#because otherwise you get the book: where she basically endorses what happens

[navree]

Why do I get the feeling that the writers are gonna show the twins harming an animal or smth so ppl don't feel sympathy for them 💀🫠

I would honestly be surprised, considering that they do seem to want to make what happens to Helaena and her children very painful, I think what's more likely is they'll try to absolve Rhaenyra of any responsibility by having Daemon primarily responsible and show her both castigating Mysaria and being really upset when she hears the news (there's a still of Rhaenyra and Mysaria talking and a shot from one of the trailers that seems to show Rhaenyra in the same spot looking distressed), especially given her line about fearing what the war has started, now that it includes baby murder and the torture/deaths of civilians.

(which isn't really gonna work because Rhaenyra never openly denouncing Daemon for planning it, working with Mysaria when she was one of the primary conspirators, and never even saying anything against it all is a tacit endorsement of what happened and an acknowledgment that she approves, which is still horrible even if she wasn't involved in pre-planning it. The only way to try and absolve Rhaenyra would be to radically change the story and have her 1) remove Daemon from her service and order him punished for his crimes 2) openly and publicly denouncing the act and making it clear it was done without her knowledge and consent and she does not approve and 3) honestly calling a halt to the hostilities due to the understanding that she is no longer the most aggrieved or primarily wronged party here and that her side now needs to make serious reparations, far beyond whatever the Greens offered for both Aegon's claim to the throne and whatever conciliation might have been there for Lucerys's manslaughter)

[dgcatanisiri]

The thing it always always ALWAYS comes back to is the fact that it’s no one source that is responsible for the lack nor capable of fixing it. It’s all a bunch of issues in society proper and the industry culture. Videos games will always be written from the perspective of straight people, and almost inevitably straight men. Film is from the perspective of the male gaze. The world we lives in will assume straight until proven otherwise.

And because straight is “the default,” it is what gets catered to, with any claim to the contrary, any attempt to say “hey, what about [queer identity]?” these big chains can argue “not worth the time/effort/money!” Because pure numbers say that’s a valid excuse. Because they can make more money just accepting homophobia than pushing against it. Because pushing against it is “risky,” and, well, we can’t push people too much for something they’re “not ready” for.

Even when people on the chain WANT to do more, offer more... They’ll get pushback. Like, I legit, 100% believe that sacrificing bi!Jaal on the release of Mass Effect Andromeda was part of a fight to keep Suvi a lesbian - we KNOW that it was a fight to keep her from being made bisexual, I buy that the ground of “one of two bisexual men” was given in order to keep the lesbian representation. It’s a shitty situation and a shitty choice that shouldn’t have been forced in, but I damn well believe it happened.

Or with Voltron - I do not give a damn about the dumpster fire that fandom is, I guarantee that Adam being killed off was part of the terms that they had to agree to just to get it to air, get a gay relationship in a cartoon that is primarily oriented to children. Look at all the fights that creators in Legend of Korra, Adventure Time, Steven Universe, She-Ra, etc. have had to go through - and remember that it’s NOT the same thing for gay guys in action-adventure series, that there has NOT been that kind of breakthrough in M/M relationships and portrayals, and yes, this IS a different track to run through, because, put simply, lesbian representation is not the same thing as gay male representation. Similar, yes, and there’s an umbrella they’re both under, but they’re not the same - as much as you’ll find a queer person who celebrates any win under the queer umbrella, they will still have that wish that there was also a win for their SPECIFIC identity.

This is the inherent flaw of grouping so many identities under the same umbrella - we all rely on each other, sure, but at the same time, just because it’s a queer win, that doesn’t make it a win for every individual letter under that umbrella. It’s not always your mirror you’re seeing, and as much as you can be happy that others get their representation, human beings will always have that egotistical part that goes ‘well what about MY needs?”

I’ll also guarantee that there was an active play for Shiro/Keith (like, LOOK at their interactions and tell me that there isn’t SOME kind of significant bond being established that is outright groundwork for a relationship) and THAT had the kibosh put on it as well - that the active choice on the part of some executive, be it Netflix or other producers was that Shiro could be gay, but they could not have two gay lead characters, and that’s why Shiro marrying random extra happened.

Because I don’t think that it’s actively bigotry that drives these kinds of choices. It IS homophobia, implicit homophobia, the kind that says it isn’t worth fighting for or dealing with the inevitable headaches when the conservatives get in an uproar. No, it’s simply that... They don’t want to deal with that headache. They know it’s going to create blowback from the idiots, and while they understand that those people aren’t really worth endorsing, it’s just a lot to deal with so how about instead we NOT?

Because to them, it’s all hypothetical. It’s all an intellectual exercise. It’s a headache to deal with these people who aren’t really worth listening to, but we still depend on their money to turn a profit and keep our jobs, so it’s just easier not to rock the boat.

Meanwhile to the queer people they are denying representation, it’s our LIVES. It’s our mirrors. And often, that is the difference between life or death. That’s not exaggeration. If you never see yourself reflected in your media, if you only ever see yourself in the secondary roles, never the hero... It damages you.

Like, I’ve reached a point where, if for no other reason than sheer spite, I intend to keep kicking. But... It does wear on me. It gets me down. To know that even the scraps that I find are the result of long, drawn out fights that started with the full meal - and then, because the scraps exist, I KNOW there’s some pencil-pusher going over the results of everything related to this content by whatever metrics they have, just LOOKING to use the scraps as justification for why the numbers came up short and that’s why they won’t include more scraps again.

And this just. keeps. happening. It’s every time that the representation COULD be there, every time it’s SORT OF there, but clearly grudging, every time that the only reason we get queer representation is because the developers don’t want to bother with the coding to lock off certain romances by gender, not because it’s cared about, every time that the developers and creators have to go to the people who pushed for this and say “I’m sorry, but I lost the fight, and if we don’t cut it, they will.”

It doesn’t change. We’re about a decade and a half from Jade Empire, the game that gave me so much JOY in being able to play a gay male character in a video game and see a gay man as the hero. We’re about a decade out from Korrasami. And what are we really getting as different? Okay, video game characters don’t have their sexualities so blatantly hidden - I don’t have to turn down every female love interest in order to get the male love interests to even ask if I’m interested. Okay, we’ve seen the progression of Korrasami to Bubbleline to Ruby/Sapphire to Lumity, but these are still moments that basically cause the network to pull the plug.

Y’know, sure, I’m still going because of spite. But that’s beyond cold comfort when it comes to how I look at the amount of books, movies, TV shows, and video games and still don’t see myself in there.

[thecaffeinebookwarrior]

More Female Characters to Avoid in Your Writing

A long while back, I typed up some posts ranting about characters and tropes I disliked.  These were Male and Female Characters to Avoid in Your Writing, and they’ve become my most popular posts yet.  Recently, I was struck by some topical inspiration, and decided it was time for a sequel!  

One again, these are my personal, subjective opinions!  No one dictates your writing or portrayals but you, and no one can or should decide how you consume fiction.  Also, as you may notice, I actually like most of the ladies below;  I just don’t like certain aspects of their portrayal.

Enjoy, and happy writing everybody! 

1.  The Daenerys (i.e. the spontaneous war criminal)

Image source

Who she is:

The formerly heroic Mother of Dragons, who randomly charbroiled a city full of innocent people.

Why it sucks:

I’m not even talking about this from a feminist standpoint, or how one of the most consistently heroic and powerful female characters took an abrupt and undignified backflip into the Dark Side.  I’m speaking from a writer’s standpoint.  

Regardless of whether you liked Daenerys, she was rivaled only by Jon and Brienne as the show’s most consistently heroic character  From locking away her dragon children to ensure the safety of her subjects, to freeing countless enslaved citizens, she’s spent a decade proving herself to be an altruistic and noble figure.  And then, in the final two episodes of the entire show, the writers dracarys-ed that shit.

For some comparison, just imagine how ridiculous it would be if Jon Snow suddenly went batshit and started hacking up citizens because he was feeling stressed.  That’s about as plausible as Dany’s sudden passion for genocide.

And for the record, I’m not opposed to Daenerys becoming Mad Queen.  If it was done properly. This would mean informing the actress far in advance so she could modify her portrayal accordingly (which they didn’t), and building up to it through foreshadowing and established attributes.  Not at the last fucking minute.

Honestly, the only characters who remained narratively consistent to the very end are Drogon and Ghost, who are both precious babies who did nothing wrong.  

How to avoid her:

Decide as early as possible where a character arc is going.  Contrary to what Game of Thrones seems to believe, the character arc is important.  It should have a beginning, challenges that incite development, and a satisfying conclusion that showcases how a character has changed and evolved.  

And if you didn’t decide early?  You still have to come up with a conclusion that makes sense for your character, and not slap on the most unexpected ending possible in the name of Subverting Expectations.

On that note?  Subverting expectations isn’t always a good thing, and a reader predicting your ending isn’t the worst possible outcome.  Focus on telling a good story.  

2.  The Rayon (i.e. the transgender stereotype)

Who she is:

A transgender woman (portrayed by the male, cisgender Jared Leto) dying slowly of AIDS in Dallas Buyer’s Club.  Her role in the narrative is to teach the supposedly heterosexual (more on that later) main character that queer people are human beings.  

Why it sucks:

Rayon is many things in Buyer’s Club, and most are firmly rooted in stereotypes.  She’s a sassy, flirtatious, clothing-obsessed, self-loathing, drug-addicted prostitute.   She’s hypersexual, but never treated as romantically desirable.  She’s tragic, but also one of the few consistently comedic characters in an otherwise bleak film. 

It’s her job to gently goad the main character into treating her with basic respect, but he never quite gets there.  He refers to her with male pronouns throughout the entire film, and never acknowledges her as a woman.  At one point, he aims a gun at her genitals and offers her a “sex change operation.”  Which, is supposed to be comedic.

This isn’t to say that there are no sassy, flirtatious, clothing-obsessed, self-loathing, drug-addicted transgender sex workers, nor is there anything wrong with “stereotypical” trans people.  It isn’t the job of the marginalized to dispel stereotypes.  And if real trans people had created and portrayed Rayon, she could have been a realistic, dynamic, and compelling character.

And I say “created” because Rayon is strictly fictional.  Outside of this film, she didn’t exist.  

“Well, at least they tried to offer representation!”  you protest.  “What else was it supposed to be about?  A straight dude in the AIDS epidemic?”

Well, no.  Though the main character, Ron Woodroof, is presented to us as a violently homophobic, transphobic, womanizing asshole, the real Woodroof was, by all accounts, kind-hearted, open-minded, and bisexual.  

What could have been a powerful story of a queer man defying his diagnosis, living joyfully and meaningfully, and helping to prolong the lives of countless AIDS-sufferers, was instead watered down to a story of a straight, pugnacious asshole and his stereotypical, long-suffering, transgender sidekick who dies to Teach Him Compassion.  

How to avoid her:

Read books by trans people.  Consume media they create or endorse.  

List of youtube channels created by trans people here, and 21 books for trans awareness month here.

Put out a special call for transgender beta readers to point out mistakes, misconceptions, and offer tips on an authentic portrayal.

Garner insight into their perspective and experiences, and give them personalities outside of being trans.  

3.  The Piper Chapman (i.e. the unflavored oatmeal)

GIF source

Who she is:

The “protagonist” of Orange is the New Black, and its least compelling character.  She and Larry are the sort of people who would ask me for a threesome on Tinder.  

Why it sucks:

Piper’s hook is that she’s a privileged, affluent white woman who unjustly finds herself in prison for -- well, for crimes she committed.  But expected to get away with, because, Privilege.

This isn’t to say Piper is boring.  She’s far from likable, but being likable and being boring aren’t the same thing.  In another series, watching a relatively cushioned, naive, bourgeoisie woman string along various significant others, thoughtlessly incite violence, and navigate an unfamiliar prison setting would make for thought-provoking and hilarious satire.  

But when compared to her charismatic supporting cast, with richly developed backstories, motivations, and relationships, she’s painfully bland.  I would much rather watch a series centered around Suzanne, Nikki, Taystee, Poussey, or even Pennsatucky.  They’re just more developed, opulent, enjoyable characters. 

It could be argued that Piper is the viewpoint character, whom the audience is supposed to relate to.  But I can assert that I don’t relate to Piper.  At all.  Her lack of empathy towards others -- such as leaving Alex after the death of her mother, cheating on her fiance, and inadvertently starting a *ahem* white power gang -- alienated me to her.  

Which might not be such a bad thing, but Piper is (supposedly) the protagonist.  We don’t need to like her, but we should probably be able to relate to her.

Or maybe I’m just jealous that hot women aren’t inexplicably fighting over me.

How to avoid her:

Your protagonist doesn’t have to be the most likable character in your story.  They don’t even necessarily have to be the most interesting character in your story.  And certainly not the most morally good, powerful, or knowledgeable.  But the viewpoint character is the character who we spend the most time with, and from whose eyes we perceive the story.  It’s important that we understand and relate to them emotionally.

Look at examples like BoJack Horseman, Holden Caulfield, Tony Soprano, Beatrix from Kill Bill, Mavis from Young Adult, Nadia from Russian Doll.  All are complex characters, with varying degrees of moral ambiguity.  Yet we can empathize with them emotionally and identify with them.  Even if we’ve never been in their situation, we see where they’re coming from.

4.  The Charlie (i.e. the dead lesbian)

Who she is:

One of the few recurring openly queer characters in the incredibly long-running Supernatural.  A lesbian who’s journey was (sort of) brought to an end when she was killed and dumped in a bathtub to incite drama.

Why it sucks:

I love Supernatural  but it can be remarkably tone deaf towards queer people, women, and marginalized groups.  Which, probably merits fixing, considering its following is largely comprised of queer people, women, and marginalized groups.  

I probably shouldn’t have to explain why killing off women and queer people for drama is Bad, but I’ll delve into its history a little:  from what I’ve read, censorship laws of the twentieth century forbade the portrayal of queer people unless they were ultimately killed or “reformed.”  This is why so much LGBTQ+ fiction is essentially gay tragedy porn, and why gays are so frequently buried to aid in the emotional narrative of their straight counterparts.  

That’s not to say queer people can never be killed off.  I might not have an issue with Charlie’s death (especially in a show as violent as Supernatural), if she weren’t the only openly queer character at the time.  

And there’s plenty of room for representation!  If Dean was openly bisexual, if angels were vocally confirmed to be nonbinary, and if there were more recurring, respectfully portrayed female and sapphic characters, Charlie’s death might not feel like such as slap in the face.  But as it is, it feels like a contribution to an ugly pattern.

In fairness, Supernatural has since improved in its portrayal of queer people:  two gay male hunters were introduced and given a happy ending, an alternate universe version of Charlie was introduced to the cast, and God is portrayed as a bisexual man.  

Yes.  All of that happened.  You have to see it to understand.

How to avoid her:

Educate yourself on the history of censorship in the LGBTQ+ community, as well as hate crimes and decreased life expectancy.  Make sure you aren’t contributing to the suffering of queer people.

If you have only one confirmed queer character in the midst of a very large cast, I’m inclined to think you need more.  You could say I’m BI-ased on the matter, though.

Look up “fridging,” and think about how many stories use the death of female characters to incite drama for men.

5.  The Allison (i.e. the reformed feminine)

GIF source

Who she is:

She’s one of the most interesting members of the Breakfast Club, and that’s saying something.  A self-proclaimed compulsive liar who will “do anything sexual” with or without the promise of a million dollars (as well as one of the most quotable characters in the film) she demonstrates the emotional pain and complexity that’s often ignored or shrugged off as teen angst.  

And then she gets a makeover and a hot boyfriend, and suddenly everything’s better.  

Why it sucks:

It would be one thing if Allison’s problem was that she didn’t feel pretty or desirable.  But she never (to my recollection) offers any indication of that, and that’s part of what makes her such a refreshing portrayal of insecurity.  She’s emotionally neglected by her parents, and that is appropriately treated as devastating.  

It’s a complex and beautifully-portrayed problem that deserved far more than such a superficial, slapped-on solution.

Similarly, there’s no reason why Allison is paired up with the jock at the end of the film.  Neither showed any romantic interest in one another until her unnecessary makeover.  

A much better ending to her arc would be her finding acceptance among her newfound friends, and finally garner the recognition and acknowledgement she never got from her parents. 

I was torn between using Allison for this example, or Sandy’s makeover from Grease.  In both, girls are encouraged to alter their appearances to solve plot-related problems.  And both were “fixed” to conform to some standard of femininity or feminine sexuality that they didn’t meet before.

How to avoid her:

If a character feels the need to change their appearance to accommodate others or be respected, that should probably be treated as a negative thing.

Your character’s appearance can be a good tool to represent emotional changes.  If they alter their appearance, there should be a meaningful reason behind it -- outside of fitting into societal norms or garnering the approval of others. 

A girl putting on makeup isn’t a groundbreaking plot point, and girls who don’t perform to standards of femininity aren’t broken or deficient.  They don’t need “correcting.”

[sicut-in-caelo-et-in-terra]

I was wondering what your thoughts on Pope Francis and how he has said that same-sex civil unions are okay. I thought it was against the Bible. I'm just curious, really. I guess my big question is, does the Pope dictate what every catholic believes?

Hey friend, thank you for the ask!

So there's definitely a couple of questions here, I'll grab them one at a time.

First question: my personal thoughts on the events of this past week regarding statements alleged to Pope Francis. I think there's just a lot of confusion going around about what was actually said. Some people are saying that it was a mistranslation and that he actually said something different, some people are saying that it was not as much of a mistranslation as others claim and that this has been Francis's position since before he became pope. You are correct in understanding that Catholic teaching considers sexual acts between two members of the same sex as a sin. In my personal opinion, what frustrates me is that this keeps happening, and that whenever it happens it feels like the Church splits into two camps: The Pope Is Ruining Everything versus There Are No Problems Right Now, and unfortunately it seems as though that the split occurs directly down political party lines. Now I get that perhaps people are only coming across that way because they are trying to address the falsehoods of the people on the other side of them. But really I think that a) the Pope is in a position where he has more information than us and he has been selected for this job, and therefore he may be making these decisions based on whatever information or contexts that we who criticize him do not have; b) the Pope is a person who is going to make mistakes, and he is operating in an age where he is under a particular type of scrutiny so we should be quick to forgive; c) at the same time this has shown itself to be a consistent pattern, and while it is a complex issue with many facets very much including the secular media, however there are a lot of other elements related to how he chooses to present himself and the nature of the follow-up from the Vatican, that this keeps happening tells me that there is definitely room for us to be criticizing the leadership in a spirit of charity. But I think in criticizing the Pope or defending the Pope on social media we really really need to be aware that we are indeed in a public and secular space, and that we are coming across as very divided and very disorganized. I've seen a lot of an apparent lack of charity from both sides. There's a lot more to say and it's definitely been something that has been on my heart.

Second question: whether or not same sex civil unions are okay by Catholic teaching. So the answer to this is yes and no. What I mean by this is that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a non-marital legal union, for example if two siblings or two best friends of the same gender happen to be living together and plan to do so full time, there can be tax and other benefits for having their partnership recognized (e.g. many hospitals only allow immediate family to visit, depending, and so having a legal pairing can be useful). However, the Church does not endorse same-sex sexual relationships, and it is scandalous for the Church to advocate for laws that endorse same-sex sexual relationships. Now of course there's questions as to whether or not it makes sense to have a law that says "you can have same-sex civil unions unless you're in a sexual relationship" and all this. But that's a huge long topic and this post is already so long and I haven't answered all your questions yet.

As a note here which I think is always important to make given the current climate: a sexual orientation is not a person, it is an appetite. When we discuss sexuality in this context, we are talking specifically about acts/lifestyles, not the people who participate in them. People are people and deserve human rights. This is, I believe, more along the lines of what the Holy Father was talking about. That said, marriage and sex are actually not human rights (if they were, you could make a good case for laws requiring marry or have sex with someone who is otherwise unable to procure it on their own). That's not to say that this produces many struggles for people who experience different things, but again this is for another post.

Third question: papal infallibility. This again is a very complex topic and I'm by no means an expert on ecclesiology but I'll give a basic overview of what I understand. Basically, the Catholic Church (and, as I understand it, most religions) makes objective claims. Claims about reality. Either God exists or He doesn't, and that fact isn't changed by whether or not anyone believes it. When the pope, and the Magisterium in general, teaches, they're not changing reality- they're telling us something that is already true and has always been true. With this, we also know that the infallible authority of the Magisterium (that is, the bishops of the Catholic Church, all in direct lineage by ordination to the twelve apostles, of which the Pope is the shepherd) applies to teaching. The Church makes no infallible claims about anything else. Now within the teaching of the Catholic Church there are different levels of teaching. There's dogma, which we rarely change, but that the Pope does have the authority to change, but only has done so a very small number of times throughout history. These are like basic truths about what it means to be Catholic, such as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Mary was always the Immaculate Conception, she didn't suddenly become it once the Pope proclaimed it ex cathedra. But we do trust that when the Pope speaks dogma, that he is guided by the holy spirit in doing so, and that what he says is true. The pope speaks infallibly elsewhere besides dogma, such as canonizing Saints - once someone is canonized, we know without a doubt that they are in heaven. But these things are already true, and the Pope just tells everyone that it is true. If the Pope says something that we already know to not be true, such as if he were to say that marriage can be between two men or two women, then that wouldn't become true and we wouldn't believe it. We actually have detailed guidelines on what constitutes the development of doctrine versus the corruption of doctrine. Check out St. John Henry Newman's book Grammar of Assent for more detailed info on that. (Someone please correct me if that's not the right book). The Pope / the Magisterium also has other roles, such as telling us how to practice our religion - it is objectively true that we need to keep holy the Sabbath day, however it is up to the Magisterium to determine what constitutes 'keeping holy the Sabbath day,' in this case, largely, going to Mass (and the Magisterium tells us what the Mass is and what if anything would invalidate the Mass). Also not eating meat on Fridays in lent, that's a thing for the Magisterium to decide about.

Anyway that was a lot but I hope you enjoyed it! If you have any more questions don't hesitate to ask!

[purplesurveys]

647

Have you ever done a craft that you found on Pinterest? I’ve never gone on Pinterest for reasons other than looking for interior design ideas lmao, so no. I’m no good at crafts anyway so it’s not like looking at Pinterest will make me feel good or motivated. Do you get scrapbooking layout ideas from anywhere? I don’t do scrapbooking, but if I do start (and I’ve always wanted to), I’d definitely get some tips from the internet or from people I know who are artsy. What do you do to wipe off the dust from ordinary life? Drink. Are you content with mystery, or do you wish you knew everything? I wish I knew everything, no matter how bad the news may be. What do you do when someone irritates you on Facebook? Unfriend them, duh. I could still see them in real life anyway, but I can very much hate their presence online enough to unfriend/block them haha.

Are you judgmental? If I meet a person for the first time only after I’ve heard a couple of stuff about them, I might judge them for a bit yeah. Then I’ll brush it off first and see if they really are what I was told they’d be. Do you think your hair looks better natural or dyed? I’ve never had it dyed, so I wouldn’t know if it looks better. Do your parents disrespect you? My mom does; and she’s typically a disrespectful person. My dad’s pretty chill. Have you found that love covers over a multitude of sins? Sure. People just have to watch out and make sure love doesn’t reach such a point that it ends up becoming a cover-up for toxic behavior. What was the last Grand Opening you went to? Popeye’s HAHAHAHAHA. They opened their (second) first branch in the country around a year ago and we didn’t have classes that day, so we went. Do you have anything coming up tomorrow? No Monday classes for me, so the day would just consist of me doing schoolwork at home, or in a coffee shop, or whatever works for tomorrow. What's one thing that makes your stomach hurt? DAIRY. I’m having milk tea right now and it is a nightmare. But it tastes so good, so lactose town it is. Ever had a living nightmare? You mean the last 22 years of my life? Sure. Do you have a lot of haters? Idk, it’s possible but I don’t worry about that kinda stuff.

Do you think successful people always come with a pack of haters? Of course. People are alllllllllways envious. Do you have supernatural abilities? No. Do you kick yourself when you make mistakes? Do you say, "I wish I would have" a lot? Yeah I do this a lot. It drives my girlfriend nuts and she hates when I start on could have/should have rants, but it’s my thought process most days. Are you doing the most you can with your life? 'The most’ is probably pushing it. I know I can still do more like join contests, volunteer, be in more orgs, etc. but it doesn’t mean I’m unhappy where I am and with what I’ve done. I can still call myself satisfied, and I hope it means I’ve been doing something right. Do you let people walk on you? No. At least I don’t think so. Are you ok? Thanks for asking :’) I could be better, but at least I’m functioning and that’s better than being a vegetable in bed all day. Do you have a friend you miss right now? Yeah, I always miss Angela. Do you ever write snail mail to your friends? We don’t do that anymore dude. Do you make your life look better than it is on Facebook? Yeah. There’s like this quiet mutual understanding among people (at least in my generation) that Facebook is for impressing your relatives and showing how good of a life you have, and Twitter is where you air out your sadness and rants and all the mess in your personal life haha. Do you feel God's presence regularly? There is no presence to be felt. Do you experience chronic pain? Nope. Do you believe God loves you and is rooting for you? Don’t need anyone else other than my friends and myself to do both of those for me. Have you ever dreamt that you were falling? I’ve never dreamt it but I’d sometimes get that sensation when I would almost fall asleep. What would your dream career be? Lawyer. If I wasn’t such a fucking crybaby in arguments I think I’d survive law school just fine HAHA. Are you a daydreamer? Sure. Do you daydream so much that you wonder if there's anyone who doesn't?  Not really. I just daydream when I’m bored. Do you ever just sit and daydream for awhile?  ^ Again, only when I’m bored. Is the snow falling where you are right now? Snow has never fallen in the Philippines. What is your favorite part of nature? Mountains, and the spectacular views they can give. Do you wish you could be a world traveler? Sure. Do you wish you could live in another city for a year? I wish I could migrate to another country – that’s how much I want to get out of here. What city would you like to visit? I’m eyeing Bangkok for my next trip abroad if that’s ever going to happen :) What has been your favorite city that you've visited? Locally, Vigan or Sagada. Abroad... probably Bali. If you had kids, would you take them to Disney World? I’m definitely going to be that parent who takes my kids every year and lets them wear whatever costume they’d want. Have you ever stood in line to get a Disney character's autograph? No. Do you own a birthday crown? I had a tiara for my 7th birthday party, but I’m not sure if my mom was able to keep it. How long does it usually take your hair to dry? Do you dry it naturally or blow-dry it? I have it dry naturally because I get bored blow-drying it. It usually takes an hour or two. Do you straighten your hair? No. I have bad experiences with that because as a kid/teenager, my mom would force me to have my hair rebonded even if I never wanted to have it done to my hair; so these days, when someone asks if I prefer my hair to be straightened, I shudder and say no. Do you sleep with a teddy bear? No and I never did. I was never into stuffed toys. Would you consider yourself a free spirit? To an extent, I guess. I do enjoy being independent and trying out new things, but I always want people to be with me along the way. If I’m gonna travel the world, I need a travel buddy. If I’m gonna go hiking in Sagada, I’d feel better having a companion. If I’m gonna try worms or bugs for the first time, it’s always nicer having someone who’s just as daring when it comes to food. I’m basically a free spirit who never wants to feel lonely, haha. Do you need to clean out your closet? I need to refold some of my clothes, but otherwise I know where everything is. Do you watch YouTube videos regularly? Yeah, I watch at least one video a day. What's your favorite coffee shop? Starbucks will always be my first love for their ambience, but Coffee Bean is pretty great too. Is your Pinterest page cluttered? It’s not used at all. Do you want to start a collection? Yes, I always said I would start collecting all sorts of WWF/E memorabilia once I’m able to afford having a steadily-growing collection. My future house is definitely gonna have its own ~man cave~ except it’ll be for wrestling merch, and it’ll have its own TV and sound system too for when I want to hide from the world and just find solace in wrestling. Are you a role model? Would you consider yourself a good example? I’ve had people say they look up to me for certain traits, but this isn’t something I actively try to become. I have bad habits and vices of my own, so I definitely don’t endorse myself as a role model. But if I can help people in other aspects, then that’s more than alright with me. Are you a leader or a follower? Follower. I like being a leader whenever I can, but there’s too much pressure in being the leader all the time. Who's your favorite person? My girlfriend, durrr. Who have been your favorite American Idol contestants? Siobhan Magnus, Adam Lambert, and Pia Toscano. Did you used to name your Barbies? No. I never liked playing with Barbies either. I think I only ever got one Barbie doll as a present, and it’s because I always preferred playing with toys for boys given that I grew up with mostly male cousins. What unnatural hair color looks best on you?  I’m not sure. I’ve wanted to dye my hair either red or green, though. Is your life boring? No. It’s certainly picked up in the last few months. Do you usually feel better around people or alone? I do great for both situations. It depends on what I need at a particular time. Is there a broken relationship in your life that you want to fix? There’s a broken relationship, but I have no desire to fix it. Do you ever think about Heaven? A part of me finds a level of solace in the idea of getting reunited with lost loved ones when I die, but I mostly think there’s no afterlife. Are you ready for Heaven yet? Are you afraid of where you're going to go? No. I’d like to think I’ll end up somewhere in the universe, and it’s enough to calm me down. Do you have a tree outside your window? Yes, but it’s dark and we have curtains so I can barely see the trees. Do you feel better now than you did last night? I wouldn’t say that, even though I’m feeling okay tonight. I was with Gabie last night, which automatically makes last night better. Is your sleep schedule messed up? It’s still a little bit distorted, yeah. But I’m not too worried about it because at least all my classes this sem start at 10 AM, which means I get to sleep in unlike last sem when I had 7 AM/8:30 AM classes :) Does your body have any problems with it? It gets tired during the day because I’d usually take naps in the afternoon, but it doesn’t affect me too badly. Are you doing ok spiritually? I don’t think about that aspect. Have you taken any huge risks lately? I had a long, blunt talk with Gab last night and it involved topics regarding our relationship that have long been denied and shelved finally acknowledged and let out in the open; and I think that in itself is a big step to take. Silence or songs? I can prefer either depending on my mood. Tea or coffee? Coffee. Books or movies? 10 year old me would say books. Today me would say movies. Do you ever watch your favorite movies from when you were a kid? Yes. I do a Toy Story rewatch at least once a year. ^If you were going to do that, what would you watch? Mostly Disney movies like Toy Story, Finding Nemo, The Game Plan, etc. Do you ignore rude people or do you call them out? Call them out. Do you have trouble staying organized? Yeah, but then again I’m messy-organized so even though I find it hard to maintain being organized, I still end up remember where everything is placed (most of the time). What has been your most favorite adventure? Walking around Bali and my family not knowing where the hell we were or where we were headed. What has been your greatest mistake? I hate questions like this. Are you happy with your life right now? I’m like 75% happy with it, which I’d say is a decently healthy amount. Do you take anything to make your feel better? No. Are your parents still together? Yes. What color socks do you have on? Currently barefoot. Are you under a blanket right now? Nope. It’d be nice to be that right now, though. Are you hopeful? Always.

[reblogthiscrapkay]

Some Thoughts on “Hadestown” and the Tony Awards

I do not claim to be an oracle of who will win the Tonys but here are my ideas, culled from a lot of time spent online reading hot takes and the smaller theater award winners, discussions with my two biggest theater friends who I have been discussing theater with for over 12 years, and also brief chatting with an acquittance who is Tony-nominated adjacent (one day, she will have her own instead of just getting mentioned in speeches!).

Here are what I think the odds are of "Hadestown" winning Tonys.

Best Musical

"Hadestown" has a really good chance of winning but it is by no means guaranteed. Mostly everyone thinks it's going to come down to "Hadestown" or "Tootsie." No one is talking about "Ain't Too Proud", "Beetlejuice" doesn't seem to be a viable candidate (described by my friend as fun but nothing to write home about), and "The Prom" seems to only be really endorsed by the New York Times writers who have an unreasonable amount of power when it comes to what goes to Broadway (they are why "Hadestown" got changed so much and why "Fortress of Solitude," the best musical you've never heard of, never went to Broadway) but not necessarily the deciding vote.

The thing here is really whether the voters want to go safe and traditional with "Tootsie" or new and unique with "Hadestown." In the past few years, they have definitely tended towards the new and unique, but they also have a clear bias against sung-through musicals (see 2017 when "Come From Away" won Best Director but lost Best Musical to "Dear Evan Hansen" in spite of doing really well at the smaller awards). "Hamilton" is a recent exception to this but "Hamilton" was an exception in so many ways.

Overall "Hadestown" is the better show. Both shows have issues with their books but "Tootsie" is tighter and also less interesting. And "Hadestown" has vastly better music. Personally, I'll be surprised if "Tootsie" wins but these kinds of things have happened before.

Best Director

Basically everyone seems to say it will be Rachel Chavkin even if they don't think "Hadestown" will win best musical, and this is very interesting to me as someone who knows a bit more about the interworkings of the Oscars than the Tonys. The Oscars have done this weird and possibly bad thing a lot over the last few years where they give Best Direction to the most artistic and interesting film but Best Picture to whatever movie they enjoyed the most. Last year this was painfully obvious with Alfonso Curon winning for his direction for "Roma" but "Green Book" winning Best Picture. The Tonys don't do this as they usually give both to the same show or they give direction to a revival that will then win Best Revival. But again, 2017 this changed.

That being said "Oklahoma!" seems like the only real competitor here and if Daniel Fish wins over Rachel, I'd be okay with it. "Oklahoma!" was a revelation (and better win Best Revival over "Kiss Me Kate").

Best Book

Here's one where I think "Hadestown" is likely to lose. First of all, the book of "Hadestown" is messy. I love "Hadestown," it's probably my favorite musical of all time, but the book is messy. There are places that are overexplained and a lot of imbalance in how the themes are woven into the story (while still being totally brillant but yeah). There are things that should have been fixed in all the transfers, but they weren't, and it started to feel a bit like writing wack-a-mole following this show since the New York Theatre Workshop.

Also a lot of people find "Hadestown" confusing, which is a problem, but I find this is often a problem of people not being good readers more than anything having to do with the show.

Additionally, Tony voters have no idea what the book is with a sung-through musical. Basically, they don't think there is one. Dialogue is only part of what makes the book, guys.

"Tootsie" will probably win instead. It's got a very tight script and is truthfully very funny. Even though there are as many oops-you-should-edit moments as in "Hadestown," the comedy and the appeal to the particular demographic they were shooting for will win it.

Best Original Score

I feel like "Hadestown" has this one locked down. Even people who find the show incomprehensible seem to love the music. David Yazbek won last year for "Band's Visit" (a vastly better show than "Tootsie") so it's safe to say he's out of the running. I've got nothing else here.

Best Orchestrations

"Hadestown" has a damn good chance here too. Its music is one of its strongest qualities, and if you compare the NYTW to the Broadway in terms of orchestration, there's a lot going on here and it's all good. "Oklahoma!" is a potential opponent because of how they managed to change around the original to make it all read so much better to a modern audience.

Best Performance By An Actress In A Leading Role

I'm going to say Eva has only a 25% chance of winning. Stephanie J. Block seems to be a likely winner because of her previous nominations and the fact that the Tonys often give out awards for career work instead of the single show they are in. Otherwise, "The Cher Show." Really. Some people think Kelli O'Hara has a chance because the Tony voters love their generic starlets but since she's already got a Tony, I think Stephanie and Eva are much more likely competitors. "The Prom" girls seem to cancel each other out (more on the canceling effect two categories below).

If Eva wins I will be PUMPED, but I'm not counting on it.

Best Performance By An Actress In A Featured Role

Everything here comes down to Amber Gray versus Ali Stoker. The "Tootsie" actresses cancel each other out (more on the canceling effect one category below), but Ali is far and away a standout over Mary Testa. To quote my acquaintance, "Amber Gray will win because she's the most interesting woman on Broadway, like how Katrina Lenk won last year." I think she could be right here, but I will propose an additional theory for why Amber may win: Amber originated a role, one she has been working on for years. Ali stole the show in "Oklahoma!" but she stole the show with a classic show stealing role. Also, because those voters like career work, Amber has been around longer (although she wasn't nominated, she was the best thing about "Natasha Pierre" for me). Ali is young and at this point mostly known for her small role in Deaf West's "Spring Awakening."

Ali will be a Tony winner. Maybe this Sunday. Maybe in a few years. If she wins I'll be happy for her and there's no denying she will deserve the award, but I'm rooting for Amber.

Best Performance By An Actor In A Featured Role

I have gone on a journey with this category. Let me start by saying it seems like Andre DeShields will win. Now let me back up and tell you the long adventure I went on to conclude this.

I have now mentioned "canceling out" a lot, which has a tendency to happen with shows where multiple people are nominated (usually in acting). The important thing to note is that just because two people are in the same category does not mean they automatically cancel each other. Daveed Diggs won for featured actor for "Hamilton" over his costars Chris Jackson and Jon Groff, and there's a clear reason why: of the three he was the standout. He was the most dynamic and had the meatiest role. This only works when there isn't an obvious winner in that show. And this is why figuring out this category has been so damn difficult and I still may be wrong.

Originally one of my friends said he thought Andre and Patrick Page would cancel each other out and that the two guys nominated for "Ain't Too Proud" would cancel each other out and we would have the award going to the guy from "Tootsie" (sorry I don't have the names, but for the reference that guy was literally my favorite thing about "Tootsie"). I initally argued that while both "Hadestown" guys do clearly dominate the category in general, Patrick could win because he plays a dynamic character while Andre plays a static one. My friend countered that the Tony voters really love narrator characters, and well, he's right. This idea was expanded by my other friend who pointed out that Andre opens and closes the show and has a lot of the theme-dropping lines, while Patrick doesn't make his entrance until halfway through Act One and that this leaves an impression.

But ultimately it probably comes down to this: career. Andre will get the award because of his career. Every middle aged gay man I've spoken to who didn't understand the show was very proud to tell me that they saw him in "Ain't Misbehavin" in the 70s (to which I said I saw him in "Fortress of Solitude" a few years ago as a jest that none of them seemed to be amused by).

The canceling theory may still play here, but it's hard for me to imagine that the award won't at least go to one of the "Hadestown" guys.

Best Scenic Design, Best Costume Design, Best Choreography

I'm talking about these three together because my explanation for all three is basically the same. In all three of these categories, "Hadestown" feels like an underdog because it is not flashy in the way shows like "Beetlejuice" or "King Kong" are. They don't have the grandiosity or diversity of costumes of "The Cher Show" or the traditional choreography of "Tootsie."

But "Hadestown" is literally creating a time and place that doesn't really exist; it's not even fantasy, just otherworldliness. The scenic design and costumes anchor you in a place that is like our world but isn't and everything about the choices made, from the shifting set to the details of the costumes, is meant to create this place of kinda New Orleans, kinda 1930s, but also kinda anywhere and now. If "Hadestown" wins scenic design or costume design it will be very deserved and very unconventional.

The choreography has a similar effect. The only real 'dance' numbers are "Living It Up On Top" which is very traditional, "Way Down Hadestown" which feels more frenetic and unplanned, and "Lover's Desire" which is literally a slow dance. The thing is, the choreography throughout the show tells you so much about characters, what they are thinking, and how they are feeling in a way traditional choreography doesn't. Interesting enough Amber Gray was nominated for a dance award for the show. Like with scenic design and costume design, if "Hadestown" wins it will be deserved but a bit uexpected.

Best Lighting Design

Those "Wait For Me" lights will probably win them this Tony but it's worth acknowledging that this show has a lot of amazing lighting design from those swinging lights to the lanterns the Fates use to how Eurydice is able to disappear with the use of light, smoke, and turntable, to the lights of Hadestown, to those colored lights in "How Long" that I am now weirdly obsessed with. But those swinging lights are so iconic that they just might win it on that alone.

Best Sound Design

I know nothing about sound design and no one else seems to either. I noticed some sound design. I also noticed some sound design in "Oklahoma!" I don't know anyone who saw "King Kong" or "Ain't Too Proud." Who knows.

[jamesashtonisbae]

The Freshman Series Ch. 4

Word Count: 3,829

Pairing: James x MC

Rating: M

Warnings: Language, mentions sex

Summary: Ch.4 of Book 1 of The Freshman by PB.

Disclaimer: I do not own these characters, they belong to pixelberry studios.  A lot of dialogue is from PB.  I will change the storyline a bit when things are out of character for people, particularly Lacey and James. 

Ch. 4

Lacey rushed up to her room to change her clothes, pulling on a pair of leggings and a loose, long-sleeved Hartfeld Knights Women’s Basketball t-shirt.  It made her a little sad to think about how her career was over.  She shook out the memory from coming back up, and rushed back downstairs.  She ran into Chris right outside of her room.  He pulled her into a hug, wordlessly.  She felt his emotion seeping through her.  She could tell that he liked her, and that the night before was not just a casual thing for him.  But she didn’t feel the same things.  She didn’t want him like that anymore.  Last night, she had wanted him physically, maybe even emotionally.  And then, when she was faced with leaving, she pushed him out of her head, insisting that she needed to focus on staying.  Which she did, she really did.  And she was going to have to work really hard to keep her spot here, now knowing what it would take with Professor Vasquez.  But then, she met James.  And every other man to have ever existed in the history of the world didn’t matter.  And she felt horribly.  Chris deserved so much better.  And not her. She couldn’t give him what he was asking for in this hug.  And then there was Becca.  She wanted Chris.  And she seemed to get what she wanted.  So maybe it wouldn’t even matter that Lacey was solely interested in James.

 She pulled away, offered Chris a soft smile, and ran back to the kitchen, shouting, “Let’s get going!  It’s 9:00 pm and we don’t have a moment to lose!”

Soon, the only sounds were computer keys clacking, coffee mugs clanking, and pages shuffling.  Occasionally, someone would cough, or sneeze, or get up to refill on coffee.  But otherwise, it was quiet.  

 As Lacey typed, she found her mind wandering to this quarter of school.  She had never really been away from her home in Boston for more than just a vacation, and she didn’t know if she would get homesick.  Her parents were wonderful, Stephen and Maureen made sure to shower her with love and give her any opportunity to make something of herself. They had sent her to every basketball camp, found her every tutor if she needed one, given her all the freedom in the world when it came to friends and boys and experiences, and she knew that were it not for them she would not have made it to Hartfeld at all.  Financially, she knew things were tough for her family growing up, but she didn’t realize how tough until her father lost his job. With a sigh, Lacey shook herself from her thoughts and continued mindlessly typing.

 "Okay!  Quick check-in.  How many pages has everyone finished?" Lacey asked, approximately an hour later.

 "Eight!" Chris exclaimed.

 "Twelve!" Zack said with a smile, continuing to type.

 "Thirty!" Abbie said, typing furiously.

 "Thirty?" Tyler asked, a bit in awe.

 "What can I say?  I spend a lot of time online,” Abbie said with a smile.  Tyler chuckled, very clearly impressed with Abbie.  Lacey was excited to watch the two of them get to know each other better. They were both such kind, interesting people, and Lacey was not entirely sure she could have found better friends. Abbie seemed to just understand her from their one conversation from the day before.  Lacey could tell Abbie was going to be one of her closest friends.

 "Okay... time to really concentrate and do this!" Lacey grinned, typing out almost fifty pages in a couple hours.

 Chris got up from his computer to stretch and looked over Lacey’s shoulder to check on her progress.  He set his hands on her shoulders as they talked.

 "Wow... you're getting a lot done,” Chris said, massaging lightly as she continued to type.  Lacey bit the inside of her cheek, knowing at some point, she’d have to have a conversation with Chris that she really didn’t want to have.  But he deserved her honesty at the very least.  

 "Let's just say I'm highly motivated,” Lacey said, never breaking stride.

 "And why's that?" Chris gave her shoulders a soft squeeze.

 "I want to stay because I need an education!  I need to get a degree!  I need a life!  I can't end up like my cousin Hanna, living in her parents’ basement, with two maxed-out credit cards and a serious addiction to vintage Hello Kitty merchandise!” Lacey yelled, exasperated!  It didn’t hurt that she wanted to see James.  And spend time with him, getting to know him.  But now was not the time to have that conversation with Chris.

 "Don't worry.  You're not going anywhere.  We won't let that happen,” Chris said with a smile and one final squeeze of her arm.

 As Chris headed back to his laptop in the next room, Kaitlyn and Abbie sidled up to Lacey.  She let out a sigh, knowing that she was about to be interrogated about what had just happened with Chris.

 "Okay... time to dish.  What's the latest on you and Chris?" Katelyn asked with a grin, elbowing Lacey while Abbie stood next to her, chin tilted up at Lacey curiously.

 "What are you talking about?" Lacey asked incredulously.

 "Don't play dumb.  I know you two stayed behind last night..." Kaitlyn nudged her.

 "Stop pressuring her, Kaitlyn.  They were probably just talking... Plus, Lacey would never be reckless enough to date someone in the house, right?" Abbie asked.

 "To be honest, he’s just a friend,” Lacey answered them.  Not a lie.

 "Huh.  I thought for sure you two would connect..." Kaitlyn said, confused.  If only she knew the actual truth.  She didn’t want to talk about her sleeping with Chris while she needed to focus on finishing this project for Vasquez.

 "I'm just glad to hear this suite is staying drama-free,” Abbie said.  Lacey was not interested in it staying drama-free.  She didn’t really care, but hoped Chris would respond in a non-dramatic fashion as well.  Abbie would freak out if she knew the truth.

 "Anyway, we should get back to work!" Lacey quickly changed the subject.

 "You're the boss..." Kaitlyn said, still seemingly unconvinced about Lacey and Chris.

 Lacey turned back to her computer and continued to type.  At midnight, she looked at the time, "Looks like we're ahead of schedule.  We're almost a third of the way through!"

 "But we just hit a serious emergency: the coffee maker is fried!" Kaitlyn cried.

 "What?!" Abbie pulled herself away from typing to gape at the counter.

 "Game over, man!  We're doomed!" Tyler flopped over on his laptop.

 "Not if I can help it!  It just so happens that the campus coffee shop is only a short walk away from our dorm!  Even better, the barista is a total babe.  His name is Brandon, and he basically looks like he was carved by Michelangelo... Please, please come with me, Lacey!  You can be my wing-girl!  Plus we'll get enough coffee to keep everyone awake and typing!" Zack pulled on her arm.

 "Please go with him Lacey!  We need that coffee, and if Zack goes on his own, he'll spend all night working up the courage to talk to Brandon!" Tyler smiled over at her, teasing.

 "Okay, okay, I'm in!" Lacey said, grabbing a light gray jacket.

 "That's my girl!" Zack smiled, tugging her arm.

 They hustled over to the coffee shop, Lacey was hoping it would be a quick visit.  But also knew it would not be a quick trip.

 “I totally owe you one, Lacey!  I know I talk a big game... But under all of this steely confidence is the heart of a tiny, scared mouse,” Zack said, smiling softly at Lacey.

 "Somehow I have trouble believing that,” Lacey laughed at her energetic roommate becoming shy.

 "There he is!  Just look at him.  The hottest thing around here isn't the coffee,” Zack was smitten, and it was adorable.

 "Dude, Brandon is a total smokeshow,” Lacey said, looking over at the tall brown-haired guy standing behind the counter. He looked really nice, and was definitely really cute.

 "Tell me something I don't know,” Zack licked his lips, looking over at Lacey to shoot her a wink.

 Zack looked over at Brandon again. "Ah!  Panic is setting in!  What if he's not into me? What if he's not even single?  What if he isn't into guys?" 

 "I guess... asking him would be a good start?" Lacey said softly, nudging him towards the counter.

 "Great idea!  I need you to go get some intel!  I'll wait at that table WAY over there!" Zack pointed to a table near where James was sitting, writing.

 Lacey hadn’t even noticed him, and called out, “James!  Hey!” as soon as she saw him.  He waved over at Lacey, and Lacey smiled and waved back.

 Zack speed walked to a table at the back of the shop as Lacey reached the front of the line and came face to face with Brandon.

 "Everything okay?  Your friend took off in a hurry..." Brandon said, gesturing to where Zack was sitting in the back.

 "I think he just gets nervous..." Lacey said, smiling softly at Brandon, “just six large coffees please.”

 "I've seen him hanging out a few times.  What's his story?" Brandon asked, getting started on their coffee.

 "Zack?  He's the funniest guy you'll ever meet,” Lacey chuckled at how great she thought Zack actually was.  There wasn’t much she wouldn’t say as an endorsement of her friend, but he was funny.  Very funny.

 "So he's funny and cute?" Brandon said, sounding like he wished he was flirting with Zack.  Not through Lacey.

 "Oh yeah, and did I mention single?" Lacey smirked.

 "Now you did."

 "That actually reminds me of something I wanted to ask you...  Do you have a boyfriend?" Lacey asked, her smirk still plastered on her face.

 "Somehow I don't think you're the one who wants to ask me that.  You can tell your friend that he should come talk to me himself... And that I'm into shy guys,” Brandon smiled.

 After ordering coffee for the roommates, Lacey headed back to Zack’s table, which was conveniently right next to where James was sitting.  She planned to stop by James’s table first to at least say hi, but Zack had other plans.

 "So... what did he say?" Zack asked, not even letting Lacey say hello to James.

 "Sounds like he's actually married to a nice girl..." Lacey shrugged, glancing back at James, who had his eyes on her as she conversed with Zack.  James grinned softly in her direction, and Lacey gave him a flirty wave.

 "What?!" Zack exclaimed, eyes wide.

 "Relax!  I'm just kidding.  He seems into you.  You should go talk to him,” Lacey gestured towards the counter.

 After working up some courage, Zack finally walked over to Brandon.  Lacey turned to sit down next to James and smiled again, “Hi.  How are you doing, James?”

 “Doing well.  How about you Lacey?  Is the project going well?”

 Lacey laughed, and James grinned over at her knowingly, “That good, huh?”

 “Well, I got my roommates to help out.  And so we’re just about done.  I think it’s going to get finished.  I think I’m going to get to stay here.  Which is great, because when I woke up I was not entirely sure I would be able to start a four year education this year.”

 James laughed, then sobered when he realized Lacey wasn’t joking, “Just so you know Lacey, working for Vasquez is not going to be a walk in the park after you finish this one.  But it will be rewarding.  He’s wise, and he knows what he’s doing, Lacey.  You’re in really good hands.  And I’ll be there, so we could hang out.  You could maybe give me feedback on my play…”

 “Why do you trust me to give you feedback? You don’t know anything about me. What if I’m illiterate, or an idiot?”

 “Well,” he began, looking over at her softly, “the way you inhabited Elizabeth, even when you were just reading it, made me visualize what this play will actually be like when actors are reading lines and bringing it to life.  You were exactly what I envisioned.  I kind of had thought about giving up on it, and then today, I saw you.  Seeing what it could be, it inspired me to keep going.”

 She laughed, “Oh, wait, you’re serious.  You are inspired.  By me.  James, you can’t be serious.  You know that you are brilliant.  I loved reading what you wrote.  It’s beautiful.  And I’m happy to read the rest of it and give you feedback if you think it would help. But please know that I don’t think you do.”

 “Thank you, Lacey.  I haven’t really let anyone but Vasquez read it yet.  So, um, I’d appreciate your feedback.  I’m hoping you will stick around.”

 Their eyes met over the coffee table.  She grinned nervously.  He was looking at her in a way she’d never been looked at before. He was looking at her like, like she was his muse.  And she knew in that moment she was done for.  He had her.

 Suddenly, Zack was standing in front of the table, drawing Lacey’s eyes away from James’s.

 "So? How'd it go?" Lacey asked with a grin, shaking herself out of the trance James had put her in.

 "Terrible,” Zack sighed.

 "Really?  You guys were chatting for like ten minutes!" Lacey exclaimed, assuming that it had only been that long.  She felt like she’d been speaking with James for three seconds and three hours all at once.

 "Yeah... and then I ordered another coffee and said goodbye.  I didn't even get his number!" Zack sighed, again.

 "Wait a second... look at your cup!" Lacey smiled, turning it towards Zack.

 "Brandon wrote his number!" Zack exclaimed.

 "And a winky face!" Lacey winked at him.

 Zack threw his arms around Lacey, "Best.  Wing girl.  Ever.  I'm never leaving home without you again."

 “Aww, Zack!  This is so exciting!  I’m so happy for you!” she hugged him back, “Now we need to go finish this assignment!”

 “Wait, Lacey!  Umm, when will I hang out with you again?” James asked Lacey, getting up and walking with her to the door.

 “Oh, umm.  I should be in the office early tomorrow morning to drop this off.  If you’re there, I’ll see you then!” Lacey could almost swear that he was as excited to spend time with her as she was with him.  She couldn’t tell yet, but she thought that there was at least a miniscule possibility that he liked her and wanted to spend time with her in a ‘more than friends’ capacity.  And she absolutely would not mind if that were true.

 James smiled, “Great.  See you in a couple of hours.”

 She walked out of the coffee shop, giddy. Then the giddiness disappeared when she realized what time it was.  A sense of determination replaced it.

 "...and here's a double-espresso for my favorite football star," Zack handed out all of the coffee when they had arrived back at the suite.

 "I assume you're talking about me,” Tyler joked.

 "Very funny.  Now hand over that cup.  I can barely keep my eyes open,” Chris grabbed the cup, glancing at Lacey and smiling.

 "By the way, I owe you big time.  Anytime you need a wingman, I'm at your disposal,” Zack hugged her again.

 "I may take you up on that.  But for now, what I really need is for you to type your heart out.  Let's keep pushing everyone!" Lacey said, grabbing her laptop and beginning to type quickly.

 At 4:00 AM, Lacey headed to the kitchen for a quick break and found herself alone with Chris.

 "Hey... we haven't really had a chance to talk about last night,” Chris murmured, grazing his fingers over her arm.

 "Yeah... that was really... fun?" Lacey said, trying to figure out how to let him know that she didn’t want to do it again.

 "Yeah it was.  I... I don't usually do stuff like that,” Chris laughed.

 Lacey raised her eyebrows at him, "Well, I do. I mean, casual sex is just casual sex."

 He shifted awkwardly, "So, ummm, what happens now?"

 "Chris, it was just a casual thing.  I'm just, I don't know.  This doesn't feel right to me.  I’m really only interested in being friends,” Lacey looked down, then dared to look back up at him again.  He looked hurt.  Lacey felt so badly.  But he did say he wasn’t ready for something serious.  And he didn’t seem like the type of guy who would want a casual relationship.  But looking at how hurt he was, she wasn’t sure if she should have gone a different route. No, honesty was the best policy. She stood by her choice.

 "I... I understand.  And... I already told you about Nicole and everything.  I'm still sorting out a lot of my own feelings,” Chris was still running his fingers over her arm.

 "I totally get it.  There's so much up in the air right now... for both of us.  At this point, I'm not even sure if I'll be able to stay in school.  It’s just not right.”

 "No worries.  I... I'm gonna head back to get some more work done, okay?" Chris squeezed her arm.

 "Talk to you soon..." Lacey sighed, running her hand over her face in distress as Chris walked away.

 "Hey... everything okay?" Zack asked, concerned.

 "Yep!  Just uh... psyching myself up to get back to work!" Lacey smiled.

 "Right on!  Time for one last push!" Zack cracked his knuckles getting ready to type again.

 Finally, it was 7:30 AM and Lacey wearily flipped the page she was on, seeing nothing, "That's... that's the last page!"

 "We did it!" Kaitlyn exclaimed.

 "Group hug!" Zack shouted.

 "Okay.  One hug.  Then I'm headed to bed.  But... good luck, Lacey.  I hope you get to stay here,” Abbie gripped Lacey’s waist exhaustedly.

 "Me too..." Lacey smiled, “thanks,” she whispered to Abbie.

 After the group hug, Lacey rushed upstairs, fixed her makeup, and pulled on a pair of nice dark jeans and a floral tank with a navy cardigan over it.  Hopefully, James would be in when she took in the digital copy of his book.  And hopefully Vasquez wasn’t as anal about floral prints as he was about stripes.

 She entered with a knock and smiled over at Vasquez, “Good morning, Professor Vasquez.  Here’s the flash drive with the digital copy on it.”

 She set it down and he didn’t respond.  James entered with three cups of coffee, handing one to Lacey and putting one on the desk for Vasquez.  He grabbed the coffee first, then the flash drive.

 Lacey and James sat down at the table, talking softly while Vasquez read and commented on it aloud.  She was half listening to Vasquez, and half getting lost in James’s mocha eyes.

 “So, you nervous for your first day?”

 Lacey laughed, then responded, “If I can handle this assignment from Vasquez, I think I’m going to be fine with this whole college thing.”

 James offered a chuckle and met her eyes, “You may be right.  Vasquez is going to be much more difficult than a lot of professors who work here. Regardless of their department.”

 “If I make it past today, I honestly am not too concerned about the rest of the year.”

 “What’s the rest of your day look like?”

 “Probably an early morning nap, then I’ll keep myself awake until a normal bedtime so last night doesn’t completely fuck up my sleep schedule.  Gotta be ready for my first day.”

 Lacey and James were interrupted by Vasquez finishing his check, "Let's see here... better spot check a couple of scenes... no typos so far... Congratulations.  You completed your task.  The manuscript looks... adequate."

 "Adequate?  Thank you,” Lacey had drawn her eyes away from James.

 "Well then.  Onto your project.  My new book is centered on a group of college students in the modern age...  And I need a firsthand account of what it's like to live that life.  Your actual first assignment is to write a detailed summary of everything that happened last night.  Was there any drama?  How did your friends react when you ensnared them in my little test?" Vasquez asked her, steepling his fingers as he looked at her eagerly.

 "So that was just a test?" Lacey asked, knowing she needed to breathe deep, and remember what James had told her about this not being a walk in the park.  He was what was going to keep her at Hartfeld.  She was going to get a degree.  She was going to get to know James better.  She wanted to stay.

 "Of course it was!  Now start writing up the details of the experience.  And when you're done with that, I've got your next assignment ready... One of the characters in my book is a football player.  I'll need you to go find out what that's like through some firsthand research."

 "I... do have one friend who's a football player, but..." Lacey reflected on how their conversation last night had gone. And how she wanted to avoid speaking with Chris at all costs.

 "But nothing!  I need you to go talk to him in-depth about his life!" Vasquez shooed her away, while also exiting himself.

 "After the talk I had with Chris last night, I--" Lacey was cut off.

 "Less complaining, more working.  Get to it!" Vasquez yelled back into the room.

 She looked over at James, her mouth open.

 “Who is Chris?” James asked.

 “He’s, ah, he’s one of my roommates.”

 “And he plays football?”

 Lacey nodded, not quite meeting his eyes.

 “That’s cool.  Should make this project easy.  You know where to find him at least.  When did Vasquez say it was due?”

 “Oh, ah, I don’t really know.  Should I assume it’s tomorrow?  Or should I email him?  Or should I…”

 “Maybe, you should just say that you talked to his TA, and his TA said that next Monday morning would work.”

 “Who’s his TA?  Is that you?”

 “Yes, it’s me.”

 “Oh, okay.  So I have a few days to get this written up.”

 “Yes, but don’t leave it until the night before. He’ll know.”

 “James…”

 “Yes Lacey.”

 “Will he really just fire me if I mess up?”

 James glanced over at her, “No, I know he needs you for this book he’s writing.  He’s a bit removed from the college girl perspective, and you’ve got it.  Plus, somehow, excitement seems to follow you. You’re going to have a lot to offer him. And I never wanted him to keep any of the others.  They weren’t good.  You, you need to stick around.  He was impressed.  I could tell. And, well, I like bantering with you, Lacey.  So I’ll do what I can to keep you around.”

[pass-the-bechdel]

Marvel Cinematic Universe: Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

Does it pass the Bechdel Test?

No.

How many female characters (with names and lines) are there?

One (7.69% of cast).

How many male characters (with names and lines) are there?

Twelve.

Positive Content Rating:

Three.

General Film Quality:

Excellent! Full of as much heart as action, the film takes on the complicated task of delivering a Captain America for the modern world, avoiding jingoism while also acknowledging the origins which brought the comic-book hero into being. Against the odds (and my personal expectations), it is a sound success, and I consider it easily the best of the Marvel franchise’s early films.

MORE INFO (and potential spoilers) UNDER THE CUT:

Passing the Bechdel:

Obviously, that didn’t happen.

Female characters:

Peggy Carter.

Male characters:

Johann Schmidt.

Steve Rogers.

James ‘Bucky’ Barnes.

Howard Stark.

Abraham Erskine.

Arnim Zola.

Gilmore Hodge.

Chester Phillips.

Brandt.

Fred Clemson.

Timothy Dugan.

Nick Fury.

OTHER NOTES:

I’m mad about the Hydra symbol being the coolest insignia in this franchise. I would wear the heck outta some Hydra merchandise, if it weren’t for the, y’know, evil Nazi fascism stuff. 

I love little Steve. They pulled that off so well.

I don’t love that Peggy’s introduction revolves around her being disrespected by a guy and then knocking him on his ass. It feels far too prescribed, too Strong Woman Cliche, so expected as to be rendered essentially meaningless. It implies that these are the most important things about the character - she’s a woman and she’s tough - and it panders to the sexist perspective by requiring Peggy to ‘prove herself’ upon arrival in a traditionally-masculinised way. They could have handled this introduction much better.

Man. This movie has such a good cast. The goodness of this cast has no chill.

“So many people forget that the first country that the Nazis invaded was their own.” This the good shit.

“Go get him! I can swim.” Snort.

Sometimes, when I can’t sleep, ‘Star Spangled Man’ plays over and over again in my head. That’s probably why I can’t sleep.

“Do you...fondue?”

The thing where someone gets hit and they fly off-screen in an exaggerated fashion is never not funny to me.

Characters surviving explosions without a scratch, however, is never not rubbish to me. 

A super-soldier is never late, Peggy Carter, nor is he early; he arrives precisely when he means to.

Steve really isn’t very precious about choosing his team: they’re all just Bucky’s friends. He basically just went “ok, show of hands, who loves Bucky Barnes? Good, you guys are with me”. I mean, it’s solid reasoning - he trusts Bucky, and these guys have Bucky’s endorsement, and that’s good enough for Steve. I note that only one of the other guys on the team besides Steve and Bucky is a white American - the other guys are a black American and an Asian-American (and I see you there, recognition of racism against Japanese-Americans which led to their incarceration during the war, etc.), and then there’s a French dude and a Brit. That’s Captain America’s elite team: not all-American, and racially inclusive. I DIG that subtext.

*hisses* why is this whole Natalie-Dormer-mackin’-on-Steve thing even here? It’s a useless contrivance, plus I am extremely displeased at having Peggy being so petty in her jealousy that she actually fires a loaded gun straight at Steve. I sure hope she heard Howard’s explanation about the properties of the vibranium shield, or that she already knew them, because otherwise this is completely outrageous, but even then: what if the shield hadn’t performed as advertised? What if a bullet ricocheted and hit someone else? This is such a dangerous thing to do, and did I mention it is in service of a useless contrivance anyway? Peggy deserves better writing.

Lemme tell ya straight up: I thought I was gonna hate this movie. I mean...it’s Captain America. I expected cloying patriotism, a blandly self-righteous hero, probably some good ol’ war glorification as well. What we got instead was a film that barely even mentioned the good ol’ USA outside of the (explicitly recognised as) propaganda rigmarole that Captain America slogs through - a tool used to excellent effect to acknowledge the character’s history (the comic was created as propaganda during WWII in real life) while also carrying through the idea that what Captain America stands for is something far grander than nationalist fervour - and Steve himself is imbued with unassuming charm, fueled by the strength of his personal convictions but never forcing those convictions upon others in a show of moral grand-standing: an essential facet of the character is that he’ll pursue what he believes to be right regardless of whether anyone else follows him, and he accepts that there are consequences to his actions; he never props himself up with holier-than-thou declarations, he never shames anyone for disagreeing with him, and he never claims any kind of superiority over others (an important distinction when you’re juxtaposed with a Nazi Ubermensch villain). Other characters are inspired by Steve, but the film wisely never positions them as if they were weak or wavering without the symbol of Captain America to unite them: the war is a grindhouse, and they know the only way out is through. No one is fighting because they perceive battle as a great and noble cause, nor because they are righteously empowered; they fight because their enemy is too terrible to let pass, and there is no room for glory in that.

I can (and will) still quibble about the representation of war in the film: while the fact that it is sparingly shown does help to avoid the glorification of violence and death in battle, it also undersells the horror of war, which runs the risk of looping back around to glorification by making it all into fun skirmishes with faceless goons and glow-weapons. Additionally, Captain America clashes exclusively with Hydra and its operatives; while Red Skull severs his ties with Hitler early on through the welcome disintegration of a few Nazi representatives, the film cannot entirely distance itself from Hitler’s legacy (which Red Skull actively takes on for himself), and I take long-standing issue with anything which uses Nazis as an evil catch-all but fails to acknowledge and respect the victims of their reign. After Steve’s heroic nose-dive in the Valkyrie ends Hydra’s campaign, the film cuts to celebrations of the end of the war; they don’t actually state that it was Captain America who just defeated the Nazis by taking down Red Skull (despite the fact that Hydra’s soldiers with their fancy tech and also, um, actual-Hitler and his armies, are all still out there), but the implication is there, and it feels a mite bit insensitive, to say the least. I do think it is better that Steve has his own corner of the war to fight, rather than taking on the whole thing and battling actual-Hitler in the end (now THAT would be insensitive), but I do wish that the destruction and evil of the war at large were the backdrop of the film, rather than the comparatively sanitised Hydra operation that we see.

In this context, the weight of the war and the toll that it takes on the psyche of those suffering through it is carried almost exclusively by Bucky Barnes, who emerges from the unseen tortures of a Hydra work camp changed, his buoyant enthusiasm from the beginning of the film subdued, locked up behind the shattered look in his eyes and the fragile way he carries himself, determined to see this thing through to the end so that he can fall apart later, if he makes it that far (he doesn’t). Fandom has made much of Sebastian Stan’s understated performance, and with good reason: despite a minimal number of scenes there is a richness of detail in Bucky’s character, and as the emotional sinking ground for tragedy - both as the personification of the war’s devastation, and as a personal loss for Steve Rogers - Bucky’s narrative importance belies the amount of time dedicated to him in-text. Fandom has also made a strong point - with which I agree entirely and for which I will not pretend to take unique credit for noticing - that despite expectation, Bucky’s archetypal function in the film is not as the Hero’s Sidekick; he is, in actuality, fulfilling the cliche of the Love Interest, not in competition with Peggy Carter but instead of; Peggy, likewise, is not an archetypal Love Interest at all, because she’s the Hero’s Sidekick.

I am entirely of the opinion that this is an essential part of what makes Peggy - the sole named female character in town - work out so well, against the odds. As Steve’s sidekick, Peggy’s primary functions are to support him and give him advice; the sidekick is traditionally a rational role, someone who keeps the hero grounded and helps them to make the right choices, especially when they are emotionally conflicted. The Love Interest compels the hero’s emotions, sometimes (often) framed as driving them to acts of recklessness, to joyous heights, and depressive lows. Bucky is Steve’s damsel in distress; Steve is compelled to act when he learns that Bucky has been captured by the enemy, action which is tempered and assisted by Peggy’s influence and which ultimately brings Captain America out of propaganda mode to practice what he has preached, and be the soldier Steve always hoped to be. When Bucky falls, Peggy is there to talk to Steve, as a friend, and help him stop wallowing and concentrate his grief into the resolve which carries him through the climactic confrontations of the film’s final act. I’m not going to argue that Steve wanted to join the army just to be with Bucky (presumably that was a factor to some extent, but to call it the primary motivator would be to ignore the value set which made Steve into Captain America in the first place), nor that he was willing to sacrifice himself in the end because Bucky was gone (Steve’s mourning for Bucky certainly played a role in his mental state at the time, but ultimately, bringing down the Valkyrie was a practical choice, not an emotional one), but undeniably, Bucky was either integrally or tangentially attached to all of Steve’s major decisions across the film, as is common for a Love Interest, whereas Peggy consistently filled a support-and-guidance role, as any good sidekick should.

This is not to imply, by any measure, that Peggy can’t or shouldn’t be seen as a viable (lower case) love interest (or that Bucky’s time as a hero’s sidekick somehow doesn’t count as what it is); actually, I think that both character’s relationships with Steve benefit from being framed in this switched fashion. Bucky’s lifelong friendship with Steve comes across stronger and more meaningful due to the emotional pitch, allowing it to resonate as something deeply significant to Steve despite the limited exposure we have to it in action - extra important considering that Bucky is also fulfilling that sacrificial-character role. For Peggy, the fact that she is presented as a love interest but coded as a Hero’s Sidekick is even more important in its effect: since she is the only woman around, we have been taught by approximately All Media Ever to perceive her as the Love Interest from the second she steps on screen, and with that perception we are also encouraged to devalue her character as essentially existing for no other purpose than to be an attractive female prize for the Manly Male Hero to win by story’s end. By reinforcing Peggy as a friend to Steve, we subvert the expectation that she has no real function and/or that her personality is irrelevant, because narrative coding has taught us that sidekicks (almost exclusively male) matter, they have things to say and their influence on the hero is meaningful. Whether they are stalwart sidekicks, or bumbling fools, comedic, or secretly-insidious, a sidekick should be noted, because they’re a lot more likely to have something plot-relevant going on than a boring old Love Interest. Being presented as a helpful, sympathetic presence in Steve’s life who also Has Her Own Shit Going On allows Peggy to meet Steve on more even ground, and her interactions with him are not built around being romantically or sexually available: by having a working relationship built on a foundation of understanding friendship rather than attractive chemistry, the development of feelings between the characters comes across more as extraneous and organic, rather than a prescribed cliche. It still is a prescribed cliche, but it’s not one that compels Steve to do dumb stuff or that undermines Peggy’s relevance as a person in her own right, and that makes it a much more palatable romance than what we usually get.

This is also why that idiotic ~jealousy~ contrivance I flagged earlier is so out of place - I mean, it’s out of place because it’s idiotic, it has no impact on the story in any way and its an insult to the characters and I don’t know why it exists or why they kept it in the final cut of the film because it’s asinine rubbish, but it’s also out of place because it approaches Peggy as a Love Interest, scorned and emotionally lashing out, an attempt to generate Love Interest drama where it has no place in the movie, for the characters as the people that they are, with the established dynamic that they have, or in the context of their situation. Throwing a misunderstanding and some hurt feelings on top of a relationship which has worked refreshingly well thus far because of the honest and open conversations the characters have shared is utterly tone-deaf, and it’s one black mark on what is otherwise a shockingly strong and tonally-consistent film. She may be all alone in the movie, but I will happily argue that Peggy is the best, most-rounded female character in the MCU at this early stage, and she’s playing across from an eminently worthy leading man in Chris Evans’ charmingly-sincere Steve Rogers. The supporting cast is there - Seb Stan, of course, but also Stanley Tucci! Tommy Lee Jones! HUGO WEAVING! - being wonderful and engaging across the board, and there are no weak links (except Natalie Dormer, but that’s not her fault, and at least the misstep is brief and POINTLESS so that it doesn’t taint the rest of the film). Captain America: The First Avenger may not be absolutely perfect - nothing is - but it is a great ride, sometimes surprisingly nuanced, sometimes intriguingly subversive even while it plays straight with the expectations of its genre. I went into my first viewing of the film just hoping it wouldn’t make me mad, and I gotta tell ya: I ain’t mad at all. As far as I’m concerned, this is the platonic ideal of superhero films.

[i-want-my-iwtv]

New to the fandom and why do people think Ann Rice is crazy

(I have a backlog of asks, Real Life has been taking my life, and this is the one I decide to answer, bc I am apparently a glutton for punishment) (My senpais re: the topic of allowing writers to write dark fiction (and readers to read it) are @restoringsanity and @freedom-of-fanfic, among others, check them out).

Welcome to our little corner of Tumblrland! 

This became a Wall of Text™, but I felt like articulating these thoughts again, as I do periodically. Sorry, no cut, couldn’t find a good place to do it.

Anon, I hope you come into the light and join us, share with us what you like about VC and make our fandom better for being part of it. You might make some of the best friends of your life with us :) I definitely have, and that’s what fandom is about for me. 

I think this question was answered very well by @interview-withthevampire here, with supporting links. I was honored to be tagged as a Certified Old in the fandom, yes, I was around in the Dark Ages of the Internet, for the Spec Massacre, but am I a Respected Old? That’s debatable, lol. I have my opinions about VC, and everyone’s headcanon may vary on all of it.

No sense reinventing the wheel in answering the same way as they did, but I have thoughts to add. @interview-withthevampire started their answer as follows, and I want to start mine the same way: 

“the reason why Anne Rice is a bit quarrelsome (I don’t want to use “cr*zy”) is because, well, the kindest way to put it is that she’s a bit of an ego-maniac.”

^YES. She’s probably a bit of an ego-maniac, but not “cr*zy.” “Crazy” is what we use to “other” someone, to dehumanize them by calling their mental faculties into question. It’s a gentle teasing at best and a bullying tactic at worst.  

One thing you’ll find in VC fandom is that every so often, like a cycle, we’ll get another round of bashing Anne Rice. Whether or not she is a “good” or “bad” person with “good” or “bad” thoughts/intentions, that’s not the purpose of my blog and not what I base my love for VC on. My blog is primarily for entertainment and fandom positivity.

As fandom has begun a shift into examining authors and content creators who create problematic content (also known as ”dark fiction,” which I prefer as a term bc the word “problematic” has become kind of a joke in its overuse), there is a tendency to conflate that content with their beliefs, that they write what they would like to see happen in reality. I strongly feel that creation/consumption of dark fiction is not endorsement of it.

In brief, people might think Anne Rice is “cr*zy” bc of (1) her Real Life actions against her fans and other people, and (2) the problematic content in her books. 

Again, I think @interview-withthevampire covered point (1). In the end, Anne Rice is just a human being who wrote a set of books that have gathered a wide spectrum of fans. I think it took her years (decades?) to understand the nature of her fanbase, and as the internet grew around her, it became easier for fanworks and reviews/feedback to publish into the real world. There were no longer the filters in place of people like magazine editors; any blogger could write a review of her works in full view of millions of fans, and they were not required to pull any punches. 

AR had to acclimate to that and after fighting the ficwriters for long enough, she chose to stop suing, and learn to coexist with it all. I don’t know of many other authors treating their own fanbases the way AR treated us, so I would guess that authors who have published works since the internet really got in gear have probably all embraced their fanbases from the beginning. Therefore, VC fandom’s bad blood (pun intended) with Anne Rice stands out as being downright BIZARRE now :-P

As far as (2) the problematic content. 

What we’re really talking about is whether dark fiction (pedophilia, incest, etc.) should be written about at all if they are not condemned in the narrative. Personally, I believe that creation/consumption of dark fiction is not endorsement of it. 

*Bruised banana analogy*

VC, like any media, be it books/movies/music/video games/etc., is like a banana. It might have gross bruises, those parts that you find squicky or otherwise distasteful. It’s fine to point them out, so that others can be aware, but you are not required to do so. Some areas on a given banana are less bruised than others, and you can eat them. Maybe you eat around all the bruises, even the smaller ones. Maybe you don’t mind bruises and you can eat the whole banana.

I admit, on a subjective level, that VC books have gotten much bruisier for me over the years, and there are several that I find so bruised that there is much less to enjoy, but that’s how it is. I STILL LIKE THE PARTS I LIKE.

[X Banana from fromthedriversseat.co.uk] ^Red would be those bruises that I can’t accept, so I don’t eat them. 

Maybe the whole banana is ruined for you and you can’t stomach it. Maybe you can bake it into banana bread, turn it into something else entirely! That’s a fanworks’ purpose. Like a fanfic where you remove/revise the bruises from canon and write the story the way you would prefer it to be. Fluff would probably be a banana with very few bruises, if any at all.

I’ve made my own headcanons that have “fixed” canon in a way that greatly improved the stories for me. I’ve read fanfic that was basically providing missing pieces from canon. I’ve seen fanart and cosplay that pretty much illustrated my headcanon of the characters. For me, fandom is about taking inspiration from the canon source material to make your own works, sharing that with other fans, and being supportive of those content creators in whatever way you feel comfortable!

It’s every reader’s prerogative, how much of the “banana” they want to eat, if any at all. No one is forcing you to eat it, and other people enjoying the banana does not trample your choice. Your choice not to eat some/all of the bruises does not supersede other’s choice of eating them. 

I’ve said that creating/consuming problematic content is not in itself endorsement of problematic things in REAL LIFE. As far as I know, Anne Rice has committed no REAL crimes, so while I would love it if she had a trusted editor/beta reader, I don’t condemn her for exploring dark topics in fiction. More thoughts on that in my #dark fiction tag.

As fans in the fandom, we can like what we like, critique her work, choose what canon we accept, toss the rest. She put it out there and in that sense, it doesn’t matter if Anne Rice is “cr*zy” or not, or if she is a “good” or “bad” person with “good” or “bad” thoughts. Personally, I believe that AR was interested in sex before she was the age of consent and was frustrated that she was being prevented from pursuing sexual relationships. Those explorations led to bruises in her bananas. Those are her bones to pick, so to speak.

I’ve made some of my best friends in VC fandom, and if they or I had left because of the bruises in our bananas, I might never have met them at all. I consider VC to be a gift to us from AR, no more, no less.

[condensed-theorem-shop]

please please expand on your list of Things Which Have Actually Worked, your ask box ghost wants to hear about this

I have the best ask box ghost and I’m sorry to have gone so long without responding to this; I wanted to wait till I was in a place where I could give it the thought and attention it deserves.

(Original post here. I totally encourage other people to share their lists of Things Which Have Actually Worked; that seems like the sort of valuable information which is really useful to have available.)

(Cut for length, and various mental illness stuff.)

drugs. drugs are awesome. I am talking about antidepressants here, okay. do drugs, kids, as long as your doctor prescribed them to you

Not everyone has access to medication, I know; and I know that my ask box ghost in particular doesn’t. But I do want to include my strong endorsement here for people who can manage it. It doesn’t help everyone, but it helped me a lot.

I was terrified of the idea of taking antidepressants. I didn’t want to change the way my brain worked. I didn’t find any of the counterarguments I saw convincing. But eventually I got to a point where I thought, if this is what life is, I don’t want to go on living. (I remember sitting on my bed and staring at a blank wall and thinking that exact thing.) And that’s when I decided that I was at least going to try medication.

My parents could probably have been talked around but I didn’t want to try, because it would have sucked if I was wrong. So I waited until I turned eighteen, and I did my research online, and about a week after my birthday I biked over to the campus mental health center and paid the $5 fee in cash so it wouldn’t show up on the online billing system where my parents would see it and when I was alone in a room with a nurse I said I want to die most of the time and I want to stop feeling that way.

And I got set up with a therapist and I kept paying the fees in cash and eventually I had her formal recommendation that I go on antidepressants, and I went to my parents with that and they said “okay” and drove me to an appointment with my doctor and he prescribed me antidepressants and I called them into the pharmacy and picked them up.

I remember standing at my desk looking at the first pill and a glass of water and thinking well, it can’t get worse, and then swallowing it.

It wasn’t a magic cure. There was a lot of therapy, and I had to get my dose readjusted a couple of times, and I’m still not, like, fixed. But I am so much better. And the meds helped a lot.

ceasing to assign agency to myself

So this one sounds super weird, but it worked really well for me.

Basically, I have a tendency to notice something I’m doing wrong – like, putting off homework till the night before it’s due – and going “aha! I will solve this with WILLPOWER!” (Okay, I don’t usually think that explicitly, but it is basically my default mode of problem-solving.)

To no one’s surprise, this does not work so great.

On the other hand, if I notice my little sisters are doing something frustrating – like, the teenager bursting into tears and announcing everyone hates her – I don’t think “I will tell them not to do that thing and they will exert WILLPOWER! to stop.” I think “she does this every night right before bed; this is just a thing she does when she’s tired. I can solve this by getting her to go to sleep.”

In fact, under that set of circumstances, I don’t really think of my sisters as having free will, not while I’m trying to solve the problem. I think of them as little machines, where you put in one thing and get a predictable output. If I put in “stop overreacting,” I will get out “SEE? YOU HATE ME. EVERYONE HATES ME. ONLY THE CAT LOVES ME.” If I put in “No, silly, I love you. Why don’t you go to bed now, though, you’ve had a long day,” I will get “Oh yes good idea I love you too” and her going to sleep and being totally sane in the morning.

This method works great.

So eventually it occurred to me to start using the latter method on myself. Instead of saying “I keep doing X! I’m a terrible person! I need to stop doing X!” I say “OK, empirically, under Y circumstances I do X. I guess if I want to avoid doing X, I should avoid Y circumstances.”

This is really hard for me. I have a constant temptation to go “well, it’s OK, I’ll let Y circumstances happen, I’ll just exert WILLPOWER! and not do X.” But this inevitably leads to me in fact doing X.

To give a concrete example: suppose I notice that if I do my homework in the living room, I always seem to end up chatting with my family. But all things being equal, I like being in the living room.

Mode-1 thinking has me go “well, I could go work in my bedroom, but that would be dumb, I like the living room better, and there’s no reason not to be there, I just need to not chat with my family instead of working.” So I go sit in the living room, and surprise, I end up chatting with my family.

Mode-2 thinking has me go “if I go sit in the living room, I will chat with my family. That is just What I Do, the same way that bursting into tears randomly when it’s past 8 PM is What My Sister Does. Given that fact, I shall go sit in my room.” So I do that, and I get my work done.

This also helps with guilt stuff. It doesn’t make sense to get upset at my sister for yelling at me about how mean I am at 10 PM; it would be like getting upset at a book when you drop it on your foot. If you let go of a book, it falls; if my sister is awake late, she gets irrationally upset. And in exactly the same way, it doesn’t make sense to feel guilty that I spent the afternoon chatting instead of working. That’s just what happens when I sit in the living room.

instead of changing myself, changing the world to be convenient to me

This is related to the previous in some ways, but it’s also its own thing.

Part of it is a way of thinking. It’s replacing “I’m bad and should change” with “I deserve to have things that are convenient for me.” It’s replacing “I’m a failure” with “how shall I set myself up to succeed?” It’s about being gentle enough with myself that I can go “you know what, there’s a $2 solution to this thing that’s making me miserable; I am worth $2.”

I used to be really bad about flossing. I found dealing with floss to be a total pain, I hated trying to wind it around my fingers right, hated trying to get it between my teeth, it was just enough of a nuisance for me to never do it.

I knew that using flossers, like the ones they have for little kids, solved all the things that bugged me about flossing. But, like, there was no reason I needed them, right? I should just floss my teeth.

Eventually, I stopped telling myself to just floss my teeth, and bought a pack of flossers. Now I floss regularly.

(This works really well with the “empirically, given X, I will Y” from the previous point. Empirically, given flossers, I will floss. Empirically, otherwise, I won’t.)

I have done a lot of this sort of thing, and it has improved my life hugely. I kept trying to “be good about” putting dirty laundry in the hamper I share with my sisters. Then I just got a second hamper and put it in the spot in my room where I kept dropping my clothes. Now I have no problem putting laundry there. Same thing with a trash can, and now I don’t drop Kleenex on the floor. Instead of struggling to remember whether I took my meds, I got special lids with built-in timers that keep track of it for me. Instead of trying to be less grumpy about people knocking on my door when I’m busy, I made a sign with a little arrow I can set to “free,” “busy,” or “out.”

The key thing, for me, is (a) noticing when I start thinking that I need to “work on” or “be good about” something, and thinking instead “is there a way I can just make that easy,” and (b) reminding myself that it’s okay, I can just have things be convenient and nice, it’s not some kind of moral failing.

the narrative of “I am an adult and get to do exactly what I want. If what I want is [unproductive thing], I will do that, and that’s okay. If what I want is [productive thing], I will do that, and that’s okay too.”

Obviously, this works a lot better if you are in fact an adult and can do exactly what you want. But I think there’s some applicability in any case.

The first thing I figured this out for was food. Instead of thinking “oh, I shouldn’t have another piece of cake, that would be Bad,” I think “I can have another piece of cake if I want to. I’m an adult; no one can stop me. So I shall have it exactly if I please to.”

And then I think about whether I in fact please to: it would be tasty, but how much do I expect to enjoy it, how much better do I expect to feel physically if I skip it or have some vegetables instead, which of those would I prefer. And this really is just a matter of I prefer; there’s no right or wrong answer. If I would, on balance, prefer to eat the cake, I eat the cake. If not, I don’t; and it usually doesn’t even feel like an expenditure of willpower, because I don’t want to eat the cake. If I wanted to, I would.

It turns out, this way of thinking generalizes to a lot of things.

Am I going to do my homework, or read a novel? By default, I’d think of homework as Good, and novel as Bad, and then I’d maybe start coming up with reasons I deserve the novel, like, it’s my birthday, or I had a really tough day, or I’ve been so good this week, or whatever. And I could probably come up with something if I tried hard enough, and so I’d read the novel, and then in retrospect the reason would be dumb and I’d feel guilty.

With this narrative, I think: what do I want to do? I want to get this homework done so it stops stressing me. I want to read this novel and relax. I want to learn this math so I can go to grad school. I want to find out what happens next to these characters. I think about all that stuff, and how much I really want those things, and how happy the novel will make me at this particular moment, and what the consequences will be if I don’t do the homework right now. And then I pick one.

Sometimes I pick the homework, and that’s great. Sometimes I pick the novel, and that’s great too. There is nothing morally wrong about picking the novel over homework. It may have consequences, I may get a B on the homework, but I am an adult and I can deal with those consequences. It’s okay to pick a novel and a B on a homework, if that’s what I want. I have the right to do that. It’s good to do that, if that is really the thing I want.

And, again, this ends up feeling like less of an exertion of willpower, even if I get more homework done this way. Because anything I do is something I’m choosing to do because it is my considered preference to do it.

And on the other side, I enjoy my novel-reading more, because I don’t feel guilty about it, and because the times that I choose the novel are the times when I’m in a mood such that I predict I’m going to really really enjoy reading that novel. And I’m usually right about that.

Now, obviously, if you have parental authority in your life, I am an adult and can do as I please doesn’t exactly apply. But you are still your own person, and while it will be really great when things are such that no one can stop you from reading a novel whenever you please, it’s still the case that no one can actually make you do homework. You just have to acknowledge that “parents get judgey” is a potential consequence of some choices you make. (Which sucks, again, and it will be great when you have the ability to say “respect my choices or I will spend time with people who do and you won’t get to meet the grandkids if any such ever occur.”)

triage procedures

AKA “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

To go with another food example: since going on a medication that interferes with my appetite, I have trouble eating enough. If I’m in a depressive spell, it’s easy to slip into just not eating at all.

As a result, I have the following triage ordering, from highest to lowest priority:

1. Drink water2. Eat something3. Eat something with calories4. Eat enough calories5. Eat healthy food6. Eat healthy, cheap food

If I’m having trouble eating, I’ll figure out where I currently am on the list, and then start doing the next thing along. If I’ve been eating but only cucumber slices, time to eat something with calories. If I haven’t been doing anything, I need to at least drink some water.

The key thing here is that, where a lot of brainstuff spirals downward, this spirals upward. If I hydrate, I’ve got more ability to eat. If I’ve eaten something, my brain remembers that food exists and will let me have something actually nutritious without feeling nauseous. Once I’m getting enough calories, I have the energy to spare to make sure I’m getting a balanced diet. And so forth.

My natural tendency is to sit on the couch thinking “I should make myself a nice healthy meal from scratch so that it’s price-effective,” and then do absolutely nothing because that sounds really hard and I’m not actually hungry. If I have an established triage procedure, though, I can go “I’m going to eat a food, I can worry about what food later,” and then give myself positive feedback once I succeed at eating a food. In the long run, this actually results in my eating nice healthy meals cooked from scratch.

This sort of triage helps me in all sorts of areas where a thing is urgent and needs to be done, but is too big to handle. Yes, it’s important, so I prioritize, and I don’t worry about the fancy touches until I’ve got the absolute essentials under control.

having a concept of Who I Choose To Be As A Person, and when it comes down to it Being That Person, all rules or obstacles or common sense aside

This is the thing that I’m most hesitant to recommend to other people. My brain is weird. This works for me. But I really don’t know that it would work for anyone else, and suspect that for some people it is actively counterproductive.

Also, it’s kind of hard to words. The best summary I think I have is an argument I had repeatedly with one therapist. Paraphrased:

Therapist: You need to put on your own oxygen mask first, take care of yourself.

Me: Sometimes, sure. But sometimes someone you love is in desperate need, and you stop worrying about your own oxygen mask and just do whatever it takes.

Therapist: And what happens when you burn out and can’t help them anymore?

Me: You keep doing it anyway.

I find this way of thinking really, really empowering. I suspect for many people it may be guilt-trippy, and I do not recommend it to anyone who feels that way about it. But for me, it is important.

Sometimes, there is something that must be done, and you look at it and say I literally cannot do that thing, and then you do it anyway. It’s important that you know which those things are, because a lot of things that look like they must be done are really things that need a triage procedure or need you to make the world more convenient or need you to decide what you really want to do. But sometimes there really are things that matter so much to you that you’re willing to light yourself on fire if that’s what it takes to keep them warm.

This doesn’t happen often. But it does happen. And for me, seeing that was important to putting all the previous tools in place. I used to worry that I was letting myself become Weak or Bad or something; it helps to be really, really sure that the things I’m compromising on are the ones I’m willing to compromise on, not the really important ones.

I’ve never regretted looking at something and saying “this is impossible. I’m going to do it anyway.” But I think a lot of that is because I am very sure about the things that are important enough to me to be worth that, and those are the things that by definition I couldn’t regret doing that for. (Have I mentioned that I don’t necessarily endorse this approach or way of thinking to anybody else?)

I can seriously only count a handful of times I have been in that place. I think it’s very easy to err on the other side and think you have to burn yourself out for things that aren’t worth it. But, for me, it is good to know that when it comes down to it, I can do what it takes, because I am an adult and I get to choose what I burn myself out for.

[xtruss]

9/11 & Mumbai Attacks Were Inside Jobs: A Detailed Analysis By Elias Davidson

Elias Davidson is an author of several books, including the ‘Betrayal of India.’ GVS team sat down with him in Islamabad and tried understanding his perspective on history since 9/11.

— Magazine Desk | June 8, 2019 | Global Village Space

Most in the west may see German author Elias Davidson as he describes in his own words: “an idiot conspiracy theorist”, but he defines himself as a researcher who works like a historian. Unlike a journalist who travels from place to place, he collects and analyses all the published material, all data in public domain, and the claims made by the government agencies and then attempts to discover the truth hidden behind the trove of lies. GVS team sat down with him in Islamabad, during his recent visit, and tried understanding his perspective on history since 9/11. We offer excerpts from a detailed interview. His claims and judgments are provocative. Readers are the best judge.

GVS: What made you take interest in Mumbai terrorism?

Elias Davidson: Let us begin from 2001, that is, 9/11. I believed, like many others, that it was an operation carried out by Osama Bin Laden, a war backed by Muslim fanatics who professed that they are going to punch the noses of Americans because of what they were doing in Israel and the Muslim world. To be honest, many people in the left felt a little bit happy about it that finally, someone is banging on the head of Americans – and I believed it too. I didn’t really care about 9/11; I thought it just happened.

Until a year later, a friend of mine lent me a book by Thierry Meyssan, who was a French journalist and wrote the first critical book, “The Horrifying Fraud,” on the event. The book explained that it was not possible for a plane to enter the Pentagon and there were contradictions in the official story. So, I read it thoroughly. I checked all the sources, that is, Washington Post, New York Times, to see if he was making something up. However, I realized that he had thoroughly researched and produced the book.

I was astonished that I did not know about these things. It peeked, my curiosity, therefore I went on to investigate 9/11 and I did so for ten years. Rather early in my research, I began to pose the question, ‘who were the perpetrators and what evidence was there from the American government to say that they were Islamic terrorists?’ I searched and tried my best to find evidence, but I found none. There were four categories of evidence in my research. Firstly, the names of passengers; secondly, security videos from the airports; thirdly, witnesses who saw these people at the airport or the boarding phase; fourthly, identification of their bodily remains from the crash sites.

I looked for all this information on the FBI’s website, FBI’s documentation, which was sent to the 9/11 commission, on newspapers, and in books. I combed everything I could and found not a shred of evidence. To sum it up, I documented everything in my first book published in 2013, ‘Hijacking America’s mind on 9/11’. There is a full chapter devoted just to the absence of evidence.

In the last few years, I sue everyone who dares to mention Muhammed Atta, the alleged pilot, as a terrorist or mass murderer. They have to deal with me; I will take him to court and accuse him of defamation – I am a defender of Muhammad Atta in the world. This is a strong statement, and I stand by it because I know it is the truth. I have accused 130 German journalists about it, in another book I published in Germany. I sent the journalists a letter where I stated that I would give them a possibility to retract those accusations on Muhammad Atta and apologize or provide some evidence of their assertions.

GVS: Questioning 9/11 makes people question your credibility, how did you come around to not believing in the American statements on 9/11 in the first place?

Elias Davidson: Let me say one thing; my book was published in the United States in 2013. I commented in black and white with all the sources mentioned. The entire story of 9/11 was a lie; especially about what happened on the day, no Muslim hijackers, the two planes which had crashed were still in the air after the alleged crash time. There is documented evidence from American sources that two of the four planes were still in the air at the time of the alleged crash.

Nobody until today has challenged a single fact in the book. Why? Because there is nothing to question. This is thoroughly documented. Many people in America endorse this book. There are 14 positive reviews of this book on Amazon and zero bad ones. Anybody who is trying to challenge me, please do so. I would be satisfied because I get bored of always getting commended. Please call it wrong. I have sent letters to American professors rebut the book, but nobody takes up the challenge.

GVS: The Mumbai attack, which happened on 26 November 2008, when did you get interested in that?

Elias Davidson: After I finished this work, I began to look at other terrorist attacks, which were attributed to Al-Qaida or Muslims. I thought I’d like to see if they had the same features as 9/11, state operations and so on. I began with the London attacks in 2005. I did in-depth research on that – around 70 pages – which I published as an ebook and came to the same conclusion that it was a state operation.

There were four people, three of them were British Pakistanis, but they were not involved, and they were not the perpetrators. If they were at all involved, then they were patsies and sent with ruck sacks without knowledge of what they were doing; it was just conjecture. What is clear is that the entire official London story is a lie, so I documented it as well.

GVS: We wonder why you don’t find the official explanations convincing? Two of us were in London on the eve of 7/7, in 2005 and we saw it developing the media reports as they poured in?

Elias Davidson: It is not a question of convincing, and you could have been in London, but that doesn’t give you an advantage over me when it comes to details. You did not go through the inquests for four years; I went through all the documents of the investigation that are available publicly. It is thousands of pages long, and I went through every sentence.

I researched in-depth like I usually do and concluded that the story was a fabrication. I don’t know which agency in the UK did it. It is possible that the New York Police department was also involved as they showed an extraordinary interest in the London affairs. They even constructed the so-called bomb factory in New York – a copy of the bomb factory from Leeds – which was allegedly where the bomb was produced.

GVS: What is so surprising about that? If an attack has happened in the UK, it would worry them that a similar attack might occur in the US, so they would simulate similar exercises to know how to deal with it.

Elias Davidson: I understand, but basically, we have the same case with Mumbai, and the New York Police Department was particularly interested in the Mumbai Attacks. They sent a delegation directly, held a conference a couple of weeks later in New York, and made simulations as if they knew everything.

GVS: What do you think is the real reason for their interest?

Elias Davidson: Okay, we will come to it after we discuss London. Everybody interested in my research on 9/11 has to read my books to have an opinion about it. To say that I have any conspiracy theories is not a rational way of addressing anything of that kind. I am a scholar; I have published articles on International Law in the United States, UK, Netherlands, Iran, etc. So, I am not a ‘nobody,’ I am an expert in international law and human rights who has written comprehensive books about these things.

So, anybody who is to deal with these things will first of all have to read them and then can say that they do not agree. However, to call me a conspiracy theorist is like calling me a nut. It has to have a meaning; it should hurt me, but it is so stupid that it doesn’t deserve a response. Anyhow, conspiracies exist everywhere. Even a police investigator is a conspiracy theorist because every crime committed by people is a conspiracy. The term has no meaning basically and is ridiculous – it just a term to demean people.

GVS: Did you visit India for your research on the book?

Elias Davidson: No. Do you think it is not possible to study and come to an understanding unless you physically see the place? How do historians do it? If you want to write about something that happened a hundred years ago, what do you do? You go to manuscripts and documents. Nobody can charge you for not living there; otherwise, there will be no history.

A journalist, typically, is usually not at the scene of the crime. Sometimes he doesn’t even have access to witnesses. So, if you are working as a scholar and you know how to work with evidence, you don’t have to go and speak to a person. I don’t think that I will get more by speaking to somebody who already spoke extensively to the newspapers in India, ten years ago; he will now tell me another story or repeat it. I don’t know but it will not add very much to the investigation and what is already available is so much information and so helpful that I didn’t see a need and I knew that it would not add any value.

I knew that I would get closed doors with the police, even Vinita Kamte, the widow of the slain officer. She came to closed doors with the Mumbai police – people with whom her husband worked. Do you think me coming from Germany would find opened doors? Not. So, there was no point in going there. Moreover, I think anybody using that argument should, first of all, go on the merit of what I wrote. Is there something wrong in the book? Tell me because I am open to that. However, don’t judge me because I am in Germany. I can be in Germany and do better work than someone in India.

GVS: Has the Indian government reacted to your book on Mumbai terrorism?

Elias Davidson: They have reacted like everybody else – they have hidden under the tables – no reaction. Nobody in the official governments in India or anywhere else, no media or journalist reacts to my writings. How can they do it? They can only call me an idiot conspiracy theorist. They cannot deal with the facts which are there with all the sources.

GVS: What were the key facts that attracted you to study the Mumbai attack?

Elias Davidson: I began with London and then I went to attacks in Djerba, Istanbul, etc. These were different terrorist attacks that I studied. I wanted to write an anthology on terror attacks with different chapters, including Mumbai and Bali. So, I came to the issue of Mumbai and began to work on it, just like the others. I never went to these places because I work like a historian; taking information and studying it. So, I deliberated on all of these and tried to find a common thread to compare them.

I thought the study on Mumbai would be only 50-60 pages of research, but it grew and grew to become an entire book because the information available on the issue was huge. Also, the judgment of Ajmal Kasab had a lot of media coverage, and it was a very complex operation – comprised of 8 locations. It required much effort to study the issue and became a book of 900 pages.

It took me two years of work to write it, and I did not write it for any publisher. I just went on researching and had contacts with people in India. I am very thankful to Inspector S. M. Mushrif, who wrote the first critical book on Mumbai attacks called, ‘Who killed Karkare?’ So, I got in touch with him, told him what I was doing, and he encouraged me.

My discoveries on the Mumbai operation grew and grew, and I used only publicly sourced documents. All of these documents are cited in my book, and I have cached all of them on my website in case an article in the Indian newspapers is made to disappear later on. So, in the book, I give a number to Google, which will lead directly to my website and the original document. I don’t know of any author who goes as far as that to help the reader to check his sources. I give all of the sourced documents to the reader.

GVS: What is the significance of the assassination of Karkare?

Elias Davidson: That is very simple – nationalist Hindus threatened him because he was exposing Hindu terrorism and he was shot. He confided to different people, who confirmed that he was afraid for his life, even on the day of his murder. The current Prime Minister of India, Modi, had publicly threatened him and called him a traitor, which under Indian law is passable of a death sentence. So, he was threatened and murdered with 26/11.

GVS: What is your understanding of Ajmal Kasab, who was in Indian custody and whose confessional statement was on television?

Elias Davidson: First of all, I don’t know if his name was Ajmal Kasab because the first information we got through the Indian media was a different name, which gradually changed to Ajmal Kasab. I don’t know if it was his real name and I also don’t know who he was. He told in his stories that he was already arrested in Mumbai two weeks before, etc. Secondly, nobody from Pakistan, neither family nor officials, came to identify him personally. So, we don’t know who he was, or even the photos we have are of this guy or someone else.

GVS: There were rumors in Islamabad that Ajmal Kasab could have been a small-time spy or an infiltrator that entered India from Nepal and was there for quite some time. In his confessional statement, he spoke local Marathi; he was very fluent in the local language and hence, could not have just landed in India through the boat.

Elias Davidson: I did not look at that. Looking into that presupposes that Ajmal Kasab was legitimate and involved in the attacks. However, I don’t have any evidence for that. So, whatever he told in his confessions, which he retracted in his statements, was for me like hot air – I don’t know if he was coached. You see, someone who is held by the police has hardly any access to his lawyers and he was not interviewed by any Pakistani; how can you comment on what he said or what the police said he said. So, for me, it was all hot air.

GVS: Why do you think the Indian state was so quick to execute him?

Elias Davidson: Why should they keep him in alive? This guy was hired to play some role in these attacks by those who organized it. Maybe he was asked to be at CST, to be photographed, if he had admitted in front of people that he was asked to stand with a Kalashnikov at CST, he would have revealed the entire story. So, the best thing is to eliminate this guy.

This is what usually happens with all the so-called Islamic terrorist attacks in the west – the alleged perpetrators are typically eliminated because they do not want these people to come to court. Also, this was maybe a mistake or not, in Mumbai, but here was one case in the Boston marathon. They didn’t kill one guy, and then he was sentenced to death in America, but this usually doesn’t happen. Look at the attack in Berlin, in the Christmas market in 2016.

I wrote the first book on this attack in Germany, it sells very well and is already in the fifth edition. I showed that there was no attack at all, and it was a staged theatre. The German government accuses Anis Amri, an Indonesian guy, who rode a truck and killed twelve people. That was all bullshit. And he was murdered in Milano. The police shot him because he tried to kill the policeman. You see, all these people are eliminated before they can talk, so there is no trial. And so, the government does not have to prove the case.

GVS: In the book, you mentioned that there was no public trial, but there was a trial, and he had lawyers.

Elias Davidson: Let us put it this way – it was a sham trial. It was a judicial farce and was not open or fair. It violated all the basic rules of a fair trial. If you look at the qualifications of a fair trial according to the international human rights law, you will see that this trial violated all the necessary provisions of a fair case and in fact, Amnesty International and other human rights organizations protested against this unfair inquiry.

So, this is not only my conclusion, but many others also considered the trial unfair, which is honestly an understatement. This judge, M L Tahilyani, should be imprisoned, in my opinion, because of how he undermined justice in India and the trust of the public. A person like this deserves to be punished. There was an appeal process, but I am sorry to say that the next levels, the Bombay Court and the Supreme Court of India, abdicated their obligation to seek the truth and justice.

The Supreme Court heaped admiration for this judge. Many years ago, I met a lawyer who was entitled to represent people in the Supreme Court of India, and he told me how the institution is fantastic. His judgments impressed me a lot, so I had a positive opinion of the Supreme Court of India, but I lost all of it after reading what they wrote about the lawsuit.

GVS: Indian position is that the trial was difficult because Pakistani government was not cooperative.

Elias Davidson: There was nothing like that. This is an argument of little standing. I will give you an example; the court could have interviewed the many people who saw all kind of things around these attacks, which contradicted the official account. However, they were not invited to testify. I have named in my book, around 40-50 witnesses who saw things which completely contradict the official statement.

GVS: We had read somewhere that while official account mentioned the use of Kalashnikov AK 47 assault rifles by the attackers, the subsequent autopsy reports at the hospital do not indicate the use of automatic rifles. What do the autopsy reports show, how these people died?

Elias Davidson: There were no autopsies; I am not aware of any autopsy reports. An important point I think I should mention is that there were two parallel series of attacks in Mumbai. I call them domestic attacks and international attacks. The internal attacks began in the CST terminals, railway stations; they then proceeded to Cama hospital, which led to the assassinations of three officers and their assistants and continued to the synagogue on the way to Girgaon.

So, there were four attacks which we will call the domestic operation, which was concentrated and designed to get rid of Karkare. The international operations begun in the Leopold hotel touched the Taj Mahal hotel, Oberoi Trident, and the Nariman House Jewish center – four locations which were mostly frequented by foreigners. The other one was primarily visited by locals and poor Indians. So, there were two operations which had to be coordinated.

There was probably overall coordination of both operations, but most likely two command centers – one for the local and one for the international operation. The Mumbai police commanded the local operation led by Rakesh Maria. He was the key person in the local operation. I don’t know who ran the international operation, but I suspect that there were Americans involved. Now, if we go by that description, we have two operations which are coordinated by one body or one mind.

This mind must have been automatically connected to those who wanted to kill Karkare – the policeman investigating Hindu terrorism. It cannot be, that some people in Pakistan were doing their own thing, and others joined in precisely at the same time.

GVS: Could Karkare not have been an accidental victim of the whole episode?

Elias Davidson: Exactly, this is what the official account says. However, if you look at all the details around the assassination, you will find nothing accidental. For example, police officers who were around the place at the time of the assassination got an order to stand down and not impede. They said it publicly that they were not supposed to go to that place. So, this operation was organized so Mumbai Police would not interfere with the assassination.

Another thing is that in this domestic operation, we were told that there were two people – Ajmal Kasab and Ismail – who went from one place to another and did this killing. However, this is impossible. Why? Because the shootings in the CST continued even after the Cama hospital operation began. The Cama operation started before the end of the shootings at CST and finished by the middle of the night – far longer than the assassination. So, we had at least two to three teams; one team at CST, one at Cama hospital going on until the middle of the night, another team to assassinate Karkare and a fourth team to shoot people near the cinema. So, we had at least four teams in the domestic operation, not just a few people.

GVS: So, none of the attackers, apart from Ajmal Kasab, were identified? How many attackers were there in total?

Elias Davidson: No, not at all. I have no clue. The official story says ten, but there could have been way more. You see because witnesses reported that in each location there were more attackers. In CST, people said there were three or four attackers outside the station. In Leopold, one witness said that three people were coming on a motorbike, and one of them looked European. Moreover, all of these witnesses were never identified.

I don’t know, some of them might be mistaken, but as long as you don’t go into the details and interrogate you will never find out. One attacker, Ajmal Kasab, was captured alive on the cameras with a gun and then made a confessional statement. It was said that he was captured alive, but this was not the first news. The first news was that two people were killed at Girgaon Chowpatty, through the night the story slowly changed that he was not killed but was shot; then a doctor came and said that he was never shot. So, we have these three versions about the capture of Ajmal Kasab.

GVS: What does your research show about the rest of the nine attackers? What happened to them, their dental records, skull records, bodies, identification, etc.?

Elias Davidson: We have nothing, nothing concrete about these nine people. We don’t know where they came from; we don’t know to whom these bodies belong – we only have first names of some of them. I cannot find it because there is no information about them.

GVS: Indian authorities identified a motorboat that sunk, and they had communication intercepts between Mumbai and Karachi, the FBI had a witness, Dawood Gilani, who was American of Pakistani origin. What does your research show about all that?

Elias Davidson: About the boat, in my book, I present four witnesses who said something about it. One witness, as it was reported in the news, spoke to the police, that he saw people coming out of the boat; one person said six and another said there were eight people. However, the one who said that he saw people coming out of the boat stated something else in court; he said that he went fishing and found an empty boat.

So, there was a contradiction between what was said in court and what was said to the newspaper, so we don’t know whom he was lying to. However, in any case, his testimony got dismissed because it was unreliable. In another case, a lady said that she was taken to America, from a fishing village, to testify secretly in January. Her name was Anita, and her story is entirely surreal. She revealed that she saw six people coming out of the boat. I have an entire section on her, as it was reported in the media, both in India and abroad.

GVS: What about the satellite communication intercepts between India and the FBI?

Elias Davidson: Do you mean the telephone calls? It’s nice that you brought that up. It is the biggest blunder of the organizers. They should have been smarter about them. First of all, the phone calls were organized by the FBI in such a way that you cannot see who called. It said that the call was made from Pakistan, but the calls were transmitted from a company based in New Jersey. A company in Delaware owns the VOIP Company in New Jersey.

The FBI intercepted all the calls and later when the investigation was to be conducted, organized an interview from the court, with the owner of the company on video. The FBI connected the court to this man in Canada, through an agent in California. So, the FBI was a central agent around the calls. They intercepted all the calls. Basically, the FBI was organizing all these things.

GVS: How can you say that the FBI was organizing this? We can argue that the FBI claims to have intercepted all the calls which were made via the internet, and telephone, and the FBI got to see all that.

Elias Davidson: Well, this is one part of it. If you focus logically, the FBI has many things to worry about. How could the FBI come to the idea of intercepting calls, in the spur of the moment, between somebody in India and somewhere else? You cannot do it unless you know. Indian witnesses said that they knew telephone numbers of the attackers before the attacks.

There was foreknowledge of the telephone numbers used by the attackers. So, the foreknowledge existed already in India, and I suppose with the FBI; otherwise, they could not intercept the calls. It is not logical. You cannot intercept the call unless you know something is going on and you are alert. All that I am saying is well-documented.

GVS: Have you not talked to the Indian authorities after 900 pages of research?

Elias Davidson: Let me give you an example, if you have a criminal unless you have the power of an Attorney and unless you have the ability to subpoena people and to force them to come and interview, you cannot interview a criminal or a suspect.

GVS: However, the critical questions regarding the evidence, the nine attackers that were never identified, you could have raised questions to the Indian officials about the inconsistencies in the case.

Elias Davidson: Do you think, realistically, that a guy sitting in Germany will get answers from Indian authorities who are implicated in that? This is not realistic. I am writing letters every day to officials in India, to ask questions, and I never get any response. They don’t want to implicate themselves. I would have liked to talk to witnesses, but you can never reach the witnesses. I was talking to a victim (I will not disclose where she is), and she said that she went to Mumbai later and everyone was afraid to speak to foreigners. They are fearful for their lives.

GVS: Why do you think India organized this? What was the motivation or the goal?

Elias Davidson: It is clear that this was a massive and complex operation. My approach was, first of all, forensic. I did not think about motives in the beginning. I began to look for motives after finalizing the forensic part. I started with India, but also what could motivate Pakistan, United States, Russia, etc. As per my research I see several motives for India. One was to provide adjustment for increases in the budget for the military and the police; they pushed for that.

Secondly, and an essential thing, was to accelerate the buildup of a national security state or a domestic surveillance state or the big brother state in India; this was a program that had started earlier but accelerated automatically after Mumbai. As I discovered later, India may be a test laboratory for the United States, on how to create a big brother society in such a big country. So, it might have even been supported by Obama and the administration at the time, to use India as a laboratory for such an enormous national security state.

However, this is conjecture; what is not conjecture is that India is building a national security state. Third, politically, it helped to unite the Indian public around the threat from Pakistan and shift to the right for the BJP. Fourthly, this event galvanized the middle class in India, who were previously very complacent about national security; all at once they were on the streets to demonstrate for more security in Mumbai. After that, the security industry boomed.

Fifth, certain elite segments of the Indian society who had wanted to increase cooperation with Israel and the United States; benefited directly. After the Mumbai attacks, the interim minister resigned, and Chidambaram took over, and he was the key opener for the FBI to give them direct access to Ajmal Kasab, and all the information on Mumbai attacks. He opened the gates of India for American Intelligence, American law enforcement, etc. This was auto commanded, he said it himself, and the Americans confirmed it.

GVS: Did the FBI ever make definitive judgments about the Mumbai issue? Have you ever seen anything in which they concluded black and white? Like the Dawood Gilani case.

Elias Davidson: No, Gilani or Headley is a Red Herring. It is utterly irrelevant to Mumbai. To my knowledge, the FBI did not issue a paper to cite anything directly. What the FBI did was first, they sent a team straight to Mumbai during the attacks. Second, they got direct access to Ajmal Kasab even before he got a lawyer; they interviewed him for nine hours. Thirdly, they were participants of the phone calls.

Fourthly, they organized with the New York police department, if I remember correctly, about one to two weeks after the attack, a seminar on how to cope with such an attack. Now, at that time no investigation had been released, but the FBI and the NYPD were ready with a blueprint of how it was done. And this is documented. They had a conference with people from all over the United States, to discuss the modus operandi of Mumbai. At this time, as I said, they could not have had such information because it requires much more time to investigate such an operation.

GVS: You must have heard the Indian argument that the Mumbai attacks were orchestrated by elements in Pakistan so that there is continued hostility between India and Pakistan; otherwise, India and Pakistan could have come close to each other. What is your perspective on that?

Elias Davidson: Well, this might have been one of the reasons. I don’t think that it was the primary reason. I mentioned already the motives of India; this could have been one of the reasons. However, I stand with my investigation to think that it was not the main reasons. Pakistan was only the by-product. It is handy politically, but the main thing was the domestic and economic reasons with the United States.

GVS: However, Mumbai terrorism provided the pretext for the United States and, mostly, India to declare Pakistan as a terror-sponsoring and terrorist state. And the Pakistanis have often thought that the Mumbai attacks were arranged to get Pakistan by the neck and to take it to the Security Council as a terrorist state.

Elias Davidson: Yes, this is true and absolutely correct.

[schraubd]

Did Ann Coulter Really Want To Speak at Berkeley?

A few weeks ago, when Berkeley was slated to have back-to-back appearances by David Horowitz and Ann Coulter, I asked my students if they knew who either one of them was. For Horowitz, the answer was a universal "no". For Coulter, the mode answer was also "no", though one student offered that she was "like an older Tomi Lahren?" My how the mighty have fallen. But of course, even long-since faded stars are entitled to attempt a comeback. So what better way to do so than through a high-profile act of martyrdom? Fortunately, despite their unknown status to the average Berkeley student, the Bay Area has an active "black bloc" community happy to oblige them. And so threats are made, and talks canceled, and somber reflections on illiberal universities published, and Horowitz and Coulter get to bask -- if briefly -- in the glow of being the bold truthsayers too raw for Berkeley snowflakes to handle. A return to the glory days, if you will. But what if things didn't go according to that script? Neither Ann Coulter, nor David Horowitz, were prohibited from speaking on campus. In both cases, they were offered a time and a place to speak at Berkeley; in both cases, it was they who declined that invitation. The statement from Chancellor Dirks -- who in my estimation has done a great job navigating very choppy waters on this issue -- provides a useful corrective to the prevailing media narrative and is worth reading in full. But an excerpt helps set the tone:

The strategies necessary to address these evolving threats [to free speech] are also evolving, but the simplistic view of some – that our police department can simply step in and stop violent confrontations whenever they occur – ignores reality.  Protecting public safety in these circumstances requires a multifaceted approach.  This approach must take into account the use of “time, place, and manner” guidelines, devised according to the specific threats presented.  Because threats or strategic concerns may differ, so must our approach.  In all cases, however, we only seek to ensure the successful staging of free speech rights; we make no effort to control or restrict the content of expression, regardless of differing political views. 

This is a University, not a battlefield. We must make every effort to hold events at a time and location that maximizes the chances that First Amendment rights can be successfully exercised and that community members can be protected. While our commitment to freedom of speech and expression remains absolute, we have an obligation to heed our police department’s assessment of how best to hold safe and successful events.

[...]

If UCPD believes there is a significant security threat attendant to a particular event, we cannot allow it to be held in a venue with a limited number of exits; in a hall that cannot be cordoned off; in an auditorium with floor to ceiling glass; in any space that does not meet basic safety criteria established by UCPD.  This is the sole reason we could not accommodate Ms. Coulter on April 27th, and the very reason we offered her alternative dates in early May and September, when venues that satisfy safety requirements are available.

Contrary to some press reports and circulating narratives, the UC Berkeley administration did not cancel the Coulter event and has never prohibited Ms. Coulter from coming on campus.  Instead, we received a request to provide a venue on one single day, chosen unilaterally by a student group without any prior consultation with campus administration or law enforcement.  After substantial evaluation and planning by our law enforcement professionals, we were forced to inform the group that, in light of specific and serious security threats that UCPD’s intelligence had identified, there was no campus venue available at a time on that date where the event could be held safely and without disruption.  We offered an alternative date for the event (which was rejected) and offered to work with the group to find dates in the future when the event could occur. Throughout this process our effort has been to support our students’ desire to hold their event safely and successfully. 

Now to be 100%, crystal clear: Violence or disruption, or threats thereof, to prevent Ann Coulter's speech is wrong and unjustifiable (and was unjustifiable when used against Milo). Ditto had Berkeley sought to cancel Coulter's speech outright (which again, it did not do). The people who engage in such violence are engaging in a wrong -- a serious wrong, a wrong that is antithetical to norms of free speech and free inquiry -- even when the subject is someone like Ann Coulter. One can believe that while simultaneously believing that Ann Coulter is a repulsive White supremacist who deserves naught but our scorn. And so the threats that Chancellor Dirks refers to are threats that cut to the heart of a free academic community. They should be investigated, and they should be dealt with. But UC-Berkeley did not make those threats. UC-Berkeley did not engage in that censorship. And the way Berkeley, as an institution, treated Coulter seems eminently reasonable. Clearly, Berkeley has an interest in ensuring the event goes off safely. Clearly, and as an institution committed to free speech, it has an interest in creating conditions where her speech occurs without incident, obstruction, or unlawful disruption. Clearly, it can impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions to try to limit the damage and obstruction that might be caused by those persons making unjustified threats and promising unlawful riots. Surely this is them taking the responsible course of action, yes? Placing Ann Coulter "in a venue with a limited number of exits; in a hall that cannot be cordoned off; in an auditorium with floor to ceiling glass" is a recipe for free speech disaster (not to mention the budgetary disaster for Berkeley when the -- quite literal -- damage has been done). And while there are limits to what sorts of venue-restrictions one could impose without violating free speech -- obviously they couldn't stick her in a broom closet and "allow" the speech to proceed freely -- that's not what happened here. Berkeley made a reasonable effort to reasonably accommodate Coulter's speech while reasonably insisting that the speech occur in a time, place, and manner that didn't cause chaos. That's entirely consistent with our free speech tradition. That's Berkeley behaving responsibly in the face of community members who were threatening to behave irresponsibly, even criminally. That's Berkeley seeking to facilitate, not censor, Coulter's speech. So why is it being interpreted otherwise? The argument seems to be that when Berkeley institutes any sort of specific procedures or guidelines to facilitate the free speech of controversial speakers likely to face illegitimate obstruction, it's "giving in" to threats -- or worse, tacitly endorsing them. To quote my old college buddy Jim Kiner: "This is America. Someone giving a speech shouldn't have to worry about the size of the windows." (Of course, it's not Coulter who has to worry about the windows -- they aren't hers to worry about. Ann Coulter can be blissfully indifferent regarding their fate. It's Berkeley -- the property-owner -- who's concerned, and it seems clearly reasonable for them to take limited steps to ensure that their property isn't destroyed in the wake of their indifferent houseguest's visit). Can we say that, in a good world, Berkeley wouldn't need to have these procedures for managing threats to outside speakers because everyone would respect everyone else's right to speak unmolested? Yes (though in such a good world nobody would be inviting repulsive trolls like Coulter to speak in the first place). But the Berkeley-blame for all this is strange, bordering on bizarre. In a good world nobody would try to hijack an airplane. Sadly, we don't live in that world, and so the TSA has certain procedures designed to manage the threat of terrorist hijackings while allowing us to travel freely -- procedures we only need because some people behave unlawfully, wrongfully, terroristically. Those procedures can be debated as too lenient or too harsh, but I've yet to hear anyone say that by having them the TSA was tacitly endorsing or normalizing terrorism. Responding to the reality of an unjustified threat is not the same thing as justifying or legitimizing that threat. Berkeley has to live in the world that exists, not the world of its dreams, and when it does so it doesn't endorse our fallen state. Rioters are wrong for rioting, but Berkeley is not wrong for taking reasonable steps to account for living in a world where rioting happens. Which brings us back to the question in the title: Did Ann Coulter really want to speak at Berkeley? Does she really want Berkeley to succeed in creating a space for her to speak without obstruction, disruption, or incident? I'm dubious. She came to Berkeley because she wanted to be a martyr -- either canceled outright or censorially disrupted. For Berkeley to succeed in offering her a space where none of that would happen thwarts her goals. After all, accepting Berkeley's terms would mean that her speech would likely not be shut down, or disrupted, or even been particularly noteworthy. It would have to attract attention solely by the merits of her ideas. No wonder she found it unacceptable. This, in fact, is what happened with Horowitz. He too was offered a different venue -- one which promised that his speech would be able to occur freely, without incident or disruption, and receiving only so much attention as was warranted by his fame, merit, and talent. And once that became the deal, his booking agent decided (I know this from first-hand sources) that the new offer to speak -- one which was unlikely to spark massive protests or demonstrations, but would simply allow his talk to occur in peace -- was unworthy of his time. What's the point of coming to Berkeley if you're not going to get run out of town? And so here were see the horns of the dilemma Berkeley finds itself in. On the one hand, it is facing a community (often not primarily comprised of students) which behaves in ways which are censorial and intolerable towards particular viewpoints (that these viewpoints are fairly characterized as racist ones does not justify said censorship). And so it takes steps to counteract these violent tendencies and ensure that its doors nonetheless remain open to speakers of all sorts, even the most repulsive ones, without incident. But then it discovers that actually, many of these speakers desire nothing more than to be "censored", to be "shut down", to be the proof of the intolerant liberal campus and the censorial lefties who can't handle their ideas. The worst thing that could happen to them is a Berkeley which successfully manages to enable their speech without incident. The whole point is for there to be an "incident". The whole point is to become a martyr. And so if they're not "censored," they'll just drop out and say they were anyway. And their gullible followers will eat it up. via The Debate Link http://ift.tt/2pobwd4