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

[thydungeongal]

While I think later editions of D&D have carved out a justified niche for the Thief/Rogue as an archetype, as a class it still feels weird in the context of the original game. Many people, myself included, have articulated this before, but the sort of funny implication is that a class whose abilities include moving silently, picking locks, and hiding in the shadows suddenly carves out a big piece of the fictional space and says "so none of the other classes can do these things."

But I feel there is another way to look at it: instead of looking at it like "oh, the thief class locks out the other classes from having access to certain tools," it can be viewed from the angle of "the thief class creates a bunch of new obstacles, and then hoards all the tools for overcoming those obstacles onto itself."

Locked doors are the best example here: the original edition of the game in those three little brown books was, at the end of the day, a complete game. A party didn't need a thief to pick locks, because doors were not generally locked; they were stuck, and needed to be forced open with strength (and then spiked open to prevent them from swinging shut behind the party). The only mention of locked doors is within the context of the knock spell which. Yeah that's actually a fair cop, the knock spell is also a solution looking for a problem, because the existence of a spell that opens doors locked via magic necessitates the existence of doors locked via magic. But the spell opens other things, including (probably) those aforementioned stuck doors, so at the very least it has multiple use cases.

But yeah that's the thing: the original game didn't have mundane locked doors and thus it didn't require a party to have a character with a set of mundane lockpicks. What the Greyhawk supplement created was a situation where there now was a guy with a set of lockpicks who could use them to open locked doors some of the time. So now the dungeon needed to have locked doors.

[honourablejester]

See, this loops me back around to the initial problem in the post.

Showing people heroically fighting demons is bad, because it valorises historical religious wars. Which means that we’re saying fantasy fiction cannot interact with religion as real without being automatically morally wrong. And I don’t agree with that.

This is what I mean by a fundamentally atheist view of fantasy fiction. And of real history, for that matter.

In a fantasy world, gods are real. Demons are real. Magic is real. Religious wars are not just fought by humans against other humans, as they are in our world, but against non-human supernatural forces. This is a difference in context.

(Which is, mind you, an atheist statement in and of itself, since I’m assuming that gods and demons aren’t real in our world, so there’s inherent bias in that in and of itself).

We are assuming that portraying crusades against demons is bad because those demons are stand ins for the real historical humans of the real historical crusades. But they aren’t. Not automatically. Humans are the only possible enemies in our world. But in a fantasy world, they aren’t.

Instead of exploring the ramifications of that massive change in worldbuilding, how would real magic interact with human desires, how would real gods and real demons interact with human desires, we’re apparently forever stuck assuming that only echoes from our world matter.

Yes, there is a legacy of using fictional non-human species to stand in for real-world other humans that the writer views as ‘lesser’. But the automatic assumption that it’s the only purpose a fictional non-human species could have means that we’re also stuck with the idea that humans are the only things we can imagine as people. Or as important. People like us are the only things we can imagine mattering. If a thing can think and talk, it’s a human or a representation of a human.

In this crusade, the enemies are portrayed as demonically evil because they’re demons. Not evil humans. Actual literal demons.

In real world religions, the depictions of demons or things roughly analogous to demons varies a lot, but they’re usually a force of nature/supernature that is fundamentally either hostile or indifferent to humans. In Christian mythology, demons are creatures that are literally not of our world that want to harm it. What if that was real. What if we had a story where that was the force we’re interacting with.

What is the point of fantasy (or science fiction) if we’re not allowed to treat these fantastical elements as an actual real thing for the characters and societies and systems of the world to interact with? Why are we bothering to create a world where gods and demons are real if it’s not allowed to change anything?

It’s also so bizarrely puritanical for something so incredibly atheist. Because if a story goes out of its way to come up with an enemy that is fully inhuman so that we’re not pointing our violent fantasies at a human, you’re just going ‘actually you’re lying, you really want to kill humans after all’. It’s just ‘violence is bad and you’re morally bad for wanting a safe portrayal of it’, just dressed up differently. Again, like I said in the original post, I’m getting such a vibe of ‘video games make children violent’ here.

Because that is the only concern here. The use of demons as the enemy. Because, again, as we’ve gone through in this post, the actual crusades in the game were portrayed as morally complicated, dubiously effective, and full of complicated people on all sides. Including the demons. In 40K, too, the Imperium is portrayed as a religious fascist hellscape. And the idea you’re forwarding is that the story considers said fascist hellscape as justified because their opponents are literal demons. And that any story that uses literal demons does so to justify whatever they’re putting up against them.

But that is such a flat interpretation. Oh, I don’t doubt it’s true, intent-wise, from some creators. But you can also use a demonic foe to highlight how inhuman humans look even by comparison. You can use a demonic foe to ask, actually, what is the qualitative difference between these two stripes of evil. You can use a demonic foe to ask is anything justified in the face of such a threat. You can use a demonic foe as essentially a supernatural natural disaster equivalent, an unreasoning onslaught that people have to just survive.

I just hate that what we’re saying here is that no, actually, you can’t do any of that. You can never portray supernatural elements as real. You can never portray religion as a force for good, not even a complicated one. You can never treat fantasy threats as real in their world because actually they’re just real-world biases with a different paint job. You can never engage with the premise of the story. You can never ask questions of relative morality, because as soon as you say the word ‘demon’ the sides are automatically drawn. Which is such a Christian moral response to start with, actually.

This is just such a weird, puritan, simultaneously atheist and extremely Christian ideology underlying the thought a) that nothing supernatural can be treated as real, b) that Christian-named evils automatically trump all others regardless of the actual effects shown, c) that simulated violence is indicative of an inherent desire for real violence, d) that any interaction with the concept of religion indicates an inherent fundamentalism, and e) that there has to be a moral victor in any portrayal of conflict.

To be blunt, I do not agree that portraying a religious force in a fantasy world facing a demonic force must be indicative of a belief that religious wars against humans in our world were justified. Because fantasy is not reality, because humans are not demons, and because I don’t view engaging with the premise of a fantasy world as an inherent sin.

‘A fantasy religion might be morally justified for launching a holy war against an army of alien monstrosities who have ripped a literal hole in the world and are killing everything in a two hundred mile radius, with no signs of stopping there’ and ‘using religion as the real world moral justification for a war of conquest and colonialism against other humans is the origin of one of the darkest periods in human history’ are two statements that I am fully comfortable making and see absolutely no conflict between. Because those are two different circumstances. And I'll add on 'a fantasy crusade might be justified in fighting demons but not justified in how they treat the people caught between them at the same time'.

And if there are people in the audience who can’t see a difference between circumstances, or who are uncomfortable trying to make moral judgements without clear guidance or with potentially misleading guidance, or in a situation where there possibly isn’t a clear moral conclusion to come to (because, for example, this is Warhammer 40k and everyone in this fucking galaxy is some stripe of at least fucked up if not outright evil), that’s frankly a them problem.

kind of concerning how married the fantasy genre is to "crusades as a basically good thing"

[apoloadonisandnarcissus]

Autopsy of a Scene: "Ellen meets Professor Von Franz"

Context

Victorian society (early 19th century): views on sexuality, especially female; women seen as innocent and naïve (infantilization); marriage and motherhood as a woman's destiny;

Victorian medicine: Ellen's supernatural gifts (trance mediumship) medicalized by Victorian doctors as "hysteria" and "melancholy".

Ellen and Count Orlok backstory

In the prologue of “Nosferatu” (2024), we are introduced to teenage Ellen crying, and praying for "a guardian angel, a spirit of comfort, spirit of any celestial sphere... anything..." to come to her. She is 15 years old, as confirmed by composer Robin Carolan in an interview. She’s considered a “child” in the narrative at this point because the concept of “teenager” and “adolescence” didn’t exist in the 19th century: a person would go from “childhood” into “adulthood” without anything in between. The concept of “teenager” (as a phase between being an actual “child” and an “adult) was only created after World War II.

Why is Ellen crying and calling out for “anything” to come to her? What’s the context? The answer is in her first scene with Professor Von Franz (more on that later).

Ellen didn't merely "summoned" Count Orlok: she was the one who brought him back from the dead, and cursed him to be a strigoi. His corpse was dead and rotting since the late 16th century (that's why he calls her "his affliction", as in "disease"; "sickness" or "plague"). And this isn't only confirmed by Orlok twice, and by Ellen herself, when she cryptically says it to Professor Von Franz ("I wished..."), and when she reveals to Thomas: "I have brought this evil upon us."

This is the first time Orlok appears to Ellen, at her bedroom window, asking for entrance. Windows are connected to strigoi myths from Romanian folklore; where it’s said when strigoi rise from their graves for the first time, they return to those they have loved the most, because they wish to relive their lives together. The strigoi is said to appear at their loved one’s windows, asking for entrance (probably the origin of “vampires need to be invited in” lore). The strigoi usually torments them until they are dead, too (which is also what we see with Orlok and Ellen’s characters in this film). And there's a immediate recognition from Orlok's part ("You... you..."): he not only knows what Ellen is (enchantress), but who she is.

Ellen’s window in “Nosferatu” (2024) also has another reference: the “Wuthering Heights” inspiration, with the theme of “Catherine’s window”. In this novel, windows (and doors, too) are usually connected with Catherine and Heathcliff’s separation, and his inability to reach her. In “Nosferatu” (2024), we also see this with Ellen and Orlok: in the prologue, Ellen’s window is wide open (when she meets and develops a relationship with him), then it’s shut (separation) until the second and third act, when she asks him to come to her (reunion). It’s Ellen who grants or denies Orlok access to places, including to herself.  

We are probably dealing with reincarnation themes in this story as well, with Ellen possibly being Orlok's wife (since Bill Skarsgård confirmed Orlok was married and had a family), or the lover/bride he didn't get the chance to marry. Robert Eggers has confirmed he's a ancient spirit ("Orlok is an ancient noble, predating even the foundations of the Romanian Empire") so, we already dealing with reincarnation here because Orlok is a corpse from the late 16th century, with a whole boyar and vovoide backstory, the sovereign of a Transylvanian county (count). He's a Pagan worshipper of Zalmoxis, after all, he learned the secrets of immortality, life and death.

Linda Muir, the costume designer, also revealed in one interview that Orlok remembers lilacs from when he was alive; which isn't surprising since these flowers are native to the Balkans, but they are also the visual narrative device that symbolizes Ellen and Orlok's connection in this film: if Orlok associates these flowers with both his "human life" and Ellen, what is this supposed to mean? And even Ellen herself associates lilacs with Orlok, and it's a scent she is very fond of. Ellen also understands Orlok speaking Dacian (in this film it's a reconstructed language, fictional but well-researched), even thought it's an extinct language which hasn’t exist in spoken form for over a millennium and a half, and she's German. How come Ellen understands Dacian?

However, Orlok being in the "darkest pit" (O’er centuries, a loathsome beast I lay within the darkest pit") means his soul was deemed unworthy of entering Zalmoxis' kingdom after his 16th century life, or he couldn't enter it, for some reason. Instead of ascending (and preparing for his next reincarnation?), his soul appears to have been stuck in some sort of limbo, and when Ellen summoned him, his soul returned to his former body, cursing him to be a strigoi, a walking corpse who feeds off the blood of the living. "Loathsome" in Old English (which is what Orlok speaks, being from the late 16th century) is also connected with another word: "grievous" as in "grief".

“Your passion is bound to me […] I cannot be sated without you. Remember how once we were? A moment. Remember?”

The use of the term "sated" in this context can have a different meaning of "satisfied" (food and lust). In Old English, it's connected to the verb "sit", which means rest or lie. "I cannot rest without you"; which makes sense with their covenant being about them together ever-eternally in death, in the Afterlife. Orlok can’t find peace in death without Ellen's spirit by his side.

Either way, Ellen and Orlok end up developing a sexual relationship (lovers), as he symbolizes her sexual awakening in this story. As Ellen reveals to Thomas during her "possession scene": "At first it was sweet, I had never known such bliss." Then, Ellen tells him "yet it turned to torture, it would kill me" which is a reference to both her medicalization by Victorian society ("torture"), and their covenant ("it would kill me"), because she has to literally die in order to be "one with [him] ever-eternally", after all ("you are not for the living").

However, and even though Ellen end up marrying Thomas, what she and Orlok had never left her her mind/heart, as ilustrated by the lilacs around her (wedding dress, her perfume, and even her gowns): the lilacs (and Ellen's window) are the visual devices (visual storytelling) that represent the yearning between Ellen and Orlok.

Ellen's Medicalization

Victorian society was sexually repressed and Victorian doctors were obsessed with demonizing sexuality (especially female) to the point endlessness pathologies were theorized about it throughtout the 19th century, and it was during this time period the notion of “paraphilias” was created.

In the early 19th century, the ideal Victorian woman was a model of virtue, purity and modesty, and being a wife and a mother was a woman's destiny. Female sexuality was seen as a plague and a monstrosity in need of containment, which is what many literary critics see in “Dracula” by Bram Stoker (one of the main inspirations for this film), where the physical figure of the “sick woman” is one of the principal ways in which female sexuality manifests as a contagious disease, through the portrayal of Lucy Westenra and her degeneration into vampirism.

"I am disposed to recommend that she sleep in her corset. It encourages the correct posture, calms the womb, and revives circulation. And if her stirring escalates, you can always tie her to the bed. I'll increase the eter."

The Victorian characters patronize Ellen Hutter; she’s blameless because she’s “sick”, she has a “disease” she’s not able to control. Anna says she’s innocent, and a “sweet Romantic”, and believes her "hysteric fits" are caused by her husband's disappareance (because a woman's life revolved entirely around their husbands, and they didn't had "inner lives"). Thomas dismisses her premonitions as a consequence of her "melancholy", too.

Ellen is perceived as ”blameless of her malady” by the Victorian characters because Victorian women were expected to be innocent, ignorant and naïve about the world. And if a woman wasn’t innocent, she should pretend to be, which is what we see with Ellen, as she infantilizes herself before others ("Everything I say sounds so childish") and accuses Orlok of corrupting her innocence and being "a villain", even though she was the one who summoned him (and cursed him to be a strigoi), and she's also the one who grants and denies him access to places, including to herself.

The average Victorian woman wasn’t allowed to be educated nor possess knowledge outside of the domestic. And so, Ellen supernatural gifts aren't recognized by the Victorian characters, and later she will be seen as a victim at Orlok's hands, because, being a woman, she has no agency of her own.

And this medicalization is connected with the symbolism of Ellen's corset in the narrative, which was confirmed by costume designer Linda Muir in an interview with "The Art of Costume":

"One example of costume design serving the plot, as you mentioned, is Ellen’s corset. I came across a particular style called a fan-laced corset during my research, which I’ve also referred to as a “self-tying corset”—though it doesn’t actually tie itself! This type of corset can be tightened from the front, allowing the wearer to adjust it independently.For Robert, this design was ideal. When Ellen is in the throes of her supernatural connection with Orlok, the men around her—Sievers and Harding—try to impose control by tightening her corset. Because of the fan-laced design, we can see her anguish and convulsions, as well as the men’s oppressive actions, without needing to obscure her face or body by laying her prone. This moment is a perfect example of how research and storytelling can come together harmoniously in costume to enhance a scene."

The Victorian characters force Ellen to sleep with a corset, tie her to the bed and drug her with opiates, to restrain and control what they call “hysteric fits” and “epilepsies”, caused by her “melancholia” (depression) and “hysteria” (“wandering womb”, deeply connected to female sexuality), which are, in fact, her mediumship (which is what Professor Von Franz will recognize in her).

What Victorian doctors are trying to contain is Ellen's nature, her mediumship, and also her sexuality. Victorian society sees her nature, her true self, as a dangerous disease who needs to be stopped. As female sexuality in the Victorian era was seen as a plague and a monstrosity in need of containment, and "the threat of female sexuality" theme from the "Dracula" novel.

Ellen meets Professor Von Franz

Professor Von Franz agrees to examine Ellen, and once he arrives at the Harding household, it’s clear he disagrees with Dr. Sievers methods. He orders Sievers and Harding to untie Ellen, and notices she’s drugged. Sievers confirms he has been using opiates (probably Laudanum, because it was widely used during the 19th century). Ellen immediately sees he’s not like the other Victorian doctors, and is hopeful.

"Untie this child at once! […] Untie her! […] Drugged?"

Von Franz promises he’s there to help and asks Ellen about her childhood. Here, Von Franz isn’t physically examining Ellen, he’s performing a psychological analysis of her.

Important detail here: Ellen is drugged, and that's why she's speaking this like in this scene. Dr. Sievers gave her a "opiate"; which is can be any opium-based drug (Laudanum was a misture of opium and alcohol; or morphine; heroine, etc.).

"Dr. Sievers tells me you have had these spells since childhood. Would you describe them to me."

Von Franz asks Ellen about her childhood to determine if she has any subconscious trauma. " In medical terminology, "spells" are sudden and recurrent symptoms (not "magical spells").

“I know things."

Ellen confirms she has been a somnambulist ("these spells") since infancy ("I cannot always remember them. As if my spirit wanders off. Sometimes it was… it is like a dream") and, then, she speaks of her supernatural gifts: “I know things. I always knew the contents of my Christmas gifts” and she had a premonition of her mother’s death (“I knew when… that my mother would pass”).

"I was his little changeling girl."

Then she talks about her father; "Father… he would find me in our fields… within the forest… as if – I was his little changeling girl." Ellen's father called her “his little changeling girl” as in European folklore of children kidnapped by fairies, elves or demons and a substitute child being left in their place, because she enjoyed playing and being in nature. When she was supposed to be indoors (domestic sphere).

However, this started to displease him as she grew older, and Ellen being a teenager would rebel: “but as I became older it worsened… Father dispraised me for it…” As Ellen was growing into a woman, her playing in the woods was no longer acceptable for a young lady in Victorian society, so, evidently, her father wouldn’t allow it, anymore ("dispraised me for it"). As it was expected of her, Ellen should learn how to be a proper lady, and future wife to a respectable husband.

"I frightened him. My touch."

And, as she was getting older, her father stopped giving her physical affection, as well, because that would be inappropriate. "I frightened him. My touch": this indicates Ellen probably wanted to hug her father (or something of that sort), and he would recoil from her touch. And this hurt Ellen, deeply.

"Then a presence…"

She talks about when she summoned Orlok next, when she was 15 years old, without outright saying it: "I was so very alone, you see and… I wished for comfort… then a presence… and the nightmares, the epilepsies." To Thomas she will say: “I sought company, I sought tenderness, and I called out…”

Robert Eggers tells us in one interview: “She's [Ellen] an outsider. She has this understanding about the shadow side of life that is very deep, but she doesn't have language for that. She's totally misunderstood and no one can see her," he says. "Because of this gift, in her teenage years, she ends up reaching out to this demon lover, this vampire, who is the one being who can connect with that side of her. But then that other, sensual, erotic world is connected to this evil force, which only increases her shame.”

Ellen begins having what the Victorian doctors call “epilepsies” and "nightmares" when she starts to communicate with Orlok. As Von Franz will determine next, these “hysteric spells” are, in fact, “trances”: Ellen’s mediumship and her communicating with the spiritual realm (which doesn’t involve Orlok, specifically).

And as Robert Eggers tells us Ellen’s sexuality is connected with Orlok. In the Victorian era married heterosexual sex was the only socially acceptable sexual expression, and everything else (masturbation, homosexuality, prostitution, etc.) was considered deviant, and labeled as “sinful” and “evil”. In the early 19th century, women's sexuality was owned and controlled by their husbands, and was seen as a marital duty for male pleasure alone. Women were believed to have no sexual pleasure nor desire, at all, hence Ellen's shame. Being a woman, she isn't suppose to have these yearnings, nor enjoy it (this applies to Orlok because he's not her husband).

Then she talks about the episode when her father found her naked, and threatened to have her institutionalized: “At last Papa found me once laying… unclothed, I was… my body… my flesh… my… Sin! sin, he said… He would have sent me to someplace… I shan't go… I-”

"Sin! sin, he said…"

Here, Ellen uses the term "Papa" instead of "father" (as she used before), because she wants to showcase innocence and naivety: she's talking about sexual matters in the presence of men, and, like Robert Eggers tell us, she's deeply ashamed of this. The subtext here is clearly masturbation ("sin"). Especially because this will ressonate with other scene in the film:

And with what Ellen says next:

"It all ended when first I met my Thomas."

Unlike with Orlok, her sexual desire for Thomas is socially acceptable, especially because she probably wanted to marry him right away (which was common back in the day). "From our love, I became as normal." Her sexuality was integrated within marriage, as Victorian society decreed, and so, she cuts off her connection with Orlok. Which again tells the audience, Ellen does have agency over her whole deal with Orlok.

And, indeed, we do see Ellen happy with Thomas at the beginning of the film. They are newlyweds, fresh out of their honeymoon, which means sex (historically necessary to consummate marriages). However, Ellen clearly has a high sex drive, and she wants more. But Thomas has to go to work.

And later, at the Hardings household, Friedrich asks Thomas when will he and Ellen have a baby ("And when will you two newlyweds –?), and Thomas replies "When I am no longer a pauper." In a time period where contraceptives weren't the standard this means abstinence.

"Yet these visions and night wanderings have returned to you?"

"Night wanderings" is a reference to Ellen's sleepwalking (somnambulism). And Ellen says "He left on a fool's errand. I fear for him so." Because she knows he went to Orlok.

Now, we have to go back in the narrative, because Ellen has premonitions, and she knows Thomas will be sent away: "He has the position already. He’ll send him away." This "he" is Herr Knock. And she's correct, because that's what happens, and her mind goes back to Orlok, as he looks at her window.

Later, and before leaving for Transylvania, Thomas gifts Ellen, a bouquet of lilacs, which was a popular choice because it evokes feelings of young love and innocence; however, lilacs remind Ellen of Orlok; as we see her connecting these flowers with archetypal Death (Orlok), and not with her marriage to Thomas. And she has a over-the-top reaction because it's as if Thomas is confronting her with her "shame", her dirty secret. Here, Robert Eggers is reshaping a cult horror classic to his own vision, because in the 1922 “Nosferatu”, Ellen’s character also asks Thomas “why did you kill them... the lovely flowers...?”. But in the 2024 adaptation, this scene has an entirely different meaning.  

And now things are about to get dark, because we have to talk about the "maiden's token".

Before Thomas' departure, Ellen cuts a lock of her hair, and places it inside of her heart-shaped silver locket. She then gives it to her husband, apparently for good fortune on his travel. These sorts of gifts were considered a sign of love and devotion. However, during the Victorian era, it was also common to keep locks of hair from deceased loved ones in pieces of jewellery, especially lockets, which is another symbolic connection with Death (Orlok).

The scene where Ellen cuts a piece of her hair is also eerie, and she does this in front of her window (Orlok). She knows Thomas will be sent to him. And when he's is in Orlok’s castle, the count notices his “maiden token”, and asks to see it. As he opens it, and smells it, he immediately notices the scent of lilacs on Ellen’s hair. To Orlok, this is a confirmation of Ellen’s yearning for him.

“You are fortunate in your love.”

Orlok keeps the locket for himself, because he knows it’s meant for him. And this interpretation is also supported by the “Wuthering Heights” inspiration behind this story: after Catherine’s premature death, Heathcliff goes to the chapel to see her coffin. He places a strand of his hair inside of her necklace-locket, for her ghost to haunt him. It's Ellen's locket that gives Orlok access to her, again (not the "divorce papers" he tricks Thomas into signing in exchange for a sack of gold). And this is why Lily-Rose Depp says: "I don’t think she’s [Ellen] a victim at all. Because she’s kind of calling the shots the entire time.” It's the “Leptirica” (1973) inspiration (confirmed by Robert Eggers).

"Your husband is lost to you. Dream of me... Only me."

And this is also the explanation for this dialogue, when Orlok accuses Ellen of being "false", and "so you wish me to prove my enmity as well?" ("enmity" as in "hostility" and "antagonism"):

Thomas is a part of the Victorian Point of View of this story, and he's "love": Victorian love was meant to be chaste, modest and restrained. The opposite is Orlok: passion, erotism and "animalistic impulses" (sexual desire), which the sacrament of marriage was suppose to repress and contain (especially in women). And in this narrative it did, for a while. In this story, Thomas is already "doomed by the narrative" in being unable to not give Ellen what she wants and craves; which is why Ellen asks Professor Von Franz this question:

"Professor… My dreams grow darker, they sicken me. Does evil come from within us or from beyond?"

And he'll only give her the answer to this on their final scene together, in the third act of the film.

[nautical-language]

Cowboy Carter - Why it matters that Beyonce finally won Album of the Year at the Grammy’s for this album, specifically.

I grew up listening to exclusively modern country and classic rock, genres which both owe their existence to Black people (and by Black I do mean African American) but have been whitewashed.

I have literally had Cowboy Carter on repeat since it came out; easily my favorite country album of all time, if not just my favorite album, period.

If you don’t wanna read it all, here’s the short version: Cowboy Carter is a truly seamless blend of country and other musical styles that pays homage to the genre’s greatest musicians and mirrors the ways Black music has transformed, and been transformed by, U.S. culture. Never forget: the only musical genres that were created in the U.S. (jazz, hip-hop, rock, country, and more) were created by Black people.

Although it’s a country album—and it IS, undeniably, a country album!—Cowboy Carter is structured like a classic hip-hop album, including an “anthem” song that intros and outros the album (“AMERIICAN REQIUEM”) and intermissions where other famous stars of the country genre dap up Queen Bey.

Specifically, white country music legends Willie Nelson and Dolly Parton introduce the album/songs. That’s not just significant because they’re white or because they’re genre icons, but ALSO because they are icons of the country music era that—while predominantly white—actually still focused on the OG working class, blue collar themes of the genre. (Explaining how country music has changed over time is something I can’t even get into here, but the point is that Beyonce had white authentic country music legends introduce her album, as opposed to modern country music stars. It legitimizes the album as a country album the same way having a more famous rapper introduce your song/album would legitimize it as true rap.)

The first half of Cowboy Carter is much more “classically country,” while the second half is a bolder blend of country with other genres. In the intermission where Willie Nelson introduces the back half of the album, he literally says, “I’m here because sometimes it takes someone you trust to turn you onto some real good shit.” It’s this beautiful moment of authentic artistry and cultural exchange, because not only is Willie Nelson introducing white country lovers to Black music, Beyonce has also introduced Black r&b/hip-hop/rap fans to country music.

People who think Beyonce did a country album to prove she can cross genres like taylor swift are completely missing the point. First of all, Cowboy Carter is the second in a planned album trilogy, with each album paying homage to a different musical genre/group of genres created by Black people. The first installment was Renaissance, a trap/house album. Beyonce had originally planned to start the trilogy with Cowboy Carter, but chose to release Renaissance first in 2022 because she felt like “people needed to dance.”

As part of Beyonce’s career, Cowboy Carter also exists in a very specific context: https://www.vulture.com/article/beyonce-cmas-the-chicks-oral-history.html. After all the shit that happened during and after Beyonce’s performance of “Daddy Lessons” at the 2016 CMAs, “Cowboy Carter” didn’t even get NOMINATED at this year’s CMAs (and then it won this year’s grammy for best country album AND album of the year, so FUCK those racist assholes). Beyonce literally referenced the 2016 CMAs in the instagram post announcing Cowboy Carter.

In my mind, Billboard and the CMAs snubbing Lil Naz X’s wildly popular “Old Town Road” in 2019 must’ve only added fuel to the fire.*

So the planned album trilogy — and, of course, Cowboy Carter in particular — are a reaction to the whitewashing of genres created by Black people and the cultural appropriation that happens when modern Black artists are excluded from the genres they/their predecessors created.

*Note that Beyonce paired up with Miley Cyrus for “II MOST WANTED” on Cowboy Carter. Why would that matter? Because Miley’s dad is country artist Billy Ray Cyrus, who was notably one of the only modern white country musicians to publicly condemn the industry for its treatment of Lil Nas X’s “Old Town Road,” to the point that Billy Ray Cyrus literally did a version of Old Town Road with Lil Nas X as a way of legitimizing the song as real country music.

Other standout moments on the album—and these are just the ones I’ve caught:

-“BLACKBIIRD” (2nd song on the album) has Beyonce and 4 other, less well-known WOC cover the beatles’ “Blackbird,” which Paul McCartney wrote in honor of the Black women of the U.S. civil rights movement.

-At the end of “DAUGHTER,” Beyonce seamlessly transitions into the operatic aria “Caro Mio Ben.” If that doesn’t tell you what a flawless genre-blender this album is, I don’t know what will.

-Track 10 is “JOLENE,” which is Beyonce’s version of Dolly Parton’s song of the same name. Beyonce’s cover directly mirrors the way white artists took over the country music genre by covering and sampling songs originally created by Black artists.

-Every single track is a bop, but IMO, the album’s crowning achievement is “YA YA.” The song is amazing, and my favorite moment is when Beyonce does an impression of Elvis, who built his reputation as the King of Rock and Roll by doing an impression of Chuck Berry. “YA YA” features samples from country songs created or made famous by white artists (“These Boots Are Made For Walking” by Nancy Sinatra and “Good Vibrations” by The Beach Boys, plus a ton of other references—literally just go read YA YA’s Genius page), once again intentionally subverting the phenomenon of white artists covering Black artist’s music and receiving greater acclaim.

[ficsinhistory]

Hello everyone! This is one of a few posts I'm thinking about doing theorizing what we might see in Sonic 4. The topic of the day: Amy Rose's origin in the movies. 

I've mentioned it in other posts, but our dear pink girl will need a stronger backstory, so here's my two cents.

I think Amy Rose will be a native of Little Planet.

For those who don't know what it is, Little Planet is a planetoid with special properties that appears punctually above Never Lake for approximately one month each year and disappears completely for the remaining eleven months. It first appears in Sonic CD.

It is so mysterious that it travels through space never specified where it can be found for the rest of the year, without being bound by gravitational fields, described as "a world that defies time" and "where past, present and future collide”. 

You heard right, Little Planet is a place where TIME TRAVEL is a reality. I even think that Ivo didn't die, but the explosion of the Eclipse cannon, with so much chaos energy, ended up sending him there, but that's a theory for another day.

The point is that Little Planet is extremely powerful and full of life and energy, to the point of creating its own flora and fauna and, in the context of the film, it can be filled with chaos energy and use it to mess with time and space. 

Not only does Little Planet have innate powers, but it is also where the Times Stones reside, which also appeared in Sonic CD, which is probably the reason why the place never stops.

The Times Stones are similar to the Chaos Emeralds in the “jewels with insane powers” ​​category. They are relics that allow their user to travel through time and re-write history to cause miracles to happen. No, you heard right, the Times Stones are 7 gems that can completely rewrite history, able to command time itself in order to cause miracles to happen. And yes, it is an insane power.

Knowing this, I theorize that, in the movies, Little Planet is inhabited by a population that learned to use the energy of chaos for temporal manipulation, such as the ability to see the future, the past, travel through time, among other things.

They would also have advanced technology, since in Sonic CD there are industrial hubs, high-tech cities on Little Planet and Amy's hammer is clearly technological in the post-credits.

I also believe that the people of Little Planet have a cultural philosophy of actions and consequences and the common good, similar to the honor and struggle of the echidnas that Knuckles possesses, rooted in the Times Stones and their social importance. Perhaps believing that one should not interfere in how life is and avoid selfish decisions in the name of a good future for all. This would give Amy a personal conflict, who is probably in a race against time to change destiny.

This next one may be a bit morbid, but I believe that the natives of the planetoid, and Amy, may have a very melancholic and beautiful view of life and death. After all, everyone's time comes to an end and this would be more present in a civilization so collectivist and guided by time.

The people of Little Planet may be great valuers of memories and, although the end comes for everyone, death should not be feared because it is natural and the memories, the love, will always be there. And love may even be one of the most important feelings for the people there. The Little Planet civilization may see love as the only thing that transcends time, perhaps wanting to spread it throughout the world the planet is in. In general, a balanced and pacifist society.

Which makes the eventual domination that it will possibly undergo in the fourth film even worse and more brutal.

[thebibutterflyao3]

I’m not arguing that fat phobia doesn’t exist within the fandom and the original texts itself, it is an issue that needs to be addressed more. However, to claim that the lack of inclusion of Peter in fanfics is only because of fat phobia is disingenuous. His character is not simply “flawed,” his betrayal is the catalyst for the entire series and he actively continues to escalate the conflict throughout. His only redemption is a hesitation to kill Harry that ends his own life, but even that is undermined by Dumbledore’s claim that Harry sparing his life creates a magical bond between them that may serve Harry later. Overlooking the horrific things that we know he did when discussing him is a “weak and shallow” analysis of an already flat character.

I agree that he deserved more depth and Peter certainly does not have to be portrayed as a villain in fanfics, especially if he’s a teenager. He’s not the one leading a cult or abusing children from a place of power (like a few teachers do). He is not portrayed as inherently evil, he’s desperate. At his core, he is insecure and should be explored as a sympathetic character. He admires and latches onto more powerful/stronger people for protection and needs validation from those in a place of power or authority. This is a relatable personality that can, and does, add a lot of interest and depth to the friendship group, but there is no mention of what he contributes and plenty of evidence that he was ignored/dismissed by Sirius (and possibly James) as useless well before his betrayal. He is the odd man out. I do wish we knew more about what led up to him going astray and about the dynamics within the group, but we don’t have that.

As for his motivation, I’ve written at length in the past that self-preservation is a valid motivation and that saving himself is not inherently selfish, but Peter goes beyond that. He murdered a handful of people, screamed out lies to frame Sirius, and destroyed a city block to escape retaliation for his actions. In the Shrieking Shack, he continued to lie and blame Sirius for his actions even after seeing how Sirius suffered. He caused unnecessary harm to save himself over and over again while completely disregarding the lives he destroyed in the process. He shows little remorse.

Bringing in Regulus or Lily is a logical choice because they are natural extensions of this friend group: Regulus is Sirius’s brother and a morally grey character with a redemption arc. He adds familial conflict and a sharp contrast to the Gryffindors. Lily is one of the few canonical Gryffindors that we know by name from their year and a woman who we know they were close to (although combative with). Personally, I prefer to write Lily as a confident, plus-sized character who doesn’t take anyone’s shite and I’ve seen several other portrayals of her in a similar way. Bringing in a strong female perspective to this group also creates an interesting shift in the dynamic.

Don’t get me wrong, adding positive, diverse representation where none exists is a choice and I would love to see more of it in this fandom. It is avoided in all generations of HP characters in canon and I know that Marauders writers make a conscious effort to diversify the characters we are largely creating from scraps.

As for Regulus, I didn’t see the need to delve into the nuance of his character on this thread because he is not the main topic, but to claim you “cannot find much of a difference” in canon between his character and Peter is ridiculous. Regulus is Draco’s mirror, not Peter’s. They were raised in the same belief system, faced with similar challenges, and ultimately balked at the expectations dumped on them. They were both children being manipulated by adults who knew better. That doesn’t take away the consequences of their actions, but it does put them in context. If you have no experience with cult-mindset, then it is easy to ignore the influence of these parents, the Blacks, who approved, and the Malfoys, who actively participated.

Peter does not have that parallel. He sought out Voldemort and the Death Eaters as an adult with the full knowledge of what he would be expected to do. He was a member of The Order and well aware of what they were doing.

The last line in my response above was flippant, I’ll admit that, but Voldemort is more often excluded from AUs than Peter. Accusing people of fat phobia because they don’t include Peter is probably better compared to accusing people of homophobia because they prefer a straight ship over a queer ship. If there is evidence that fat phobia is the reason for his exclusion, then by all means, point it out. However, the blanket accusations tossed out on behalf of an unrepentant, unnecessarily destructive character are not productive or constructive toward change in the fandom. It is generalized gas-lighting and guilt-tripping.

Regulus and Peter both betrayed people. They both worked for bad people. Hell, story wise I cannot find much of a difference between the two. Just one thing. Peter is fat and Regulus is a conventionally attractive twink.

Regulus or Lily always replaces Peter. Because why? Regulus also harmed many people.

Peter fanfics are so rare compared to the other marauders. He’s not included in poly marauders. Marauders without Peter isn’t the marauders.

Stop replacing Peter. He’s not a bad character, you’re just fatphobic.

[changingplumbob]

I had originally planned to forward one of the love chains today but my energy hit zero quickly. I appreciate them a lot 💓 and I'm hoping to pass it on in the next few days.

Today, much travel was happening. I bought some data for my phone so I could distract myself but in the end I got tired so fast I couldn't even add anything to my SBL note page because my brain was drawing a blank. For context, I can generally deal with going out for a few hours a couple of times a week but it does take me a day to recover from that, thanks chronic fatigue. Today I was out for six hours in one go with lots of walking.

I'm utterly exhausted right now. I don't know if I'll be up to writing tomorrow, I don't even know if I'll be up to playing any sims tomorrow. So if I'm quiet over the next few days, it's not you, I'm not mad, I'm simply recovering. Likewise if I normally comment or normally do longer comments I'm sorry but it probably won't happen, and my replies to comments may sound like I lost track of what I was saying halfway through. Thank you for helping me create this safe space where I can recuperate without judgement. Since I know some of you have anxiety worse than I did I just wanted to assure you any radio silence from me is purely me being tired.

[scarlet--wiccan]

Hi, do you know if Pietro is albinos or just has light skinned (colorism).

Neither, and you're using both of those words incorrectly. Pietro has white hair as part of his "mutation," and his skin tone is the same as Wanda's-- which, in their current official designs, is a light/medium brown.

If you're assuming that Pietro may have albinism simply because he has white hair, I would encourage you to do some research, because that's not how the condition works. I have always found the way fandom equates albinism with fantasy hair colors to be reductive and insensitive-- although it's not my experience to speak on, so if anyone with a more informed perspective is willing to share their thoughts, I'd love to hear them. Regardless, there are many other factors that a person with albinism is likely to exhibit, physically, and to experience both socially and medically, none of which have ever been ascribed to this character.

Colorism is not "having light skin." It is a term that is used to describe prejudice and discrimination towards towards people with darker skin tones, or, in certain contexts, preferential treatment of those with lighter skin and more euro-centric features. This comes up in a lot of conversations about intracommunal issues, and it's usually not appropriate for someone outside of a racial group to comment on this, but I will say this-- when someone with lighter skin feels like they don't fit in with their peers or community, that is not colorism.

To my knowledge, the idea that Pietro has lighter skin than Wanda is based solely on Uncanny Origins: Quicksilver, a retelling of Wanda and Pietro's origin story and childhood that was published in 1996. Such retellings are dubiously canon at best-- they often take liberties with certain events and create contradictions that aren't ever acknowledged in the main continuity. Uncanny Origins is guilty on both counts, and it does something really strange with the twins' racial identities. At one point, Marya comments that Wanda and Pietro aren't truly Roma, which is not only false-- at this point, both Erik and Magda were thought to be Sinti, so as far as readers were aware, the twins were Romani on all sides-- but it's also just not something I believe that a mother would say in this context.

The narration also states that Pietro has a hard time fitting in with the community because of his lighter skin. Keep in mind, all of the characters in this comic are colored the same way, so there's no difference between Wanda, Pietro, or any of the other Roma, and they all pretty much look like white people. Beyond that, I just don't think this is an accurate or likely scenario-- Romani identity is nuanced, but it's not predicated on appearance. Even if Pietro was notably lighter, he'd be less likely to face rejection from within the community, and more likely to be at risk of violence from outsiders. There is a history of lighter-toned and white-presenting Romani children being taken from their families.

Like I said, Romani identity is complicated, especially when it comes to adoption, but it's not appropriate for outsiders to speak on this and I really don't like the tone that Uncanny Origins takes. I usually tell people to disregard this portrayal, since it's such an isolated incident. It's worth noting, as well, that none of this aligns with the twins' updated backstory. In the current continuity, Django is Wanda and Pietro's uncle, and their mother, Natalya, placed them in his and Marya's care. They, and the rest of their community, knew exactly who these children were, and there would have been no question about their racial background or sense of belonging.

[the-far-bright-center]

Re: TCW as meta commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

[roseworth]

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

[themintman]

that one "do you think we're friends in every universe" Dan and Tray post I made AGES ago but space dogified.. rubs my hands together like a cartoon villain

The drawing 👇👇 based on this one painting my friend sent me AGES ago to draw for a different au (mermal 🎉🐟) but uh. IT GOT TURNED INTO A TDM THING-

also the original post I made

[kagoutiss]

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

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

[labyrinthofthestar]

da*2. is a game

[mostofthingsmostofthetime]

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

At school

In free time

On Reaping Day

In District 13

[br1ghtestlight]

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

[leapdayowo]

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