#both instances just affirming their love and support and understanding for each other. and i just start crying again | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

beevean · 4 years

Text

SEGA and its most recent Sonamy side – more canon than ever

[Translator’s note: this article was originally written in Spanish by @latin-dr-robotnik]

Hello again! Today we’d like to discuss about something that’s been happening recently, and probably taking Sonic fans by surprise: what is going on with SEGA and its stance about Sonamy?

At the beginning of this year, to celebrate the 200 articles on Seaside Hill Paradise, I finished what I call “the Sonamy trilogy” of articles that I started in 2018 and which cover different themes, such as:

SEGA and the eternal issue of the Sonic-Amy dynamic

“I love you” – Forbidden words in Sonic

SEGA and the eternal issue of “Sonic’s girlfriend”

The idea was to offer a more-or-less complete analysis about the many facets of their dynamic in the last 27 years; a dynamic that, you may have noticed, is not that easy to pin down, and that we’ve been updating almost regularly (although I also intended to investigate on other dynamics, like Knuckles and Rouge’s for example, and write about them). Generally speaking, in these articles I don’t draw objective conclusions about the status of the ship in canon (despite the fact that the available information tends to confirm it in various occasions). I also like to repeat myself and say that shipping is supposed to be for fun, not for tearing each other’s hair in that black hole of misery that is Twitter, but recent events left us slightly perplexed, and this is why we’re here once again.

We left the status of the Sonamy canonicity with these two peculiar instances back in August: Sonic mentioning his “girlfriend” in the Japanese version of Sonic Battle, and the Twitter account of SEGA of Europe saying Sonamy is their “favorite videogame romance”. Now, let’s recap a bit…

Sonamy in Sonic IDW... Round 3

[SPOILERS ALERT FOR IDW SONIC #14-#35]

In 2018, when IDW just started, I decided to study a little how the Sonamy dynamic worked in this new universe. To our surprise, the comic didn’t waste time in dropping its biggest bomb, in one of the cutest scenes we had seen in ages. Since the very beginning, IDW proved that it didn’t intend to deceive those fans that looked for a bit of development of both characters.

I wrote an article about it in June 2019, and it coincided with the beginning of one of the most infamous arc I’ve seen in a Sonic comic for a long time: the Metal Virus Saga. The question is, what has happened since then?

Well, in 2019, with the same accuracy of an aimbot, I said “We’ll probably see some new interactions between Sonic and Amy sometime around IDW #20”. And wouldn’t you know, as misery and tragedy settled in that arc, it was exactly around IDW #20 that we saw some Sonamy interactions: both exhausted, to their limit, with a Sonic that couldn’t even touch Amy to soothe her pain, due to him being infected with the virus.

The arc developed like this in what felt like an eternity, to finally conclude in one the most absurd ways in Sonic history. But it wasn’t a complete disappointment, as, after months and months of asking and discussing on the internet about how much Sonic and Amy deserved a hug at the end of the arc… it actually happened.

Since that moment in IDW #32, we shippers thought that it was what both of them deserved after so much time spent separated and pushed to their limit to survive, but also that after the end of the arc everything would go back to normal. However, what we didn’t know was that the Sonamy train had no intention of stopping, not in IDW, nor anywhere else.

A recurring detail in IDW Sonic is that Amy’s tail starts wagging every time she sees Sonic, as if she was a happy dog. I swear, it happens every time.

Come IDW #35, once again we have some hugs and bits of dialogue between our hedgehogs. For sure, the question here isn’t their relationship itself, as it was for IDW #2, but rather the issues this arc is slowly dealing with. But it’s really nice to see them again, sharing that closeness that they’ve had in the comic since the beginning– be it with some gestures of affection, a wink, a gesture, a private joke.

My favorite image is the first one, Belle’s reaction to seeing Amy hugging Sonic. It’s like she’s thinking “oh, is she his girlfriend?”, and she wouldn’t even be wrong in thinking that.

It can’t be denied that IDW Sonic provided us the conversations and the emotions that the games seldom do. Certainly, the comic has its share of issues and it’s not really a story that I personally follow for its own merits (it’s more because it’s still Sonic, for my interest for things like this, and Belle’s existence… whom I already ship with Tails, sorry not sorry), but what it does well it does really well.

For now, we have to see how IDW Sonic will follow the development of the characters, especially in view of the closure of the current story and beyond. And we may be done with this part of the article, but there is still a lot left.

Sonamy in merchandise

Taking us completely by surprise, recently SEGA launched, in collaboration with Hot Topic, a series of Sonamy-themed t-shirts. No, seriously.

So many people told me this as soon as the voice spread (you know who you are, thank you guys for thinking about me <3), and I can’t help being still surprised that this is actually a thing. T-shirts with lines like “You’re my favorite”, “Love in the fast lane”, and my personal favorite, “S&A Forever”, with drawings of Classic Sonic and Amy… in SEGA-approved products. I don’t know if you realize how much of a big deal this is, even more than “Celebrate the 25 years of Sonic’s girlfriend” from 2018.

One of the things that surprised me the most (aside from how explicit they are in officializing the relationship, and the fact that there are still 2 months left before Valentine’s Day 2021), was the decision to use Classic Sonic and Classic Amy. I tried to understand this decision by analyzing the simplicity and easiness with which the Classic designs convey a message (let’s not forget that Classic Sonic was so iconic because it was specifically designed to convey his expressions without words), besides the fact that they’re inherently cuter than their modern designs. There’s also the controversial aspect of post-Adventure Sonamy, with all the dubbing and weird interpretations that the fandom made over the years… By comparison, the Classic design are a much simpler choice.

What is actually going on?

Well, let’s take a step back and think about what we just saw. The way SEGA has been recently trying to push Sonic and Amy in front view (and for the entirety of 2020, based on the articles I mentioned in the beginning) tells us the harsh truth we all have to accept sooner or later: Sonamy sells, and it sells a lot.

From a strictly business point of view, the ship is so iconic and popular, with fans and detractors alike, that it would be absurd for SEGA to ignore the chance to print these two characters and get a load of money. As I said in my 2018 article, despite the fact that in Japan Sonic isn’t as big of an icon as it is elsewhere, they know pretty well that Sonic + Amy = love, and they have huge amounts of merchandise to back it up. It’s in the West that because of different cultural values, of which we’ve already talked about, along with some internal resistance, left this aspect of the franchise a little on the side. But they’ve been trying to fix it… and how…

Let’s not forget that a decade and a half ago Sonic Team seriously favored Sonamy. They officially said it, Sonic X was their purest view of Sonic they had at the time.

Outside of the business perspective, I believe we’re facing the moment that we’ve been waiting for: it’s time they’ll establish once and for all the dynamic of these two characters, following more closely the original Japanese vision of Sonic. I said many times that, in trying to change canon, the West, especially SEGA of America, did nothing but confuse fans and generate more discussions than needed, by introducing different data and portrayals that contradict the canon established by Sonic Team.

We’ve talked about Unleashed and emotional support, about Sonic X, about the major moments that opened the door to interpreting this dynamic as something more. We don’t threaten at gunpoint those who would rather stay away, but we respond to those declarations that still try to violently discredit the simple fact that Sonic and Amy, who are most of all close friends, form in some measure a couple that, even with its imposed limitations, manages to captivate fans and not fans everywhere in the world. Even the Simpsons used it as a joke, and that says a lot.

What the future has in store for us.

Unless something else happens in this last month of 2020, this is the most complete compilation I can offer at the moment about the status of Sonamy in the fandom and in the official canon. Yes, canon.

It’s impossible to ignore the signals. As you may have noticed, I’ve been considering Sonic and Amy as an official couple, with its clarifications (for example, that at the end it’s more of a friendship, that it’s not a romantic relationship in the most explicit way, that it’s more of a personal perspective to justify a more mature vision of the relationship in the future, not right now), but nowadays I think that SEGA has spoken loud and clear. I think canon is ready to negotiate the idea that Sonic and Amy, apart from being excellent friends who would risk their lives for each other in a heartbeat, have something else on their hands (probably the other’s hand). This won’t automatically translate into a kiss, or a complete love declaration (although Sonic X came close…), or a commitment to a formal relationship like we know them in real life. SEGA canon affirms that Amy is “Sonic’s girlfriend” and nothing more. Outside of that detail, they still pretty much function as friends interacting with a little flirting here, and a little Sonic running away there. It’s the basis of their dynamic, now enhanced by the fact that SEGA is giving us a clearer message.

I think that this all may culminate in a game or an animated series, but I wouldn’t completely count on that. It is good to recognize how far the official position goes on this issue, but at the same time I want to reaffirm that there are things that are better left in the hands of the fandom, and in the meantime that IDW or any other continuity gives us hugs, winks, gestures and words of encouragement, we as the fandom will take care of exploring other avenues and hypothetical scenarios.

This is all I have to say on the matter for now, and I hope you’re happy with this wonderful Sonamy experience we’re going through – I certainly am. See you next time!

#sonic the hedgehog #sonamy #amy rose #translation #long post #whew #this one was a doozy #but super interesting #thanks again latin for writing these long ass sonamy posts

333 notes · View notes

stillbandofbrothersthirsty · 3 years

Text

How Do You Feel

PART 5 (heads up, this part is pretty angsty compared to the other parts)

Julia never knew the pain of time before that week. The boys had left for Upottery Airfield at the end of the month, leaving her behind with a scattering of staff - mostly females - in Aldbourne. In one fell swoop, Julia had been separated from her boss, best friend, and their family of Easy Company men. She felt purposeless. Each minute of the day was spent either trying to gather any tidbit of information she could or trying to get the time to pass faster.

There was work to be done but there was no urgency to it as all of Aldbourne held their breath waiting for the paratroopers to make their first jump into Europe. Finally, on June 6th, the news of the invasion arrived. The news must have reached them after the men had already landed, Julia thought. All of Julia willed George to be among the paratroopers who made it to the ground. They were separated by roughly 376 miles but it might as well have been another universe. The things he would face were beyond her imagination, but the notion that he hadn’t even made it to the fight was even more unthinkable. Across the channel George’s training was kicking in. As a radioman, he carried more weight than the average rifleman. This responsibility had once been a joke; of course, George Luz was a radioman, he had the largest mouthpiece in the company. In training, it had been a piece of cake. George picked up the shorthand and coded language like it was nothing. But no one had prepared him for what it meant to be the vessel of all communication - or lack there off. No one had prepared him for how helpless it felt listening to officers with thinly veiled panic in their voices shouting for support. No one had prepared him for the desperate feeling of being the one on the radio hoping and praying that the person on the other end understood your request, and would show up for you. Only in the quiet moments at night when it was dark would George allow himself to think of Julia. He didn’t want to associate her face with a bloodied corpse he would inevitably pass. He couldn’t bear to imagine her laugh among the gunfire. In the states, in England, they had shared a paradise and now he was in hell; there was no reconciling the two worlds. The near month in France took everything out of George. It was one thing to be physically exhausted, but his soul was worn down. He was more than aware of how he was seen in the company. He couldn’t let his guard down for the Germans or for his comrades. If the clown stopped smiling how would anyone else know when to smile? Julia anxiously received the few letters George managed to write. By the time they reached her, they were worn from water and the exchange of hands but she was grateful to have them anyways. Each letter she received meant he was still alive. All around her, the staff and ladies of Aldbourne received letters, each one affirmed George’s survival. His death would have been mentioned by someone because everyone knew George Luz, Julia’s George. Leading up to D-Day, George and Julia’s antics had grown beyond subtle. Their intimacy had become an unspoken, accepted fact of life in Aldbourne. Julia’s romance with Chuck was an often forgotten memory. But no one knew what the true nature of their relationship was, including George and Julia. While the troops were in France, Julia’s colleagues awkwardly stumbled across polite inquiries regarding George’s wellbeing. Was he a friend or a romantic partner? Perhaps something more considering their intimate relations. Julia didn’t know, nor really cared how they defined it because in her mind she was simply waiting for her best friend. Her patience was rewarded at the end of the month when a bedraggled Easy Company made their way back to Aldbourne. George trundled along the rain-worn roads of the English countryside in a lorry, Frank Perconte to his left and Buck Compton to his right. He was cracking jokes; though the men were exhausted the adrenaline of relief coursed through them. They had survived D-Day plus some and were back in England to tell their tales. Men chattered excitedly about hot meals, pretty women, and where they would take their leave. It sounded like a coalition was forming in favor of London. That sounded pretty good to George. All he wanted was to get blindingly drunk and cause a lot of mischief with his best friends - excluding Julia. The places and things the soldiers had in mind for London were not appropriate for a lady, even George’s easy-going, tough-as-nails Julia. George spotted Julia immediately as his lorry rolled onto the base. She was dressed in civilian clothes, a bright yellow dress that had to be new. He had never seen her in it before and he would have remembered if he had because she shone like a ray of sunshine. George swung his body out of the truck, throwing his rucksack on his back. Julia stood at the center of a group of women, half in uniforms, half in civilian clothes. She searched the crowd of incoming soldiers for George. As soon as she spotted him she rushed towards him, flinging her body into his arms when they met. “You’re back,” Julia sighed a deep sigh of relief. George gripped her tightly, “thanks for waiting.” Julia stepped back from him with a wide smile, the beginning of tears formed in her eyes.   “Hey, hey,” George said lightly, “none of that. Don’t go soft on me now!” Julia laughed, a sound that caused George’s heart to soar. She wiped the tears away with a smile, “I’m just so glad you’re back! Now I’ll save some money on postage.” “Pretty sure you get the same military allowance I do,” George said, “by the way, I love the dress!” “Yeah?” Julia twirled on the spot, “your favorite color.” George tried to keep his smile cool. Yeah, she was his best friend, of course, she knew his favorite color. But something warmed his heart to think she took his preference into consideration when she purchased it. “Great for summer,” he said. The first days of his return were spent in bliss. George thanked all of his lucky stars each day for returning him to his paradise. Winters wasn’t about to let the men slip; he had training exercises and calisthenics planned for each day. But George found himself with more free time than before D-Day and he easily slipped back into his routine of visiting Julia both during the day and at night. The men were granted one week off and the majority of Easy Company decided to go to London. Winters warned them that they were still paratroopers, they needed to maintain the dignity of their uniforms. His words were of no consequence because a new energy had grown in each surviving man. There was a new wildness about them, a vivaciousness that could only be satisfied by debauchery. It was only in George’s nature to lead the charge, along with Bill Guarnere, John Martin, Floyd Talbert, Don Malarkey, Joe Toye, and the other gambling-fan, oversexed paratroopers. To say the least, the week in London was wild. Gambling and drinking ran rampant as relieved soldiers from across England filtered into the city. Money, alcohol, and women kept the men busy and got them into trouble. Headlines in the paper joked that the American’s had done more damage to the city than the blitz. One evening when George was particularly drunk he followed Bill and Joe into a particularly seedy bar near Piccadilly Circus. Bill introduced him and Joe to a few women he had met the previous night. George felt reckless with the alcohol coursing through his veins so when the thought of Julia crept into his mind he had no regard to how their relationship had evolved over the last few months. More importantly, he disregarded rule number five. George didn’t wear a condom that night, a realization he had when he woke up in a panic at 7 am the next day in a stranger's bed. George didn’t say anything about the week to Julia when he returned. He brushed off her questions with short answers about how it was fun and a great time with the guys. Rumors swirled around Aldbourne about how raucous of a time the men had had. The non-specific gossip only made Julia smile and shake her head. The boys deserved a fun time, she thought. It was perfectly understandable that they had wanted to blow off some steam. But the energy changed between her and George when he returned from London. The honeymoon period that had experienced upon his arrival was over and George suddenly felt like a foreigner to her. He was himself, but different. There was an edge to him that hadn’t been there before. It was faint, just a whisper in his eyes when he told a joke, but Julia could sense it. He was still quick to laugh but there was an occasional bitterness to it. As a couple, they grew more reckless. Not in their playful disregard for subtly but in their intimacy. They had been diligently safe before D-Day but since George’s return, there were more and more instances of not using protection. Whenever paranoia crept into George’s mind the reckless monster that had latched onto him since coming back reared its ugly head. Fuck it. He thought. He didn’t care. In turn, Julia found herself lacking the energy to remind him. In the moments they shared she was so desperate to connect with him that she ached for the closeness of his raw body. “George?” Julia whispered. There was no answer. Maybe he was asleep, she thought. They had only finished having sex a few moments ago but when Julia returned from cleaning up George was turned away from her. She gently placed a palm on his back. The smallest connection. On the other side of the bed, George was awake, starring into the darkness. He wanted nothing more than to roll over into her arms but he couldn’t bring himself to move. Any clear thought refused to form in his brain. He barely noticed the heavy wetness forming in his eyes as he searched the wall for the strength to return to his former self. In France, the nights had offered the greatest respite. But in Aldbourne, it was the days that George preferred. The days meant comfortable routine, people to laugh and joke with, and sunshine without shrapnel raining down. At night George couldn’t see anything except for scenes of destruction painted on the back of his eyelids. “How did you feel about your competition?” Floyd Talbert teased Julia one day at lunch. “What?” Julia asked innocently biting into an apple. George squirmed down on the bench beside her. “What’re we talkin’ about?” he asked.  

“Apparently I’ve got some competition,” Julia smiled playfully at George but there was a hesitance in her eyes. George’s stomach clenched. It wasn’t as if he was forbidden to be with other women. For all intents and purposes, nothing had changed regarding their agreement and Julia understood that. George’s guilt came from the uncertainty of whether or not he had contracted anything from his lustful night in London. It was a thought he had had a few times since reuniting with Julia but his reckless monster always tamped down the guilt. “Is that so?” George deflected as he pushed the food around on his tray. “Don’t worry Jules,” Floyd reassured her, “you’ve got his heart. He had to pay for it!” “Actually, we covered it,” Joe Toye grumbled from down the table. “Ol' George couldn’t locate his wallet,” Bill chortled from beside Joe, “it’s alright, we told him he gets to cover us next time we go.” Julia chuckled along with the men’s laughs but George didn’t miss the flint-like look in her eyes. “Paid for it, George?” Julia didn’t wait long to ask. She cornered him soon as they exited the mess hall. “Look, it was just a bit of fun,” George said calmly. “George, sleeping with women in town is one thing but a prostitute,” Julia hissed. “I didn’t know they were prostitutes!” George held his hands up in defense. Julia narrowed her eyes at him, “I have a hard time believing that.” “It doesn’t matter anyway, it’s my business. That was our agreement.” Julia’s mouth tightened into a thin line, “did you at least use protection?”  

“What kind of question is that?”

  “I have to ask, I’m sorry. I know it’s your business but with how irresponsible we’ve been lately I want to make sure - with a prostitute… they’re at much higher risk for disease.” “That’s not only my fault we haven’t been using protection, you could also remind-,” “George, you’re not answering my question.” Julia had her arms crossed across her chest, a desperate look was growing in her eyes. “I don’t have anything. No lumps, no bumps, nothing,” George said. “So you didn’t use a condom?” Julia raised her eyebrows. “No. I-I don’t know!” George said quickly. Julia’s face filled with thunder, “how do you not remember?” “I was drunk.” “I’ve seen you drunk. Even when you’re drunk off your ass you're coherent enough to remember if you used a condom or not!” “Jules-,”

  “Answer the question, George!” Julia was nearly shouting now. “No.” Julia wanted to cry, from anger or from the hurt she didn’t know. George hung his head in shame. “Okay,” Julia did her best to keep her voice level, “thank you for being honest. But this,” she gestured between them, “is done.” Julia walked down the road towards her office. “Julia!” George stumbled after her, “Julia, no, I didn’t do anything wrong!” “George you broke rule number five! No bringing anything back!” “I didn’t bring anything back! I told you I don’t have-,” 

Julia whirled on him, “even if there are no lumps, bumps, or whatever who knows what you could be carrying! And that doesn’t even matter because we were together as soon as you got back from London before you would have known if your dick was all bumpy!” she gestured angrily at him. “You betrayed my trust, George! This makes me feel unsafe.” 

A knot formed in George’s throat at her words. “Jules, I-,” “Just,” Julia sighed and held her hands up in exasperation, “leave me alone. Give me some space.” George watched helplessly as Julia walked back to headquarters. He wanted to be angry with her, she was over-reacting, he thought. Just wait until he told Perco about how irrational she was being, Frank would take his side. But really, George felt terrible. His rational brain realized how much he had messed up. By the grace of God, he had been returned to his paradise only to burn it down with his own stupidity.

#band of brothers #hbo band of brothers #george luz #fanfiction #how do you feel #angst #heartbreak #original character #george luz x oc #george luz x original character #oc #luz

12 notes · View notes

dweemeister · 4 years

Photo

Yi Yi (2000, Taiwan)

At the beginning of Edward Yang’s Yi Yi (translated as “A one and a two…”), the film samples a piece adapted from the final movement of Ludwig van Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9. That movement, containing the “Ode to Joy” (its lyrics from a poem of the same name), was the composer’s refutation of a belief he held when he was younger – the necessity for heroic revolutionary leaders to deliver freedom to the masses. Napoleon’s declaration of himself as Emperor and the decisions made by the Congress of Vienna in 1804 and 1814-1815, respectively, obliterated political freedoms across Europe in favor of repressive police states. Beethoven was disillusioned by these developments. By the time of the Ninth Symphony’s debut, he was completely deaf and had endured decades of intense suffering. Within the lyrics in the “Ode to Joy” was Beethoven’s statement celebrating Enlightenment ideals – universal brotherhood in diversity, liberty, and an individual’s right to the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness, of course, guarantees neither happiness nor self-fulfillment, as Beethoven himself must have known. In that spirit, Edward Yang’s final film follows a middle-class Taiwanese family as each family member grasps for meaning and purpose. Films as keenly observant of the daily joys and disappointments of life such as Yi Yi are rare. It is a masterpiece of filmmaking and human drama.

Just before the turn of the twentieth to the twentieth-first century in Taipei lives the Jian family. Father NJ (Wu Nien-jen), mother Min-Min (Elaine Jin), teenage daughter Ting-Ting (Kelly Lee), and eight-year-old son Yang-Yang (Jonathan Chang) are attending the wedding reception of Min-Min’s brother A-Di (Chen His-Sheng). Shortly after the reception, Min-Min’s mother (Tang Ru-yun) falls ill and has a stroke. After emergency intervention and treatment in the hospital, she remains comatose following her discharge. But even before this development, Edward Yang has been laying the groundwork for his film’s intricate, but comprehensible, structure.

The film divides its time between the Jians, maintaining a delicate balance throughout (even if Min-Min is largely absent in the film’s second half). Downstairs from the wedding reception, NJ has a chance encounter with his ex-girlfriend Sherry (Ko Su-yun). Sherry wants to reconnect, answer lingering questions. Years removed from their relationship, NJ is busy with an unfulfilling job and an incoming visitor in Japanese businessman Mr. Ota (Issey Ogata). Min-Min – who falls into a depression upon seeing her mother’s comatose state – leaves for a Buddhist monastery well after Yi Yi settles into its rhythm. She only resurfaces just before the conclusion. At fourteen years old, Ting-Ting is witnessing others pursue romance as she develops romantic feelings of her own. As many former teenagers know, those are awkward years, guided by nothing resembling one’s present wisdom. The target of his classmates’ bullying and frequent condescending remarks from his teacher, Yang-Yang goes about his life mostly alone. Yet in his loneliness and quiet, he observes others astutely. “Daddy,” he asks, “I can’t see what you see and you can’t see what I see. How can I know what you see?… can we only know half of the truth?”

Yi Yi’s characters grapple with the unknowable, the misunderstood, and the unspoken truths that are just in front of them. Their stories interweave with each other’s, forming a current rippling gently through each of their lives. Characters are occasionally seen through windows with the camera positioned outside – at times obscured by a glare, at times seen clearly. In the former, the glare suggests the barriers of communication and temperament people develop for their own survival and sanity, or perhaps to delay something unpleasant and inevitable. When no glares are present, there is less conversational or behavioral pretense. But in those moments, the characters’ feelings of isolation – from family, friends, or society – envelop the frame. In each instance, Yang (who also wrote the film’s screenplay) and cinematographer Yang Wei-han (1985’s Taipei Story, 2008’s 1895) capture each character’s disorientation in navigating the course of their lives amid a bustling metropolis. These shots through the window also encapsulate how difficult it is for us to understand the perspectives of others. Yang-Yang could be onto something; maybe the best we can hope for is to know half of any human truth.

Those who have seen their share of Japanese cinema may already know what a pillow shot is (or at least the concept of one without knowing the term), and Yang uses something like this technique Yasujirô Ozu perfected in order to have the audience reflect on the scene that has just occurred. Instead of a silent moment intercut with shots of sides of buildings, power lines, neon signs, or tea kettles, Yang elects to have additional dialogue or music. Perhaps it comes in the form of Mr. Ota singing “Sukiyaki” (a song wracked with bitter disappointment in its lyrics) and following up by playing Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata while tipsy (Beethoven yet again!), Ting-Ting being annoyed by vocal patrons in a bagel joint, or Yang-Yang escaping his furious teacher by walking into a darkened auditorium where a different class is watching a science documentary. These moments, like Ozu’s pillow shots, have little to do with the film’s overarching storylines. They might serve as moments of characterization but they are, generally, instances of cinematic punctuation. Oftentimes, that punctuation is an ellipses, as many – not all – of the film’s most pivotal moments occur off-screen.

What does Yang unearth in these moments of reflection? The clash of Taiwanese and Western life elements is an aspect of Yi Yi – one could conceivably interpret the film of how the latter has disrupted the former to the detriment of the characters – but Yang does not seem interested in crafting a polemic. Some viewers who might not be as well-versed in modern Asian culture might be surprised by how simultaneously cosmopolitan and traditional Yi Yi may feel. A comedic trip to McDonalds, the Western cultural products, and the use of English in all conversations between NJ and Mr. Ota aside, the issues and conflicted feelings that arise are universal. Yi Yi does not challenge Confucian mores of family and traditional relationships, even if it occasionally pokes fun at tradition. Even though both of the Jian kids are largely left to their own devices (a combination of their father’s long work hours and their mother’s leave of absence to the monastery), they do not defy authority figures for the sake of defiance.

There are a handful of supporting figures in the film that are having sordid affairs. But these affairs, according to the film, are pathetic and self-debasing – no additional commentary required. Through the prisms of love or friendship, each character is lonely in some fashion. Each family member, with Yang-Yang the exception, acts upon their longing for connection, romantic or platonic, in search of their evolving (and, arguably, never fully-formed) idealizations of how their lives should be. Family life is not the sole defining foundation of modern human existence, as Yang is acutely aware of. And yet, even amid emotional strife and the flurry of activity across the film’s 173 minutes, it is the most stable, predictable, and life-affirming part of each character’s life.

At first glance, it might seem that Yang-Yang is a passive young boy, who only allows things to happen to him. It is difficult to describe this in a reasonable amount of time, but Yang-Yang goes about his life silently, undemandingly, without pursuing childhood notions of friendship or first crushes. It seems Yang-Yang is always observing with his eyes and the lens of his camera. The photos he takes capture things and facets of others that never appear in photographs – the other side of the half of the truth humans can understand. Upon the first presentation of these photos and the ideas behind them to his classmates and teacher, derision follows. But Yang-Yang’s wisdom appears in the film’s final minutes in solemn voice and an acceptance beyond his years. Maybe Yang-Yang’s motivations disappear with age and the pressing concerns of modernity, but his burden is now the viewer’s to bear.

Yi Yi cannot be as effective as it is without its ensemble cast. Though most of the cast are understated, each of their characters occupy their individual stillness and silences in their respective ways. As NJ, Wu Nien-jen portrays a middle-aged man better at internalizing a conflict of personalities than intervening in one. His presence always seems deep in thought, even if he cannot find the words to say immediately how he feels. For Kelly Lee as Ting-Ting, the character is soon to enter her early adult years to a world already so different from when she was younger. Lee’s elegant screen persona reminds me of the many silent film waifs – reticent, shy, earnest – that the likes of Mary Pickford might have played once. Jonathan Chang, the film’s anchor in Yang-Yang, portrays his character without any noticeable exaggerations in voice or physical movement. In silence, Chang makes his presence felt in translating a character exactly as written. And though just a supporting character with little screentime, Issey Ogata as Mr. Ota assumes a bilingual charm – and perhaps the closest the film ever comes to blurring the distinction between screenwriter and character.

This, Edward Yang’s final film before his untimely death in 2007, is the motion picture that cemented his reputation outside Taiwan. Premiering at the 2000 Cannes Film Festival, Yi Yi garnered widespread acclaim, a nomination for the Palme d’Or, and a Best Director win for Yang. His reputation across the world has only increased in recent years, thanks to home media releases of this film, Taipei Story (1985), and the dramatic epic A Brighter Summer Day (1991).

Viewers could mourn Yang’s passing as an auteur who never lived to become an international living legend of a director, or the sheer democratization and globalization of cinema that has taken place in the early twenty-first century that would have made such a distinction possible. Instead, in just considering Yi Yi by itself, we have a complete movie – one where every frame has purpose, and the viewer can accept the person that they have become and may still be. Yi Yi affirms a message that Yang and composer Peng Kai-li quote, musically, in the film’s opening minutes. The individual freedom to find one’s own happiness and fulfillment will result in suffering. Such is to exist. Such is to be human. In that suffering, one experiences the possibilities of empathy and the fullness of their humanity.

My rating: 10/10

^ Based on my personal imdb rating. Yi Yi is the one hundred and sixty-third feature-length or short film I have rated a ten on imdb. My interpretation of that ratings system can be found in the “Ratings system” page on my blog (as of July 1, 2020, tumblr is not permitting certain posts with links to appear on tag pages, so I cannot provide the URL).

For more of my reviews tagged “My Movie Odyssey”, check out the tag of the same name on my blog.

#Yi Yi #Edward Yang #Wu Nien jen #Elaine Jin #Issey Ogata #Kelly Lee #Jonathan Chang #Chen Hsi sheng #Ko Su yun #Yang Wei han #TCM #My Movie Odyssey

9 notes · View notes

wedreamedlove · 4 years

Text

(Price of) Freedom [Bai Qi Character Study]

JP finished their run of Bai Qi's Mystery Wings event and after reading everything I haven't been the same— LOL much like how I was after his Spring Festival Date, so now I'm subjecting you all to a rambly think piece.

Disclaimer: I use CN and JP quotes, so they'll differ from the ENG version. Spoilers up to Chapter 19 + unreleased ENG cards.

FREEDOM, WHAT IS IT?

I don't think it's a secret now that Bai Qi had a harsh childhood. But, for the sake of my think piece and to refresh everyone's memories, I'll go through it again.

[Rumors and Secrets: Little Guardian] His dad rarely came home, especially after it was confirmed that Bai Qi didn't have any Evol powers. Heck, Bai Qi even heard his parents arguing through a door and saw instances of his mom crying because of his dad.

[Seize SSR: Sad Thoughts Call] Bai Qi reveals that his dad was extremely strict on him and his mom would cry silently in the back for him. The one time his dad smiled Bai Qi felt chills down his spine for the rest of the day.

[Campus Date] Bai Qi thinks about how his dad, and others, would probably be happy to see him die and so, out of sheer spite, he rejects that and decides to live for himself (and MC because she woke his Evol) and not for the recognition of others or the world.

[Main Story 12-18] Bai Qi's mom died in a fire, which is why he's traumatized, and this was another point for his dad to hammer in his uselessness. But Bai Qi re-affirms here that his existence itself is not a point of shame.

[Main Story 15-24] In order to protect MC, Bai Qi makes a deal with the devil (aka. his dad) and his dad says that undergoing the NW Plan has always been Bai Qi's fate, along with his younger brother. In [Rumors and Secrets: Little Guardian] Bai Qi's mother tries to justify to Bai Qi that his dad bears the burden of protecting the country, but you don't sacrifice your family like that and make weapons out of them... lol.

Okay, knowing Bai Qi's past now, I'm going to bring up my header question. Freedom, what is it and how does it relate to Bai Qi? In this case, I think a lot of what Bai Qi is trying to escape is the confinement of his father. "His joining of the special forces symbolizes the difference of his justice compared to his father" [CN Profile].

It's not a coincidence that Bai Qi gets these symbols:

WIND: Classic symbol of something that is utterly free and cannot be controlled. Bai Qi literally controls the wind.

SKY: He's always flying around in the sky. He's not using his power on the ground. He also has a lot of scenes where he's looking up at the sky and contemplating freedom.

WOLF: Putting aside the propaganda about them being monsters that hunt livestock, they're seen as symbols of freedom, instinct, and the wild world. Bai Qi is often described as a wolf [CN Profile + Main Story 19-6].

To further support this, there were two distinct Mystery Wings event entries that referred to the sky too, one with yearning and the other with melancholy:

AMBER

The amber was illuminated by the sun and the sight of its transparent waves concealed a gentleness in their coolness.

She suddenly thought this amber was exactly like those eyes.

It was something that happened in late autumn.

She was walking in the hallway in front of the upper grades’ classes when her eyes unconsciously stopped on a certain classroom.

Shabby curtains blew in the breeze and, amongst them, there was a young man standing by the window and staring at the sky.

His features weren’t sharp, but a glimpse of an indifference and air which prevented people from getting close to him could be seen.

Light and shadow shone in both eyes. Those pure and clear eyes reflected the sunlight and it was as if they were luring travelers to that deep sea at the last stop of oblivion.

Those eyes glimmered far more than this amber.

BAI QI'S PIERCING

The face of the young man in the mirror was indifferent and there was a bruise beside his mouth. His hair, damp from the rain, stuck to his forehead. A dark shadow fell over those amber-like eyes.

He didn't find it painful the first time he put on earrings.

Instead, he felt exhilarated like whenever he raised his fists.

Bai Qi wiped at the blood around the edge of his piercing with his hand. The blood mixed with the crimson color on the back of his hand until a distinction couldn’t be made.

Rain, which fell increasingly harder, pounded at the window as if it were giving praise to a meaningless hero.

He quietly leaned against a wall and looked up at the dark sky.

Just how long would this rain continue for?

I posit that that Bai Qi and freedom are intrinsically linked. It's something he needs and is the bedrock of his character, much like his unwavering sense of justice. Does he get it? Yes! Like I mentioned above, he joined the special forces to separate from his dad.

But also, and what's most important, is that he finds freedom in making MC his home, his flag, and his convictions. If you don't have a place to call home then you're not roaming the world in freedom, you're just lost in the world.

I also like how this can be linked back to his wolf symbolism, because wolves are pack animals. Yes, the lone wolf imagery is romantic but lone wolves travel to find a place to belong because they tend to die when they're alone. "The strength of the pack is the wolf, and the strength of the wolf is the pack."

In addition to being symbols of freedom, they're also charismatic symbols and social symbols. I feel like this also gets reflected by how inspiring Bai Qi is just from having an unwavering sense of justice. Han Ye and Gu Zheng's presence, and their respect for Bai Qi, reflect his charisma.

Admittedly, it's ironic that I love Bai Qi so much when one of my favorite poems, "For women who are 'difficult' to love" by Warsan Shire, has a line that goes "You can't make homes out of human beings". I'd understand if people who strongly agree with this sentiment don't find Bai Qi an interesting character, and that's a-okay!

But, and I can't stress this enough, we shouldn't deprive or devalue others of their life's choices if it's not actively harming others.

FREEDOM IS HER

For Bai Qi, MC represents his freedom because, without her, he wouldn't have a home to come back to and he'd be lost out in the world. Important things need to be reiterated.

[Endless Abyss SSR Beside You Call] Bai Qi returned from a mission but, instead of sleeping, the first thing he wants to do is go and pick up MC to send her to work.

[Brilliant Date] Bai Qi returns from a mission and, again, goes to see her immediately without returning home first because he made a promise.

[Loneliness SR Wind and Care Call] Bai Qi literally says "Because I have a place for my heart, I can fly anywhere."

Meanwhile, in one of the Mystery Wings event entries:

BAI QI'S BRACELET

Before Bai Qi went on a mission, he entrusted his own bracelet to her. She gripped his bracelet and prayed for his safety with a smile.

He looked at her and repeated the same words once, and then once more.

“Don’t worry. I’ll come back right away.”

Finishing his mission, he noticed he received calls and messages on his phone.

The city at dawn was still somewhat lonely.

He went to reply to the messages but, unlike before, he couldn’t find the words to say.

A night wind blew. Urged by that wind, he came to the window of her room as if possessed by something.

Illuminated by the faint moonlight, he could clearly see something shining in the corner of her eyes. Her brows were furrowed like she was having a nightmare.

His bracelet was firmly gripped in her hand.

Bai Qi recalled that fragile call history and messages and went to stand beside her. Then he gently wiped away the tears at her eyes with his hand.

“I’m sorry… I’m back.”

Look, I can't make it clearer that he goes to her because she's metaphorically his home. I'm also not going to repeat it here but if you look at my post about Bai Qi being in love, you'll see how much he focuses on MC in general because his being is attuned to her.

In a sense, Bai Qi is an extension of MC and it also supports how their sense of justice mirrors each other. Upholding good is engraved in their characters.

P-please, don't get me wrong, this doesn't mean he has no personality and has just built everything around her. He has hobbies on his own like basketball, tinkering with gadgets, growing succulents, treating injured animals, riding his motorbike, and astronomy.

Okay, the rest of this section is just going to be me gushing about the Mystery Wings event and the [Brilliant Date] that accompanies it because there was so much going on. First, let's tackle the date:

Ribbing about Bai Qi's naming sense and the play on words was lost in ENG. In CN the dove is called "Little White" which can be read "Little Bai", as in a small Bai Qi, because his name in CN has the character for white. This makes "Pearly" a literal symbol for Bai Qi, and they set the dove completely free at the end.

There's an exchange in this date where ENG goes "Does it mean I get your place?" and "I get your place. Now I give one back to you" but an interesting and cute thing here is that, in CN, the word he's using isn't as simple as just "giving". Bai Qi is specifically using a military word here that means "to occupy, intrude, or seize". He's such a nerd and it reflects his background LOL.

More on the above, because this uncommon verb is so interesting. It carries an aggressive connotation because it's implying military intrusion. The other person gives up all rights to their territory when you're occupying it. But Bai Qi gives the same rights to her for his room.

Freedom discussion and metaphors everywhere in this date, but when MC was talking about how all she needs is the wind and the sun (her monologue reveals that Bai Qi provides the wind and his presence beside her is her light) to feel freedom, Bai Qi never removes his eyes from her. He doesn't express his agreement or disagreement about what he thinks freedom is... he shows it with his actions of focusing his complete attention on her. She's his freedom!

Leaving the date now, I want to point out [Light Bath SSR: Tenderness Call] and how Bai Qi thinks he only shows his gentleness towards select people, for example his mother and MC. This is another mark of how he doesn't let anyone get close to him except for MC because he is her extension.

On that note, there is a reason I keep saying Bai Qi is MC's extension, but not that MC is his extension as well and that it's a two-way link. The reason I say this is, because, Bai Qi continues to need that freedom (MC) and yearns for that freedom (MC).

Below are four entries from the Mystery Wings event that showcase this longing for MC that Bai Qi experienced through high school, when his want for freedom was at its highest:

THE SECOND BUTTON

Life in high school came with romantic but illogical rumors. For example, things like if you confessed on the 7th step of the stairway in the corner of the 3rd floor then it’ll succeed, or if you carved your name and another person’s name on the 6th tree in the courtyard at the back then your misunderstandings will be resolved, of if a guy gave the girl he liked the second button of his uniform on graduation day then the two of them will end up happy together.

Generally, the guys acted as if they didn’t believe in these rumors, but they secretly held expectations inside their hearts.

But Bai Qi marked these all off as being stupid.

One day at lunch, a conversation between girls entered his ears.

“The rumors about the second button are romantic, aren’t they? Whoever gets one is sure to be happy~!”

There was a familiar voice mixed in amongst them. He glanced over abruptly and her face, full of yearning, leapt into his eyes.

“… Graduation, huh.”

He raised his head in thought. He suddenly couldn’t wait for graduation.

However, he didn’t give her the second button he tore off.

That button, together with a brisk air, was stored carefully inside a case.

PINK BANDAID

Bai Qi sat in the corner of the classroom. His lacked the spirit it had shown when he had been in the library.

He mussed his hair like he was at a complete loss and recalled how he had met her at the entrance of the library just now. Her startled and anxious expression floated into his mind.

“… Did I scare her again?”

After a while, Minor came bursting in.

"Bai Qi, Bai Qi!!!”

He waved the pink bandaid he was holding as if he was excited.

“This… Put this on!”

Bai Qi didn’t respond at all.

“She gave it!!”

Bai Qi startled when he heard those words and stared at the bandaid Minor was holding in a daze. The wound at his mouth stung. His fingers also prickled a little.

He carefully took that bandaid, treating it as if it was his world’s most precious treasure…

Later on, this pink bandaid was always taped on his heart and, every time he stepped into the swamp-like darkness of the night, it gave off a faint warmth.

GINGKO CHARM

After he learned about her identity, he went out personally to buy protection for her.

He desperately thought of a way to protect her.

Suddenly, when he saw a ginkgo leaf fall in front of him, a certain memory came back to his mind. The memory of that time when the wind blew and he was guided by the melody she played…

It was possible that, from that time on, they were bound tightly by a thread neither of them could see.

He decided to make her a ginkgo bracelet and made an effort to produce it day after day.

The small gold gingko leave brought trouble to him. The first three he made were all scratched and were a loss. On the fourth, he was finally able to make a perfect bracelet.

The sun had long hidden itself and the moon had appeared. Looking at the bracelet which shone faintly underneath the moonlight, he gave a satisfied smile.

He was sure she would like it.

PAST SCHOOL NEWSPAPER

There weren’t a lot of people who would seriously read something like the school newspaper. Notes were written on the underside of the paper’s surface, which wrote exaggeratedly about the awards of clubs and events within the school, and its fate was to be tossed into the garbage after being scribbled on all over.

Bai Qi also didn’t have much interest in the school newspaper.

On the rooftop, Minor bit into his bread and muttered as he stared at the school newspaper he happened to receive earlier.

“Honors student, huh… Bai Qi, you know, I also have good morals, I’m fit, my personality’s good, and my grades aren’t that bad. Maybe I can be the second honors student…”

Bai Qi didn’t respond and glanced over at the picture on the paper.

There, she was bashfully receiving an award on a stage with a happy smile.

“Honors student”… He digested those words in his heart and then stood up and headed towards the door.

“Bai Qi! Bai Qi! Are you going to a fight!? Please take me with you!”

“Class.”

“… Huh?”

I placed this newspaper one last because it also appeared last in the JP event and KOed me, but also reminded me of his [Love of My Life SSR] and how the CN version does not use plain "love" in the card's quote, and I go into more detail about this in my Bai Qi in Love post.

But, basically, the CN version uses a word that means "attachment or longing". It's a subtle difference because, yes, she is the love of his life but also his longing, desire, and aspiration. She keeps him in this world and is something he feels like he needs to strive towards.

I'm just going to bring up his 2019 birthday card, which ENG will be releasing this year, because there's this line that goes:

[CN Tide of Light SSR Chasing Dreams Date] "That year, I did want to give you that letter personally. But I gave myself a way out and left it up to luck. I knew that, at the time, I was still lacking a lot and so I decided that I had to meet you again with my best self."

THE PRICE OF FREEDOM

So, putting aside how one price is Bai Qi feeling like he needs to better himself, the other is that Papergames refuses to give us an easy happiness with this game and, as I mentioned in my Chinese archetype post, Bai Qi is a shoo-in for the Tragic Hero character.

The price exacted for trying to have this freedom is precisely that of his freedom. Unlike the other characters, he has a simple throughline because he literally doesn't care for anything but MC and his justice. Put in other words, he doesn't have anything to lose except MC and his sense of self.

And this is exactly what we see happen in the story:

[Chapter 12] was about losing MC and realizing that, despite all his intentions, perhaps HE is the one who will harm her and cannot protect her.

[Chapter 15] was about losing his sense of self, with another dose of fear of losing MC. Everything he thought he stood up for was a lie.

I might have mentioned elsewhere that it's tragic how he's constantly thrown into situations that try to break his principles. But, now that I'm thinking on this more, I think... he's actually giving up his principles of justice for the MC. Even more tragic is that he's also metaphorically letting his wings get clipped and losing his freedom to preserve MC's safety.

UGH, it's why his character is so tragic and why the end of [Main Story 15-24] was like an enormous blade being dropped on me when there was that descriptive line about how MC had never realized that the sight of someone being unable to stand upright could be so sorrowful.

Maybe I should have said that the price of preserving Bai Qi's home (MC) is his freedom and sense of justice being eroded.

Anyway, oops, I started this off to celebrate how amazingly gorgeous this event and date was and how much it developed Bai Qi's character. But then I just had to tie it back into all the angst LOL.

#mlqc #mr love queen's choice #mlqc gavin #mlqc bai qi #love and producer #love and produc(ing) meta

111 notes · View notes

adriennemareebrown · 4 years

Link

dear readers,

my last blog was one of the longest things i’ve ever written as a single piece, and one of my most read blog pieces. it’s also the most controversial thing i’ve written, and i’ve spent the last couple of weeks swimming in the light and shadow of it.

when i was writing it, i felt clear about the distinctions i wanted to make, the invitation i wanted to make to movement:

can we hold each other as the systems that weaken and distort our humanity crumble? can we release our binary ways of thinking of good and bad in order to collectively grow from mistakes? can we be abolitionist with each other? can we be principled and discerning in movement conflict?

i had people i trust read it beforehand, and when i pressed ‘publish’ i felt scared of what might come, but also faithful…that every word was the most accurate one i know for the feeling i was trying to express, that people would understand my intentions.

the initial waves of feedback, and the overwhelming majority of feedback, has been gratitude and affirmation. i have received so many messages and testimonials from sectors of movement that feel seen in the piece and saddened by the quickness with which we turn against each other, troubled by our apparent collective excitement when we attack each other. the feedback was from long-term organizers, people who identify as survivors, and as those have caused harm, and as both, as neither. some of it was public, and some of it was texts from comrades i hadn’t heard from in a while. i exhaled – what i felt was not just in my head or an isolated crew. my publisher said, let’s get this in print! i felt on purpose thinking of a little book that gives us more options, more patience, more kindness and space for healing together.

but then a second wave of feedback came. from other survivors. and as i listened i felt defensive (did you read the whole piece?), dismissed (don’t you know i am an abolitionist survivor? don’t you know how much abuse intervention i have been a part of?), hurt (why are you coming at me like this?) and, finally, curious: what am i not seeing? not hearing? what do i not know? what can i learn?

i asked more people for feedback, and have had conversations, emails, text threads. i have learned a lot more about some things i thought i knew, heard a lot of tea that people assumed i already knew because my name is reaching further than i can track, learned that so many more people are struggling with call outs in this moment than i had any idea about, and some of them felt helped by my writing, while others felt offended. i have learned how in certain communities the piece exacerbated existing tensions i wasn’t fully aware of. i got clearer on what parts were triggers for people, what parts are political disagreement, and what parts are both. i feel honed in on what is within my expertise, and reaffirmed that celebrity activism is not my jam.

here are some things i am learning:

– i need to be much clearer in my distinctions between harm and abuse. as someone who has experienced both, i was reminded of how important it was to me that my abuse be acknowledged as what it was, not reframed into a lesser impact. how important it was that i be allowed total boundaries, space for rage, space for healing, how much i needed assurance that it wasn’t my fault, and that making sure those who abused and/or harmed me got their healing together wasn’t my job. but as i have moved away from that period of my own life, i have gotten comfortable with the catch-all language of harm and harm doers, which blurs the danger and impact. part of my critique of the way call outs are being used is that not liking someone, social media offenses, power misuse in work settings, movement conflict and sexual assault are all getting the same level of public response. but even in that critique, i collapsed all these distinct experiences into one word, harm. i am sorry for the pain and erasure i know that caused to other survivors.

– i will make better use of content and trigger warnings.

– i explored my argument with language that felt precise to me, and within my right to use as a Black witch. it is also language that has been weaponized against communities i love, and i am earnestly looking for other metaphors to work with.

– i don’t know how we get from here to there. i don’t know if we have what it takes right now to support survivors while also holding an abolitionist lens, and it isn’t fair on my part not to make that apparent gap clear. those who are expert in holding domestic violence, intimate partner violence, rape support and other skilled areas will have to lead in that realm of abolition, in part by pointing all of us towards the skills we need to develop in order to actually take on community accountability. the hopeful news is that we have the teachers…but will we prioritize learning? and how do we not drop long haul survivor support along the way?

– i do believe, deeply, in the power of mediation in instances of conflict and harm, within movements, and including interpersonal conflict and harm. i believe it works because i have held it, and i have seen movements benefit from having people experience principled struggle with each other, set necessary boundaries, request and receive authentic and adequate apologies, and continue to be committed to something larger than themselves.

– i have to be very intentional as i gain more followers. while i did not seek fame or ask for any pedestals, i can’t deny that more people are taking my words seriously. and that is a privilege. i am not taking down the piece because i think more can be learned from keeping it up and being transparent in what i am learning. i do commit to not putting it in print without adaptations that reflect my learning. i see all of this as a larger process of exploring abolition as an emergent strategy, and i am not alone in that exploration.

– i will respect my own depth and complexity and that of my readers by not engaging this conversation on social media. some learning needs to be face to face, heart to heart, or at minimum thoroughly expressed. i am excited for the conversations i am in as a result of the piece, and i feel so much possibility on the horizon around how we turn and face the harm and abuse rampant in our movement communities, learn to be in the complex work of abolition and survival, and actually transform the systems that hurt us into systems that hold us and allow us to heal.

learning in public, amb

#IFTTT #WordPress

5 notes · View notes

healthymov · 4 years

Text

8 Ways To Become the Best You

The beginning of each year is crammed with people that like to say “new year, new me.” But if you fast forward a couple of months, you’ll notice nothing has really changed. If this seems like you, we’ve got two pieces of excellent news.

the primary is that you simply can start changing your life at any time — no new await the new year! and therefore the second piece of excellent news is that we all know exactly the way to make lasting changes in your life.

Are you able to stop trying and begin doing? Then you’re ready for these eight steps to assist you to unlock your full potential! Here is the way to become the simplest version of you.

Stop saying you’re sorry

Do you desire almost everything is your fault? Believe it or not, this is often presumably a result of your daily language.

Many people get within the habit of claiming “I’m sorry” for things that are out of their control or once they haven’t done anything wrong. If you’re not careful, you'll eventually find yourself apologizing for everything you say or do!

Once you stop saying “I’m sorry,” your self-image will seriously improve. attempt to find replacement words to urge “sorry” out of your vocabulary. for instance, if someone offers constructive criticism at work, don’t say “I’m sorry.” Instead, say, “Thank you for bringing this to my attention.”

Reprioritize whenever possible

Here’s a sobering exercise: at the top of today, attempt to write down everything that caused you stress. you would possibly be surprised how long that list really is!

Once you recognize what's stressing you out on a daily basis, you'll remove tons of that stress by adjusting your priorities. If you’re worried about things that are out of your control (like whether it'll rain subsequent day or what people consider you), then cross those out. once you can’t change something, you shouldn’t let it stress you out before time.

For belongings, you can control, take the remaining list, and write down a thought next to every stressor. These should be ideas for what you'll do to require control of that situation. And once you begin taking control, you’ll desire you’re on top of things. It’s that easy!

Cultivate a positive clique

If you've got issues like low self-esteem or poor body image, it's going to not be your fault. this might be a result of toxic feedback from people in your clique.

Maybe you've got a “friend” who likes to discuss your recent weight gain. otherwise, you have a boyfriend who doesn’t pay much attention to the projects that interest you.

Negativity from others results in negativity from yourself. But if you surround yourself with supportive friends, family, and loved ones, their positivity will assist you to feel better about your own life.

Know when to complain

Imagine this scenario: you’re at a restaurant with friends and therefore the food starts beginning. Suddenly, you notice your order is wrong. What are you getting to do about it?

For many folks, the primary instinct is to mention nothing in the least. Why rock the boat and annoy other people? this might sound noble in your head, but it reinforces the thought that you simply are smaller than people.

Like we said before, there are things people can’t change (such as inclemency and therefore the expectations of others). But when someone treats you wrong and it’s possible to repair things, you would like to understand when to complain.

There is nothing wrong with posing for what you ordered or reminding someone they have to reply to your text message. Not only does this reinforce your importance, but it helps get things done!

Love the person within the mirror

Here’s a stimulating secret: becoming the higher you involves playing tons of emotional Judo. meaning taking the items that cause you to feel bad and turning them into things that cause you to feel better.

The mirror may be a great example of this. Many folks hate watching ourselves within the mirror because it's (quite literally) reflecting our flaws back at us. However, it’s important to recollect that the mirror is reflecting your entire image — not just your flaws.

Take a couple of minutes every day to admire yourself within the mirror. Pick something positive (such as your awesome outfit or your rocking hairdo) and permit yourself to feel good about your appearance. you'll even write positive affirmations on the mirror itself in washable marker, like “You are so beautiful!” and “You look great!” Pretty soon, that mirror will lift you up rather than bringing you down!

Find your affirmations

To an outsider, someone’s affirmations often look a touch silly. But these affirmations are one among the foremost powerful ways to vary how you are feeling and the way you act.

An affirmation is usually short and positive. for instance , “my hair is beautiful” and “I love my body” are both great affirmations. You don’t need to limit yourself: create as many affirmations as you want!

Say these affirmations to yourself ahead of the mirror or whenever you're feeling stressed. Eventually, constantly speaking about yourself in a positive way will cause consistently positive thinking.

Make exercise fun

Let’s do some word association. what's your immediate reaction to the word “exercise?”

Many of you almost certainly groaned just. And why not? Exercise can often be annoying, sweaty, and even painful. Despite this, exercise may be a good way to require control over how you look and the way you are feeling.

What’s the answer, then? Make exercise fun! If you hate getting to the gym, try jogging around your neighborhood while taking note of your favorite podcast. And you'll do routines with hand weights reception while watching your favorite trashy television program.

By pairing exercise with activities that you simply already love, you'll make exercise fun. Eventually, you’ll start looking forward to those exercise sessions rather than groaning!

Take responsibility for your life

The biggest side effect of low self-esteem may be a sense of helplessness. you start to desire you’re not on top of things of your life. And this will cause further misery and even depression because you are feeling like there's nothing you'll do to form things better.

And this is often why you’ll never become the “best you” until you're taking responsibility for your life. If you've got a drag, start making an action plan of steps you'll fancy improving your situation. If you're weighed down by a toxic partnership, don’t hesitate to dump this person and begin living a far better life.

Remember: only you'll change your life. Nobody can do this for you.

#lifestyle #life coaching #staysafe #stayathome

5 notes · View notes

womenintranslation · 4 years

Text

Q&A between Man Booker International Prize-winning translator Marilyn Booth and bookseller Natasha Gilmore

Here at the WiT Tumblr we’re big fans of the Women in Translation Book Club, the brainchild of bookseller Natasha Gilmore at Idlewild Bookstore in New York City. What began in February as an in-person gathering at the bookstore over bagels, muffins and coffee is now continuing its lively Sunday morning salon online. We recently caught up with the WiT Reading Club via Zoom for a wide-ranging conversation about Omani writer Jokha Alharthi’s Celestial Bodies, translated from Arabic by Marilyn Booth, for which both Alharthi and Booth won the 2019 Man Booker International Prize. After the meeting, Natasha followed up by email with Marilyn Booth to ask her a few questions on how the translation came about, on women’s writing and women’s education in Oman, on the editing of her earlier translation of Girls of Riyadh (on this topic see our posts here and here), and much more. We were delighted that Marilyn responded in depth to these questions and that she also agreed to share them here on the WiT Tumblr. An additional shout-out to Natasha for organizing and hosting the Women in Translation Book Club! (If you’re interested in attending its next meeting on August 9th to discuss Convenience Store Woman by Sayaka Murata, email natasha at idlewildbooks dot com for more details.)

Natasha Gilmore: How did Celestial Bodies come to the attention of the publisher, and why did they decide to publish it in translation? Did you have a hand in this at all?

Marilyn Booth: Jokha gave me a copy of her novel when she came to Edinburgh on a visit; she gave it to me both as an interested reader, and as a colleague – as a thank-you for helping her with the final stages of her PhD (we were both at University of Edinburgh then, although she was already back in Muscat). I found the novel intriguing and absorbing, and so I started exploring the possibility of translating it. As I’ve done with a few other works, I translated it without having a publisher, but there was some great help and serendipity along the way: my colleague at Edinburgh, Dr Elisabeth Kendall, suggested I seek support from the Anglo-Omani Society in London, which I did, and they were fantastic.

Understandably, people often assume that I was simply brought in as a translator. But that’s an assumption that doesn’t take into account the way translators work to promote literary works they believe are important. I wanted to translate the novel, and so I did it a bit recklessly, without a publisher. And then, by chance, I found the agent (Charles Buchan (Wylie) and I met at a literary event, and he has been amazing). Charles then found the publisher. Having finished the translation before that, I had tried for months to get a publisher: lots of them turned me down. (A few have written, since the prize, to congratulate us and to express their regret… they’ve been lovely.) We are thrilled that Sandstone published it – they were great, and because Jokha and I both have strong Scottish ties, we’re very happy that the centre of gravity for making the translation happen and then getting it published was our beloved Scotland.

I don’t necessarily recommend translating a novel without having a publisher lined up (!), but sometimes it happens. And because most publishers don’t have staff members to read Arabic fiction, they’re often hesitant to take something on spec, or an author who is unknown. In fact, in the case of Arabic literature, it’s often novels that have already been translated into French (most often – and there’s a lot more translation of Arabic works into French than into other European languages) that get a look-in – which means there is already a process of selection going on. And so my involvement happened first of all through conversations with Jokha, and then encouragement and help from others. Like so many good things in this world, it is about collective work, conversation, mutual care.

I think it is important for readers to recognise that translators play a huge role in bringing works to publication – we are often the advocates who pressure publishers to take this or that. In the process, we do a lot of unpaid work: doing samples (sometimes paid for), writing pitches and draft introductions, translating press reviews. Otherwise, often they wouldn’t have a clue (obviously that is truer of some publishers than others). We do a lot more than translate. We advocate, we are bridges, we promote work. Since I’m not a full time translator, I can’t do as much of that as I would like to do. I think (or in some cases, I know) that lots of translators play this role. It would be good to put our heads together more and think about how we could help each other – some groups of translators do already do this, for sure, and one of the things I love about being a translator is the affirmation and mutual support that I feel from other translators.

I’ve translated quite a number of works of Arabic literature over the years (I think by now the count is about 17 novels, memoirs and short story collections, more or less). But I’ve never been a full-time translator, so it’s usually been a matter of feeling very strongly about wanting to spend time on a particular text. This is a huge privilege! I did have some years as an unemployed scholar—mostly by choice, as most of that time I was a full time parent—where my interest in texts was matched by my interest in income, although the two didn’t always match up in practice.

Although I have translated works by brilliant women and brilliant men both, I do also have a sense of commitment to the challenge of getting Anglophone readers to recognise that long-enduring stereotypes about gender – about women but also, frankly, about men – are just wrong. So the works I gravitate towards, whoever the author is, are likely to respond to that need, though in varied and often subtle ways. One way to deal with this imbalance (and the continuing stereotypes about gender in ‘the Middle East’ that are so tenacious amongst Euro/American audiences, despite so much evidence to the contrary) is to publish and publicize more of the fantastic works that women have been writing in Arabic since the late 19th century. (A lot of my research writing is about that 19th century energy.) But also, to think about how central issues of gender are to Arabic fiction, whoever the author is. And how thoughtful the takes on this are. For instance, two other recent novels I have translated, Hassan Daoud’s The Penguin’s Song (City Lights) and No Road to Paradise (American University in Cairo Press/Hoopoe), are wonderfully interesting in this regard, in their representations of masculinities.

Gilmore: Some of the group members read your piece on Girls of Riyadh, and wondered if you encountered any issues in edits of your translation of a social or political nature?

Booth: No, in this case, the author and I work in fantastic harmony (there were a few things the editor wanted to change and because Jokha and I agreed – ‘no’, we both said – we were able to prevail. There were also some changes the editor proposed that we agreed ‘yes’ to; the editor was excellent, light-touch, respectful - there was mutual respect all around.)

The problem with Girls of Riyadh was that the author didn’t appear to be willing to work with me. In that case, it was the press (Penguin) that had brought me in. I was not advocating for that novel to the press – although I really supported that novel and I still do. I felt very sad about what happened because I still believe it is such an innovative and interesting novel, and it deserves the respect I tried to give it by translating it innovatively. The translation as the author changed it didn’t reflect the innovative, edgy, and often funny (seriously funny) quality of the original. If the author had said, “Hey, I’m not comfortable, can we talk?” I would have certainly been ready to negotiate. There were things I did in the translation that I would have been happy to tone down. But that didn’t happen. It was a very upsetting experience for me. And I’m sad. Girls deserved to have an edgy translation that would convey the edginess of the original.

There have been occasional insinuations that somehow I was vulnerable to this because of not being familiar with Saudi culture. I think this is ridiculous. It is true that I noted to the editor from the start that there were a few usages I would want to ask the author about; there were about five; the author answered one question, and then said she was busy with her exams, which is certainly a valid reason to postpone responses. But the things the author changed were not matters of Saudi culture; they were lines of Lebanese poetry, references to region-wide culture icons, and characters’ language. These were not the items I needed help with. And it is normal – it is usual – for a translator to consult with an author. It’s also (I believe) a mark of respect to do so, as long as the author doesn’t mind being contacted. It’s certainly not a sign of weakness or vulnerability! Any translator or reviewer or author who believes that must live in a different universe.

Most of the authors I’ve translated have been truly respectful of my work – of my different kind of creative writing, in bringing their work into English. In general, I’ve had really great relationships with authors – working relationships and then, often, friendships resulting from that work. A number of the wonderful writers I’ve translated over the years have become truly close friends, some of them for many years now. (And one of them, Sahar Tawfiq in Cairo, has translated and is translating my academic work into Arabic. Fantastic partnership! I feel so fortunate.) It’s a very intimate thing, translating someone’s work – so perhaps, in many cases, it either results in wonderful closeness or in a terrible break-up. I wonder if that is the experience of many literary translators? I do know from conversations with other translators, and from some of the wonderful translator memoirs published over the past decade or so, that very close affective relationships have been forged through translation. It is such a precious thing. I’d love to hear from other translators on this. (At one point, I started doing some research on first author-second author [ie translator] relations, it would be really good to resume this, somehow.)

Gilmore: Why did you elect to change the title?

Booth: Jokha and I have been challenged strongly on this, by interlocutors who either read the novel in Arabic or could have read it in Arabic. I think that is because the title in Arabic is brilliant—but it just doesn’t translate into English. A literal translation would be Ladies/mistresses/matrons of the moon. None of those terms conveys what the Arabic sayyidat can convey: a lot of authority and dignity. (It is also an ironic term in that some of the strongest female characters in the novel would not have ever been considered sayyidat). It is a beautifully ambiguous and resonant title in Arabic, carrying so many associations, and there is no way to make those shades of meaning come through into English within any closely ‘literal’ title. I tried loads of combinations/spins, but nothing worked. So the English title loses some of the meaning of the Arabic but I think that it gains in other ways, which some readers have mentioned, appreciatively.

Gilmore: Do you have a sense of what women in Oman are writing about right now?

Booth: Yes, they’re writing what women are writing about everywhere. Politics of the family, racism and inequality, complex histories of colonial encounter and how they intersect with political contestation more locally, and the various kinds of abuse that arises from all of these. And also love and connection and closeness. Of course, I have not read everything! And I cannot do so, given that my work life is also about teaching and research (which focuses on topics very far from contemporary writing, though there are a lot of shared connections). One thing that is great about Jokha’s novel getting the Man Booker International is that Oman has not been a literary ‘centre’ in terms of fiction (it has a long and wonderful history of poetry composition). Now, Omani literature is possibly getting more attention. There’s a lot of great fiction being written across the entire region, in Arabic. I wish we could get more of it translated. More support for translation—that is what we need. Also more support for translating not just ‘the latest thing’ but novels, short stories, poetry, that came out earlier. There are works from the 1970s I would love to translate, if only publishers were interested.

Gilmore: Are there any concrete literary traditions that the book draws from? There are so many allusions and references, but I also wondered if even the structure of the book was drawn from an Arabic literary tradition?

Booth: Well, one could speculate that it draws from the ‘embedded stories’ structure that is famously evident in the Thousand and One Nights – but I think every culture has a version of this (and let’s not forget that the development of the novel in Europe is also shaped by storytelling, picaresque traditions far to the east of Europe, including the Nights). Jokha’s work is inflected by the very long poetic tradition in Arabic, and specifically in the Arabian peninsula, a tradition she grew up with. What other specific traditions or writers she may draw on, every reader can wonder about. Any writer brings so many different readings to their work.

Gilmore: Do you have a sense of how the book was accepted in Oman?

Booth: It had won a prize in Arabic, long before the Man Booker, so it was lauded and it got notice. But it also was criticized quite a lot (before and after earning the Man Booker), for taking on the historical legacy and hugely sensitive issue of slavery. Some Omanis didn’t think this ought to be portrayed, as a part of Omani history that they argued was long in the past, in terms of the empirical history of slavery. But of course the past is always part of the present. Jokha’s attitude is that this history is Omani history, and that this legacy shapes Omani society to this day. Therefore, it ought to be talked about. Despite these disagreements, the novel getting the prize has been celebrated in Oman. Jokha has been asked to do so much. We’re both thrilled but it is hard to deal with the demands of it all, given our full time work as teaching academics. Also, like me, she’s not someone who likes the limelight …. We are both rabbits in the headlights.

Gilmore: What was literacy and access to literature and education for women in Oman, particularly in the period of the book? Were women educated up to a certain age? Was education and literacy encouraged for women? Was access a class issue?

Booth: Definitely a class issue though also an urban/rural issue. Very much encouraged in Jokha’s family. And now – and since 1970 – a strong priority nationally, education for both boys and girls. (We sometimes forget that in places where girls’ literacy wasn’t high, boys’ wasn’t either – though yes there is always an imbalance. This is part of what I work on in my research on 19th-century Egypt.) There’s been a lot of great work on the history of girls’ education and women’s activism in the Gulf generally – for instance, recently, a lot of documentation of the history of women’s work in the Emirates, and some memoirs coming out. But it is also important to keep in mind, next to formal education, the ways women have created and fostered narratives, histories, and have passed them on – a different kind of knowledge, or of education, that has always been there.

Gilmore: What was the last book you read for pleasure that you loved?

Booth: Oh that is a difficult question right now! I’ve been struggling with teaching on line, it has been a true challenge, though the students have been wonderful and we’ve tried to struggle through it together. And also, I have to read for my teaching and research (reading which is mostly if not always a pleasure, too). I have not been doing a lot of reading recently that is unconnected to that (too tired! Too cross-eyed from reading on line!). But, I return often to 19th century English-language and French-language fiction (as well as fiction in Arabic). Most recently, I was rereading Maria Edgeworth. I think she is fantastic and should be better known. Ennui is amazing (not an easy read, affectively!).

Also, I hugely recommend Kate Manne’s book Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny. Not an easy read, but an important and beautifully written, wise, engaging and (horrifically) important book for this time. I have a huge stack of books to read, fiction and non-fiction ….

#marilyn booth #natasha gilmore #jokha alharthi #celestial bodies #girls of riyadh #women in translation #idlewild bookstore

2 notes · View notes

missjosie27 · 5 years

Text

Hogwarts Mystery Ship Questions- David x Merula

This post is somewhat ironic given that I just posted the chapter of my story where Merula attempts to lock David in a room with Devil’s Snare haha. But I promise, the two were meant for each other. Here’s a full detailed list of their relationship. Thank you to @hogwartsmysterystory for the template once more.

1. How does their relationship develop in tandem with the Vaults? Are they a hindrance or do they bring them closer together?

A: During their first three years at Hogwarts, David and Merula were in constant competition to find the vaults, with the former always coming out on top. This infuriated Merula to no end, and she always tried to one up or undercut him in some way by almost any means necessary. Ironically, it was Madam Rakepick who altered that rivalry, as she saw the talents in both of them and used them to her advantage. By the time they enter the portrait vault during fifth year, the two are already more or less dating.

2. What’s something that they really bond over together?

A: Dueling is a favorite pastime of both teens. Merula caught David by surprised during their first year, but David’s natural talent along with his own unique determination usually give him the edge. Once a means to harm or maim each other, by sixth year it becomes a way for them to let out their frustrations and relax. Both are avid Quidditch lovers, with David joining the Gryffindor team during Year 6 as a beater and Merula joining Slytherin in Year 5 as a chaser. Each love to talk to discuss the sport. Finally, each has a sharp wit and are rather fond of sarcasm, leading to considerable banter between them, which David and Merula quietly enjoy.

3. How do they flirt with each other before dating? How does it change after they start dating?

A: David doesn’t start to seriously ‘flirt’ with Merula until late fourth year, early fifth year when he realizes her feelings for her. He enjoys teasing her, making jokes, and finds her reactions highly entertaining. For her part, Merula, not the best at public social interaction, begins a habit of glowing pink when they have an intimate or flirtatious moment together, but tries to brush it off with indifference or empty threats. After they begin dating, their flirting is more private, as David does not want to push her too hard, but during their alone time, Merula does not hold back letting him know her mutual attraction, touching him, rustling his hair, and sitting in his lap.

4. What does the rest of the Mystery Crew think about them? Do they even know about it?

A: The reactions vary. Some catch on rather quickly that the two have the hots for each other, Tulip being the first, and she is surprisingly supportive. Rowan and Ben were mortified at the prospect of their best friend falling for Merula. Rowan in particular does not understand and it drives a small rift between him and David’s friendship. The Weasley brothers, though shocked at first, encourage him to pursue Merula if it makes him happy. Ismelda struggles with the relationship in a similar fashion to Rowan, worried that David is trying to steal away her only friend. Though David and Penny kissed once, she also was quite happy for him when she found out, agreeing that the two lost themselves in a moment of vulnerability.

5. Do you think any of the Hogwarts staff ship them or think they’re cute together?

A: The staff generally don’t pay attention, though some are surprised when they happen upon the news.

6. What rumors do you think would float around Hogwarts about their relationship, if any? How would your MC react to them upon learning about them?

A: Much of the students are dumbfounded seeing the two former enemies fall for each other. Gryffindors and Slytherins in particular disapprove but Bill and Barnaby intervene to prevent any open hostilities. David, in general doesn’t care, but knows Merula’s reputation is much more at stake than his and so takes most of the hits and questions that come their way.

7. Did your MC or the character(s) you ship them with date anyone else before them? What were those relationships like?

A: Merula secretly started to crush on David after receiving a gift from him during Year 4 at Christmas. However, she had no prior boyfriends, given that most boys feared her. David, on the other hand, found himself sought after quite frequently. Girls find him quite handsome. He kissed Penny at the beginning of Year 5 while comforting her over Beatrice, however, nothing came of it and the blonde became too focused on rescuing her sister to pursue a relationship. During Year 6, David and Merula enter a rocky period as her torture at the hands of Rakepick lead her to push her boyfriend away and they break up. Tulip, whom David has always felt an attraction to, comforts him and they end up having sex. Being the ever free spirit that she is, Tulip acknowledges that she’s not a relationship person, and knows David will eventually go back to Merula. In both instances, the two remain good friends.

8. Does their relationship have a rocky start? Or is it smooth?

A: During their formative years, David and Merula hate each other’s guts. But as they grow closer, that hatred turns to love. Even so, Merula is highly insecure internally, and has a hard time accepting her own feelings, as well as the conflict she has about her own beliefs. Public displays of affection are rare, and the two did not kiss until Year 5. In Year 6, with David still angry over his brother leaving him and Merula still suffering PTSD from torture at the hands of Rakepick, the two break up, though they get back together later in the year.

9. What’s their primary love language (words of affirmation, gifts, acts of service, quality time, or physical touch)?

A: For Merula, saying ‘I love you’, is highly difficult but she has her ways of showing affection, most of which are physical: making out, cuddling, sex, etc. David, however, knows what she likes and will often buy gifts of sentimental value. Merula, once committed to changing her previous ways, does try and reciprocate. David loves it when she runs her soft fingers through his hair. Merula melts when David runs his hands up and down her legs. When going on more formal dates, Merula will wear a bow for David, something he comes to love.

10. How good are they at compromising?

A: As fifteen year olds, they’re awful. David is generally easy going and feels like he has to bend over backwards for Merula many times over, while she never does due to her stubbornness and unwillingness to open up. This leads to many shouting matches between them. But after they get back together during Year 6, an effort is made by the Slytherin to try and talk more about the problems they face. By the time they are married, both know how to hash their problems out without fighting (most of the time haha).

11. How often do they go out on dates and where do they like to go?

A: After the disaster of their first date, they agree never to frequent Madam Pudifoot’s establishment ever again. Quidditch matches, trips to Hogsmeade, and even the occasional beer at a muggle bar are all places the two like to frequent. However, by far their most favorite destination are concerts. As a graduation gift, David takes her to see Motley Crue.

12. What are their favorite ways to be physically affectionate?

A: Merula secretly loves butterfly kisses and when David touches her legs up and down. David loves the way she rubs her hands through his hair and the method she uses to nibble on his neck.

13. What’s the dumbest or most ridiculous thing they’ve seen each other do?

A: David always reminds Merula of the time a broom hit her squarely in the face during first year. She on the other hand points out the time a fire crab set his pants on fire.

14. Do they like to cuddle? Who’s the big spoon and who’s the little spoon?

A: In private, the two usually can’t get enough of each other. Merula will usually consent to be the little spoon, but one of her preferred sex positions is the cowgirl. Both will switch off depending on the circumstances. Sometimes, sex becomes as big of a competition as dueling and the vaults.

15. What position do they sleep in when they share a bed?

A: After sex, the two will usually fall asleep facing each other.

16. How do they comfort each other when they have bad days?

A: In her most vulnerable moments, Merula will cling to David or sit on his lap, never letting go. For David, he enjoys resting his head on her bosom.

17. What hobbies or activities do they like to do together?

A: Going to concerts, Qudditch matches, a nice dinner now and then, sex, and even muggle Karaoke nights.

18. What kind of gifts do they give each other?

A: David is aware Merula secretly likes muggle rock music, and often buys her CDs of her favorite bands. He once rigged a radio to play muggle stations so she could listen to the songs in the privacy of her room. He buys her nail polish brands, boots, tights, and also once fixed a damaged family heirloom. In return, Merula will buy him t shirts of his favorite Quidditch team, accessories for his wand, and even bought him a new broom when his old was destroyed by one of her house mates.

19. What’s their favorite thing about each other?

A: David falls head over heels for Merula without realizing why at first. He comes to the conclusion that there is a better person underneath her perpetual nastiness and wants to see more of it- her kindness, willingness to be brave, and using her unlimited ambition for better and higher purposes. Merula never gives up and has a spirit that cannot be broken even by her Death Eater parents. On the other hand, Merula adores David’s sense of humor, his quiet confidence, and his relative fearlessness. Though she never openly admits it while in Hogwarts, she also loves the fact that he challenges her not just in skill but as a person. Both, also find each other quite physically attractive. Merula happens to think David is quite handsome, and David witnesses her become a beautiful young woman.

20. What’s their LEAST favorite thing about each other?

A: Merula, despite softening over the years, still carries a nasty streak in which she can become petulant, angry, and even violent. David gets frustrated with her stubbornness and her need to make everything either a competition or an argument. He wants to get to know her better and be a person she can rely on but more often than not she refuses and pushes him away. As for David, Merula hates that he often surpasses her in talent and skill in most things. She often thinks of him as a hypocrite and as too willing to rush into things head on without taking into consideration the possible consequences. She becomes frequently annoyed when he uses jokes and humor to deflect or get around questions he doesn’t want to answer.

21. Do they keep secrets from each other? Or are they very open and communicative?

A: David and Merula are not the talkative types at first. Neither one likes to divulge feelings all that much. Merula, given that she has trust issues, hides many aspects of her past, though she tries to refrain from outright lying to her boyfriend.

22. What do they think of each other’s choice in career and how supportive are they?

A: David becomes an Auror while Merula becomes the manager for the Weird Sisters. Both are supportive of each other in adult life, though Merula initially feels awkward given that her parents once murdered an Auror in front of her.

23. Do they have a relationship song for each other? Do you have one (or more) for them? If so, what are they?

A. ‘Every Rose Has Its Thorn’ by Poison was the song sung by David to get onto the Frog Choir. It sparked Merula’s interest in rock music and it came to symbolize how they felt about each other. The song played at their wedding, much to the chagrin of Merula’s aunt. Other songs they enjoy together are ‘Dance the Night Away’ by Van Halen, ‘Come As You Are’ by Nirvana, and later ‘When I Come Around’ by Green Day.

24. If they move in together, when does it happen? What’s that transition like?

A: They move into a flat together in London during the year 1993 after David is hired full time as an Auror. The transition, though messy at times, occurs without much hiccup, given that both have largely worked through their issues by now.

25. Do they adopt any pets or magical creatures? If so, which ones?

A: Neither David nor Merula are fond of pets.

26. If they get married, who proposes to whom? And how do they do it?

A: David is spurned to propose to Merula once he figures out Voldemort has returned. He knows that the risk is high that the war will split them apart so he proposes one day after a concert in a park in London. Though overwhelmed, Merula says yes.

27. If they get married, what’s their wedding like?

A: Medium sized. David has much more family than Merula does, given that she has no living grandparents, her parents are in jail, and her aunt is unmarried. However, the Grant family, despite initial misgivings, welcome her as one of their own. David’s best man is Charlie Weasley while Merula’s maid of honor is Ismelda, who is being recruited by the Death Eaters at this time, unbeknownst to everyone else. Almost all of the old Mystery crew returns, except for Rowan, who is abroad with his studies to become a Professor.

28. Do they have and/or adopt any children? What are their names and what’s their relationship with their parents?

A: David and Merula do end up having children, three in fact- Joseph, Thomas, and Sarah. Joe inherited most of Merula’s traits and gets along better with his mother, while Sarah inherited her father’s tendencies, but is something of a daddy’s girl. Thomas is the quiet one, usually settling sibling fights and is highly independent. Joe is a Slytherin, Sarah is a Gryffindor, and Thomas is a Ravenclaw. Despite the personality clashes, the family is generally very happy, buying a house in Lincolnshire, living a peaceful existence.

29. What’s the biggest hurdle they have to overcome in their relationship? Do they ultimately succeed or fail?

A: Merula and David both have internal problems that take time to solve during their Hogwarts years and after. But the ultimate obstacle is the Second Wizarding War. Merula’s parents are freed from Azkaban in 1995 and rejoin Voldemort. They also go out of their way to try and win back their daughter and sway her to their side once more. David knows this, and recognizing the danger, frequently moves them from place to place in the hope they will not find them. That, ultimately fails, but in the end, Merula and David remain together.

30. Do they participate in the Second Wizarding War? Or do they keep to themselves? How do they each feel about it?

A: David, being an Auror participates in the war, but suffers under the corrupt administration of Cornelius Fudge, and the incompetent, overwhelmed one of Rufus Scrimgeour. He must balance his duties with what he knows is right and the survival of his family. When Voldemort takes over, he ends up leaving the Ministry knowing full well the atrocities he would be forced to commit if he were to stay on. For Merula, the war is much more problematic. Despite their best efforts, her parents locate her once more and David nearly has to physically remove them from the premises. But they don’t give up, eventually kidnapping her in late 1997, forcing her into the Death Eater ranks, attempting to brainwash her once more. David then makes it his full time mission to find her and destroy those who work for Voldemort, becoming something of a vigilante bounty hunter.

31. If one of them were to die, how would the surviving party react? Who would take it the worst?

A: Equally. Merula knows that David was the only person to truly believe in her redemption and value as a person. David on the other hand, feels he could not live functionally without his wife.

32. Have they ever said anything hurtful to the other during an argument? If so, how do they go about apologizing?

A: Plenty of times. But this was during the formative years of their relationship. When the make up in Year 6, Merula formally apologizes while David swears he will never let her go again.

33. Is there any circumstance in which you could see their relationship falling apart? If so, what and how would they handle it?

A: It did, briefly, but the situation was not their fault. Initially, teenage angst, bumps, bruises, insecurity, and misunderstandings were the biggest impediments to a happy relationship. But when Merula was kidnapped by the Death Eaters, she was shanghaied, forced to commit horrible acts, branded with the Dark Magic, though she resists in small ways (such as secretly sparing numerous muggle families and passing information to spies). It is only during the battle of Hogwarts, that David is able to break through and rescue her. Due to this, and testimony from Lucius Malfoy, Merula avoids jail time, though it takes a long time for her to recover from the ordeal. Afterwards, they renew their vows and go on to have a family.

#mc info #hphm #mc x merula snyde #merula snyde #david grant #gryffindor #slytherin #romance #love

23 notes · View notes

the2020romanceproject · 5 years

Text

Review: The Wedding Date

(Or: Maybe I should only read the first half of romance novels from now on?)

Book two of my year of romance was Jasmine Guillory’s The Wedding Date! I was excited about this one, since I had actually heard of it before I started reading romance, and also it has fake dating which is always gold. And I did enjoy it...up to a point. More on that below. :)

First, a summary: Alexa is chief of staff to the mayor of Berkeley. Drew is a pediatric surgeon in L.A. They get stuck in an elevator together when Drew is in San Francisco for his ex-girlfriend’s wedding to his med school classmate. Drew was supposed to have a date for the wedding, but she cancelled, and on a whim he asks Alexa to go with him instead as his pretend new girlfriend. She says yes, and they have a great time at the wedding and fall in bed afterward and have great sex. Drew secretly changes his flight to leave later in the day on Sunday, and they spend the day together. They’re both hesitant because they know the other person isn’t looking for anything real here—Alexa in particular knows Drew doesn’t do relationships—but they keep reaching out to each other, and Alexa goes down to L.A. to stay with Drew the next weekend. There’s a brief blip where she texts him to ask if he’s sleeping with other people and he makes a joke instead of answering seriously and she cancels their next weekend together; then he runs into her (very conveniently) when he’s back in SF for a conference and they fall into bed again. Then there’s a more serious blip where she meets a bunch of his exes who let it slip that he broke up with each of them around the two-month mark when it seemed to be going really well. Alexa gets upset, refuses to let Drew say anything about his intentions because she doesn’t want to be hurt, and sneaks out of his apartment in the middle of the night to fly home early. Drew realizes how much she means to him and flies up to L.A. to support her at a hearing for the at-risk-youth arts initiative she’s pushing for, and the two of them happily reconcile (and the initiative passes). He shows her the job offer he got from his mentor at a San Francisco hospital, and she tells him yes, she wants him to move here. There’s an epilogue a year later where he takes her back to the elevator where they met and proposes.

I feel like I spent my last review talking entirely about why the book fell apart in the middle for me. This book also fell apart in the middle, but I’m going to start with some things I liked/noted about it, so as to not spend ALL my time complaining about shortcomings. :)

Things I really liked:

Chemistry. Alexa and Drew are both super charming. Their back-and-forth was really enjoyable to read. It was a big part of what got me into the book: I wanted to see these two charming people grow to like each other. All the thing where they’re at the rehearsal dinner and wedding and enjoy touching each other were really nice to read.

Tropes. This one had such good tropes! Stuck in an elevator together! Fake dating! Anything with plausible deniability, where they’re acting like they really like each other but each one thinks it might not denote real interest, is just the most fun. This one gave up the plausible deniability aspect way sooner than I would have expected, but still: great tropes.

Race. Alexa is black and Drew is white. I am also white, so my perspective here is not informed by personal experience, but I really liked how this was handled. Alexa does experience some microaggressions and outright racism—not from Drew—in ways that felt realistic to me. Drew doesn’t try to explain away any of the racism, which made him seem like a good potential partner to her. There was also a thing where he failed to understand a thing in her past that was impacted by race, and when she explained it he listened and accepted his ignorance. She was still concerned that he’d like her less for having made him aware of his privilege, which felt like a very sad and real fear. Overall, it felt like racial dynamics were allowed to come into the text in nuanced and organic ways that kept Alexa from being a token POC. (Jasmine Guillory is a POC herself, so I’m not surprised that this is handled well, and there are probably other things about it that I as a white person didn’t even pick up.)

Body type. Alexa is curvy! She’s embarrassed about it! But Drew loves it! As someone who fills out the top of a cocktail dress pretty well myself, I really appreciated both sides of this: the realistic body issues from someone raised in a society that valorizes thinness, and the way the text kept affirming Drew’s attraction to her. There’s a racial component to this as well—lots of skinny blond girls in this book—but it was something I was able to identify with even from my different societal context.

Things I noted/was surprised by:

How soon they had sex. At some point I’ll stop being surprised by this in romance novels. I’ve read a lot of fake dating stories, and written some, and I would have expected the charade to go on a lot longer before they had actual sex that couldn’t at all be explained away by the fake dating scenario. The purported fakeness of it is the fun part! They both think the other one isn’t interested for real, while their own feelings continue to grow! Why would you cut that part short?? As soon as they kissed and admitted to each other that they wanted it for real, the tension dropped from a ten to about a two. This book got a decent amount of mileage out of that lower level of tension—more on that below—but it’s so surprising to me that it didn’t keep the much more interesting and trope-y tension going longer.

Consent and power dynamics. This book was super good about consent: Drew made sure to check in about what Alexa wanted, and it was played for sexual intensity, where he clearly got a kick out of hearing her say it. But it was very, very one-sided. There was no implication that Alexa needed to check in with Drew on what he wanted. This wasn’t a surprise, exactly, but it did stand out to me, since I don’t read a lot of het (and honestly this is a big part of why—I don’t want to encounter gendered power dynamics in my leisure reading). Consent felt like a thing the woman had to give the man. I’m not saying this is a problem, necessarily; just something I noticed.

Sex scenes. The sex scenes almost faded to black but not quite. Maybe they faded to gray? I felt like I knew pretty much what sex act they were doing and when, but they weren’t described in any real detail. It was an interesting compromise, like the book was trying to give us a clear sense of their sexual relationship without any real titillation. I wonder if this is a genre thing—I’m not sure this book was published strictly as romance—or if it’s just Guillory’s style.

Romcom careers. They’re chief of staff to the mayor of Berkeley and a pediatric surgeon. Those have GOT to be two squares on the romcom career bingo card. I’m teasing a little, but I think this kind of character background serves an important role: we have to know that they’re accomplished, valuable people, so that when they feel rejected or insecure we can revel in it—look, they feel like I once felt! But it’s unjustified and they’ll end up happy!—instead of actually questioning the characters’ worth. Fanfiction usually gets over this hurdle by writing about characters the readers already know and respect and love, or, in the case of RPF, writing about people who are for-real successful and famous. Romance novels have to introduce us to brand-new characters, and one of the easiest ways to make us feel sure that these characters are worthy of our respect and of the other character’s love is to give them prestigious and intellectually or creatively rigorous careers. I’ll be interested to see how many other instances of this I run across.

Two points of view. It strikes again! Do all romance novels include both points of view? I don’t hate it, necessarily—but it does decrease the overall tension. You don’t get caught up in one character’s desires as strongly when you’re seeing both POVs.

Immediate attraction. Another thing I should probably stop being surprised by. Both Alexa and Drew are very physically into each other as soon as they meet; he has trouble not looking at her breasts, and there are so many narrative references to her wanting his touch, wanting to move closer to him, etc. To be fair, I think I’m pretty far toward the “not attracted to complete strangers” side of the spectrum, so I might not be the best judge of this, but it did feel a little over the top. I suspect this was an attempt to make us really want these two to be together. I think it was trying too hard—a more genuine reserve would have been more compelling to me, where they like each other but don’t immediately want to jump each other. Also, they’re going to a wedding together as fake dates! You don’t have to try that hard to make us interested!

Food as comfort. This was such a strong recurring thread in this novel. Alexa has a sweet tooth, and Drew is always getting her doughnuts; they get a lot of very satisfying takeout. It gelled for me with the thing where a lot of the satisfaction in the novel came from the comfort of “oh, this person is touching me; oh, they like me back.” Comfort instead of angst.

Subplots. One of my questions in approaching this genre was whether romance novels needed to be more novel-like than fic—i.e. whether they needed to engage with a plot beyond the romance. This does have a very slight B plot (Alexa’s youth initiative, which is connected to her difficult relationship with her sister) but it’s VERY slight. The book has an even less prominent subplot about one of Drew’s patients who develops cancer. Alexa’s subplot resolves, whereas Drew’s is only backdrop. Drew’s in particular is used the way I’d use a subplot in fic: it’s included to provide an excuse for scenes with or about Alexa, or to affect Drew’s mood in ways that reflect or influence the romance plot. It serves the romance instead of being an independent plot in its own right.

Okay, so those are my observations. Time to dig into the thing where this book lost me in the middle—much like the last book I reviewed, but for entirely different reasons.

I’ve already talked about the drastic drop-off in tension after they slept together. That actually was not what lost me this time. This novel managed to build enough of a rapport between the two characters that I was invested in their relationship becoming real. To be clear, I would have preferred that the fake dating trope go on longer and create opportunities for actual longing. But this novel wasn’t so much about longing; it was about that delightful feeling when you like someone and you reach out tentatively and they meet you in the middle. It was the very, very gentle tension of, “Maybe we could hang out today?” “Sure!” over and over, as a relationship builds. It was fluff-adjacent tension. Super enjoyable, the way a warm bath is enjoyable. I wasn’t dying to get to the end or anything, but it was nice.

I did wonder, about halfway through, how the heck this book could possibly keep going like that. And it turned out it couldn’t. That was when it introduced: the Misunderstanding Plot.

Don’t get me wrong. I love a good misunderstanding plot. But they are hard to do well. They work best when they feel unforced and genuine, and don’t make either of the characters carry the idiot ball. Like, say, if Drew and Alexa hadn’t had enthusiastic sex where they talked about how much they wanted each other, and they were still under the impression that it was a fake relationship, it would be very easy to have the other character accidentally confirm that and drive a wedge between the two of them. Or if one of them was starting to think it WAS real, and then they overheard the other person confessing to someone else that it was totally fake. (Don’t mind me; just thinking about ways I might write it.)

The problem with this one was that they were basically just dating at this point, so in order for drama to arise, the characters had to act badly in ways that felt forced and off-putting. They’d known each other for a week and a half; things had been happy and a little giddy and chill between them so far. Then Alexa texts in the middle of the workday to ask if Drew is sleeping with anyone else. (Because that is the perfect way to initiate an important relationship conversation, obviously.) He makes a joke, because he is clearly also very good at this, and they don’t speak to each other for a week and a half.

Guess which one of them this makes me like more? That’s right! Neither!!

Look. I like characters who are stupid about their own feelings and blind to other people’s. But I also like characters who, when they know about the other person’s feelings, are very, very considerate of them. Drew was not—and Alexa compounded the problem by being confrontational with the question and then abruptly pulling back as soon as she didn’t get the magical easy answer. In short, it made me think that they were bad for each other.

They recover from the texting thing when they just so happen to run into each other (I mean, I can’t throw stones, I’ll buy the coincidence) and are happy to see each other, and apologize, and everything’s fine. But by this point the novel had lost me. I had been enjoying the happy dance of “Does s/he like me? Ooh, s/he does!” but only so long as it lasted. They didn’t have a strong enough core after a week and a half to get through the badness of those texts. They were happy again, but I wasn’t invested. I was mostly reading so I could write this review.

Then, fascinatingly, the book won me back.

It was a very specific passage that did it. On page 190 of the paperback, Alexa talks in the narration about how she wouldn’t admit this to anyone other than herself, but ever since that first weekend with Drew, she’d imagined him in bed with her every night as she fell asleep. And I was sold. I mean, it was still very gentle tension. But! A thing the character wanted that she wasn’t getting! I could be into this again!

And then...well, this is already super long, so I won’t go into all the details of the misunderstanding that ended the book. It had a lot in common with the text message fiasco: Alexa felt insecure, got upset that Drew might not be into her, and refused to engage with him about whether that was true. (Okay, it was actually more egregious than the texts, in that she wouldn’t let him speak.) Her getting upset made sense, but her refusing to let him speak when he was clearly trying to felt SO forced.

The funny thing is, there was actually a seed of potential real conflict there: Drew hadn’t really admitted to himself that he wanted a long-term thing with her. He could have told her that. He could have done anything, really, to indicate that and create a real conflict. (Also tricky to handle without him coming off as not actually interested—but doable, I think.) As it was, he didn’t call her his girlfriend at a party—which, it had been like a month, and they hadn’t discussed it privately, so it’s totally appropriate not to throw the term around in public yet!—and...that’s it. Everything else was just her fears, and the very cowardly way she handled them. I guess that’s relatable? But it felt so engineered. It didn’t so much make me dislike her as make me annoyed with the text for twisting her response so that they couldn’t have the very short conversation that would have cleared everything up.

In fairness to Guillory, a friend who’s read the whole series tells me she does better with misunderstanding plots later. But I’m really, really excited to read a romance plot that doesn’t lose me halfway through.

Next up is Red, White, and Royal Blue. I’ve been told this was basically written for me, so I’m hopeful. Fingers crossed it sticks the landing!

#romance novels #reviews #jasmine guillory #the wedding date #romance meta #fanfiction meta

9 notes · View notes

dracimexidae · 5 years

Text

@lives-ruined-and-bloodshed replied to your post “@lives-ruined-and-bloodshed mentioned you on a post “You wanna try and...”

Yeah, I think May would definitely win in a real fight but I think they have so much fun just sparring, they know each other so well and probably sparred plenty of times so they know most of each other's moves and well, it's just really hot to imagine them going at it lol of course AoS couldn't give us that. We even saw Coulson fighting but ofc not with May, that would be giving too much to the shippers.

OF COURSE RIGHT, GOD FORBID THEY GIVE US EVEN JUST A FLICKER OF CONTENTMENT LMAO, WHO CARES ABOUT THE FANS ANYWAY... Sorry for the capslock, but I couldn’t express this any other way than shouting it because I’ll always be annoyed by this! Yeah, they don’t owe us anything, they should be able to tell the story they want without feeling obliged to indulge in the fan-service, bla bla bla, don’t care, I’ll stay pissed off, I’m sure the writers won’t mind, and at this point it’s the level of resigned annoyance that doesn’t ruin my day, so I can stay “fueled” without feeling miserable about it like I was some time ago, when I was more invested (not that I’m not invested in the ship now, but I made peace with the fact that I won’t get the satisfaction - and there is no “compliance” involved here :p - I need from the show so I’m looking for it elsewhere)!

I am convinced it would have been so amazing seeing Phil and Melinda spar because I found adorable (ok, maybe it’s not the best term to describe sparring sessions, but I have big family feels about it because Philindaisy obviously so for me that adjective stands) the sparring scenes Daisy had with both Phil and Melinda so yeah, it was a huge waste of potential, but what’s new when we talk about Philinda’s treatment in the show...

I do see their relationship as a bit unbalanced. There are so many times we saw May showing in words and actions what Coulson means to her, even her freaking robot was out there declaring her love and willing to die for him and the team. I think you're right that Coulson being the director is one of teh reasons for that difference but I think who they are is another.

For Coulson there is Humanity, SHIELD, Daisy and ofc May cares about that too but I mostly see her putting him ahead of pretty much everything, she's so ridiculously loyal to him, even Garret knew that about her, it wasn't follow SHIELD to the grave but Coulson. Watching gifsets of S1B was actually making me ship them less lol, he believed she was Hydra up until she was about to be killed too and then he was a raging dick, to hurt her, and not even an apology after.

Nothing much to add here, I agree with you, let me just underline the awful treatment Phil reserved to Melinda when he thought she was Hydra... All right, I get it, he must have felt overwhelmed discovering such huge betrayal from people in his organization to the point he felt he couldn’t be able to trust anyone, when he was raised in SHIELD with the “trust the system” drill in his head, valid for him until he died and was brought back, at least, not to mention the fact that he was kept in the shadows about this goddamn GH-325 secret by his closest (at least that’s what he thought she was) friend and ally, but just because he seemed to rely on Melinda so much that he decided to choose her as his “right-hand” for the task he accepted, I was flabbergasted that, after the first (comprehensible) moment of shock, he didn’t give her just a glimmer of benefit of the doubt, straight up assumed that she betrayed him and all... So was there nothing at all to be saved from their relationship until that moment that he could just pause just a second and consider that that was Melinda May he was crucifying, and I’m aware that it all happened so fast that there wasn’t a moment to breathe, let alone the chance of having a proper, lenghty conversation with her, but it took him too long, in my humble opinion, to realize that he couldn’t just throw whatever they had out of the window so rashly... Anyway, after the “epiphanic” Audrey episode the writers OBVIOUSLY never addressed the situation again, making us believe that between them it was all good again just by magic... mumble mumble... Thankfully there is fanfiction to fill in the gaps, because there is not a chance in the world I’ll be convinced that that evening, after Melinda brought Phil the infamous pendrive with the video about the TAHITI project, didn’t end up with them spending the night discussing everything and both apologizing AT LENGTH (in my universe there would have been also moments gradually and steadily reaching the R rating, but I would have been perfectly fine watching a scene with just them talking and making a real effort to clear things up and it would have actually made more sense considering canon, but they gave us nothing so whatever, I consider myself free to imagine whatever it pleases me :p )

I remember watching all of that some months ago and thinking he's going to to redeem himself by showing she the same kind of loyalty but then S2 and May was again with that massive devotion of hers, with the alien illness and the "real" SHIELD but what I got was Coulson lying to her repeatedly for no good reason. 3A was weird, I don't mind they had LIs, I actually really liked Andrew but they barely felt like friends imo. When Andrew/Lash was happening *Mack* was the only one who thought that maybe she could use a friend, that was bizarre.

WHEN HE ASKED HER TO KILL HIM IF THINGS GOT OUT OF CONTROL (and just that, my god, I understand that he trusts only her with everything at this point, not only SHIELD but even his life, but it’s rather a terrible thing to ask anyway), AND SHE INSTEAD HAD ALREADY PLANNED TO SPEND THE REST OF THEIR LIFE IN A GODDAMN CABIN IN A PLACE SHE KNEW HE WANTED TO VISIT, DECIDING TO STAND BY HIS SIDE AND SUPPORT AND HELP HIM UNTIL THE VERY END... AND BY S5 SHE HELD UP TO HER WORD AND DID IT, EVEN IF IN A DIFFERENT PLACE...

“NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, I’LL TAKE CARE OF YOU, THAT’S MY PLAN”

EXCUSE ME WHILE I GO DIG MYSELF A HOLE IN THE GARDEN AND CURL UP IN THERE FOR THE NEXT DECADE IF THAT ISN’T LOVE I DON’T KNOW WHAT IS??!?!!!!! That sentence and her actions show her love for him more powerfully than any “I love you” voiced out, but ok, let’s carry on...

I could even let the fact that he didn’t tell her about Theta Protocol slide because of all that classified crap and such, even if she called him out brilliantly about him not having the right to know that as well him not being Director anymore (HA, sorry Coulson but take that!) - I’m not really sure it was that a valid reason the fact that he should have told her because Andrew was involved, I mean, idk, they were not even married anymore, I don’t think that officially it should have been her business to know, but surely, as his best friend, Phil maybe should have felt more of a moral obligation to inform her, also because I can’t really recall if Phil started seeing Andrew before he confessed Melinda about his writing impulses, but at some point she knew, so what was the harm on letting her know? Where was the logic in keeping at least that hidden from her? I’ll be damned if I know!

Anyway, what I seriously would have kicked Phil’s ass for is the fact that he, TWICE (as far as I remember at least) affirmed that he didn’t want to go to Melinda after the whole Andrew/Lash debacle because “she wouldn’t want me to go after her right now” “she’ll talk when she’s ready”... Phil... pal.... buddy... what the fuck???!!! I mean, ok, Melinda would have assured you that she was fine, especially if you approached her in public, but... you know... we know... THE WHOLE WORLD knows she wasn’t, how could she???!!! One fucking sentence, one “you know I’m here if you want to talk or anything” like she said to him, more than once, would have killed the writers to insert it?????!?!?!?! But no, not only he doesn’t reach to her (at least, we don’t see it and it isn’t even implied in the show)but in the meantime he proceedes to go out and have drinks and slEEP WITH ROSALIND AND START A RELATIONSHIP WITH HER WHAT THE HELL KINDA BEHAVIOUR IS THAT?????! His best friend is anguished, tormented and in pain, he should have at least stood by her bunk’s door all night just to reassure her he was there for whatever she needed, or at least stay at base, work, go to sleep, idk, with what spirit you go out and go on a date and everything???!! Why is that, to distract yourself?? Oh yeah, but he’s also working an angle here, yeah all work and duty and no play, eh, Coulson?! MELINDA NEEDED YOUR SUPPORT AND FRIENDSHIP FFS!!!!!!! Damn it, at least find time to show a scene in which he makes an effort to reach for her, then she is free to do anything she wants with his support and if she asks he’ll be considerate enough to leave her alone, but show us he tries, because that’s something I think Coulson would do!!!! Instead he apparently just straight up assumes that she doesn’t want anyone close in that moment so he doesn’t even bother to assure her that if she needs it, he’s there for her... I get it, we all know she closed off after Bahrain and all and she’s the kind of person who tends to keep things for herself, but it doesn’t hurt to at least let her know he’s available if she needs help, especially because she’d hate to bother him knowing well that he has a lot more to think about than just her? Listen, Coulson in certain instances could be a little dense, but I think he’d make such a reasoning, idk? Or am I assuming too much about him? But, as you said, even Mack voices his concerns about leaving her alone, someone who is not particularly close to her, but not Phil

3B was better but still too little. It's funny but two of my favorites scenes of the show were the one about the boundaries, SO much to unpack there and when called him on it when he said she was too quick to the trigger and Daisy wasn't Andrew, the murder vest was bad enough but damn he still went the extra mile, but if he's going to be a bastard, at least have May fight back because I don't think I could take more of him being a dick and May just taking and getting no apologies like in 2B.

Oh my god, OH MY GOD yes, that was the peak of the idiocy!! “You’re always so quick to the trigger” JESUS CHRIST PHIL HOW COULD YOU EVEN CONCEIVE TO SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO HER, TO MELINDA, HOW THE FUCK DOES YOUR BRAIN WORK????!!?!?!!? I seriously tend to erase all this stupidity in s3, I know it’s not fair to the show but I’m sorry, I really can’t stand that Phil could say shit like that to Melinda, I can barely recognize it as canon... Maybe it’s me who has created this version of Phil in my head that actually got things wrong about his character, maybe I’m misreading him and don’t really understand him fully (not that I have ever claimed that I do, anyway), because no matter how stressful this moment is for him and no matter how much pressure he is under, I can’t for the life of me accept that he would say those things and behave like that... S1 behaviour I understand even if it still pisses me off a bit but it’s definitely more comprehensible, but these aspects no, just no, no way... The writers kinda saved it with May taking no shit from him (thank god for that, at least) and him apologizing, even if that was still pretty mild according to me, but oh well, better than nothing at all I guess? Let’s try to convince ourselves of that...

S4 was kinda funny to me because they just turned it up to eleven but I appreciate we actually saw him showing love/devotion/loyalty, without S4 I don't think I could ship them as much and since S5 was also disappointing in my I need to believe Coulson loves her as much as she loves him thing there was little Philinda, but still we had May showing in actions and words her love for him and Coulson, well, I believe he loves her and I guess he kissed her, said he didn't want to leave her and invited her to spend a few days together before he died in front of her. Her SL in S6 was about how much she loved him but I knew that already lol and then emotional torture and death.

Definitely, I seriously don’t know what happened during s4 writing that convinced the writers to suddenly push on the accelerator with their relationship, but I’m actually grateful (see? I can also say good things about them lol ), even if in terms of continuity for their dynamic I’m not sure how much sense it makes unless you take for granted that interactions must have happened in between the seasons, things we obviously weren’t witnesses of... As you pointed out, otherwise it would have been pretty hard to root for them to get closer, because May deserves the world!

It’s kind of ironic in a way to see, despite her being not openly vocal and expressive in her affections, how much more Melinda has said and done to and for Phil compared to him for her - again, as it has been said, he had far more things to worry about than her, whose mission was mainly Phil from the very beginning, so he obviously was more preoccupied to allow himself the luxury of devoting himself to just one person, but still...

S6? What is that? I really have no idea what you’re talking about here... :p

And that's why I appreciate so much how the fics do the work on Couson's part because I don't think I would love the ship as much without it either. And I just find confusing why AoS decided to go for the ship if they didn't care much about committing to their relationship on screen.

Yes! And ah, at this point, especially after S6, I’m so deflated about some choices that were made that I hardly care about trying to understand what goes through the writers’ heads, so again, I’ll just take what I want and run away quickly before they catch me and throw me in the pit of misery again (lol, look how confident I seem, as if I firmly believe that I won’t be affected at all by S7... Mh mh, yeah, sure, stay tuned to find out how much I’ll fail despite me training myself not to get involved with the show like I used to be...)

#lives-ruined-and-bloodshed #reply for your life! reply for the hills!#I'm sorry this took so long to reply to #ok maybe you didn't even want t a reply to this idk #especially messy as this one is #also sorry for 'lashing out' like this #I guess this conversation gave me the opportunity to get some things out of my system about philinda #long post

10 notes · View notes

bluewatsons · 5 years

Conversation

Masha Gessen, Interview: Judith Butler Wants Us To Reshape Our Rage, The New Yorker (February 9, 2020)

Masha Gessen: In this new book, you propose not just an argument for nonviolence as a tactic but as an entirely different way of thinking about who we are.

Judith Butler: We are used to thinking strategically and instrumentally about questions of violence and nonviolence. I think there is a difference between acting as an individual or a group, deciding, “Nonviolence is the best way to achieve our goal,” and seeking to make a nonviolent world—or a less violent world, which is probably more practical. I’m not a completely crazy idealist who would say, “There’s no situation in which I would commit an act of violence.” I’m trying to shift the question to “What kind of world is it that we seek to build together?” Some of my friends on the left believe that violent tactics are the way to produce the world they want. They think that the violence falls away when the results they want are realized. But they’ve just issued more violence into the world.

Masha Gessen: You begin with a critique of individualism “as the basis of ethics and politics alike.” Why is that the starting point?

Judith Butler: In my experience, the most powerful argument against violence has been grounded in the notion that, when I do violence to another human being, I also do violence to myself, because my life is bound up with this other life. Most people who are formed within the liberal individualist tradition really understand themselves as bounded creatures who are radically separate from other lives. There are relational perspectives that would challenge that point of departure, and ecological perspectives as well.

Masha Gessen: And you point out that in the liberal individualist way of thinking, the individual is always an adult male in his prime, who, just at this particular moment when we encounter him, happens to have no needs and dependencies that would bind him to others.

Judith Butler: That model of the individual is comic, in a way, but also lethal. The goal is to overcome the formative and dependent stages of life to emerge, separate, and individuate—and then you become this self-standing individual. That’s a translation from German. They say selbstständig, implying that you stand on your own. But who actually stands on their own? We are all, if we stand, supported by any number of things. Even coming to see you today—the pavement allowed me to move, and so did my shoes, my orthotics, and the long hours spent by my physical therapist. His labor is in my walk, as it were. I wouldn’t have been able to get here without any of those wonderful technologies and supporting relations. Acknowledging dependency as a condition of who any of us happens to be is difficult enough. But the larger task is to affirm social and ecological interdependence, which is regularly misrecognized as well. If we were to rethink ourselves as social creatures who are fundamentally dependent upon one another—and there’s no shame, no humiliation, no “feminization” in that—I think that we would treat each other differently, because our very conception of self would not be defined by individual self-interest.

Masha Gessen: You have written before about the concept of grievability, and it is an important idea in this book. Can you talk about it?

Judith Butler: You know when I think it started for me? Here in the United States, during the aids crisis, when it became clear that many people were losing their lovers and not receiving adequate recognition for that loss. In many cases, people would go home to their families and try to explain their loss, or be unable to go home to their families or workplaces and try to explain their loss. The loss was not recognized, and it was not marked, which means that it was treated as if it were no loss. Of course, that follows from the fact that the love they lived was also treated as if it were no love. That puts you into what Freud called melancholia. In contemporary terms, it is a version of depression, even as it admits of manic forms—but not just individual depression but shared melancholia. It enraged me then, as it does now, that some lives were considered to be more worthy of grieving publicly than others, depending on the status and recognizability of those persons and their relations. And that came home to me in a different way in the aftermath of 9/11, when it was very clear that certain lives could be highly memorialized in the newspapers and others could not. Those who were openly mourned tended to lead lives whose value was measured by whether they had property, education, whether they were married and had a dog and some children. The traditional heterosexual frame became the condition of possibility for public mourning.

Masha Gessen: You are referring to the twenty-five hundred mini-obituaries in the Times, right?

Judith Butler: Yes. It was rather amazing the way that the undocumented were not really openly and publicly mourned through those obituaries, and a lot of gay and lesbian people were mourned in a shadowy way or not at all. They fell into the dustbin of the unmournable or the ungrievable. We can also see this in broader public policies. There are those for whom health insurance is so precious that it is publicly assumed that it can never be taken away, and others who remain without coverage, who cannot afford the premiums that would increase their chances of living—their lives are of no consequence to those who oppose health care for all. Certain lives are considered more grievable. We have to get beyond the idea of calculating the value of lives, in order to arrive at a different, more radical idea of social equality.

Masha Gessen: You write about the militant potential of mourning.

Judith Butler: It’s something that can happen, though it doesn’t always happen. Black Lives Matter emerged from mourning. Douglas Crimp, the great art historian and theorist, reflected on mourning and militancy in an important essay by that name.

Masha Gessen: In “The Force of Nonviolence,” you repeatedly stress the importance of counter-realism, even an “ethical obligation” to be unrealistic. Can you explain that?

Judith Butler: Take the example of electability. If one takes the view that it is simply not realistic that a woman can be elected President, one speaks in a way that seems both practical and knowing. As a prediction, it may be true, or it may be shifting as we speak. But the claim that it is not realistic confirms that very idea of reality and gives it further power over our beliefs and expectations. If “that is just the way the world is,” even though we wish it were different, then we concede the intractability of that version of reality. We’ve said such “realistic” things about gay marriage before it became a reality. We said it years ago about a black President. We’ve said it about many things in this world, about tyrannical or authoritarian regimes we never thought would come down. To stay within the framework of Realpolitik is, I think, to accept a closing down of horizons, a way to seem “cool” and skeptical at the expense of radical hope and aspiration. Sometimes you have to imagine in a radical way that makes you seem a little crazy, that puts you in an embarrassing light, in order to open up a possibility that others have already closed down with their knowing realism. I’m prepared to be mocked and dismissed for defending nonviolence in the way that I do. It might be understood as one of the most profoundly unrealistic positions you could hold in this life. But when I ask people whether they would want to live in a world in which no one takes that position, they say that that would be terrible.

Masha Gessen: I want to challenge your examples a little bit. The electability issue can be argued not from the point of view of counter-realism but by saying, “Your view of reality is limited. It doesn’t take into account the number of women voters, or the number of women who were elected in the midterms.” Same with gay marriage--people who didn’t believe it was possible simply didn’t realize what a huge shift in social attitudes had occurred between generations. In a sense, those are easier arguments than the one I think you are making, which is, “You might be right about reality, but this is not a reality we should be willing to accept.”

Judith Butler: I am talking about how the term “reality” functions in social-political discourse. Sometimes “reality” is used to debunk as childish or unknowledgeable points of view that actually are holding out a more radical possibility of equality or freedom or democracy or justice, which means stepping out of a settled understanding. We see how socialist ideals, for instance, are dismissed as “fanciful” in the current election. I find that the dismissive form of realism is guarding those borders and shutting down those horizons of possibility. It reminds me of parents who say, “Oh, you’re gay . . .” or “Oh, you’re trans—well, of course I accept you, but it’s going to be a very hard life.” Instead of saying, “This is a new world, and we are going to build it together, and you’re going to have my full support.”

Masha Gessen: On the other hand, I have been accused by my kids of not understanding how the world works—for rejecting what’s broadly understood to be the way things are. Don’t we also have a responsibility to acknowledge the hardships kids face?

Judith Butler: If the terms of their struggle and their suffering are the ones that they bring to you from their experience, then, yes, of course. But if you impose it on them before they even had a chance to live, that’s not so good.

Masha Gessen: Let’s talk about your approach to nonviolence as a matter not of individual morality but of a social philosophy of living.

Judith Butler: Most of the time, when we ask moral questions—like “What would you do?” or “How would you conduct yourself, and how would you justify your actions?” if such-and-such were the case—it’s framed as a hypothetical in which one person is offering a justification to another person, with the aim of taking individual responsibility for a potential action. That way of thinking rests on the notion that individual deliberation is at the core of moral action. Of course, to some degree it is, but we do not think critically about the individual. I am seeking to shift the question of nonviolence into a question of social obligations but also to suggest that probing social relationality will give us some clues about what a different ethical framework would be. What do we owe those with whom we inhabit the earth? And what do we owe the earth, as well, while we’re at it? And why do we owe people or other living creatures that concern? Why do we owe them regard for life or a commitment to a nonviolent relationship? Our interdependency serves as the basis of our ethical obligations to one another. When we strike at one another, we strike at that very bond. Many social psychologists will tell us that certain social bonds are consolidated through violence, and those tend to be group bonds, including nationalism and racism. If you’re part of a group that engages in violence and feels that the bonds of your connection to one another are fortified through that violence, that presumes that the group you’re targeting is destroyable and dispensable, and who you are is only negatively related to who they are. That’s also a way of saying that certain lives are more valuable than others. But what would it mean to live in a world of radical equality? My argument is that then we cannot kill one another, we cannot do violence to one another, we cannot abandon each other’s lives.

Masha Gessen: And this is where your critique of self-defense comes in.

Judith Butler: Don’t get me wrong--I’ve been trained in self-defense. I’m very grateful for that early training. But I’ve always wondered what that self is that we’re defending. Many people have pointed out that only certain people, in courts of law, are permitted to argue self-defense, and others very rarely are. We know that white men can protect themselves and their property and wield force in self-defense much more easily than black and brown people can. Who has the kind of self that is recognized by the law and the public as worthy of self-defense? If I think of myself not just as this bounded individual but as fundamentally related to others, then I locate this self in those relations. In that case, the self I am trying to defend is not just me but all those relations that define and sustain me, and those relations can, and should be, extended indefinitely beyond local units like family and community. If the self I’m trying to defend is also in some sense related to the person I’m tempted to kill, I have to make sure not to do violence to that relation, because that’s also me. One could go further--I’m also attacking myself by attacking that person, since I am breaking a social bond that we have between us. The problem of nonviolence looks different if you see it that way.

Masha Gessen: In a couple of places in the book, you say that nonviolence is not an absolute principle, or that you’re not arguing that no one has the right to self-defense—you are just suggesting a new set of guiding principles. I found myself a little disappointed every time you make that caveat. Does it not weaken your argument when you say, “I’m arguing against self-defense, but I’m not saying that no one has a right to self-defense”?

Judith Butler: If I were giving a rational justification for nonviolence as a position, which would make me into a much more proper philosopher than I am—or wish to be—then it would make sense to rule out all exceptions. But we don’t need a new rational justification for nonviolence. We actually need to pose the question of violence and nonviolence within a different framework, where the question is not “What ought I to do?” but “Who am I in relation to others, and how do I understand that relationship?” Once social equality becomes the framework, I’m not sure we are deliberating as individuals trying to come up with a fully rational position, consistent and complete and comprehensive for all circumstances. We might then approach the world in a way that would make violence less likely, that would allow us to think about how to live together given our anger and our aggression, our murderous wishes—how to live together and to make a commitment to that, outside of the boundaries of community or the boundaries of the nation. I think that that’s a way of thinking, an ethos—I guess I would use that word, “ethos,” as something that would be more important to me than a fully rational system that is constantly confounded by exceptions.

Masha Gessen: And would it be correct to say that you are also asking us not to adopt this new framework individually but actually to rethink together with others—that adopting this frame requires doing it in an interdependent way?

Judith Butler: I think so. We would need to develop political practices to make decisions about how to live together less violently. We have to be able to identify institutional modes of violence, including prisons and the carceral state, that are too often taken for granted and not recognized as violent. It’s a question of bringing out in clear terms those institutions and sets of policies that regularly make these kinds of distinctions between valuable and non-valuable lives.

Masha Gessen: You talk about nonviolence, rather unexpectedly, as a force, and even use words like “militant” and “aggressive.” Can you explain how they go together?

Judith Butler: I think many positions assume that nonviolence involves inhabiting the peaceful region of the soul, where you are supposed to rid yourself of violent feelings or wishes or fantasy. But what interests me is cultivating aggression into forms of conduct that can be effective without being destructive.

Masha Gessen: How do you define the boundary of what is violence?

Judith Butler: The physical blow cannot be the only model for thinking about what violence is. Anything that jeopardizes the lives of others through explicit policy or through negligence—and that would include all kinds of public policies or state policies—are practices of institutional or systemic violence. Prisons are the most persistent form of systemic violence regularly accepted as a necessary reality. We can think about contemporary borders and detention centers as clear institutions of violence. These violent institutions claim that they are seeking to make society less violent, or that borders keep violent people out. We have to be careful in thinking about how “violence” is used in these kinds of justifications. Once those targeted with violence are identified with violence, then violent institutions can say, “The violence is over there, not here,” and inflict injury as they wish. People in the world have every reason to be in a state of total rage. What we do with that rage together is important. Rage can be crafted—it’s sort of an art form of politics. The significance of nonviolence is not to be found in our most pacific moments but precisely when revenge makes perfect sense.

Masha Gessen: What kinds of situations are those?

Judith Butler: If you’re someone whose family has been murdered, or if you’re part of a community that has been violently uprooted from your homes. In the midst of feeling that rage, one can also work with others to find that other way, and I see that happening in nonviolent movements. I see it happening in Black Lives Matter. I think the feminist movement is very strongly nonviolent—it very rarely gets put in that category, but most of its activities are nonviolent, especially the struggle against sexual violence. There are nonviolent groups in Palestine fighting colonization, and anticolonial struggles have offered many of the most important nonviolent movements, including Gandhi’s resistance to British colonialism. Antiwar protests are almost by definition nonviolent.

Masha Gessen: One of the most striking passages in the book is about what you call “the contagious sense of the uninhibited satisfactions of sadism.” You write about the appeal of blatant and indifferent destructiveness. What did you have in mind when you wrote those phrases?

Judith Butler: It’s unclear whether Trump is watching Netanyahu and Erdoğan, whether anyone is watching Bolsonaro, whether Bolsonaro is watching Putin, but I think there are some contagious effects. A leader can defy the laws of his own country and test to see how much power he can take. He can imprison dissenters and inflict violence on neighboring regions. He can block migrants from certain countries or religions. He can kill them at a moment’s notice. Many people are excited by this kind of exercise of power, its unchecked quality, and they want in their own lives to free up their aggressive speech and action without any checks--no shame, no legal repercussions. They have this leader who models that freedom. The sadism intensifies and accelerates I think, as many people do, that Trump has licensed the overt violence of white supremacy and also unleashed police violence by suspending any sense of constraint. Many people thrill to see embodied in their government leader a will to destruction that is uninhibited, invoking a kind of moral sadism as its perverse justification. It’s going to be up to us to see if people can thrill to something else.

Masha Gessen: That goes back to my question about where the boundary of violence lies. For example, can you describe Trump’s speech acts as violence? He hasn’t himself stopped anybody at the border or shot anyone in a mosque.

Judith Butler: Executive speech acts have the power to stop people, so his speech acts do stop people at the border. The executive order is a weird speech act, but he does position himself as a quasi king or sovereign who can make policy through simply uttering certain words.

Masha Gessen: Or tweeting.

Judith Butler: The tweet acts as an incitation but also as a virtual attack with consequences; it gives public license to violence. He models a kind of entitlement that positions him above the law. Those who support him, even love him, want to live in that zone with him. He is a sovereign unchecked by the rule of law he represents, and many think that is the most free and courageous kind of liberation. But it is liberation from all social obligation, a self-aggrandizing sovereignty of the individual.

Masha Gessen: You describe this current moment rather beautifully in the book as a “politically consequential form of phantasmagoria.”

Judith Butler: If we think about the cases of police violence against black women, men, and children who are unarmed, or are actually running away, or sleeping on the couch, or completely constrained and saying that they cannot breathe, we would reasonably suppose that the manifest violence and injustice of these killings is evident. Yet there are ways of seeing those very videos that document police violence where the black person is identified as the one who is about to commit some terribly violent act. How could anyone be persuaded of that? What are the conditions of persuasion such that a lawyer could make that argument, on the basis of video documentation, and have a jury or judge accept that view? The only way we can imagine that is if we understand potential violence to be something that black people carry in them as part of their blackness. It has been shocking to see juries and judges and police investigators exonerate police time and again, when it would seem—to many of us, at least—that these were cases of unprovoked, deadly violence. So I understand it as a kind of racial phantasmagoria.

Masha Gessen: Just to be clear, you’re not saying that these juries saw violence being perpetrated against somebody nonviolent and decided to let the perpetrator off. You’re saying that they actually perceived violence--in the radically subjugated black body, or the radically constrained black body, or the black body that’s running with fear away from some officer who is threatening them with violence. And if you’re a jury—especially a white jury that thinks it’s perfectly reasonable to imagine that a black person, even under extreme restraint, could leap up and kill you in a flash—that’s phantasmagoria. It’s not individual psychopathology but a shared phantasmatic scene.

Masha Gessen: How did this book come about?

Judith Butler: I have been working on this topic for a while. It’s linked to the problem of grievability, to human rights, to boycott politics, to thinking about nonviolent modes of resistance. But, also, some of my allies on the left were pretty sure that, when Trump was elected, we were living in a time of fascism that required a violent overthrow or a violent set of resistance tactics, citing the resistance to Nazism in Europe and Fascism in Italy and Spain. Some groups were affirming destruction rather than trying to build new alliances based on a new analysis of our times, one that would eventually be strong enough to oppose this dangerous current trend of authoritarian, neo-Fascist rule.

Masha Gessen: Can you give some examples of what you see as affirming destruction?

Judith Butler: At a very simple level--getting into physical fights with fascists who come to provoke you. Or destruction of storefronts because capitalism has to be brought to its knees, as has happened during Occupy and anti-fascist protests in the Bay Area, even if those storefronts belong to black people who struggled to establish those businesses. When I was in Chile last April, I was struck by the fact that the feminist movement was at the forefront of the left, and it made a huge difference in thinking about tactics, strategies, and aims. In the U.S., I think that some men who always saw feminism as a secondary issue feel much freer to voice their anti-feminism in the context of a renewed interest in socialism. Of course, it does not have to go that way, but I worry about a return to the framework of primary and secondary impressions. Many social movements fought against that for decades.

Masha Gessen: You have faced violence, and I know there are some countries you no longer feel safe travelling to. What has happened?

Judith Butler: There are usually two issues, Palestine or gender. I have come to understand in what places which issue is controversial. The anti-“gender ideology” movement has spread throughout Latin America, affecting national elections and targeting sexual and gender minorities. Those who work on gender are often maligned as “diabolical” or “demons.” The image of the devil is used a lot, which is very hard on me for many reasons, partly because it feels anti-Semitic. Sometimes they treat me as trans, or they can’t decide whether I’m trans or lesbian or whatever, and they credit my work from thirty years ago as introducing this idea of gender, when even cursory research will show that the category has been operative since the nineteen-fifties.

Masha Gessen: How do you know that they see you as trans?

Judith Butler: In Brazil, they put a pink bra on the effigy that they made of me.

Masha Gessen: There was an effigy?

Judith Butler: Yes, and they burned that effigy.

Masha Gessen: “Pink bra” wouldn’t seem to be the headline of that story?

Judith Butler: But the idea was that the bra would be incongruent with who I am, so they were assuming a more masculine core, and the pink bra would have been a way to portray me in drag. That was kind of interesting. It was kind of horrible, too.

Masha Gessen: Did you witness it physically?

Judith Butler: I was protected inside a cultural center, and there were crowds outside. I am glad to say that the crowd opposing the right-wing Christians was much larger.

Masha Gessen: Are you scared?

Judith Butler: I was scared. I had a really good bodyguard, who remains my friend. But I wasn’t allowed to walk the streets on my own.

Masha Gessen: Let’s review this “gender ideology” idea, because not everyone is familiar with this phenomenon.

Judith Butler: It’s huge.

Masha Gessen: It’s the idea, promoted by groups affiliated with Catholic, evangelical, and Eastern Orthodox churches, that a Jewish Marxist–Frankfurt School–Judith Butler conspiracy has hatched a plot to destroy the family by questioning the immutability of sex roles, and this will lead white people to extinction.

Judith Butler: They are taking the idea of the performativity of gender to mean that we’re all free to choose our gender as we wish and that there is no natural sex. They see it as an attack on both the God-given character of male and female and the ostensibly natural social form in which they join each other—heterosexual marriage. But, sometimes, by “gender” they simply mean gender equality, which, for them, is destroying the family, which presumes that the family has a necessary hierarchy in which men hold power. They also understand “gender” as trans rights, gay rights, and as gay equality under the law. Gay marriage is particularly terrifying to them and seen as a threat to “the family,” and gay and lesbian adoption is understood to involve the molestation of children. They imagine that those of us who belong to this “gender movement,” as they put it, have no restrictions on what we will do, that we represent and promote unchecked sexual freedom, which leads to pedophilia. It is all very frightening, and it has been successful in threatening scholars and, in some cases, shutting down programs. There is also an active resistance against them, and I am now part of that.

Masha Gessen: How long has this been going on, this particular stage of your existence in the world?

Judith Butler: The Pontifical Council for the Family, led by Pope Francis before his elevation, published papers against “gender” in 2000. I wrote briefly about that but could not imagine then that it would become a well-financed campaign throughout the world. It started to affect my life in 2012 or ’13.

Masha Gessen: And, aside from finding it, as I can tell, sometimes a little bit amusing—

Judith Butler: Oh, no, it’s terrifying. I have feared for my life a few times, and scholars in Bahia and other parts of the world have been threatened with violence. Even the clip you saw online was incomplete—they, the gender-ideology people, made it and circulated it because they were apparently proud of themselves. What they didn’t show is the woman who came after me, running with a cart, as I went to the security checkpoint. She was about to shove me with that metal cart when some young man with a backpack came out of a store and actually interposed his body between the cart and me, and he ended up on the floor, in a physical fight with her, which I saw as I was going up the elevator. I looked back, and I thought, This guy has sacrificed his physical well-being for me. I don’t know who he is to this day. I would like to find this person and thank him.

Masha Gessen: Is that the only time you have faced physical violence?

Judith Butler: Some people in Switzerland, too, were up in arms about Biblical authority on the sexes. This was probably about four or five years ago.

Masha Gessen: Do you see this at all as an indication of your influence?

Judith Butler: It seems like a terrible indication of my influence, in the sense that they don’t actually know my work or what I was trying to say. I see that they’re very frightened, for many reasons, but I don’t think this shows my influence.

Masha Gessen: And, other than that, how are you feeling about your work in the world?

Judith Butler: I’m working collaboratively with people, and I like that more than being an individual author or public figure who goes around and proclaims things. My connection with the women’s movement in Latin America has been important to me, and I work with a number of people in gender studies throughout Europe. Leaving this country allows me to get a new perspective, to see what is local and limited about U.S. political discourse, and I suppose my work tends to be more transnational now than it used to be.

Masha Gessen: What is the work in Latin America?

Judith Butler: I have been part of a grant from the Mellon Foundation to organize an international consortium of critical-theory programs. Critical theory is understood not only in the Frankfurt School sense but as theoretical reflection that’s trying to grasp the world we live in, to think about and transform that world in ways that overcome a range of oppressions and inequalities. We often connect with academic and activist movements and reflect on social movements together. The Ni Una Menos—“Not One Less”—grassroots movement fighting violence against women, in particular, has been really impressive to me. Sometimes the movement can bring one [million] to three million people out into the streets. They work very deliberatively and collectively, through public assemblies and strikes. They’re very fierce and smart, and they are also hopeful in the midst of grim realities. I am also working with friends in Europe and elsewhere who are trying to defend gender-studies programs against closure—we call ourselves the Gender International.

Masha Gessen: Are you still involved in Palestine work?

Judith Butler: It’s not as central in my life as it was, but all my commitments are still there. Israel has banned me from entry, because of my support for B.D.S. [the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement], so it is hard to sustain alliances in Palestine—Israel controls all those borders. I work with Jewish Voice for Peace. I’m particularly worried about Trump’s new anti-Semitism doctrine, which seems to suggest that every Jew truly or ultimately is a citizen of the state of Israel. And that means that any critique of Israel can be called anti-Semitic, since Trump—and Netanyahu—want to say that the state of Israel represents all Jewish people. This is a terrible reduction of what Jewish life has been, historically and in the present, but, most frighteningly, the new anti-Semitism policy will license the suppression of Palestinian student organizations on campus as well as research in Middle East studies. I have some deep fears about that, as should anyone who cares about state involvement in the suppression of knowledge and the importance of nonviolent forms of advocacy for those who have suffered dispossession, violence, and injustice.

3 notes · View notes