#but so they can be justified placing her in the ‘evil woman’ category | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

reidetic · 4 years ago

Text

The Pantheon: The War or The World? - A.H

A/N: This is the second installment in ‘The Pantheon’ series. You can find the first, Golden, here. Big shout out to @zhuzhubii for their dialogue help and @ontheoddoccasioniwritestuff and a discord friend (who’s tumblr I cannot tag fsm) for beta-ing both stages of this fic. This about to get real dark, y’all. Heed the content warnings.

CW/TW: Murder, violence, general angst, did you hear me about murder?

Couple: None, gen fic.

Category: Angst

Word Count: 1.8k

War. Violence. Anger, malevolence, fury. Aaron was familiar enough with them all. Over a decade in the Behavioral Analysis Unit and he had seen nothing but the wrath of mankind, spilled over from held tongues. Everything stems from fear and terror, and he would go to the grave swearing he fathered the abstract. He felt he left destruction behind him in a wake of combat, and failed to keep his fists from their fury.

He hadn’t held his rage against Foyet, and it terrified him to no end that he held no regrets about it. If you spend your waking hours chasing the entities of psychopathy, do you not worry that one stumble will place you among the pack? Will the darkness that now inhabits him be his fall from grace? What would he teach his son about the world if he collapsed beneath it?

He’d be lying to himself if he said the pressure only began after she left. Aaron knew a lot of things when he was young, but the lesson he never quite learned was how to slow down, and life stepped in quickly enough. Her name on his lips burned like fire for months after, only ever calling her Mom to Jack, never once braving the knowledge that the only woman he had given a piece of himself to was now gone, and he had absolutely no one to blame but himself. He still remembers the grip of Derek’s hands around his arms as he pulled him away from the fatality beneath him, still remembers the blood staining his fingernails. There is only so much evil soap can erase.

Sometimes he felt like the Devil studied the blueprints of his life for ideas, and then he remembered that it’s only him that creates the wars waging on the homefront. How long can he sit here in the dark, touching the floor in their home where his wife’s blood stained the wood? He hadn’t been here in years, but he needed to be here, he needed to feel her again. The blonde underneath him wasn’t Haley, no, but she was close enough. She bore just enough resemblance to his wife and son to justify stealing her away, but just was different enough to let his fist close around her throat. Too fragile to fight him off, she never stood a chance, not when he’s creating his own bloodshed. The blood running from her eyebrow where his wedding ring had sliced her skin open simply pushes him over the edge, and when her body stops writhing under his closed hand, he realizes he has no idea what her name is.

Maybe he was born with this brutality, perhaps he never stood a chance against the test of time. After all, he wasn’t just chasing killers, he was learning from them too. Cold, calculated, planned. Premeditated, wasn’t that what they called it? He watched her for weeks, needed to know that she would fulfill his fantasy, his need. He made sure she was alone, no children or husbands left behind. Not just to eliminate witnesses, but because Aaron had been on the side of that losing fight. He wouldn’t wish it on his worst enemy. This is just his conflict, this is just his deserved combat. No one would be surprised if he snapped, would they? It was all he knew, it was ever-consuming and at the end of it, he’d be lucky to have even a fragment of a soul left. Emily had warned him once about keeping everything so far shoved down that you lose the ability to distinguish between yourself and your trauma.

There was so much darkness, so much fear. He was so tired of holding everything on his shoulders. So he found a way to put it down, he found a way to try to heal. He had to make it right. He had to give Haley another chance to die, and maybe this time it would be right.

There hadn’t been a break in this case for months. Women disappearing then reappearing mangled and murdered, always a different MO, their only common thread was victimology. Blonde single women, never anyone to miss them other than their work.

“Hey, I hate to say this but...these women, they all look like Haley.” JJ says tentatively, glancing at the tacked up photos of the victims.

An unnerving quiet falls over the room as the team looks at JJ, a mixture of resignation and horror painting their faces.

Rossi nods with a pained look. “They do. And...Aaron fits the profile.”

Spencer looks up and adds quietly, “And he took off work for three weeks when the killings started.”

“No, he wouldn’t. Not Hotch.” Morgan stands and shakes his head. “I still think it’s Evans.”

Rossi sighs. “Evans has an alibi, Morgan. Aaron doesn’t.”

Morgan scoffs, looking to anyone for help and settles on Emily. “Prentiss, you really believe this?”

She sighs, looks up at him and says, “I’m sorry Derek, he fits the profile perfectly. We always say profilers make the best unsubs.”

“Damn the profile! They can be wrong. We’ve been wrong before.” Morgan pleads, looking around the room for someone on his side.

“Look, why don’t we just go to his house? If I’m right, then we bring him in. If we’re wrong, then we’re just checking on him. Okay?” JJ reasons.

“You can waste your time all you want, but I’m going to talk to Evans.” Morgan seethes, looking to Spencer. “You coming with me, kid?” Spencer just nods, throws JJ an apologetic glance, and grabs his jacket and vest, following Morgan out of the room.

“I’ll go with you, JJ. Prentiss, stay behind and keep in contact with Garcia, just in case.” Rossi instructs. JJ nods, and they head in the opposite direction of Morgan and Spencer, and JJ prays she’s wrong about this.

Prying open the door to Hotch’s house, JJ shakes her head. This isn’t how she wanted this to end. She tiptoes through the room, Rossi following behind her while they work to clear the area. As they go upstairs, she starts to hear crying.

Toeing open the bedroom door, JJ calls through, “Hotch?” She sees him, hunched over a blonde woman, blood pooling on the carpet between his knees. “Hotch!” He still isn’t responding, sobs wracking through his body. “...Aaron?” She tries, pitching her voice down.

He turns to look at her then, no sign of recognition on his face. He looks broken and battered. He still doesn’t look like a murderer.

Meeting his eyes, she says, “Aaron, it’s JJ. We can help you but I need you to put the knife down.” The heart beating inside her chest is so much less scared than it is breaking in half to watch this man she called family die.

He turns to her, blood on his outstretched hands and a sad smile on his face. “You’re here, you’re finally here.”

Confused, JJ cocks her head to the side, gun still trained on him.“I’m...here?” She asks.

He lurches towards her, knife in hand.“I missed you so much.” He swipes a blood covered hand under his eye to wipe away the tears, and JJ’s stomach curdles at the sight.

Rossi takes a step forward to meet JJ, and says quietly, “Aaron, stay back.” Hotch doesn’t seem to hear him, staring directly at JJ.

Unsure of what’s happening, JJ decides to lean into it, in the hopes that making him feel understood would avoid casualties. “I...missed you too.”

He gestures behind him to the still body, and says, “I did it, see? I finally got it right!” He’s shouting, and his happiness is unnerving.

JJ steps forward a little, staring at him. “Aaron...I’m sorry, but I don't understand. Could you...explain it to me?” Maybe even in this state, he’s still sane enough to be logical. Maybe.

Hotch barks a bitter laugh, “Foyet, he didn’t do it right. He…disgraced you.” You? All of a sudden JJ realizes what’s happening and she chokes back tears. She’s not Haley, but she can be for a minute if it protects him.

She softens her voice, holsters her gun and steps forward with her hands up. “I’m...I’m here now. And I've missed you so much. Why don't you put the knife down, and then-”

He shakes his head violently, sweat and tears flying off his face.“It’s too late.” He’s muttering to himself and JJ can’t understand the words under his breath.

JJ swallows thickly. “What do you mean? I’m here, it’s ok-”

He cuts her off abruptly, waving the knife at the girl behind him dismissively. “She's already gone. She’s already gone.” He looks up through tears and smiles sadly at JJ, at the figure of his late wife in front of him. “...I got you back, though. You're here. You're here and I...-” He breaks down in sobs, sinking to his knees and clutching the knife to his chest.

JJ steps closer, looking down at him in pity. “That's right, I’m here. And everything will be okay, I just need you to put the knife down. Can you do that for me, Aaron? Put the knife down.”

He looks up at her, dropping the knife to the floor with a loud clatter and JJ drops to her knees, wrapping her arms around the broken man before her and they’re both crying. “I’m so sorry, Haley.” She just shushes him, pulling him up to his feet.

“I gotta cuff you now, Hotch. It’s for your own good.” Rossi has tears in his eyes, pulling the silver metal from his belt and clasping it around Hotch’s wrists. It’s then that the illusion shatters, and he sees what he’s done. JJ leans down and presses her fingers to the inside of the girl’s wrist, searching for a pulse, but it’s useless. Like he said, it was too late. She was already gone.

“JJ?” Hotch asks pitifully. “What did I do?” He looks so tired, so crushed.

“I don’t know, Aaron. But we’ll fix it.” She’s still got slow tears rolling down her cheeks, and she takes him from Rossi, guiding him down the stairs and out the front door where the rest of the team is waiting, the looks on their faces a mixture of fear and disgust and pity.

War was ever-consuming. War within, war in the world he struggled to hold up on his shoulders. He could never decide if he saw himself more as Ares or Atlas, never could deify himself in the way he was expected to. Head of the unit, head of his remaining household, head of his world. And yet, he chose war every time. This time, the blood on his fingertips was no longer metaphorical, but the weight of the world fell off. As he’s pulled away from his home, he sees JJ and Jessica huddled over his son, and he wonders if what he’s done is worth the weightlessness.

taglist: @ontheoddoccasioniwritestuff @andiebeaword @dreatine @muffin-cup @httpnxtt @sunlight-moonrise @samanddeanstolethetardis221b @spencer-reid-in-a-pool @fanficlibrary82 @zhuzhubii @prettyricky187 @reidlusts

#criminal minds fanfic #aaraon hotchner #aaron hotch fanfiction #hotch fanfiction #criminal minds gen fic #unsub!hotch #dark!hotch

58 notes · View notes

drivingsideways · 4 years ago

Text

in search of a better dream

This is about three pieces of South Korean media that crossed my path recently: the dramas Search WWW and Flower of Evil, and the novel Kim Ji Young, Born 1982.

Disclaimer and context : I'm not Korean, I don't speak the language, and I've watched a very limited set of kdramas. The criticisms I make in this piece are not to single out kdramas, or kdrama fandom, as what I've described exists in Western and other Asian media and fandoms as well.

Under the cut for length:

There's a scene in the first episode of the hit 2020 k-drama "Flower of Evil" that made me want to quit watching the show within the first ten minutes. The scene goes like this: our protagonists, Cha Ji Won and Baek Hee Seung meet Baek Hee Seung's parents along with their four year old daughter. The occasion is Baek Hee Seung's birthday, and loving wife Cha Ji Won has set up a special birthday dinner for them. On the way to the restaurant, the daughter has already complained about how she's scared of her grandparents, and they don't like her. When we meet the grandparents, we see the truth of this- they are as cold as the Arctic to all three, but especially to their daughter-in-law and granddaughter. In a bid to smooth out the social awkwardness, Cha Ji Won instructs her daughter to greet her grandparents the way they had "practiced" earlier- a cutesy little greeting where the adorable Eun-ha makes a heart over her head and chirps "I love you grandma and grandpa". When this fails to soften them, Eun-ha retreats, looking scared and disappointed. Not to worry, Cha Ji Won has this completely figured out: if you try harder, she tells her four year old daughter, they'll eventually love you.

Reader, I was, as they say, mad.

We find out soon enough that this stellar bit of parenting follows from an abiding principle in Cha Ji Won's life. Her romance with Baek Hee Seung starts when a handsome oppa walks into the family store, and is a saga of her stalking and pursuing a man who repeatedly tells her he's not interested, until he finally gives in. The power of her persistence pays off when the emotionally distant and abrasive man, in a classic beauty-and-the-beast transition, becomes a loving boyfriend, and then later, husband and father. It's a fantasy- some might even say feminist fantasy come true- he's handsome, supportive, reliable, artistic, the primary housekeeper and caretaker of their daughter while she pursues her demanding "dream" job as a police officer, and they have enough money to live in a charming and lovingly set up two-storeyed house in ruinously expensive Seoul. This is heterosexual female wish fulfilment at its peak, and it is all made possible because she persevered.

It all threatens to come apart with the discovery of the perfect man's dark past- for a brief period, she's forced to contemplate the idea that he's actually a serial killer who's conned her for the entirety of their relationship of fourteen years; that the perfect life was, in fact, a lie.

However, since this is written and billed as romance melodrama, this horror is short-lived. As the story progresses through increasingly improbable, violent and sometimes downright hilarious twists and turns, we grow closer to the (inevitable) happy ending. Baek Hee Seung/ Do Hyun Soo is no killer, just a traumatized child with a horrific past. The lies are the result of psychological damage inflicted by a society that unfairly deemed him a monster; the cage of repressed emotions that he'd locked himself in needed only the unshakeable conviction of Cha Ji Won's love to be broken open. "I wish you could see yourself as I see you" she tells him, in one of the show's endless supply of tearfully emotional moments, "I wish you could understand yourself the way I understand you."

This framework continues right to the end, when a bout of short term amnesia (!!) has Do Hyun Soo questioning himself and her: do you know, he asks her, when I'm lying to you, and when I'm not, because I don't. The show answers that almost immediately- it doesn't matter, because it's her vision of him that he wants to be; in other words, he chooses the version of himself that she wants. The horror of the lie was a red herring, Cha Ji Won was right from the start about her husband- all it took was the power of her love and her perseverance to overcome the lie at the heart of her marriage, to restore it to its previous shape- quite literally. The dream house they built together, which was destroyed by the villain, is shown in the last shots as unchanged from how it was in the beginning. One of the last shots we have of the couple is of them kissing in the artisan husband's workshop, an almost perfect recreation of the first time we see them. Paradise Regained, and all of us- and Cha Ji Won- can breathe a sigh of relief. You, the twenty-first century woman, are the architect of your own fantasy and can have it all. What could be more powerful than that?

In Kim Ji Young, Born 1982 , a novel published in 2016, and often credited with kickstarting a new conversation about feminism in South Korea, the eponymous protagonist's story is also one of perseverance. It's a starkly written tale, an everywoman tale, a dryly narrated fact finding mission report complete with citations and references, about a woman born in the late twentieth century into a rigidly patriarchal culture, whose very existence is an aberration- her parents didn’t opt for a sex-selective abortion unlike many of their contemporaries when they found that their second child would also be a girl. Kim Ji Young, like the rest of us, grows up immersed in a misogynist culture. Even before she understands it, she learns to work around it and through it, rationalizing the micro-aggressions, burying the anger at the casual and institutional sexism that permeates her life, compromising and coping with it all, and achieving some semblance of having it all: a job, a decent, loving husband, a child. However, it's when motherhood arrives that it all falls apart- Kim Ji Young, faced with the exhausting carework of having a baby at home and another regular, full time job, does what so many women in her position do- quits her "outside" job for her parenting one. Fighting exhaustion and depression, a casually cruel and misogynist remark from a stranger in a park proves to be the proverbial final straw; Kim Ji Young suffers a mental breakdown, dissociating herself completely from her own life, and "seamlessly, flawlessly" taking on the personalities of other women she's known- her mother, her friend, her colleague. The novel ends with a narrative twist that's both horrifying and appropriate: we learn that our narrator is actually her male psychiatrist. Kim Ji Young doesn't even get to be the voice of her own story; instead, it is told by a man cocooned in his own privilege, who displays the same paternalistic and misogynist behaviour that he correctly identified as the cause of her breakdown.

There is no escape here for Kim Ji Young save that of a complete break from reality. In the light of the narrative that leads her to that point, it feels both inevitable and even more horrifically, a blessing. This is a horror story told as it is shorn of any hope; the ending is death or insanity.

Reading Kim Ji Young, Born 1982 was to confront the familiar and heart-breaking and horrific neatly distilled into 200 odd pages; it's "fiction", but not really. My only surprise was how similar the culture described there was to my own in specifics; how incidents in Kim Ji Young's life were things I had actually experienced myself or seen other women experience, in a country several thousand miles away.

I read this novel just after watching the 2019's Search WWW, a show with a bit of a cult following, I think. Before I started watching it, one friend assured me that I would love it, that it was made for me; another said that she dropped it because it "rang false" to her at the time. I've seen the show described several times as a feminist power fantasy, sometimes, if the reviewer wanted to demean it, with the qualifier, unrealistic.

This seemed an odd sort of criticism to me- after all, who turns to k-drama romances or really, any romance, for realism? Female wish fulfilment, which is the cornerstone of romance as a genre, whether in books or film, is still written and recognized as fantasy. So what was particularly unreal about Search WWW?

Well, simply put, it is written like the patriarchy doesn't matter, and has never existed.

The three female protagonists are all in their thirties, in powerful positions in their careers. As such, they are constantly walking into meetings where women speak more than 33% of the time. There are men in the room, but they never outnumber the women, and they don't silence the women.

The interests and decisions and choices of women in the show- even the lead antagonist, who is an older woman whom we often see casually making beefy young men pose nude for her paintings- matter, not just to domestic and private realms, but to society at large; the antagonist is a power broker whose reach goes right up to the highest echelons of the country's politics; the younger women's ethical choices directly affect the republic's functioning as a democracy.

What about the men? It's not that they've been ignored; it's just that their place in the narrative has been decentered. Do with that what you will, the writer seems to say, as she writes in speaking roles for women wherever possible—every second side character is a woman— I have no time or inclination to justify that choice.

As for romance- it's not just that two of the three romances fall into the "noona romance" category, which is subversive in itself. It's that the power of decision making in these relationships clearly rests with the women.

In the "main" romance track, in a reversal of the usual trope, the woman is the one who is emotionally unavailable, and whom the man has to convince to take a chance on their relationship. What was hugely refreshing was that the reason for her emotional unavailability isn't trauma, that the man has to help her heal from, unlike the gender reversed versions we often see, eg in Flower of Evil. Instead, it's a difference in perspective that has its roots in the years of experience she has compared to him; it's the difference in life perspective of a twenty something man, and an almost-40 woman. She considers the implications and possibilities of entering into a relationship with a man who wants marriage and kids, while she doesn't want either and is unlikely to want them in the future. She thinks through it, and sees the pitfalls of it, perhaps all too clearly. In the end, when she makes a decision to commit, it's with the understanding that she's choosing to live in the moment, that he makes her happy; that they make each other happy and it is worth something, even if it doesn't last. But both of them understand that her happiness is not centered in him or their relationship being successful. The other two romances end on a similarly open note- the possibility of love with the man you just divorced, but there's no hurry to get there; and a long distance relationship that may or may not last the two years of military conscription the man has to undergo.

The happily ever after in this series is not the perfect heterosexual family unit; it was always going to be the complicated, thorny and intense queerplatonic relationship between the three women, who, in the end, literally drive off along an endless open road under a blue, blue sky, to "a place with no red lights", as one of them describes it.

For a week after watching Search WWW, I wandered around in a daze. How did this show get written, I kept asking myself? How did it get produced? Aired??? What magic was worked to put it in my eyeballs, and how can it keep happening?

That feeling intensified when I read Kim Ji Young, Born 1982. But the book also provided the answer, at least to the first question. Because it is Kim Ji Young's voice in Search WWW. This is the fantasy that Kim Ji Young would have wanted to live in; a society and a life where she's seen as a person, entire, and it's not something she has to fight every day for. The gigantic leap of imagination that the writer of Search WWW took was only because that fantasy has been yearned for, in a way only a person growing up in Kim Ji Young's world- our world- could.

"Flower of Evil"- and other dramas like it— are also, undeniably, products of this world. It's unsurprising to me that in many ways, Cha Ji Won's little fantasy domestic world in Flower of Evil, on the surface, looks exactly like a post-feminist world. If the real revolution is men doing housework and childcare, then that fantasy has already been achieved on the individual level for Cha Ji Won. Sure, she's the only female member on her squad, and maybe the entire police force, for all you see women in her workplace. Sure, the other female characters with speaking roles exist mostly to be tortured for manpain by the narrative or literally by men as part of the plot. She seems to have no friends outside of work, which means that all her friends are men. As for relationships with other women, except her mother, who exists mostly to share the burden of childcare, and her mom-in- law who turns out to be an evil sort herself, there are none. When she meets her sister-in-law, the entire scene gives off a strange catfight vibe- her sister in law is the only other woman who can legitimately be said to have a claim on knowing the real Do Hyun Soo, and Cha Ji Won's reaction is to deny that claim and tell her to buzz off, basically. "I'm his family now" she tells her sister in law, "He has a wife"; firmly establishing the primacy of a heterosexual romantic relationship over all others.

Her "dream" job means nothing much despite the work she has put in to get it; for most part of the narrative she ends up betraying every professional ethic and her squad- her only friends. Of course, she is easily forgiven for it, without doing any of the work to earn that forgiveness, but that's really because who has the narrative time to develop those relationships which do not matter, like her work, which is shown up for the narrative prop it is, just like her daughter? Even her sociopath (but not really, poor baby) husband ends the series with a tentative sort of friendship with a person he's not married to, but not Cha Ji Won, whose entire world by the end of the series has narrowed down to the four walls of her perfect little house and her perfectly-rescued husband. "I can't be happy if he's not happy," she tells her mother, who suggests that maybe it's time she let go of her not-so-perfect husband. "So please accept him."

In the end, the fantasy is based on this : self-improvement as the winning strategy, not structural change. Try hard enough and you'll get what you want. In the fine print, easily ignored: as long as what you want falls within the bounds of heteronormative patriarchal standards. It's an attitude that is passed down to the next generation; Cha Ji Won's early conversation with her daughter is an example.

The writer's vision is clear- what could have been an interesting and intimate look at our deepest fears in a relationship- that the other person will see us for who we are and horror-struck, leave; or even a deconstruction of the heterosexual woman's fantasy of The Perfect Man, is instead a tired repetition of the Beauty-and-the-Beast trope. You can dress it up and put a gun-toting, career woman wig on it, but that disguise falls apart pretty quickly. Cha Ji Won openly states not once, but several times, that she would rather live the comfortable lie; it's only when even that isn't an option- and not because of her choice or agency, but circumstances and the man coming to a decision, that she begins to let go. But only for a little while- barely ten minutes in show time- because ultimately, this is a female wish fulfilment fantasy, isn't it? Her longsuffering perseverance is rewarded when he decides to mould himself to her fantasy version of him, and the past is erased, and time reset, complete with soft lighting and soaring soundtrack.

Some love stories are horror stories, but others are horror stories masquerading as love stories. Why are we so often sold the latter, and so accepting of the narrative gaslighting? When I look at the popularity of Search WWW vs Flower of Evil, I feel bitter despair and quite a lot of anger. Why do so many women- and it is women, who are producing this work, for women, primarily (I mean, romance, as a genre)- settle for so little? It's the twenty first century, I think, why are we still here, I rage, gnashing my teeth, and indulging in the vicious satisfaction of giving Flower of Evil a single star rating that will make not a dent in its popularity. If we can't demand and aspire to a better class of fantasy, what hope do we have? As you dream, so you will do.

I often think that these days feminism is made toothless because we're shaping it into something that will validate every little feeling of ours; we don't want to be made uncomfortable by it. But feminism is not meant to make anyone comfortable; interrogating your own desires and pleasures is as much a part of smashing the patriarchy as fighting for fundamental human rights like bodily autonomy.

I guess, in the end, what I want to say is this: for the love of sanity, dream better.

#flower of evil #search: www #kim ji young born 1982 #unpopular opinions cw

112 notes · View notes

the-everqueen · 4 years ago

Text

why i disliked “the traitor baru cormorant”

so...recently i read Seth Dickinson’s The Traitor Baru Cormorant. i bought it thinking, Cool, an insightful fantasy series for me to get into while i wait to hear whether i passed my qualifying exams! i have some time before the semester starts!

and then i absolutely hated it and spent every minute cataloguing what i thought Dickinson got wrong.

...uh, if you want to get the tl;dr of the liveblog i gave the gf, here’s the top three reasons i disliked this book:

1) not a fan of the “strong female character” trope

yes, Baru doesn’t sling around a sword or shoot arrows better than Anyone In The Whole World. but Dickinson IMMEDIATELY tells us (not shows, tells) that she’s good at math, she’s clever at picking apart strategic scenarios, she’s a savant. (tbh, i don’t love how he shows this, either, with the standard child-prodigy-who-catches-the-attention-of-a-powerful-adult trope.) in Dickinson’s crafted world, her math skills aren’t entirely unusual: women (for...some reason?) are stereotyped as being good at calculations, despite also being aligned with hysteria and too many emotions. this bothers me more than it’s probably supposed to, because the sexism in this novel doesn’t really seem to follow an internal logic. i guess it’s so we can have a woman as the protagonist? also...hoo boy...her “savant” characterization bothers me because...she’s heavily coded as South East Asian (...maaaybe Philippines or Native Hawaii, but as i’ll get to later, Dickinson doesn’t make a huge distinction). uh...model minority stereotypes anyone? yes, within the text, plenty of people associated with the Empire comment that it’s impressive someone of her background got into a position of power so young. at the same time, i’m sure that sounds familiar to so many Asian-identified people! the constant tightrope of being expected to perform to a certain (white, Western) standard while also being Othered. mostly this bothers me because Baru is also characterized as...a sellout for the Empire. sure, her stated goal is to undo the Empire from within, but [MAJOR SPOILERS] in the end it appears that her actual goal was to attain enough power that the Empire would let her be a benevolent dictator over her home island? and it’s only after a major PERSONAL betrayal that she revises this plan? [END SPOILERS] Baru also assimilates without much pain or sacrifice. she hardly ever thinks about her parents or her childhood home. she willingly strips herself of cultural signifiers and adapts to Empire norms (apart from being a closeted lesbian, which...yeah, i’ll get to that, too). and it’s not that Dickinson doesn’t TRY to make her a nuanced character, but...to me, it feels so painfully obvious that this is not his experience. it feels almost...voyeuristic.

...much like his descriptions of wlw desire!

2) we get it, you read Foucault

the categories of sexual deviance are based entirely on a Western Victorian-era medical discourse around non-heterosexual forms of desire, but Dickinson ignores the network of sociocultural, religious, and historical contexts that contributed to that specific kind of discourse. he uses the terms “tribadism” and “sodomy” but those ideas CANNOT EXIST outside a Euro-American Christian context. yes, a huge part of the 19th century involved the pathologization of sexual and romantic desire (or lack thereof). but that in turn goes back to a history of medicine that relied on the “scientific method” as a means of studying and dissecting the human body--and that method in itself is a product of Enlightenment thinking. Theorist Sylvia Wynter (whomst everyone should read, imho) discusses how the Enlightenment attempted to make the Human (represented by a cisgender, heteronormative, white man) an agent of the State economy. every categorization of so-called deviance goes back to white supremacist attempts to define themselves as ‘human’ against a nonwhite, non-Christian Other. and IN TURN that was ultimately founded on anti-Black, anti-Indigenous racism. at this point it’s a meme in academic circles to mention Foucault, because so many scholars don’t go any further in engaging with his ideas or acknowledge their limits. but SERIOUSLY. Dickinson crafts the Masquerade as this psuedo-scientific empire that’s furthering erasure of native cultures, but...where did these ideas come from? who created them? what was the justification that gave them power? [MINOR SPOILER] blaming the Empire’s ideology on a handful of people behind the Mask who crafted this entire system makes me...uncomfortable, to say the least. part of what gives imperialism its power is that a lot of ordinary people buy in to its ideas, because it aligns with dominant belief systems or gives them some sense of advantage.

also speaking of cultural erasure...

3) culture is more than set dressing

again, to reiterate: Baru does NOT think back to her childhood home for longer than a couple passing sentences at various points in the narrative. but even though the early chapters literally take place on her home island, i don’t get a sense of...lived experience. this is true of ALL of the fantasy analogues Dickinson has created in his Empire. i felt uncomfortably aware of the real world counterparts that Dickinson was drawing inspiration from. at the same time...there are basically no details to really breathe life into these various fantasy cultures. i HATE the trope of “fantasy Asia” or “fantasy Africa” or “fantasy Middle East” that’s rampant among white male sff writers. Dickinson does not get points from me for basically just expanding that to “fantasy South East Asia,” “fantasy Mongolia,” “fantasy South America,” and... “fantasy Africa,” plus some European cultures crammed in there. he’s VERY OBVIOUSLY drawing on those languages for names, but otherwise there’s no real sense of their religious practices, the nuances of their cultures, the differences between those cultures (besides physiological, which...oh god). part of that is probably supposed to be justified by “well, the Empire just erased it!!!” but that’s not an excuse imho.

also...in making the Empire the ultimate signifier of the evils of imperialism...Dickinson kind of leans into the “noble savage” stereotype. Baru’s home island is portrayed as this idyllic environment where no one is shamed for who they love and gender doesn’t determine destiny and there are no major conflicts. (there is a minor nod to some infighting, but this is mostly a “weakness” that the Masquerade uses as an excuse to obliterate a whole tribe.) Dickinson justifies young Baru’s immediate assimilation as her attempt to figure out the Masquerade’s power from within, but given that the Masquerade presumably killed one of her dads and her mom maybe advocates a guerilla resistance...it’s weird that Baru basically abandons her family without a second thought. yeah, i get that she’s a kid when the Masquerade takes over the island, but...that’s still a hugely traumatic experience! the layers of trauma and conditioning and violence that go into this level of colonization are almost entirely externalized.

(later it’s implied that Baru might qualify as a psychopath, and tbh that feels like an excuse for why we haven’t gotten any sense of her inner world, not to mention kind of offensive.)

this isn’t exhaustive but...

it’s not that i don’t think white people shouldn’t ever address POC experiences in their books. just...if your entire trilogy is going to revolve around IMPERIALISM IS BAD, ACTUALLY, maybe you should contribute to the discourse that Black, Brown, and Indigenous authors have already done. reading this book made me so, so angry. i did not feel represented! i felt like i was being talked down to, both on a critical theory level AND on a craft level. there are SO MANY books by actual BIPOC and minority authors that have done this better. N.K. Jemisin’s Broken Earth Trilogy and her current Cities series. Nnedi Okorafor’s Binti trilogy. Leigh Bardugo’s Ninth House remains one of the more powerful novels i’ve read on how The System Is Out To Destroy You, That Is The Point. (Bardugo is non-practicing Spanish and Moroccan Jewish on one side of her family, and her character Alex is mixed and comes from a Jewish background!)

...

there’s not really a point to this. i get a lot of people have raved about this book. good for them. if that’s you, no judgment. i’m not trying to argue IF YOU LIKED THIS YOU ARE PROBLEMATIC. i’m just kind of enraged that a white dude wrote about a Brown lesbian under a colonial empire and that THIS Brown lesbian under a colonial empire couldn’t even get behind the representation. also kind of annoyed that it’s the Empire of Masks and Dickinson either hasn’t read Fanon or didn’t see fit to slip in a Fanon reference, which like. missed opportunity.

#meta #book review #maybe y'all can get enjoyment from my rage #also i don't want to publish this on like. goodreads.#i'm not out to destroy Seth Dickinson personally #i know this was a highly reviewed book #i just...hated it #and i figured putting the rage on my blog is less harmful #than leaving a one star review #while also maybe giving someone the insight #for why they might not want to read this #the traitor baru cormorant #the masked empire

13 notes · View notes

curious-wildflower · 4 years ago

Text

Elizabeth Siddel Part 3

Since there is a tendency to focus on the supernatural elements associated with Siddal, she is commonly viewed as a ghostly figure more than a real woman. As this sort of shadow figure, it becomes easy to project rumor and myth onto her and accept them as true.

One of the ideas that persists is that she was the inspiration for the character of Lucy Westenra in Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Some even take it so far as to claim that Stoker was present at Siddal’s exhumation, an impossibility since when the deed took place Stoker was twenty-two and still a student living in Dublin.Bram Stoker lived in the same neighborhood as Rossetti and he was a friend of Hall Caine, who at one time was Rossetti’s secretary. Stoker dedicated Dracula to Caine, with a nickname used by Caine’s grandmother (“to my dear friend Hommy-Beg”). Stoker may not have included the story of Siddal’s exhumation in his notes, but due to his closeness with Caine he had to have heard an account of it at some point and he had probably read Caine’s book Recollections of Dante Gabriel Rossetti (1882).

The belief that Stoker used Siddal as inspiration is bolstered by his 1892 short story The Secret of the Growing Gold. The ‘growing gold’ is the hair of a dead woman, the very tresses that had been her most striking feature in life. Her hair grows persistently and with a purpose; her intent is to haunt her husband and avenge her own death. The similarity between Stoker’s story and the claim that Siddal’s hair continued to grow and fill her coffin after death is unlikely to be a coincidence.

The Secret of the Growing Gold

By Bram Stoker

When Margaret Delandre went to live at Brent's Rock the whole

neighbourhood awoke to the pleasure of an entirely new scandal.

Scandals in connection with either the Delandre family or the

Brents of Brent's Rock, were not few; and if the secret history of

the county had been written in full both names would have been

found well represented. It is true that the status of each was so

different that they might have belonged to different continents-or

to different worlds for the matter of that-for hitherto their orbits

had never crossed. The Brents were accorded by the whole section of

the country an unique social dominance, and had ever held themselves

as high above the yeoman class to which Margaret Delandre belonged,

as a blue-blooded Spanish hidalgo out-tops his peasant tenantry.

The Delandres had an ancient record and were proud of it in their

way as the Brents were of theirs. But the family had never risen

above yeomanry; and although they had been once well-to-do in the

good old times of foreign wars and protection, their fortunes had

withered under the scorching of the free trade sun and the "piping

times of peace." They had, as the elder members used to assert,

"stuck to the land," with the result that they had taken root in it,

body and soul. In fact, they, having chosen the life of vegetables,

had flourished as vegetation does-blossomed and thrived in the good

season and suffered in the bad. Their holding, Dander's Croft, seemed

to have been worked out, and to be typical of the family which had

inhabited it. The latter had declined generation after generation,

sending out now and again some abortive shoot of unsatisfied energy

in the shape of a soldier or sailor, who had worked his way to the

minor grades of the services and had there stopped, cut short either

from unheeding gallantry in action or from that destroying cause to

men without breeding or youthful care-the recognition of a position

above them which they feel unfitted to fill. So, little by little,

the family dropped lower and lower, the men brooding and dissatisfied,

and drinking themselves into the grave, the women drudging at home,

or marrying beneath them-or worse. In process of time all disappeared,

leaving only two in the Croft, Wykham Delandre and his sister Margaret.

The man and woman seemed to have inherited in masculine and feminine

form respectively the evil tendency of their race, sharing in common

the principles, though manifesting them in different ways, of sullen

passion, voluptuousness and recklessness.

The history of the Brents had been something similar, but showing

the causes of decadence in their aristocratic and not their plebeian

forms. They, too, had sent their shoots to the wars; but their

positions had been different, and they had often attained honour-for

without flaw they were gallant, and brave deeds were done by them

before the selfish dissipation which marked them had sapped their

vigour.

The present head of the family-if family it could now be called

when one remained of the direct line-was Geoffrey Brent. He was

almost a type of a worn-out race, manifesting in some ways its

most brilliant qualities, and in others its utter degradation. He

might be fairly compared with some of those antique Italian nobles

whom the painters have preserved to us with their courage, their

unscrupulousness, their refinement of lust and cruelty-the voluptuary

actual with the fiend potential. He was certainly handsome, with that

dark, aquiline, commanding beauty which women so generally recognise

as dominant. With men he was distant and cold; but such a bearing

never deters womankind. The inscrutable laws of sex have so arranged

that even a timid woman is not afraid of a fierce and haughty man.

And so it was that there was hardly a woman of any kind or degree,

who lived within view of Brent's Rock, who did not cherish some form

of secret admiration for the handsome wastrel. The category was a

wide one, for Brent's Rock rose up steeply from the midst of a level

region and for a circuit of a hundred miles it lay on the horizon,

with its high old towers and steep roofs cutting the level edge of

wood and hamlet, and far-scattered mansions.

So long as Geoffrey Brent confined his dissipations to London and

Paris and Vienna-anywhere out of sight and sound of his home-opinion

was silent. It is easy to listen to far off echoes unmoved, and we

can treat them with disbelief, or scorn, or disdain, or whatever

attitude of coldness may suit our purpose. But when the scandal came

close to home it was another matter; and the feelings of independence

and integrity which is in people of every community which is not

utterly spoiled, asserted itself and demanded that condemnation

should be expressed. Still there was a certain reticence in all, and

no more notice was taken of the existing facts than was absolutely

necessary. Margaret Delandre bore herself so fearlessly and so

openly-she accepted her position as the justified companion of

Geoffrey Brent so naturally that people came to believe that she

was secretly married to him, and therefore thought it wiser to hold

their tongues lest time should justify her and also make her an

active enemy.

The one person who, by his interference, could have settled all

doubts was debarred by circumstances from interfering in the matter.

Wykham Delandre had quarrelled with his sister-or perhaps it was

that she had quarrelled with him-and they were on terms not merely

of armed neutrality but of bitter hatred. The quarrel had been

antecedent to Margaret going to Brent's Rock. She and Wykham had

almost come to blows. There had certainly been threats on one side

and on the other; and in the end Wykham overcome with passion, had

ordered his sister to leave his house. She had risen straightway,

and, without waiting to pack up even her own personal belongings,

had walked out of the house. On the threshold she had paused for a

moment to hurl a bitter threat at Wykham that he would rue in shame

and despair to the last hour of his life his act of that day. Some

weeks had since passed; and it was understood in the neighbourhood

that Margaret had gone to London, when she suddenly appeared driving

out with Geoffrey Brent, and the entire neighbourhood knew before

nightfall that she had taken up her abode at the Rock. It was no

subject of surprise that Brent had come back unexpectedly, for such

was his usual custom. Even his own servants never knew when to expect

him, for there was a private door, of which he alone had the key, by

which he sometimes entered without anyone in the house being aware

of his coming. This was his usual method of appearing after a long

absence.

Wykham Delandre was furious at the news. He vowed vengeance-and

to keep his mind level with his passion drank deeper than ever.

He tried several times to see his sister, but she contemptuously

refused to meet him. He tried to have an interview with Brent and

was refused by him also. Then he tried to stop him in the road, but

without avail, for Geoffrey was not a man to be stopped against his

will. Several actual encounters took place between the two men, and

many more were threatened and avoided. At last Wykham Delandre

settled down to a morose, vengeful acceptance of the situation.

Neither Margaret nor Geoffrey was of a pacific temperament, and

it was not long before there began to be quarrels between them. One

thing would lead to another, and wine flowed freely at Brent's Rock.

Now and again the quarrels would assume a bitter aspect, and threats

would be exchanged in uncompromising language that fairly awed the

listening servants. But such quarrels generally ended where domestic

altercations do, in reconciliation, and in a mutual respect for the

fighting qualities proportionate to their manifestation. Fighting for

its own sake is found by a certain class of persons, all the world

over, to be a matter of absorbing interest, and there is no reason to

believe that domestic conditions minimise its potency. Geoffrey and

Margaret made occasional absences from Brent's Rock, and on each

of these occasions Wykham Delandre also absented himself; but as he

generally heard of the absence too late to be of any service, he

returned home each time in a more bitter and discontented frame of

mind than before.

At last there came a time when the absence from Brent's Rock

became longer than before. Only a few days earlier there had been

a quarrel, exceeding in bitterness anything which had gone before;

but this, too, had been made up, and a trip on the Continent had

been mentioned before the servants. After a few days Wykham Delandre

also went away, and it was some weeks before he returned. It was

noticed that he was full of some new importance-satisfaction,

exaltation-they hardly knew how to call it. He went straightway to

Brent's Rock, and demanded to see Geoffrey Brent, and on being told

that he had not yet returned, said, with a grim decision which the

servants noted:

"I shall come again. My news is solid-it can wait!" and turned

away. Week after week went by, and month after month; and then there

came a rumour, certified later on, that an accident had occurred

in the Zermatt valley. Whilst crossing a dangerous pass the carriage

containing an English lady and the driver had fallen over a

precipice, the gentleman of the party, Mr. Geoffrey Brent, having

been fortunately saved as he had been walking up the hill to ease the

horses. He gave information, and search was made. The broken rail,

the excoriated roadway, the marks where the horses had struggled

on the decline before finally pitching over into the torrent-all

told the sad tale. It was a wet season, and there had been much snow

in the winter, so that the river was swollen beyond its usual volume,

and the eddies of the stream were packed with ice. All search was

made, and finally the wreck of the carriage and the body of one horse

were found in an eddy of the river. Later on the body of the driver

was found on the sandy, torrent-swept waste near Tasch; but the body

of the lady, like that of the other horse, had quite disappeared, and

was-what was left of it by that time-whirling amongst the eddies of

the Rhone on its way down to the Lake of Geneva.

Wykham Delandre made all the enquiries possible, but could not

find any trace of the missing woman. He found, however, in the books

of the various hotels the name of "Mr. and Mrs. Geoffrey Brent." And

he had a stone erected at Zermatt to his sister's memory, under her

married name, and a tablet put up in the church at Bretten, the

parish in which both Brent's Rock and Dander's Croft were situated.

There was a lapse of nearly a year, after the excitement of the

matter had worn away, and the whole neighbourhood had gone on its

accustomed way. Brent was still absent, and Delandre more drunken,

more morose, and more revengeful than before.

Then there was a new excitement. Brent's Rock was being made ready

for a new mistress. It was officially announced by Geoffrey himself

in a letter to the Vicar, that he had been married some months before

to an Italian lady, and that they were then on their way home. Then

a small army of workmen invaded the house; and hammer and plane

sounded, and a general air of size and paint pervaded the atmosphere.

One wing of the old house, the south, was entirely re-done; and then

the great body of the workmen departed, leaving only materials for

the doing of the old hall when Geoffrey Brent should have returned,

for he had directed that the decoration was only to be done under

his own eyes. He had brought with him accurate drawings of a hall in

the house of his bride's father, for he wished to reproduce for her

the place to which she had been accustomed. As the moulding had all

to be re-done, some scaffolding poles and boards were brought in and

laid on one side of the great hall, and also a great wooden tank or

box for mixing the lime, which was laid in bags beside it.

When the new mistress of Brent's Rock arrived the bells of the

church rang out, and there was a general jubilation. She was a

beautiful creature, full of the poetry and fire and passion of the

South; and the few English words which she had learned were spoken

in such a sweet and pretty broken way that she won the hearts of the

people almost as much by the music of her voice as by the melting

beauty of her dark eyes.

Geoffrey Brent seemed more happy than he had ever before appeared;

but there was a dark, anxious look on his face that was new to those

who knew him of old, and he started at times as though at some noise

that was unheard by others.

And so months passed and the whisper grew that at last Brent's

Rock was to have an heir. Geoffrey was very tender to his wife, and

the new bond between them seemed to soften him. He took more interest

in his tenants and their needs than he had ever done; and works of

charity on his part as well as on his sweet young wife's were not

lacking. He seemed to have set all his hopes on the child that was

coming, and as he looked deeper into the future the dark shadow that

had come over his face seemed to die gradually away.

All the time Wykham Delandre nursed his revenge. Deep in his heart

had grown up a purpose of vengeance which only waited an opportunity

to crystallise and take a definite shape. His vague idea was somehow

centred in the wife of Brent, for he knew that he could strike him

best through those he loved, and the coming time seemed to hold in

its womb the opportunity for which he longed. One night he sat alone

in the living-room of his house. It had once been a handsome room in

its way, but time and neglect had done their work and it was now

little better than a ruin, without dignity or picturesqueness of any

kind. He had been drinking heavily for some time and was more than

half stupefied. He thought he heard a noise as of someone at the door

and looked up. Then he called half savagely to come in; but there was

no response. With a muttered blasphemy he renewed his potations.

Presently he forgot all around him, sank into a daze, but suddenly

awoke to see standing before him some one or something like a

battered, ghostly edition of his sister. For a few moments there

came upon him a sort of fear. The woman before him, with distorted

features and burning eyes seemed hardly human, and the only thing

that seemed a reality of his sister, as she had been, was her wealth

of golden hair, and this was now streaked with grey. She eyed her

brother with a long, cold stare; and he, too, as he looked and began

to realise the actuality of her presence, found the hatred of her

which he had had, once again surging up in his heart. All the

brooding passion of the past year seemed to find a voice at once

as he asked her: -

"Why are you here? You're dead and buried."

"I am here, Wykham Delandre, for no love of you, but because I

hate another even more than I do you!" A great passion blazed in

her eyes.

"Him?" he asked, in so fierce a whisper that even the woman was

for an instant startled till she regained her calm.

"Yes, him!" she answered. "But make no mistake, my revenge is my

own; and I merely use you to help me to it." Wykham asked suddenly:

"Did he marry you?"

The woman's distorted face broadened out in a ghastly attempt

at a smile. It was a hideous mockery, for the broken features and

seamed scars took strange shapes and strange colours, and queer

lines of white showed out as the straining muscles pressed on the

old cicatrices.

"So you would like to know! It would please your pride to feel

that your sister was truly married! Well, you shall not know. That

was my revenge on you, and I do not mean to change it by a hair's

breadth. I have come here to-night simply to let you know that I

am alive, so that if any violence be done me where I am going there

may be a witness."

"Where are you going?" demanded her brother.

"That is my affair! and I have not the least intention of letting

you know!" Wykham stood up, but the drink was on him and he reeled

and fell. As he lay on the floor he announced his intention of

following his sister; and with an outburst of splenetic humour told

her that he would follow her through the darkness by the light of

her hair, and of her beauty. At this she turned on him, and said

that there were others beside him that would rue her hair and her

beauty too. "As he will," she hissed; "for the hair remains though

the beauty be gone. When he withdrew the lynch-pin and sent us over

the precipice into the torrent, he had little thought of my beauty.

Perhaps his beauty would be scarred like mine were he whirled, as I

was, among the rocks of the Visp, and frozen on the ice pack in the

drift of the river. But let him beware! His time is coming!" and

with a fierce gesture she flung open the door and passed out into

the night.

***

Later on that night, Mrs. Brent, who was but half-asleep,

became suddenly awake and spoke to her husband:

"Geoffrey, was not that the click of a lock somewhere below

our window?"

But Geoffrey-though she thought that he, too, had started at the

noise-seemed sound asleep, and breathed heavily. Again Mrs. Brent

dozed; but this time awoke to the fact that her husband had arisen

and was partially dressed. He was deadly pale, and when the light

of the lamp which he had in his hand fell on his face, she was

frightened at the look in his eyes.

"What is it, Geoffrey? What dost thou?" she asked.

"Hush! little one," he answered, in a strange, hoarse voice. "Go

to sleep. I am restless, and wish to finish some work I left undone."

"Bring it here, my husband," she said; "I am lonely and I fear

when thou art away."

For reply he merely kissed her and went out, closing the door

behind him. She lay awake for awhile, and then nature asserted

itself, and she slept.

Suddenly she started broad awake with the memory in her ears of

a smothered cry from somewhere not far off. She jumped up and ran to

the door and listened, but there was no sound. She grew alarmed for

her husband, and called out: "Geoffrey! Geoffrey!"

After a few moments the door of the great hall opened, and

Geoffrey appeared at it, but without his lamp.

"Hush!" he said, in a sort of whisper, and his voice was harsh and

stern. "Hush! Get to bed! I am working, and must not be disturbed. Go

to sleep, and do not wake the house!"

With a chill in her heart-for the harshness of her husband's

voice was new to her-she crept back to bed and lay there trembling,

too frightened to cry, and listened to every sound. There was a long

pause of silence, and then the sound of some iron implement striking

muffled blows! Then there came a clang of a heavy stone falling,

followed by a muffled curse. Then a dragging sound, and then more

noise of stone on stone. She lay all the while in an agony of fear,

and her heart beat dreadfully. She heard a curious sort of scraping

sound; and then there was silence. Presently the door opened gently,

and Geoffrey appeared. His wife pretended to be asleep; but through

her eyelashes she saw him wash from his hands something white that

looked like lime.

In the morning he made no allusion to the previous night, and

she was afraid to ask any question.

From that day there seemed some shadow over Geoffrey Brent. He

neither ate nor slept as he had been accustomed, and his former

habit of turning suddenly as though someone were speaking from behind

him revived. The old hall seemed to have some kind of fascination for

him. He used to go there many times in the day, but grew impatient

if anyone, even his wife, entered it. When the builder's foreman came

to inquire about continuing his work Geoffrey was out driving; the

man went into the hall, and when Geoffrey returned the servant told

him of his arrival and where he was. With a frightful oath he pushed

the servant aside and hurried up to the old hall. The workman met

him almost at the door; and as Geoffrey burst into the room he ran

against him. The man apologised:

"Beg pardon, sir, but I was just going out to make some enquiries.

I directed twelve sacks of lime to be sent here, but I see there are

only ten."

"Damn the ten sacks and the twelve too!" was the ungracious and

incomprehensible rejoinder.

The workman looked surprised, and tried to turn the conversation.

"I see, sir, there is a little matter which our people must have

done; but the governor will of course see it set right at his own

cost."

"What do you mean?"

"That 'ere 'arth-stone, sir: Some idiot must have put a scaffold

pole on it and cracked it right down the middle, and it's thick

enough you'd think to stand hanythink." Geoffrey was silent for quite

a minute, and then said in a constrained voice and with much gentler

manner:

"Tell your people that I am not going on with the work in the hall

at present. I want to leave it as it is for a while longer."

"All right sir. I'll send up a few of our chaps to take away these

poles and lime bags and tidy the place up a bit."

"No! No!" said Geoffrey, "leave them where they are. I shall send

and tell you when you are to get on with the work." So the foreman

went away, and his comment to his master was:

"I'd send in the bill, sir, for the work already done. 'Pears to

me that money's a little shaky in that quarter."

Once or twice Delandre tried to stop Brent on the road, and, at

last, finding that he could not attain his object rode after the

carriage, calling out:

"What has become of my sister, your wife?" Geoffrey lashed his

horses into a gallop, and the other, seeing from his white face and

from his wife's collapse almost into a faint that this object was

attained, rode away with a scowl and a laugh.

That night when Geoffrey went into the hall he passed over to

the great fireplace, and all at once started back with a smothered

cry. Then with an effort he pulled himself together and went away,

returning with a light. He bent down over the broken hearth-stone to

see if the moonlight falling through the storied window had in any

way deceived him. Then with a groan of anguish he sank to his knees.

There, sure enough, through the crack in the broken stone were

protruding a multitude of threads of golden hair just tinged with

grey!

He was disturbed by a noise at the door, and looking round, saw

his wife standing in the doorway. In the desperation of the moment

he took action to prevent discovery, and lighting a match at the

lamp, stooped down and burned away the hair that rose through the

broken stone. Then rising nonchalantly as he could, he pretended

surprise at seeing his wife beside him.

For the next week he lived in an agony; for, whether by accident

or design, he could not find himself alone in the hall for any

length of time. At each visit the hair had grown afresh through the

crack, and he had to watch it carefully lest his terrible secret

should be discovered. He tried to find a receptacle for the body of

the murdered woman outside the house, but someone always interrupted

him; and once, when he was coming out of the private doorway, he was

met by his wife, who began to question him about it, and manifested

surprise that she should not have before noticed the key which he now

reluctantly showed her. Geoffrey dearly and passionately loved his

wife, so that any possibility of her discovering his dread secrets,

or even of doubting him, filled him with anguish; and after a couple

of days had passed, he could not help coming to the conclusion that,

at least, she suspected something.

That very evening she came into the hall after her drive and found

him there sitting moodily by the deserted fireplace. She spoke to him

directly.

"Geoffrey, I have been spoken to by that fellow Delandre, and

he says horrible things. He tells to me that a week ago his sister

returned to his house, the wreck and ruin of her former self, with

only her golden hair as of old, and announced some fell intention.

He asked me where she is-and oh, Geoffrey, she is dead, she is dead!

So how can she have returned? Oh! I am in dread, and I know not

where to turn!"

For answer, Geoffrey burst into a torrent of blasphemy which made

her shudder. He cursed Delandre and his sister and all their kind,

and in especial he hurled curse after curse on her golden hair.

"Oh, hush! hush!" she said, and was then silent, for she feared

her husband when she saw the evil effect of his humour. Geoffrey in

the torrent of his anger stood up and moved away from the hearth;

but suddenly stopped as he saw a new look of terror in his wife's

eyes. He followed their glance, and then he, too, shuddered-for

there on the broken hearth-stone lay a golden streak as the points

of the hair rose through the crack.

"Look, look!" she shrieked. "It is some ghost of the dead! Come

away-come away!" and seizing her husband by the wrist with the frenzy

of madness, she pulled him from the room.

That night she was in a raging fever. The doctor of the district

attended her at once, and special aid was telegraphed for to London.

Geoffrey was in despair, and in his anguish at the danger of his

young wife almost forgot his own crime and its consequences. In the

evening the doctor had to leave to attend to others; but he left

Geoffrey in charge of his wife. His last words were:

"Remember, you must humour her till I come in the morning, or

till some other doctor has her case in hand. What you have to dread

is another attack of emotion. See that she is kept warm. Nothing

more can be done."

Late in the evening, when the rest of the household had retired,

Geoffrey's wife got up from her bed and called to her husband.

"Come!" she said. "Come to the old hall! I know where the gold

comes from! I want to see it grow!"

Geoffrey would fain have stopped her, but he feared for her life

or reason on the one hand, and lest in a paroxysm she should shriek

out her terrible suspicion, and seeing that it was useless to try

to prevent her, wrapped a warm rug around her and went with her to

the old hall. When they entered, she turned and shut the door and

locked it.

"We want no strangers amongst us three to-night!" she whispered

with a wan smile.

"We three! nay we are but two," said Geoffrey with a shudder; he

feared to say more.

"Sit here," said his wife as she put out the light. "Sit here

by the hearth and watch the gold growing. The silver moonlight is

jealous! See it steals along the floor towards the gold-our gold!"

Geoffrey looked with growing horror, and saw that during the hours

that had passed the golden hair had protruded further through the

broken hearth-stone. He tried to hide it by placing his feet over

the broken place; and his wife, drawing her chair beside him, leant

over and laid her head on his shoulder.

"Now do not stir, dear," she said; "let us sit still and watch.

We shall find the secret of the growing gold!" He passed his arm

round her and sat silent; and as the moonlight stole along the floor

she sank to sleep.

He feared to wake her; and so sat silent and miserable as the

hours stole away.

Before his horror-struck eyes the golden-hair from the broken

stone grew and grew; and as it increased, so his heart got colder

and colder, till at last he had not power to stir, and sat with

eyes full of terror watching his doom.

***

In the morning when the London doctor came, neither Geoffrey

nor his wife could be found. Search was made in all the rooms, but

without avail. As a last resource the great door of the old hall

was broken open, and those who entered saw a grim and sorry sight.

There by the deserted hearth Geoffrey Brent and his young wife

sat cold and white and dead. Her face was peaceful, and her eyes were

closed in sleep; but his face was a sight that made all who saw it

shudder, for there was on it a look of unutterable horror. The eyes

were open and stared glassily at his feet, which were twined with

tresses of golden hair, streaked with grey, which came through the

broken hearth-stone.

#long post #elizabeth siddal #lucy westenra #bram stoker #dracula

1 note · View note

yfere · 6 years ago

Text

Nott’s Morality: A Long, Probably Incredibly Redundant Meta

This is a long one, but I didn’t think it would work as well split in two. Please bear with me.

I’ve been thinking about Gluzo, and kind of laughing to myself over how the way the M9 react to him, alone and vulnerable in the aftermath of his personal tragedy provides kind of a litmus test to the kind of moral beings they are--a sort of D&D version of the story of the Good Samaritan, if you will. You see an attacked bugbear on the side of the road--what do you do? You have Caduceus, who is more than willing to just let things be (it’s none of their business, they shouldn’t bother him), who tries to amicably cut ties with Gluzo several times. You have Jester, who is more than happy to callously terrorize him for laughs, until he’s recruited and she instantly makes it her priority to be friendly and likable with him. You have Caleb, who more than anyone else is interested in recruiting him through a strange carrot-and-stick routine purely because he thinks he can be useful to the group’s goals.

And then you have Nott. And as always, Nott is very interesting. Nott thinks “he’s a bugbear, fuck him,” and would be perfectly happy murdering him, because, as Sam says with a shade of humor, “I’m a fantasy racist!” But Nott also is the one to present the possibility of plying him for information or possibly recruiting him in the first place. It isn’t necessarily the option she prefers to take, but it’s something that she can help do, so she simply, neutrally presents the possibility, (alongside the possibility of killing him) and follows the group consensus on what to do without hesitation or reservation.

And this brought back to mind two things I’ve been thinking about Nott for a very long time: one, how very, very entrenched she is in “Us vs Them” mentality on every front, coupled with having perhaps the most traditional moral sense of all of the M9; and two, the curious and nearly mathematical way she juggles her various levels of personal allegiances.

#1 is an interesting thing to me, because on one level Sam is saying, “I’m a fantasy racist!” and being a very stereotypical D&D protagonist who thinks yeah, Xhorhas and monster creatures are bad, and the Empire and “good” humanoids are Good, why would I think any differently? What makes Nott’s character so interesting though is how that perspective is in immediate conflict with her surrounding context: she is the only person in the party who routinely refers to the M9′s enemies (and in the case of the Xhorhasian soldiers, people who were not the M9′s enemies so much as the Empire’s enemies) as “the bad guys,” the only one who routinely dehumanizes the people they kill to an extent that she quite literally doesn’t give a fuck about murdering any potential enemy at any time. (Watsonian perspective: maybe that’s one reason her kill count is so damn high?)

She is the only person in the party who immediately and strongly advocates for the idea they turn in the Empire rebels into the authorities for money in Zadash because they’re criminals, and what on Earth is stopping them? She is the only person in the party who ever questions Yasha as if she is a nationally based threat, as if she is potentially an evil spy just because she is from Xhorhas. She (alongside Jester) is among the people in the party who feel absolutely the least angst about murdering pirates on the docks of Nicodranas, because, they’re pirates! Criminals! The bad guys who attacked us! Why on Earth feel bad about that? She is the one who most strongly and insistently questions Fjord’s quest, not because releasing a violent Betrayer God serpent on the Menagerie Coast is “a bad idea” (Beau, Caleb) or because Fjord might personally betray his friends (Jester), but because Uk’otoa, and by probable extension Fjord, is “evil.”

Nott has these very hard-line, essentialist perspectives on what is right and what is wrong, but beyond being Standard Fantasy Morality, it also reflects on how she’s in many ways the least weird person in a very weird party. And it’s also a very incisive commentary on exactly the kind of hardline, Us vs Them mentality you would expect to see in an ordinary middle-class woman in the rural area of an authoritarian empire rife with racism and propaganda. Because, even if her overall opinion of the Empire has drastically changed, the underlying assumptions and systems of belief the Empire inculcated in her haven’t actually disappeared in the process of her moving the Empire government to the category of “bad guys.” Of course Xhorhasians are the “bad guys”--”we” are the empire, and “they” are the enemy. Of course goblins and monstrous races are evil scum of the earth--”we” are the civilized good ones, and “they” are not. Of course rebels should be turned in--”we” are good citizens, and “they” are not. Notably, Nott’s own status as a deviant thief on the run from the law does not change her views on either criminality in other people or race in other people. She believes she was just forcibly placed on the “they” side of the equation, and, as she thinks that the kleptomania (and by extension, the criminality) stems only from her race, she thinks that the moment she is restored to her halfling body as “Veth” she can go back to being the “we,” a law abiding citizen living her ordinary life with her family.

But, you say, how are we to account for the fact that she is so easily convinced to act against her Empire-borne biases? Why does she agree to help the rebels and turn on the government? Why does she not take her friends to task when they join criminal organizations, when she thinks other criminals are deserving of bad ends? Why is she the one to so easily and uncomplainingly offer the possibility of working with Gluzo the bugbear? How to we account for the heel face turn of her opinion of the Empire after hearing Caleb’s story? Does she not care about the Us vs Them that much after all?

Well, in a way. And that brings us to #2: Nott’s Mathematical Ranking of Personal Allegiances.

Which we’ve already heard about in action with Jester. Of course Nott would save Jester and prioritize Jester from being threatened by a dragon......unless she had to choose between Jester and Caleb. And I would argue that’s not necessarily a negative commentary on her relationship to either one of them, it’s just that Nott has a very codified, hierarchical system to help her determine how to act to best help Her People, and that involves a system of concentric circles for which the ones closest to her are always prioritized above the rest. (very different from Jester’s simple delineation between Friends and Not-Friends!) It’s a beautiful system, really, that saves Nott from a lot of mental agony. Post Ball of Fun, it’s what allows her to say, with complete sincerity, “I did nothing wrong,” even though she pressured Caleb to remain behind with the books to advance his interests while the others were in danger.

And what is this system? First and foremost, it’s her family, that she will put before everything else, and even Caleb. Then there’s Caleb. Then there’s Jester and a few of the M9...I wouldn’t be surprised, actually, if Nott has worked out a precise order of which members of the M9 she would save in a crisis. And the M9, as a group, come next, before her views on crime, her nationalism, or her racism. It’s because Caleb suffered at the hands of the Empire that she turns her back on the Empire--he is ranked higher, to her. But that doesn’t mean, that if presented with the option of throwing in with either the Empire or Xhorhasians in a conflict, she isn’t going to consciously or unconsciously side with the Empire every time, so long as it’s not against her family’s interests, or Caleb’s, or the M9′s. But her allegiance to the M9 over all else accounts for a great deal of the rest of the moral flexibility we see from her. It’s fine if the M9 join a criminal organization, because it’s them, and they are never going to be the bad guys of Nott’s story. It’s fine if the M9 need to work with a bugbear (to help Nott with her family!) because they’re ranked higher. Really, the reason why Nott does half of the things she does is because it matters to the M9, and what matters to them matters to her above all--until it happens to conflict with the needs and desires of someone more important to her.

What scares me about all this is that this hierarchical mindset of hers is, by nature of its construction, incredibly resistant to change. Because what kind of madness would it take to challenge it, really? When she can so easily justify any kind of code switching to herself without feeling any contradiction in what she does? Beyond that--do we need her to change?

#critical role #cr spoilers #meta #nott the brave #I continue to obsess over ethics as always #I also can't keep up with the volume of meta put out by yall #so I literally never know how boring I'm being #I'm just excited is all

670 notes · View notes

thecorteztwins · 5 years ago

Text

Character Flaws: How To Do Them (And How Not To)

Hi there, I’m going to talk about character flaws today! And I’m going to start with a very unpopular statement----I think flawless characters, or characters with minimal flaws, are just fine. It just depends on what kind of character you want to portray. Some character roles are SUPPOSED to be paragons of virtue or sweet innocent angels, just as some characters are SUPPOSED to be dastardly evil-doers or complex nuanced grimdark antiheroes. What matters is whether it’s what you INTEND, and how to pull it off. Also, I’m not an expert. These are opinions. Feel free to agree or disagree, take what you like and leave the rest, etc. I am not an authority in ANY way, and your thoughts are just as valid as mine. That said, let’s start. Strap in, this got long, I’m sorry.

There are three general types of flaws that you can give to a character: INTERVIEW FLAWS aka CINNAMON ROLL FLAWS aka NON-FLAWS I call them this because they’re the sort of “flaws” that you would say you have at a job interview when asked what your flaws are. They’re “flaws” that make someone actually sound better---more moral, or more endearing, or more sympathetic, etc. Things like “too loyal” or “kind to a fault” or “too protective of his friends”. They’re the sort of flaws that “cinnamon roll” characters typically have. These actually can become very damning mega-flaws if taken to the extreme, but more on that later; this paragraph is for when they’re still solidly in “interview flaw” territory. A big aspect of these “flaws” is that they only hurt the character, if anyone. They will seldom, if ever, negatively affect another person. If they do hurt someone else, it will often be in a way that is totally justified to the reader (the character who is “too protective” beating up someone who was being a jerk to his friends) or really not the character’s fault at all (a naive character being manipulated by a bad guy into revealing something important) Whatever trouble they get in will usually be done in a way that is meant to make the reader either feel bad for them, or see them in a positive light for it. If this is the sort of character you want to go for, that is a-okay! Cinnamon rolls have their place in a story, and they can be just as beloved by fans as more grimdark characters. The only problem comes is when someone tries to sell their character as “flawed” when actually they’re just one of these. Or, alternatively, tries to sell the character as one of these when actually they’re one of the categories below. But if it’s exactly what you intended? Great! NORMAL FLAWS Exactly what it says---flaws that a normal person would have. Things like jealousy, snobbery, misanthropy, negativity, bad tempers, irresponsibility, laziness, not taking things seriously when they should, the list goes on and on. This is probably the widest category, since what flaw you pick and how it manifests can span the range from being almost a non-flaw but not quite, to nearly a mega-flaw. It also depends on the character who has it, what they’re like otherwise, and why they have it. For instance, someone who is unjustly hostile to someone trying to help them because they’re suspicious due to being tricked, exploited, or abused in the past by people pretending to be well-meaning, is a lot more sympathetic than someone who just doesn’t think they need help because they see themselves as perfect and don’t like correction. Both still fall under the “normal” category most of the time, but are coming from very different places, and will be perceived differently by most readers. So, which to use? It all depends what you’re going for with your character! MEGA FLAWS The big ones. The ones that will really make others dislike your character. Things like real-life bigotry (as in, being homophobic, not hating elves), gleeful bullying and abusiveness, toxic egomania, blaming others (especially innocent characters) for their mistakes, sexual misconduct, and kicking puppies, to name a few. Sometimes, these can be used to make audiences hate the characters instantly, but that’s actually not always guaranteed. A great many characters that are among the most popular in their respective fandoms have one or more of these traits. Sometimes, that’s just because people love a good villain, but other times it’s because the character’s reasons for these flaws, or the character’s overall personality in general apart from the flaws, are very compelling and interesting. Just as some people love cinnamon rolls, some people prefer darker characters like these, and much like preferring different ice cream flavors, neither is superior to the other. These kinds of flaws also don’t always translate to truly inhuman, awful people either. Sometimes a character may actually be MORE human for them. The protagonist in a novel I once read was raised by his grandparents because his mother, who gave birth to him as a teen, hated him. She wanted nothing to do with him as a child, and outright told him she hated him when he was just barely an adult. The protagonist didn’t know why for most of his life, but eventually found out it was because he was born a twin, and his twin brother died when they were babies. He was born big, healthy, and strong, whereas his brother had been tiny and weak and sick, probably because he sapped the bulk of the nutrients in the womb, which sadly is something that sometimes happens. The mother was devastated by the death of her weaker son, and blamed the surviving one, feeling he was a monster baby that killed his sibling, not to mention resented how he was fawned over by the rest of her family when they had treated her like dirt, including her own parents. This woman was not meant as sympathetic to readers. It was pretty clear to me that the writer wanted us to see her as horrible. And what she did was completely horrible indeed. She blamed an innocent baby for something not possibly his fault, and held that against him his whole life. That’s unforgivably awful, and there’s no excuse for it. Yet it’s such a human reaction that it made me feel for her. People often are illogical and awful in ways like this, it’s very believable to me that a human being would feel this way. It was meant to make her an irredeemable strawman, but my reaction was to see her now as less of a 2D “bad mother” cutout, and more of a person. Sometimes, it’s the worst in people that can win us over, because that can sometimes be the most human part of them. Note that this will often be divisive; I’m sure a lot of readers actually did hate this woman all the more for this, and that’s a totally valid reaction too. However, if you wish to make your character truly despicable, hurting children or cute animals is generally a good way to go; most readers won’t forgive that (though I’ve seen it happen) That said, be warned that making your character sexy or tragic (especially in combination) will inevitably make some fans fawn over them regardless of how evil they are, and there’s not much you can do about it. Someone is ALWAYS going to find the bad guy hot/sympathetic even when you’re not SUPPOSED to. Now that we’ve covered the different categories of GOOD ways to write flaws, here are some ways that I see people failing at writing flaws: INFORMED FLAWS Informed flaws are flaws that the writer CLAIMS the character has, but never actually show up. For instance, they SAY that this character is standoffish, has a temper, and can be cruel, but only ever write him as being lovably surly at worst, and typically very tolerant and patient with others (especially cute children or cinnamon bun types) Or they claim that the character is shy and insecure, but here they are trying out for the lead in the school play without anyone pushing them to do it. This is often due to the author being overly affectionate towards their character. In the first example, they want their character to be a tough guy, but an ENDEARING tough guy, and not risk him doing anything that the audience might possibly dislike him for. So they go overboard with showing his “soft” moments, while never showing the “hard” ones that are what would make the “soft” ones actually special and unusual. In the second example, maybe the character is just shy and insecure in a different way (like they’re comfortable on-stage because there’s no actual interaction with people, and crumble when in real conversations) but more likely, they’re just acting out-of-character because the author WANTS them to be the lead in the play, regardless of how little sense it makes for them to try out and get the part. Informed flaws are basically a failure of a “show, don’t tell” rule. We’re TOLD that this character has a flaw, but we’re either never shown it, or shown the exact opposite. For instance, we may be told that this character never opens up to people because of her dark past, but it sure doesn’t seem that way if she immediately starts talking about that dark past to first man who shows interest in her as she falls into his arms. And it’s hard to take a writer’s claim that their character is “humble” with any seriousness if that character has a habit of bringing up his numerous talents and accomplishments in every conversation. And you may SAY that a character tends to get jealous, but how do we KNOW if she never encounters anyone she’s jealous of? INCONSEQUENTIAL FLAWS The character is a rude abrasive jerk, but everyone likes her immediately anyway! Maybe they can instantly see past her snarky surface to the sensitive soul beneath, or maybe they respect her toughness and candor. Some people have a problem with her attitude, but they’re either prudish sticks-in-the-mod, overly sensitive namby-pambies, sexists who are threatened by a strong woman, or they come around to respecting/liking her in the end! The character hates breaking rules and getting into trouble; he craves approval from authority, and will tell on his friends to get it. Fortunately, he’s never put in this position, or, if he does, his friends understand and forgive him, and may even agree that he did the right thing. The character is impulsive and acts on their first thought, if they think at all. Luckily, her assumptions prove correct (or at least lead her to the right place) and her reckless actions not only don’t cause any problems, they save the day! Everyone is proud of her, and no one scolds her for anything she did along the way that might have broken protocol or endangered other people. The character is super hostile anyone breaking his routine...but then his routine never gets broke in the story or any of his interactions. He’s also terrified of animals, but luckily no animals appear in the story. And he’s an asshole at work, but none of the story takes place there and none of the other characters are his co-workers. See the problem? None of these flaws MATTER. They either don’t come up in the story at all, and thus never get a chance to affect the character, or if they do come up, they don’t cause any problems for the character, and in fact may benefit them. That’s not a flaw. It doesn’t matter if your character is a freaking SERIAL KILLER if they never face any kind of issue because of it, it’s not a flaw in the context of the story unless it works AGAINST your character in some way. ACCIDENTAL FLAWS These often overlap with inconsequential flaws, and are kind of the opposite of informed flaws. In the case of informed flaws, the author claims to us that the character has a flaw, but then fails to show it (or shows the opposite). In the case of accidental flaws, the author claims that the character DOESN’T have a certain flaw...and then proceeds to give them exactly that. For instance, how many times have you been reading a novel where the heroine INSISTS that she’s very plain and not pretty at all, then proceeded to give us an extremely flattering description of herself? How many times have you read something where the protagonist was acting like a huge jerk, but you got the impression from how it was written that the author expected us to be cheering him on, and anyone who thought he was indeed a jerk was portrayed as always unlikable and in the wrong? This is a case where the writer is either so oblivious or so in love with their own character that they become unaware of how obnoxious their darling is actually coming off. They rush to justify everything she does, they portray any opposition as simply evil or jealous or stupid, they overlook any kind of actual harm that he’s doing to anyone else, and they often make the villains end up accidentally sympathetic by comparison because the hero we’re supposed to love and admire is just so unbearable. The writer has made a very flawed character---but they didn’t mean or want to, and that’s the problem. WEAKNESSES Weaknesses aren’t flaws. Being clumsy, having a physical disability, or being a member of an oppressed/disliked group is not a flaw. Flaws are personality traits. They can be the RESULT of things like trauma or mental disorders, so they’re not always changeable or the person’s fault, but they’re still part of WHO they are, not WHAT, and something they can be held accountable for. If your character’s only “flaws” are being deaf and having PTSD and being an elf in a world that doesn’t like elves, those aren’t flaws, they’re weaknesses or drawbacks. If they’re lacking in some skill, such as fencing or shooting or flipping hamburgers, that’s also not a flaw. It could be a flaw if having the skill is important yet they refuse to work on it (ex: a police officer who doesn’t bother to improve his aim) but it is not in itself a flaw. Hell, it’s not even a weakness unless it’s relevant---I don’t know how to use a gun, but there’s no reason that it’s immediately relevant to my life to do so, so I wouldn’t count it as a weakness or a flaw. TIPS: - Try to be objective as you can about your character, even if you love them. Keep in mind that the other characters around them are people with thoughts and feelings too, and that if your character is rude, cruel, annoying, or off-putting to them, then they may have good reason for disliking or losing patience with your character, no matter what good reason your character has for being that way. If your atheist character trashes the faith of a religious character, it doesn’t matter if they grew up in a household of religious abuse, they’re still being a jerk and the religious character has a right to think so. If your character loses their temper and wrecks a store, it doesn’t matter that they were provoked or are really a nice person, the store owner is still well within their rights to press charges and demand compensation. Avoid vilifying other characters, and take their pain and personhood as seriously as you do the main character’s own. This alone will open the door to showing a lot of flaws that your character has, which will let you then decide if that’s the amount you WANT your character to have, or if you should change some things. - Any trait, including very good traits, can be bad taken to the extreme. For instance, let’s take a common “interview flaw”--- loyal no matter what. A lot of people don’t realize just how dark this can get. But what if your character is so loyal to their friend that they overlook it not only when that friend treats them badly, but treats other people too? What if they discover the friend has done something terrible, like is abusing his wife? What if they’re loyal to a fault to a supervillain organization that is actively hurting or even killing people, and they KNOW this? You can take this some pretty terrible places if you want. You don’t HAVE to, it can remain in “cinnamon roll” or “normal” territory if that’s what you want, but if you’re looking to make a more dark scenario, remember that you don’t need to rely on inherently “dark” flaws like “he loves to hurt people”---the most mild and even positive traits can become disturbing and evil if taken far enough. - If you’re trying to make someone MORE flawed, look at the flaws they already have and consider how it might hurt OTHER PEOPLE instead of just the character. For instance, if your character is very insecure, perhaps instead of just thinking about how worthless or untalented they are, they are overly-critical, even mean, to people who are even less talented. Or when someone else is more talented at something they wish they were better at, they scrutinize that person to find bad things about them, or even just assume things about them---like “sure, she’s a much better artist than me, but she’s ugly and she can’t write worth a damn” or “he may have a girlfriend and be good-looking, but he’s dumb as a brick and probably a bully like all dumb jocks”. An attitude like that takes your character from simply being the purely sympathetic sort of insecure, to someone who is actually doing something wrong because of it. Again, this is if you WANT your character to have more of an edge; it doesn’t suit some characters, and that’s ok. - By the same token, if you want to take some edge OFF your character and make them less flawed, look at how their present flaws might negatively affect others, and decrease that. If the character you WANT to be a “cinnamon bun” lashes out at people who just don’t understand her pain/genius/specialness/goodness/etc, maybe reconsider that. - If you want to get ideas for flaws, look at the things other people do that annoy you. What are your pet peeves? Maybe you hate “Karen” behavior, or people who don’t take proper care of their pets, people who think they’re funny or clever when they’re not, people who interrupt you when you’re talking, people who make assumptions, people you feel are fishing for attention, people who believe or share false information without checking it first, people who never seem to listen or learn, people who are always late, people who feel entitled to something, and so on. See if any of them fit your character. Be sure to be honest with yourself---yes, you REALLY love your tough guy character, and you HATE when smokers just throw their butts on the ground...but maybe he would? And maybe he WOULD be snappish with someone who didn’t deserve it? And maybe he WOULD be quick to stereotype others, such as labeling them privileged preps based on how they dress? Think about it. - Zodiac signs are another good place to get ideas for flaws, as are Myers-Briggs personality types, and anything else that categorizes people into different personality types. Note that your character need not actually, say, have that sign for their zodiac, it’s just good places to get base personality ideas. - Try to keep your voice out of your character’s mouth, and let their actions speak for themselves. Whether you want to portray the world’s sweetest cinnamon roll (tired of that phrase yet?) or the worst dumpster fire in the universe, what works to show that isn’t for your character or those around them to TALK about how sweet/terrible your character is, what works is to actually have them do and say things that are sweet/terrible! - Get second opinions! You want to make your character MORE of a jerk? You’re worried they’re TOO MUCH of a jerk? You think your villain is too soft? You want to add moral ambiguity to your hero? Get other people to look at your work! Friends are great for this, but what’s even better is people who aren’t particularly close to you, and won’t hold back on honest advice and feedback.If you want to see how your characters come off to a set of unbiased eyes, the best way is to ask someone! - Remember that everyone is different and no matter how well you portray a character the way you intend, there will always be someone who views them in a way you didn’t want them to at all, even if it makes no sense for them to do so. Make peace with it. Don’t dismiss everyone by saying they “didn’t understand” or “read it wrong” or “are interrogating the text from the wrong perspective”, but by the same token don’t get too hung up on making sure every single reader views every single character the exact way you wanted. It just won’t happen. Just do your best.

#rp stuff #writing advice #advice #flaws #character flaws

13 notes · View notes

httpdxnielx · 5 years ago

Text

‘AN ANALYSIS ON ABORTION BASED ON THE PHILOSOPHICAL THEORY OF ARISTOTLE FROM THE GENDER PERSPECTIVE’

According to traditional Mexican philosophy, abortion is the resolution of a moral dilemma. A dilemma between two undesirable choices: forced motherhood or the termination of pregnancy. There is no “good” alternative. If this were a dilemma between good and evil, the obvious would be to choose good. But for a woman who faces a Morton’s Fork regarding an unwanted pregnancy, there is a great distance between both alternatives, and no matter which decision she makes, she will be judged biased because of the double moral standard still prevalent in society. This double moral code has been shaped for and by men who considered women incapable of making decisions for themselves.

The fundamental political problem in relation to abortion, in my opinion, is the loss of control of men over the reproductive decisions of women. This control has been institutionalized in medicine, justice, lawmaking, among other disciplines, while women have been neglected for reasons attributed to their “nature”. It has its origins in philosophy, from the ancient times to the last decades of the 20th century. A highly authoritative example is Aristotle.

“Also, as between the sexes, the male is by nature superior and the females inferior, the male ruler and the female subject.”

-Aristotle (Politics. Transl. Harvard University Press, 1932)

Aristotle, one of the most influential figures in philosophy, defends a natural hierarchical order, that is, that social roles are based on natural differences between the sexes. This method is still used to justify the alienation of autonomy and the limited access to many social goods when it comes to women and their reproductive functions. The moral virtues belong to everyone, however the value of a man is measured by authority while that of a woman is measured by obedience. So although the distinctive characteristic of human beings lies in their power to reason, there’s nevertheless a certain class of human beings who are excluded from the full exercise of human reason, these being women and slaves.

The purpose of a slave’s life is that of allowing his master to pursue a life of freedom and virtue among other citizens of the polis. The purpose of a woman is similarly functional: she is necessary to produce heirs. Within this way of thinking, a family is a form of organization that exists in benefit of the polis and provides the means for free men to live their lives dedicated to intellectual and political objectives. Therefore, for a woman to go against her life purpose and refuse to assume her role as a mother in the family institution would be detrimental to the polis, even more to the men in power.

“As to exposing or rearing the children born, let there be a law that no deformed child shall be reared; but on the ground of number of children, if the regular customs hinder any of those born being exposed, there must be a limit fixed to the procreation of offspring, and if any people have a child as a result of intercourse in contravention of these regulations, abortion must be practised on it before it has developed sensation and life; for the line between lawful and unlawful abortion will be marked by the fact of having sensation and being alive.”

-Aristotle (Politics. Transl. Harvard University Press, 1932)

In Book VII of the Politics, Aristotle introduces a variable that would allow women to terminate a pregnancy only in the event that the fetus had a deformity or disability, and as long as the nervous system hadn’t fully developed and there was no heartbeat. This statement is problematic in itself for various reasons. It implies that a person with malformations is of not use to the polis, therefore they are placed in a category even below that of women and slaves. Even in this scenario, the decision is not made by the woman who is carrying the embryo, but by the polis who, in its ambition to protect itself, imposes its power over an already vulnerable group. Consequently, the woman is shamed and must carry the guilt of not having fulfilled her purpose as a mother, even if she wanted to. In this case, the integrity of the unborn child is protected (by not allowing it to be born in the first place), and not that of the mother, who can only decide for herself as long the individual for whom she decides is considered inferior to her, because even a healthy unborn child is hierarchically superior to a woman. That is if the child is born a male.

While Aristotle didn’t develop further into the topic of female reproductive rights, it is safe to say that as one of the most renowned philosophical figures in the history of mankind, he certainly laid the foundations on which centuries of sexism were built. Although Aristotle definitely didn’t invent sexism, his writing contained ideas that were used to rationalize a very specific form of misogyny, which resulted in a failed and extremely one-sided political system of a strictly patriarchal nature that thrives due to its blatant degradation of women. It is not surprising that such a flawed and outdated system is so problematic in modern times.

Daniela Y. B. 05/08/2020 https://danielayarbo.wordpress.com/2020/05/15/74/

References

Aristotle. Politics. Translated by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Library 264. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932. Retrieved from: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/aristotle-politics/1932/pb_LCL264.21.xml?readMode=recto (05/07/2020).

Borghini, A. (2019). ThoughtCo. Plato and Aristotle on Women: Selected Quotes. Retrieved from: https://www.thoughtco.com/plato-aristotle-on-women-selected-quotes-2670553 (05/06/2020).

Femenia, M.L. (1988). Hiparquía. Mujer y jerarquía natural en Aristóteles. Retrieved from: http://www.hiparquia.fahce.unlp.edu.ar/numeros/voli/hiparquiav1a1 (05/07/2020).

Huber, K. (2015). Lake Forest College: Eukaryon. Everybody’s a Little Big Sexist: A Re-evaluation of Aristotle’s and Plato’s Philosophies on Women. Retrieved from: https://www.lakeforest.edu/live/news/5499-everybodys-a-little-bit-sexist-a-re-evaluation-of?preview=1 (05/06/2020).

Lytle-Rich, R. (2017). Medium. Degrees of Sexism in Aristotle. Retrieved from: https://medium.com/sex-gender-history-of-medicine/degrees-of-sexism-in-aristotle-b52f0ccec993 (05/06/2020).

Witt, C. (2000). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Feminist History of Philosophy. Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-femhist/ (05/07/2020).

#essays #essay #essaywriting #philosophy #aristotle #reproductive rights #feminism #writing #analysis

5 notes · View notes

euiontumble · 6 years ago

Text

Supporting right to Abortion, to a certain extent that is.

Well... there was this big debate about abortion. Actually, a lot of them. Each time I hesitated about posting my view, but I just decided to say what I really think about it.

A life being born is a very critical decision. The entire happiness and the entire misery of the new born that follows birth is a consequence of the parents' decision to give birth or not.

Every critical thing with potentially severe consequences should have an opportunity for examination and decision to continue or terminate when feasible.

A fetus never gets to choose whether if it will be brought to this world, making an informed decision about what chance of a good life it will have in this world or whether if this world is a kind of place it would want to live. That decision is forced upon by the parents while the parents really have no idea whether if that would lead to happy life or not, even if the new born does make every honest effort for a happy life. The parents just do it because they want it, while forcing the risk to be miserable after being born to the new life. Of course, parents pushing for birth are expecting happiness, and there is that probability also. However, the fact of the matter is that there is no guarantee of effort and hard work resulting in happiness in this world. So, a decision to have a child is always an inherently selfish one.

Of course that decision, whether if a life should be brought to the world and whether if a birth should happen, necessarily have to be made by the parents, since the fetus has no capacity to reason or make decisions, and if a decision to give birth is made, that is justified by parents' expectation of overall happiness of everyone involved.

However, if parents' expectation of happiness can be a justification of the parents' unilateral decision for a life to be born, forcing the risk involved in life to the new born, then it logically follows that parents' expectation of misery and suffering should be an equally valid reason to terminate the fetus. One cannot be a justification without the other also being an equally valid justification.

Quality of what will be experienced in life is what makes life valuable, less valuable, or worthless. The way I see it, a biological organism merely being alive by itself has no intrinsic value just for existing. "One more new life = good" is just a false assumption. It can be good and it can be bad.

Since all the potential good and potential evil involving a new life being brought in this world are both severely great, there should be a period where parents should be able to make careful consideration and make a decision to continue pregnancy or abort before the fetus develops enough capacity to be conscious.

It makes no sense to me to argue that such a critical thing should not have a period where there is an opportunity to make a decision to continue or terminate, especially considering that unexpected pregnancy would not offer such opportunity prior to the pregnancy.

I cannot make an argument for deliberately prohibiting an opportunity to make a decision for thing of such critical importance.

There are, of course, objections to my position on abortion. The most typical argument against it is this:

“Value of all lives are equal. So it is morally wrong to sacrifice a life of a fetus for the happiness of the born people.”

However, simple review of real life cases readily show that the above argument is actually not how life is treated in real life even by people who oppose abortion. For example, abortion is mostly not opposed in situations such as when the pregnancy threatens the health of the mother, or if the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. So, there is a significant logical and behavioral inconsistency here that I will examine.

If abortion is permissible when the pregnancy threatens the health of the mother, that logically means the value of life of the fetus is less than that of the mother.

If abortion is permissible when the pregnancy is a result of a rape or incest, that means it is permissible to sacrifice the life of a fetus to prevent predicted suffering of the mother who would give birth and raise the child of a rapist or person who engaged in incest if abortion is not permitted. So, that logically means it is permissible to sacrifice a fetus for the sake of quality of life of the people who are already born.

Once it is established that termination of a fetus is permissible for the sake of happiness of people who are already born, such as in case of rape or incest, abortion can logically also be permissible in other situations where birth of an unwanted child is expected to cause suffering. The disagreement is then merely a matter of how much expected suffering justifies it.

So, can value of life be different from human to human? Actually, yes. The value of life is different according to social distance. A solider of a certain country would try to rescue a citizen of that soldier's country before rescuing people of any other country. A citizen and a foreigner are assigned different social distance. A father would try to save his own child in danger before trying to save a child of a stranger. His own child and a stranger's child get assigned different social distance. By similar measure, a born person who became a part of the society has closer social distance than a fetus that no one had any meaningful social interaction with.

It is natural and reasonable for any individual to assign more value to someone more significant and important in an example such as family vs. non family, and also for a society to assign more value to someone more significant and important in an example such as citizen vs. foreigner. Same applies to born people vs. a fetus that does not have the capacity to function as a society member.

However, even with such reasoning aside, criticizing the morality of placing different value on life is a moot point because such discrimination in assigned value is instinctive. Criticizing its morality does not change the fact that it inevitably exists. For example, most people, if faced a situation where a pregnancy would threaten the life of the mother, would choose to protect the mother by abortion, even if they have no education or training in philosophy or ethics studies, due to the social distance they intuitively figure.

That does not inhibit people from making artificial things such as a legal system by social contract and make an agreement that certain category of people, such as born people who are citizens of that society, will be treated equally by the legal system.

Also, those people can either choose to or choose not to include fetus into that category. However, the fact of the matter is that because a fetus is incapable of functioning as an independent social entity, it factually has a further social distance. A fetus' life is biologically tied to the mother. And, a fetus being a treated as a legally equal entity as the parents would take away capability of the parents to make decisions that can have serious impact on their lives, since a person often cannot make decisions for another equal person. Those factors make it very unfeasible to include fetus into group within a society where members are treated as legally equal entities. For example, including fetus into a legally protected group creates a situation of hypocrisy where a woman in Ireland who was prohibited from getting an abortion to terminate a pregnancy by rape was allowed to travel to a foreign country for the purpose of getting an abortion. If a fetus holds the same legal status as a mother, being legally recognized as a “person,” then logically, the mother should never be allowed an abortion, even if the pregnancy seriously threatens her health, since an equal being cannot be sacrificed for another equal being. So, that approach has serious pragmatic problems.

Now, as a general matter, a society of liberty should treat members as individuals with rights essential to liberty, and each individuals should be treated equally by the legal system in that regard. However, I see no reason why a living organism with no conscious capacity should be should be considered to have an equal right and value as a person who does. Also, a fetus is, by natural consequence, a being that its fate has to be represented unilaterally by its parents, unlike a born child who can be taken into custody of the state and get different treatment or protection, so no matter what argument is made, a fetus is factually not an equal to the parents and it is not an individual entity that can be feasibly offered independent treatment.

Once it is established that life value of a fetus is not equal to that of a mother or other born humans, then it logically follows that a fetus can be sacrificed for the quality of life for born people, which is exactly how abortion for people who get pregnant by rape or incest is justified.

Even most “pro-life” people who are against abortion would say pregnancy by rape or incest, or pregnancy that seriously threatens the health of the mother, should be a situation where abortion should be allowed. However, what they do not realize is that by doing so, they in fact recognize that value of life of a fetus is not equal to that of the mother or any other born people, and sacrifice of a fetus is permissible for the sake of quality of life of born people. While those people say such ideas are repugnant to them, they actually accept and act according to exactly those ideas without realizing it.

#abortion #reason

3 notes · View notes

wonderfulworldofmichaelford · 7 years ago

Text

Ready Player One review

People who say “The book is always better than the movie!” tend to be foolish people who view literature as an inherently flawless medium incapable of doing wrong. To say that, you need to ignore literature that is objectively better than the source material to the point even the authors prefer it, such as Fight Club, Jaws, and Who Framed Roger Rabbit, or films that greatly improved the work they’re adapting by trimming the fat, such as V for Vendetta and (oh boy I’m probably gonna get shit for this) The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Today’s film is one such film in the latter category, directed by a man behind one of the films mentioned in the former category, a film no one except me thought would be as good as it is: Ready Player One.

The book is easily one of the most contentious novels I’ve ever seen, a truly “love it or hate it” affair. I liked the novel; I read it when I was going through a really rough time back in 2012 or so, and a lot of its themes resonated with me. It’s a cheesy, charming book that unfortunately has a few really cringey bits of writing in it and unfortunately due to its medium spends a lot of time explaining references you wouldn’t see otherwise. I’d put the book on the same level as Eragon; it’s cheesy and has some dumb writing here and there, but overall it’s enjoyable. But even I realized a film could help trim a lot of the fat of this novel and polish it into something grand, and when I heard Spielberg was at the helm I slept a lot easier, figuring that would be the case.

And it was. This movie is a lot better than the book in most regards. But let’s look at the plot first:

In the year 2045, in a world where things seem bleak and joyless, people turn to the virtual reality world of the OASIS, where they can be anyone or anything they want. Its creator, a man named Halliday, created a contest for all the people of the OASIS to take part in after he died, in which the goal was to find the ultimate Easter Egg. Whoever found the three keys and then the Easter Egg would become rich, powerful, and most importantly they would own the OASIS. Wade Watts, known in the OASIS as Parzival, is an average guy who eventually stumbles across the answer of how to get the first key. But he’s not the only person gunning after the prize; the corporation IOI and its douchey head honcho Nolan Sorrento are after total control so they can spam ads and basically make the place a microtransaction nightmare. Can Wade, with the help of his best pal Aech, his love interest Art3mis, and his buddies Daito and Sho manage to stop IOI or is this end of line for the users?

WARNING: THERE’S GONNA BE SPOILERS BELOW.

So I’m gonna go over some of the things I didn’t like in the adaptation first, which honestly mostly amount to nitpicks. The diminished importance of Rush is a bit sad, though it’s kind of understandable since all of the challenges were streamlined and simplified for the movie. That doesn’t suck as much to me as the complete cutting of the Ladyhawke segment, as this book is what introduced me to that movie and I was hoping to see some reference to it. Changing up Aech the way they did kind of diminishes the impact of her reveal, and speaking of which, a lot of characters and backstory are glossed over or ignored, most egregiously Ogden Morrow. The book went into a bit more detail into Morrow, co-creator of the OASIS, and Halliday’s relationship, but in the film Morrow is seemingly shunted aside for much of the film. I don’t think any of this really ruins the film per se, but it certainly makes it a different beast from the book.

Now, time to sing the praises of this film: the visuals are stunning. The OASIS is a major focus of the movie, as it should be, and we get to see so many creative visuals and ideas take place, as well as insane amounts of crossover characters. You’d need to freeze frame every single crowd shot to catch them all; just watching it as I did I saw Duke Nukem, Jason Voorhees, the Battletoads, Hello Kitty, Harley Quinn, the Joker, Batman, and more among the crowds. It’s a lot like Wreck-It Ralph in that regard. Frankly, I kind of wish the entire film was just in the OASIS, because all of it is just so fascinating and fun and visually appealing… special props need to go to the extended trip into The Shining, which was recreated with eerie accuracy up until the parts where things go off the rails. I think this movie may be Spielberg’s greatest achievement visually speaking.

The parts of the film that take place in the real world aren’t nearly as good, but I don’t think they were necessarily bad either. They definitely had their good moments, and they certainly helped progress the plot forward as well as being important to the film’s overall message of “Don’t ignore reality in favor of escapism, because reality is where what’s most important really is.” And a good message that is, especially in today’s day and age. Still, some of the acting in the real world can be wonky, mostly whenever Wade is having romantic moments with Samantha AKA Art3mis. They do get better as the film progresses, but their romance arc in this movie is easily a weak point with how rushed and awkward it is. Guess Ernest Cline’s co-writing credit is really shining through there.

Our main characters themselves are all fairly well done, in OASIS and outside of it, though again, Wade and Samantha’s relationship in reality is a bit awkwardly written, and it’s not much better in the OASIS though there’s some more cool visuals to help you stomach things, but overall those two are enjoyable protagonists. Aech is still as cool as ever, though I am a bit disappointed they changed her character so much it made the impact of learning she’s a black lesbian (the latter fact is there but glossed over) a lot less impactful, as instead of her avatar being a white dude, it’s a hulking cyborg ogre. Still, I can’t deny Aech is still as cool as ever. Daito and Sho are also cool and have their roles expanded a bit from the book. Better yet, Daito does not get killed, so no awkward seppuku references that will make you cringe!

The villains are pretty cool too. First up is the OASIS insider I-R0k, played by T.J. Miller in his first act of penance for The Emoji Movie. It’s so fucking funny seeing this hulking, menacing death lord with skulls and shit all over him talk in the most nerdy voice imaginable. Still, he manages to shockingly be a menacing and capable threat, unlike his lame book counterpart. Then w e have the new villainess, F’Nale Zandor, a new character created for the film who serves as big bad Nolan Sorrento’s right-hand woman, acting out his evil schemes in the real world. She’s pretty cool and badass, and plays her role well enough; she’s sort of like a low-tier Bond henchman. Then we have Nolan himself, and while he is a stereotypical 80s corporate villain – a fact that even he lampshades – it’s hard not to appreciate a villain whose online avatar looks like Senator Armstrong and who calls forth Mechagodzilla as his ride in the final battle.

Speaking of the final battle, it is absolutely epic, but there has been a bit of contention due to the inclusion of the Iron Giant, and how it somehow goes against the non-violent themes of his titular movie. Well, you can rest easy in knowing that it’s just a giant mecha being piloted by Aech, and mostly what it’s doing is protecting everyone else from Mechagodzilla. The Iron Giant vs. Mechagodzilla is the greatest matchup I never knew I wanted.

Spielberg managed to do exactly what I expected him to do: he distilled everything that was good about the book, filtered out what didn’t work, and made a fun movie out of it. I can’t really justify totally calling this a style over substance film like I could with Batman v Superman or Miss Peregrine’s, because there actually is enough substance here to be serviceable and it has a very good message about the dangers of escapism and how allowing corporations to take away the neutrality of things is bad, but it’s definitely a movie you’re gonna wanna see for all the visuals more than anything. It’s a lot like Doctor Strange in that regard.

This is a great movie. Yes, great. If you love some really fucking cool visuals and can handle tons of cheese, this is the film for you. Honestly, it’s weird, but I’d really recommend this to everyone who disliked the book; you may find in a lot of ways that this is the book done RIGHT. As for people who love the book, this may be very much a love or hate affair; me, I loved it. I honestly can’t wait to watch it again and see what other secrets and cameos I pick up on, and just to bask in the glorious visuals of the OASIS. Leave it to Spielberg to polish something like Ernest Cline’s writing and produce a diamond, or at least a gemstone of significant value. It’s not a perfect film at all, but it IS a fun, enjoyable, and exciting one… kinda like a lot of the 80s films that inspired it.

#Review #movie review #Ready Player One #RPO #Steven Spielberg #Ernest Cline #VR #Virtual reality #OASIS #80s #sci-fi #action #adventure

117 notes · View notes

ditzydesu · 7 years ago

Text

Concentration

Another narusaku commission for a friend of mine!

Part One

Commissions are OPEN and info is HERE

“I thought you said we’d talk about this?”

“I did...”

“And are we going to?”

“When the mission ends,” came Sakura’s curt answer.

“You said over a week ago we could talk about it ‘tomorrow’, and then you avoid it forever. And now the mission is over!”

“The mission is not over, Naruto, not until we report to Kakashi-sensei.”

“As soon as you finish your report, we’re going to get ramen, and we’re going to talk.”

“As soon as I finish the report? When I’m the one that went to the mission briefing, when I’m the one that did ninety percent of the negotiating on the mission, and was the one that secured the deal? For that, Naruto, you’re doing it alone.”

Sakura stays four steps ahead the rest of the way home.

*****

Things with Naruto are either black or white, something that frustrates Sakura daily. The only person Naruto allows to be anywhere in the middle is Sasuke- while Naruto understands he’s not evil, since the ending of the war, he’s come to realise that Sasuke is not wholly good. But for everyone else, they fit into two categories. That’s why Naruto wants to talk about this. Because Sakura’s feelings are either black or white; either she loves him or she doesn’t. There’s nothing grey, no spectrum.

Does she love him? She’s not sure.

Platonically, definitely. Naruto has been her best friend for years, since they were twelve, maybe thirteen. Truth be told, she’s lost count. Ino and her are best friends too, but that blonde is even more stressful to deal with, and their friendship can be tentative at times.

Sakura waits in her apartment all day. She’s long since moved out of her parent’s place, though she still sees them regularly- they don’t live too far from each other. She’s not sure what she’s waiting for- either for Naruto to turn up on her doorstep or for someone to send a missive thanking her for the mission. When someone knocks on her door, she almost jumps out of her skin.

“Kakashi-sensei!” Are the first words out of her mouth, before she moves aside to let him in. He seats himself on her sofa, while she perches on the edge of an armchair that hasn’t been sat in enough to be comfortable.

“I’m surprised you didn’t deliver the mission report yourself. You’re always so thorough with these sort of things, Sakura. Is everything okay?”

“I get a visit from the Hokage just to ask me if I’m doing okay?” Sakura laughs, but she can tell, even behind his mask, that Kakashi is serious. “I’m fine.”

“Why did you send Naruto to do the report?”

“He was annoying me.”

“Has that ever stopped you before?”

“No, but...”

“You don’t need to justify yourself to me. I’m not your sensei anymore.”

“Things between Naruto and I are... a little complicated right now.”

“Ah,” Kakashi says, his eyes knowing. “I don’t think I can do much to help about that, even as Hokage.”

“It’s nice of you to keep thinking about us,” Sakura mumbles, a little embarrassed about talking about this with her sensei.

“You three will always have a special place in my heart. If there’s anything I can do...”

“You can convince Naruto to get up earlier in the mornings. Then he won’t miss mission briefings, and your mission reports will be good.”

“How did you know that the mission report was bad?”

“Because Naruto was presenting it.”

*****

Naruto does not receive a visit from the Hokage. Instead, he laments over a bowl of ramen. Its little consolation for Sakura all but ignoring him- this bowl of ramen doesn’t taste quite as good as it usually does. He’s just sad, he reminds himself. The ramen is not deteriorating.

He finally drags himself home, the memory of Kakashi chiding him for a lazily put together mission report replaying over and over. It was true, he did wing it, but for the Hokage to embarrass him like that... well, he supposes that he deserved it.

On his doormat is a carefully folded paper note, and when he unfolds it he immediately recognises Sakura’s writing. His first thought is elation, that she is still thinking of him. His second thought is anger- she chose a cowardly way of speaking to him. After that, he softens. At least she made an effort.

Naruto-

Please give me a few more days to think things over. I understand that I was the one who initiated things between us, but now I ask that you please give me space to think. I’ll come find you by the end of the week, I promise.

Sakura.

He’s a little disappointed, he must admit, but Naruto folds the letter up, and waits with the most patience he can manage.

*****

True to her word, Sakura sends him another note at the end of the week with a time and a place to meet. Naruto, for once, wears something a little fancy- he has to impress her in some way. He leaves early too- nerves have definitely got the better of him. It’s a little out of character for him to be so organised, but Sakura means a lot to him, and he can barely think of anything worse than letting her down.

He’s at their meeting place first- the hill that overlooks town, that the Hokage’s faces are carved into. Not one to ever admit fear, but he’s worried that she’s stood him up. She’s a ten minutes late in arriving, but Sakura turns up eventually, and she clearly has not made the same effort that he has. In fact, it’s clear that she’s come straight from the hospital.

“You really need to get a phone,” is the first thing to come out of her mouth after he weakly waves at her, and he sighs. “That way, I could’ve let you know I was going to be late.”

“You’re never late,” he points out, which only earns him an exasperated look.

“I’m usually not having to finish up life saving surgery when I have plans, but work comes first. Work will always come first.”

For once, Naruto is silent. He’s not sure what to say, and from the little he can tell about Sakura, she doesn’t know where to begin either. He ties his fingers in knots while he waits. It was her that invited him here, her that ignored him for a week, her that was the one that previously refused to talk about what happened.

“I’m sorry,” she says quietly, eventually making her way closer to where he stands. “It was... selfish of me to make you wait this long for an answer.”

“Do you have one?” Naruto asks, doing his best to stop his voice from showing his excitement.

“I do really like you, Naruto.”

“I really like you too!”

Her smile wavers a little, but her mouth stays pressed together regardless, a smile that doesn’t quite reach her eyes. Eager as ever, Naruto bridges the space between them and kisses her with no hesitation. Her lips are gentle, he thinks, soft. She tastes like too much coffee, and the hint of lip balm put on during her break.

Sakura is the one to pull away. Naruto watches her expectantly.

She’s not smiling.

“There’s no spark,” she whispers.

“What?”

“There’s no spark.”

“No, I heard you. What do you mean?”

“When you’re in love, when you kiss someone... you’re supposed to feel something. And I didn’t.”

“You’re still in love with Sasuke,” Naruto accuses.

“And you can’t say the same thing?”

“I wasn’t in love with Sasuke!”

“Maybe not, but you did love him. He was your best friend!”

“So what you’re saying is...”

“It’s not about Sasuke, Naruto. It’s about you.”

Sakura’s words hurt him. What she feels for Sasuke is irrelevant to him, when she obviously feels something for him. Naruto. He’s not sure what she means. Everything she says is confusing to him, a lot of them contradictory.

“I don’t think... in the long run, at least... I don’t think we’d make a good couple.”

“What do you mean? You said you really liked me!”

“That’s not the same thing, Naruto! I really liked Sasuke, but now I think about it, being in a relationship with him wouldn’t have been healthy for either of us!”

“Why do you think this?” Naruto all but yells. He’s doing his best to keep his temper, but these emotions are confusing, and Sakura is confusing.

“Because you only want one thing!” Sakura responds. When Naruto follows where she’s pointing, his eyes fall on the heads of the Hokage, carved out in stone. “It’s all you’ve ever cared about, and until you become Hokage, if you become Hokage, that’s all you’ll care about! And then what? You have to spend all your time doing Hokage duties? It’s no wonder Lady Tsunade or Kakashi sensei have spouses.”

“What is it that you want, Sakura?” Naruto says suddenly, interrupting her tirade.

“What?”

“You talk about how I want to be Hokage. And you’re right. I guess... my ambition is a flaw. Though your speech isn’t going to stop me. But what do you want?”

“I... I don’t know.”

“Then why did you call me up here? You said you’d call for me when you’d had time to think. When you’d figured things out.”

“I thought I had. I came to terms with how I felt for you.”

“That’s not enough, Sakura. I mean, I’d love it if it’s what you wanted, but you know me. I’ve been doing my best not to annoy you for years now, so I won’t force you into a relationship with me if that’s not what you want.”

“Naruto...”

“All I’ve ever done is disappoint you.”

“That’s not true! Naruto, you’ve saved my life on more occasions than I can think of. More than I can count on one hand. You’re one of the best ninjas I know, but... well, when it comes to relationships, I don’t think I’m the one for you.”

“Sakura...”

“The hospital needs me. The village needs you. But while I could be your right hand woman, I’m not sure that... could extend home. Past a work alliance. Past a friendship. And trust me, I do see you as one of my best friends and I do think I have... feelings... for you, but...”

“You don’t want to tie yourself down to me because you don’t want to tie yourself to the title of Hokage.”

“That title has hurt so many people I know and love by people fighting over it. I...”

“It’s okay, Sakura. I understand.”

“It’s not you. I can’t fault you for wanting that at all, Naruto. And maybe this is just me continuing to be selfish.”

“What will you do if Sasuke comes back to the village?” Naruto asks, causing Sakura to pause. This was something she hadn’t considered, and it certainly wasn’t something that she was expecting Naruto to ask her.

“I don’t know. Part of me thinks he’ll never come back.”

“He will.”

“If you say so,” Sakura laughs.

“I think he will. For you.”

“Don’t say things like that, Naruto...”

“It’s true. I know.”

“It took you ages to see that I was flirting with you, but suddenly now you’re a love expert?”

“That was different, okay?”

“How so?” Sakura says, raising her eyebrows at the blond.

“It’s different when it’s not me,” he grumbles in response.

Sakura flops on the grass atop the hill, finally feeling less stressed. The last few moments have made her feel as if nothing has happened at all between them, like they’ve gone back to old times. Naruto sits beside her, staring up at the stars above them.

“Can we... maybe revisit this conversation in six months? You know, if our life situations haven’t changed, and...”

“Naruto!” Sakura exclaims, elbowing him in the ribs.

“Hey, I was just asking!”

“We’ll see,” she laughs eventually. “We’ll see.”

#narusaku #Naruto Uzumaki #Sakura Haruno #naruto fanfiction #commissions #writing commissions #fanfiction commissions #charley writes a thing

9 notes · View notes

williamtshakespears · 7 years ago

Text

Origins of A Fat Cat: The Muta Theory

Get a cup of Baron’s special tea and grab some angel food cake, this is going to be a long one.

So we’ve all got questions around our favorite fat cat: How’s he come to work with Baron? How can he say the ‘ph’ sound if cats can’t? Is he a normal cat; and if not, what is he?

He’s hinted at being something... different in both the manga and movie. His line in the manga: that the Cat Kingdom is a place cats go “if [they] can’t live on [their] own time like [he] can” (pg. 74), indicates there’s something about him that makes him more capable of living in the Human World than most other cats. The Cat King in the manga even asks, “How could he have lived for so long in the outside world?” (pg. 122)

As far as the movie and manga lore go, it’s possible that Muta's story is that he used to be a human that was transformed into a cat, most likely through an experience like Haru’s. Perhaps even at the same time he ate all the fish in the lake, making him the most notorious criminal in cat history.

Cat-turned humans might have slightly human traits remaining, like the ability to say the “ph” sound, longer lifespans, perhaps including food tolerance.

Though this is merely speculation. There’s another explanation that makes a little more sense based on Japanese lore and evidence seen in the movie and manga.

Muta is a spirit.

It probably sounds like a stretch, but it makes sense with Japanese lore: spirits have something to do with every story. Spirits and supernatural events are crucial for a majority of Studio Ghibli’s stories especially.

Japanese spirits (or really any phenomena that's worshiped by the Shinto religion) is classified under "Kami". Kami can be 'elements of landscape, forces of nature, as well as beings and the qualities that these beings express, and the spirits of highly revered dead persons'. Kami are not separate from nature but are of nature, possessing positive and negative, good and evil characteristics. It is also said that they are manifestations of "musubi", which is the interconnecting energy of the universe, and are believed to be hidden from this world, inhabiting a world that mirrors our own. Already sound familiar? (pg. 63)

In ancient Shinto traditions, there were five defining characteristics of Kami:

1. Kami are of two minds, possessing two souls: one gentle and one assertive.

Additionally to this, there are two hidden souls within the Kami: one happy and one mysterious. One must appease and respect a Kami in order to be on the Kami's 'good side'. We can attribute some of Muta's actions to this. Notice how in the movie, Muta is always gruff or angry; he does things reluctantly or with a ton of teasing or arguing on his end. But he becomes more docile and cooperative when you feed him, like in the movie when Baron placates him with angel food cake. We’ll return to this point in a moment.

2. Kami are not visible to the human realm.

They inhabit sacred places or people during ceremonies. Now Muta obviously hasn't inhabited anyone during the course of the manga or movie, but think about it: besides the Bureau, where's the one place people can apparently find him on a frequent-enough basis? The Crossroads. It's entirely possible that the Crossroads is located atop a sacred place (possibly sacred to Muta personally).

3. They are mobile.

They never stay in one place forever. It would explain why Muta never went to the Cat Kingdom; his very being as a Kami means he doesn't stay in one place forever. And I know this can seem contradictory to the previous statement, but it's the keyword "forever" that comes into play. He's not 24/7 at the Crossroads. He also spends a decent amount of time at the Bureau, the CK, and Nishi's Antique Shop, as well as countless homes and who knows where else.

4. There are many different varieties of Kami, with different functions.

There's Kami for the sun, moon, ocean, stars, storms, water, etc. There's even Kami for roads, wisdom, compassion, bliss, etc. Along with this, there's a specific subgroup of Kami known as Nekomata, literally "cat spirits".

These Nekomata even get their own shrines!

There are a bunch of stories that tell of these Nekomata in two categories: Mountain-dwelling Nekomata, and Domesticated Nekomata. Domesticated Nekomata are cats that grow old, grow two tails (it's where the 'mata' part comes from), and perform several strange, supernatural things, from poltergeisting a house to kidnapping people. Of course this is extreme for Muta, it's just part of the lore. But people also believe that the 'mata' in Nekomata has double meaning, both the two tails part, and from the other meaning: 'monkeys', translating to the Nekomata are in a way like monkeys, in that they can freely come and go between trees in the mountains at will. Now I know this is a bit of a stretch, but does that not sound like a certain cat who can pass between the CK and HW freely at his own will, when it appears that others have to travel between the two by portal, lake, or death?

And 5. Kami have a duty to the people around them.

Just as people have to keep Kami happy, the Kami have to perform the specific function of the object, place, or idea they inhabit, which ties into points 1. and 4.

Back to point 4.: there are Kami for everything: sun, moon, water, earth, roads, wisdom, bliss, etc. So isn't it entirely possible that there's a Kami for "Self Confidence"? Think about it: what's one thing Muta explicitly shows throughout the movie and manga?

Self confidence.

Even when he's wrong, like with cheating on the maze walls (pg. 153), he doesn't start doubting himself or any of his ideas afterwards, nor (in the movie) does he just go back quietly to the maze when the guards notice he's cheating. He starts running away from them, because he knows he's capable of escaping them, no matter what they or anyone else thinks of his weight or his abilities.

Now we apply this to Haru and to point 1. of Kami.

“Kami are of two minds, two souls, and two hidden souls. Kami must be appeased in order to gain their favor.”

Muta is initially appeased in the beginning of the movie to help Haru out because Baron offers him cake, then the CK chefs offer him all their food once in the castle, and even in the manga, Muta complains to Baron that he 'owes him a treat' for helping to chase after Haru (pg. 165). But what's better respect to a Kami than to deliver on the one action the Kami represents? When Haru stands up for herself against the King directly, Muta does the first thing for her that doesn't involve bribing or griping; because she believed in herself. She showed self confidence in one of the best ways possible to Muta, therefore, she gained his favor and willing assistance in getting her out of the CK. He even says in the movie, “I respect a woman that stands up for herself.”

It also makes sense for why Muta would hang out in the Sanctuary with Baron.

Baron is all about encouraging self confidence (and he’s very confident in himself too). What better way for Muta to help other people in his department (self confidence) than by following the one guy whose main motto is to believe in yourself?

Staying at the Crossroads ensures Baron gets customers and Muta gets to do his duty as a Kami, along with entertainment and food ('cause come on, I honestly doubt a Kami with Muta's attitude would turn those down).

Even his fights with Toto can fall under these rules. Toto constantly makes fun of his weight and appearance as a cat, so of course he's gonna be on Muta's bad side. But Toto's a Creation, which means he's probably just as powerful as Muta, so Muta can only fight with him every now and then instead of actually doing any damage. And since he's a Kami, he's immortal, just like Baron and Toto. So a combination of Toto's power equaling his own and spending a ton of time around him, probably has turned their fights into more of a frenemy thing than actual hatred by the time Haru comes around.

And as far as Kami go, there are no rules saying that they have to be godly, divine, nice and neat all the time, so Muta's attitude is completely justified to his character if that's just who he is.

This ties into the part of the movie where Muta gets trapped in the jelly too. It is clear that he can't move until Baron breaks the glass of the container and releases him. This would seem contradictory to the theory that Muta is a spirit, because he wouldn’t get trapped in something as simple and silly as jelly.

In actuality, Kami "are not necessarily considered omnipotent or omniscient, and like the Greek Gods, they have flawed personalities and are quite capable of ignoble acts". So Kami aren't perfect; they have flaws, and Muta's is probably food. Muta's most likely taking a physical form in most of his adventures with Baron and Toto, and food is his weakness. So when he fell in the jelly, he was incapacitated. But when Baron released him, he gets up and starts fighting like nothing happened, when I'm sure if any mortal cat got stuck in jelly for an indiscernible amount of time, there would be some negative, lasting effects. But Muta just brushes it off like nothing.

So actually! Muta being a Kami makes a lot more sense than if he were a human turned into a cat, because he would eventually have to die; I doubt even Sanctuary magic could prevent that. But being a Kami can. The manga might have specifically called to this on page 68.

This might, of course, just be silly dialogue put here to make us laugh, but what if it’s more than that?

So there we have it! Muta is (or should be) the Kami of Self Confidence.

Sources:

The Cat Returns, Hiroyuki Morita (2002)

Baron: The Cat Returns, Aoi Hiiragi (2005)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kami

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nekomata

https://japanesemythology.wordpress.com/nekomata-cat-myths-and-cat-shrines-of-japan/

#the cat returns #muta #renaldo moon #baron humbert von gikkingen #haru yoshioka #toto the crow/magpie #theory #this was so much fun!#a film theory #/book theory

29 notes · View notes

thebeautifulcatholicfaith · 7 years ago

Photo

PROOFS FOR PURGATORY pt1: NATURE AND LOGIC OF SIN Since we are remembering the anniversary of the Reformation today, I will discuss one of the dividing lines between Protestants and Catholics which became one of the reasons why they reject the biblical reality of Purgatory. This is the same reason why Luther said: “Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong [or sin boldly], but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world.” Protestants argue that Purgatory is not necessary given that once a person is justified; sins will never be imputed to that person. In our theology, we believe that sins and guilt are attached to a person’s soul while they rejected that view. They believe that they are only declared as righteous, but they are not transformed by that righteousness internally. Romans 4:7-8 7 “Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon his sin.” However, I don’t think that Romans 4:7-8 support their theory. I will present the common grounds that we have with Protestants. 1. The sins before a person is justified were imputed to him. 2. The sins of a person when he was justified were no longer imputed to him. Now, what I am going to prove from the passage that they have cited is the fact that even after a person is justified, his or her sins are still imputed to him. And, I will use Abraham as a test case given that he was described in verses 9-10 of the same passage. Romans 4:9-10 9 Is this blessing pronounced only upon the circumcised, or also upon the uncircumcised? We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. Many Protestants believed that Abraham was first justified when he was considered as righteous at this moment, given that their theology demands them to preach that justification is just a one-time event and not a process. Obviously, verses 9 up to 10 refer to Genesis 15:6. Genesis 15:6 6 And he believed the LORD; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness. However, what some Protestants miss is the fact that Genesis 15:6 isn’t the first time when he was justified. In Hebrews 11:8, it says that he already had faith when he was called by to Lord to go out a place, and this is a reference to Genesis 12:1-5. Hebrews 11:8 8 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go. Genesis 12:1-5 12 [a]Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves.”[b] 4 So Abram went, as the LORD had told him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran. 5 And Abram took Sar′ai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their possessions which they had gathered, and the persons that they had gotten in Haran; and they set forth to go to the land of Canaan. When they had come to the land of Canaan, At this point, we have to recognize that we have just debunked the concept that justification is just a one-time event. In Protestant’s theology, a person is justified just once, and as compared to biblical theology, Abraham was justified both in Genesis 12 and in Genesis 15. However, the fun doesn’t stop here because we have to know what took place before the events in Genesis 12:1-5 and Genesis 15:6. Genesis 12:10-13 10 Now there was a famine in the land. So Abram went down to Egypt to sojourn there, for the famine was severe in the land. 11 When he was about to enter Egypt, he said to Sar′ai his wife, “I know that you are a woman beautiful to behold; 12 and when the Egyptians see you, they will say, ‘This is his wife’; then they will kill me, but they will let you live. 13 Say you are my sister, that it may go well with me because of you, and that my life may be spared on your account.” So, what we are seeing in verses 10-13 is the imperfection that was displayed by Abraham. It’s true that Sar’ai was his sister according to Genesis 20:12, but it’s also true that he did not tell the whole truth to the Egyptians. In some sense, he deceived the Egyptians from the truth that Sar’ai was his wife at the same time. Why is this important? It’s really important because this destroys Protestant’s concept of soteriology. The sin that was committed in the passage above took place before he was justified in Genesis 15, and yet, it took place after he was justified in Genesis 12. So, the only conclusion that we can have here is that the sins that a justified person commit are still attached to his or her soul, and he has to be justified again by God in order for him to be no longer guilty of that sin. So, the fact is that a Christian, a genuine believer in Christ, is still guilty of a sin if he or she committed it. Now, we should ask ourselves, what kind of sins can a Christian be guilty of? 1 John 5:16-17 16 If anyone sees his brother [a]committing a sin not leadingto death, he shall ask and [b]God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this. 17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death. What we can see is a clear classification of the categories of sin. There is a sin that is leading to death (mortal sin), and there is a sin that is not leading to death (venial sin). Obviously, if a Christian commits a sin that is not leading to death, he did not fall away from grace because of his or her capability to receive life from God. However, when it comes to the sin leading to death, this is a sin that sends someone to hell because if you read verses after the passage above, the Christians were differentiated from the people who are under the evil, and the Christians were promised to have eternal life. But, we also know that in heaven, there will be neither a sin nor attachment to sin because of Revelation 21:27. Revelation 21:27 27 But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life. With all of these biblical facts, it seems that an intermediate state where a person is cleansed and purified is the necessary conclusion. I will present a logical argument, which has been defended by different Catholic Apologists, and since this is a deductive argument, a non-Catholic has to prove one of the premises as wrong, or else, the conclusion follows necessarily. Premise 1: There will be neither sin nor attachment to sin in Heaven (Rev 21:27). Premise 2: We (at least most of us) are still sinning and are attached to sin at the end of this life (1 John 1:8). Conclusion: Therefore there must be a period between death and heavenly glory in which the saved are cleansed of sin and their attachment to sin.

#catholic #defend the catholic faith

35 notes · View notes

fuzzballsheltiepants · 7 years ago

Text

Chaol: Motivated by Loyalty? Or Fear?

WARNING: TOD spoilers. Do NOT read if you don’t want to see anything re: Tower of Dawn!!

This was inspired by this post by @my-name-is-fireheart that gave me insight into why so many people dislike Chaol. I’m going to start with a little review, and then I’m going to go into a long rambling dissertation. You have been warned.

Chaol is motivated by two things in his life: his love for Dorian, and fear. Certainly at the end of Heir of Fire, the latter emotion won. I think that much of what we tend to interpret as rigid morality is in fact fear. Apparent loyalty to the King when he didn’t warn Celaena about Nehemia being questioned was in fact a result of him being afraid of the King. When the King first told hime he was going to have Nehemia questioned, he added, “‘I want six men outside the room. Make sure there are no complications or interruptions.’ The look the king gave him suggested exactly the sort of complication he had in mind - Celaena. Chaol knew it was risky to ask questions…” Risky to just ask questions, let alone go against direct orders to keep quiet about it. He then didn’t tell Dorian what it was about though Dorian asked him directly, nor did he tell Celaena, “though part of him twisted until it hurt.” He is already beginning to struggle with the strain between what his morals told him to do (tell Celaena) and his fear of what would result (he or Celaena or both likely killed by the King).

At the end of Crown of Midnight, Chaol now knows that Celaena is part-fae and that Dorian has magic. This could be a death sentence for both of them, and he fears both that and the magic itself. This in turn is why he sends Celaena to Wendlyn and withdraws quite a bit from Dorian (a process begun by their respective relationships to Celaena but made much more significant by the magic revelation). He honestly wants to protect them from the King, but he also fears what they are capable of, especially Celaena. He’s had, after all, a life-long relationship with Dorian but has known Celaena for barely months and doesn’t really understand her and her motivations, and he has seen her mow men down with his own eyes. Much more powerful than reading about it in a dossier.

Throughout Heir of Fire, he begins to try to find his own morality and he struggles greatly. Up to that point, his morality had been defined by how he was raised. He was taught from childhood to trust the King (maybe - ToD hints that perhaps Chaol’s father was not so much the loyal subject), that magic is evil, etc., etc. It’s a beautiful parallel of people who are raised in a strict religious context, who start to get exposed to people from other religions, or atheists, or whatever, and begin to question their upbringing and try to form their own opinion about whether these “others” are good, bad, or gray. This is a very difficult thing to do, especially when you’ve come to realize both you and the two people in the world you care the most about (both of whom fit into the “other” category) are in mortal danger.

Chaol demonstrates quite a bit of self-loathing in HoF, QoS, and ToD. His confidence in his upbringing and moral beliefs has been shaken, and he has found himself making decisions he doesn’t understand out of fear of what will happen to him and the people he loves. It’s a painful journey to watch, but one that so many of us have to go through. He is basically the straight person in a supernatural comedy of errors - his experience and reactions parallel what most humans would do, if we’re being honest with ourselves. We would be afraid of these powers, and that fear would inform our decisions, both for good and for bad.

Here’s where I’m going to go off on a bit of a tangent that I promise relates. I’ve been a life-long horse person, and several years ago I had a catastrophic accident with a horse that were I a hair less balanced in the saddle, did I have a shade less experience, had the horse involved been an iota less athletic, would have resulted in the death of the horse, myself, or probably both. Luckily we both survived, but I will live with the repercussions of that accident for the rest of my life as my non-dominant arm was severely injured and I have residual nerve damage and structural damage to it. However, I still ride, even still ride the horse I had the accident on, who belongs to my very close friend.

Working with animals ten times my size who could kill me easily either on purpose or by accident (the horse in question absolutely did not want to hurt me, he just had a panicked moment), I live in a constant dance with what I regard as a healthy fear. A while back I read a brilliant article by a rider who stated that we should replace the word “fear” with “common sense” when talking about horses. When I throw my leg over a 1300 lb animal who can jump a five-foot fence and run at 30 mph, it is common sense to be respectful of what that animal can do; I have to make the decision every single time to get on, to do something I love, knowing that if something goes wrong I could die. Likewise, when Chaol is interacting with Celaena/Aelin, especially, there is a part of his mind that struggles to not remember that she was beyond deadly even without her magic, her assassin and fighting skill exceed his own, she has killed many while he has killed only one human (Cain). He can’t forget her gutting Archer Finn because it terrified him - for good reason. He didn’t know Archer had set up Nehemia’s death, and Celaena never tells him. All he saw was Archer beg for his life, tell Celaena she was a “good woman,” and Celaena gut him. It is common sense to fear someone who can do that if they won’t tell you their motivations.

Aelin/Celaena’s biggest flaw is her unwillingness to be honest and up front about things. Chaol is the character who calls her out on that the most, perhaps because he recognizes that same tendency in himself. His fearful common sense reaction to her is strengthened when he realizes she can set the world on fire. He both fears her abilitiees and wants to rely on them to save Dorian, save the world, and that’s a tough conflict to live with. Was he unfair to her when she returned, that he had placed expectations on her that she would come back to save Dorian? Sure - but he was also heartbroken and killing himself for having left Dorian, and had pinned his hopes onto her considerable abilities.

Speaking of which…the biggest thing Chaol had to heal from in ToD was for walking away from Dorian when the shit went down with Sorscha and Aedion, and Dorian’s magic showed itself to spare him. It was fear common sense that made him do so; he knew if he remained he’d be completely unable to help Dorian, while from the outside, with the rebels, he may have a chance. Likewise it was fear common sense coupled with love that had him fight Aelin so hard when she wanted to (justifiably from her perspective) kill Dorian.

Fear Common sense is incredibly valuable - until it is paralyzing (pun not intended). When your fear common sense helps you in your decision-making, it’s brilliant, but when it halts it, it’s catastrophic. Most people who suffer accidents similar to mine continue to ride at first, but find that their relationship with their horse suffers, and over time, they give up on it, or their riding becomes much more limited than it was. They lose the glorious sense of communion with another creature that cannot be matched by anything else; but if you ask them, they wouldn’t say they were afraid. They often don’t even think about the accident consciously. But the subconscious doesn’t let go, and the more you try to beat it down, the more it latches on.

Chaol actually doesn’t become overwhelmed in the moment, but over the ensuing months, his self-loathing for his decision making leads to his paralysis, both physically (because he essentially sacrifices himself so Aelin can rescue Dorian) and emotionally (leading him to cling to Nesryn despite his lack of feelings for her due to the safety she represents, leading him to be harsh to Yrene initially, etc.). The problem he was having, though, It wasn’t until he really was being healed by Yrene that he was able to recognize the fear in himself.

“He had been so afraid - so afraid of magic, of loss, of everything. And that fear…it had driven him to it anyway. It had hurried him down this path. He had clung so hard, had fought against it, and it had cost him everything…Unmoored and raging, he had not wanted to heal. Not really…Some part of him had whispered it was deserved. And the soul-wound…He had been content to let it fester. Failure and liar and oath-breaker.”

Chaol actually was far from a failure. He succeeded in escaping sure death at the hands of the King; helped free Aedion; helped Aelin gain funds for the war (by helping with the Arobynn situation); protected Dorian from Aelin, and ultimately gave himself up to save both the magic-wielders. Was he a liar? Perhaps, to his father; same with the oath-breaker. Perhaps one could argue he was to Nesryn as well, but Nesryn had in fact released him from any oath when she left with Sartaq, and he never really lied to her about his feelings. They were consensual sex partners without commitment in QoS, but never did he really promise her anything other than that he would walk out of the castle (and that was hardly his fault). But he couldn’t see himself as anything else until he recognized his fear, faced it, and saw it through to the other side. Until he was able to acknowledge it, and make the conscious decision to love Dorian, love Aelin, despite the fear common sense they inspire in him. Much as I make the conscious decision to ride my horses every day.

Essentially, Chaol’s role in this series is that of straight man to the supernatural weirdness going on around him. He feels the same fear common sense that we would. His responses are natural, and realistic, and human. He represents the process of getting a moral education, a forced expansion of one’s world, that many of us go through as we mature from children to adults. And he shows beautifully how healing occurs, both physically and emotionally.

#tod spoilers #tod #chaol westfall #healing from fear #tog #sjmaas

57 notes · View notes

roxilalonde · 8 years ago

Text

Vriska Serket and the Antihero’s Archetype

In other news, I am endlessly fascinated with the Spidertroll. So I wrote an essay about gender, social perspective, literary archetypes, stages of morality, and Vriska Serket.

First off: I’m not here to argue that Vriska is perfect. She fucks up. In some cases, she fucks up to the point where she seriously hurts others, mentally and physically, and becomes seriously toxic company. I’m not here to excuse her behavior wrt Tavros, or to justify her treatment of others’ emotional needs, because neither is healthy or defensible. But what I am interested in is how she ended up being the Fandom Recognized “worst troll ever” in a group with (a) a murderous bigot, (b) an abusive murderclown, and (c) a racist with a penchant for bestiality and a characteristic lack of regard for consent.

The answer: It’s a long story.

Let’s talk about Vriska.

Absolutely necessary in any constructive discussion of Vriska’s character is an examination of her upbringing. Her lusus, a.k.a “Spidermom,” is demonstrably the worst parent of any of the trolls. Keeping her alive requires Vriska to routinely kill or be killed, and it obviously strains her; the psychological effects of having such a huge burden placed on her at a young age are demonstrated here; she voices a strong dislike for her lusus here. Further, Spidermom fails to care for Vriska to any extent you would expect from a parent, and Vriska seems delighted to be rid of her once the game starts. When confronted with the task of killing her parent, she is neither frightened nor even unhappy about it - her only concern is whether she’ll be able to do the job.

Your surroundings as a child define how you view the world and relate to it. Changing that perspective is difficult, and takes years of work and support. People in fandom like to characterize Vriska as a suave manipulator, cruel and unfeeling to the plight of others unless it benefits her to be concerned. But reading her pesterlogs, you would only believe that if you took everything she said at face value, which is a thin reading. A face-value reading implies that Dave likes puppets, Rose hates her mother, and Caliborn is a tactical genius. The impression Vriska gives is that of a person with a fundamental inability to connect with other people, who struggles with empathy in particular. She experiences sympathy - feeling bad that others are suffering - just fine. (Terezi and Kanaya, for example, are both recipients of her sympathy, after she does them harm.) But empathy, or the emotional understanding of others’ emotions as they experience them, she lacks, which evidences that her emotional intelligence never developed as a child (or she can’t do empathy, generally; neither is a character deficit so much as a product of circumstances outside of her control). Passages I think are useful reading here: these pesterlogs with Aradia and John, and the famous pirate cave monologue.

Now, let’s throw in Mindfang. From the onset, Vriska has two clearly established models in her life: a neglectful (arguably abusive) lusus, and an inaccessible, deified ancestor who glorifies violence and unlawfulness. Her value of Mindfang seems to come from Mindfang’s “coolness,” i.e., the fact that Mindfang is never awkward or incompetent. Of course a socially inept child is going to deify someone who’s always in control of their self-presentation. Especially since the Mindfang narrative that Vriska reads is entirely written by Mindfang, so there’s probably some severe manipulation of the facts going down to make her seem cooler than she is.

And then Doc Scratch. An omniscient deity meddling in the affairs of a prepubescent girl from a young age, informing her that she has no choice in most of her critical decisions, and pushing her towards the decisions that will make possible the Alpha Timeline. He humors her desire for attention and importance by predicating his attention to her on her obedience; when she rebels, tries to develop an independent conscience, he criticizes her. From a young age, Vriska is being told that morality is impossible because everything in the universe is predetermined. That her choice doesn’t matter. Her life is a series of desperate grasps at free will, which has been denied her since birth. So she exerts her control over others to mimic the ways of her role models, Mindfang and Scratch. This is where Tavros comes in.

That said: Vriska’s treatment of Tavros is inexcusable. It’s degrading, physically harmful, and toxic. Again, I’m not trying to defend it. But I want to point out that it comes from her trying to “improve” him, to change what she perceives as a flaw - his cowardice and indecisiveness. Already, Vriska is an improvement on her predecessors in that when she exerts control over others, she does it out of a misguided belief that she’s improving society - not solely for selfish reasons. And she points what she perceives as flaws with Tavros’ character. (Her comments about his disability, notably, which are ableist and inexcusable, do not fall under this category.) In trying to play Mindfang, and make him into her Summoner, the inept Vriska ends up hurting him. It doesn’t stem from malignancy; it stems from instability, and a lack of emotional intelligence. That’s where virtually all of her problems come from.

Additionally, her egotism in thinking she can “fix” Tavros can be traced to Spidermom and Mindfang, too. Her need to step out of her idols’ shadow leads to a desperate search for recognition, first and foremost a positive one. She’s a neglected child who desperately wants attention. What she does to get that attention is coached in the norms of a brutally violent society, but is a cry for help nonetheless.

Let’s talk about antiheroes.

Contrary to popular belief, an antihero is not just “an imperfect hero” or “a hero who doesn’t always do the right thing.” The antihero, specifically, is a person with ethical principles designed to contrast the protagonist - whom you root for even if they make the wrong choices. The AH has the same goals as the Protag, but a different set of ethics from whence they derive those goals. From TV Tropes:

“An Archetypal Character who is almost as common in modern fiction as the Ideal Hero, an antihero is a protagonist who has the opposite of most of the traditional attributes of a hero . . . often an antihero is just an amoral misfit. While heroes are typically conventional, anti-heroes, depending on the circumstances, may be preconventional (in a "good" society), postconventional (if the government is "evil") or even unconventional. Not to be confused with the Villain or the Big Bad, who is the opponent of Heroes (and Anti-Heroes, for that matter).”

Aranea is a villain. She directly opposes the goals of our protagonists (winning the session, and/or bodily autonomy). Gamzee is a villain: he directly opposes the goals of our protagonists (staying alive, not dying). The Condesce is a villain: she directly opposes the goals of our protagonists (staying alive, winning the session). Vriska is not a villain, archetypally: she does not oppose the goals of our protagonists, most of the time, and in fact helps in achieving them. Putting aside the question of whether she’s a bad person, she’s not a Bad Guy.

Her code of ethics most closely aligns with an Antihero - in this case, a preconventional one. There’s a neat article to be written about Vriska’s advancement along the Kohlberg stages of moral development, but for our purposes, “preconventional” just means “I do things for me, and to the extent that doing things for others will do things for me.” Her main goal: fame and glory. Subsidiary goals: help her teammates to win the game, and create a new universe. Unlike traditional preconventional actors, she doesn’t care about her own life and wellbeing, or if she does, only insofar as they can aid her ultimate goal, which is attention and acclaim.

AG: I only ever wanted to do the right thing no matter how it made people judge me, and I don't need a magic ring to do that.

Let’s talk about gender.

Take a moment and tally up all the male antiheroes in popular media you can remember. (Count them twice if they get a redemption arc.) Off the top of my head: Zuko, Lestat, Derek Hale, Nico di Angelo, Severus Snape, Jason Todd, Captain Jack Sparrow, Han Solo, Spike, Tyrion Lannister. That’s without a single glance at the TV Tropes page, either. Those are all from some of the most popular media of the past twenty years: ATLA, IWAV, Teen Wolf, Percy Jackson, Harry Potter, Batman, PoTC, Star Wars, Buffy, Game of Thrones.

Now count the women. (Count them as half if their “alternative code of ethics” is “I sleep with and lie to men to get what I want, which is almost exclusively money, until I met Protagonist, who changed my evil ways.”) Personally, I’ve got a decently sized list, but at least half are from Homestuck, with others being characters I go out of my way to explore: Arya Stark, Princess Bubblegum, Marcelline, most women from House. I’d give it to Furiosa, too, although that’s arguable. Maybe you have a long list; if so, please tell me what you’ve been reading/watching lately, because these women are either sidelined in the popular media they appear in, or aren’t depicted in popular media to the same level that their male counterparts are at all. (Note: the one-off female antihero, on the other hand, is incredibly popular, perhaps because the writer doesn’t need to develop her character or give her a substantive arc: see Jyn from ATLA, Calypso from PoTC, Narcissa Malfoy from HP.)

Here’s why: people are much more inclined to forgive a man for doing bad things than they are to forgive a woman. You can chalk this up to any number of stereotypes about women in media: that they have to be nurturers, or that their “purity” is an important aspect of their being. Regardless, if you look over the TV Tropes page for the antihero (even with the obvious miscategorizations), and you’ll find the vast majority are men. Writers have realized that audiences are far more interested in a morally grey, badass, complex, tragic-backstoried man of action than a woman of the same persuasion.

Let’s go back to talking about Vriska.

Contrast the fandom’s reception of Vriska with its reception of Eridan. To clarify: Eridan, ultimately, isn’t an antihero. He’s a villain. He murders people. He wants to commit genocide. Furthermore, he has no discernible motivation for this except being a bigoted asshat. But you don’t see 2,000-word callouts for Eridan, despite there being a large portion of fandom that wholeheartedly stans him. This doesn’t mean you can’t be interested in Eridan as a character, or even that you can’t like him, although I don’t understand the appeal, personally. But it means that condemning Vriska, all of whose mistakes are clearly motivated and regretted, probably isn’t the hill you want to die on.

I envision a hypothetical world where Vriska is written a boy. And I guarantee you, in that world, there’s a dedicated group of fans who - unironically - call him “a perfect sinnamon roll” and “my innocent son.” His trauma is openly discussed and sympathized with in fandom. Vrisrezi is in the top 5 most popular Homestuck ships on AO3. The Scourge Bros are the most popular troll ship, period.

We forgive Terezi for manipulating Dave. We forgive Terezi for manipulating and murdering John. Because hey, narratively speaking, they end up fine, right? (Just like Tavros does.) But Vriska is where we draw the line in the sand. Because she’s an antihero, whereas Terezi has always been a nice, comfortable female protagonist. She doesn’t conflict with John & Co. She is clearly motivated by the Greater Good. Vriska is not.

Conclusion

Vriska isn’t simple. Female characters who aren’t simple inevitably cause controversy, to a much lesser degree than male characters of the same nature. Furthermore, the fact that she isn’t a protagonist in the classical sense - whereas most of her group, in contrast, are clearly written as protagonists - makes her appear “worse” than the others, or even, at an extreme “the worst.” Disliking her is perfectly understandable. Thinking she’s a bad person is reasonable. But please don’t do either without considering why she does what she does, and evaluating for yourself whether she deserves the reputation she has.

#i dont mean to mock eridan fans here i really dont #if you like him thats fine im not going to judge i mean i like vriska despite her being Problematic #im just asking that people acknowledge problems with the characters they like and carefully examine their distaste for characters they dont #another note: i am of course limited to the media i consume #so if im missing a huge female antihero who got an incredibly positive reaction lmk #tl:dr: if you try and say either of the serkets are worse than cronus ampora i will fight you with my bare fists #vriska serket #my meta #eridan critical #gamzee critical #equius hate #vriska meta #homestuck meta #meta

301 notes · View notes