#because that's the context it was originally created in

[moons-of-firdaws]

Artists create art for an audience. Sometimes that audience is you and your close-knit group of friends with your OCs; sometimes that audience is x shippers in y fandom; sometimes the audience is a community you're a part of — the queer community, the neurodivergent community etc and sometimes an audience is society at large as often is the case in works that are intended as social critique or exploration.

Art is created to express, evoke and/or communicate a feeling or thought.

Discourse around "don't create xyz for attention" should be understood as discourse around social media, and not art. When applied to art, the premise is erroneous and flawed because it's misplaced / displaced from its original context.

i do write for attention, actually, because that's a normal reason to create art

[creature-wizard]

How the "divine feminine" and the "divine masculine" perpetuate patriarchy - and what we can do about it

One thing the occult is very good at is coming up with systems to categorize and conceptualize things. These can be incredibly useful to us in various ways. But we also have to remember that these systems we come up with are mere constructs, and the actual world itself probably doesn't conform to them as we might like. As the saying goes, all maps are wrong. But as the saying also goes, some maps are useful, and some are more useful than others.

One thing that often comes up in esoteric and occult systems are various forms of binaries or polarities. This often makes sense; for example, without light, you have dark. Without heat, you have cold. One party gives, the other takes. Creatures are born, and eventually they die.

But we can run into problems when we start trying to lump all apparent forms of polarities and dualities together. Here's an example: Life/Death, Masculine/Feminine. In doing this, we create an association that might lead us toward some terrible ways of thinking about real people. If we associate masculinity with death, we can find ourselves thinking that waging war and inventing weapons of death is just what men and masc people do, but women can always be counted on to be diplomats and peacekeepers. Or if we associate femininity with death, we might find ourselves more inclined to think that women and femmes have a natural desire to commit infanticide and tear apart societies, and they must be carefully watched and their freedoms limited so they don't upend civilization and endanger the human race.

These are of course extreme examples, but they are real ways that some people think. And you might think to yourself, "well, I don't polarize genders this way, I think people should try to be a healthy balance of masculine and feminine." And if this is you, I want you to ask yourself why you're so attached to categorizing traits as "masculine" and "feminine" at all.

If you're like most people, you probably just came across this in some form of occult or spiritual literature and just adopted it without really asking yourself too many questions about it. When we see something framed as ancient or higher wisdom, it's pretty easy to take it fairly uncritically, especially if it aligns with our unconscious biases in some way. It often doesn't cross our minds to ask where these terms really come from, and what they signified in their original contexts.

You may have heard that male/female stuff has roots in alchemy, which is true. But the thing with alchemy is that it was using familiar terms and concepts to describe chemical processes and reactions. Think of it a little bit like how we use terms like "male plugs" and "female plugs." While old-time alchemy did have a spiritual component to it, it was more about believing that you had to be spiritually pure to make your desired alchemical reactions happen. When alchemy gave way to chemistry, and people began to realize that your spiritual condition had nothing to do with your ability to make things happen in the lab, certain people began to seek more mystical meanings in the works of alchemists, and this idea of masculinity and femininity as transcendent mystical forces unto themselves really started to emerge. It was an incredibly easy concept to project on all kinds of mythologies, because a lot of myths have male and female figures interacting in various ways.

Now the thing is, having myths with male and female figures doesn't mean seeing masculinity and femininity as discrete forces or powers unto themselves. It can mean that they simply personified various figures as male or female depending on what their own experiences and cultural biases suggested to them. For example, straight men tend to think of love and lust as something they experience when they see a beautiful woman. In a patriarchal society, where men are calling most of the shots in conceptualizing the divine, a love deity is thus likely to be personified as a beautiful woman. Straight men can also see beautiful women as a source of discord and strife, so it makes sense that love goddesses would have war aspects to them.

A society where men are sent to war while wives are left behind to raise the children and tend the farm is going to produce an association with men and violence, while the act of nurturing will be associated with women. Men who deny higher education to women are going to produce a society where intellectual pursuits and higher abstract reasoning are associated with masculinity, and intuition and practical knowledge are associated with women. A society where men are seen as bringers of social order and upholders of civilization while women are viewed more like forces of nature than rational actors will associate men with civilization and women with natural, wild spaces.

In continuing to associate these characteristics with the "divine feminine" and the "divine masculine," we preserve and perpetuate the implicit biases created by these patriarchal societies. And while there is absolutely value in saying, "hey, these 'feminine' things are actually valuable and worth respect actually," framing them as intrinsically feminine in any sense - physically, psychologically, or metaphysically - will undermine any effort to dismantle patriarchy and bring true equality.

So what can you do? I would suggest being more specific.

Do you mean passive/active? Then just say it.

Do you mean giver/receiver? Then just say it.

Do you mean harmonizing/disrupting? Then just say it.

Whatever you have filed under boxes labeled "masculine" and "feminine," you can simply take them out of those boxes and find better categories for them.

[anbaisai]

Finally had time to sit down and write, but honestly there’s not much to be said other than thank you to everyone who wrote a message on my tree! I really enjoyed reading every single message and screenshotting to save them into a folder for when I need a lil boost ww (including one from Mr. Viper himself above that got a laugh out of me, thanks Jamil really appreciate you thinking I’m cool)

Some sappiness under the cut:

I never expected to receive this much support for my silly yume/oc ship content when I began posting, and I really don’t have the words to express how grateful I am. I’ve met many wonderful people through this fandom, and also just had lots of fun in general making art. I mean it when I say I genuinely never had this much motivation and inspiration to create for any fandom (or original content) in the past. There was a long, long period in my life during which trying to find even a crumb of motivation to draw felt impossible. There was always some reason that I couldn’t - be it school/life being too busy, feeling too tired, having other stuff to do first, etc. I thought I’d never rediscover my love and passion for art, until I finally pushed myself to design my Yuu for real (instead of just thinking about it) and then everything just snowballed from there. (For context, I began playing TWST in 2020 and, despite being very much in love with it, only began drawing anything for it this year.)

I have such a massive list of ideas that I still want to draw (plus several asks that I want to answer that I just haven’t had the time to yet), so I’m certainly going to be kept busy for a while. After previously making every excuse possible for not drawing, I’ve learned that yeah, once you really love something you will squeeze time out for it no matter how hard things get, because it kills you not to. All those times when I wondered when I’d ever be able to draw as much as my favourite artists now feel like a distant relic of the past, and I have Twisted Wonderland (especially Jamil) and this community to thank for it. If anyone reading this is going through something similar, I promise it gets better - you will need to put in the effort to make it start, but you will get there.

There’s also my past experiences of being in fandoms that, well, did not welcome yume/self-shipping type content. If I so much as thought of creating any, the fear of being ridiculed would make me back away from the idea immediately. I’m glad to see that sentiment seems to be no longer the norm, but also the TWST fandom has been one of the most supportive of yume content I’ve ever seen. To everyone wanting to participate but has been hesitating, you absolutely should! My only regret is not starting sooner, seriously. In a sense I feel like I'm fulfilling a childhood dream of mine, and all of my past hesitation and anxiety just dissipated once... as cringe as it sounds - once love took over. So go pour your love and passion into that character you adore, they deserve it.

Anyways, wishing everyone a happy holidays and happy new year! Here’s to another year of enjoying TWST and creating for the things we love ❤

[somecosmic-typashit]

|Normalise actually motivating shifters who struggle with their minds|

I'm actually sick of some of these "harsh motivations" on social medias, because a lot of them are straight up nothing else but insults and shameful words. It only does the opposite instead of motivation, because some of them doesn't even give context or explaining.

You don't need to scold them now srs, like the fuck? Harsh motivation can only be truth, there's no need for degrading words, only truth itself can hurt enough already. That's what harsh motivation is. Some people are still stuck on misinformations and just don't know or understand everything about shifting yet. There's nothing wrong with that, because they're still expanding their knowledge and changing their beliefs. We've all been there, and even us are still learning about new things everyday and we're still letting go of everything that doesn't do us any good anymore. Have some understanding towards those who are still growing.

You can't call someone stupid and say "It's all your fault you're experiencing what you don't want now! You choosed this life here before entering this vessel!" It does not make you look superior or cool, you just sound like a deranged maniac and nothing more than lunatic. While there's some truth to example I gave and I can see the reason why would someone say that to someone, you should still explain the reason why you said that and maybe give an example to support it, because it also didn't made any sense to me when I heard it for first time and first thing that popped on my mind was "Why the fuck would anybody choose this kind of life? I'm not that dumb." Because I wasn't deeply educated in shifting, spirituality, manifestation, void state/pure awareness and ego back then. I still thought this is my original/first reality and that I'm here against my own will, overall I still had a limiting mindset.

Instead of directly spitting in someone's face with this kind of "harsh motivation", why can't you say something like: "Both positive and negative assumptions are delusional thoughts that shape your own reality if you're convinced in them. One isn't more delusional than the other and one isn't more true than the other because they're both form of assumptions without any proof. And law of assumption proposes that our beliefs and expectations influence the world around us that can be both negative and positive." Simple as that.

For example, Iused to think like: "I feel like shit everyday for years straight, this is getting worse everyday and I won't get to nowhere. I'll fall apart completely in the future." Did I continue feeling like shit with that mindset? Yes I did. Why did I felt like shit? Because I kept beating my own ass up with constant self hatred and I kept listening to everyone else around me who are clearly trying to make me feel worse for their own self satisfaction and I believed their own beliefs because I let the fear eat me and I thought everyone else is better than me.

So, when I realized I'm miserable because I kept adding the fuel to misery, I cutted off that kind of mindset. Because others assumptions about me don't defy who I truly am and what I'll become actually, since they don't even know me personally, they can't decide for me either who I'll be and that's only version of me from their perspective/imagination. Did I stop feeling like shit everyday after thinking like this instead? Yes I did. Everyone creates reality for their own selves with their beliefs and views, someone's personal truth isn't ours unless we believe that it's true in the first place.

The reason everything is now the way it is, is because of patterns from our past experiences/lives which we didn't change before shifting in this place. That's why they seem familiar/repetitive, that's why you already know things without reading or hearing confirmation for them, that's why you recognise someone you just met from somewhere you don't even remember, it's all from past experiences. The reason we don't remember none of them is because we aren't tied to one reality/temporary life and we're supposed to explore our imagination and all infinite possibilities. We can't shift permanently to other reality with memories from previous ones because it doesn't match or align with the new reality, at least not if they're drastically different.

You don't need to suffocate people from this community with toxic positivity or insult them. Don't even try to motivate or teach others something if you won't even tell them what they actually need. No you don't need to motivate or teach anybody it's not your job, nobody said you should do it, but if you want to do it and choosed to, do it properly at least. I'm not telling you to baby them or cuddle them, just stop being a dick and get to the straight point.

[instantpansies]

oh my word THANK YOU!!! i've been trying to say this since the wicked movie repopularized all of the "wicked is canon" stuff, but you've put it in a way i wasn't able to. YES. certainly wicked is allowed to be a derivative work that recontextualizes Oz. assuming that whatever is in wicked retroactively and automatically changes details about the story (ie, that the scarecrow and the tin woodman knew each other before the events of Wonderful Wizard and/or the MGM film) is simply incorrect.

i'm all for incorporating a body of work that may not be fully compatible into a coherent canon that works as an alternative parallel to the original. i think it's completely fine and understandable that people are hooked on wicked and will want to understand some characters through the lens of wicked. but assuming that wicked's popularity makes it truly canon, or assuming that the history it presents is accurate to Baum's Oz, is ignorant to both the original context of the Baum books and the long history of Oz adaptation.

i'm also a bit of a hater, as i personally believe that understanding Wonderful Wizard characters through a lens of wicked, especially the musical but also the book, is a less interesting way of analyzing the text and symbolism present in that story than either the Baum novel or the MGM film presents as each stands alone.

wicked is, certainly, its own thing. of course it exists in the context of over a hundred years of adaptation before it, but that context is simply not known by most people. it must be able to stand on its own, and i believe it does. but when this retroactive wicked lens is applied to that context and history uncritically, we will run into problems.

i almost want to blame the seemingly recent, but really just more visible shift in fandom to a need for everything to be canon and confirmed? like, it can be difficult to reconcile in our minds that so many different versions of oz are allowed to exist and don't have to be compatible. wicked "confirms" things viewers are left wondering about after the mgm film, so therefore it must be canon, and therefore it's appropriate to correct people on facts they "get wrong" when they contradict wicked canon. that's how the thinking seems to work, at least in my observation. and that way of thinking seeps its way into the secondary or deeper oz fandom, which has led to (in my view) a sort of soft shift from Baum-centric understanding of oz as a whole to a binary star system where Baum and Maguire are seen as co-creators of a more true or real world and story. i'm exaggerating, certainly, but i've seen this shift occur over time. i hesitate to bring this up bc it sounds like i'm whining about the fandom's natural changes and how things aren't the way they used to be, and i guess i am. i digress.

anyways, your original point. yes!!! while oz became baum's most profitable endeavor, and throughout the series you can see him sort of wishing his other books were more profitable so he could expand in different directions, that doesn't mean he didn't care about continuity or cohesion at all. i'd argue he cared more about cohesion and telling a story that made sense and continued to make sense as it was expanded, than he cared about maintaining particular canon details through the whole series. oz changed as baum's tastes, needs, and audience changed, and that is just as important as the changes that would be added by adaptation later on. (hell, many oz fans don't think of the 1902 musical or the silent films as canon, despite them being created by Baum, both because they're less well-known and because they do change things up to better fit their respective media and contexts). this sense of inconsistency, whether overblown or minimized, doesn't mean that wicked is canon compliant with the baum novels. wicked directly contradicts baum's work in some cases--which again, is completely fine. it's a derivative work that takes certain aspects of the original books and the mgm film, synthesizes them in a grimdark expansion on especially the political aspects of the world, and seeks to tell a unique story that allows you to think about Wonderful Wizard and MGM in a different way. but it is not itself an explanation for Baum's supposedly undercooked or unfinished world. it is not itself a part of the original story (i mean this in the context of canonicity of baum's work. oz fans know how complicated oz canon is.) but instead is--as it claims to be--another branch on the complex tree of oz adaptations.

tldr. wicked does not "explain" anyone's actions in Wonderful Wizard or MGM. it seeks to provide an alternative context, or an alternative explanation, certainly. but it does not retroactively "fix" the story. it's perfectly fine to think about the original story or the mgm film in the context of wicked, if you like the alternative history it provides. policing others' adaptations and understandings of the story, or implying or directly stating that wicked should be incorporated into others' headcanons or interpretations or adaptations, or claiming that wicked is canon simply because baum didn't care about canon so everything is canon, is not helpful or productive or good. in fact, that actively makes oz analysis less fun, in my opinion. i hope my point is made here i've been trying to say this for months but as usual i was completely unable to get my thoughts across until acted on by an outside force (seeing this post). so thanks!!

I've seen a lot of people lately harping about how "Wicked isn't canon to the Oz universe", "it's just glorified fanfiction", etc., and I can't express how silly that is, and how annoyed it makes me every time I hear it, lol. Baum's original Oz books were never meant to be some canonical series — they contradict each other constantly; Baum called it a "fairy story" with loose cohesion at best; and it only became a series at all because the first one got popular enough that Baum felt a duty to the fandom to keep making more (even after he had wanted to end it). And the 1939 film is every bit as much "fanfiction" as Wicked — it changes the story in both major and minor ways, including a complete shift of framing (i.e., making Oz into a dream rather than a real place).

Maguire's great contribution to the overarching legacy and lore of Oz was to harmonize the very weak "canon" of the older works with a different shift in framing: recontextualizing all of the prior Oz material as a revisionist history (going off of Baum's own idea framing of himself as a "Royal Historian of Oz"), and attempting to tell "the true story" behind the other works (fictively of course — we're never meant to literally think Maguire's version preceded Baum's, irl). In literary studies, this is called an urtext. The Wicked Years and its adaptations are as much "fanfiction" as the 1939 film: it's just self-aware of that fact in a way that earlier works weren't, and uses that perspective to deconstruct the material and explore deeper (and darker) themes — not simply adapting or reimagining the original text (as the 1939 movie did), but actively challenging it; interrogating it. It's not meant to be "canon" as such: it asks you to ask whether (and why) there is such a thing, and what that might say about the stories that we are meant to literally believe in, in real life.

[aphrothiti]

I’ve noticed that a lot of artists seem to channel their rahu placement in their early work, and then mature into their ketu placement as time passes

There is an instinctive urge to make art that is original or interesting in some way, in larger projects even an urge to worldbuild. Creation when you are an amateur often makes you want to reach outside the mundane you and express your ego (rahu).

But as artists get older and their work matures with them, art becomes less about making an imprint and ego and more so about self expression. In this context I mean self expression as in expressing everything you come from, and everything you already are at rest (ketu) when you aren’t rationalising yourself into being something else (rahu).

Ultimately it’s good to have a balance of both, and you wouldn’t be able to really separate them anyway since they work on an axis. Channeling your ketu artistically is important because it’s what comes naturally to you (for lack of better phrasing- ykwim). Using your rahu is also important because you need to understand the context in which you are creating, and to consume and intellectually digest the work of others around you.

When artists lean too hard into their ketu, their art can become a bit uncouth or controversial or at the very least out of touch.

When you lean too hard into your rahu, your work can become unoriginal as you’re too heavily influenced by what other people are doing.

[the-far-bright-center]

Re: TCW as meta commentary

A little while ago, I commented on a post about the electrocution that Anakin experiences during The Clone Wars animated series, but since my response turned into a bit of a rant I decided to make a separate post instead. It’s become almost a meme these days to say that Anakin must have 'brain damage' from all that electrocution during the Clone Wars. I realise that tumblr just likes to joke around, but I personally get frustrated with these sorts of 'readings' because it's just...not how I personally view these kinds of things at all. When I watched TCW back in the day, I just presumed that the reason there was so much electrocution was to give a ‘nod’ to Vader being so averse to Palpatine’s Force-lightning in RotJ. Having Anakin tortured countless times in a similar manner to how Luke is at the end of RotJ then explains why Anakin/Vader can’t abide seeing his son tortured that way any longer (he knows all-too well what it’s like!) and finally snaps and kills Palpatine. The fact he hates and is maybe even terrified of Palpatine’s Force-lightning by that point (knowing it will almost certainly kill him) also lends his final sacrifice in RotJ another level of pathos and heroism.

Of course, one could just dismiss the electrocution as the writers being sadistic and saying ‘let’s torture Anakin all the time’ (which is definitely part of it, lol), but I also feel like there's more going on there. Everything in the (original Lucas-era) seasons of TCW was constructed as a sort of ‘meta analysis’ of the PT x OT saga, explored via the Clone Wars-era characters and themes. One of the reasons TCW was even made in the first place was to shed further light on the Prequels at a time when SW fans were still fairly hostile to it. And particularly to shed light on the Prequels in relation to the Original Trilogy. That’s why Anakin was explicitly shown to be the Chosen One in the Mortis Arc—because at the time there was still tons of confusion from fans on the subject (despite Lucas confirming it many times in interviews) and the show was trying to clarify that.

I think people these days get tripped up because they’re trying to take every detail of TCW way too literally. Some aspects of the show can work on a literal level, but not everything. Simply due to the fact it's an animated series (where the rules of gravity don’t even apply at times), there is no way that every single moment in it could be considered 100% canon anyway. Acknowledging that some elements of the show couldn’t possibly be meant to be taken literally was easier to do during the pre-Disney times when the series was still just another entry into the Expanded Universe. It’s only because Disney has now absorbed TCW into their ‘official canon’ (and keep churning out content related to it—something I’m NOT happy about) that there’s all this sort of external ‘pressure’ to view it as completely canon.

Speaking of which, I’ve noticed a lot of polarised opinions on the series lately, ranging from people who accept it wholesale to those who flat out hate it and see it in the same vein as the current Disney material. I can't comment on the 'final season' released under Disney because I never watched it and probably never will. That being said, I personally have a great fondness and nostalgia for the 2008-2013 series, in part because I watched it with my husband when we first got together. If the OT represents my childhood and the PT represents my teenage years, then TCW is from a charmed, golden era just prior to the Disney takeover when I was bonding with my husband over our shared love of SW. Sure, I have issues with some parts of it at times, but it was never a big deal for me in the past because I never viewed the series as canon on the same level as the main six-film saga. Rather, I've always seen it as an interesting illumination on the saga, some of which I agree with and some of which I don’t, and some of which I accept into my own personal headcanon, and some of which I discard.

Things I adore and have taken fully into my heacanon: Ahsoka's character and Snips and Skyguy's relationship. They mean too much to me to not do so. Likewise, all the cute, romantic, and (positive) emotional Anidala moments, as well as the Obitine ship (aka the only ship for Obi-Wan that ever made sense from my perspective). I also view Rex and several of the other Clones as canon additions, because fleshing out the Clone characters was always very important worldbuilding and I'm glad it was included. Similarly, I love all the humorous moments and banter, especially in the early seasons. But on the other hand, there are several story arcs in the later seasons that are either too ‘out there’, blatantly ooc, or even incredibly disturbing (Zygerrian arc, for instance), and I refuse to accept these as literal ‘canon’. Nevertheless, I can't fully dismiss them either because there are still moments of these episodes that I enjoy and value. In those instances, I sort of step outside the story for a moment and look at it from a meta perspective to discern what they were trying to do and say with those storylines, since taking them literally would be too jarring. Likewise, no matter how many times I watch TCW (and even having seen most of Rebels as well), I’m NEVER going to accept the idea that Maul was somehow still alive and wreaking havoc during the Twilight of the Republic and even during the Dark Times. I don’t accept it as canon because I feel it detracts not only from the impact of the Duel of the Fates in TPM, but also from the symmetry and beauty of the perfectly mirrored PT x OT saga as a whole. I can acknowledge that some of the Maul storylines in the animated series were interesting and even emotionally impactful (and can enjoy Sam Witwer's voice acting for him), while also sticking to my guns and saying ‘this whole premise is just plain silly, I am not accepting this as real’. (I would have actually been more amenable to Maul if he'd been 'ressurected' in a different manner, but that's a subject for another post.)

So, while I enjoy TCW, I personally think it’s more enjoyable if you stop believing everything in it is meant to be taken completely literally or realistically, and instead view it as part fun, entertaining romp, part ‘missing moment’ fanfic, and part serious (if somewhat dark and twisted) meta-commentary.

[roseworth]

i think theres this idea in the general public that the "best" fanfic gets turned into real books like 50 shades of grey. but the truth is that the best fanfic can never be published as an actual book because its intricately woven into the canon material so its inseparable even if you change the names

[pouletaulait]

I don’t mind the conversation either. I always enjoy having a discussion with people who have a different point of view and who are open to having a discussion, like you are, so I appreciate your reaction. My reblogg wasn’t intended as criticism, not at all. I just wanted to point out that personally I can’t quite see why this story would be distorted into something it’s not intended to be if we approach it under a romantic lens. Like I said, personally I think it’s intended to be a romance, albeit not a banal or a „simple“ one but you’re absolutely free to disagree. I understand realism as a fictional portrayal that’s intended to be realistic, in the sense that it attempts to portray a situation in a fashion that stays as close to a possible reality as possible and in which the author seeks to represent this portrayal in an objective manner. A romance, in this context, I understand to be an unrealistic, idealised portrayal of love/a relationship. (Do our understandings differ on this?) But like you pointed out in your original post (if I understand you correctly) what we deem realistic or unrealistic is ultimately influenced by our subjective perception of reality, which might explain why our opinions on this differ. It seems like I didn’t explain my view very clearly; There are many aspects of the manga that I do find realistic in it’s portrayal, such as the CSA, what I don’t find realistic, however, is the portrayal of love, the romance. I find it very idealised and romanticised for the most part (i.e the falling in love at first sight (I’ll get to that), Doumeki being Yashiro’s exact type, Doumeki happens to be impotent which allows Yashiro to develop feelings for him, the fact that Doumeki is completely accepting of everything Yashiro does regardless of how Yashiro treats him, the fact that Doumeki is still in love with Yashiro after he shot him the leg, maybe he even stayed in the Yakuza world just to be near him (although who knows why exactly he did that?) Idk maybe it’s just me but I find it very unrealistic. It’s this romantic idea of „there is this perfect person out there who accepts you just the way you are and you don’t have to do anything to keep them happy, you can even shoot them in the leg and they’ll still love you, they’ll stick around no matter what it takes to be with you“. Idk, to me personally this doesn’t seem like the author seeks to portray a realistic relationship here and to me that’s what it boils down to when I’m saying that to me it reads like a romance (of course this is just my opinion, I don’t know anything about Sensei’s actual intentions)

What I meant by „she’s toying with the idea of idealized romance“ is the fact that most, but not everything ,about the romantic aspect is idealised, hence my example that Doumeki’s love doesn’t cure Yashiro’s trauma. Maybe „toying“ is not the most accurate expression to use in English in this case… but what I mean is that Sensei is ,like I said, employing many aspects of an idealised love, imo, but that she doesn’t fully „commit“ to it if you know what I mean; the way I see it she’s building it up to be this fantasy, this ideal of almighty love, but then she defies our expectation by creating a climax (Chapters 23-25) that’s the opposite of what you’d expect from a romance; instead of Doumeki’s love being the answer to all of Yashiro’s problems and them ending up together, it ends in a disaster (in the sense that Doumeki ends up hurting Yashiro deeply and that they part ways). So, I think she’s taking a more realistic approach in that sense but I think the story remains anchored in the idea of the ideal romance, because that seems to be its point of reference imo. If there was no idealised romance at the core of it (which to me seems evident in the exposition) there’d be no expectation to defy in the first place if you get what I’m saying. I hope I explained this in a somewhat understandable way… but maybe this is not making any sense to you since you seem to have a very different opinion on Yashiro’s feelings. Just to clarify: You don’t think he’s in love with Doumeki? Or do you think he doesn’t want to be in a committed relationship with him, or something else entirely? The way I see it, there certainly was an instant attraction to Doumeki on Yashiro’s side. I guess you could argue that it wasn’t „love“ but just sexual attraction, that’s certainly debatable, but the way I see it, he at least started developing feelings for Doumeki very quickly, hence his interference with Doumeki’s sister, his jealousy, etc. so, yes, the „falling in love at first sight“ part comes down to interpretation but personally I find it likely and my assumption is that he wants to be in a committed relationship with Doumeki (that’s purely my assumption based on my interpretation which obviously heavily influenced by the fact that I understand this to be a romance) Anyways, what I meant by problematic: If I’d look at this story as a entirely realistic portrayal of a relationship or love, I’d find a lot of aspects of it very problematic (how Doumeki is completely devoting himself to Yashiro, how he’s basically stalking him, how he keeps going after Yashiro despite him shooting him in the leg, etc.) That’s what I meant by I wouldn’t root for them to end up together if I’d look at this as a realistic portrayal. It wouldn’t be an irredeemable situation for me either but it’s just nothing that I’d be interested in reading, that’s my personal preference. I’m not opposed to realism in general but, like I said, in this specific case, it doesn’t make sense to me personally. Honestly, I don’t think our opinions on this are entirely different because I agree that Kou Yoneda sensei appears to be taking a quite realistic approach in many respects. I think where our opinions differ seems to me to be the point that you seem to regard this as a work of realism, while I think of it as a romance that challenges romantic ideals in some ways but that ultimately stays anchored in an idealised romanticism. But like I said I think I’ll only know for sure once the story’s been told in its entirety.

An example of novel that follows the literary realism tradition but is sometimes approached under romantic lens, and therefore distorted into something else entirely - maybe because of the (bad) movies adaptations? because of the marketing and the covers? I don’t know but I will link this no longer rebloggable post for you to check - is Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov.

I read Lolita when I was seventeen, felt deeply discomforted but I liked the book, understood what it was doing with its narrator, but I have to add, before reading Lolita, I had already read Flaubert (Sentimental Education, didn’t finish Madame Bovary) and Émile Zola to name a few. I think that growing up I have read more books in this genre than others? I don’t know considering that back then I had to read a lot classics for school.

But long story short, I think something similar maybe it’s occurring with Saezuru. To be clear, I am not saying that you have to read it in a certain way, please I don’t really want to even imply that. Read it for yourself and your pleasure first. What I am saying is that, like Lolita, to me Saezuru makes total sense if we assume that it is written with a realistic intention and therefore not exactly bound by the rules of romantic novels that tend to present more positive and idealized views. After all manga are divided into demographics more than their genre, so authors draw very different stories. I still want these characters to find happiness! But I also want to be able to buy the eventual resolution and therefore I appreciate that the development of the story feels organic.

Anyway just a thought. Nakobov himself wrote (in Strong Opinions):

Reality is a very subjective affair. I can only define it as a kind of gradual accumulation of information; and as specialization. If we take a lily, for instance, or any other kind of natural object, a lily is more real to a naturalist than it is to an ordinary person. But it is still more real to a botanist. And yet another stage of reality is reached with that botanist who is a specialist in lilies. You can get nearer and nearer, so to speak, to reality; but you never get near enough because reality is an infinite succession of steps, levels of perception, false bottoms, and hence unquenchable, unattainable. You can know more and more about one thing but you can never know everything about one thing: it’s hopeless. So that we live surrounded by more or less ghostly objects— that machine, there, for instance. It’s a complete ghost to me— I don’t understand a thing about it and, well, it’s a mystery to me, as much of a mystery as it would be to Lord Byron.

As for marketing, if you check the link and think about Saezuru: the covers and merchandise vs the content of the chapters, vs the story as it’s told, the parallel with Lolita makes sense to me. The cover only has one imperative: to sell. But once you are alone with the story, you see that stylistic choices, tone, everything suggest that you read it in a critical way.

The way Yoneda Kou draws is also quite sober, discarding decorative details and paying attention more to frame and pov. The way she presents what happens is objective and detached, neutral I’d say, making us impartial observers most of the time, letting the actions speak without commentary being made. The dialogue is hard for our translators because it recreates the speech patterns of the various characters faithfully. And these characters are common yakuza that live harsh realities, the gritty social aspect of it is visible and part of the story, as well as social injustices and personal trauma, and keen and realistic attention to human behavior.

I guess all this clued me in to reading the story the way I do, and probably also why I chose it in the first place. Realism is the genre of fiction I am more read in, although I am expanding my horizons more and more.

[kagoutiss]

*complaining for no reason again because i am bored* i need more ppl to know that these. are all the same person these are literally canonically all the exact same individual person im begging u

literally almost all the ganondorfs are the exact same individual and almost all the ganons are the exact same individual, almost all the ganondorfs & ganons are the same exact person just in different forms and circumstances. except for FSA and maybe whatever the fuck is going on with TotK ganondorf but i still think it’s weird that he still has golden eyes & rounded ears when even the gerudo in TotK’s ancient past dont, but anyway ashfjsbfjsn

[labyrinthofthestar]

da*2. is a game

[mostofthingsmostofthetime]

Hey THG fans thanks to somone else on here (I'm so sorry but I can't remember the name of your blog) I've kind of become obsessed with making book accurate (or as close as I can get) picrews of Hunger Games characters & now that I'm done with Katniss & Peeta I wanted to show you all some other characters I've been working on. This is my interpretation of Delly Cartwright.

At school

In free time

On Reaping Day

In District 13

[br1ghtestlight]

this is so funny to me actually bcuz this is 100% how i talk abt my characters ages. i know what YEAR they were born and i know what rheir ages are supposed to be at the start of the story but i dont actually know when it takes place?? im really bad at math. There was a moment where rainbow was supposed to be 23 and i somehow accidentally made her 17 lmfao

[solradguy]

Ky’s Mom is Asuka if I remember the ancient texts correctly /j

Lmfao you're so right. I am ashamed for forgetting such vital lore.... When Asuka R. Kreutz man-birthed Ky Kiske....

[leapdayowo]

giggling and kicking my feet when I realize x, y, and z from different stories I’ve experienced over my life influenced parts of a story I’m writing. Like yes, this concept from an author 40 years older than me clearly influenced how I write this character, or this world building element was loosely inspired from bits and pieces I’ve seen of a fandom I’m not in. It makes me happy that I can carry the legacy of those stories, thoughts, and moments and how wonderful it would be to encourage my (hypothetical) future audience to find these outside influences. That stories can be connected not because the worlds in them are necessarily connected, but that the people in this world can be connected and inspire each other

[totally-not-an-awkward-okapi]

Delighted to learn the comic cover I originally chose to parody for my dream girl was actually a parody of a much older cover with a much meaner subtitle.