#because it’s essentially a separate universe from the books at this point

[strawberrysapphocake]

my gender is literally just whatever Jackson & Jillson have going on…

[vhstown]

hi guys shower thoughts in word form what's new 💀

why miles g is the perfect foil to miles — a long post

disclaimer: i obviously do NOT know what will happen in btsv. some of this devolves into external information like from the art book (or even just my own headcanons). i am also not an analyst. this is not a proper analysis by any means. also quite rambly so bare with me 😭

also i will be referring to 1610!miles as miles and 42!miles as miles g.

just so we're sure: a foil in literature is defined as "a character who is presented as a contrast to a second character so as to point to or show to advantage some aspect of the second character" (via britannica)

essentially one character exposes the flaw(s) of another character (usually by being the opposite of said character)

i talked about miles' attachment to the superficial goal of "being Spider-Man" in a separate post (which is long n kind of irrelevant so im not linking it here) but essentially the point i want to bring back is that 1610 miles is obsessed with the idea and IDENTITY of being New York's Spider-Man and being a hero and that is the complete opposite to miles g, who is arguably the PERFECT foil — it's literally a parallel version of himself

but first a bit of ramble about the start of the movie under the cut! (open)

you can see it in the way miles falls perfectly into the typical witty, effortless and loved hero in the way he fights at the start of the movie. when he's fighting the spot you're thrown into this false sense of security that everything's going to be okay and it's just another "villain of the week" because that's what you expect of Spider-Man. he has his usual quips and carefree interactions with the spot and we have no idea that he's about to take apart the entire multiverse

the spot as a character is one of my favourite villains EVER because he directly challenges this notion of what it means to be Spider-Man — you always expect the good guys to win and when they lose again and again to the spot, that's when everything we know, and MILES knows, falls apart. the spot is a brutal exposition of how futile "heroism" as a concept is to the spiderverse.

as a character miles so badly wants to be in the spider society in the first place because he thinks that's where it's at — that's where he can finally BE a real spiderman and fit in

so when all of his beliefs are challenged and he's forced to fight to SURVIVE rather than to win that's the turning point of his character. in the grand scheme of things to put it lightly this whole "spiderman" identity is bull

and also id like to point out that hobie's line of "im not a hero, cause calling your self a hero makes you a self-mythologising narcissistic autocrat" is SUCH a gut-punch when you realise this. my boy KNEW but miles had to realise it for himself obviously so he pissed off when he had nothing else to add. I LOVE HOBIE BRO—

in my other post i talked about how he attributes his security to his home universe, family and friends and then that changes to wanting to be a part the spider society (so security in his identity), but when he's kicked out, his main goals focus around his home universe again — he needs to save his dad

putting him in earth 42 is the final sort of way for the movie to say "look at yourself miles" because to him, he can't give up that want to be spiderman so easily. a part of him hopes that he can just go back home and be spiderman like normal, that's why he tells his "mom" (earth 42 rio) that he's spiderman even though that probably won't help him at all — he is still stagnant in his old ways

and thats where miles g comes in — picture his exact universe but where's miles is the "villain" (to him at least, he doesn't know that the prowler is actually a vigilante)

to give you the basics, miles g has NO super powers, he's a vigilante who has to HIDE from the public, he's not "friendly" — nothing like miles' picture of spiderman. again, he fights to do good, but also for survival — the sinister six are attacking HIS neighbourhood and HIS home so HE has to do something about it

of course that's not to say that they're completely different. miles g has all his cool gear and aesthetics for a reason. maybe deep down he wants to be like the superheroes that he sees in comics (assuming hes anything like 1610 miles) and/or he wants to live up to, or exceed his uncle in being the prowler

but it's far less superficial than just that. he's been forced into this more practical and REAL mindset about what it means to be a "hero" from the start — and now 1610 miles is too

miles g doesn't necessarily have a greater sense of duty. he doesn't concern himself with miles' universe because it's HIS — ("our dad—" "your dad.") and thats the reality check that miles needs, at least in this moment, that he's alone and that he needs to get the HELL out of there and save his dad — not the multiverse.

of course this might be a point of character development for miles g he's obviously not a perfect character and has his own trauma and backwards beliefs to overcome but he's in many ways a product of his environment

it re-emphasises to miles the importance of saving his dad — protecting what he has left because he has nothing else (his only sense of security anymore). the multiverse is this far away thing now and i think this could be explored as a spiteful rejection in btsv which he has to overcome but im obviously not sure

the real kicker is that in this universe aaron davis is alive and jefferson is dead. looking at this from a wider perspective, in my very convoluted opinion, on a surface level, JEFFERSON represents "the hero" and AARON represents "the villain". this is arguably why aaron "has to die" in earth 1610, because "good always prevails" (which is very clearly MESSED UP, which miles is coming to realise more and more)

okay now hear me out. in the SAME WAY miles represents "the hero" and miles g represents "the villain" — but we obviously know that it's more nuanced than that

and the respective fates of aaron and jeff clearly show to miles that it is NOT that simple. it's not a matter of "good over evil" because if that was the case his father wouldn't be dead.

and obviously thematically this ties into expectations of the future generation and overcoming archaic beliefs and failures of the past and hope in youth and blah blah blah (i actually love this theme it is just not talked about enough unfortunately but this video by elliot sang is a beautiful exploration of it)

miles g and aaron are NOT evil — they're just as much heroic, but not necessarily "heroes". again, that's exposing how superficial the notion of being "spiderman" and "a hero" really is

and this is why hobie is so right about labels and— (MUFFLED SCREAMING)

going back to the spider society when miles says "i thought we were supposed to be the good guys" — this idea of being a hero is really just a front for the spider society's lucrative and cult-like behaviour. you're doing it because it's your duty as a hero, you're letting people die because that's what's supposed to happen, because it's for the "greater good" (when it was never really about that in the first place but miguel and his "spider-cult" is a whole other topic)

by the end of the film we start to realise all of these things at once and that's what across the spiderverse does SO WELL in my opinion

so why is miles g the perfect foil to miles? to summarise, miles g encapsulates (at the very least on a surface level) the complete opposite of what it means to be the hero "Spider-Man". his entire universe is a parallel to earth 1610, and to miles, miles g exposes the flaws in miles' view about what heroism truly is.

neither of them are perfect characters, and we're yet to see much about miles g, but miles' development as a character and the way it's explored in such a self-realising way as well as thematically throughout all of across the spiderverse is something i will always love about the movie

im so excited to see if they'll team up as well!!!! so much potential

urrrrr thank you for coming to my ted talk ANYWAYS I LOVE HOBIE BROW— (THE CROWD BOOS) (SEVERAL TOMATOES ARE THROWN)

as always let me know your thoughts id SO love to hear them ^^ this was just a shower thought i was literally shampooing my hair and was like hold on a minute.... so there's definitely things to be added! take care n cya <3

[themiracleofteddybearmanifestos]

I know I'm late to the party but I just watched Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe and I have a LOT of thoughts.

I think this was a terrible adaptation.

I think it was a beautifully produced and well acted movie, and maybe without having read the book it would have been fine, but no matter how hard I tried I couldn't separate it from its source material because some of the changes were just horrible.

I know you can't keep everything in, that's fine. You cut some things, you rearrange some stuff, you fit within your runtime. But why change some of the most crucial/beautiful moments? I have a long, long list of quotes that were either removed or just horribly altered/misplaced and it's so disappointing.

Getting rid of Mrs. Quintana grasping Ari's face and saying, "Aristotle Mendoza, I will love you forever" is so sad. Changing what Gina said, that Ari says is the "nicest thing you ever said to me" to be something totally mundane (essentially changed "you got hunkier" to "you look different") is just an odd choice. But changing the way Ari reacts to kissing Dante? That's horrible.

Ari was done horribly in this movie, I'm sorry. The actor did great and he was lovely in certain moments, but they took out what made him shine. I have a friend who said they didn't like the book because Dante deserved so much better, and I disagreed. Book Ari has moments where he's an asshole, but at his core he is a kind and loving boy who is grateful and appreciative. Film Ari is a sometimes sweet boy who is more often than not just rude.

I can understand some changes have to be made when adapting a first person POV novel, that's fair, but you can absolutely use body language and other visual cues to give insight. This is especially clear with Ari's dad, who in the book is understandably difficult for Ari to get along with. He's distant and intimidating and doesn't want to be open. But in the movie he just seems like a sad dad trying his best to talk to his teenage son, and Ari is completely rude and cold to him for no apparent reason! Film Ari does not thank or hug his parents when they give him a car. Film Ari does not say goodnight to his father or listen when his father wants to show him a painting. Idk exactly how that all plays out in the book since I forget a lot, but the important thing is that all we are shown is his father trying and Ari being rude in response. His motivation is unclear and his behavior is selfish.

Now, one of the biggest crimes is what happens in the truck after Dante and Ari kiss. First off, change of location from Dante's room to the truck ... Okay sure. But I have no idea how you can first off, totally alter this scene and omit a very important quote:

"I don’t kiss boys.” “Okay, so the first rule is: No trying to kiss Ari.”

"You have the harder rule? Buffalo shit... I, on the other hand, have to refrain from kissing the greatest guy in the universe—which is like walking barefoot on hot coals." (Pgs 256-257)

And then completely and entirely warp this scene:

So I closed my eyes.

And he kissed me. And I kissed him back.

And then he started really kissing me. And I pulled away.

"Well?" he said.

"Didn't work for me," I said.

"Nothing?"

"Nope."

"Okay. It sure worked for me."

"Yeah. I think I get that, Dante."

"So, well, that's over with then, huh?"

"Yeah."

"Are you mad at me?"

"A little."

He sat back down on his bed. He looked sad. I didn't like seeing him that way. "I'm more mad at myself," I said. "I always let you talk me into things. It's not your fault."

"Yeah," he whispered.

"Don't cry, okay?"

"Okay," he said.

"You're crying."

"I'm not."

"Okay."

"Okay." (Pgs. 263-264)

HOW do you turn that into Ari calling Dante disgusting and screaming at him to get the fuck out of his car??? That's the fucking breaking point for me, because Ari is a lot of things, but an outright aggressive homophobe is not one of them. Maybe I'm forgetting, and maybe something similar happens later and they just rearranged it. But I know for a FACT that Ari NEVER calls Dante disgusting. Never. Because the word disgusting appears once in this book and Gina says it to Ari. That's it, not a single other usage.

That's what broke it for me, even though I had a lot of issues with other parts (Ari not saying thank you about the truck, removing the shoe-throwing game, getting rid of so much important dialogue, etc.) THIS is the thing that was unacceptable because even when Ari was mad at Dante, he didn't hurt him. He didn't immediately go back on his loyalty he'd just sworn, to stay by Dante even though he's gay. He didn't scream at him or curse him.

But I also just couldn't stand how much of the beautiful writing was completely removed. I love that book because it's poetic and full of quips and oddities. Dante in the movie is cute and sweet, but the oddest thing shown about him is that he wears silly sunglasses. We're told he's weird, and get little glimpse of it, but the heart of Dante is not there. In the book he feels a little mystified and hard to fully grasp, but in the movie he's just... There. A shell, almost. He's still lovable, but he's not wholly Dante. It's like an afterimage of Dante, which is impressive because he was very personable in the movie, but that just shows how enchanting Dante is in the book. He's hard to pin down, but he's not hollow. I think a big issue was that a lot of the time, Dante seemed hurt by Ari. Genuinely disheartened, rather than laughing it off until he couldn't anymore, he was kind of just sad? I don't know. We had the bones of something beautiful with this movie, really, but they just didn't do it right.

Again, the loss of the poeticism and the changes to Ari are what hurt it the most. Movie Ari has very sweet moments where the book character shines through, but he takes himself too seriously in a way where it feels like we're supposed to as well. Ari is lame! He's an awkward teenager with a lot of angst because he's figuring things out and struggling to find his place in the universe, but movie Ari isn't that at all. He's just brooding and downright mean at times. His reactions to the things around him were so hollow and uncaring, and maybe that's how he looked from the outside, but again, this story was not told from the outside and completely loses it's effect when you can't tell what he's feeling or thinking because he just seems mad or disinterested. Not all the time, there were some incredible scenes. I loved him talking with his parents after he beat up Julian. I loved the final scene with the kiss. I think his reaction worked well when hearing about his aunt's girlfriend. But damnit that was lost to me the moment he called the most brilliant boy he'd ever met "disgusting."

Overall, I don't regret watching the movie and I loved some of the scenes and think the music and atmosphere were great. But I'm heartbroken over the fact that so much of the nuance was completely lost. Even if there was some nuance present in the movie, it was far, far less than in the book.

(Less structured bonus points because this rant was messy enough but I have more to say): Dante told him not to open the sketchbook until he was gone. In the movie Ari opened it right up and made a kind of rude comment. Next: so many important bonding moments were removed. Dante giving Ari a sponge bath and them visiting with each other every day Ari was in the hospital. The shoes were significantly played down to the point where the sentimentality of the little shoes was almost lost. Also: The letters were so entirely diminished. And: Ari's brother killed two people, not just the trans woman but also someone in jail. Bro I haven't read this book in multiple years and I'm able to recount this much, I don't even want to think about how glaringly off it all is when I've read the whole book to compare. (If any of my points were wrong, I blame this. But I'm pretty sure most of them are right.)

I loved the end of the movie tho lol I'm always a sucker for a sweet scene and Dante's actor killed it with the eye acting in that scene, the emotions were palpable.

[longitudinalwaveme]

I Diagnose Basically Every Flash Villain

For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to organize the Flash villains by symptom type.

Dissociative Identity Disorder (commonly referred to as Multiple Personality Disorder)

Rose and Thorn: Rose Canton, has two alters, the mild-mannered Rose and the villainous Thorn. Since she is a Golden Age character, we know relatively little about her life experiences prior to becoming Rose and Thorn, so it's impossible to say if her Dissociative Identity Disorder stems from childhood trauma (as it often does in real life). The fact that most of her appearances are in Golden Age comics that I haven't personally read means that I'm also not certain how her alters presented themselves, though from what little I know of the character, it doesn't appear that either of her alters was unaware of the other. Nor did either of her personalities appear to experience amnesia during the period when the other was in control (though this is not a diagnostic trait of the disorder). It seems likely that the Rose personality was the original one, and that the Thorn personality developed later, and it is also clear that Rose was very distressed by the actions of her alter---so much so that she would ultimately commit suicide in order to prevent Thorn form harming her children, Jade and Obsidian. I am also not sure if her alters are able to "talk" to one another like Harvey Dent and Two-Face can, although what little I have read of her seems to suggest that they are not able to do this.

Mr. Element/Dr. Alchemy: Albert Desmond has three alters: Albert Desmond, Mr. Element, and Dr. Alchemy. According to Flash vol. 1 #216 ("The Curse of the Dragon's Eye!"), neither Dr. Alchemy nor Mr. Element manifested until Albert turned twenty, meaning that Albert is undoubtedly the original personality. The two malevolent alters emerged as a response to what I can only assume were chemical alterations in Albert's brain, produced by his body's sensitivity to the fluctuations of a distant, pulsating star. This is ridiculous, of course, but if we accept the rules of comic book physics, I suppose it's not too unreasonable to assume that the pulsating star could have affected his brain in such a way that it produced the symptoms of DID.

Albert's situation is also further complicated by the second Dr. Alchemy, Alvin Desmond, who was initially stated to be Albert's astral twin, but was later revealed to be Albert's darker impulses, given life and independence by the Philosopher's Stone. This obviously has no real-world parallel, but, again accepting the bizarre physics of the DC universe, it wouldn't be totally illogical to surmise that Alvin is one of Albert's alters (given their relative behavior, probably Mr. Element) given physical form.

In addition to not having its roots in childhood trauma, it is apparent that Albert does not have dissociative amnesia when his alters come to the fore; instead, he is usually presented as essentially watching in conscious horror as his alters run amuck. It is less clear to me what Dr. Alchemy and Mr. Element remember of the periods during which Albert is in control. Mr. Element treats Rita Desmond, Albert's wife, like his wife (he reacts angrily when he sees Barry Allen alone with her in Flash vol. 1 #216), but Dr. Alchemy either does not view himself as sharing this relationship to Rita or is so evil that he doesn't care if he hurts his wife, since he abandons her to die in Flash vol. 2 #230 ("The Fury of the Fire Demon!"---Barry saved her life).

Whichever alter was given physical form as Alvin clearly displayed signs of dissociative amnesia once he was given his own body, because, while Alvin is aware that he shares some sort of relationship with Albert, he believes himself to be an entirely separate person (which, at this point, he actually is!), rather than as Albert's alter.

Except when Alvin was literally an entirely separate individual, Albert's alters did not display the ability to "talk" to one another. This is something that some individuals with DID report experiencing in real life, and it is also found in Harvey Dent/Two-Face, but this was not a symptom that Albert displayed. Unlike Two-Face, in other words, the alters are never fronting at the same time.

That being said, Dr. Alchemy has displayed very few signs of Dissociative Identity Disorder in the past few years. Rather than two (or more) personalities fighting for control, there seems to be only one personality; one who could be classified as having Antisocial Personality Disorder. I suppose that it isn't outside the realm of possibility that the Dr. Alchemy we've seen from Geoff Johns' run onward is the Dr. Alchemy alter having taken full control over the shared body, and that the Albert alter is locked somewhere inside his mind, but since there's no indication of a struggle between personalities, it seems more likely to me that Geoff Johns was simply intending to retcon the character into a man with Antisocial Personality Disorder, but without DID.

Magenta: This is another case of two alters. The original personality, Frances Kane, suffered serious trauma when her brother and father were killed in a car crash, one that was the result of her powers kicking in for the very first time; trauma that was only compounded when her mother decided that she was possessed by the devil and disowned her. Wally West, who started dating her not long after the Teen Titans helped get her wild magnetic powers under control, further complicated things for Frances. Both Wally and Frances were suffering from both mental illness and the pressures of being a hero, and, as a result of this, their relationship was tumultuous and ended badly not long after Wally became the Flash.

While Frances' initial symptomology wasn't explored in great detail, it seemed that she subsequently struggled with PTSD-like symptoms as the result of the aforementioned trauma, and, as such, her teammates suggested that she get therapy. This sounds like a good idea, but unfortunately, the therapist that she ended up going to was evil, and used Frances' pre-existing symptoms to induce an alternate personality. The therapist then manipulated this new, more aggressive personality to commit crimes for her until Frances was rescued from this disgrace to the psychiatric profession by her fellow Teen Titans.

Unfortunately, the induced secondary personality didn't go away, and would continue to plague Frances and Wally for a long time---though as of 2016, Frances does seem to be in reasonably good mental health.

Frances is unique amongst the three villains with DID in that, while she had pre-existing trauma, her alter was iatrogenic rather than naturally-occurring. Dissociative Identity Disorder often comes under fire in real life for being a condition that it is easy for psychologists to intentionally or, more commonly, unintentionally induce in patients, so it actually is realistic for Magneta's DID to have been induced by a psychologist.

Neither Magenta nor Frances appears to suffer from dissociative amnesia when the other personality is fronting. They seem to share all of the same memories (especially where Wally is concerned); they simply interpret and react to those memories differently.

Magenta and Frances also do not appear to "talk" to one another; they do not co-front.

With all that being said, it is important to note that while basically all cases of Dissociative Identity Disorder in comics involve a "good" personality and an "evil" personality, this is not what one typically sees in real life. This makes it very difficult to figure out if the "good" alters would be found not guilty by reason of insanity in real life. In comic book terms, I have no doubt that all three of them would be sent to Arkham if they lived in Gotham, since comic book insanity has a very loose relationship with real insanity, but I'm actually not sure how cases like these would work in real life, since I'm not even sure if cases like these would be psychologically possible in real life. I will, however, say that they would probably be more likely to be found not guilty by reason of insanity than most versions of Two-Face, due to the fact that Harvey Dent and Two-Face sometimes co-front and argue with one another. This indicates that Harvey Dent could, theoretically, stop Two-Face's actions, and is therefore legally responsible for not doing so. In contrast, Albert, Frances, and Rose do not co-front with their malicious alter egos, and, in the cases of Albert and Frances at least, they immediately put a stop to any criminal activity the second they regain control of the shared body. Because the "good" alters are either fully in control or fully submerged, there's less sense that they share culpability for the actions of the evil alter(s)-especially since there are currently no drugs that exist to treat the main symptom of Dissociative Identity Disorder (namely, the existence of alters), and we know Frances at least seeks out therapy pretty regularly in spite of her very bad initial experience with psychiatry.

Psychotic Symptoms

Murmur (Dr. Michael Christian Amar): Murmur's exact diagnosis is never specified, but given what we're told of his symptoms (auditory hallucinations which instructed him to murder people and cut out their tongues in order to make them quiet; killing at least twelve and possibly up to fifty people; cutting out his own tongue after a nervous tic caused him to incriminate himself on the stand) strongly implies that he's supposed to have Schizophrenia (since most writers aren't aware of the fact that Schizophrenia is not the only mental illness that can include psychotic symptoms). The nervous tic could be another psychotic symptom, but it could also be evidence of a tic disorder, like Tourette's; it's quite common for a person with one mental illness to have more than one. (For example, I have both Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Social Anxiety Disorder.) And, of course, given the sheer number of people Murmur killed, it's very likely that he would also be diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder, especially since he displays no remorse over any of the deaths.

If Murmur was in Gotham, he would definitely be sent to Arkham Asylum, since the only prerequisite to being declared insane in Gotham appears to be displaying a flagrant symptom of a mental illness, but in Central City, he was not declared insane---and that's actually almost assuredly what would happen in real life, as well. While it is possible that he could be declared not guilty under the "irresistible impulse" definition of insanity, most court systems in the United States currently use a variation of the "M'Naghten rule", which defines insanity as a person who is so impaired by their mental illness that they were unaware that what they were doing would constitute a crime. For example, a person with schizophrenia hallucinated that their next-door neighbor was about to stab them with a knife, and then killed that person in what they honestly believed to be self-defense, would probably be found not guilty by reason of insanity under this definition, but someone like Murmur, who murdered people because hallucinatory voices told him to shut them up, would probably not be considered legally insane. In effect, the law treats a person who kills someone because hallucinatory voices told them to in the same way it would treat a person who killed someone because their drinking buddy told them to: in both cases, they knew that they were breaking the law by murdering the person, and they did it anyway.

Depending on how psychotic Murmur was while committing his crimes, he might also be declared guilty but mentally ill, which would basically mean that he would be sent to a mental institution until such time as he was no longer psychotic, and would then be transferred to a regular penal institution to serve out the rest of his sentence. Either way, though, as Barry Allen said in The Flash: Iron Heights (2001), "A "nervous tic" [or a hallucinatory voice, for that matter] doesn't force someone to cut people's tongues out, Mr. Cossi. It doesn't make them insane---or absolve them of their actions." So uh....yeah. Congratulations to Central City's justice system for knowing the actual definition of insanity.

Pied Piper (Hartley Rathaway): Towards the end of Barry Allen's run, the Pied Piper ran a fairly extensive campaign to ruin his foe's life----but, as his scheme went on, it became increasingly apparent that he wasn't emotionally stable. He was very agitated and on edge, and, when his plans ultimately failed, he had a full-on mental breakdown. He openly hallucinated, engaged in behavior that was very unusual for him, and seemed to display some degree of avolition and disorganized speech as well. In other words, he experienced a psychotic episode, and, unsurprisingly, the comic itself stated that he was suffering from "a classic case of borderline schizophrenia" (Flash vol. 1 #339, "Warday!"). This is a term that was once used to describe the combination of borderline personality disorder and schizophrenia, and, since the comic in question was published in the 1980s, it isn't surprising that it would use outdated terminology.

In effect, then, the comic is telling us that Pied Piper suffers from schizophrenia and borderline personality disorder.

According to the DSM-5, the diagnostic criteria for borderline personality disorder include at least five of the following symptoms:

Frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment; this does not include suicidal or self-mutilating behavior covered in criterion 5

A pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and devaluation

Markedly and persistently unstable self-image or sense of self

Impulsivity in at least two areas that are potentially self-damaging (eg, spending, sex, substance abuse, reckless driving, binge eating) [5] ; this does not include suicidal or self-mutilating behavior covered in criterion 5

Recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, or threats, or self-mutilating behavior

Affective instability due to a marked reactivity of mood (eg, intense episodic dysphoria, irritability, or anxiety usually lasting a few hours and only rarely more than a few days)

Chronic feelings of emptiness

Inappropriate, intense anger or difficulty controlling anger (eg, frequent displays of temper, constant anger, or recurrent physical fights)

Transient, stress-related paranoid ideation or severe dissociative symptoms

And...yeah, that actually does sound a lot like the Pied Piper, especially prior to his reform. And, since the treatment Piper received for his nervous breakdown was, ultimately, successful in curing him of his psychotic episode, maybe it helped him to deal with some of his broader symptoms of borderline personality disorder as well, and that's part of why he became nicer and chose to reform around the time Wally became the Flash.

However, I don't think the schizophrenia diagnosis is applicable in this case. While schizophrenia is the most well-known psychotic disorder, it isn't the only one that can induce psychotic symptoms, and it's rare for a person with schizophrenia to experience only one psychotic episode. Since the Pied Piper's breakdown was brief and appeared to be the result of stress, and he didn't seem to display any residual symptoms after he recovered (at least after the initial Kadabra-impersonating-Reverse-Flash-induced relapse), I think it's more likely that Pied Piper was suffering from a different psychotic disorder---perhaps Brief Psychotic Disorder---or from a mood disorder accompanied by psychotic symptoms.

That being said, after Pied Piper went through the trauma conga line of having his parents murdered, being hypnotized into believing he was responsible, being sent to prison, getting abused by the warden, going on the run, joining the FBI, having the Top mess with his mind, going undercover on a mission that went disastrously wrong and resulted in the death of Bart Allen, being chased all over the DCU by everyone, watching the Trickster get shot in front of him, and then having to drag the Trickster's corpse around a desert, he understandably had another psychotic episode and started to hallucinate that the Trickster's dead body was talking to him. But once again, the psychotic episode seemed to be pretty brief, and he was somehow able to recover without many noticeable residual symptoms---which, again, seems to point away from Schizophrenia. Again, I do think he has either some kind of psychotic disorder or a mood disorder with psychotic symptoms in addition to the BPD, but I don't think it's Schizophrenia.

So, would the Pied Piper have been sent to Arkham before he reformed? It's hard to say. Just wearing a costume isn't sufficient to get you sent to Arkham (Catwoman and Black Mask aren't sent there), but I can't rule it out as a possibility even before his initial psychotic episode, especially given how emotionally unstable he was as a villain---and, since Gotham either has a completely different set of standards for insanity or is just so corrupt that all the costumed criminals can bribe the courts to get them declared insane, that emotional instability might have been enough.

In the story from the 1980s, it appears that Pied Piper was probably deemed incompetent to stand trial, since he was sent to a psychiatric hospital immediately upon his arrest. Presumably, he was tried for the crimes he had committed in the period leading up to his mental breakdown after he had recovered, though this was never directly stated anywhere due to the chaos surrounding Crisis on Infinite Earths. This is all reasonably consistent with what we might expect in real life. His second mental breakdown came after he had reformed, and as such there wouldn't really be a need for a trial in that case (since presumably the FBI had him legally cleared for breaking prison when they hired him).

The Top (Roscoe Dillon): Roscoe Dillon suffered from a very long period of psychosis, one which lasted from Flash vol. 2 #121 to Flash vol. 2 #216. The psychotic break was heavily suggested to be the result of trauma, but, thanks to retcons, there are two contradictory explanations for what the initial trauma was. When Roscoe's psychotic break initially happened, it was clearly implied that he had gone insane as the result of being attacked by the soulless bodies of the Rogues who had died in Underworld Unleashed, but, in Flash vol. 2 #215, Geoff Johns retconned things so that Dillon had been psychotic since before Barry Allen died in Crisis on Infinite Earths, and that he his psychotic break had occurred as a direct result of Zatanna brainwashing him into being good. Notably, when Wally has Zatanna "fix" the brainwashing, Roscoe is immediately presented as being sane again.

In terms of symptomology, Roscoe displayed signs of hallucinations, delusions, strange behavior (in spite of usually being rather fastidious, he seemed unable to maintain basic hygiene during the course of his long psychotic episode) and disorganized speech. There's no doubt that he was suffering from psychosis, but, as underlined previously, that doesn't automatically equate to schizophrenia, which means we need to look at the context clues in order to determine what the most likely diagnosis would be.

Schizophrenia is, of course, a possibility. Unlike the Pied Piper, whose psychotic episodes were both relatively brief, the Top's psychosis lasted for what seemed to be at least a few in-universe years. That being said, the rather rapid onset of his psychosis and his seemingly immediate and complete recovery upon being un-brainwashed would both be somewhat unusual in schizophrenia, and, while his psychotic episode was very long, there isn't really any evidence of him having had any previous---or subsequent--- psychotic episodes. Of course, it's quite likely that Geoff Johns was intending for the Top to have schizophrenia (since that's the only psychotic disorder most writers know about) and just didn't realize that the symptoms he was having the character present weren't especially consistent with it, but in the spirit of the initial post, I will take the symptoms as signs that might indicate a disorder other than schizophrenia (other than the ubiquitous diagnosis of "comic book crazy", which is probably the true diagnosis of most comic book characters with a mental illness).

And if I had to diagnosis The Top with a specific mental illness (other than Antisocial Personality Disorder, which wouldn't explain his psychotic episode), it would probably be Bipolar 1 Disorder, and my reasoning for this is primarily based on his very first appearance, in Flash vol. 1 #122 ("Beware the Atomic Grenade!"). In order to be diagnosed with Bipolar 1 disorder, a person must experience at least one manic episode---and, while it was absolutely not the author's intent, the behavior the Top displays in that issue is surprisingly consistent with the behavior one might expect in a manic episode. He displays an unusually elevated mood (he's much more giggly and unrelentingly cheerful in his first issue than he is in all his subsequent appearances, and he doesn't even seem upset when the Flash carts him off to jail), he displays mood-congruent delusions of grandeur (deciding that succeeding in a few robberies means that he'll definitely be able to take over the world, and also apparently believing that he can blow up half the world and be safe on the other side), he seems to display at least some flight of ideas, he seems unusually driven even by supervillain standards ("One coup after another! Can't slow down while I'm at the top of my form!"), he's extremely talkative (admittedly, the Top does like the sound of his own voice, but talking to himself for like a full page is a bit much even for him), and his attempt to take over the world is much riskier than any crime he commits after this initial appearance, suggesting a degree of impaired judgement.

Again, this was not intentional on the part of the writer, but if we take his first appearance as as The Top having a manic episode, then Roscoe's subsequent psychotic break could in turn be attributed to another mood episode, this one with psychotic features. More specifically, since his psychotic break was the result of trauma of some sort, I would hypothesize that it was either a depressive or mixed-mood episode with psychotic features.

Would the Top be sent to Arkham if he were in Gotham? Absolutely. He's clearly mentally ill, and that's all you need to be declared insane in Gotham. In the real world, he would almost assuredly not be declared insane, since his mental illness doesn't impair his judgement to the extent that he doesn't realize he's committing crimes---and, indeed, since we saw him in the state prison, and then in Iron Heights, it's clear that he wasn't declared insane in Central City either.

That being said, I am somewhat surprised that he was found competent to stand trial after Flash vol. 1 #121, since he was very obviously both psychotic and incoherent when he was arrested, and didn't seem to be any more put together when we next saw him in Iron Heights.

Zoom (Hunter Zolomon): Hunter Zolomon has had a ton of trauma in his life. He grew up with parents who barely ever spoke to him, on the day he was going to leave home for college, his father murdered his mother and was then killed by the police (and he also learned that his father was a serial killer), and, as the result of making a bad call while on a case for the FBI, he was shot in the knee and his father-in-law was killed in front of him. And then, to top it all off, his wife divorced him and he was fired from the FBI. In short, while it wasn't explicitly shown before he became Zoom, I'm pretty sure that Hunter was at least dealing with some PTSD-like symptoms before he even moved to the Twin Cities; and, while I'm not sure he was clinically depressed, he definitely seemed to have some depressive symptoms.

Then, as if all that wasn't enough, he was eventually attacked by Gorilla Grodd, who broke his back and left him paralyzed from the waist down, and when he asked his friend Wally West to go back in time and fix things for him, Wally refused (understandably, but it was still clearly a blow to Hunter) . And if that STILL wasn't enough, when he broke into the Flash Museum to try to use the Cosmic Treadmill himself, it blew up in his face and he ended up in the hospital again.

In addition to the never-ending trauma, Flash vol. 2 #197 also seem to indicate that the time powers Hunter gained as a result of the Cosmic Treadmill exploding in his face negatively affected his mind.

As such, it isn't especially surprising that Hunter started displaying symptoms of psychosis, including delusions and hallucinations (which seemed to draw on PTSD-like flashbacks). Again, there are a number of diagnoses that could be responsible for this psychotic episode, but I would say that the most likely is Major Depressive Disorder with psychotic features. In addition to the depressive symptoms he displayed both throughout his life and more prominently after Grodd broke his back, there's also a distinct suicidal undertone to his attacks on Wally, since his idea of making Wally a "better hero" pretty explicitly includes getting Wally to kill him.

If Zoom was in Gotham, he would be sentenced to Arkham Asylum. Once again, he's clearly mentally ill, and in Gotham, that's all you need to be declared insane. On the other hand, I'm genuinely not sure if he would be able to successfully plead insanity in the real world. While he seems to be aware of the fact that he's committing crimes on some level, his delusional belief that he is "helping" Wally is so strong that it really does seem like there might be a genuine question as to whether he recognizes that his acts are objectionable---though him being found guilty but mentally ill might still be more likely. Although given how openly psychotic he is---and appears to remain---I think that he might be found incompetent to stand trial altogether.

Pyromania (and Cryophobia)

Heat Wave (Mick Rory): The classic version of Heat Wave would be diagnosed with a simple phobia---specifically, cryophobia, a fear of the cold that's so overwhelming it negatively impacts your day-to-day life. As with many phobias, Mick's fear of the cold stems from a traumatic childhood experience; specifically, when he was nine years old, he accidentally closed himself inside of a meat locker and nearly froze to death before he managed to get out. This, obviously, would not get him declared insane, even in Gotham. Probably.

However, when Geoff Johns elaborated on Heat Wave's backstory in Flash vol. 2 #218, he established/retconned in that Heat Wave also suffers from pyromania, a much more severe mental illness.

According to the DSM-5, the criteria for being diagnosed with pyromania are as follows:

The person deliberately and purposefully sets fires on more than one occasion.

He or she experiences tension or affective arousal before the act.

The individual has a fascination with or attraction to fire.

He or she feels pleasure, gratification, or relief when setting fires, witnessing fires, or participating in their aftermath.

The fire setting is not done for monetary gain, as an expression of sociopolitical ideology or anger, to conceal criminal activity, to improve one’s living circumstances, in response to a delusion or hallucination, or as a result of impaired judgment.

The fire setting is not better or reasonably explained by a manic episode or other disorder.

Johns' Mick displays every single one of these symptoms; he is, in fact, a textbook pyromaniac. This would, naturally, be sufficient to send him to Arkham (Firefly is one of the patients there, after all), but it would probably not be enough to get him declared insane in real life, unless he was tried in a jurisdiction that used the "irresistible impulse" definition of insanity. He might be declared guilty but mentally ill, though.

Substance Abuse

A lot of the Rogues have been shown drinking alcohol or smoking, but there's really only three villains where I think there's sufficient evidence to suggest that they actually have a substance abuse disorder.

Captain Boomerang: According to the DSM-5, in order for an individual to qualify for a diagnosis of alcohol abuse disorder, at least two of the following symptoms must be met:

Drinking more alcohol or over a longer period than originally intended.

Unsuccessfully trying to cut down or control alcohol use.

Craving, or a strong desire or urge to use alcohol. (Wanting a drink so much it’s difficult to think of anything else)

Drinking that interferes with responsibilities at home, at work, or at school.

Continuing to use alcohol even when it causes problems with family and friends.

Giving up important social, occupational, or recreational activities because of alcohol use.

Repeatedly using alcohol in physically hazardous situations.

Developing a tolerance to alcohol (needing more alcohol to get the same effect).

Experiencing withdrawal symptoms such as shakiness, restlessness, nausea, or sweating after stopping or reducing drinking.

Given how often Digger is shown drinking or getting drunk, I think it's fair to say that he qualified for the diagnosis.

During Ostrander's Suicide Squad run, Digger was also identified as having Antisocial Personality Disorder; specifically, he was described as a low-functioning sociopath. Given the behavior Digger regularly displays, I think that diagnosis is quite accurate.

Obviously, though, antisocial personality disorder and alcohol abuse disorder are not enough to get someone declared not guilty by reason of insanity, not even in Gotham. Even if he decided to move to Gotham, Digger wouldn't have to worry about Arkham Asylum.

Mirror Master I (Samuel Scudder): In order to be diagnosed with Tobacco Use Disorder, an individual must display at least two of the following 12 symptoms within a 12-month period:

Tobacco is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended.

There is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control tobacco use.

A great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain or use tobacco.

Craving, or a strong desire or urge to use tobacco.

Recurrent tobacco use resulting in a failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, or home (e.g. - interference with work).

Continued tobacco use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of tobacco (e.g. - arguments with others about tobacco use).

Important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of tobacco use.

Recurrent tobacco use in situations in which it is physically hazardous (e.g. - smoking in bed).

Tobacco use is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by tobacco.

Tolerance, as defined by either of the following:

A. A need for markedly increased amounts of tobacco to achieve the desired effect.

B. A markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of tobacco.

Withdrawal, as manifested by either of the following:

A. The characteristic withdrawal syndrome for tobacco (refer to Criteria A and B of the criteria set for tobacco withdrawal).

B. Tobacco (or a closely related substance, such as nicotine) is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms.

Given that Flash vol. 1 #146 establishes that Sam smokes four cigarettes an hour, and the fact that he was shown smoking more than any other Flash villain, I think that it's safe to say he qualifies for this diagnosis.

There's also a good case to be made that Scudder has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. In order to be diagnosed with NPD, an individual must display at least 5 of the 9 following symptoms:

a grandiose sense of self-importance

a preoccupation with fantasies of success, power, beauty, or perfect love

a belief that they are "special" and can only be understood by other special people

a need for excessive admiration

a sense of entitlement, which may include an unreasonable expectation to be treated favorably or for others to comply with their demands and expectations

behavior that is exploitative and takes advantage of others to achieve their own ends

a lack of empathy or an unwillingness to identify with the needs of others

a tendency to be envious of others or a belief that others are envious of them

arrogance, haughty behaviors, and attitudes.

Scudder's pretty much 9 for 9 here. Who would have guessed that a guy who named himself "Mirror Master" would be a narcissist?

Neither NPD nor a cigarette addiction would be sufficient to have someone declared insane in the real world, but, given the precedent set by the Riddler....NPD might be enough in Gotham. Granted, Riddler is sometimes also portrayed as having OCD, and thus an irresistible impulse to leave clues, but still.....

Mirror Master II (Evan McCulloch): Famously, Evan McCulloch is addicted to cocaine. Since cocaine is a stimulant, that would mean that he would be diagnosed with stimulant use disorder.

That being said, McCulloch's issues extend far beyond the cocaine addiction, and, in many ways, the addiction seems to be just another symptom of a larger problem.

As established in Flash vol. 2 #212, Evan has lived through a lot of traumatic experiences, including accidentally killing his father, finding his mother dead from suicide, and being sexually assaulted by an older boy in the orphanage where he grew up (before killing that kid in self-defense). That, naturally, raises the possibility of a diagnosis of PTSD, the criteria for which are as follows:

Criterion A (1 required): The person was exposed to: death, threatened death, actual or threatened serious injury, or actual or threatened sexual violence, in the following way(s):

Direct exposure

Witnessing the trauma

Learning that the trauma happened to a close relative or close friend

Indirect exposure to aversive details of the trauma, usually in the course of professional duties (e.g., first responders, medics)

Criterion B (1 required): The traumatic event is persistently re-experienced, in the following way(s):

Unwanted upsetting memories

Nightmares

Flashbacks

Emotional distress after exposure to traumatic reminders

Physical reactivity after exposure to traumatic reminders

Criterion C (1 required): Avoidance of trauma-related stimuli after the trauma, in the following way(s):

Trauma-related thoughts or feelings

Trauma-related reminders

Criterion D (2 required): Negative thoughts or feelings that began or worsened after the trauma, in the following way(s):

Inability to recall key features of the trauma

Overly negative thoughts and assumptions about oneself or the world

Exaggerated blame of self or others for causing the trauma

Negative affect

Decreased interest in activities

Feeling isolated

Difficulty experiencing positive affect

Criterion E (2 required): Trauma-related arousal and reactivity that began or worsened after the trauma, in the following way(s):

Irritability or aggression

Risky or destructive behavior

Hypervigilance

Heightened startle reaction

Difficulty concentrating

Difficulty sleeping

Criterion F (required): Symptoms last for more than 1 month.

Criterion G (required): Symptoms create distress or functional impairment (e.g., social, occupational).

Criterion H (required): Symptoms are not due to medication, substance use or other illness.

More specifically, Evan's PTSD appears to be of the dissociative variety, since he does seem to display signs of what's known as derealization (persistent or recurrent experiences of unreality of surroundings, e.g., the world around the individual is experienced as unreal, dreamlike, distant, or distorted) even when he's not actively using cocaine.

In addition to the cocaine use and PTSD, there's also an argument to be made for McCulloch having Antisocial Personality Disorder.

I'm pretty sure McCulloch would be sent to Arkham Asylum if he lived in Gotham, more due to the PTSD and associated dissociation than the cocaine use, but I don't think he'd be declared insane in real life. Maybe he might be declared guilty but mentally ill if he was in one of his particularly weird phases, but he's way too cognizant of his actions to be considered legally insane.

Dissociative Disorder

Professor Zoom the Reverse-Flash (Eobard Thawne): In addition to the really, very, extremely obvious Antisocial Personality Disorder, I think that Eobard Thawne has experienced at least two dissociative episodes in his life. Specifically, during the Return of Barry Allen storyline, when a young Eobard Thawne traveled through time to visit Barry Allen, the stresses of time travel, combined with the shock that learning that he was the Reverse-Flash and that his idol would one day kill him, Eobard entered a state of dissociative fugue, losing his memories of his past life and then taking on the name and identity of Barry Allen. His memories eventually returned when Wally West confronted him with his Reverse-Flash costume, but when he subsequently returned back to his native time after being soundly thrashed by Wally, the stress of time travel induced partial dissociative amnesia; he completely forgot about his first trip to the past and would never remember it.

Eobard is also a creepy, obsessive stalker to both Barry and Iris Allen, but to a large extent that's probably attributable to his ASPD.

In the real world, dissociative amnesia of the sort Eobard displayed, where he still clearly has the memories of all of his most heinous crimes, would not be at all sufficient to get someone declared legally insane, and, of course, neither would ASPD. That being said, given the way that Gotham treats the Joker, and the similarities between Eobard and the Joker, I have this horrible feeling that Gotham would totally send Eobard to Arkham.

Personality Disorders

Personality Disorders alone are not sufficient to get someone declared legally insane in real life, but since Gotham's legal system seems to operate under its own totally unrelated definition of insanity, I unfortunately have to go through all the characters with personality disorders anyway.

Blacksmith (Amunet Black): Blacksmith has Antisocial Personality Disorder, but Gotham wouldn't send her to Arkham. She's a lot like the Penguin, and he never gets sent to Arkham.

Gorilla Grodd: Grodd also has Antisocial Personality Disorder, and if he was in Gotham and for some reason couldn't be extradited back to Gorilla City, he'd probably end up getting sent to Arkham under the "Clayface/Mr. Freeze" rule, which states that Arkham is apparently the only penal facility in Gotham capable of housing the more physically abnormal inmates.

Abra Kadabra: Abra Kadabra definitely has Narcissistic Personality Disorder; he's even more of a showboat than Sam Scudder. I get the feeling that he'd probably end up in Arkham because of his flamboyance and obsessive need for applause.

Girder: ASPD. He'd end up in Arkham under the "Clayface/Mr. Freeze" rule.

Golden Glider: I think a case can be made for Golden Glider having Paranoid Personality Disorder. In order to be a diagnosed with PPD, an individual must display at least four of the following symptoms:

Suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming, or deceiving them.

Is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates.

Is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear that the information will be used maliciously against them.

Reads hidden demeaning or threatening meanings into benign remarks or events.

Bears grudges persistently, being unforgiving of insults, injuries, or slights. 

Perceives attacks on their character or reputation that are not apparent to others and quickly reacts angrily or counterattacks. 

Has recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding fidelity of spouse or sexual partner.

Does not occur exclusively during the course of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depressive disorder with psychotic features, or another psychotic disorder, and is not attributable to the physiological effects of another medical condition. 

Golden Glider became a supervillain specifically to get revenge on Barry Allen for the death of the Top, so she certainly meets the "bearing grudges" criteria. In Flash vol. 1 #261-264, she reacts angrily to being administered a psychological evaluation and treats it as a personal attack, which would seem to meet a few of the diagnostic criteria, and she certainly reacts violently to any perceived threats. Furthermore, in Flash vol. 2 Annual #1, Golden Glider accuses Captain Boomerang, Weather Wizard, and Trickster of having blown the whistle on her without any apparent evidence, and in her debut issues, Flash vol. 1 #250-251, we also saw that she was willing to pre-emptively knock out her brother and leave him to the police in order to ensure that he wouldn't try to interfere with her revenge plans. This, combined with her experiences as a child with an abusive father, a frequently-absent mother, and a brother who ultimately left her alone with her father, makes for a pretty good argument for at least some level of paranoia.

Would Golden Glider be sent to Arkham? I'm inclined to say yes, if only because the sheer intensity of her rage. Which, given her reaction to the proposed psychological tests, would probably just make her even angrier.

The Character With No Clear Mental Illness Who Would be Sent to Iron Heights Purely on the Basis of the "Clayface/Mr. Freeze Rule"

Tarpit (Joey Monteleone): Joey doesn't seem to have any mental illnesses as such, but the fact that he's a giant flaming tar monster means that he'd probably get sent to Arkham by default if he lived in Gotham.

Characters I'm Pretty Sure Wouldn't Be Sent to Arkham

Captain Cold (Leonard Snart): Len doesn't have any clear mental illnesses at all (maaaybe you could make an argument for PTSD or alcohol abuse, but that seems like a stretch), and he's so pragmatic that even Gotham would send him to Blackgate with no questions asked.

Weather Wizard (Mark Mardon): He's moody, and does seem to have occasional flashbacks to his brother's death, but there's nothing in particular that I can pinpoint for him. He doesn't really get as much focus as you would expect. And he's not quite weird or flamboyant enough to get sent to Arkham.

Trickster I (James Jesse): Unlike his television adaptations, James is neither psychotic (as in the DCAU) or psychopathic (as in the 90s show and the CW show). Weirdly, he might still get sent to Arkham anyway, if only because of how much he plays up the wacky screwball angle and how bad Gotham is at understanding mental health.

Trickster II (Axel Walker): There's a definite argument to be made for Conduct Disorder, but Axel's effectively just a teenaged punk. Even Gotham wouldn't send him to Arkham. Probably. I hope.

Gotham seems convinced that anyone with a clown theme is insane, though, so who knows.

Peek-a-Boo (Lashawn Baez): Arguably some trauma and depressive symptoms, especially after she was abused at Iron Heights and her father died, but nothing that would get her sent to Arkham.

Fallout (Neil Borman): Again, I can't rule out PTSD or depressive symptoms, given the horrible way his family died and the equally horrible way Warden Wolfe used him to power Iron Heights, but he doesn't do anything sufficiently weird or violent for him to get sent to Arkham.

[fandomlurker333]

My Argument for Homosexual but Panromantic Art and Aromantic but (Something)sexual Tashi

@seek--rest I AM SO SORRY BECAUSE THIS IS A BOOK. That's why I didn't put it in your asks, so I could put it under a cut.

Okay, so I think it should be acknowledged before I get into my thinky thoughts that art is up to interpretation and I am not really trying to convince anyone of my perspective. There's a certain amount of bias that anyone comes into any experience with and it's going to color their perception no matter what. And that bias could be anything.

It could be the experience of having been cheated on and really loathing any kind of infidelity, emotional, sexual or otherwise. It could be being queer and therefore more fluent in queer subtext (though, of course, this movie was pretty blatant -- bananas and churros and boners abound lol) or being a black woman and sympathizing with Tashi's experience (which I am and do), or having been homeless/hungry and sympathizing with Patrick or any number of other life experiences that lends us to partiality toward one character or another, or more aversion to/disidentification with one or another character's plight.

So, I just wanted to start with that universal acknowledgement first. And then also say that I love each of these characters in their own ways and so when I say something that could be perceived as negative, like Art is petty or Tashi is cold, or Patrick is trash, I mean it in the most loving of ways. lol Because I enjoy seeing complex characters come to life. I don't need them to be right all the time, or for their motivations to be simple. I prefer the more complicated motivations and relationships, tbh, which also plays a part, I think, in how I see them. My take on these characters is the least kind. I see them all as their worst selves lol

So my point is that some of this is just down to what we think. And we won't ever be on the same page, because we're different people. With all that said...this is why Art's feelings for Tashi are ambiguous to me and why I think Tashi could be read as aromantic (not just not in love with Art, but not in love with Patrick either. Not in love with anyone, just in love with tennis.)

It's been clearly stated by the director himself that the movie is queer, which is, in large part, a reference to Art and Patrick's non-platonic relationship to one another. Poly relationships could be argued to be inherently queer, even if the relationships are all hetero-romantic, but I don't think that's how it was being used. Everyone, down to the actors themselves and the people who made the soundtrack are aware of the movie being about "Unending Homoerotic Desire". That's gay. lol It's not JUST gay, but it is gay.

And to me, this desire is seen to be mutual from pretty early in the film, both by how they look at each other and interact with each other and through Tashi's recognition of their intimacy. i.e. working deliberately to get them kissing (not holding hands, not hugging, kissing, something romantic/sexual) -- Tashi, to whom tennis is a relationship. Who noted that they are Fire&Ice and was drawn to them (Both of them together, not separately!) enough to come into their space and fuck around. lol

We learn quickly that they've shared bunks since they were around 12 years old, that Patrick was essentially Art's first sexual experience, that they're incredibly tactile, attached at the hip, and that they move in unison.

My read of Tashi here is that she's young and having fun, and she has her whole life of tennis stardom ahead of her. And she's an enigma to them. I would argue that much of both their attraction to Tashi has much to do with her dominance on the court, her ferocity, her skill, and her take no bullshit attitude. I think it has as little to do with her gender and her physical makeup as it has to do with her race or whether she's left-handed. Tashi OWNS the Tennis court and that's hot.

But if we're going to talk just about physical attraction and sexual desire, I'd argue Patrick's desire is put front and center. Art's is....more questionable. Patrick is the one who shows Tashi to Art. He's the one who has been following her game, knows who she is. Has watched her play. It's established right away that Patrick finds her "hot". Art asks why he's into her "Is it her game?" (his first thought is her skill, not whether she's pretty), and Patrick clarifies, no, she's the hottest woman he's ever seen.

Small, yes. And something I can see a lot of people disregarding, but since it's already been established this is a queer film, and we have little dialogue to go off of, I think it's significant that Art's frame of reference, or the way he relates to women is immediately presented as non-sexual. For a horny 18-year old this is notable.

Then we have Art say, "Look at that Backhand" in a dreamy voice. Not, look at those legs, or look at that ass. Patrick grabs his leg in excitement, eyes only on Tashi. And then we have two boners. lol Okay, yes, Tashi is without a doubt a part of this, but the camera didn't show that touch for no reason. Patrick is not outside of the bubble of desire for Art, even here. He's adding to it. And later we get something along the lines of Art saying, "that scream". Okay, so Art's drawn in by her, yes. He seems to be mesmerized and in awe of her power and skill, how wild she is on the court.

Later at the party, again, Patrick is the one to articulate sexual feelings tied to whatever makes him mesmerized about Tashi Duncan, "I'd let her fuck me with a racket," visceral, physical, sexual, tangible.

They both watch her on the dance floor, again, there IS desire, but that desire for Art is not articulated, and STILL Patrick is present, being very vocal about his. So, for me, it's all tied together -- there is no separating Art's desire for Tashi from Patrick's desire. We only see it with Patrick present. (Throughout the whole film! Because scenes with just Tashi and Art, throughout the entire film, are without the evident heat, fire, and urgency that is very much present with Patrick and Tashi. I'll get to Art's ahem performance issues in a bit, but yeah )

Then the introduction, Okay. There's this kinda immediate back-and-forth with Patrick and Tashi. And Art's quieter, almost left out of the conversation until he inserts himself. Then she leaves them dizzy in her wake. And Art says they should go. Some might say, "oh poor doggo just didn't think he'd have a chance." Maybe! Or maybe he really was just going to leave without shooting his shot because he wasn't running this show, flirting with her wasn't driven by his desire. It was driven by Patrick's. It was enough for him to meet the future Queen of Tennis, may she forever reign. And they could go back to the room and jerk off in separate beds thinking about her, just like they had that other girl.

He said, "okay let's go". and Patrick just sat there, and Art smiled knowingly, seeing he very clearly was not getting up to walk away. It was Patrick who pushed this. And then again, in the room, Patrick who was STILL talking about her. And Art said, offhandedly, not sounding miserable or even all that hurt, just kind of knowing and teasing, "she's not coming man." Patrick is obsessed, the way you are when you're really into someone. Art is...neutral. Did he find her magnetic? Hell yes. But does he see her as a person who he wants to pursue and further connect to? Not sure.

Okay, and then we have the lovely scene where Tashi asks if they've ever.....and Art get all flustered and No No NO, and Patrick is the one to let slip. And we're also given this lil tidbit that Patrick has dated girls, is apparently somewhat of a player, and Art is...what? Said to be dating no one, possibly having dated no one? Patrick jokes "of course he cleans up with that face", but it's pretty much implied that Art hasn't dated. Again, small things. But now they're starting to add up for me.

Between Patrick being his first sexual experience, Art apparently not being all that into girls in general, and the already established intimacy that they share, I'm thinking hmmm, maybe Art is in the closet. First thought, right out the gate. But maybe not enough for some people. Cool.

Then we get the game. And one could argue Art wanted to win to date Tashi. OR one could argue Art wanted to win so that Patrick wouldn't date Tashi. Hold my beer. lol

Lbr, do you know any 20-year old lad that, had they lost a bet or a game, and promised they wouldn't try and talk to some girl because they'd lost, wouldn't try to slide into the DMs anyway? Like, be for real. Art is quieter than Patrick, but he's smart, talented, cute, he is the one who makes calls during their double's games. He isn't some delicate flower who can't have a conversation. He can hold his own when he wants to.

He does just fine telling Tashi he wants to kiss her when he's good and ready, so if he wanted her, why not go after her? Or at the very least, why not attend her games at Stanford? Why not ask her out to lunch? Why not get close to her under the guise of exchanging messages for Patrick? Folks seem to want to paint him as a saint. He's a teenaged boy. No one takes dating all that seriously at that age, especially not in college, when everyone is hooking up. I'm not saying he isn't loyal to Patrick, but the occasional conversation? Or just being friends to be in her space, since he had so many feelings? Nothing?

And then the FIRST time in a year -- a year of Tashi and Patrick dating -- Art sits down with Tashi and he doesn't talk about her game. He doesn't talk about how beautiful she looks. He doesn't talk about how much he's missed her or what he'd love to do with her (or have her do to him), he talks about.....Patrick. lol wtf.

When Tashi asks him if he's in love with her, what does he say? He doesn't say yes. He doesn't even jokingly say yes, in a flirty, teasing way. He says "who wouldn't be." Think about how carefully that sidesteps her question. Not "of course I am". "Who wouldn't be?" That is not a yes, fam. That's a general, anyone would be in love with you because you're Tashi Fucking Duncan. Thanks, she knows, that's not what she asked. She asked if You love her, and we know how perceptive Tashi is, how astute.

She knows what she's not hearing. That's why she asks again 3 years later, slyly, "you still in love with me, Art?" knowing damn well that man never said he was. (This isn't just about what's being said, this is tone, body language. We speak with more than our words, you know? Anyway...)

So, Patrick comes in to visit. And Art is visibly happy to see him. And then Patrick says it's for Tashi, "Why do you think I'm here?" and look at Art's face. The man is NOT happy. Why? Because Patrick wants to see his girlfriend of a year? Who he talks to weekly? (Who Art already knows he talks to, because they've been dating?) Maybe. Or maybe because Art and Patrick have literally lived in one another's back pockets for 7 years and they've been separated, and the one time in however long Patrick comes back to visit and it's for Tashi. Might that bother him? No?

Okay. Then the fight, then the accident. And now suddenly Art doesn't talk to Patrick for YEARS. YEARS??? Someone explain this to me. Your here-to-fore best friend's girlfriend gets hurt, (and yes that's what I'm arguing Tashi was to him at this point, because aside from one awkward lunch that's all we have of their interaction) and you see it. And she's understandably mad, because she has to blame someone. And you're....Also mad??? Why, again?

Because she's the love of your life? Hmmm, reaching imo, Art barely knew her. They hadn't spent any TIME together. And this is where the realist in me comes out. Very romantic to imagine one night on the beach (with Patrick present) and a snog in a dank hotel room (again with Patrick present) made him fall in love with this woman, but I'm not buying it.

No, his longest lasting and most intimate relationship to that point is Patrick. And that's why the silent treatment is so peculiar. Even Patrick doesn't understand why Art stopped talking to him, and it's not because he's an oblivious dick. Patrick knows Art. He knows Art's patterns, his habits. And he knows Art's years-long freeze out just did not make sense, especially since Tashi had likely stopped blaming him years ago. I mean, Tashi clearly didn't blame Patrick for her injury when she and Art met up 3 years after college. So, if Tashi's not mad anymore (at him, specifically. she's mad in general at the world -- she's bitter and angry and in lots of pain. but she's not holding a grudge at him.), if she wants to move on, why are YOU still mad Art?

Make it make sense.

I argue Art was mad at Patrick for all of it. For leaving him at Stanford, for choosing Tashi, for taking their friendship for granted, for not prioritizing him. And then, somehow, for Tashi's injury too, because Patrick had the nerve to choose her and then be so insecure he couldn't go one day without fucking it up. And then Tashi got hurt and that somehow made it Art's fault (in his mind) and he resented that too. I think Art's resentment and anger was real and intense and I think even he didn't completely understand that this level of betrayal wasn't appropriate for a friend. But that's my take. lol

Anyway, then we get into Tashi and Art. And we see that it's been 3 years since college when they meet up again. So, Tashi had time to fully understand that the career she thought she'd have is never going to happen. And Art says she should be his coach. And she's a better coach than anyone could be, and Art, Art is good at flattery, and he's good at saying the right things and showing her that he'll basically be the anti-Patrick. He will listen to her, he will do as she says, he won't try to take anything she doesn't want to give, and he'll let her lead, he'll let her take him to his wins.

And Tashi, god Tashi needs that. Not a dick inside her. Not a tongue in her mouth. A body. A healthy, working body to mold and shape and make a winner. That's what she needs.

And so let's come back to the opening scenes. I saw someone say it was so crazy to see Art go from getting dragged out of bed to a physical therapist who stretches him out, to a nutritionist who feeds him and gives him his meals, to Tashi who instructs him and trains him. The man doesn't own his own body. He barely has autonomy. He's given it all over.

And if they love each other so much, they should happy with their arrangement right? But look at them. They sit on couches and benches five feet apart. They don't talk about anything but tennis. There's two scenes in the script (only one in the movie) where Art can't get it up for sex and Tashi is trying to coach him into an erection. Literally coach him through sex.

Not like...he has E.D. or he's depressed; then she wouldn't be trying to Jedi-mind trick him into getting hard. In the scene as written, she says something like "come on, you can get there. We always do" Always. As in every time they are trying for sexual intimacy -- which Tashi clearly wants, or she wouldn't be trying to get him there -- this is what they're doing. Working to get him hard enough. Yikes.

At their age, this is pretty confusing. So, this goes into my pile labeled, "things that make me think Art is not sexually attracted to women".

And then we have Art saying "I love you" and Tashi saying "I know." Art saying "I just need to know you'll still love me" and Tashi refusing to give that to him. Art having to beg for affection "just hold me?" and Tashi literally looking dead in the eyes as she acquiesces. This is not a couple that is happily married, if they ever were.

I think they've always had these issues, this mismatch in their needs. But Tashi needs to win so bad and Art needs so badly to give that to her, and to be something other than what he fears he is (nothing, no one). That, I think, is his biggest fear. That Patrick leaves him -- as he did -- and he's got no identity, no function. (This is where that part about co-dependcy the director talks about comes in. The codependency is not just between Tashi and Art). He needs to be able to be something without him. So he sets out to prove that and in the process what he becomes is hollow -- a machine. A body to be used for Tashi's win (HOT! okay, moving on lol).

I do feel there is love between them. You don't maintain a relationship, even a very broken one, for 13 years without loving the person in some way, somehow. I believe that Art has a lot of respect, admiration and affection for Tashi. I believe he loves her, truly. He might even be in love with her, but, from what I'm seeing in the "text" as you say (lol fancy term), I don't think he wants her. I don't think he's sexually attracted to her. Does he need that in a relationship? Maybe not, but he certainly needs a level of physical affection that Tashi does not seem very wiling to give him. Not if he has to beg for it.

Meanwhile, Patrick says Tashi hates Art, a little. And I think he's right. I don't think she wants to hate him, but Art is healthy. More than that he's recovered from an injury and she didn't! And even though he's well enough and good enough to win it all, he'll never want it like she wants it. He'll never eat, sleep, breathe, fuck, die for tennis. He wants to be good, he wants to play well, and he does. But that hunger? That drive that Tashi had (that Patrick also has) to be the best, to dominate on the court, that crazy, insane love with the game of tennis? That's not Art. Art is tired. And he wants to retire. And that makes Tashi hate him a bit.

Now, I don't think he's just a "dick and a racket" to her, but I do think it's interesting that she said it that way. We can't take dialogue just at face value. Dialogue is always doing more than one thing, especially in film, where screenplays are just dialogue and sparse action. She says it, not Patrick. And she's defensive about it.

This is another little clue on the pile of "signs Tashi loves Art but is probably incapable of being IN love with him". lol He isn't just a dick and a racket. He's the father of her kid (maybe! o__o), and the man who gives her what she needs to survive (the wins). But that's...pretty close to being a dick and a racket. lol And well, being a racket is a pretty big deal for Tashi.

Now their engagement didn't seem to be a particularly joyous affair. Tashi was drinking a scotch pretty moodily with that ring on her finger. You say you can't see her marrying without loving him romantically. And that's, again, a very sweet sentiment. But people get married for all kinds of reasons.

Art was already hers in the most important of ways. He'd given her his body. If he wanted her to marry him, why wouldn't she give him that? Who else was she going to marry? She'd gotten into bed with him (figuratively) for his entire career. Her life is getting him to win the grand slam. Her ultimate romance is winning that.

Tennis is her love affair. Why wouldn't she marry the only person who could possibly get her as close to her dream as she would ever get? They get the tax breaks, he binds himself to her even tighter. What's the downside?

And as far as the kid, I have theories (look at her hair!), but suffice it to say even If that's Art's kid, people choose to have/keep kids for all kinds of reasons, no? And it's not always "I love this person, I want to make a baby". Again, very sweet, but sometimes people decide to keep kids cause they hope that shared purpose brings them closer together. And I can see Art wanting the child and Tashi agreeing very practically, because why not? It's what families do, right? They could afford it -- they had present parents, and their kid would be the best tennis player this world has ever seen.

For all her passion and fire with Patrick, for all the sex and good feeling there, she doesn't seem to be particularly enamored of him. He's arguably, the person whose gotten the most from her, the biggest rise out of her, seen her underbelly, and he's the only other person in life she's gotten into bed with repeatedly (presumably). But she's not overly concerned with keeping him for herself. Or getting anything else from him. Monogamy. A confession of love. Affection. She even says it herself,

"Did I say I wanted anyone to be in love with me?"

Maybe she doesn't because she can't give that back.

Sex is shown to be something she wants and participates in with gusto. Romance? Mmmm. Not so much.

The most romantic thing she's ever said has been about tennis. Falling in love across the net. THAT is her romance. It's why she was drawn to Art and Patrick in the first place, Fire&Ice. She saw their intimacy and wanted to see it play out in another way. But ultimately she didn't even stay to watch them fuck -- she just wanted to see some good fucking tennis. And the most alive she looks in her adult life is after their match.

To me, you can see she's unhappy -- that she only feels satisfied when Art plays good fucking tennis, but Art only plays that way with Patrick, and Art was determined to freeze him out, so they were both miserable. Art without romantic love and affection, Tashi in a sexless, unsatisfying marriage. It takes Patrick coming back in to give them both what they need. They don't work without him, love him or hate him.

So yeah....that's my take on Art and Tashi. I think there is so much there, comfort and partnership and mutual need, but.....the romance people are seeing I'm just....I'm not seeing it.

And I didn’t really get to Patrick/Tashi, but THIS is part of it too.🤣

[lindseybots]

OHOHOHOHOHO THIS IS A WHOLE AU???? This is INCREDIBLE my heart is MELTING LOOK AT THOSE SWEETIES!!! A thought to keep Wind away from the Tower of Spirits, in the Septimus Heap books there’s a rule where “when dead you only tread once more; where living, you have trod before” so perhaps Wind being a natural ghost unlike Zelda isn’t able to go above the lobby of the Tower. Cause let’s be real, he would totally go through the dungeons but Anjean would have his hide if he tried to go up the Tower.

Also, is this LU? Totally cool if not! Just the two of them having fun together is enough to get me bouncing off the walls!

Ooooo a lot to unpack with this one!

First of all, THANK YOU! I’m so happy that you love the au!! I’m having so much fun making it, so I’m glad you’re enjoying it.

Next, I’m gonna answer the LU question because that answer is going to be shorter.

Honestly, I’m kind of glad you asked because I’ve seen people mention it a few times in comments, reblog tags, etc of some of my AU posts before, which made me wonder if there was some confusion about it. So, I’m glad I’m getting an excuse to clear this up.

While LU is super great (seriously go check it out if you haven’t) and I am incredibly honored that you think they are worthy of standing together on the same playing field, it is a separate thing.

The Wind’s Track AU is not associated with Linked Universe in any way. That is to say: in the “canon” of The Winds Track AU, the events of Linked Universe DO NOT AND WILL NOT EXIST.

Of course, if y’all want to make fan content that is a blend of the two AUs, that’s fine with me. All I ask is that, if you could, please make it clear somewhere that, normally, the AUs are separate entities to avoid any confusion for people who don’t know. Also, it’d be really nice if you’d give credit to the au creators so newcomers know where to find our AUs. (Also tag me so I can see it 👀🤭)

Again, I don’t mind if people make that kind of content to combine the aus, but I would hate for people to come here expecting LU due to miscommunication and then not get it. Y’know?

Now, I can talk about Wind and the Tower of Spirits.

I never actually considered him NOT being involved in solving the floors. The idea that he CAN’T is REALLY INTERESTING. Ohhhh that’d kill him inside.

This boy is so used to being at the center of the adventures, and now he has to leave it to someone else? AND HIS LITTLE BROTHER AT THAT?? AND YOU MEAN TO TELL HIM HE CANT DO ANYTHING BUT WAIT??? OHHHH.

Not to mention the fact that this is the location in the game that you revisit the most for the story.

The way I can picture this poor boy ready to just race up those stairs, regardless of potential consequences. Anjean would probably be tempted to tie him down if he wouldn’t just phase through the ropes.

I LOVE THIS IDEA. Not only is it angsty, but it fixes so many of the potential issues I’ve been trying to solve within this AU.

I don’t think I mentioned this before, but I was also trying to figure out a way to get Zelda to go help in the Tower of Spirits in the first place. The only reasons she goes at first in the game is because Anjean tells them that it’s too dangerous for Link / Spirit to go by himself, and during that time, she is the only one available to fill that role. If Wind were able to go, then there wouldn’t have been any reason to essentially force her in the role. There would need to be a new reason made.

This idea, however, FIXES THAT. THANK YOU!!

I also love that it reserves a portion of the game’s events to just be for Spirit and Zelda. They have such a wonderful relationship in the game, so having the events of the Tower be for just the two of them could really help in maintaining that strong bond that helped make Spirit Tracks so special.

I’ll make a point to find ways for Wind to be more helpful in other parts of the game to make up for his exclusion from the Tower of Spirits’ floors.

[malkaleh]

For this to make sense read this gorgeous fic by @nocompromise-noregrets and also have knowledge of my OT3 verse. This is an in universe fandom post (on a tumblr that it is like, Good Website But Also Still Hell Site)

So I went to the panel discussion at Welles Hall (with a friend which was life changing levels of great) and I wanted to write a book report for the tumblr.

Natalie is actually Aphrodite. Like, I was speechless. I do not know how us mere mortals can gaze at such beauty and anyway, I was the most useless of lesbians.

I’m not personally into men romantically or sexually but like, aesthetically James and Jon and Rupert are very appealing. Like a sunset or a piece of art. Also very charming, A+

Ahmed is a sweetheart and very funny.

The questions/answers were all great but uh, some highlights:

Ahmed really talked about how much he admired the work Rupert did in particular - that he really sat down with the primary sources and asked great insightful questions (quote “I think in some ways actors have a similar drive to historians - to understand people, even repellant ones”)

“People ask me if I have any sympathy for him [Norwich] and the answer is no! I loathe him - the historical study is fascinating and important but I have never liked him”

Rupert said it was hard to be in [Norwich’s] head - that he ended up developing a ritual for getting in and out of character to separate himself - he really gave credit to the shows intimacy coordinator for the workshopping before anyone was on set.

(Aside we learned that Rupert was cast really early on - apparently they didn’t want anyone else because he’s quote ‘handsome and charming and a brilliant performer and that’s what we needed’)

Maya said there were times she had to stop herself from quote ‘making excited squeaking noises’ on set (world renowned historians - they are in fact just like us) and that her favourite set was the Arthurian Masque plus “one I can’t talk about yet” *eyes emoji*

Maya “I went into the process of revising it (The Tudor Triad: New Edition) with delight and sadness” she talked about how she loved being back with these three but also the heaviness of it - how she wrestled with how much to include.

Ahmed interjected and said that it was one thing he really struggled with as well - that only having Norwich’s voice, Noriwch’s details on the abuse was something particularly sickening and that’s in large part why it was so incredible to see James’ performance.

(“I think, I hope that somewhere in the afterlife Thomas Cromwell is glad to see that he is given his story back to him”)

Both James and Rupert really talked about how the townhouse visit was the most confronting part - that Norwich’s journals are awful and chilling but somehow being in the space where it happened, that made it all the more real, especially because by this point they’d both been in their characters heads for a while.

“It was horrible - i actually don’t like to talk about it in detail honestly”

They both talked about how great Ellie at Welles Hall was - that she and Ahmed and Maya really talked them through the diary/papers and the decoding. (“All props to Rupert and James - not only is the content not an easy read, reading/interpreting Tudor handwriting is a process and reading Tudor handwriting in a mix of languages is even worse”)

Natalie “my guiding sense was that Anne would rip him [Norwich] apart with her bare hands and dance on the remains - I just found that through playing her, reading her own words even if it’s never referred to directly”

Jon was very sure he wanted to have what Henry says to Norwich remain a mystery (though Rupert knows!) and he didn’t want the audience to see Henry’s face when it was sad - Rupert said that it was ‘incredibly bloody satisfying’ to play the moment when Norwich realises that he has ‘fucked around and found out’

Rupert said he thought that Norwich absolutely believed in his own mythology - that essentially, might makes right, that he was a great Roman General etc. (Which apparently Ahmed is currently working on an academic article about Norwich and Ancient Rome)

I’ll be back for part II: the Lionel Discussion Panel later.

-semperlyqueerly

[dailyanarchistposts]

Finally is primitivism motivated primarily by a desire to return to a more innocent time in one’s childhood?

Ishkah: So the last thing was, I read what I thought was a good book by Saul Newman on ‘The Politics of Post-Anarchism’, his take on where we should be going, he kind of values do you know ‘le ZAD’ in France, which means ‘Zone of Defence’, so mostly separating oneself off from cities, but still rebelling, just not in a storming the Bastille way. In the book anyway Newman critiques you I think by saying how the desire for a primitive way of life is often a desire for a more innocent time in one’s childhood:

��Where Zerzan’s argument becomes problematic is in the essentialist notion that there is a rationally intelligible presence, a social objectivity that is beyond language and discourse. To speak in Lacanian terms, the prelinguistic state of jouissance is precisely unattainable: it is always mediated by language that at the same time alienates and distorts it. It is an imaginary jouissance, an illusion created by the symbolic order itself, as the secret behind its veil. We live in a symbolic and linguistic universe, and to speculate about an original condition of authenticity and immediacy, or to imagine that an authentic presence is attainable behind the veils of the symbolic order or beyond the grasp of language, is futile. There is no getting outside language and the symbolic; nor can there be any return to the pre Oedipal real. To speak in terms of alienation, as Zerzan does, is to imagine a pure presence or fullness beyond alienation, which is an impossibility. While Zerzan’s attack on technology and domestication is no doubt important and valid, it is based on a highly problematic essentialism implicit in his notion of alienation. To question this discourse of alienation is not a conservative gesture. It does not rob us of normative reasons for resisting domination, as Zerzan claims. It is to suggest that projects of resistance and emancipation do not need to be grounded in an immediate presence or positive fullness that exists beyond power and discourse. Rather, radical politics can be seen as being based on a moment of negativity: an emptiness or lack that is productive of new modes of political subjectivity and action. Instead of hearkening back to a primordial authenticity that has been alienated and yet which can be recaptured – a state of harmony which would be the very eclipse of politics – I believe it is more fruitful to think in terms of a constitutive rift that is at the base of any identity, a rift that produces radical openings for political articulation and action.”

Zerzan: Well I know Newman, I mean he’s a classic post-structuralist, post-modern character. It gets down to basic stuff doesn’t it? I mean if you feel like presence is just an illusion, most basically because there’s nothing outside of symbolic culture, right? “Outside the text, there is nothing” Derrida, right? Well what if that’s not true? What if there’s an alternative to symbolic culture? To the whole representational racket?

I mean I think there is quite possibly, there is that possibility. In fact in practice there was… hunter-gatherer life, pre-symbolic culture, right? For over a million years, you know face-to-face community, non-hierarchical, these are generalities here, but they did quite well without symbolic culture, without art, without the concept of numbers, without a lot of things.

So you can make the assertion and you know a lot of it’s traced back to say Derrida or others, but just because you’re saying there is no presence, that’s just a fiction, that the presence cannot exist because you can’t get outside of the symbolic, well that’s one point of view, but I don’t think that’s true.

That’s just, you know it’s part of the general surrender politically, in more or less reactionary times you get philosophies like that, which sort of take over. The whole backward aspect of post-modernism, it really is a way of��� at a time when there’s pretty much no social movements you get stuff like that and that’s a crude way to put it, but that’s part of the picture I think.

Ishkah: Okay, yeah I take your point, I think obviously they would say that about some primitivists. But…

I guess I don’t know how they’re defining symbolism, my perspective is animals are using symbols and language going way back to parrots and primates, but…

Zerzan: Well I think that’s more… I mean that is tricky, it is an open question, animals do communicate, but I think it’s more signals than symbols. It’s not really representational, in the way of symbolic culture that the humans have just because they communicate, of course they do, birds, all sorts of animals, they have to for survival, but that doesn’t make it very symbolic, it seems to me, but anyway that’s… These definitions have to you know… they’re sort of problematic because we’ve used these terms in different ways or inelastic ways that then the whole conversation becomes a little confusing, so I don’t want to take too rigid a position, but you don’t have to have symbolic language for there to be communication. Anyway that’s obvious I guess.

Ishkah: Well, yeah it’s tricky for sure, I mean I get into debates all the time with people who want to use language like abolish work and abolish prisons and I guess it’s an attempt to reframe the debate.

But, just in terms of this term presence, whether we should desire an authenticity of a long period of our evolutionary history as humans. I don’t know, like I think potentially we could be suffering more now for sure, but it could be suffering that we we desire to take on if we can get to this left-anarchist, pro technology future. It could be a source of virtue for us, striving for these intellectual skills.

And then authenticity, as a concept it’s only developed recently, like we used to think of authenticity differently as like sincerity. So, the effort you put into helping your family would be an indication of whether you were being authentic to yourself, if you were being just and fair to your family in taking on your responsibilities.

So, I don’t know whether it would be authentic for me to desire hunter-gather life, I know I would desire hunter-gatherer life more than the middle ages, but I think rather than just settling for primitive life or just settling for the middle ages, I think we should try and be aspirational to this future world of still being able to use some technology, like printing presses and penicillin and stuff, so I don’t know.

Zerzan: Yeah, it’s needed these different steps, and one requires the other, I mean now technology comes around to promise to heal what it has caused in the first place, so where do you try to arrest that progression?

And what does it all depend on? You don’t have any technology really without the extraction, without the mining, the smelters, the warehouses. And who do people on the left assume is going to do all that? It doesn’t exist without all that? So that’s a form of slavery, but they seem to be fine with that, to have the wonders of technology resting upon what? I mean not only the ruin of the natural world, of the biosphere, but you know wage slavery for almost countless people, for that to exist. That’s not a very liberatory assumption.

Ishkah: Yeah, and if I believed that we were just going the way of machines and we were going to create artificial intelligence and terminate ourselves by just letting them take over or becoming more machine like ourselves I would definitely worry…

Zerzan: And deciding everything and people don’t understand how they work, I mean we’ve swept along in this whole van of the progress with a capital ‘p’ and look where it’s gotten us, it’s just becoming horrible on every front, it’s one large crisis where all the parts of it are kind of merging into a very, very bad picture.

Ishkah: Yeah I don’t know, like I’m still researching, maybe I’m being naive in just advocating for something where that is more likely to happen, but yeah I worry that if people take direct action and try to just separate themselves off from technology and cities, that we leave people to suffer, like we lose hospitals… I mean I don’t know how useful you think hypotheticals are, but so definitely if technology is this thing that just manufactures consent and we get towards robots then that’s definitely bad and if we have a reasonable high confidence that is the future then obviously I would be on board with just trying to collapse the system in order to try and get back to primitivism, but hypothetically…

Zerzan: These are big challenges, you know everybody wants community, right? I mean we can all agree on that, except what happened to it? Why did it go away? Why has mass society all but obliterated that? All but obliterated the face-to-face human contact kind of world? Which I think really did roughly exist before domestication.

You know, this sounded so utopian to me when I first discovered the literature that I first ran into by accident, the whole anthropological deal, but it actually isn’t and it’s just just well known a lot of it.

I mean a lot of it isn’t well known, I grant you we can’t know precisely, or even vaguely, what the consciousness was, how satisfied people were in their lives. We really don’t know that, but I mean there was some pretty good non-lethal developments apparently, you know some contacts that were worthy of lasting for quite some time.

You know domestication, I mean that’s like one tenth of one percent of our of human species, anyway you know all that.

Ishkah: Yeah I really value some nomadic cultures that I’m worried that we’re encroaching on. I think there was a story recently about loggers in the amazon taking away the tribe’s bow and arrows so that they wouldn’t shoot at them, but then leaving them to starve in this horrible way.

What was it gonna say, oh yeah so I don’t know how useful useful you think hypotheticals are but in terms of like, say we realized this hunter gatherer world, but there were still some people who had the knowledge to create assembly lines for things like penicillin and glasses and stuff, and they saw people who were disabled or injured, and they wanted to create some technology to help these people. Would that be a legitimate target for sabotage or would that just be a consent issue, where you let them do that even if you worry that it helps restart technological society?

Zerzan: Well, I don’t know, I think we’d have to, if everybody could pitch in and try to find workable solutions as we go, I mean I think there could be intermediate steps, you know we don’t want people unable to live without certain technologies to just simply die off, but at the same time it’s not clear to me that we need the worldwide grid otherwise you can’t achieve that. I mean I think there are other methods, some of which are just simple things like when you’re peddling a bicycle with the light, you pedal and it generates electricity to light your tail-light or your headlight. So why can’t you do that with somebody who needs a respirator? You know, you don’t have to have a whole world system going may be to fix, you know to to help people in different situations and as we kind of try to go away from the dependency which has been really pretty fatal.

You know something like that, whereas it isn’t just a blanket theoretical rejection overnight or you push a button and it’s something else, I mean that isn’t quite a fair characterization of the primitivist thinking I’m familiar with.

Ishkah: No sure, it’s just a funny hypothetical for like thousands of years in the future, like my ideal feature is a pro-tech society that conscientiously decides not to use technology badly and I know you don’t see that as possible, but I don’t know I see some value in labor movement philosophy of if animals finds a use value in the land that we can just give them large areas to re-wild. And I would want people to have the option of being able to live in bear country and risk getting attacked by bears if they want to.

Zerzan: Sure, but that doesn’t seem likely, that goes against the logic of domestication, the only thing that was left for indigenous people is the most inhospitable places on the planet and you know same goes for other species, that’s why extinction is just running rampart and one species after another is either gone or threatened with extinction. That’s the logic of it, yeah we can dream up free spaces for somebody or another, but where would that come from? Where would you find the basis for that inside this system, which is so all enveloping, I would be in favor of it, don’t get me wrong, but it’s just hard to see if there’s a solution within the system.

[ariaste]

Hello Alexandra!

Been keeping up with your page since reading your meta (an impressive and engaging piece!) and I've found it interesting how you've been addressing other theories of the past.

As much as I LOVE myself some Steven Moffat slander, your dismissal of the JohnLock theory as totally unlike yours kind of struck me as odd? You go on to give a brief lesson on how to write a good theory, namely in not cherry picking.

This is genuinely confusing to me, as all of your theory is essentially cherry-picked, decontextualised facts.

Firstly, you take a bunch of evidence and remove it from the context of being a comedy. Sure, Nazi Zombies and a bullet catch seem a bit silly in that phrasing, but they're the LEAGUE OF GENTLEMEN, and Good Omens is so deeply a culmination of fantastic British comedy (this also wasn't even written by Neil).

You use Gabriel's weird behaviour as evidence of an unreliable narrative when most of it has context. You say that he never actually has anything to give Aziraphale - but he does, the fly is in the box - and he needs the memories so they don't get to erase him and demote him. You cite his ramblings about a tempest as unresolved and never mentioned again, as if there isn't a whole trial scene about Gabriel's desire to not have Armageddon pt 2 (electric boogaloo) and as if the Metatron doesn't explicitly mention the second coming.

You are very prescriptive in your stance that Maggie and Nina's relationship doesn't go anywhere - despite them being entirely responsible for Crowley actions in the final scene. They may have another purpose yet to be seen, but to say their relationship goes nowhere isn't true.

Also Crowley's actions aren't what triggers the separation at the end, that was going to happen even if he'd left straight away. If anything, what he does makes Aziraphale more hesitant to go, as he becomes quite resistant to the metatron afterwards.

You criticise the minisodes and say that the characters don't actually go back in time to look for clues. While I do understand a bit more why you would say this - the minisodes happen because they are triggered by things in the running narrative and they DO provide clues. Not all of them are regarding the Gabriel mystery as there are VERY strong clues towards Aziraphale's character development. The Job minisode especially shows Aziraphale's want to do good almost to the point of self flagellation. This is a clue about the end of the series, just not the way we thought. Also, they do provide clues for the Gabriel mystery, anyway. For example, the passage Gabriel cites that triggers the Job flashback is what God says to Job when he questions why he is being punished. This is a clue to the audience that Gabriel has been punished for questioning too, which actually IS the case.

The bit about the narrator? The plot of GO2 (unlike 1) isn't based around the idea of what 'God's plan' is, so there's no real narrative explanation for God to narrate. Also a massive joke in season 1 is that God ISNT reliable ("God doesn't play games with the fate of the universe" - "Where've you been?").

You take facts and remove them from biblical context. The former prince of heaven cast out is Lucifer, and the reference to a 'story' is because the bible exists, and works like Paradise Lost and even Good Omens itself. We have passed that story down for millennia.

The Crow Road is a great book, that yes! does feature elements of fragmented memory! So sure, sure, cherry pick and and use it for your theory - but also the catalyst of s2 is GABRIEL'S fragmented memory. It isn't a red herring to randomly reference the book.

You can continue like that for the bulk of the theory's content, as well as also question the actual foundation and what Neil actually seeks to benefit by intentionally bombing a season's writing in a situation where another season isn't promised.

There's also the fact you ignored that s2 was Gaiman's creation to set up the second novel point. If the plot of s3 is correcting false memories of s2, how could this still be true if Pratchett only had a hand in the latter?

You are free to make whatever conclusion you want and have as much fun with guessing, and you are clearly very talented in writing. But to act as if you haven’t cherry picked to suit your own agenda while criticising other works that tonally ARE similar to yours (regardless of whether you personally think Steven Moffat could pull it off like Neil, the whole 'I think this is bad writing, it must be intentional', is reminiscent of Sherlock s4) comes across as very 'holier-than-thou'. You say that you should look for evidence that disproves your theory, but it seems that at points you've genuinely just missed whole plot details.

I don't mean to say you shouldn't publish your theory, please do! Just don't act as if it isn't a culmination of subjective evidence that does already have plot explanations that you’ve then blamed on Neil.

It's also okay to not enjoy something as much as you thought you would, even if it is created by someone you admire. To paraphrase you, we are humans and we make mistakes.

I know this may come across as cruel and dismissive, but that is not my intention and I respect you. I just think you would benefit from this perspective.

ok

[germanpostwarmodern]

Separating artist, and therefore oeuvre, and biography in contrast to art history still prevails in architectural history, especially with regards to sexual identity and especially so in the German-speaking world. While Philip Johnson in 1996 greeted from the cover of the Gay magazine „Out“ e.g. German postwar heavyweights like Helmut Hentrich or Friedrich Wilhelm Kraemer throughout their lives hid their gayness. This shadowy part of their biographies was the point of departure for Uwe Bresan and Wolfgang Voigt to trace the lives and biographies of gay, lesbian and trans architects. They don’t ask the question of a gay architecture but instead focus on the social, societal and professional surroundings that forced them to hide their sexual identity. In „Gay Architects - Silent Biographies from 18th to 20th Century“ Bresan and Voigt collect 41 biographies ranging from Ernst Georg Sonnin, architect of Hamburg’s famous „Michel“, over Napoleon’s court architects Percier and Fontaine to Paul Rudolph, Horace Gifford and Chen Kuen Lee. With Emilie Winkelmann and Hildegard Schirmacher the authors also included a lesbian and a trans person.

At this point one might argue about the accuracy of the book’s title but in view of the insightful biographical miniatures the authors compiled despite a poor source situation this is negligible. Instead each biography reveals a sometimes less, sometimes more secretive dealing with homosexuality as a result of societal and legal circumstances. In Germany for example Friedrich Wilhelm Kraemer almost lost his chair at TH Braunschweig because in 1950 he had been caught red-handed with a man in a hotel by the police. At this time intercourse between men still was a criminal offence.

An example of outright foul play was the termination of Charles Moore’s tenure as dean of Yale School of Architecture after the university’s committees secretly agreed that Moore was a weak character due to his sexuality.

The latter stories are only two of the 41 told in the book but quite plainly show why it is so important to no longer omit them. Thus the book can only be the starting point for a queer architectural history. An essential and important book!

[sirnotappearinginthisblog]

🌿 ⇢ give some advice on writer's block and low creativity

Oooh a subject I love!

First—I see these two things as completely different issues, so I’ll tackle them separately.

Writer’s block (defined as the desire to write but being unable to get words down on the page) can have a lot of causes.

To troubleshoot it I always start with the physical: have I had enough water? Food? Did I sleep ok? Am I sick/struggling with allergies? Have I gotten enough exercise lately? Sometimes we can’t make words happen because our bodies need something. Never forget your brain is part of your body! It needs movement and nutrients and calories to work, just like your muscles!

If I’m physically fine but struggling, then I turn to my work itself. 99% of the time when I sit down to write and no words are there it’s because I don’t know what to write. “Uhhh duh that’s the issue” you might think, but I mean specifically I don’t know what happens in the scene, or how the characters emotional arcs are impacted by the events, or (and this is usually it) something about the scene I have planned in my head isn’t singing.

Sometimes I’ve set the scene in the wrong location (never forget that setting is a character). Maybe I’m forcing an emotional beat too soon. Maybe I’ve missed an emotional beat earlier in the story so I need to slow it down. Maybe I need to go in a new direction because that’s what the characters and story demand.

To troubleshoot that, I run scenarios until something clicks. I reimagine the scene in a new place, or unfolding a new way. Remember: you are the god of your universe, and you decide what’s canon. So often when I’m stuck it’s because I won’t let go of a “canonical” element that isn’t working anymore. Your story is a universe in flux; it can change.

Low creativity (defined as a lack of desire to create, or a lack of ideas/emotional connection to or excitement for the work) can have various root causes.

To troubleshoot I start with: have I refilled the well? Have I been enjoying stories (tv shows, movies, books, games, etc)? Have I been going out into the world and living life, including seeing friends? Cultivating a sense of wonder, curiosity, and humor is essential to my creative process, but it can be something I have to work at because the world is full of so much turmoil. Take time to be curious about things. Seek out new experiences. Lean on the people who love you.

Next, I look at my relationship to the project itself. If I’m feeling creative in general but just not for my current WIP, sometimes I sit down and make a list of everything that excited me about the project in the first place. This can be moods or tones, tropes, scenery pictures, random aesthetics, whatever. Any exciting scene ideas, the big twist at the end, snippets of dialog or description you loved from the draft so far (or that you plan on adding later). Fall in love with the story again. And if the sparkle is gone, add it back!

You can change the story as much as you need to make it exciting for you.

These are just some starting points I use. I’ve been writing most of my life, so I have a lot of practice dealing with these issues for myself. The important thing is to experiment and find what works for you!

[drbased]

'Nature vs Nurture'

The conclusions I have come to about the human condition are functionally indistinguishable from certain forms of bio-essentialism, but with a key difference: the 'self' is not real, but rather formed from, and informed by, a collection of stimuli both past and present. In many ways it is impossible to distinguish the 'self' from the external environment; but in one, more major way, there is a huge distinction. The thing that drives the self is one of want: it is, perhaps, the only thing that drives the self. 'Want' is a double-edged sword: the path to 'happiness' involves both wanting nothing and chasing one's dreams. The 'self' is merely what you 'want' in the current moment, and 'consistency' within the 'self' is achieved merely through wants becoming habit. You want things a certain way because wanting them that way in the past worked out well for you. The self can change entirely, in an instant, if that is wanted enough. This 'want' is often way more subconscious than we like to imagine; you desiring pistacchio nuts right now is because you remember desiring pistacchio nuts in the past, and when you ate them, you enjoyed them. If you gained a nut allergy, you would no longer desire pistacchio nuts. How much you liked/wanted them determines how sad you are that you can't have them anymore.

This comes into the nature/nurture debate for me in a simple way: even if we were hard-wired into certain personality traits and preferences, I truly believe that the vast, vast majority of our 'self' is formulated through early life experiences; some so early that they may as well be nature. The young person doesn't even have a concrete sense of self: in psychology it's theorised that the self is recognised as a separate entity the moment the baby can detect itself in the mirror. From this it can be extrapolated that the bizarre and, most consequently, unique set of early stimuli is formulating the baby's entire perception of the universe and themselves. Is this really any different from saying they're 'born that way'? To an extent, not really - but also, it informs a few things:

a lot of so-called 'sexed differences', as illustrated in books such as Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine, are merely the process of a complex socialisation through the baby's relation of itself to external stimuli; that is, the behaviour of the parents;

if the self can be formed once, to what extent can it be re-formed?

We say that people never really change, but I don't believe that's a result of some sacred, inherent, biological self; people don't change because they don't want to. The brain is pattern-matching and narrative-making before it does anything else; these patterns and narratives inform a fragile sense of self, so early behaviours and beliefs become habits become personality. All of this is informed by a constant and ever-changing fluid selection of wants. People will build their entire lives around sport until they injure themselves, at which point some will take up painting. People will spend their lives in misery until something in them snaps and they choose happiness. People will sit comfortably in their living room until a pipe bursts and suddenly they need to rescue their things and call an emergency plumber. These wants are not somehow artificial; a person 'changing' doesn't mean they've become more shallow, or experienced a loss.

When you view the self as inherently whole and pure, as 'natural', a change of the self is seen as an aberration, a disease. 'You've changed' is an existentially terrifying statement at its purest form, because despite all the classic wisdom and philosophy/psychology that posits the self as transient and illusory, the terrified need to make narrative concerned with a pure, untouched, natural self still persists.

So is any of this useful? Well, I think it allows for a filling-in-the-gaps of the 'nature vs nurture' debate, and allows for a perception of oneself as safely fluid, allowing for change of the self without viewing that as an inherent loss/corruption. It means we can view someone as 'just like that', but also recognise that that is never set in stone. Personality is just habit/narrative, and some narrative is so embedded in one's sense of self that the person will never want to let it go. The more comfortable that narrative makes the person, the less they will want to let it go; this is why the privileged are more resistent to change - if the narrative you've built from a young age about your 'self' and your environment is already confused and upsetting, you're less attached to it and are happier re-forming a new understanding. I've never been particularly happy or comfortable with any of the narratives I grew up with, therefore I am constantly in flux.

I think we could all stand with being a bit less attached to ourselves and a bit more open to the possibility that what we want is merely habit - there is nothing wrong with that, because there is nothing wrong with want, or with habit (it's how we as a species reached this point, after all), but every time we're left with a terrified/dejected: 'maybe I just am like this forever', we can afford to reach inside ourselves and take comfort in: 'I want to be like this now because I am comfortable with it, but one day I may decide that I don't want to be this anymore'.

[kitkatt0430]

Star Wars for the fandom asks?

Character I first fell in love with:

So I first saw Star Wars at such a young age that I don't remember the first time I watched it. My parents had at one time a VHS home video made of various old photographs intended to help preserve them in case something happened (the photographs have since been digitized, I don't know if the VHS was too) but in the background you can here tiny little me watching Star Wars and quoting my favorite parts already.

I remember adoring Luke and Leia and Han already when I was four? Five? I dunno, young. So I'll go with all three of them. Cannot pick a fav beyond that.

Character I never expected to love as much as I do now:

Anakin Skywalker. Don't get me wrong, Vader was cool in a badass villain way, but Anakin turned out to be a bit of a dork and I love that about him. The movies didn't do a great job of selling me on the character, but the extended universe - particularly the Clone Wars animated series - really fleshed him out and made him into someone I actually enjoy.

Character everyone loves but I don’t:

Garm Bel Iblis from Legends. He's an interesting character and it is generally a good thing when he shows up, but I never quite got over the fact that he misread Mon Mothma's character so badly he expected her to name herself Empress. He basically had a disagreement with her right after Alderaan blew up after which he essentially took his toys (his own rebel sect) and went home (to fight the Empire separately from the main rebellion) and refused to show up for years after the Rebellion founded the New Republic because he sincerely thought Mon Mothma was that much of a power hungry asshole.

Mon Mothma.

Just... let that sink in for a bit.

Character I love but everyone else hates:

Callista Masana (later Callista Ming). I don't know that she's exactly hated, but she's a love interest for Luke who wasn't Mara Jade so... you know... While I don't like her as a love interest for Luke - he was so awkward with her, the poor arospec farm-boy - I do like her overall character arcs and I do feel like her inability to connect to the light side of the force is wasted as a storyline when she popped back up after the loosely connected trilogy she first showed up in.

Her method of returning to life from death caused her ability to touch the Force to become so warped that she could only utilize the Dark Side from that point forward. Doesn't that sound fascinating? Way more fascinating than being absorbed by a dark side entity who impersonated her to screw with her ex boyfriend Luke Skywalker. Am I right???

Character I used to love but don’t any longer:

Jacen Solo. I love his early years in Legends but once he turned to the dark side I kinda burned out on him real quick. A lot of my issues with Ben Solo/Kylo Ren is that he's basically Jacen Solo minus any of Jacen's redeeming qualities.

Character I would kiss:

No kissing but I would happily accept platonic cuddles from Obi-Wan. Goodness knows he needs them.

Character I want to slap:

Qui-Gon Jinn. So much would have been averted if he hadn't been a bit of a self centered asshole. As poorly as he handles things with Obi-Wan in the movie? He's so much worse in the books.

A pairing I love:

Finn/Poe - it's so cute and it was hilarious to me how much the actors embraced the ship too.

A pairing I hate:

Rey/Kylo Ren - it's so creepy, creepy, creepy.

[theweeklydiscourse]

If the “fanboys” can use fanfiction published books to back up their claims and arguments for what they support, why can the opposite group (who supports the sequel films and the actors who play those characters) not use the books written about the sequel characters for their own evidence? Since Ben Solo is the character of the moment, his earliest moments were documented in detail in books that are essentially published fanfiction by contract. Those books talk about how Palpatine groomed him in the womb and Leia felt darkness that she couldn’t get rid of, and how as a toddler Ben wanted to a pilot like his father but both of them prioritized their own careers instead and he nearly died by the household droids. It’s not in the films or comic books so it’s not valid. Really? That’s the argument against creators invested in his character and backstory? There’s also the comic book writer Charles Soule who made an attempt to cover the backstory featured in the Last Jedi film, and claimed that Adam Driver was his ghost writer. Considering that comic storyline took a left turn into a dozen different galaxies and is still traveling, it’s impossible to rationalize that any film arc would be parallel to the equivalent dumpster fire that the comics turned out to be. Because at the time that was released, the episode 9 script was not available to anyone including actors.

It’s okay to have a head canon that fills in the gaps between what a film shows and what it doesn’t. But when the head canon goes completely off script to become the opposite of the film information, that’s when there is a problem. It doesn’t benefit anyone when fans (not the narcissist fanboys) are attacked, by the same people who say they share beliefs, for defending head canons and source material that runs parallel to the films and what we are given of specific characters and their dynamics, instead of an idea that is 3 million separate solar systems away. At the same time, alot of the struggles that Ben Solo went through are not unique because it follows all of the textbook definitions and levels of abuse. People who have never experienced any of them firsthand literally are unable to empathize with his character. Luke has zero use for Ben. His own parents don’t understand him because he is so different. Leia is Force Sensitive. Han is not. Even books that describe how the Force works say that every Force Sensitive has different abilities. That easily explains why Leia can’t help him, Luke refuses to unless it benefits him, and Han can’t. Don’t forget that Palpatine is PuppetMaster over everything.

Then you have the narcissist fanboys who were so angry that Ben Solo existed that they were the ones who rewrote every single facet of lore and science within that universe. To the point where a Force Sensitive is not even allowed to become a Force Ghost. If that ability is removed by the writers or anyone else, then that person cannot be revived later for another story. Same for the World Between Worlds. You can’t have two people in the same lineage in the same inter dimensional space have different rules, when the rest of who visits doesn’t have those same restrictions. Therefore a Ben Solo resurrection film is impossible for the future.

The rage that Ben Solo evokes from SW fanboys is something that needs to be studied. Their efforts to erase him and write him off into oblivion is a clear example of the petty spitefulness that broke the myth for good. He’s been hated by the fanboys since TFA (despite what people might try to have you believe) and it all comes down to them hating the idea of his character being taken in a sympathetic direction. They don’t care about the themes or coherence of the myth, all they really want is an empty and badass spectacle that’ll momentarily satisfy them, but isn’t what they need.

The foundation of people’s inability to empathize with Ben’s character was laid way back in the TFA era. Since then, the half-baked headcanons that circulated around the fandom have morphed into an unrecognizable mass of unexplained problems people have with him. TLJ shows us evidence of the abuse he experienced and actively characterizes Ben Solo as a victim in a way that no one had expected post-TFA. He’s overtly sympathetic and his character serves as a reminder that it was a fanciful idea to think that someone would just spontaneously become evil because of their heritage. TLJ makes it so that he can’t be written off as the kid with perfect parents who just went crazy one day, instead he’s more than that.

Also, on the topic of the “Jedi prerequisite” for becoming a force ghost makes me quake with rage. It’s a bullshit rule that only exists to exclude certain characters from coming back and is used arbitrarily. The rules are constantly being rewritten and revised to suit whatever narrative the person making those rules wants to enforce. For the time being, DLF is averse to anything Ben related (even though he was wildly popular and mostly well-received) and given that Adam Driver isn’t coming back, I’ve lost all hope for a potential resurrection.

[heartlessfujoshi]

being brave - an akusai one shot

Title: Being Brave Fandom: Kingdom Hearts Pairing: AkuSai (Saix x Axel) Rating: General (Modern AU - Minor Angst - Fluff - Happy Ending) Word Count: ~2,545 Prompt: ‘You have changed.’

Summary: Saix runs away from his roommate, because of jealousy issues. 

A/N: Here’s my third offering for @akusaimonth ! :) Please enjoy!

---

Life at Destiny University wasn’t always sunshine and roses. Not that Saïx expected it to be that way, no - he understood that there would be good days and there would be bad days. But it sure felt like he was experiencing a string of bad days, and it was all because of one singular person. One person, who he shouldn’t give a damn about because they’d only met each other a few months ago when the semester had begun, and yet, here he was, his world in complete chaos because of this person. 

Axel Cinder. His roommate. 

They had been matched through the dormitory system, the system essentially saying that they would be perfect roommates together. And for the first few weeks, it seemed like the system was correct. Saïx found himself wanting to return back to his dorm after class, rather than hole himself up inside of the library, where he had access to all the books in the world. He would come home and find Axel sitting on the couch, playing a video game as a necessary break from academia, or so he was told by him. 

Axel was a conundrum. He had bright red hair that he wore in a peculiar fashion. He tended to wear his hair as if he were a human porcupine, and his follicles were the quills on a porcupine’s back. Not that Saïx could judge, as he himself chose to keep his hair dyed a light blue - almost the same color as the sky on a muted day. And let’s not forget about the tattoos that were on Axel’s body. 

Tattoos on his face. A full sleeve on his right arm, with a second sleeve being worked on on his left. His fingers always needed to be doing something - playing a game, typing on a keyboard, fiddling with a guitar pick. The guitar pick was a new addition, as Axel had been hanging out with someone that was in the music department on campus. Saïx tried not to care, but the more they began to hang out, the more his life became miserable. 

Pushing the key into the lock, Saïx gave it a quick twist and heard two people yelling at something as he pushed it open. He sighed, ducking his head down as he was not in the mood to deal with either of these two right at this moment. He had work that needed to be done for his philosophy class, and was going to need quiet. But it was too late to turn back around and head to the library, as he heard his roommate call out to him. 

“Sai? Is that you?” Axel’s voice drifted towards their front door, a small foyer separating the entrance from the rest of the dorm. 

He set his bag down, but didn’t take off his shoes as he was going to leave again. He turned the corner, and saw Axel was sitting on the couch, looking mildly annoyed as Demyx - his friend that was in the music department - was pointing at the screen and laughing, while holding the second controller in his hand. “Hey, Sai!” Demyx smiled at him. “How’s it goin’, man?” 

It took effort to not roll his eyes at Demyx, who was now returning to pointing at the screen. He looked at Axel, who was already focused back on the television. “I’m leaving.” He announced, seeing that he wasn’t really welcomed in his own dorm, thanks to this new friend of Axel’s. 

“Where are you going?” Axel asked. 

“As if you cared.” Saïx mumbled, then began to walk away. 

“If I didn’t care, I wouldn’t have asked.” 

The retort was unexpected, but that didn’t deter Saïx from continuing forward. “I’m going to the library. I need to concentrate on a project, and I can’t do that here if you both are yelling at the television.” 

“I can go!” Demyx offered. “It’s getting late, anyway. I should head back to the practice rooms and do some more work myself.”

Saïx was already at the door when he felt Axel’s presence behind him. He could feel his energy coming right towards him, and could smell the faint hint of cologne that had been put on earlier this morning. “You don’t have to go, Sai.” He waited for Axel’s hand to touch his shoulder, and when it didn’t, it only made the ache in his chest grow stronger as he knew that whatever was going on with Demyx, it had changed the dynamic in their dormitory. [[[

“I’ll be back late.” Saïx picked up his bag, and then opened the front door. “Enjoy the rest of your evening.” He didn’t bother to say anything else as he left the dorm, and shut the door behind him. He exhaled a deep breath before heading down the hall, to take the elevator back down to the first floor. 

The library was exactly what he needed. It was quiet. Inviting. Forgiving. Everything that it wasn’t back in his dormitory. Too bad he kept reading the same passage over and over, as if his brain would read the words by osmosis. He couldn’t concentrate. All he could do was think about that stupid redhead, who should only be an acquaintance to him, but they’d passed that stage weeks ago, and now were at a stage where he was miserable because of it. 

He looked at his phone and saw no new texts, and no missed calls. Axel had his number. They texted each other often - well, maybe not as much since he’d begun to hang out with Demyx, but that was besides the point. Axel could reach him if he wanted to. He could text the redhead if he wanted to. But did he want to?

Yes. Yes, he did. 

Saïx dropped his forehead down to the table with a loud thunk, an audible groan leaving his mouth at the momentary pain that had been caused to his body with his new position. He heard his phone vibrate, but didn’t bother to check it because he didn’t want it to be Axel. But he did. 

Lifting his head, he dropped his forehead back down with another loud thunk, the pain making him wince as his hand reached blindly for his phone. He saw it was a text, but it wasn’t from the person he wanted it to be from. Double whammy. This day was just getting worse and worse. 

He quickly fired off a return text to the person who was asking about notes for one of their classes. Once that was done, he checked the time. Seven after ten in the evening. It was late enough to go back to his dorm. The library would be closing in twenty, so this was as good a time as any to leave. Packing up his items, he got everything in order and began to make the trek across campus, back to where his dormitory was. 

Half expecting to hear both Axel and Demyx shouting at the television still, he was surprised by how dark the dormitory was. Axel’s door was closed, and there was no one in their common area. Fine. No big deal. Saïx took off his shoes and then made his way to where his room was, and quietly opened the door. He shut it with barely a sound, and then turned on his lights. 

Looking at his bed, he almost wished that there was someone waiting in it for him. Someone that was only a few steps away. But that was silly. They were roommates. Nothing else. They would never be anything but that, as it was clear that Axel had feelings for that musician. He was nobody. Saïx was someone you could live with, but that was it. You couldn’t do anything else with him. 

Saïx got undressed, and then laid down, wanting to put this miserable day to an end. As he was reaching for the light on his dresser, he heard a soft knock on his door. He could ignore it, pretend that he hadn’t heard it, but that would be a blatant lie. Axel hadn’t knocked on his door like this for a couple of weeks. He used to knock on it all the time, the two of them would stay up way too late talking about the most asinine things. Axel would sit on the floor with his back up against the bed, while Saïx would lay in bed and be hyper aware of how close Axel was to him, and how easy it would have been to invite him up on the bed to join him but never had the guts to do it. 

“Come in.” Saïx invited him, wondering what was going to happen. 

The door opened, and there stood Axel, who had showered at some point during the evening, as his red hair was not in its spiky format, but was laying limp over his shoulders. It was quite a look, one that made his stomach roll in appreciation at how attractive he was. “Hey. Can I come in?” 

“I said come in.” Saïx rolled his eyes, and laid on his back, staring up at the ceiling as he waited for Axel to close the door and sit on the floor next to the bed. What he didn’t expect was for his bed to shift, as Axel took a seat on the bed next to him. Scooting over, he gave more room to the redhead, who was now lifting his legs up and stretching them out on the bed. 

“Been wanting to talk to you.” Axel said, after they spent a few minutes in silence. Saïx wondered if Axel could hear how loud his heart was beating, as they were in such close proximity to one another. He couldn’t remember if they’d ever been this physically close, and it was slowly chipping away at his mind. “You mind if I turn the light off for this, Sai?” 

His cheeks grew warm, trying not to read too much into the suggestion. “Sure.” He knew that sometimes the cover of darkness helped dispel any fears a person might have in speaking to someone. It was almost anonymous in a way, that darkness helping facilitate that. He could feel Axel fidgeting next to him, and reached over to put his hand around his wrist, and felt him instantly still. “Talk to me, Axel.” 

“Okay, I don’t know where to start.” A loud breath left Axel’s mouth. “I know you’re mad at me.” 

“I’m not mad at you.” He was quick to defend himself. 

“Bad choice of words.” Axel groaned. “I meant that I know things are weird between us.” 

“You have changed.” Saïx didn’t bother to hold it back. If they were going to have this talk in the dark, he was going to use it to his own advantage. “Things were different a few weeks ago. Did I do something to make this happen, Axel?” 

A nervous laugh left the redhead’s mouth. “No! Not at all! I’m the one that’s been stupid, Sai.” He felt the weight of Axel’s head touch his shoulder, as Axel turned over to be closer to him. “I pulled away because things were moving so fast between us. It was scaring me.” 

“Scaring you?” His eyebrow rose up. “What do you mean?” 

“I mean that I’ve never met anyone like you before, Sai.” Axel’s fingers somehow found their way to his chest, and Saïx knew that there was no way he was going to be able to hide how fast his heart was beating from him. “I feel like you’re my soulmate. And that freaked me out.” 

“So you went to the music department, and found someone else.” He tried not to be too bitter as he spoke, but he could hear it slip out. 

The hand on his chest laid flat. “I”m not into Demyx. He’s just a friend. Nothing more.” 

“You guys sure seemed like it was something more.” Saïx wanted to roll away. He wanted to put distance between their two bodies, but having Axel’s hand on his chest was making him feel calm in a way he wasn’t expecting. 

“I was trying to see how you would act.” 

“And?” He asked, curious as to what Axel was going to say. 

“You ran away tonight.” 

He closed his eyes, and sighed. “I did.” 

“Why?” 

“Because I needed to study.” 

“Don’t lie to me, Sai.” 

The bed shifted again, and he could feel the weight of Axel’s body now hovering above his own. He opened his eyes, and saw the bright green of Axel’s irises staring right into his soul. “Because I didn’t want to see you flirting with him.” 

“You like me.” 

“Yes.” He didn’t bother to deny it. “I do.” 

“I’m going to kiss you now, okay? And things are going to change between us.” Axel’s hand touched his face, the gentle strokes of his finger on his cheek had Saïx’ eyelids falling closed. “Is that okay with you?” 

“Yes.” He repeated, a bit breathless this time. “I’m okay with tha-” 

Axel’s lips touched his with a soft, but firm kiss that he felt in his entire body. A moan escaped his mouth as he lifted his arms and put them around Axel’s neck, effectively keeping him right where he wanted him. As their kiss continued, he knew that this was what he’d been aching for these last few weeks. Sure, they had been total strangers only a few months ago, but through getting to know him, Saïx knew that he felt the same way as Axel. Axel was his soulmate - they were meant for each other. 

Breaking off the kiss with a soft pop, Saïx tilted his head back as Axel buried his face against the side of his neck. “Damn it, Saïx. That wasn’t fair.” 

“What wasn’t?” He asked, shifting a little so that they could lay more comfortably together on the bed. “And, are you going to kiss me again?” 

“I was planning on it!” 

“Good.” 

Axel brought his forehead to his, and the two shared a deep breath together. “Kissing you is going to be a problem.” 

“Wait until we have sex.” A smirk curled on his lips as he saw Axel’s face turn the same shade as his hair. 

“Sai!” 

Laughing, he pulled Axel towards him and shared another kiss with him. “In due time, Axel. I’m happy with this right now.” 

“Yeah?” 

“Yeah.” Saïx nodded his head. “Thank you for being brave enough to do this tonight, Axel. I mean it.” 

“I really like you a lot, Sai.” 

“I like you a lot too, Axel.” 

They stared at each other for a few minutes, and then their lips gravitated towards each other again for another round of kisses. Saïx knew that their sleeping arrangements were bound to change soon, and he honestly couldn’t wait. All the depression and sadness he’d been feeling was now gone, thanks to the redhead for owning up to his feelings for him. No more wondering what he’d done wrong, or why they’d stopped hanging out. Now it was going to be the two of them, together, for as long as Axel would have him. 

He hoped it would be forever. 

[theoreticallysensible]

The Hell Without Poetry

I started reading Proletarian Nights by Jacques Rancière, about contradictory aspirations held by artisanal workers in early 19th century France. One of the most interesting points so far are the fact that some workers had a culture of emulating bourgeoise fashion and not saving money, both to differentiate themselves from the domestic servants they felt they were superior to, and to signal that they deserved the same privileges as the bourgeoisie but rejected capitalist ethics of accumulating in order to exploit others.

I’ve just gotten into the famous Gauny section, where Rancière goes off an a tangent about this philosophical joiner (someone who makes wooden building components). The first of his books I read was The Ignorant Schoolmaster, which similarly takes up a single historical figure in order to develop their ideas into a universal, ahistorical frame by blending his voice with theirs. I find the idea really interesting, and it makes me wonder if I could do the same for the people I interviewed for my dissertation. I like how it deconstructs the boundary between historical actor and theorist, emphasising that all people are both, but it only works of course if the people you’re quoting are doing a substantial amount of philosophising. I also don’t want to lose marks for a stylistic gambit.

One of Gauny’s ideas is that work is work, always demeaning no matter what its content is. Rancière points out that this is similar to the philosophy of a preacher at the time, who valorised work for its essential self-sacrifice (Max Weber pricks up his ears), because it allows our body to fulfil its debt created by the wage given by the employer. This is obviously ideologically beneficial to the status quo because valuing just particular aspects of work rather than work it and of itself would suggest that those parts should be expanded i.e. that work can be better or worse and might be improved.

However, Gauny twists the message by separating the effect it has on the body from the effect on the soul. He admits that there is a pleasure to physical self-sacrifice - even though hard work of the sort he was doing can have awful long-term consequences, there’s pleasure in the oblivion you can reach in the arduous routine of it - but he emphasises that it kills the soul by not giving you breathing time to sit and contemplate, discuss ideas, and make art. There’s a beautiful section where Gauny says

“Ah, Dante, you old devil, you never traveled to the real hell, the hell without poetry!”

This speaks to the ideas at the heart of Rancière’s entire project: that everyone aspires to critically engage in the arts, and that the extent to which do is not overdetermined by class position. His project in this book in particular is to demonstrate that there is no pure working class - there is frequent infighting within and between professions and genders, and their morality is often inspired by the bourgeoisie.

In fact, one of the most interesting parts is that many of the workers start seriously questioning the status quo only after they’re visited by bourgeois do-gooders, but rather than take on the ideas of these champagne socialists uncritically, they use them to inspire new ideas. Rather than expecting a new world to come from one place, we should recognise that novelty is always a result of the melding of difference. It actually makes me think of the fact that so many of the progressive ideas developed in Europe, from Rousseau to Marx, were inspired by Native American philosophies (David Graeber & David Wengrow’s book, The Dawn of Everything, has a great section on the possible influence on Rousseau).

The aspirations of people like Gauny to write poetry, to come up with new ideas based on a variety of sources, was largely unrecognised or dismissed when Rancière wrote this in the ‘80s. He was frustrated that not only did capitalists view working people as beneath of that sort of thought, but Marxists saw it as counter-revolutionary and therefore unbecoming. Rancière was disillusioned with Althusser, who’s structuralist Marxism he saw as not leaving any space for people to resist their circumstances, instead being overdetermined by class. I don’t know Rancière’s stance on free will, but as a rather dogmatic determinist even I find that frustrating, as if we aren’t influenced by so much else which can give rise to disruptive convergences. Basically, people are more complicated than that! Any supposedly emancipatory philosophy with a single vision of what the working-class should be is doomed to failure, as Rancière well knew from witnessing the dismissal of the student protests of ‘68 be dismissed as “not real revolution”.

Rancière saw in Gauny a way out of this structuralist trap, where by taking on the high-minded ideas of the more romantic bourgeoisie and reinterpreting them with a personal need to act against the system, new ideas could be created and used to disrupt the distribution of the sensible, or the matrix of acceptable ideas - most important of which was the idea of who is capable of having such ideas. This concept is actually where my name comes from!

I wonder if we’re losing this time to contemplate even more today, with the spectacle invading so much of our lives - social media being the quintessential example. This is not such a danger if we’re using it to chat to people, but if we’re just scrolling… there’s not much thinking going on there. 😅 Guy Debord, in the ‘50s, was already talking about capital colonising our everyday life, and this stealing of attention, our time to think and talk and create and have ideas, seems to be the worst consequence of it.