for everyone and it can’t be just ONE character having it, you don’t buy it at the supermarket, so saying that if jaime has it then tyrion or theon or sandor or whoever can’t have it is just poor reading, people change all the time irl and in narrative you aren’t obligated to redeem one and kill everyone else) or in death, brienne has been written to succeed in her endeavors after she suffers a shitton and I think stoneheart has to be the worst and the end of it (in the sense that after that situation is resolved the way for her is down, not up). which if I do the math and we have stated they’re headed for romance, means the both of them should have a chance at a future together;

also, I can go and tell you that their asos road trip ending with harrenhal is bursting with symbolism that includes death and rebirth - not going into the weirwood dream and sticking to the basics... guys, jaime starts as a prisoner, then ends up losing a part of herself he thinks define him but in truth only defines what he thinks he is (and he’s not ie cersei’s double, the kingslayer, the person who has to drive himself crazy to protect everyone else), then ends up almost dying and sitting in the middle of his own filth for the entirety of the trip (and even then he does good things ie saving brienne from being raped *cough*) and then ends up in a scalding hot bath where he confesses his most well-kept secret and source of 50% of his trauma to someone he trusts regardless of how much he likes it or not, faints and then wakes up again when everyone thinks he might be dead. symbolically, I think it speaks for itself. thing is, during the entire thing *brienne* is there alongside him and while she’s also getting her own share of trauma/ptsd (I mean brienne has totally bloody mummers related ptsd and I’ll die on that hill) she physically is the reason he survives it - she cleans him up, she gives him enough pep talks to convince him to live, she hears his confession, she changes her mind about him for it (but imvho she had after he saved her from being raped because that’s where she calls him ser for the first time) and she catches him in the bath when he faints which is.... fairly symbolic in itself, and she is the one who puts him back on his feet after. like, while jaime’s choices after are all his own, his symbolic journey through his own physical/mental filth he has to go through during asos succeeds because she helped him even if she didn’t know she was doing it, and like... guys, there’s a reason why in the weirwood dream the brienne in jaime’s head which he has conjured and who is basically what jaime sees brienne as in that moment, not necessarily the real one..... keeps on telling him all the time she’ll keep him safe/protect him and she basically tells that to anyone he feels threatened by (or his subconscious feels threatened by), and as stated before, jaime lannister has never, until that point, assumed that *he* would be in the position where someone else gives a shit about him to the point where they will defend him rather than in the position where *he* is the person that has to protect everyone else regardless of how much appreciation he gets in return. like, excuse me but if I was writing my own book I wouldn’t put this much work and care and this symbolism in these two’s history if I meant to kill one of them off or to not have them be happy in the end.

like, the point is: grrm is an extremely meticulous writer with an astonishing attention to detail and who put in book two shit that made extra sense when reading book FIVE, see theon saying he wouldn’t go to his death wearing dirty clothing in acok which makes you go like ‘....... why’ the moment you read his adwd chapters. no one, unless they have a penchant for sadism, would put that much work with those themes in that specific kind of story if then it doesn’t deliver. or, in different words, using a character I love as well so no one can accuse me of being impartial: when grrm put the same kind of work in catelyn’s chapters from got to asos and then you read them knowing about lady stoneheart and the red wedding, it’s obvious that he built her up for being an extremely tragic character and that she was destined to die regardless of all her efforts to save her family (same for robb but we’re talking pov characters). but catelyn’s storyline doesn’t have redemptive themes. it’s about regret, loss, loving your children but being imperfect/not being able to be there for them, and so on. catelyn’s storyline never promises you a happy ending from the moment ned dies and probably even before then. catelyn’s storyline promises you endless suffering and that’s fine because that’s her point in the narrative.

on the contrary, brienne’s tells you ‘hey there’s this girl who has had it like shit all her life without deserving it and whose worth no one sees because she’s ugly and who at the same time is actually a genuinely good person who’s trying her best and okay, she’s gonna suffer but she’ll come out on top while getting what she wants which is recognition as both a lady and a knight’ and given that brienne is also an extremely rare rep (say what you want, cishet unattractive women with her issues and her backstory are basically only less rare than unicorns in media) that I’m 100% sure grrm knows speaks to a lot of people (because he writes her too well to not know), if brienne doesn’t get that after all that shit, the narrative would not deliver on a fairly huge promise.

even worse, jaime’s tells you ‘hey there’s this guy who has been an abuse victim to at least three different people who doesn’t even realize it and whose life is so fucked up you’d need fifteen psychology textbooks to even start grasping it and that everyone sees as the worst person ever and who has ended up believing he is out of not managing his trauma well and hey look at him going through an insane amount of extra suffering but coming out of it wanting to be better and sort of succeeding and hey he has setbacks but he’s starting to see himself as his own person and he’s out of his #1 worst abusive relationship and he can decide what to do with his life now and you should root for him’, which means that if he dies or worst of all dies like in the show (but that’s not happening) the narrative doesn’t deliver on a huge promise and gives you the message that you can’t escape your mistakes and the abuse you received...... which is not the message grrm likes/wants to pass. like, I’ll die on that damned hill.

and to finish it, that was for them as single characters, but going back to the beginning: love is a fundamental part of both their storylines. as I said in the beginning, brienne suffered because she wasn’t loved enough and would die for anyone she loves herself without even expecting anything in return because she thinks no one will love her like that, jaime suffered because he loved too much without getting anything in return (or better, getting cersei’s abusive crap for his entire life) and he turned it into something toxic that’s not what he thinks it should be (he sees his and c’s relationship as the best thing ever where they’re soulmates because she sold him that narrative, but that’s not the kind of rship where you *turn your partner’s blows into kisses* which is actual text). at this point, the narrative is telling you ‘oh hey here’s two damaged people who actually would be very good together because their personalities match in that sense [as in, brienne would thrive with someone who loves her that much openly and finds her attractive and respects her for all that she is and jaime would thrive with someone who would appreciate that tenfold and who’d love him back just as much and who’d die for him - canon! -, and it wouldn’t be the kind of rship where anyone’s blows turn into kisses unless they were friendly sparring before] and oh hey look at that they’re in a storyline where they both influence each other greatly and oh wait he’s attracted to her and she thinks he looks like half a god and she’d die for him and he was willing to get mauled by a bear for her and they’re obviously meant to hook up’, which automatically promises a resolution where they both get what they want or you basically spent all your time rooting for it.... for nothing. which would not give anyone reading it satisfaction unless you hate jb that much, but I’m 100% sure that most people reading asoiaf casually would not hate it that much and grrm likes that trope that much to not deliver on it.

so, tldr: if one of them dies or if they aren’t endgame with a reasonable happy-ish ending for the both of them, the entire narrative fails to deliver on the promises of their individual storylines and their shared one, and there’s nothing in grrm’s writing that suggests that he would not deliver on it. I mean, if it was stephen king I’d hold my breath because I love steve but imvho his endings suck 85% of the time and he manages to do 180° turnarounds that have no sense whatsoever, but it’s grrm, not stephen king, and everything of his I’ve read that actually had an ending ended in a way that was coherent with the overall storyline and maintained its promises, so here, the above is pretty much the summary. hopefully I haven’t exhausted you. ;)

[tarashima]

Hiya :D I was hoping if I could ask you a question, if that's okay? Ever since episode 58 came out, I've seen a lot of debates about whether or not Yusaku has Stockholm syndrome towards Revolver. I've done a lot of research on the subject, and from what the series shows, Yusaku doesn’t seem to have the syndrome at all, towards Revolver, Dr. Kogami, or any of the Knights of Hanoi. But I’m seeing the term being misused a lot. So, I want to ask: What are your thoughts on the matter?

Thank you for asking this, anon, and I‘m sorry for the late reply. I feel like this response/post is a bit overdue since I know there a lot of fans out there concerned about the misuse and application of the term.

Because canonically, Yuusaku doesn’t, and has never, suffered from Stockholm syndrome.

To truly answer your question, anon, we’ll have to first analyze Yuusaku to see if he meets the criterion to develop the syndrome and then continue by figuring out if he displays the symptoms in the series.

Now, this is going to be pretty picture heavy and long, so bear with me. Also, this will contain spoilers.

All through season 1, Yuusaku is hunting for the truth behind the Lost Incident. He did at one point make the connection between it and the Knights of Hanoi, due to its other name, the Hanoi Project, hence why he hunts them as intensively as he does. He wants revenge and he won’t get it until the ones responsible pay for their crime.

Early on in the series, he states that the Knights of Hanoi are the only ones he hates. Does that mean he also hates Revolver?

Yes, he does. Revolver is just another piece to use in the search after the truth. However, Yuusaku never makes the guess that the leader of Hanoi is the same person as the mastermind of the Hanoi Project. Yuusaku is heavily driven by logic and never makes hasty assumptions but rather conclusions and only when he’s absolutely sure.

But we all know Yuusaku’s perspective shifted when he learned Revolver was his special person, as well as the one who made the anonymous report to uncover the incident. Shifted in the sense of learning where Ryouken came from, hence turning part of his mission into no longer being about crushing Revolver as a part of Hanoi but dragging him away from it. That’s important to remember.

Now, let’s move on to Stockholm syndrome.

The most common description of the term that most people uses, and the very basic one, is “a hostage developing sympathy for their captor”. Which isn’t entirely correct; it’s closer to the truth to instead say that the victims start to identify with their captors, especially when they to cope with the fact that they’re captured, feeling like their old life were empty and meaningless, or to sum it all up in one sentence; a psychological alliance as a survival strategy during captivity.

What everyone agrees on, however, is that it’s generally considered as a highly irrational condition, so no further argument is needed on that point. But just like any other psychological term, there is way more to it than just that.

And when it comes to Yuusaku, we don’t have to continue before it already falls apart.

Let’s go back to episode 58 that started this whole debate in the first place:

VRAINS tells us it was eight-year-old Ryouken. 

The show has so far not shown us how exactly the kidnapping happened, other than it was child Ryouken luring Yuusaku away, a method not uncommon to use when luring away others into captivity, and it’s clear that Dr. Kougami used it to his advantage.

Here’s the thing, though, and what most people may have missed or forgotten about; Ryouken luring Yuusaku away doesn’t make him the most responsible for Yuusaku’s captivity. The ones to blame entirely are the adults involved, and, most specifically, Dr. Kougami.

“But Ryouken is equally guilty since he was a part of it!”

Yes and no. Ryouken’s guilt complex has its origin from this since he did lure away Yuusaku (if he lured away the others is still unknown, but so far, it doesn’t seem like he lured away Spectre and/or Takeru). But Ryouken also confessed that he didn’t understand what was going on, which shouldn’t be too surprising due to being as young as he was. And putting such heavy blame solely on a child is questionable on too many levels. 

Yuusaku himself has stated himself as well that Ryouken was, indeed, too young to be blamed for the Lost Incident. 

In this specific case, the roles as kidnapper and captor aren’t shared by the same person, or even on equal grounds since that would mean Ryouken was just as involved in the project as Dr. Kougami himself, or even Vyra, Dr. Genome, and Faust. But he wasn’t due to his age, and it’s even implied that he was left in the dark, which would be more than understandable. 

It’s worth mentioning as well that Dr. Kougami did admit guilt over dragging Ryouken into the mix to begin with, implying even further that he wasn’t involved more than the show suggests.

This is what we, the audience, get to know. But Yuusaku is aware of this as well, at least in a matter of it being a different person guilty for locking him away. In other words, Yuusaku never developed sympathy or psychological alliance with his captors; he makes a difference between captor and kidnapper just like the show portrays it. Furthermore, he thought for ten years that Ryouken was imprisoned as well:

Based on all this, it’s not too far-fetched to assume that Dr. Kougami took Yuusaku away when Ryouken wasn’t in the same vicinity. Otherwise, he should’ve known that Ryouken was in cahoots with Dr. Kougami.

All Yuusaku’s hatred towards Hanoi is because of them imprisoning him, something a hostage with Stockholm syndrome doesn’t feel since the lack of hatred and negative feelings is the main factor for the condition developing in the first place. Wikipedia uses a quote from the psychologist Thomas Strentz: “The victim’s need to survive is stronger than their impulse to hate the person who has created the dilemma.” Nothing we see in the show indicates that that was the case with Yuusaku. He was a tortured, starved child who just wanted it all to end so he could go home, never once showing any sympathy as a way of coping or attempts to lessen the experience.

Now that I’ve taken apart the basics of Stockholm syndrome that most people are used to, let’s move on to see if Yuusaku actually shows the symptoms or not:

“One criterion is how the victim refuses to cooperate with authorities and rather let their captor be left unpunished, and Yuusaku hasn’t reported Ryouken for the Lost Incident or any other crimes, despite knowing all the details.”

While that is true, it’s also obvious Yuusaku is in no position to do so. Not only because of reasons stated earlier but also:

Yuusaku has obtained all knowledge through illegal means (he is a hacker, after all), and while Yuusaku isn’t afraid of his identity being revealed, it doesn’t mean he’s willing to give it away. SOL knows that Playmaker has the information, and they’ll do all they can and even more to uncover the identity of the insufferable duelist that causes them so much trouble. And Yuusaku hasn’t shown any signs of allowing that to happen.

SOL Technologies covered up the Lost Incident, so the public, as well as the authorities, wouldn’t know about it. And they will most likely continue to do so in the future.  

Yuusaku hasn’t shown any hint of trust towards authorities in the first place; he’s taken matters into his own hands instead, as well as stated that he keeps to his own justice rather than anyone else’s. 

One can absolutely argue that the possibility of Yuusaku leaving an anonymous tip exists, but with all of these points stated, can he really? Would he really?

It’s not even about Ryouken specifically, because Ryouken isn’t the only person responsible. This is about the Lost Incident, SOL Technologies, and the Knights of Hanoi combined. A person with Stockholm syndrome refuses any sort of assistance from authorities, but that’s not the case here since no authorities have been actively involved from what we’ve seen in the show, not even after Vyra escaped.

“But he did report Vyra?”

He did, but because of the Another case and her being responsible for the computer virus, not because of her involvement in the Lost Incident, which he had no knowledge about at the time.

Also, it wasn’t as much as reporting the crime as it was calling an ambulance due to her unconsciousness/presumably death, and it’s doubtful he and Kusanagi actually stayed long enough to explain the situation, or even stayed at all until the ambulance arrived since that would’ve raised the question what they were doing there in the first place. The evidence of Vyra’s actions was right there in her apartment.

To be fair, though, the Knights do live on a boat at the moment, and while it hasn’t been outright stated, it’s easy to guess that it is probably to hide from authorities. The police, however, hasn’t shown signs of prioritizing catching them. 

The only ones that have indeed shown signs of catching the Knights of Hanoi so far, has been SOL Technologies, which isn’t too surprising with all the havoc they caused back in season 1, havoc that most people in the VRAINS-verse know about as well. So, if SOL is the only ones prioritizing catching Hanoi, and Yuusaku doesn’t have any reason to work with them because of the LI and their plans about the Ignis, is it really only about Ryouken personally then? Looking at the bigger picture, SOL is the bigger enemy here, especially from what we’ve seen so far in season 2.

“But Yuusaku is clearly projecting an image of young Ryouken that doesn’t exist anymore on present Ryouken.”

Actually, he doesn’t. Yuusaku is well aware of who Ryouken is in the present and what ten years did to his special person. If he wasn’t, he would’ve treated Ryouken as a saviour in every regard of the word and brush off his crimes without a second thought, but that’s not what he does. While he is reluctant about fighting Ryouken at the end of season 1, he also knows it has to be done and doesn’t hesitate when it’s clear there’s no other way. Like I mentioned earlier, Yuusaku is a logical thinker and he can put his feelings aside to do what must be done. That determination is obvious all through that final duel, a determination that wouldn’t exist if Yuusaku had been projecting.

Yuusaku wants to save Ryouken, true, but that doesn’t mean he’s siding with him. They clash and argue constantly about the Ignis. Yuusaku wouldn’t be capable of doing that if he truly had Stockholm syndrome. Every time they’ve clashed, Yuusaku has tried to change Ryouken’s point of view, making him fail to fit the criterion of how the victim starts to side with their captor. While their current truce means they work for a shared goal, it doesn’t mean Yuusaku is willing to put their differences aside permanently.

It’s also worth remembering that Yuusaku has stated that he still isn’t saved from the Lost Incident.

Realising that Ryouken was his voice of hope didn’t change that. He wasn’t saved because he was given strength to continue endure those hellish days, all he knows/feels is that he can be saved, and that’s a huge difference.

Yuusaku also clearly doesn’t believe Ryouken is capable of saving him unless he walks away from the path towards self-destruction, but that doesn’t mean he’ll never be able to. Is it blind trust? Definitely not. It’s a belief in a brighter future for them both. Otherwise, Yuusaku wouldn’t spend so much energy on trying to talk sense into Ryouken over and over again.

Yuusaku wants to save his special person, but that doesn’t mean he’ll let Ryouken succeed with his goals. As much as Ryouken wants a rematch for the sake of pride as well as closure, Yuusaku wants to be the one to personally stop Ryouken just to make sure he won’t continue down the path towards self-destruction.

“It’s problematic that Yuusaku doesn’t view Ryouken as the threat he is!”

It would be if Yuusaku was, in fact, doing that, and he’s never really given any sign of seeing Ryouken as a threat towards himself. But just because Yuusaku doesn’t perceive Ryouken as a threat for him, it doesn’t mean he believes Ryouken doesn’t pose a threat overall. Yuusaku won’t accept Ryouken falling back into his old ways and will stop him if it comes to that. But as the show has progressed, it’s getting clearer and clearer that Ryouken’s improving (i.e. being less of a threat overall), an improvement that definitely comes from lack of influence from Dr. Kougami since Ryouken now operates differently from season 1. Again, it’s not blind trust from Yuusaku’s side, it’s a choice of believing in Ryouken’s improvement, which isn’t the same.

The only thing now that I haven’t dealt with that Wikipedia mentions is the criterion “no previous hostage-captor relationship”, but I won’t be doing that since it’s so self-explanatory that there’s no point. Yuusaku didn’t develop sympathy for Dr. Kougami or any member of the Knights of Hanoi, and he had already met Ryouken as a child and a voice before the shift in his perspective happened. It falls flat right away on its own.

So with all this said, it’s clear that Yuusaku fails to meet any of the criterions necessary for developing Stockholm syndrome and he doesn’t display any of the symptoms mentioned, making the label heavily misplaced.

If it hasn’t been clear, this is not meant as a criticism against headcanons; people are free to play around however they see fit. It’s the misuse and misapplication of the term that is problematic, as well as it being treated as canon rather than fanon/headcanon. Carelessly labelling anything as Stockholm syndrome without fully understanding what it is should be avoided, because such labelling could trivialize the experience of those who may have actually developed the syndrome. 

Thank you for staying with me to the end, I appreciate it :)

[7thdimentionsimulation]

Optical illusion artist  research

For my research I wanted to look at some current and historical optical illusion artists, so I could begin to build an idea of how artists have evolved over time. 

Bridget Riley: 

Cataract 3 (1967) by Bridget Riley

Bridget Riley’s series titled ‘Cataract’, based on the idea of colour and form creating optical perceptual movement, without each other the painting would not work optically. its the combination of these optical illusion principles that make it perceptually confusing. Riley has used a warm and dark colour to contrast, in the idea that it will create depth, showing highlights and shadows. This tricks our brains to perceiving movement. Riley is quoted saying,  ‘If you think of a square, a circle, or a triangle, no matter what size it may be, you know exactly what form you can expect to see’. This follows the idea that conceptually we believe we understand an object and its meaning based on its physical form. But if I were to say a work like ‘square to you for example, our squares might not look the same, or have the same material quality, but it is a square. Playing with the idea of basic work association I think is important in understanding how we perceive our world, and word association leads you to both colour and form. Another quote from this small article is,  ‘Pigment is transformed into an active condition, in which true engagement with the painting is to see ‘a luminous disembodied light, variously coloured’. There are some important words in this that help associate what we are seeing, active condition, true engagement,  luminous disembodied light, variously coloured. All created the image that we perceive, at the core of this work the power of perception is given to the viewer allowing them to build there own understanding, whether its similar or not to others looking at it. The freedom and abstract understanding that this painting conceptually presents is what makes the viewer so intrigued. This methodology of colour is quite similar to the illusion ‘The Chevreul Illusion’ (seen bellow) (notable refence: https://www.illusionsindex.org):

The idea is that the illusion created a false sense of colour change, perceptually the colours seem like a stair case that slowly changes colour over time. But once you remove the dark boarder between each colour (put your finger or a pencil on a dark line), they begin to match the pervious colour, and once all the colours boarders have been removed you can see gradient that goes from dark to light. Another interesting thing to add is the word accusation manipulation of the viewer, you see if your reading this and I say put your pen or finger over the dark boarder of one of the colours, you will do it. In the idea that you will be rewarded if you do it, and you are. This is a interesting concept that I think a lot of people take for granted, or don't notice that they are being manipulated into do what the artist wants. 

Banksy:

sweeping under carpet (2006) by Banksy

Banksy is a controversial artist, that is well known for his political work, and activism. But his use of optical illusions, and negative space are probably just as important. The idea of creating a 2D image with the perception of a 3D image, is well used in optical illusions a good example of this is the ‘Necker Cube’ (seen bellow) (notable refence: https://www.illusionsindex.org):

The idea of the Necker cube is to trick the viewers perception into seeing a cube. That's the trick, because once you see a cube, You realize that the cube is changing from a cube facing down and a cube facing up. This is exactly what I was talking about in Al Seckel’s book ‘Incredible Visual Illusions’. Explaining that, “only when your conception is at odds with your perception are you aware that you have encountered an illusion”. Because once your aware that its a cube you see the other cube. Why this is important with Banksy’s work is similar but not that same, Banky’s work have perceptual value at face level, but conceptually you get confused or pushed to think about the idea behind the work. I used the artwork ‘Sweeping Under Carpet’, because at face value the negative space and placement create an optical illusion. But once you understand the conceptual side of the work, the viewer builds there own understanding of what it represents. From research I've found its was to represent the idea first world countries sweeping AIDS under the carpet. Leaving third world countries that didn't have ways to treat it not thought about, or talked about. But the meaning will change for each person, demographic, age, gender, etc. The idea that a 2D picture of a 3D object can distort the mind to see the same image no matter what demographic is quite thought provoking.

Peter Kogler Will

Galerie im Taxispalais, Innsbruck, 2014 by Peter Kolger Will

Peter Kogler Will is a spatial artist that uses large areas to distort the perception of the viewer. He does this by altering the perception of that the viewer thinks they are looking at. While conceptually allowing the viewer to believe that the lines are fooling them. Kolger Will’s work impressed me the most I think, with the versatility of his practice. creating “larger than life” dynamic spaces only using the perception of the viewer and they preconceived ideas of space. The scale for me is definitely the most important element, its what adds this vastness to his work, and starts to make the viewer to believe the space is actually distorted (an interesting concept would be to actually end up distorting the space, as the viewer would be so used to getting tricked, that I think it would catch them off guard. Obviously this is only achievable because people are assuming that he is tricking them). Where I think his work is less credited is the use of black and white, a famous illusion that uses this concept well is ‘The Hermann Grid’ (see bellow) (notable refence: https://www.illusionsindex.org):

I've decided to add both the white and black version of this illusion as I think he has examples of both in his works. The idea is that when looking at the illusion, you will begin to see the edges of the white or black boxes form dots of the strongest colour in the on the illusion. Also an interesting thing about thi illusion is the way you turning it, and how far you are away from it change how you perceive it. I think this is a important reference in Kogler Will’s work because as the lines intersect, it creates shadows and depth that is actually just 2D lines. This false sense of depth adds a whole extra layer onto his works, making everything read much deeper, and more three dimensional. The negative space between his lines, end up creating gray pockets of false depth. The idea of false spatial awareness is a really cool concept, if I can get a big enough space id live to give it a try.

M.C. Escher

Day and Night, 1938, by M.C. Escher

M.C Escher is a optical illusion artist legend, I honestly don't have to say much more that that. Escher’s understanding of conception and perception and how the viewer interacts with arts is mind-blowing. Escher’s uses of black and white, and also contrast lead the way for optical illusion art in his time. His works would go on to push a lot of boundaries not only in art, but also phycology and phycological understanding of art perception. I've chosen to put ‘Day and Night’ here, because of Brightness 

Mr Doodle

undefined

Mr Doodles bedroom (2017) by Mr Doodle

Salvador Dalí

Galatea of the Spheres, 1952 by Salvador Dalí 

[ramajmedia]

Kingdom Of The White Wolf Interview | Screen Rant

National Geographic photographer and explorer Ronan Donovan talks with Screen Rant about his journey to the arctic for the three-part event series Kingdom of the White Wolf. The series provides an unprecedented look into the lives of some extraordinary animals, as Donovan gets up close and personal with a species integral to the Arctic’s complex eco system, and also one that is misunderstood, or perhaps not understood enough. The result is a series that turns its subjects into real characters and their survival into one of the most compelling narratives on TV. 

But Kingdom of the White Wolf is more than another nature documentary. By making Donovan and his photography a central part of the series itself, the program becomes a hybrid of sorts, fusing top-notch filmmaking with some truly gorgeous photographs, captured while the series itself unfolds. As such, Kingdom of the White Wolf offers a fascinating viewing experience, one that simultaneously tells the story of a pack of white wolves and the individual documenting them. 

More: This Way Up Review: A Sweet, Sad, & Funny Look At Starting Over

In addition to speaking with Donovan to hear firsthand how the series came together, Screen Rant has two exclusive clips from the series. The first demonstrates how the wolves communicate, with their familiar and seemingly pensive howls. The second, offers a rare glimpse at a wolf pack forming and becoming a formidable hunting party. As Donovan notes, the predators are put in a strange predicament where, in order to eat, they must first venture into harm’s way. Check out the pack formation and wolf calls clips below, along with the interview with National Geographic Explorer Ronan Donovan. 

I wanted to start off by congratulating you on having the coolest job in the world. I also wanted to ask, is that notion difficult to process when you're out there actually doing what I assume is the difficult work of exploring and documenting nature in this way?

I mean the actual work is very hard, like physically, emotionally demanding. I mean, this last assignment in the Arctic, I tore the meniscus in both my knees throughout the assignment. The first one in my left knee in the first month of the project. I just had to walk it off and get on with it. And then I tore the second knee like three weeks before the end. I knew I did awful things to them, but I didn't really have much of an option to get help or stop working, because I had a lot of pressure on myself. So you know, it's a common sentiment that it's like, you know, this is a really amazing job, but it also has its great challenges as well. And that was definitely one of them for this last assignment.

How long are you actually out there following these subjects and what does that experience give you in terms of understanding these animals in their habitat? And then conversely, what do you learn about yourself when you're out there? 

Just following the animals and the subjects, the set up was, essentially there were two other guys on the team and we had a base camp that we set up that was about 20 miles away from the core range of this main pack of wolves. And so basically we had four wheelers to be able to keep up with the wolves, as well as carry the equipment, you know 150 pounds of equipment. Food, tent, your sleeping stuff and then another two full gas tanks in fuel cans to be able to keep up. So everything dictated how much the wolves were going to move. I had about 250 miles that I could get out of all the gas that I had in the machine that I would carry. 

You could do three or four days typically, because the wolves would just travel and then you'd have to make sure you didn't run out of fuel before you got back to camp. The longest day was 65 miles following the wolves continuously, while they hunted over the course of 40 hours. And that was the longest day that I did out there and it was just utterly exhausting. You know the sun's up the whole time. So you have this weird kind of ball of energy that never sets, and that's backed by all the continuous movement. You're on this machine, you're not sitting down, you're in the horse riding stance, getting bucked around on awful terrain. So you can't exactly fall asleep. It's not like driving a car where I could never last more than 20 hours driving a car straight because you're comfortable and you fall asleep.

The machine and the pace and following the wolves just keeps you up; it propels you to keep going. And they're hunting and you're having to try to document that, because it's one of the peak physical, mental evolutionary aspects of the animal's life that makes them what they are, and you're trying to capture all this. So that was what would keep me up and driving and doing horrible things to my body. What I learned about myself from doing this project is some of the things that make me really good at my job, which is kind of a stubborn drive to achieve and succeed and document and share these animal stories. That stubborn drive is also ... it can be a bit self-defeating in the sense that self care is really challenging, I think, on these longterm field projects. Just the physical aspects of it. I've harped on that a lot, but it's ... For this assignment it was by far the hardest all around and most demanding, physically and emotionally.

Additionally, I've never done television before and there was a lot of pressure involved; people went to bat for me a lot on this project, to give me this opportunity. It's big budgets. There's obviously big expectations and so there was a lot of that in my mind throughout. But that was interspersed with these incredible wildlife moments where you get to witness an animal that's rarely seen by anyone and even more rarely seen in its relaxed state, essentially just being wild wolves and ignoring my presence the whole time. And that was just an incredible opportunity and treat to be able to have that experience.

It's incredibly interesting watching the way the wolves were aware of you being there but didn't seem to really react to you all that much. Can you talk about the process of following the wolves around and getting to know them individually, and eventually earning their trust enough that you can insert yourself into situations they're in without distracting them from what they're trying to do? 

Initially, locating wolves, you're trying to find a wolf den. We used a helicopter for that process, just trying to cover a bunch of ground looking for these green patches in the landscape, which are indicative of a den that's been fertilized by urine and feces for hundreds of years on a pretty barren tundra desert-like landscape that doesn't have very much in the way of nutrients. So the wolves, just by being there and creating a den, create this lush little Eden spot on what's typically a brown landscape. So you find the den and then maybe it'll be active, maybe not. In this case, in the first episode, all the dens we found were all iced in and there were no wolves.

That added a freakout of like, 'Oh gosh, I just said I could do this project, that I can find wolves, and I can't.' And then once we did find a den with pups, it was in this far away valley, and it was pretty sandy soil, so it must not have had the same weather event. The rain event didn't affect it and it wasn't frozen in. That's why they were able to use that den. After that, it was just... gaining their trust is just a series of neutral encounters with them, because there's nowhere to hide, you're not trying to sneak up. It's not like you're sitting in a blind or a hide, which is typical of some of the other wildlife work where you're actually trying to keep yourself hidden. 

You just present yourself and they react accordingly. They're going to be curious probably about what you're doing because they've never been shot at or they've never had a negative encounter with people. Some of the wolves maybe have never seen people, especially the younger ones, at least the pups. They have no reason to fear anything other than other wolves and the occasional polar bear. So therefore, they're going to be curious about anything else. So that's how they saw me. And that's how they see humans as just kind of this interesting third animal in a landscape. We're not a threat, we're not seen as prey; we're just kind of another animal out there in some ways. It's a fascinating perception of what wolves think of humans in this part of the Arctic. They're not scared of us and they don't see us as prey.

Much of the first episode delves into the ways in which the pack has a social dynamic and cares for one another or shows affection toward one another. It also underlines the role that the wolves play in maintaining the ecosystem around them. In what way do you think the series will help dispel some misconceptions about these wolves and help create a new image for them? 

Yeah, I mean the main goal is to showcase a wild family of wolves that can exist in its own ecosystem, its own place, be a positive force in the landscape and have no negative encounter with people. Which is the honest story about how wolves have lived for tens of thousands of years and that it's only in recent times in human history where we as humans started to domesticate the animals that wolves prey on: sheep, goats, cattle. And then we came into conflict with the wolves because we wanted to eat the same thing. And so, on Ellesmere Island, there're no people who live there and raise livestock, and there is no competition with human hunters there, which is another conflict of the wolf/human relationship. And so it's this really exciting place just to show what wild wolves are like, without this haze, this cloud of human interaction. 

What I hope people will take away from it is seeing how intimate wolves can be among themselves, just in their family structure. How sweet they are to the pups, how sweet they are with each other. They have need to communicate and cooperate in order to achieve something together that they can't do on their own, which is why people live in social groups, because we can do greater things as a group than we can on our own. Trying to highlight those similarities, which is kind of the first step in empathy and understanding that humans are capable of when we're trying to understand other people, other cultures, and extending that into animals as well. 

You were out there for quite some time documenting these wolves, and I'm sure you had a lot of experiences that maybe didn't make the actual final cut of the series. For you personally, what was the most surprising thing you came across in the process of making this series and in your time documenting these wolves? 

One of the most incredible experiences and striking that didn't make it in, was the longest follow day where it was, 40 hours straight and 65 miles that we covered. This was after the matriarch female had disappeared from the pack, so the pack was in a little bit of disarray. They waited around for a number of days to see if she'd come back, and they got hungry so they had to go out and hunt. They brought the pups along that were about 12 weeks old at that time. And they went on this 65-mile jaunt, which is a really long way for little pup legs, and the adults were exhausted and the pups were dragging behind, whimpering and howling while they're running, and having this really, really hard experience. 

Later, the adults were hunting multiple herds of muskox, just testing them and failing. One of the wolves actually got smashed and steamrolled and stampeded, before getting up and trying to find another herd of muskox to test. And this was over 40 hours. They killed two Arctic hares that the adults wouldn't share with the pups because the adults were ravenous at that point. And kind of the code is: if the adults don't eat then there's no way the pups are going to get food. So the adults have to be strong and healthy in order to find more food for the pups. 

Then there was this really tense moment where [the wolves] went from sea level up to 2,500 feet over this mountain dropdown, this dramatic icy chute on the edge of this mountain. I thought they all died because it was ice. I couldn't follow them. It took me an hour and a half to get around the mountain to get back to them. I was thinking that at least a few of the pups must have died in this avalanche chute, basically. But I found them again, and they were all just curled up sleeping and taking a nap. They were totally fine.

That was just one of the most impressive feats of animal physical fitness, as well as seeing how they stay together as a cohesive pack. They didn't leave any pups behind. They didn't leave any other adults behind. They stayed together through a really challenging session and eventually they made another kill a couple of days later and had a really good feed. That was kind of heartwarming to think that they were able to keep going and function as a pack without their matriarch. 

One of the things that's really interesting about this series, is that it;s about the wolves, but on another secondary level, you and your photography become another aspect of the story. How does that work and how do you balance directing the audience and becoming a part of the story in this way. How does that work for you? 

Yeah, I mean that's not my happy place I would say [laughs]. This whole project came out of my wanting to do a magazine story as a photographer for National Geographic Magazine. The editor that I've worked with my entire five years at National Geographic, said to me, 'I would love to do this story. We just no longer have the budget to do this.' She said, "But you know, TV has those budgets. They're right across the hall. Let's go over and see what's possible.' So this whole project came out of our desire, myself and the editor, to do a magazine story, a photography story. And then it went through a couple of iterations and they asked would if I would be willing to go up there with a big crew and do this whole production and all this, and that's not the way to do it. 

So they turned that down and then eventually they asked if I would be willing to be on camera as one of the characters and be filmed doing the process. And I agreed. But you know, I never aspired to do television, to be on TV. I don't own a TV. I don't watch Nat Geo WILD. It's not like it was this goal of mine, to always do something like this. I wanted to tell the story of wild wolves, but I realized that television is the widest audience for consuming these types of wildlife stories. I wish the magazine had more of a following than it currently does, but that's just the nature of print media. And so I saw an opportunity in agreeing to be on camera and to be filmed doing my process as a photographer and filmmaker as a way to reach a wider audience.  

One of the hardest balances for me in this project  was that I'm also a wildlife cameraman, so I filmed half of the natural history for this series. And trying to juggle photographing for the magazine - because there's a story out in the current [September 2019] issue on the wolves - then also having to film for this TV series was really hard. There was another full time dedicated director of photography up there, his role was to film me during the process and then also to film natural history. And so the two of us would kind of shift back and forth. But that was hard. That was hard for me. Additionally, I was by myself a lot, so I wasn't able to do side-by-side video and photo. As a result, there were several moments where I had to choose what it was going to be. 'Is this going to be a sequence of photos or going to be a sequence of film?' That was a balance that was hard for me. 

Where do you go from here? What is your next project that you're working on, if you are working on anything at the moment? 

Yeah, well the immediate project is going back and trying to find that same pack again, but in winter. I always wanted to go see the wolves in winter. The powers that be were cautious about that, and they wanted to do this initial round in the summer and to see how it goes. It really comes down to how well this show rates. If it does well then I am going to push to go back in winter because these Arctic wolves, they're white wolves, they evolved on a predominantly snowy white landscape and they're at their strongest in winter, when their prey, the muskox, are at their weakest. So I want to see that. I want to go up there when it's negative 30 in February and the sun is just coming up from the horizon for the first time in five months when the wolves have these big, huge, bushy winter coats, and they're hunting muskox, which are tired and weak and there's breath and blood and white landscape. It would would just be gorgeous. 

Next: The Righteous Gemstones Review: Pitch Perfect Performances Elevate An Overstuffed Premiere

Kingdom of the White Wolf premieres Sunday, August 25 @8pm on Nat Geo WILD.

source https://screenrant.com/kingdom-white-wolf-interview-ronan-donovan-nat-geo-wild/

[douchebagbrainwaves]

I'VE BEEN PONDERING THINGS

Why only do it in borderline cases? A lot of outsiders make the mistake of treating ideas as if they were paid a huge amount, or if the domain was interesting and none of the companies in it were hacker-centric. Before ITA who wrote the software inside Orbitz, the people working on them discover a new kind of solution. That would be a useful quality in programming. So if doing good for people gives you a sense of mission that makes you harder to kill, that alone more than compensates for whatever you lose by not choosing a more selfish project. But people will do any amount of drudgery for companies of which they're the founders. Another is when you have the source code of the Viaweb editor was probably about 20-25% of the code in this program is doing things that are cheap or even untaken. But what if the person in the next room snored? And of course if Microsoft is your model, you shouldn't be discouraged by the comparatively corrupt test of college admissions, because it's easier than satisfying them. You can meet someone just to get to know one another.1 I see a painting impressively hung in a museum, I ask myself: how much would I pay for this if I found it at a garage sale, dirty and frameless, and with no idea who painted it? I could go back and check.

Should Apple care what people like me think? If a nonprofit or government organization had started a project to index the web, Google at year 1 is the limit of what they'd have produced. In the long term the most important quality would be intelligence. I have to focus on real work.2 For example, if you keep growing at 10% a month. But the real problem for Microsoft wasn't the embarrassment of the people they hired. Which means it's a disaster to have long, random delays each time you release a new version. They preferred good programmers to work in a suit-centric culture? The professor who made his reputation by discovering some new idea is not likely to be the early adopters, you'll no longer have a perfect initial market handed to you on this one. You can't just tinker. But vice versa as well. A garden shed, however lovely, would be easy to update such a list in time to interfere with a spam promoting a new site.

Great hackers tend to be driven by fashion and schmoozing, with actual ability a distant third. And that probably drove the developers harder than any carrot or stick could. But they're looking for a way out. But they're looking for a way out. They're each only a great university short of becoming a silicon valley. That has two important implications. For one thing, it was working with startups that made me feel better. But Yahoo also had another problem that made it hard to change directions.3 The greatest is an audience, then we live in exciting times, because just about every startup I've seen grinds to a halt under the load, which would make them unavailable to the people who would have responded to the spam. Make something people want is the destination, but Be relentlessly resourceful.

It's something that can be fixed in a couple years, but the startup community around it has to be a media company. At Yahoo it felt as if they'd deliberately accelerated this process. It must have seemed to our competitors that we had to read in English classes; I didn't use expert systems myself. Perfectionism is often an excuse for procrastination, and in someone's trash I saw what appeared to be a place where the best ideas aren't the ones that wanted Oracle experience. How do you decide? The top US Computer Science departments are said to be MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, and Carnegie-Mellon. The professor who made his reputation by discovering some new idea is not likely to be a bunch of goatherds in Bronze Age Palestine.

Octopart built the right way to search for components. Till then the best I'd managed was to get the company going. Engraving was for making little devotional images—basically fifteenth century baseball cards of saints. There are a couple reasons they should care. It's easy to see how little launches matter. In that situation, even the CEO. During the years we worked on Viaweb I read a lot of people who go from one to the other and never realize the whole world, for that matter have speculative meetings. And in Ithaca, home of Cornell, which is about 2.4 But wait a minute. But they had the most opaque obstacle in the world.

Com of their name. YC is, among other things, an experiment to see if they had a live online demo, was look at their job listings. There are many exceptions to this rule. Some of Silicon Valley's most famous companies began in garages: Hewlett-Packard in 1938, Apple in 1976, Google in 1998. Which means that once trolling takes hold, it tends to become the top idea in their mind at any given moment he may need to go sideways or even backwards to get there. No one wants to look like a fool. At our startup we had Robert Morris working as a system administrator. Which doesn't mean I couldn't have read more attentively, but at any given time.

Notes

This was certainly true in fields that have economic inequality is not yet released. Free money to start a startup to duplicate our software, we could just multiply 101 by 50 to get going, e.

001 negative effect on college admissions process. You can relent a little too narrow than to call them whitelists because it is very high, so they made more that year from stock options than any preceding president, he found himself concealing from his predecessors was a refinement that made steam engines dramatically more efficient, it might seem, because they are now. Few can have benevolent motives for being driven by money, you can talk about real income ignores much of it. Strictly speaking it's impossible without a time, because spam and P nonspam are both genuinely formidable, and also what we'd call random facts, like languages and safe combinations, and it introduced us to Steve Huffman and Alexis Ohanian, both of whom have become direct marketers.

If they really need that much better to read a new version from which they don't, working twice as fast is better than having twice as much as people in the standard career paths of trustafarians to start a startup, unless it was putting local grocery stores out of a safe will be lots of search engines are so dull and artificial that by the size of the density of startup people in 100 years, but they get more votes, as I know of this desirable company, and the ordering system, which I warn about later: beware of getting rich, people who are weak in other ways to avoid becoming an alcoholic. They hoped they were offered were so bad that they kill you, they wouldn't have the. That's why the series AA terms and write them a microcomputer, and since you can use to develop server-based applications, and those are guaranteed in the comment sorting algorithm.

Type A fundraising is so pervasive how often the answer. A preliminary result, that good paintings must have believed since before people were people.

Thanks to Jackie McDonough, Trevor Blackwell, Sarah Harlin, Jessica Livingston, Ron Conway, David Hornik, Sam Altman, and John Gruber for inviting me to speak.