#but given both the my general pop culture understanding of it and the fact that the show itself referenced it

[autisticburnham]

If I had had my world completely shattered by finding out I had been Manchurian Candidated and finally clawed my way to a semblance of peace with myself and then had my colleagues accuse me of again having had my brain manipulated to force me to do things against my will, I would lose my mind

[twistedtummies2]

Top 15 Video Game Villains

Before I get into this list, given the topic, I have to make a very simple and honest confession: I’m really not much of a gamer. I’ve played some games, but not really that many. I’ve honestly WATCHED more games than I’ve actually PLAYED. There’s a lot of reasons why this is, but at the end of the day, the fact is that video games are just one of those forms of media where I’m really not an expert.

With that said, I have a great respect for video games as a medium, and I know a LOT of people are EXTREMELY into them. Video gaming has gone from something of a niche subculture to a MASSIVE market and piece of major pop culture in and of itself, just as generally respected, lauded, and appreciated as movies or television. Games themselves have come a long way: back when they were new, no one really cared about story or character, it was really a matter of just making things fun to play as a pastime. Over time, however, the medium has evolved, and the storytelling and characters in some of the greatest games have become just as important as the actual gameplay involved…which is why I’m able to say that, despite not playing many games, I can still make a list like this in good confidence. See, you don’t need to play something to understand how good a character is…and every game needs an obstacle. Something for the player to overcome. Like any other great story, one needs an antagonist…and sometimes, you need a villain. Many of the villains of video games, like games themselves, have become just as popular as the games themselves, as well as many other great and glorious villains throughout history. Through the ones that have lasted the longest, you can really trace the evolution of gaming itself, and with the ones that are more “one hit wonders,” you can see glimpses of some interesting moments in the grand pantheon of video games. So, despite hardly being an expert on the subject, I felt it was time I give these characters some time in the spotlight. Keep in mind, my opinions will DEFINITELY differ from those of a LOT of other people, simply because I have a different perspective on things. Also, with two exceptions, I’ll only be including one villain per game/franchise. With that said, let’s waste no more time! These are My Top 15 Favorite Video Game Villains!

15. The Phantom Blot & The Mad Doctor, from Epic Mickey.

This is the first exception I mentioned in my preamble. I couldn’t decide which of these two to include, so I just decided to include both. The Epic Mickey games - which were sadly cut short by various behind-the-scenes shenanigans - were Disney’s attempt to bring Mickey Mouse to the forefront in gaming, and to try and find a way to make Mickey “cool” again. The games are sort of a love letter to the Mouse’s long history as a character, as well as to Disney’s history as a whole, and while they are far from perfect, they still have a bit of a cult following, for various reasons. The main antagonists of the first game were these two scoundrels. The Phantom Blot - also known as “The Shadow Blot” or simply “The Blot,” in this specific title - is a character who has had a long history in Disney before this title. In comics and cartoons prior to the game, the Blot was a masked supervillain. In the games, the Blot is reimagined as a ravenous ink monster, who essentially acts as a force of pure destruction, with no apparent purpose but to spread ruin wherever he goes. The Mad Doctor, meanwhile, first appeared in a Mickey cartoon by the same name; in the games, he is a cyborganic mad scientist who started out as a friend to some of the characters, but ultimately revealed his true nature and joined forces with the Blot in a bid to become the greatest villain of all time. While the Blot never returned in any of the sequels, the Mad Doctor did, and the Blot’s impact was still felt even after the beast was defeated. Both were fun twists on classic, somewhat obscure characters, and more people know about them because of these games than anything else. I don’t really think that’s a bad thing.

14. The Crooked Man, from The Wolf Among Us.

This was a title released by Telltale Games, who specialized in games that were interactive “choose your own adventure”-type stories. The player’s choices would determine how the stories went, above all else. In the case of “The Wolf Among Us” - based on the comic series “Fables” - the story was a sort of fantasy and film noir blend, with Sheriff Bigby Wolf (guess who he is) trying to solve a case of mysterious murders in the city of Fabletown, where characters from fairy-tales, folklore, and mythology all live. At the end of this long and twisted case, it’s revealed the mastermind behind it all is this fellow: the Crooked Man. From the moment we start realizing his involvement, the Crooked Man seems like a total and pure nasty…and he is. But here’s the genius of the character: after going through so much to reach him and finally confront him, when the time finally arrives, he isn’t depicted as a dark-hearted monster, but instead a reasonable, intellectual, and EXTREMELY persuasive gentleman. The brilliance of the Crooked Man is that he doesn’t just get into the heads of the other characters in the story, but has the capacity to get into the head of the player, and make them doubt the decisions they are making. You know he can’t be trusted and has to be brought to justice, but he’s very skilled at twisting things around, making every moment tense as you wonder whether you’re making the right choice or not. His demeanor of composed, collected rationality almost never falters, making it feel like he’s in control even when you have the upper hand. In a game all about your choices and their consequences, that’s an EXTREMELY powerful villain to have, and no other main antagonists from other Telltale titles, in my opinion, are quite as effective in THAT regard. He may not be one of the most iconic villains in history, but he’ll always be one I hold in high esteem.

13. The Moon Bear King, from Puppeteer.

All of the other villains after this character are from series or franchise works. There are multiple installments in them, and so there are often many villains to choose from. The same goes with the previous two entries, as well: Epic Mickey had three games to its name, and a sequel to “The Wolf Among Us” is in development as we speak. “Puppeteer” is an oddball, as a result, because it’s a one-and-done deal: it’s not part of a major franchise or series, it’s just one single, lonely title, and it’s not necessarily one that tons of people would know. I doubt you’d be seeing cosplays or highly-viewed videos about this game anywhere of note. However, as far as one hit wonders go, it’s a VERY good game: it’s got a wicked sense of humor, simple and addictive gameplay that still manages to be challenging, and a very unique sense of aesthetic style. It also has a very fun main antagonist: the evil and bombastic Moon Bear King. The King is an evil, gluttonous monster who has taken over the kingdom of the moon. It’s eventually revealed that he was once a humble little teddy bear, who suffered from deep insecurity, and desperately wanted friendship. The Little Bear stole the Black Moonstone, a dangerous artifact, which corrupted his desires and transformed him into the beastly Moon Bear King: a literally power-hungry demon who longs to devour the souls of all of Earth’s children. Aided by his Twelve Generals (all themed around animals from the Chinese Zodiac), the King’s plans are challenged by the hero of the story, Kutaro. The King is one of those wonderful villains who mingles humor, menace, and pathos perfectly: he’s actually EXTREMELY funny, but he’s also extremely nasty, capable of some truly horrifying acts of evil. When you learn the truth of his origins and motivations, he becomes a sympathetic character, which only adds to the layers of his personality. On the one hand, it would have been nice to see more of him, and the world of Puppeteer in general. On the other hand, I think this is one of those games where its singular status is part of what makes it so special. If a sequel or spin-off ever does come out, I shall be curious…but as it stands, the King and his source work are perfectly grand on their own.

12. Kefka Palazzo, from Final Fantasy.

I’ll come right out and admit it, I’m not really super familiar with the Final Fantasy series and a lot of its characters. And that, very frankly, is why Kefka is so low on the list: he’s one of the very few characters from the franchise I do feel I know pretty well, even if I do say so myself. This is good for him in terms of his own merits, but it’s also why I don’t think I can honestly and justly place him higher. With that said, he IS a really fun villain. I know a lot of people praise Sephiroth as the greatest antagonist of the series, and he’s a good villain, too…but in my opinion, Kefka is even more interesting, as well as just a lot of fun. One of my issues with FF, and why I’m not really familiar with it, is that a lot of characters (among those I know) feel very similar, in terms of both personality and design. Kefka, however, is truly a one of a kind figure: he’s a wild, chaotic, childish, brightly colored jester who walks, sounds, and generally behaves in a way that is extremely unique compared to all the rest around him. As far as villainy goes, he’s wonderful in how he’s such a paradoxical character. Kefka is a nihilist of the highest order, who has no purpose in life other than to inflict suffering and death. While he can be manipulative and cunning, there is no end goal beyond just making others feel pain and seeing things perish. On the one hand, this makes him one of the most thoroughly vile figures in the franchise, and in some ways one of the most frightening. But at the same time, there’s a sort of sadness to Kefka: the reason he is so obsessed with destruction is because he literally cannot understand the ideas of love, compassion, or even hope. When others express those concepts, his physically incapable of comprehending them: he sees no meaning in life, because in his mind, there IS nothing but death looming on the horizon. His flamboyant and vibrant facade is exactly that: a sort of armor that hides an overwhelming emptiness, which only making others hurt seems to satisfy in any way. He is funny and frightening, tragic yet despicable, and those kinds of layers always make for fascinating antagonists. He would be MUCH higher if I just knew more about his universe in general. 

11. Pagan Min, from Far Cry 4.

I should point out that Far Cry 4 is the only Far Cry game I know especially well, mostly because it’s the only one I’ve actually played. I have not played nor even looked at much from the other games in the series, so I really can’t comment on them. (I say this because I know there are some villains from other installments people might list over Pagan. In my case, he’s really the only one I know well.) Initially, when I was planning this list out, Pagan was a bit further down…but after revisiting FC4, I discovered he was a lot greater than I already recalled. He’s a villain who really works best IN a video game world, as his presence is felt through the gameplay and various other things that can ONLY work in a video game setting. Most of his time in the game is spent on the peripherals, but his impact is felt throughout the whole adventure. He’s also an intriguingly layered sort of villain: Pagan is a tyrant and a psychopath, with a flamboyant sense of style and a very freewheeling, jocular personality. However, as the game goes on, we quickly realize more sides to his personality. Perhaps the most notable is his relationship with the main character, Ajay: he actually LIKES Ajay, and doesn’t really want to kill him, because our protagonist has ties to Pagan’s past. Pagan seems to see Ajay as a sort of surrogate son, but unlike other “father nemeses” in fiction, he never goes down the path of “you may be my son, but I will still kill you because too far gone into evil and so forth.” Instead he just…kind of gets annoyed we’re playing with “naughty children.” Right up to the end, though, he’s jolly and sympathetic with the protagonist, which honestly makes the cruelty he shows towards others all the more unsettling. A lot of this game revolves around the question of loyalty, and of rightful leadership. Pagan Min represents the nightmare of absolute power, but he also represents a sort of strange temptation…and hey, it’s not like the alternative rulers the game presents are any nicer, at the end of the day. :P

10. Skull Face, from Metal Gear Solid V.

Most MGS fans would probably place a villain with longer standing here - such as Liquid Snake, Revolver Ocelot, or possibly Psycho Mantis. And all of them are fun villains, but I am not most fans. Skull Face may only appear in one game (well…technically two games, since MGSV was released effectively in two parts, “Ground Zeroes” and “Phantom Pain”), but that doesn’t negate him placement by any means. This character seems to be one fans are polarized over: depending on where you look and who you ask, he’s either one of the best villains from the series, or one of the worst. As you can imagine, I fall into the former category. Skull Face is an extremely messed up bad guy, with a very depressing past and remarkably twisted motivations. You feel sorry for him in some ways, but in other ways, he’s one of the most utterly reprehensible villains the series puts forth. His demeanor is equally paradoxical: his physical design and some of his mannerisms are rather over-the-top, but there’s a seriousness and a subtlety to him at the same time. He’s kind of everything you want from a villain…and to top it off, he’s the kind of villain who I feel really only works in a video game. (A bit like our previous pick.) See, part of what makes Skull Face so great is that, even when he isn’t onscreen, his presence is felt: what he does in the game affects the player even when they aren’t physically facing him down, and a lot of who he is is presented in things you find hidden throughout the game. It’s these little nuggets of intrigue that make him so fascinating, but even on a superficial level, I think he’s still a pretty great baddy. The only problem with the character I have, and why he doesn’t make the top ten, is that we never really get what I feel is a satisfying conclusion for him: his story ends, make no mistake, an what happens to him isn't WHOLLY disappointing, but I feel like a final boss fight against him would have helped him make even more of an impact. Maybe that’s one of the reasons some people have a problem with him, but for me, it doesn’t ruin him entirely.

9. Jack the Ripper AND Bartholomew Roberts, from Assassin’s Creed.

Here is the other exception I mentioned earlier, and it’s admittedly a somewhat more glaring example. With the Mad Doctor and the Blot, they at least appeared in the same title together, the first Epic Mickey game. Roberts and the Ripper appear in the same franchise, but in two completely different titles and storylines. There are lots of great villains in AC, from historical figures to totally fictional characters, but when trying to decide between my favorites, I knew it would have to be at least one of these two…and after revisiting their respective appearances, I couldn’t decide between them. The issue is that I like both for similar reasons, but also for totally different ones. Both are historical criminals of great infamy, and both are my favorite fictional depictions of those figures. Each is interesting in different ways, and also despicable in different ways. Roberts is one of the main antagonists of the game “Black Flag,” and is a prominent figure throughout the story, with a big impact on things that happen. He’s also a unique villain in that he is neither an Assassin nor a Templar, but a Sage; someone caught in-between the two feuding factions. Roberts also starts out as a sympathetic character, and even becomes an ally, before eventually showing his colors as an antagonist. In the Ripper’s case, he’s only the villain for a DLC package, which is optional; it doesn’t really affect the story of the main game for his title, “Syndicate,” if you play it or not. So in that regard, Roberts has him beat. However, Jack’s setup - as a former Assassin turned rogue - gives him a similarly unique status in the universe of the games. Plus, gameplay-wise, Jack is much more fascinating; first of all, you actually get to PLAY as the Ripper throughout the DLC. Second of all, his boss fight is probably one of the best bosses in the whole series. The battle with Roberts is nothing to scoff at either, but it’s comparatively much more standard; it’s great in its historical accuracy and grandiose nature. Between the two, I found the pros and cons of each evened out; I kept going back and forth on who really earned the spot. So, end of the day, I decided to just let both of these dastardly gentlemen have it.

8. Flowey/Asriel Dreemurr, from Undertale.

So, talking about this character/these characters means delivering MAJOR spoilers, just to warn everyone. However, since Undertale is such a big deal at this point, and since it’s now been ALMOST A DECADE since it came out? I think it’s okay for me to speak candidly about the subject. In “Undertale,” your main character - whose name is eventually revealed to be Frisk - winds up in a mysterious world populated by monsters. The game subverts the trope of RPG titles, where you boost your powers and abilities by slaying beasts in random encounters; you absolutely can slaughter every monster in sight, if you WANT to, but if you do that…well…“you’re gonna have a bad time,” as the game says. Most of the “enemies” you encounter in the game are actually friendly, or simply acting on a sort of misunderstanding, or otherwise able to be reasoned with. There is, however, one exception: throughout the game, in all of its different paths, you are plagued by a mysterious, talking sunflower simply known as “Flowey.” Flowey is a sadistic monster who revels in death and quite literally hungers for power. It’s eventually revealed, if you take the “True Pacifist” route - which is typically regarded as the “True Ending” of the game - that Flowey is the reincarnation (or something like it) of this character: Asriel Dreemurr, the long-dead prince of this underground world. Eventually, his true form is revealed, which leads to an epic final boss. (Though, to be fair, Flowey’s own boss, found in other routes, is pretty crazy, too.) Along with it comes his backstory, which is…really quite gut-wrenching. Asriel is both one of the most dangerous enemies you face, if not THE most dangerous, and yet also arguably the single most tragic character in the entire game. There’s not enough time and space for me to go into everything about him, but suffice it to say, when you learn why he is the way he is - both as Flowey and as himself - it’s honestly pretty heartbreaking. He’s the only character who one could argue doesn’t get a happy ending, in the True Pacifist route, and yet he’s also the character who you wish could have one the most, despite all the terrible things he does by the end of the story. Between both his true form and his appearance as the demented Flowey, he manages to kind of be everything you could want out of a villain: he’s powerful, menacing, rather creepy, and yet also shockingly sympathetic. If any villain on this list most exemplifies the idea of “sympathy for the devil,” it’s probably Asriel.

7. GLaDOS, from Portal.

This evil AI is another rather paradoxical villain. Most versions of the “Evil AI” concept - whether it be an out-of-control robot, or a computer program gone mad, depict the AI in question as somewhat morally ambiguous. They typically are just trying to carry out their programming, or see themselves in the right and humans in the wrong, seeing people as flawed and themselves as perfect. There’s a coldness, a detached-ness, to such creations, typically speaking; they aren’t necessarily EVIL, they’ve just gone to an extreme measure. GLaDOS, however, is different: she IS evil, plain and simple, and it’s not entirely clear why. She is openly sadistic, cruel, and murderous, and uses her power and presence to manipulate others in various ways. GLaDOS actually has a conscience, unlike most characters of this sort, but she deliberately ignores it, and her personality and desires go well beyond simply furthering science as she claims to do. What’s fascinating about GLaDOS, however, are the complex emotions that arise between her and the player’s main character, Chell. On the one hand, the two are arch-nemeses, but on the other hand, the two are almost friends. GLaDOS yearns to kill Chell in the first game, but Chell also relies on her a lot in both Portal games. GLaDOS is cynically sarcastic, passive-aggressive, and bitter towards Chell, in lots of ways and for lots of reasons, yet she also admits to thinking of Chell as “her best friend.” Indeed, GLaDOS seems pretty pissed at the player during the final boss in the first game, and after her defeat when we meet her in the second game, but not in a “How dare you, mere peon!” way so much as a feeling of bizarre, genuine betrayal. It’s the twisted emotions of GLaDOS, and her unique nature among other characters within her own archetype, that makes her so intriguing. She is, once again, a villain who melds so many different layers - humor, horror, and surprising empathy (if not necessarily sympathy) - making for a well-rounded and memorable antagonist.

6. Xehanort, from Kingdom Hearts.

“Kingdom Hearts” is one of my two favorite video game franchises (we’ll get to the other of those two soon), so it seemed only fair I place the main antagonist of the entire series high up. I nearly gave him a spot in the Top 5, but...well...when you see who DID take the number five slot, you'll understand. In some ways, having said that, I think Xehanort is one of the most underrated video game villains: despite the popularity and success of the KH series, I rarely hear Xehanort’s name mentioned when people bring up famous video game baddies, and I also don’t typically see much cosplay of him or anything like that. For me, though, he’s definitely one of the greats, and also one of the single most persistent buggers. It would take FOREVER to describe EVERYTHING that goes on with this guy, because, essentially, describing Xehanort’s story and setup in any meaningful way would mean going into the lore of the entire KH franchise, and…yeah, we’re not doing that here, if ever. XD For now, suffice it to say he’s a marvelous villain in how he permeates the whole franchise: everything that goes wrong in the heroes’ lives is either directly or indirectly thanks to Xehanort’s meddling, and with multiple different forms of himself - from Xemnas to “Terra-Nort” to the Seeker of Darkness - you can’t turn a corner without running into some version of this guy causing trouble somewhere. His motivations and character archetype ride a fine line between mad scientist and dark wizard, and despite causing all sorts of havoc across many different worlds…when his story comes to an end, you do sort of feel sorry to see him go. It’s been indicated Xehanort’s ultimate defeat may not be the end to KH as a whole, so time will tell what other villains could come in the future. And who knows? Considering how many times this character and his many forms have cheated death before, maybe we still haven’t seen the last of him…

5. Dr. Eggman, from Sonic the Hedgehog.

I’ve only actually played one Sonic game, that being “Sonic Unleashed.” (Apparently, that game is sort of a polarized one among fans.) However, I have looked at things from other games, as well as come to understand the franchise through its other outlets, such as television and movies. So while Sonic isn’t necessarily a universe I’m a pure-blooded expert on, I know a lot more about it than, say, Final Fantasy. One thing that’s consistent in every version, in my opinion, is this: Dr. Robotnik, also known as Dr. Eggman, is ALWAYS my favorite character. Eggman is one of the most iconic of all video game villains, perhaps second only to Bowser from Nintendo’s core lineup. He is the quintessential mad scientist: a greedy, ambitious lunatic and robotics expert who seeks to, of course, take over the world. If only he could just smash, shoot, or otherwise scuttle that annoying hedgehog who keeps ruining his dastardly schemes! Eggman is one of the most versatile villains in gaming, I would say, as well; different depictions of him throughout the Sonic franchise have handled the kind of villain he is in different ways. Some takes on Eggman are honestly VERY scary, making him a truly threatening and grotesque villain with no redeeming values whatsoever. Others make him into a clown, a sort of roly-poly goofball who isn’t really a threat so much as a persistent nuisance. My favorite ones, however, blend a bit of both; making Robotnik a character who can be funny, and perhaps even sympathetic, but is nevertheless totally capable of committing absolute atrocities. I always love villains who have that kind of multi-layered aspect to their personality, being empathetic and entertaining while also still able to pose a decent threat and act as a true obstacle to the hero. If there’s one thing that Eggman is consistently shown to be in every depiction, it’s determined; some might even say stubborn. No matter how many of his machines get ruined, no matter how many plans for global domination are foiled, he always comes back ready for more. He’s basically the Wile E. Coyote of video games: forever chasing a super-speedy foe, but seemingly destined to always come second place. Sometimes, that simple formula is all it takes to make a character fun.

4. Count Dracula, from Castlevania.

Alongside Kingdom Hearts, “Castlevania” is one of my two favorite video game franchises, and…to be honest, one of the single biggest reasons why is this guy. The Castlevania series started out as a tribute to classic horror and monster movies, featuring various references to both Universal Monsters and Hammer Horror. While it hasn’t abandoned those roots completely, over time, it’s become more and more its own thing, and most of the really famous classic monster figures - such as Frankenstein’s Monster, the Mummy, and the Creature from the Black Lagoon - while certainly persistent figures throughout the franchise, have always sort of remained background figures. The one great exception is the king of the monsters: the Prince of Darkness, the Lord of the Vampires, the Count of Transylvania…the One and Only Dracula. Castlevania’s Dracula may not have the automatic recognizability of some film versions, but over time, he has become more and more iconic, as he is the main antagonist of the whole franchise. And considering the franchise has been around since the 1980s, and has not only had multiple games under its belt but two very successful animated series adaptations, it’s not hard to understand why. Even when Dracula isn’t the final boss or main antagonist of a specific game, he’s always present in some form or another, and the different paths the franchise has gone down have evolved this villainous vampire in all sorts of ways. He’s gone from a pretty straightforward villain, to a sympathetic and tragic antagonist, to even getting to be a protagonistic anti-hero figure. And with every interpretation, he is always interesting and intimidating. He’s easily one of my favorite interpretations of Bram Stoker’s greatest creation, and has earned every ounce of respect as one of video gaming’s most classic adversaries: he’s just as immortal in those ranks as anywhere else.

3. Bowser, from Mario Bros.

Well, you can’t have a good list of video game villains and not at least mention this guy. As I said before, alongside Dr. Eggman, Bowser - the King Koopa himself - is quite possibly the single most iconic antagonist in video gaming history. Heck, whenever people bring up video games in general, the Mario Bros. series is probably one of the first examples to come to mind. Just as Robotnik will never seem to give up chasing Sonic, Bowser is thoroughly unceasing in his desire to abduct and wed the beautiful Princess Peach. No matter how often she spurns his advances, he always comes back to try a new plan to conquer the world and gain her hand in marriage…and every time he does, Mario is there to stop him, along with Luigi, Yoshi, Toad, and all the rest of the plumber’s playmates. Also, much like Eggman, Bowser is as versatile as he is iconic: some versions of the character depict him as a genuinely monstrous threat that needs to be beaten, others show him as more of a buffoon who tends to be more annoying than truly dangerous. Once again, like Dr. Robotnik, I like Bowser best when he’s somewhere in the middle: able to be funny and perhaps even sympathetic, but also still being a genuine menace and a villain to be reckoned with. What boosts Bowser above Eggman is primarily that I know and understand the Mario universe better than the Sonic universe, and I have a slightly bigger attachment to Bowser as a result. (Plus, I…sort of have a crush on him, I’ll confess. I can’t help it, he’s a big, burly, man-eating monster with a deep, powerful voice, I’M WEAK. >///> )

2. Carmen Sandiego.

You won’t find Carmen on a lot of other people’s video game villains lists, admittedly not without good reason, but there was never any doubt in my mind she’d rank highly here. If you only know this character through the Netflix television series, and its spin-offs, then you’re probably confused: in that version, Carmen is the main protagonist, and was depicted as a sort of misunderstood heroine. She’s akin to Arsene Lupin or The Saint: using crime to battle crime. That is NOT the original interpretation of Carmen Sandiego: Carmen had a loooong history before the Netflix reboot, and it started with a series of computer and console games, where she was the main antagonist. The games were “edutainment” packages: meant to offer educational value as well as entertainment. They were primarily focused on teaching children social studies, like Geography and History (although some other fields got covered, too, such as Math and English). I grew up playing a LOT of “edutainment” games (my mother was, and still is, a schoolteacher), and most of them were kind of “eh.” But the one series I absolutely loved, and STILL love, was Carmen Sandiego. The premise of the games had Carmen as the World’s Greatest Thief: the leader of a secret cabal of robbers and spies known as VILE, who sought to plunder the world’s greatest treasures. Everything from the Statue of Liberty, to Elvis’ Pink Cadillac, to the Mona Lisa…Carmen and her cohorts would steal everything rare or one-of-a-kind under the Sun, no matter how implausible the crime seemed. Throughout the franchise, Carmen was consistently depicted as a glamorous and mysterious character, a sort of teasing incentive: we wanted to capture this illusive, fascinating, shadowy woman in her fine red outfit, and the urge to know what it would be like to go toe-to-toe with her directly kept people playing. As time went on, Carmen’s character was developed further, giving her a more morally ambiguous personality, and a backstory that was both revealing…and yet still full of tantalizing holes. You never really knew why Carmen did what she did, or what she would do next, or where she could pop up. It was the eternal mystery of the character that made her so interesting. While her career has had ups and downs, she’s never really gone away, and while I do like the Netflix version and its more heroic depiction of her…I will always prefer the Classic Carmen, and all her villainous ways. The thrill of the chase she provided always made learning fun.

1. Joker, from Batman: Arkham.

As I think I’ve said before in the past, the Joker is quite possibly my favorite villain of all time. And as I ALSO think I’ve said before, Mark Hamill’s take on the character is my favorite version of the same. So it stands to reason, just by that logic alone, that the Batman: Arkham series would have my favorite villain in video games, since it features Hamill playing my favorite baddy, and it’s arguably his greatest work with the character aside from the DCAU. (Oh, and Troy Baker also took the reins a couple of times; he’s freaking awesome, too.) While the Joker was not the main antagonist of every single game in the franchise, he was always - as the character ever is - a persistent and impactful thorn in the Dark Knight’s side. The series focused a lot on the twisted, strange relationship between these two arch-enemies, and their seemingly eternal duel with each other was what drove much of the plot in each game, and provided many of the most interesting moments. Even after dying in-universe, officially, the Clown Prince of Crime would continue to plague the Caped Crusader from beyond the grave. You can really see the whole series, overall, as an exploration of the rivalry between these two characters, from where it started to how it ended. Other villains came and went, and were portrayed in a variety of ways - some better than others - but the Joker was consistently present, and consistently well-handled, making for not only one of the best versions of the comic book creep that’s ever been, but one of the most iconic and lauded villains in video game history. He is part of the reason the Arkham games were a success, as much as any of the gameplay and atmospheric elements, and there is so much you could analyze or say about the character - both onscreen and behind the scenes - to explain why. It’s therefore no surprise at all that he takes the cake as My Favorite Video Game Villain.

HONORABLE MENTIONS INCLUDE…

Albert Wesker, from Resident Evil. (I just don’t know a ton about these games or this character, so despite his iconography, it didn’t feel fair to place him in the ranks.)

SEVERAL Villains from American McGee’s Alice. (The Queen of Hearts, the Mad Hatter, and the Dollmaker from “Madness Returns”, in particular. All are great villains, but when I really looked at things, I felt other characters earned it more, and I felt like three villains at once would have been MAJOR cheating.)

Doc Ock, from the PS4 Spider-Man Game. (Wasn’t sure how else to credit that title. Also, I haven't played the sequel yet, but I hear Kraven the Hunter there is AWESOME.)

Ganon, from The Legend of Zelda. (Same issue as Wesker.)

Gruntilda, from Banjo-Kazooie. (Very nearly made the list, but I just have a bigger fondness for Epic Mickey.)

Rollo Flamme AND Fellow Honest, from Twisted Wonderland. (Oh, you all know I couldn’t ignore this one. These two are the most antagonistic characters so far, one could argue, as we really haven’t seen them become protagonists - at least not yet - and they do arguably the most reprehensible things of any character in the game. However, because of the way this whole game works, not sure if they really count enough to make the list.)

Shao Kahn, from Mortal Kombat. (Same issue as Gruntilda.)

[synthmusic91]

quick thoughts on past lives (2023) dir. celine song

the movie is very. sparse. what was there was okay, not poorly executed, but nothing was really new. it felt like the movie wanted to send a certain message and pushed the characters through that rather than 1. letting the characters breathe and finding the message that way or 2. finding the characterization that would land them at the intended (and well-thought-out, right? right???) conclusion. sadly this didn't happen. the themes were quite muddled. past lives is a movie that seeks to be more than what it is and thus only succeeds in being dogmatic.

i know hae sung and na young were each other's childhood friends and first loves, but there's an entire life beyond childhood. why didn't they get over each other*? admittedly there might be a bit of a culture difference here, because I've never really understood the thing with childhood best friends that pops up so much in Korean and Japanese media, but. people grow up. hae sung's first love stopped existing when na young emigrated. for a movie that prides itself on pragmatism, it ignores that simple fact that should've been evident a quarter of the way in: na young is gone.

that's pretty sad, but then why was there twenty-four years of grief on hae sung's part, when he's never had to feel the ache of leaving his homeland? was his childhood really the crowning moment in his life, for na young to be the source of so many of his ideals? in that case, this should be a different kind of movie because this poor man's life must be bleak as hell.

also, this is in contrast to nora, who has every reason to mourn her past life IN KOREA. that's what this is really about, isn't it? she only looks him up as a joke (*so my bad, I guess she really did get over him). throughout the movie, the reason for her grief has little to do with hae sung specifically and everything to do with the pull she feels between the US and Korea.

then arthur. we don't see much of him but he poses a lot of interesting questions during that bedtime conversation that nora doesn't give any satisfactory answers to. like, how DOES he make her world bigger? nora's responses either 1. dodge the question or 2. sound like she's lying (because it's out of character given her behavior so far).

those last two paragraphs really solidify it for me: adult nora is a callous person. i don't know if this has anything to do with emigrating, but it really doesn't matter---what matters is that we know 1. she has grief and 2. she clearly hasn't processed it ("[re: being a crybaby] I realized no one really cared, so I stopped."). she's hiding from it!! she's been hiding from it for the entire fucking movie!!!

this is what irks me about a lot of relationships between white men and asian women in general (and in case someone crawls up my ass for this, i don't mean all of them, love is love, or so i'm told)---there's a lot of hiding on both sides. working to bridge the culture gap can function as a distraction from one's own issues. and there's an escapist and cowardly comfort in knowing that the other party doesn't understand how mundane and mortifying they really feel like they are. that's what I feel like happened between arthur and nora. to nora, arthur is evidence that she belongs in the US, and to arthur, nora is someone exotic and unreachable, and as long as they remain like that they can avoid thinking about how mundane their lives really are. arthur challenges this avoidance during the bedtime talk, but nora doesn't let it get anywhere. she is HIDING FROM HERSELF!!

unfortunately, since nora is a self insert, the writer/director doesn't notice ANY OF THIS!! and that's the thing about real life, and one's own experiences. these things don't fit into narratives!!! it's not as easy as recreating a single experience (in this case, her childhood sweetheart and her husband together at a bar)!!! that happenstance was the shell of an effect of a million different factors, not just a boy's tepid and half-formed feelings for a callous little girl. this entire movie is grounded in the ghost of an effect of something that might've touched me but didn't actually.

lastly, making her self insert always get the best grades in her class and also having that guy (who is kind and normal and NOT the deranged stalker that realistically would be the only kind of person hung up on her for 24 fucking years) be hung up on her for 24 fucking years all while she barely acknowledges his existence...is extremely fucking cringe

[sketching-shark]

Given the interpretations of JTTW/Xiyouji - what is your opinion on when media or even solo creators make a romance for Wukong?

Especially since most of Wukong's romances in media end up played for tragedy as well as the fact that from a textbook analysis he seems very no love/no sex/only friendship.

Innocent interpretations for their personal enjoyment or does it feel more harmful to the character of Wukong as a whole and fetishy?

Given Xiyouji and Wukong in general has such an influential swathe over culture/pop culture as a whole and the uh...quite gross mishandling of him at times from Western culture (Ex. Making him some musclebound meathead who only cares for violence which doesn't only devalue his character but the East-Asian view of masculinity as a whole.) or Anime culture. (Ex; making him a 'Yandere' style obsessive partner which may be interesting when played off his previous lifestyle as a Yaoguai - but most of the time isn't and is simply played to be a 'love me or else' danger boyfriend.)

What do you think of it all? Especially with the prevalence of a lot of this stuff propping up due to LMK?

Feel free to read more if you want to watch me complain lmao

Hmmmm OKAY so I do need to preface this by noting that I've now run across a number of retellings/presentations of Sun Wukong composed by eastern creators that made me deeply uncomfortable or even straight-up be like "well I hope I forget that exists forever!" because of the ways in which the monkey king was oversexualized and/or painted into extreme grimdark territory. So it's pretty obvious that western creators aren't unique in some of the ways that Sun Wukong gets flanderized to hell and back.

And while being very much aware that what one sees in the west for free on youtube is a very small sample size of big-budget retellings of Xiyouji, a LOT of those retellings with a Monkey King romance have an incredibly samey plot of "Sun Wukong is a dick-->he encounters some lady and is a dick to her-->she likes him anyway-->he softens up a bit-->she dies-->he's sad-->her death still gives him the powerup needed to defeat the big bad." I know that the angle is tragedy but oh my god at this point the 500 year old text that presents Sun Wukong as a communal grandpa that will do literally anything for his family including challenging the heavens & how this comes back to bite them all in the collective ass BUT they still love each other very much and Sun Wukong never stops fighting for them and doing everything he can to make them happy and safe speaks far more to tragedy that's balanced out with hope & is far more original than many a contemporary retelling in my opinion! tbh i wouldn't be surprised if this was one of the reasons why Monkey King: Hero Is Back became so popular that it basically revived Chinese animation; it's one of those rare retellings that puts the emphasis on dad/protector of children Wukong rather than lover Wukong, and as a result 2015 SWK still seems to have a special place in the hearts of many.

But turning back to western creators in both individual and big-budget productions, I guess my main gripe would have to be not so much that your meathead/yandere/destructive monkey presentations of SWK exist (you'll find such depictions across the globe), but that these often seem to be undeniably the most popular, the most common, and at times the ONLY ways that the Monkey King is understood in the west. As it is eastern countries like China do seem to have their share of such depictions, but there's also a abundance of other understandings/portrayals of the Monkey King, including those of him being a dedicated and quick-witted being, a tireless protector of children, and oh yeah a literal buddha! I've joked before about how hellbent many western creators seem to be in taking the "intelligent" out of "intelligent stone primate," but looking over the ways that SWK is commonly presented in the west...well, can you really say that this isn't the case? Honestly at times SWK really feels like he's become yet another victim of narrative monoculturalization in the west, where one version becomes the Official one and barely anyone deviates from it. Personally I feel it particularly sucks that this Official version seems to have become one where the Monkey King is routinely presented as a destructive idiot whose only worth lies in this weird frenemies relationship to the Six Eared Macaque :( (though I will say it's kind of fascinating how western creators so completely rewrote the True and False Monkey King arc that it's the Six Eared Macaque and not Sun Wukong who's become the definitely preferred individual. Dude finally achieved his goal of replacing the Monkey King lol).

In a number of ways this disparity does make sense. Besides Xiyouji definitely not having the same cultural impact in the west as it does in the east, there's very few decent English translations out there, and even fewer that give due course to the entire story. As far as I'm aware the Anthony C. Yu translation is the only one to do so, and yeah it's understandable that many people wouldn't or couldn't make their way through 1,400+ pages worth of narrative and footnotes. Plus there's the added fact that the east has more traditions of monkeys being understood as tricksters, whereas in the west primates have long been framed as man's poor imitation with ties to the Devil himself, so you can get some sense of why/how SWK's destructive tendencies would be emphasized above all else. Plus it certainly doesn't help that the two(2) primary ways that western audiences are learning about the Monkey King & co. are through cartoony retellings, which are fine in of themselves but when that's the ONLY popular version you have well you are not going to end with a complex or even a positive impression of the Monkey King. And it definitely definitely doesn't help that one of those versions--even while it is a silly lego show--consistently presents Sun Wukong as an absolute failure that basically everyone either has good reason to be mad at or just flat-out hates. And yeah you see this getting emphasized even further in fandom creations a lot, with many a popular fan work being all about how Sun Wukong ruined everything and/or getting yelled at & punched for being a cataclysmic moron. Like hell there's a very good chance I'm not looking hard enough but I don't remember coming across a single piece of recent fan work for Monkie Kid that shows Sun Wukong actually being a good mentor or actively doing something positive. The emphasis is pretty much only ever on his relationship with Macaque, and for that how thoroughly he screwed it up.

So going back to your original question anon, I would say that in it's abstract the idea of giving Sun Wukong a romance isn't inherently a bad thing. It's just that (and maybe it's just me) for a variety of reasons, in both eastern and western creations, in both individual fandom and big-budget works, I've pretty much never seen it done well lmao.

[drdemonprince]

i tried doing a search (although tumblr’s search function is basically useless) and didn’t see anything so feel free to pass over this if you’ve already answered it, but do you have any thoughts/essays about self help books? twice in the last year someone has recommended I read a couple (one rec was from a therapist) but I’ve always felt alienated by them, which made me feel like I was Doing Therapy Wrong. how do you differentiate between a self help book with actual merit and one that’s just useless pop psych?

Prescriptive fiction is a very wide genre with a really large readership, and it's also one where the intellectual rigor expected of its authors is not exactly high. The diversity of quality is pretty staggering. And much of the genre leans on an appeal to authority that deserves very little weight -- the fact an author has a PhD or an LSCW is really not a good reason to believe any claims they make about how one should live their life. That's not something scientific evidence can answer, even if these authors had strong support for their claims, and many of them don't.

All of my books are classed as prescriptive fiction (the industry term for self help) and I've always aspired to be really thorough in my sources and citations and to note the caveats to the research I'm leaning on, both in the text and in my work's index. and there are certainly greats in the genre. but even most of the self help books I find myself recommended suffer from the overly generic language, broad examples, lack of systems analysis, and latent regurgitation of the culture's predominant values that the shittiest of self-help books dole out in huge heaps.

Like, I love Adult Children of Emotionally Immature Parents and How to Deal with Emotionally Explosive People and even those books have those problems. Brene Brown's best stuff still takes a degree of baseline fatphobia as a given and tacitly endorses it. Jess Fern's Polysecure reinforces very capitalist notions of independence. and on and on. I like these books and authors! But digesting them carefully and critically remains essential. Same is true of my shit of course.

I don't think there's a shortcut to developing one's own power of discernment but for becoming more discerning with pop psych books I'd recommend:

Reading a lot, and reading widely

Paying attention to who backs up their claims with sources

actually reading up on those sources to see if they genuinely support the point the author is trying to make

Reading not only books, but journal articles, reviews, collected chapters, blogs, critiques, etc

Noticing gaps in the authors' awareness, especially regarding systems of oppression or intersections thereof

Leaving lots of notes in the margins or in a notebook as you read, tracking your own reactions to things -- which ideas seem underdeveloped or cliched, which tips seem applicable to only some situations but not others, lingering questions you have, internal contradictions you have noticed, ways in which one book disagrees with another that you've read

talking with your therapist about what you've been reading and getting their reactions

Talking about the books with others, comparing and contrasting other people's experiences

and basically just continuing to do all of that with any thing you ever aspire to learn about until you die lol. there's a lot of charlatans out there in the self help book world, but there are also a lot of reasonably accomplished scientists and therapists who have helpful insights to share but write in frustratingly simplistic ways because that's a hallmark of the genre and what publishers believe laypeople need in order to understand. this means it can be difficult sometimes to tell the difference between a decent idea put way too simply and a shitty idea phrased compellingly. but i think basically the only way one gets better at telling the difference is by reading a lot and thinking a lot. this stuff comes pretty naturally to me now but that's only because i've spend about two decades doing it nonstop.

[rigil-kentauris]

tw unresolved whining

so i had to cancel my writing ai subscription today because i found out they were doing images and its just making me reflect. i dont use it so i didnt notice, i mostly just wanted to tool to grow and mature. it was like my one indulgence. anyway. i wasnt involved with ai writing tools at the the BEGINNING beginning, but i was definitively there before All This. and i remember having never been so excited in my life about writing. i hadnt actually had fun writing in years, i realized (went to college for creative writing degree, for reference. like this was supposed to be my whole ass Life).

and i felt so hopeful, because it seemed to me that this was the perfect tool for me personally. it filled in all the parts of me i struggle with because of Depression and Exhaustion and We Live In A Society disease. im not sure whether or not i was using it like it was supposed to be used back then (definitely not how its supposed to be used now), but it reall felt like having a dance partner. we went back and forth sentence by sentence (sometimes word by word), making something that pushed and challenged me because it would 'write' things that i wouldnt have even considered. and i could go off of that one word or turn of phrase for paragraphs. until i got stuck. and i suppose you could get that if you wrote with another human being, which could be cool, but it was also a paradoxically safe space. sometimes you dont want to write extremem trauma whump angst with other people and i think thats okay

and it was fun. and there were issues. but it was okay

and then the art bots came.

and i felt... angry, obviously, on behalf of all the artists who were getting jacked. but i was also... pissed off. because all of a sudden people hated AIs for theft unilaterally (a good thing to be mad about) but they hadnt given a shit before. back when it was writing. because i am also a writer of normal human works. on places where content was being scrapped from. and all of a sudden there was a new cultural norm, at least in the circles i cared to be in, and no one cared about writers. at all. in fact to date ive only seen one post/piece about ai theft of text and i went out looking for that.

and it was like. i hadnt thought about the datasets before, not really. no one thinks of this is stealing (fiction) writers jobs. its only just now, like the past couple months just now, becoming a talked about problem because it steals journalists and REAL writers jobs. academic jobs. serious good people. not nasty little fiction writers. much less poets i am not a poet but i have never ever seen anyone talking about ais taking jobs from poets. and they can. people who think ai cant write mostly, i think, dont know how to use them correctly. (then again i also think people who think they CAN write fall under the same umbrella, so... ai writing programs have. problems as unique spottable and predictable as image ais adding an extra finger.)

anyway at the time, though, i hadnt really thought about tet theft in datasets. back then you really had to KNOW what generative ais were to understand what was going on. no one was explaining except to other people who got it. and of the people who got it, no one was talking about it. i wish they had been. obviously we are all of us individually responsible for our participation in society but. why wasnt anyone talking about it before? why is it okay to steal someones words? or at least, passable. why is it still passable?

it just makes me feel things. and i dont have any answers. besides that writing AIs should be the EASIEST thing in the world to fix. unlike with art, the public domain for written fiction is both massive and still popular. as in, people will use an AI trained on older writing whereas AFAICT, the only ai image makers that make money need to mass-steal anime and pop art. no one's arguing about Ye Olde Oil Painting Ai.

i dunno. it feels. odd. because obviously i cant support a place that steals. but i feel some kind of emotion about dropping a tool that made me feel connected to writing again, in order to support a (good and important) fight that doesnt seem to care about writers at all

i dont have any resolution. just upsetness. i wish we could use this tool for all the good its capable of. instead right now its just a big theft machine.

one day with the march of tech i guess we'll be able to run beasts like these on our own, and then i think we'll see more ethical options. it just sucks in the meantime.

[watching-pictures-move]

Viddying the Nasties | Tenebre (Argento, 1982)

This review contains spoilers.

The first time I watched this one, I was still pretty early in my exploration of Argento’s career and Italian horror in general, and I was obviously really impressed, but in a relatively straightforward way. Great style, clever plotting, neat twist, interesting element of self-commentary. But I think especially with this latest rewatch, I find my appreciation of the movie deepened even further. I understand Argento made this after the disastrous reception to Inferno as a sort of middle finger to his critics, and this confrontational quality registered more clearly for me this time around. You have the Argento surrogate taking pains to explain that his work isn’t hateful, only the villain depicted within, only for his critics to either miss the point or read it in bad faith, conflating the two not unlike any number of awful thinkpieces from the last decade more concerned with explaining why something is “problematic” rather than trying to actually unpack it.

Making one of the critics the killer and another a victim and killing both off brutally might seem like a glib punchline, like a metaphor of what pop culture discussion has been like between across political lines for the last couple of years. But at the same time, his handling of the victim certainly complicates an easy assessment of Argento’s hatefulness. On one hand, the killing seems spiteful if you read it on that level. On the other hand, the character is given a certain humanity, shown to have an affectionate relationship with the protagonist and also showing frustration with her promiscuous girlfriend. In the context of the relative compassion with which Argento has handled queer characters in the past, this character’s queerness and the casting of Eva Robin’s, a transwoman, as the ur-babe who haunts the dreamy flashback sequences feel like deliberate critic-baiting, like wrenches thrown into any attempts to read this movie on autopilot. Likewise, the mix of victims, some of whom are overtly unsympathetic, some of whom are quite likable, complicates any read of this movie as moralizing.

Of course, the reveal of the protagonist as the second killer plays like a metaphor for Argento leaning into the things he’s been accused of, but this time around I appreciated the extent to which the audience is implicated. This takes the mold of the investigative gialli that Argento had specialized in, where we try to solve the case along with the heroes, but in this case, one of the “heroes” in fact intends to solve the case so he can replace the killer and himself kill with impunity, and the point at which this transition in intent happens isn’t exactly clear. Were we duped from the beginning? And I don’t have the exact quote handy, but I can’t help but remember Maitland McDonagh describing in Broken Mirrors, Broken Minds, one of the best scares in the movie, where Giuliano Gemma stoops to the ground to reveal Anthony Franciosa behind him, like skin being peeled off.

And I think with this in mind it becomes clearer that the film’s style is in a state of flux. Certainly you have the elaborate murder sequences that Argento is known for, but in the earlier sections the overall style seems almost televisual, and the viciousness of the murder scenes along with the ethereal, sensual flashbacks seem to rupture the reality of the movie. (The classic Argento head-through-glass kill has added resonance here.) The red and white contrast is an obvious but nonetheless striking and effectively jarring visual motif. I’m not sure how well it maps to the plotting, but as the movie proceeds, a certain stylistic coldness emerges, of fluorescent lighting, reflective surfaces and thunderstorms, as if the darkness of this violence has fully taken over.

A few other observations:

Some very important fashion moments in this. John Saxon’s gravity-defying hat twirl. Veronica Lario’s sunglasses. Daria Nicolodi’s multicoloured sweater. And actually Daria Nicolodi, who ends up being the heart of the movie.

Only realized this weekend after seeing both movies back to back that Carola Altieri, the female detective, also played the neighbour in Opera. Also, it’s funny that Ania Pieroni appeared in Inferno, The House by the Cemetery and this within the span of a few years and looks completely different in all of them. The power of the makeup department.

I don’t know how firmly I believe this, but the shot of the killer destroying his photographs before Franciosa kills the original killer John Steiner feels like it might be a flash forward to after Franciosa has taken over and is trying to dispose of the evidence. But I think it matters less whether that’s actually the case than whether it’s a possibility, as the movie seems more interested in disrupting our sense of reality. And while I don’t associate the genre with psychological realism, the fact that Franciosa continues pretending to help the police and taunts them with the Arthur Conan Doyle quote is classic serial killer behaviour. So maybe these movies don’t entirely get how normal people behave, but they seem to get psychopaths. As for what this says about Argento, who's to say?

[dailyadventureprompts]

Can we get a reimagining for golems pleas? They’re somewhat problematic in their current portrayal when you consider the mythological origins

Monsters Reimagined: Golems

For those not in the know, there was a discourse a little while ago about how golems and how their use in pop fantasy diverged from their origins as a part of Jewish folklore. While there’s different arguments to be made about whether you should use creatures from the folklore of other cultures (verging onto appropriation) most of the discussion I saw revolved around the fact that golems in d&d (and the fantasy genre that imitated it) bear little resemblance to their mythological roots, flattening a creature with rich cultural connections into just another brainless monster to be flattened by adventurers.

That said, humans have been imagining stories about artificial people for as long as we’ve been building things with our own hands, and just because we don’t use the name “golem” doesn’t mean we have to abandon the concept entirely.  TLDR:  While you could just default to calling them “constructs” as many have, I like to use the term “Malgam” for my artificially constructed servitor monsters. Not only does it relate to their nature as an amalgamation of particular elements, it also has the same mouthfeel as the original monster. This also lets you use “golem” in the specific context for the creature it was intended: An artificial creature given life through the working of holy scholars, in imitation of the way that the creator gave life to them.

There have always been stories of artificial beings: and in many ways the origin myths of most cultures have humans crafted by the gods out of something inanimate, which could theoretically classify all humans as something given form by the hands of another.

As someone with a childhood fascination with both robots and greek mythology, it blew my mind that accounts of the god Hephaestus had him assisted by mechanical beings. Despite the fact that the ancient greeks were living in the bronze age, they still had enough of an understanding of machinery to think “ yep, get good enough at this sorta thing and you could make people”

Golems are part of this tradition, but take on a particularly religious aspect in that it’s animation echoes gods own creation of humans, imperfect as all mortal attempts must be in comparison with their creator. Many golem myths likewise get into power hierarchies, as those golems that were not built for defence are often built to perform labour for their creators, growing rebellious and subverting the divine hierarchy

Logically then, if we’re going to write adventures ABOUT golems, we should do so through the examination of the creator gods, worshippers, and the things they both make, as well as how the relationships between them can reveal about our philosophy as an audience:

Through careful study of the teachings of his creation goddess, a sage has created a golem to act as his apprentice, seeking a blank and willing vessel to fill up with the purest form of her faith and knowledge without all the base humanity getting in the way. The golem turns out to be a prodigy, but over years of instruction the sage comes to care for them as one might a child, believing them to be just as ensouled as a person. The golem, pious to a fault, knows that it would be blasphamy for their instructor to claim powers equal to that of the goddess and denies the claim, causing a rift to form between them. Now the two wander the great temples and libraries of the land, searching for the proof that will

Brought to life by a miracle of Moradin, a tremendously strong golem has guarded a particular village for generations, dispatching monsters and raiders, throwing itself into danger to rescue those who dwell within the town, drawn to where it can help best by a divinely gifted sixth sense. The party just so happen to be in town when it rises from it’s traditional seat of honor before the steps of the village temple, takes seven long strides, and brings its fist down on a stupefied merchant, who’d just arrived in town. The townsfolk are divided, did their protector go mad, or did its orders to kill come directly from the allhammer himself? The merchants travelling companions are demanding retribution, while the golem returns to its seat and merely shrugs. Its role is not to question what it does, only to protect the village when it is called to do so.

on the trail of a diabolist who’s tortured priests and robbed monasteries, the party has finally realized that their foe intends to scorn the gods by creating a more perfect form of being than they ever could, and has been extracting the secrets of lifeweaving over many bloody years. Catching up to the villain in his lair, the party is aghast to discover that he has succeeded: using foul magic to birth a “perfect” specimen who quickly concluded that her creator was unfit for his position of power over her and tore him limb from limb. Now the party is faced with a very different sort of challenge: a superhuman entity who wishes to understand her place in the world but who has yet to be taught any reason why she should care about other beings beyond their usefulness to her.  

Refocusing goelms in this way as a type of construct rather than the brand-name for lumbering animated statues lets us pay proper respect to their folkloric roots, while also giving us a new tool in our narrative toolbox in order to tell more diverse and insightful stories.

Art

[vivelareine]

Hi! I was hoping you could answer something for me because I'm debating about it somewhere. Did Marie Antoinette pretend to be a peasant/farmer at the hameau at the Petit Trianon?

She didn't. There is no evidence that Marie Antoinette ever pretended to be a farmer, milkmaid/dairymaid, shepherdess, peasant, and so on at the hameau de la reine.

The idea that she and her entourage were playing "village" can be traced to the non-contemporary names given to the buildings during the First Empire period. These building names (vicar's house, etc) gave the false impression that they were pretend "houses" used to simulate a fake village. Whereas in reality, the buildings all had specific purposes, whether they were recreational buildings intended for the elite people or practical buildings intended for the workers.

Like other historical myths, it gets repeated enough times and suddenly it's "true," showing up in books as fact without vetting, being depicted in film (La Revolution Francaise where she milks cows, etc).

But when you go back to the sources, there's no evidence for it. Only evidence that she treated the hameau de la reine like any elite woman would have treated a country estate: she was the mistress who hired employees to do the labor, and "managed it" like an elite woman would manage a country house, and enjoyed its recreations. Approving livestock orders that the head farmer requested, asking for reports on the status of crops, etc. Hosting dinners there, taking walks, tasting the dairy products made in her name, etc.

Another common myth is that she was milking perfumed cows, petting beribboned sheep, etc. Again, all false. I also sometimes see people deride the fact that she asked for a goat that had a good temper, which such an odd thing to pick on. The head farmer complained about the original goat because the original goat was an asshole (not his contemporary words, of course) so wanted to make sure the next goat wasn't Black Philip incarnate.

IMO, the hameau is novel in a different sense; because Marie Antoinette chose to include both practical and recreational buildings integrated into the same space, she created a unique type of estate which didn't hide away the practical labor used to create elite recreation; unlike similar "hameau" estates, which relied on practical production in other spaces (either out of necessity due to lack of space/ability, or specifically done in order to remove the visual of the labor) the hameau de la reine did not shy away from the practical aspect.

With this in mind, though, the hameau in general has taken on an additional mythical quality thanks largely to the aesthetics of the Sofia Coppola film, which depicts Marie Antoinette and her entourage laying in the grass, petting sheep, skipping around, digging in the dirt for strawberries, etc. It's important to remember that these are modern interpretations of how the estate was enjoyed, and not necessarily based in reality. But it has definitely made an impression on pop culture--see how the Secret Versailles of Marie Antoinette docudrama portrayed the Petit Trianon as a whole as if it came out of the Coppola film.

Back to the hameau as a fake village/fake farm, Marie Antoinette pretending to be a peasant in a blissful surrounding myth: It's a myth which developed in the 1800s, after her death, around the same time that "Let them eat cake" began to stick to Marie Antoinette. Rhe contemporary criticism of the hameau was about its secrecy and privacy, about the supposed sexual and then political dealings going on there, about its expense.

Which was, of course, extraordinary compared to any amount of income the average person would make in their lifetime, though it wasn't statistically notable when it came to French finances--and as I've pointed out before, other royals spent far more but received none of the vehement criticism and dangerous dehumanization for it. Mesdames chateau & hameau at Bellevue cost 96% more than Marie Antoinette’s Petit Trianon chateau & hameau de la reine, and they were not dehumanized and degraded like MA for it, by contemporaries or later historians/writers. One of Mesdames even wrote a letter romanticizing the sounds of the servants at their hameau, and no one’s ever really made a big deal of it.

Both myths (fake village, pretend villager) served in the 19th century to develop the concept of Marie Antoinette as someone who thought that the peasants had a pretty sanitized lifestyle., either out of naivety or maliciousness.

While the real Marie Antoinette certainly couldn't empathize with what it was like to be poor, she expressed sympathy throughout her life and had a surprisingly astute understanding of the impact of a lack of bread (see the letter written they day after the October 1793 march on Versailles) on people's behavior and actions. She didn't think that their lives were represented by the hameau de la reine.

The hameau de la reine was a romanticized notion of a secluded countryside elite estate combined with a mixture of whimsical fantasy, the faux cracks & weathering designed to make it appear when you approached as if it was a mysterious place that had always been there.

Marie Antoinette did not imagine she was a peasant or that this was peasant life, nor was this an attempt to create a sanitized version of peasant life sans poverty and real peasants. I think people often confuse the notion of Marie Antoinette wanting a "simpler" life with Marie Antoinette trying to pretend she wasn't a queen; this was not the case. She never forgot she was an elite woman; she simply wanted to enjoy the type of less-rigid elite life that wasn't uncommon in other European royals, but which was considered unusual and in Marie Antoinette's case, unforgivable for a queen of France.

Some further reading:

Pierre de Nolhac, The Trianon of Marie Antoinette (1925)

Meredith Martin, Dairy Queens: The Politics of Pastoral Architecture from Catherine de' Medici to Marie-Antoinette (2011)

Simone Bertière, The Indomitable Marie-Antoinette (2014)

And to recommend something I wrote, Let's Visit! The Laiterie de Préparation at the Hameau de La Reine, I talk a bit about the practical/working dairy and my thoughts on the novel integration of the working dairy into the hameau as a whole.

[pink-n-spooky]

Teen girls aren’t allowed to enjoy anything

and here’s my long ass essay about it :)

In youth pop culture, as well as pop culture in general, it’s generally a given that music movies, books, clothing, and other things that gain popularity will eventually fall out of style. On face level, this isn’t always a bad thing, but rather more of a function of society: when something is new, many people are interested, and as time passes, that number dwindles. Backlash and criticism is also a normal function of society, which can be very beneficial when done in good faith and with constructive purpose.

However, it’s quite notable that an overwhelming amount of criticism falls on things that generally have a large fan-following of teenage girls. This can cause them to feel embarrassed by wat they’re interested, or feel that being made fun of is inevitable.

In reality, though, things gain traction for a reason, and things widely loved by teenage girls aren’t often given the same analysis and consideration other things in pop culture are given.

While there is certainly media that isn’t beneficial and could negatively affect young girls, the things they like often go ridiculed by society due to a lack of consideration and deep analysis, as well as the constant sexist want of society to bring down young girls.

Older people in general have been known to blow off things popular in youth culture, which can sometimes be attributed to just not knowing or caring about it. On the more intense side, some are infuriated by it—and not always without reason. But when it comes to things that are popularized by teen girls, a deep and proper analysis is often not given. Instead, they focus on the surface-level negatives.

The Hunger Games is a clear example of this. The series, which revolves around a teen girl forced into a game where she has to murder other kids, is widely condemned as being far too violent and a potential threat to the innocence of young girls.

On the first look, it’s clear that this widespread opinion doesn’t stem from nothing; the series is violent, and mainly young girls read it. However, if one goes even a bit beyond the surface level of the series instead of being initially outraged, it actually shows a complex society and story of revolution with themes of corrupt media and propaganda, separation of class by wealth, and way both sides of a political argument or war can be corrupt.

Take the 12 Districts in the series: the Capital is at the top with the most wealth and ability to abuse, and lowest number Districts are under the illusion that they’re the same. Author Suzanne Collins develops this complex idea in her story by showing that while people in the Districts have different levels of wealth and resources, in the end, they’re all still forced to put their children to death.

In the grand scheme of things, they’re all just as powerless against those at the top. It reflects the nuances of Capitalistic societies and class divisions in a thoughtful way. This can actually really benefit girls, especially since the protagonist is someone they can see themselves as.

A much more widespread example of the ridicule young girls endure for the things they like is fashion. Overall, fashion for girls has progressed in a way that over time has become more diverse and accepting. It’s not uncommon to see girls in long jeans and sweaters, but it it’s also not uncommon to see them in more revealing clothes like crop-tops.

The way girls dress is taken issue with by many adults and even school systems, shown by dress codes that often ban shirts—even if they only reveal a girl’s shoulders. These girls are often told they’re being too provocative or dressing for boys, which strips them of their individuality and is certainly not the case. Many girls dress this way because they want to.

Furthermore, the diverse and growing willingness to be experimental with what they wear shows something wildly different than the harmful predetermination: reclamation of their bodies. Throughout history, girls have been shamed this same way—often more intensely. So, by defying these criticisms, teen girls are showing they feel more free and more confident in what they look like and are perceived as, which is something everyone should want for them.

When things like this are torn down by others, it can affect the girls immense negative ways and cause them to lose confidence. When the benefits are ignored by society, this is often what happens. The positives of more experimental and unique media and styles that interest young girls are at best ignored and at worst ridiculed when not given proper analysis and understanding.

While some criticisms of youth girl pop culture can be attributed to ignorance and lack of poper analysis, it would be even more ignorant to ignore the root of these issues: sexism.

When comparing the things young boys take interest in with what girls of the same age do, one clearly causes more outrage than the other. This can be seen by the blind outrage thrown at things like youth romance novels.

When the young adult romance book Twilight came out, real criticisms of the story were often drowned out by people making fun of its fans, which was majorly young girls. They were ridiculed by people often much older for liking something perceived as stupid. This can discourage girls from allowing themselves to enjoy such things, which is harmful because books like these often give girls hope and bring just pure happiness to them, which is immensely important as they grow up.

Furthermore, young girls are often criticized for liking the same things boys do to a much further extent. Video games, which are often violent, are traditionally played by boys. While these games draw a lot of criticism for aspects of violence and shooting, it has nothing to do with the fact that the audience is boys.

Girls, however, are often personally disparaged from playing such games because they’re too “masculine” and just not made for them. This discourages young girls from finding out what they enjoy and forces them to limit what they take part in.

In the end, even with the hate they often undergo, young girls haven’t stopped boldly and unapologetically enjoying what they love, but it is through their perseverance that they’re able to do so.

Final note: If we’re being honest, we all have a bit of internalized sexism and judge without thinking about potential effects on others. Sexism won’t cease to exist easily, but if we only take the time to consider our motives—even subconscious ones—we can help stifle our biases and most importantly, create a healthy environment where girls can express themselves.

TL;DR

Society loves to put girls down and make fun of everything they like, which stems from sexism and lack of analysis. In reality, there’s often real, important purpose to the things they enjoy. I also definitely used The Hunger Games and Twilight as examples :)

p.s. i am also in love w katniss<3

[idohistorysometimes]

That one South Park episode

Normally I don't see much of my job represented in media. It is so not mentioned in fact that I cannot really find any examples of it being referenced in media anywhere beyond a few passing gags where it might be briefly mentioned. So as you can imagine not only do a lot of people generally not know my job is a real job (because you never see it mentioned in pop culture anywhere like other jobs are) and it does not get as much of a chance to be satirized as much as other professions do. However, there is a singular piece of pop culture media I can think of that actually does talk about Living History for more than 30 seconds and makes fun of it well. And that pop culture media is South Park.

Lets set the scene here:

“Super Fun Time” or South Park season 12 episode 7 is an episode of South Park where Mr Garrison decides to take the kids to a living history museum set in Pioneer times (1860s or so) to learn about their current lesson and bullshit then ensues when a robbery occurs nearby and the robbers somehow find their way into the museum. The robbers take the employees of the museum and the kids as hostages and threaten to kill them off one by one unless their demands are met. Only there is a catch: during this ENTIRE ORDEAL, none of the actors at the museum break character at all. Even when there is a hostage situation actively happening and people are being killed none of these people break character much to the frustration of both the kids and robbers. In fact they only break character when the clock its “5PM” and when they can all go home. For those unfamiliar with living history and how most living history museums work this episode might sound far-fetched and stupid. However to the people who volunteer and work at these types of museums this episode of South Park is a very real satirization of what we do.

For example, a lot of us when we are trained to do first-person interpretation are trained to not break character unless:

Somebody is in danger/an emergency is actively happening 

We are asked a question that cannot be answered in first person at all

We feel uncomfortable with an interaction and we need to get security or other people involved. 

So pretty much: don't break character unless you NEED TO.

However, there is a subset of people (normally people who have been doing this for a REALLY REALLY long time or very new people who take this very seriously) who DO NOT break character and usually won't unless forced to. Sometimes this even extends to not breaking character AT ALL till the museum closes and they can then go home. And when you begin interpreting for a while sometimes it can get hard to slip out of character once you are IN character. I have found myself giving my Wendy’s order as my village persona before. It's easy to do when you live 2 lives at once. So seeing that referenced within the episode is honestly pretty hilarious to me since, yes, I actually know people like that.

Another thing I find hilarious as a historical interpreter is how the actors in this museum reference modern items. 

As many of you can probably infer when we are in first-person character we are not allowed to really acknowledge that it is the current year at all. This means we cannot reference current events, modern tech, and even use modern terminology (which I break that rule a little bit for the sake of people being able to understand what I am saying). But when I have guests wave their smartphones in my face or talk about Donald Trump or some other modern figure I cannot let on to the fact I know what those things are. It can be annoying at times given that many guests like to antagonize me with their phones or their pocket watch or modern references that they know I cannot speak on. Sticking to a character can be hard these times since my go-to instinct is to tell them to shut up given it gets very annoying after a while. But I usually don't say that because:

A. Thats rude.

And B. They will go away eventually and I will never have to see them again ever (usually).

This also means we cannot have any modern tech/things on our person (at least visible) and we can (and usually will) get yelled at if we do. For example in the episode, the blacksmith gets scolded by Pioneer Paul for having a digital watch. Unless you have something like an insulin pump, heart monitor, or some other medical device you usually keep all of your non-period stuff hidden under your clothes or in a basket lest you be yelled at by management. Pioneer Paul is literally just every manager I have had only morphed into one person and 10x more extreme in terms of the commitment to “the bit”. 

Although I will say that the episode is more extreme with how it handles “special circumstances”. 

In most cases if there is something going on like a medical emergency, severe weather, or god forbid a hostage event; all of us drop character pretty quick. If your safety is at risk (regardless of if  Hans Gruber is involved or not) we will be doing everything we can to make sure that you are taken care of. Whether that be evacuated, us call 911, whatever it takes we will do what we can to make sure everybody is safe and not harmed by whatever the danger is. 

Overall as much as I both love and hate South Park (depending on the season) I can confidently say this is literally the best satire of living history i have personally seen on TV. Its funny, its scarily accurate, and me and my coworkers laugh at it because there is some truth to it all (even down to the guests getting annoyed by the fact you are ‘in character’ lol)

[astaroth1357]

Demon Brothers being Soft for Their Daughters 

Might just be me but I think there's nothing cuter than a Dad who loves his daughter so I made a hc for our boys. Strap in, it’s a long one! 

IMPORTANT! Watch out for first half spoilers! Assumed that the child is a half human/half demon with the MC!

Lucifer

Tries to be really strict but ends up being kind of a pushover.

Oh there ARE rules that even his little girl can't break, but most of the time she can get away with almost anything if she's cute clever enough.

Pushes her to be the best at almost anything she tries, expectations be real high; gonna take the MC stepping in to remind him winning isn't everything and please cool it on the pressure.

Lowkey learned his lesson before and doesn't want to make another Satan situation so tries to take MC's advice to heart and not be quite so controlling.

Her favorite uncle is Mammon and he gets cold sweats about this every night.

Wasn't able to be there for a lot of her firsts due to work and gets real sulky when he misses out. Videos just don't offer the same experience...

Feels bad that work keeps him so busy so he tries to make up for it with toys, clothes, jewelry, pretty much whatever she likes at the time.

Would never admit it, but his black heart melts every time he comes home and sees she's excitedly waiting by the door.

One of those parents who will never stop bragging about how amazing their kid is to anyone who will listen, but never when she's in the same room.

100% that overprotective "I'm going to give you a brief tour of the torture chamber, then we’ll browse my whip collection. Oh, make sure she's home by 8" kind of dad if she were to ever bring home a date. They will know that his baby is not to be messed with (like anyone's crazy enough to try honestly).

Mammon

So over the goddamn moon that someone actually wanted to have a kid with him that he couldn't shut up about it for weeks.

Treasures his little girl more than anything he owns, even Goldie. When she's a baby the two of them are practically inseparable.

The biggest pushover to ever be pushed. She's about the only person he's ever unconditionally generous to and he really spoils her rotten.

She's just as materialistic as her father, honestly, but MC made sure their girl was raised with good morals. The first of which being no stealing. Ever. She works for every cent she spends.

On the one hand, he's actually pretty damn proud and relieved that she won't be called "scum" or anything like her father, but on the other hand like… Ew. Who raised you? (No one remind him it’s kind of his doing anyway).

For once in his greedy existence, he can tell a sob story about really needing that loan or those shoes for his beloved daughter and actually mean it… most of the time 😏

Even when she's young, though, she will ask him if a gift he's giving her was taken from someone else and, man, he cannot lie to her face. People shame him for stealing all the time but the little look of disappointment she gives him hurts WAY more than all of his brothers’ insults combined.

Probably one of the most supportive and involved dads in existence. He will be at every game, every recital, every meet. Even if he's complaining the whole time, if anyone so much as suggests that he just shouldn't go he'd be appalled.

…. He's perhaps a little too involved because he's also totally the kind of father who will lowkey stalk his daughter's dates to be sure nothing bad happens. MC, please step in. She needs privacy too.

Leviathan

Was incredibly worried about having a kid, he's not even had the best track record when it comes to pets and parenting is some high-level normie stuff. But his little girl's first smile absolutely melted his doubts away.

That being said… he's still not the greatest with little kids. For a long time if the baby so much as sneezed unexpectedly he'd start shouting for the MC and checking every website he can like??? My half demon baby won't stop sneezing, is it pneumonia???

Gets a lot less panicky as the child gets older, but in those early years he'd practically want to stick them in a bubble wrap suit.

He passed on his love of the ocean and underwater creatures pretty early on. The running joke is that his girl knew how to swim before she knew how to crawl.

Family aquarium trips are an absolute must.

The second they're old enough to understand plot he's introducing them to his favorite shows, but only the best (and most child-friendly) ones of course. He wants his daughter to grow into a woman of culture, damnit! Pop culture that is.

Sooo much text/chat lingo between these two. It's not her fault really. She was bound to pick it up but man can it sound like they're speaking tongues at times.

With practice she can and will beat her old man at most video games and, yes, it makes his cry tears of equal parts pride and aggravation.

Has a mini-panic attack every time she hits a new milestone, like, yes he's so fucking proud but also don't you think she's growing up too fast??? MY BABY GIRL!!! 😭😭😭

Cries like a baby to the MC when she goes out on her first date because he realized she's really, truly, growing up and he's afraid his little girl isn't going to want to spend time with her lame old dad anymore.

Satan

Tries to be strict and IS strict but mostly on schoolwork.

Her grades best not be slippin' or this Book Papa will take all her stuff away. End of discussion.

Otherwise, he's surprisingly chill being the Avatar of Wrath and all. He of all people understands the desire to just have your own life and do your own thing.

She'll inherit his temper though, that's a given, and if they both get going then watch out. Fights between them can get verbally explosive, but never physical. Even at his angriest Satan would never once lay a hand on his daughter.

Read to her every night when she was young: storybooks, novels, mythologies, didn't matter to him. Whatever she wanted to hear. Still, he was so proud the day she told him that she wanted to read on her own.

100% makes nearly everything in life a teachable lesson but also helps her when she needs it. He wants her to forge her own path but is still very supportive when the situation calls for it.

Would never EVER admit it, but he does just as many dad jokes as Lucifer.

Of all the brothers, he's probably the most typical father to have, there for his kid just enough while also making sure they're not getting away with murder.

Is totally chill with her dating because he knows he doesn’t have to be super protective of her. She can more than handle herself if something goes wrong, in fact, if he were to step in it would probably add insult to their already grievance injury.

That being said, he IS the Avatar of Wrath. If someone hurts his girl he’s going to have a turn one way or another.

Asmodeus

Oh YEEESSS, he's not normally the commitment kind of guy but he and MC raising a child? They'd be the most gorgeous thing in the universe!!! (Not counting himself of course)

Beautifying his baby since day one, but the MC keeps him from doing anything too extreme. A lot of baths, good moisturizer, hairstyling (when she grows enough of it), etc.

Soooo many outfits. She'll practically never wear the same thing twice and Asmo coordinates his own clothes to match hers all the time.

He actually goes out and parties LESS if you can believe it, especially when she's young and needs a lot of supervision. But he'll get pent up real quick so learning how to do a quiet quickie during naptime is a must.

His girl is all over his Devilgram, nearly every milestone is snapped up and recorded. He loves her more than anything and would just scream about his pride and joy from the rooftops if social media didn't provide him that outlet.

Makes sure his daughter knows that she is gorgeous, she is loved, and passes on every bit of self-confidence he has. Doesn't matter if she grows up a girly-girl, tomboy, or anything else under the sun. When you're feeling good just being you, heads will turn on their own accord!

Not the best at discipline and would only really step in if he thinks she's being a real jerk about something. Day to day attitude adjustments are totally up to the MC.

He is, however, the best sex-ed teacher one could ever ask for and makes sure his daughter knows there's no shame in what comes natural, just be sure you're respectful and responsible!

Completely unfazed when the suitors began lining up, I mean she is HIS daughter. It was inevitable. Offers tips and advice when he can but lets her go off and experiment naturally. Young love is a beautiful thing! (Just don't break his girl's heart though because he may lowkey curse your whole bloodline)

Beelzebub 

….. MC, you're going to be eaten out of house and home.

Though his daughter's appetite isn't AS bad as his, Beel could tell it's going to be an issue from day one but he's ready for it.

Dedicates his freaking life to being sure she never goes one night hungry. He'll cook, he'll shop, he'll even share from his own plate if he has to. The thought of her going through anywhere near the level of starvation he feels on a daily basis is enough to crush his soul (if he has one)

You better bet there will be eating competitions. She never wins, but the fact she can even get close will have him grinning anyway.

That being said, he will push for a healthy and active lifestyle for her too. 

Highkey wants her playing sports and doing team activities because he genuinely thinks it will help her stay healthy and make friends.

Just the right amount of discipline. Tries to be understanding but also knows when to call a spade, a spade and express his disapproval.

Very in-tune to her emotions and her needs even if he can’t quite grasp WHY she's feeling the way she is. Keeping up with teen drama is going to be the bane of his existence...

Uncle Belphie=That one cool uncle who lets you get away with anything and probably gives out sugar after bedtime.

One of the only brothers who makes a point of his daughter also seeing and exploring her human heritage too and not just treating her like a pseudo-demon… And it's totally not just for the added excuse of sampling human world cuisine, like, come on who do you take him for? 🤫

Somewhat cautious about her dating, but ultimately just wants her to be happy. He'll usually trust her judgment but he's pretty good at reading someone's character and if he gets real bad vibes from anyone he's not above telling her, "No. Not that one." Whether or not he's listened to depends on the situation.

Belphegor

Lol MC, you could have picked a much better choice. Borderline Deadbeat/Cool Dad here!

Kids… not his thing. He doesn't dislike them exactly, they're just a lot of work and he's sort of allergic to that. He's more of a semi-irresponsible babysitter type.

Case in point, "Belphie, watch the baby" becomes "Belphie, if you're going to take a nap at least hold onto her leg so she doesn't go anywhere."

Only saving grace is she takes after him so most days she's pretty dang sleepy too. Naptime is a good third of the daily routine (not that anyone is complaining).

Shit at discipline because, like, what leg does he have to stand on? If she wants to ditch class, why not let her? Once or twice ain't that bad.

Takes her on a lot of "field trips" to the human world like he would with Lilith. Genuinely wants her to experience both sides of her identity and encourages her to explore her human side just as much as her demon.

The kind of chill dad that you feel comfortable going to when you've got to talk out a problem or need life advice. He might not be able to offer many answers, but he tries in his own way.

Will prank his kid and will not feel sorry, but is never cruel about it. In fact, this will only spur on a mutual prank war between the two.

Uncle Beel=that genuinely nice uncle who tries to teach you life lessons and how to take care of yourself… while also eating a ton of food.

Would be super confused at first if she started dating like?? How? He kind of sees her like a mini-him at times and his human came to him. Since when did she stay awake long enough to leave the house?? But otherwise he goes with the flow. Whatever she wants, her life.

He might get a bit more agitated if she starts to date a human, like, lowkey bad flashbacks to the whole Lilith situation and the MC would probably have to cool his jets about it. Different circumstances after all.

[terubakudan]

This may be an old article from 3 years ago, but these cultural aspects/observations still apply even today. And though this is strictly a Chinese perspective, a lot of these everyday life bits are observed in Overseas Chinese communities in countries such as The Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. as well as countries heavily influenced by Chinese culture like Taiwan, Japan, and Korea.

I've always liked learning about other cultures and making comparisons between how things are done East vs West. Which probably stems from growing up with two cultures and Mom raising me on American movies xD

So the irony is if you asked me how many Chinese, Taiwanese, or Hong Kong actors I know, chances are I know as much as you do xD Like Jackie Chan, Andy Lau, and that's about it. But if you asked me about Western (specifically American and British) actors, then I have a useless brain dump of movie trivia and who was with who in what movie xD

Hmmm, both Taiwan and the Philippines are two distinct cultures but both look up to a certain country and are fascinated by that. In Taiwan's case, Japan and the US for the Philippines. In both cases, this is due to being under the rule of those countries in their history. Taiwan being under Japan for 50 years, and the Philippines being under Spain for 300+ years, followed by periods of American and Japanese rule. To put it simply though:

Taiwan is "mini-Japan with a very Chinese culture".

The Philippines is "former colony of Spain with lots of American influences".

But unlike the author, I've never set foot in any Western country, so my understandings are strictly what I've observed in media, which while it can be accurate, doesn't compare to actually experiencing the culture.

Some further elaboration on most points:

#1 We quite literally use chopsticks for everything. We use it to pick rice, viands, vegetables, fruit, smaller desserts, almost all the food you can think of.

But where do you put your chopsticks when you're not using them? Just put them on top of your bowl or flat on your plate. But do not ever stick them vertically. It's taboo, since it looks like incense sticks, which we use to pray for those who have passed, like our ancestors or during funerary services.

#3 The majority of Asia is obsessed with fair/white skin. In my time at the Philippines, I grew up watching all these Dove Whitening commercials and my classmates often commented on how fair my skin was, how they envied it etc. In Taiwan, girls often say they don't want to 變黑 (biàn hēi) 'become dark'. Japan and Korea too are not innocent of this either (if their beauty/skin products weren't a dead giveaway).

People here at Taiwan often mistake me for being from Hong Kong or Japan (as long as I don't speak Mandarin with my heavy accent xD). A Taiwanese classmate of mine joked that she often gets mistaken for being from Southeast Asia due to having a darker complexion. And while I laughed it off with her at that time, looking back, I now realize she was lowkey being racist. xD

And believe me Filipinas have mentioned literally being told 'your skin is so dark' here in Taiwan, or being given backhanded compliments like 'you're pretty despite having dark skin' and...*facepalms*

My point is, beauty is not exclusive to skin color. People who still think that are assholes.

#5 Not to say we don't have salt and pepper, but yes soy sauce and vinegar are the classic condiments you see on the table, be it at home or at a restaurant.

And if I may add, Taiwanese love their pepper. xD If you ever get to eat at a night market or a smaller "Mom n' Pop-style" restaurant here, some dishes/soups tend to add quite an excessive amount of pepper. Not like anthills, but quite liberally and way more than average. Enough that you see traces of pepper at the bottom of the food paper bag or swirling in your soup. xD

#6 I know this all too well from personal experience. In my years of studying at Taiwan, I always had roommates. 3 in my first school (I graduated high school in the Philippines pre K-12 so I had to make up 2 years of Senior High), followed by 2 in college, with the exception of 1 in freshman year.

My college did offer single person dorms but at around 9000 NTD ($324) per month compared to around 6000 NTD ($216) per semester. Because I wanted to save, the choice was obvious for me xD. But ah, this doesn't mean I don't value personal space, in fact I love having the room to myself, and since both my roomies would go home to their families every weekend, weekends were bliss for me xD

And you don't have to be friends with your roommates (that's an added bonus however), you just have to get along with them. I was quite lucky to have really great roommates all throughout my schooling years.

#9 In the Philippines, we do. Owing mostly to American influences and maybe being predominantly Catholic? xD

#10 *sigh* Chinese parents and parents from similar Asian cultures tend to put too much emphasis on grades, so much that kids could get sent to cram school as early as elementary. This is because what school you get into could literally affect your future job opportunities, and while that's not exclusive to any particular country/culture, I feel it's especially pronounced here in Asia. I'm really lucky my own parents weren't that strict about it. However, if your parents don't point the mistakes out to you, chances are you'll do it yourself, if you're an Asian kid like me anyway. xD It just becomes a habit.

#11 My family is an exception to this. xD We do say 'I love you' directly, but complete with the 'ah eat well ok?', 'don't scrimp on food', 'sleep well' and similar indirect words/actions of affection. We were doing 'Conceal, Don't Feel' before it became popular. xD

#13 I'm kind of confused about this but this has sort have changed over the years in which eye-contact is now more encouraged. But don't stare, especially at elders and authority figures. Sometimes it's just shyness though. xD And I've observed this with my own Taiwanese friend, especially when I'm complaining or ranting to her about something. xD I'm a person who likes to express my opinions strongly, which tends to scare/alienate some of the locals here, as doing so is kind of frowned upon. Thankfully, she does listen and offers her take on things.

#14 Ah this. xD In the Philippines, this is a common greeting known as beso-beso, and I freaked out too when an auntie did that to me. xD Needless to say, Mom lectured me later on what that was. ^^"

#16 Along with #3 another crazy beauty standard. In my view, people always look better with a little meat on them and when they're not horribly thin. Asia still has a loonng way to go with accepting different types of bodies if you ask me. This combined with modern beauty standards has made the pressure for women especially to 'look beautiful' higher than ever.

I know many people love them but please, starving yourself or glorifying eating disorders is never OK just to get this kind of 'ideal' body. I'm not part of the Kpop fandom, but even I think when idols get bullied just for gaining the least bit of weight among other insensitive comments, that's really going too far.

#17 'If you want to make friends, go eat.' <- I couldn't agree more. In the Philippines we have a greeting: 'Kumain ka na ba?' (Have you eaten?) . Similarly in Taiwan, we have 吃飯了沒? (chī fàn le méi), both of these can mean that in the literal sense but are often used as greetings instead. By then which invitation to having lunch/dinner together may or may not follow. Food really is a way for us to socialize and to catch up with what's going on in each other's lives. Not to say we don't have regular outings like going out to the mall, going shopping, etc. but eating together is a huge part of our culture, be it with family or friends.

And while I'm at it, some memes that are way too accurate good to pass up xD

Parents, uncles, aunties alike will fight over the bill xD

Alternatively:

You just space out until your name is called xD

My parents are guilty of the last one. Logic how? xD

#18 True. xD I like giving compliments out to people but I have a hard time accepting them myself, though I've learnt how to accept them much more now than before. We're kind of raised to constantly downplay ourselves so we often say things like 'ah no no' or 'I'm really not that good'. The downside of this of course is that it can come off as somewhat fake. xD

Again from personal experience, that same classmate who made the lowkey racist remark, she was good, she was on the debate team, was a honor student, knew how to mingle with people, but she downplayed herself way too much, while praising me but I honestly thought that she never really meant it from how she treated me. She wanted to keep me around her yet make backhanded compliments at me and she didn't want me socializing with my other classmate who is now my friend. *sigh* It was only after discussing this with one of my roomies did I realize how this 'excessive downplaying' might come off to people like me who more or less grew up with a more 'Westernized' mindset. I'm not saying brag about your achievements but don't be overly humble about them either, which can also be a turn off.

#20 We do tend to be a lot more realistic on how we view things, neither entirely optimistic nor pessimistic. We try to think of things practically and often analyze things on pure logic. A downside of this however, is that Chinese people can be overly practical. Taiwanese for instance don't like to 'find inconveniences' and generally keep to themselves, meaning, they won't help you in your hour of need even when they do have the capabilities. Sounds really harsh I know, but in my 6 years of living in Taiwan, while this doesn't apply to all the people, a lot of them really do only find/talk to you when they need something.

So for some people saying Taiwanese are 'friendly', that's BS xD If you ask me, Filipinos are infinitely more friendly, and again while not all, generally make more of an effort to help you when you need it. I really felt more of a real sense of community during my years growing up in the Philippines compared to Taiwan.

#21 Children do tend to stay with their parents well into college and adulthood, since Chinese families are indeed very family-oriented, in a lot of cases, grandparents often live under the same roof as us as well! And it really does save a lot of money. I see there's a real stigma in the US when it comes to "living with your parents", but that's starting to change especially because of Covid and having more and more people move back in with their parents.

Housing unfortunately is pretty much hella expensive no matter where you go, and Taiwan is no exception. Steep housing prices and the very high cost of raising a child (schooling + buxiban fees, etc.) contribute to a very low birth rate and thus an aging population like Japan. It's not uncommon to see both parents working in Taiwan.

#23 I'm an overthinker myself, but I totally agree with the author that the best is to strike a good balance between these two. Which I guess is why I love drawing or any other related creative attempts, it helps me be more spontaneous or well, creative! I like to remain intellectually or artistically inspired.

#24 Is French high school really like that? xD My friend did watch SKAM France and more or less got a culture shock from what was depicted on the show. I can confirm however that most high schools both in the Philippines and Taiwan require students to wear a uniform, only in college is everybody free to wear casual/civilian clothes.

#26 Ah this is part of our Asian gift-giving etiquette xD We always open gifts later after the event/meeting and in private. Never open them in front of the person who gave it to you or in front of others. This is to prevent any 'shame/embarrassment' that may result both to yourself and to the gift giver. I know this may come off as something weird since some people may want a more honest response or immediate feedback when it comes to gift-giving, but that's just how it is in our culture. You're always free to ask us though (in private) if we liked the gift or not ^^"

#28 I want to say the same goes to drinking, partying, and drugs however xD Those are things which are still frowned upon in our culture. And to be honest, whenever I see those in movies, it does kind of turn me off xD It doesn't mean that we're "uncool" or "boring", we just think that there are much better or healthier ways of "having fun".

#31 Is this true in France?! Man I would kind of prefer that instead of people being on their phones all the time xD This kind of goes with #20 in that Chinese are overly practical or logical, and don't read fiction as much as nonfiction. My Taiwanese friend is an exception though, she's a bibliophile who loves the feel of paper books compared to e-books, and it's a trait of her that I like a lot. Both the Philippines and Taiwan however have a huge fanbase when it comes to manga and anime though.

I'm all for reading outside of "designated reading" at schools especially. Reading fiction improves your vocabulary too, and can be quite fun! It helps you imagine and really invest in a world/story, and if you ask me something that I feel Westerners are better at, they're more in touch with their emotions and creativity, and are thus much more able to write compelling or original stories. Believe me, I've seen a fair amount of Chinese movies that rip off Western movie plotlines xD

#33 Nothing much to add on here..except that since I'm a "weird" person, Mom often jokes that she got the wrong baby from the hospital. xD

#35 True. While I agree with the care and concern that your fellow community can give you, the downside of this is we tend to only hang out with our own people, e.g Chinese with Chinese, Taiwanese with Taiwanese, etc. I've seen too that it's especially hard to make friends in Japan and Korea as a foreigner. Not only is there the language barrier, but the differences in culture too. In a way, Asians can be pretty close-minded on getting to know other cultures or actually making friends with people from other countries. I know this all too well being half-Taiwanese/half-Filipino, being neither "Filipino" enough nor "Taiwanese" enough. xD It's more of people here being too used to what they're comfortable with.

#36 Oh this is something I feel that Chinese students and other students from similar cultures should really improve on. xD How will people respect you if you don't speak your mind?

I felt bad especially for my Spanish teacher in college, granted it was an introductory course (Spanish I and II) but the amount of times that our teacher had to prompt a student to recite/speak even with clear hints already made her (and me too) extremely frustrated. The thing is, these are college students, I personally feel they don't have any reason to be so shy of speaking and technically by not doing so they're slowing the pace of the class too much and a lot of time is wasted.

Unfortunately you can't always be very vocal with your thoughts and opinions in most Asian cultures. I would say strive for that, but at the same time, play your cards well, especially if you're in a workplace setting.

If you made it to the end, thank you for reading and here's a cookie! 🍪 I'm not perfect and there's bound to be something I missed so please let me know if you spotted anything wrong. Feedback/questions are very much welcome and please feel free to share about your country/culture's differences or similarities!

[maxwell-grant]

One last one for the moment; top five superheroes who definitely AREN'T Pulp Heroes, but could be with a little tweaking?

Oof, that's a hard one. It's a hard one because, again, there ultimately isn't that much separation between the two to the point there's enough of a hard line in there to work with, but I guess the cat's out of the bag now that I've staked claims on there being differences between them.

Okay so, not counting superheroes who are deliberately modeled after actual pulp heroes, so no Tom Strong or Night Raven here. I'm sticking mainly with comic book superheroes (barring one oddball exception) since the medium separation is important), who I think could become pulp heroes with some tweaking.

5: Captain America

Sort of cheating because I already covered it here, but I definitely have to include Captain America in here, especially in the stories they actively go for a "pulp" vibe as well as the earliest ones.

Fun fact about Marvel: As Timely, they actually began life as pulp publishers. Not just pulp publishers, but specializing in some of the sleaziest, ghastliest magazines of the era, and you can bet this carried over to their superheroes. Where as DC's superheroes took inspiration from the big pulp heroes such as The Shadow and Doc Savage, Timely's superheroes seemed instead much more inspired by Weird Tales stories and Poverty Row horror films, and even in the 60s, Marvel never really abandoned their horror roots, the trick was just using them as a baseline to create superheroes. In DC, the world's first contact with superheroes begins with the world looking in wonder at a friendly strongman. In Marvel, it began with the world looking in panicked horror at a flaming monster rampaging through the streets desperately trying to not burn everything it touches. It should come to little surprise then that the majority of characters I'm including in this list are Marvel characters.

People think Captain America's first comics largely consisted of him fighting Nazis left and right, but they were actually much more often based around him encountering monsters and creatures of horror, like the above panel where it looks like Cap's staring down the beginning of Berserk's Eclipse (RIP Miura).

The early Captain America comics pretty much consisted of Kirby dipping his toe into the monster comics he'd make in the 50s which would later bleed into the 60s Marvel entourage. They even tried repackaging Captain America into a horror anthology in the 50s titled "Captain America's Weird Tales", just imagine how different the character would be today if that somehow stuck.

Imagine a world where Steve Rogers never became leader of The Avengers, never got to become the shining beacon of heroism of an entire universe, and instead, when he was unfrosted, he woke up to find a world running rampant with crawling nightmares and Nazi tyranny, and he has no idea what's become of his former sidekick. That definitely sounds like the start of a promising pulp adventure.

4: Namor

Another Timely creation. In Namor's case, he didn't so much encounter horrors from beyond imagination, as much as HE was the terrifying thing beyond us ready to rampage upon mankind, whose first on-screen act consists of the calculated slaughter of a ship full of innocents. The first true villain protagonist of comic books. Not just an anti-hero, a villain intent on wiping out the human race.

And not just a cardboard supervillain, but the beautiful prince of a race of ugly fish monsters, a momma's boy who's doing what he thinks is right by warring with surface dwellers. While Namor's become largely defined by his gargantuan arrogance, here, he's almost childlike, despite being much more brutal and villainous here, spurred on by the whims of his mother, who even acknowledges that Namor had no real reason to kill the divers but did so anyway, and now encourages him to genocide. His mom even tells him "Go now, to the land of white people!", and the very last panel of the story even states he's on a "crusade against white men".

The massacre of explorers at the hands of something beyond their understanding. A monster born of an interracial coupling. A race of fish monsters with bulging eyes, antagonistic towards humanity but are shown to have positive traits just the same. A dash of racism. There is no mistaking The Sub-Mariner's pulp horror influence.

A non-white superhuman warrior born from a Lovecraftian horror story, who gradually moves away from his villainous crusade into becoming more of an anti-hero, never truly putting aside his hatred for humanity, remaining a temperamental, unpredictable outcast, with a strong, palpable undercurrent of anger in his stories. I could very easily buy Namor as having crawled out of a Weird Tales story and I can't think of other superheroes whose origins are as steeped deeply in pulp horror.

3: Doctor Fate

Technically we already have a pulp hero version of Doctor Fate in Doc Fate, and I'll get to him separately, but even besides him, the earliest Doctor Fate stories in particular feel very much like he's a character steeped in the worlds of pulp and pulp horror who decided to put on a superhero costume and show up in comic.

He's got a similar set-up to The Shadow, from the pulp Shadow in the sense that he's a mysterious, eerie crimefighter who dwells as a presence more often than an active character and who kills criminals without remorse, always watching and waiting for the right time to strike as a a wrathful old-testament force of vengeance, and from the radio Shadow due to him using superpowers to fight crime while being accompanied by a smart, fierce love interest.

Originally, Fate was not a sorcerer, but instead a scientist who discovered a way to manipulate atomic structure, of his and other things, thus making it appear that he can do magic (although we never see his face, and he's implied to be thousands of years old, before they settled on the Nabu origin). And going back to Lovecraft, a lot of it appears in the earliest Fate stories. Fate was given powers not by a sorcerer, but an alien worshipped as a god. He barely encounters traditional monsters, but instead contends with hidden races, zombie slaves, abandoned alien monoliths, and half man and half fish creatures. Fate may have actually been the very first pastiche of Lovecraft in pop culture.

And of course we can't forget the gloriousness of Doc Fate pulling an Indiana Jones on us.

2: Wolverine

I don't even think you'd have to tweak Wolverine at all. You'd just have to get him out of the costume and Avengers/X-Men associations (although the X-Men have a substantial background in pulp sci-fi stories like Slan and Odd John, so they aren't really at odds here), maybe tone down his powers a bit and, that's it. Logan's already the kind of character who has such a varied sandbox history, whose powers can lead to so many different scenarios, that it's not a stretch at all to picture Wolverine in the usual pulp hero scenarios.

You can have half-naked Wolverine running around in the jungle with animals Tarzan-style, take him to Savage Land if you wanna throw dinosaurs in there. He's already Marvel's foremost "wandering samurai/cowboy" character which was one of the stock and trade types of the pulps. Western? Done. Samurai? Done. Wuxia? Just put him in China and add a couple extra fantasy elements. Wanna make a sword and sorcery story with him? He already comes with a bunch of knives and savagery and ability to survive grisly injuries. Horror? The MCU is crawling with them, or alternatively, tell a story from the perspective of someone who's being hunted down by Wolverine. Wanna tell a detective/noir/post-apocalypse story? Logan's right there.

Wanna have him crossover with pulp heroes? He's lived through the 1800s and 1900s and traveled all over the world, you could feasibly have him meet up with just about any of them. Logan may actually be the purest example of your question, because he's very much not a Pulp Hero, and yet, he definitely feels like a character who could have been one, at just about any point in the history of pulp magazines. He's perfect for it.

1: Wario

WAAA-okay, look, bear with me for a second here, I'm not just picking Wario because I love oddball choices and he's one of my favorite characters, I got some logic to this.

Okay so, the first question here: is Mario a superhero? While I'm usually adverse to calling characters prominent outside of comic books superheroes (hence why I'm definitely not interested in debating whether Harry Potter or Goku or Link or Frodo are superheroes), I do think it's a pretty shut case that, yes, Mario is a superhero. Superheroes don't just come in the form of skintight crimefighters, right from the start comic books have had varied types of superheroes appearing in comics and comic strips. For example, the "funny animal" superheroes are a type older than superhero comics, and they were arguably not only the most successful type of superhero of the 40s-50s era, but arguably defined trends dominating nonfunny animal superheroes, traits that predated or influenced Captain Marvel as well as Otto Binder's reshaping of Superman that defined much of superhero convention as we know it. It's part of why the question of "Is Sonic a superhero" has a very clear Yes as an answer.

So upon establishing that, yes, funny cartoon characters can be and are superheroes too, is Mario one? Well, I'd say yes. He's got an iconic uniform, he's got superpowers, he goes on fantastical adventures, he is both a nebulously general do-gooder as well as having a clear mission as protector of the Mushroom Kingdom. His adventures span multiple storytelling formats, he's got catchphrases, he even dresses up in Superman's colors and has a Super prefix iconically associated with him. Not a superhero the way we usually think of, but a superhero nonetheless.

And Wario? Well, putting aside Wario-Man who's more of a running gag than anything, Wario does just about everything Mario does. He's got all the traits that define Mario as a superhero short of a Super prefix and the selfless mission (which isn't exactly a rule). He goes around and gets into crazy adventures, he picks up items, beats bad guys, conquers the odds, and gets some kind of prize for it. He's got Mario's physical traits, and Mario's costume, and just about the same name short of a single letter. The caveat being, of course, that he's Wario, and so everything Mario is or does has to be exaggerated to gross extreme.

Mario is paunchy and strong, Wario's round and built like a powerlifter. Mario's got a friendly face and a fluffy mustache, Wario's got a massive horrible grin and jagged razors for a stache. Mario is a bit of an overeater, Wario can and will eat anything in front of him. Mario gets around with acrobatics and magic power-ups, Wario brute forces his way through everything and just rolls with whatever injuries he picks up along the way.

Mario gets fire powers by consuming magic flowers. Wario sets himself on fire and barrels around destroying everything in his path. Mario harnesses the elements or abilities of beings around him to clear obstacles and solve puzzles, Wario gets turned into a zombie, a vampire or a drunk to get the same things done. Mario befriends and rides dinosaurs who raised him from infancy, Wario piledrives dinosaurs and then uses their bodies to beat up more dinosaurs. Mario pals around with fellow heroes, princesses and friendly fantasy creatures, Wario pals around with aliens, witches, mad scientists, cab drivers, and lanky weirdos. Mario always ends his adventures joyfully leaping to the next one, Wario usually ends up either cackling in a pile of treasure or completely broke.

Mario races through plains to rescue princesses, Wario invades pyramids to hunt for treasure. Mario jumps through planets with baby stars guiding his path, Wario crashes into the Amazon jungle and fistfights the devil. You can see where I'm going with this.

If you were to take one of Nintendo's heroes to make them into pulp heroes, Wario, specifically the Wario Land Wario, may be the only one who really could do it, because in essence, he's the videogame equivalent of Professor Challenger. He's Bluto moonlighting as Indiana Jones, the weird brute adventurer for weird brute adventures where everything's off limits and you can trust our intrepid hero, who really shouldn't be a hero on all accounts, to deliver us a good time, give or take a couple deaths, scams, shams and oh-damns to complete said mad treasure hunts.

[letterboxd]

Wigging Out.

Choreographer and director Jonathan Butterell tells Gemma Gracewood about stepping behind the camera for Everybody’s Talking About Jamie, his love for Sheffield, and making sure queer history is kept alive. Richard E. Grant weighs in on tolerance and Thatcher.

Of 2021’s many conundrums, one for musical lovers is why the narratively problematic Dear Evan Hansen gets a TIFF premiere and theatrical release this month, while the joyously awaited Everybody’s Talking About Jamie went straight to Amazon Prime.

And yet, as the show’s lyrics go, life keeps you guessing, along came a blessing. There’s something about the film streaming onto young people’s home screens, with its moments of fourth-wall breaking where Jamie speaks straight to the viewer, that feels so important, given the content: a gay teen whose drag-queen destiny sits at odds with the less ambitious expectations of his working-class town.

Director and choreographer Jonathan Butterell, who also helmed the stage production (itself inspired by Jenny Popplewell’s 2011 BBC documentary, Jamie: Drag Queen at 16) agrees that the worldwide Amazon release is a very good silver lining. “I made the film for the cinema but, in 250 territories across the world, this is going to have a reach that—don’t get me wrong, cinema, cinema, cinema, collective experience, collective experience, collective experience—but it will get to people that it might not have got to before.

Jonathan Butterell on set with star Max Harwood, as Jamie.

“It feels as niche a story as you could possibly be. But also for me, I wanted it to feel like a universal story, that it didn’t matter where on any spectrum you found yourself, you could understand a young person wanting to take their place in the world freely, openly and safely.”

Everybody’s Talking About Jamie, with screenplay and lyrics by Tom MacRae and songs by Dan Gillespie Sells, sits neatly among a series of very specific feel-good British films about the working class experience, such as Billy Elliot, Kinky Boots and Pride. The film adds some historical weight to the story with a new song, ‘This Was Me’, which allows Jamie’s mentor, Hugo (played by Richard E. Grant), to take us into England’s recent past—the dark days of the discriminatory Section 28 laws, at a time when the HIV/AIDS epidemic was still ravaging the community.

Hugo’s drag persona Loco Chanelle (played in the flashback by the stage musical’s original Jamie—John McCrea from Cruella and God’s Own Country), sports a wig that looks suspiciously like the Iron Lady’s unmistakable head of hair. Grant confirms that was Hugo’s intention. “His heyday was in the 1980s, so as a ‘fuck you’ to Mrs Thatcher, what better than to be dressed up like that, at six-foot-eight, with a wig that could bring down the Taj Mahal!”

Richard E. Grant as Hugo, getting to work on Jamie’s contours.

In light of the current pandemic, and the fact that the 1967 legalization of homosexuality in Britain is only “an historical blink away”, Grant’s hope is for more tolerance in the world. “Maybe Covid gives people some sense of what that was like, but with Covid there’s not the prejudice against you, whereas AIDS, for the most part in my understanding, was [seen as] a ‘gay disease’, and there were many people across the globe who thought that this was, you know, whatever god they believe in, was their way of punishing something that they thought was unacceptable.

“The message of this movie is of inclusivity, diversity, and more than ever, tolerance. My god, we could do with a dose of that right now.”

Read on for our Q&A with Jonathan Butterell about the filmic influences behind Everybody’s Talking About Jamie.

Hugo in a reverie, surrounded by his drag menagerie.

Can we talk about the new song, ‘This Was Me’, and the way you directed it in the film? It’s a show-stopper, with Richard E. Grant singing in that beautiful high register, and then moving into Holly Johnson’s singing, as you go back in time to show that deeply devastating and important history. Jonathan Butterell: It felt inevitable, the shift, and necessary. Myself, Dan Gillespie Sells, the composer, and Tom MacRae, the screenwriter, we created this piece together, the three of us, and it’s a film by the three of us. We lived through that time, we went on those marches. Actually, in one of those marches [shown in flashback], Dan’s mum—actual mum—is in a wheelchair, by a young boy who was holding a plaque saying “my mum’s a lesbian and I love her”.

That is Dan with his mum back in the day, and it all speaks to our stories and it moves me, I can see it’s moving you. It moves me because I lived through that time, and it was a complex time for a young person. It was a time that you felt you had to be empowered in order to fight, and you felt very vulnerable because of the need to fight. And because of that disease, because HIV was prevalent and we lost people—we lost close people—it was a difficult time. I wanted to make sure that that story kept being told and was passed on to the next generation.

It’s so important isn’t it, to walk into the future facing backwards? It still exists, that need to fight still exists. The conversation, yes, has moved on, has changed, but not for all people and not in all communities.

What would be your go-to movie musical song at a karaoke night? My goodness. There’d be so many.

I mean, is it going to be a Cabaret, a Chicago showstopper, or something more Mary Poppins, something from Rent? I think what I would go to, which is what I remember as a little boy, is Curly singing ‘Oh, What A Beautiful Mornin’. It’s such a kind of perfect, beautiful, simple song. That, and ‘The Lonely Goatherd’, because I just want to yodel. It would be epic. Trust me.

What is the best film featuring posing and why is it Paris Is Burning? It’s always Paris Is Burning. Back in the day, I was obsessed with Paris Is Burning, I was obsessed with that world. In fact, at one moment I even met [director] Jennie Livingston in trying to make a theater piece inspired by that. I lived in New York for eleven years and I met Willi Ninja. I just adored everything about him, and he would tell me stories. And again, it was so removed from the boy from Sheffield, I mean so far. That New York ballroom scene was so removed from my world, but I got it. Those two boys at the top of the film, I just wanted to be one of those boys who just hung out outside the club.

Harwood and Butterell on set, with Lauren Patel (right) as Jamie’s bestie Pritti Pasha.

What films did you and Tom and Dan look at to get a feeling for how to present the musical numbers? Actually, a lot of pop videos, from present day to past. There’s an homage, in the black-and-white sequences, to a little ‘Vogue’ Madonna moment. Pop is very central to me in this story because pop is what a working-class kid from a working-class community will be listening to. That’s in his phone, that’s in his ears. Not that many young people listen to much radio at this moment in time, but that’s what will be on Margaret’s radio, that’s what’s coming into the kitchen. And that was central to the storytelling for me.

Bob Fosse also really influenced me, and particularly All That Jazz and where his flights of imagination take him. I felt that was so appropriate for Jamie, and again in a very, very different way, but I could see how Jamie’s imagination could spark something so fantastical that would lead him to dance, lead him to walk on the most amazing catwalk, lead into being in the most fabulous, fabulous nightclub with the most amazing creatures you’ve ever met in your life.

For me personally, the film that most inspired me was Ken Loach’s Kes, because that is my community. Both the world in which Jamie exists—Parsons Cross council estate, is my world, is my community—and the world of that young boy, finding his place in the world with his kestrel friend, I remember identifying with that boy so clearly. He was very different from me, very different. But I got him, and I felt like Ken Loach got me through him.

Ken Loach made a few films set in Sheffield, didn’t he? But also, Sheffield is a setting and an influence on The Full Monty, The History Boys, Funny Cow and that brilliant Pulp documentary. So Jamie feels like a natural successor. It absolutely does. Sheffield’s where I grew up, it’s my hometown. Although I moved away from it, I always return. To have a chance to celebrate my community, and particularly that community in Parsons Cross council estate. If you’re in Sheffield and you’re in a taxi and you said, “Take me to Parsons Cross,” they’d say, “Well, I’ll drop you there, but I’m not staying.” Because again there’s a blinkered view of that community. And I know that community to be proud, glorious and beautiful.

And yes, that community, particularly through the ’80s, really suffered because some of that community would serve the steelworks and had three generations of unemployment, so they became disenfranchised because of that. But the community I grew up in, my Auntie Joan, who lived on that road, literally on that road, was a proud, working class, glorious woman who served chips at school.

Aside from Everybody’s Talking About Jamie, what would be the most important queer British cinematic story to you? (And how do you choose between My Beautiful Laundrette and God’s Own Country?!) You can’t. My Beautiful Laundrette influenced me so much because, one, Daniel Day Lewis was extraordinary in that film, and two, because of the cross-cultural aspect of it. I went, “I know this world”, because again I grew up in that world. And it affirmed something in me, which is the power and the radicalness of who I could be and what I could be.

With God’s Own Country, when I saw that film—and that was Francis’ first film, which I thought was extraordinary for a first-time filmmaker—I knew he knew that world from the inside, from the absolute inside. And I know what that rural community was like. I read that script, because we share agents, and I was blown away by it—again, because of the two cultures coming together.

Jamie Campbell, the film’s real-life inspiration, with screen-Jamie Max Harwood.

Richard E. Grant’s character, Hugo, is such a pivotal mentor for Jamie. What did you need to hear from a mentor when you were sixteen? Don’t let yourself hold yourself back, because I think it was me who put some limitations on myself. And of course I came from a working-class community. I was a queer kid in a tough British comprehensive school. And did I experience tough times? Yes I did. And did I deal with those tough times? Yes I did. But the song that speaks to me mostly in this is ‘Wall in my Head’, in which Jamie takes some responsibility for the continuation of those thoughts, continuations of the sorts of shame, and that’s a sophisticated thing for a sixteen-year-old boy to tackle.

I also was lucky enough to have a mother like Margaret—and a dad like Margaret as well, just to be clear! And I remember my mum, at seventeen when I left home, just leaving a little note on my bed. It was quite a long letter. She said, Jonathan, you’ve probably chosen to walk a rocky path, but don’t stray from it, don’t steer away from it. That’s the path you've chosen, there may be rock-throwers along the way, but you’ll find your way through it. That stayed with me and I think that’s what resonates with me. And when I saw that documentary, Jamie: Drag Queen at 16, I felt that that sparked the need for me to tell that story.

Sarah Lancashire as Jamie’s mum, Margaret New.

We need more mums and dads like Margaret, don’t we? We do, we do. And the wonderful thing is, Margaret Campbell will say it and I think Margaret New in the film will say it: she’s not a Saint, she’s an ordinary mum. And she has to play catch up and she doesn’t understand in many ways, and she gets things wrong and she overprotects. But she comes from one place and that is a mum’s love of her child and wanting them to take their place safely in the world and to be fully and totally themselves.

Related content

Eternal Alien’s list of films Made in Sheffield

Letterboxd’s Camp Showdown

Persephon’s list of films recommended by drag queens

Passion’s list of films mentioned by Jaymes Mansfield in her Drag Herstory YouTube series

Follow Gemma on Letterboxd

‘Everybody’s Talking About Jamie’ is streaming now on Amazon Prime Video.

[intermundia]

We should start calling Palpatine You-know-who so the human cockroach gets confused with Voldemort and finally dies in all ways that matter.

First, let me say, so true bestie. Palpatine needs to die and die completely and badly. You know my feelings on this—I wrote him being killed outside of time in LT just to make sure his consciousness got completely crushed into oblivion.

Second, let me derail slightly so that I can talk about one of my favorite books that I own: Ontological Humility: Lord Voldemort and the philosophers by Nancy Holland.

From the back cover:

Neither self-effacing modesty nor religious meekness, ontological humility is a moral and philosophical attitude toward transcendence—the unknown and unknowable background of existence—and a recognition and awareness of the contingency and chance that influence the course of our lives. It is a concept that Nancy J. Holland finds both throughout the history of philosophy and across the volumes of J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series. Tracing it through the philosophical thought of figures ranging from Descartes, Hume, and Kant to Heidegger, Beauvoir, Merleau-Ponty, and Derrida, Holland uses the Harry Potter saga as a guide to illustrate the concept, revealing a whole set of ethical imperatives. Connecting the concept to contemporary gender and race theory, she demonstrates its implications both for our understanding of the philosophical tradition and for the way we live our lives.

Fucking amazing, right? I vividly remember finding this at a used bookstore. The title Ontological Humility caught me, and when I saw the subtitle I think I ascended to a new plane of reality. I adore it when pop culture is taken way too seriously, adore it. Despite all the current issues around Rowling, it’s very much Holland’s book/interpretation/analysis and is worth reading.

The thesis is essentially that it is the ultimate form of arrogance to believe one can conquer death, and that arrogance is tied to racism. Magic is something “given” in the Harry Potter universe, and Holland argues that Harry and Dumbledore are humble before it and recognize its limits, instead of taking the gift as something deserved. Voldemort and the Death Eaters are certain they deserve this power and that those who lack it are inferior. Harry is humble, willing to die and relinquish the gift, and Voldemort is arrogant, unwilling to die and feels entitled to the gift.

Holland draws the parallel to privilege, to those who life has “given” much, and think that they deserve it because of some inherent or achieved virtue of their own, rather than accept that chance or fate is responsible. The ethical imperative is to be humble and understand that the world is shaped by forces we cannot control or completely understand. Instead of being like Voldemort and seeking more power and feeling entitled to superiority because of the gift, we must recognize its transcendent and passing nature.

Basically, we must not seek to dominate those who do not have privilege, but rather be prepared to renounce it as something unearned. We all die, basically, and the ethical imperative is to be humble before that fact and generous in our unknowing of why and how.

Anyway, to pivot back to Star Wars, Palpatine seeking domination over all life, trying to wield power not fit for mortals to endure outside his lifespan, is all a dramatization of his incredible arrogance. I don’t even want to get into Anakin’s relationship with death lol. The Jedi generally are humble, and it is their humility that makes them strong. Each individual Jedi isn’t seeking to dominate with their privilege of Force sensitivity. They are much better ethical examples than the Sith.