#by the way the entire essay point is to pick a piece of media and find political meanings within

[blimbo-buddy]

You know, I would have never, ever thought in my entire life that I would read an essay example for my college English class that delved deep into the political and social meanings behind The Bee Movie and got to the point where the example said that Barry B. Benson was like Karl Marx

[deedeedeedeedeedeedee]

The Rise of New Age, Gen-Z Philosophy & Self Care, Neurodivergence, Minimalism, Technology and Hypocrisy

I think now, more than ever, younger generations are struggling with their mental health. I say this as someone with Major Depressive Disorder, as well as a few other, separate issues. Despite that, there has been this boom of nihilism, video essays, etc. People who normalize and intellectualize their depression and truly believe that they were not meant to be on this planet, have nothing to look forward to, and that ending it is a viable option. That there is not reasonable way or reason to improve. Whether it be isolation or person perspective. Perspective is very important, just a slight shift and wording and thinking in your mind can change how one views their one life and can lead to a journey of improvement.

However, that is not what I’m discussing. With this rise of nihilism, there is a rise of younger people, in the same vein, who are intelligent, yes; but box in improvement as this black and white, all-or-nothing mentality. Which, if you read the comments in many of those videos that said that what they suggested helped. However, I think that all these videos refuse to acknowledge certain demographics of people, and somewhat blame others for not doing what they believe is the only way to improve.

For example, many people are following the “delete all social media, get rid of your phone. Only engage in video essays and read philosophy and be apart of nature. Stay connected with others.” Sure, it may help the thousands of people in the comments. But, putting all of the blame for one’s misery is contradictory to certain people who’s very passionate revolves around what you claim must be eliminated. There is this notion that, in the search to deeper understand oneself and be “happier,” you must entirely eliminate the other. It’s this almost pretentious idea, that picking up Kant and throwing your phone in the trash while suddenly bring you joy. But ONLY if you cut out doomscrolling and trashy tv and television . The idea that one cannot live in both worlds is contradictory to the very message they try to perpetuate. So many times I’ve watched these minimalistic, younger, philosophy and self-help channels, and while I believe it does work for them, saying that you are losing your individuality by engaging in certain content and humor and hobbies, but then in that same vain say you must follow these exact rules to be happier or else it will not work. I’m not being very generous here and this is not everyone, but I am trying to make a point.

That brings me to the very demographic of people that many of these videos seem to miss entirely. Neurodivergent communities in the 21st century:

Now let me say. I do believe that, for myself, I am too addicted to doomscrolling, etc. People were not meant to take in content that way. HOWEVER, I say “that way” for a reason. The way you use technology, what you’re using it for, and what applications you use and your mentality while doing it are very important. For a lot of neurodivergent people and people who, oftentimes, find their upmost passion and reason for living in communities. For me, it was fandom (is fandom). Technology is a huge part of that and I would never say it’s a bad thing. Whether it be fan art, original characters, animatics, fanfiction, or just having a platform to make funny videos or character analysis of your favorite pieces of media, these are all things that make many of us who we are and are often responsible for careers we pursue, how we interact with others, etc. I love fandom, I love finding a community once I’ve interacted with certain media. I love funny videos about certain media. I have noticed that many of these self help influencers have a very narrow view of what technology is used for, based on their own personal experience. Everyone in the comments does as well.

I think it is important to acknowledge that in this revolution that seems to be happening online - there can be BOTH. You can watch every season of your favorite cartoon with the intensity and passion of a cinephile. You can also read philosophy and engage in thought provoking content that grounds you. You can engage in humor that many people call “unfunny” or “anti-intellectual “ (memes, etc) without someone telling you that what you find funny will “change” once you engage in philosophy.

I say this because I have found myself overwhelmed by this movement. Scared I would have to take away everything I hold so dear. My special interests that are apart of me. Until I realized, we are multifaceted. This philosophical search for individualism is anti-individualism in it of itself. You must find your own route of self improvement. For example, I do think engaging on tumblr is better for you than say, engaging on twitter. There are limits you can set on yourself for how much you engage with something. But you do not under any circumstances have to eliminate something that would leave a void in yourself without.

[originalaccountname]

Question (if you don’t mind answering, of course): How do you write like analyses and such?

I’ve been debating writing a sort of super mega analysis thingy about a specific piece of media I read/watch (I have a lot to say about it lol)…but I’m not entirely sure how to write it without it feeling/being like a school essay?

(Nothing wrong with those types of writings— I actually enjoy reading them— but I dislike the feeling of writing them due to my experiences with them two particular experiences involves a rant but that’s neither here nor there lol)

First of all, nobody is here to grade this work of passion and nobody will care that you didn't stick to a specific essay format, so shed away your worries. This is a place of exploration and freedom.

I think what I *actually* do when I do my meta/analysis posts is closer to a reading/text comprehension essay, where I break down parts of canon to see what makes them tick. A character study, breaking down the themes, my interpretation of the text, asking what the author intent was... but most of the time, it ends up being a mix of all of that.

My general objective when I write one of those posts is to clearly and succintly share my thoughts. I want it to be easy to digest and I want to show what brought me to that conclusion.

The first step is making sure my thoughts are organized. When I first start writing something, it's always jumbled. I have a lot of thoughts to put into words and I don't always know where to start, so I'll just write what I want to say and go from there. It's easier for me to rework thoughts I can see. I'll warn you, restructuring also comes with a lot of rewriting!

On a related note, I edit myself a lot to make sure I'm staying on topic and am not using more words than necessary (or making paragraphs that last forever). I tend to go on tangents and they make the reading experience a lot less smooth. If I find something isn't contributing to my point, I cut it. While writing essays for school, I tended to go way overcount, and the tip that helped me the most was to think of my sentences as grips on a climbing wall. Am I stalling on the same grip, grasping for air, or am I making meaningful progress?

My favourite touch is to try to select relevant citations and illustrations. They show where your logic comes from in the text, both giving your words credit and giving yourself the opportunity to correct your aim. They also break up the wall of text that are your thoughts in less intimidating chunks, for what I believe is a better rythm. Yes, even when they are actually just more text.

And you'll get better as you write! You'll pick up on what gets misinterpreted, find better ways to explain yourself, remember to start at the beginning, figure out how to format things in an appealing way, etc.

My earlier analysises haunt me because I went too fast and assumed my readers knew all about the things I was talking about, but also because I have since connected more dots that they obviously don't include. Maybe it's been long enough that I could remake them...

[grandhotelabyss]

Thoughts on Trump picking a writer as VP?

I haven't read Vance's book, so I don't know if he's a good writer, but I've heard it's a reasonably effective memoir, written mostly before he had this level of political ambition.

I just read his personal essay about his conversion to Catholicism today. I am cautious around writing that proclaims its humility and thereby forces me to search for its will to power; this is why I proclaim my will to power and allow you, but only if you want, to discover my humility, my debility, my "male vulnerability." Other than that, the essay is most moving and persuasive where it refutes the simplistic materialism of the likes of analytic philosophers and Sam Harris, and where he details his real spiritual experiences (I believe him). His critique of the left's superficially compassionate but actually cruel attitude toward the poor ("like sympathy for a zoo animal") is also exactly right. But I find it overly solemn, anxious, barely concealing the abandonment of his natal Protestantism for its plebeian or peasant quality—no less part of his desire for acceptance by an elite than was his earlier atheism. I was raised in plebeian or peasant Catholicism myself, on the other hand, which has nothing at all to do with the authorities he cites, like René Girard and St. Augustine. I look slightly askance on adult converts drawn in by the theology and morality. It has always seemed to me that the point of Catholicism—and I mean this much more religiously and much less blasphemously than it sounds—is the architecture and the incense, the barely sublimated sex and the eros of death. But I also love, as an outsider, the reckless, almost doom-seeking individualism of certain strains of Protestantism, some of them laundered as atheism. Since these seem to me to be the point of America, I am wary of overly intellectual Catholics and social democrats, their philosophies literally reeking of the over-crowded warrens of 19th-century Europe, moralistically tut-tutting about it. His second long quotation from Augustine gives me a chill, not in a good way. "[I]n his own affairs let everyone with impunity do what he will in company with his own family, and with those who willingly join him," our theologian jeers. Yes, Bishop, that's the American dream. Why not be a climate-doomer de-growther flinging soup in a museum with an attitude like that? The solution to poverty is abundance.

Possibly more significant for practical purposes, however, is Vance's tie to the literary-philosophical network around the Silicon Valley dissidents: Yarvin, BAP, and their associated publications and social media presences. (This is a good time to revisit James Pogue's Vanity Fair piece on the new right from 2022.) As Walter Kirn observed yesterday, that makes this election different from the last two. The last two were organized around the force of Trump's personality as he tried to hold together a fraying and fracturing Republican coalition of "provincial capital" (the proverbial boat dealer), the (mostly but not entirely) white working class, and the old Reagan Republican business constituencies of defense and energy, even as finance defected to the Democrats, while entertainment, academia, and intelligence pursued total war against their almost undefended reactionary enemy. The belligerent entrance of Musk and Andreessen into this election on Trump's side as representatives of big tech, with Vance as the political figurehead of big tech's literary and philosophical vanguard wing, makes it a much more even and generally significant contest: a true class war between incumbent and emergent elites. Literature has played no small part in this class war, as so many now widely-read writers and thinkers, love them or hate them, have resigned from the old left-liberal consensus. I don't mean to sound excessively neutral on the subject, but I belong to neither of the contending classes, and neither is at all democratic. I'm still not totally sure how the emergent elites' values are connected to a downbeat puritanical Augustinian Catholicism either, but since it seems to have everything to do with the aforesaid René Girard, we are still in the realm of literary theory if not literature.

In any case, the service of literature to any political faction or project should be the taming of its worser tendencies and the opening of its members to dialogue, irony, sympathy, and fresh perspectives. I will be told this is too idealistic.

[molluskzone]

the thing that i dont get about digital art / AI comparisons (saying theyre both "cheating" in the same way, which ive seen a few times from both pro-AI and anti-AI people) is that in AI the only input is like... the text. it doesnt just make things easier or faster, it completely removes your creative control over a piece and automates the entire process. it's like... typing your essay out on google docs (easier and faster than writing by hand, you have access to spell check and dont need to erase or scribble out words you want to remove, formatting is much easier, etc) vs just inputting a prompt into chatGPT. do you understand the comparison im making here? it's literally the exact same concept, except i've never seen someone say that typing your essay on a laptop is cheating because "it's easier which makes you lazy and not a REAL writer, you're the same as the people trying to pass of chatGPT as their own writing".

also, if we're going there... all of the "cheats" you can do with digital art are entirely possible in traditional art (minus stuff like animation which are absolute HELL to do traditionally, especially 3d animation, but that's besides the point). so i don't even get the art-purist "you-can't-call-yourself-a-true-artist" pretentious argument here. YES, traditional art takes longer and costs more to make (you can buy a tablet once for 200 dollars, and connect it to a laptop which most people already have (or just use your phone/tablet which is even cheaper), and then have that be your only expense for YEARS except for replacement pen nibs and cables. meanwhile, sketchbooks are expensive and you need to constantly buy them, colored pencils are expensive if you're serious about it because you need a lot of different colors, paintings are on another level when it comes to materials cost, etc). i genuinely respect traditional artists since that shit is tedious. HOWEVER... saying that digital art is "cheating" kind of reveals to me that you're just unaware of all the potential "cheats" in traditional art. yes, theres some skills you need to learn, like coloring evenly with colored pencils or alcohol markers, or learning brush techniques and blending, color mixing, color matching, taking good photos of your art if you are someone who wants to post on social media, but there are ALSO unique skills you need to learn in digital art, such as managing layer types, learning to disconnect your eyes / hand (if you don't have a screen tablet), optimizing the image for digital viewing, color choosing (WAY HARDER TO DO DIGITALLY THAN TRADITIONALLY). they're equivalent in this way.

however... layering? use a light box and separate your sketch and coloring / lineart layers. undo? use a light box. quickly change colors? plan ahead better. physically paint over part of the piece. want to make multiple colored versions of a piece? cut out a lino block and use different colored ink to make prints. scan the drawing, print out more and color over them. tracing? fucking put the piece of paper over your laptop screen and trace it (we were expected to do this for practice in my high school art classes). mirroring / "flipping the canvas"? hold drawing up to mirror. if youre drawing on paper, hold it up to the sun or use a light box and flip it. symmetry? you can buy tools for this in which you hold a physical mirror up to half of your drawing and trace the reflection. we also used these in art class. you can also use tracing paper for this- it's my preferred method for making symmetrical traditional art, and for redrawing parts of a sketch / full piece that i want to move around or replace. color picking? any method you use digitally you can also use traditionally. the only trouble is IMPLEMENTING said colors in a full piece... but you also have to do that digitally. the biggest hurdle in color picking for traditional art is just... not having the resources to create a certain color easily, but that's a "can't afford a lot of paints / colored pencils / markers" issue, not necessarily a skill issue. even photobashing reference images or rearranging a piece is possible traditionally if you like... cut the sketch out and rearrange it physically before tracing over it, or physically making a reference with the same method. it is not hard and i have done this traditionally before. you can also use tracing paper for this. line stabilization is the only thing i've seen that's actually unique to digital art, but you can mimic this in traditional art by just... weighing down your art tool or having to redo the lineart a few times with the light box method (time consuming, yes, but not necessarily skillful. it just takes longer if you're bad at it, but the SAME results are possible). different layer types? just do the "math" in your head and figure it out. ive literally mimicked multiply layers before without actually using a multiply layer just to see if i COULD, and the results were the same. the only fully 100% true comparison i've seen is that stuff like AI-generated coloring and shading applied to digital art are "cheating" but that's... not digital art at that point... you're just making an argument again AI specifically because they are separate... it's closer to someone recreating an AI image themselves, or editing an AI image to make it look more realistic, which are, again, separate topics. also you can literally shade and fix traditional art with AI too if you take good enough photos of your art so this isn't even really a good argument against digital art specifically, it's an AI issue.

the only argument i see that makes sense is that traditional art, digital art, CGI animation, and AI art are all their own mediums that all require different skill sets (though i'd argue that traditional art and digital art are much more similar to each other in what skills you need than any of them are to AI art, but whatever). which i honestly kind of agree with? or i would is AI art was more ethical and not used in really dumb ways. but i personally think the AI slop is ugly, and my main gripe with it is that people try to "trick" others into believing AI art is real art by refusing to label it, or even labeling it maliciously incorrectly by naming fake artists as a credit for the image. you can't really do this with digital art since it's... pretty obvious when someone is creating something digitally. you know exactly what you're getting.

i think its fine if you want to say that traditional art is better or that you respect it more, because you're allowed your own opinion (even if i think you should at least experience drawing digitally before making a snap judgment). but its not "cheating" and its certainly not comparable to AI

[lyxthen]

I feel like I'm the only mf on planet earth who liked the Attack on Titan ending genuinely. Not necessarily from an "I agree with the message it is presenting" standpoint but from a "They actually wrapped up the characters and the themes they were setting up from the very beginning pretty well." Granted, I am an anime only, and I am told that the manga ending was, like, actually fucking terrible (and you know I can't speak on that). But at least the version of aot that I got to experience was not like that, and I am not dissatisfied.

I also feel like I'm the only mf who loves Eren. Not from an apologetic standpoint, but in a "Wow, what a pethetic, childish, ideologically poisoned, evil piece of shit. I want you to die without glory and suffer the worst punishment imaginable (affectionate)" way. I love him, like I love Phillip Wittebane from The Owl House (which thinking about it now, is not an unearned comparason. They are very similar in terms of worldview and motivation). We all know a guy like this, which is indeed very fucking depressing. But it is also not an unfaithful representation of what happenes when you give incredible, unearned power to an idiot like that. What the horrifying ultimate consequences of something like that would be. It ends up tragically for everyone involved, and I like that.

It is not a bad show, in my opinion, but it is definitely the kind of media you have to approach with caution. It's the kind of story where every character is some flavour of selfish asshole and if you don't thread carefully you might end up absorbing all the bleak hopelessness that characterises these kinds edgelord shows. It is intentionally morally murky, at times insensitive, and it will make you uncomfortable (at least I hope it does. I'd be worried if it didn't). But that doesn't take away from how good of a story it is. I'd give it like, 7/10 stars if I was a movie reviewer.

Even though I feel there's many (many) things to critize here, I don't think the finale falling out of line or being dissonant with the rest of the anime is one of them. If you couldn't pick up on the problematic elements since season one, and you only realized they were there after the final arc, maybe you should hone your fascist-adjacent rethoric spotting skills. I don't know. Like, I'm not expert but maybe we shouldn't wait for a character to show overt on-screen genocidal intent to question the glorified militarism present in the rest of the entire show. We can and should do better than that.

I know I may be sounding harsh, but again, I still really liked aot as a whole and I think it has plenty of redeeming qualities that make it worthwhile. I like it like, a lot, and I would probably write a full on essay about it if I could bring myself to finish anything that I write, ever.

I also want Hange Zoe to pin me against the wall and fuck me raw but that's besides the point.

[whetstonefires]

#op I study spanish literature in college and this take is hilarious. 100% Lwoorl aproved. #Oh fuck now you have me thinking of the ways in which Cervantes acted as if don quijote had existed #and comparing it to how Shen Yuan aludes to pidw being a story that's already been written

#Op you have me thinking of the relationship between cervantes and lope de vega and the antifan relationship of sqq and sqh what the hell #The comparison is thin but god help me if I'm not gonna flesh it out. op what have you done to me

#See it's a reversal in a way Don Quijote becomes crazy thinking these books are real while Shen Yuan is way too aware this is a novel #Plus Don Quijote was a mega fan while Shen Yuan is an antifan so I suppose that's appropriate #And somehow both approaches make them severly misunderstand what's happening around them

#Then while Don Quijote at the end accepts reality. Shen Yuan in a way also has to come to terms with the world he lives in #Op you got me here writing a nonsense essay about a flawed comparison what have you done to me (via @lwoorl)

mwahaha yessss excellent hooked someone with higher knowledge level re don quixote than me, all is going according to my plans :} hehe ty 💕💕💕💕

i love the point about fan/antifan and their opposite orientations re: immersion in the work. and about cervantes and lope de vega?? hmmm de vega is, like airplane, notable for his vast volume of output. i think that might be the only resemblance slkjfakl;df but it's not like i know spanish lit in any depth whatsoever. that's like my entire knowledge of his work is there was a lot of it. and it wasn't considered crap lol.

tbh i meant sqq is his own sancho panza in the sense that he's the narrator bringing the pragmatic, modern-inflected commentary and proverbs. (memes.) 😆 if we're trying to like paste roles one-to-one, shang qinghua is also sancho panza, and binghe with his taking this dumbass plot 400% seriously has to pick up some of don quixote, since after all he is the Protagonist.

wasn't even really thinking in terms of parallels nearly this granular tho, i was thinking more like just...themes. like, the position of the work relative to concepts of genre? and the relationship of reader to fiction.

because okay, cervantes' work was way less disreputable than BL, you can tell just by the initial level of wide popular success, and ofc it's a different scene less flooded with content, but the novel was still a very new form in 1605, not totally legitimate, subject to the derision of the erudite, yeah? (they got madder about it later as it caught on more and got feminized, which i know more about, but like. there's an unofficial feeling to early novels that kinda crops up again in the marginal and ephemeral status of the webnovel.)

there's a pop media quality to it. like shakespeare. it's Great Literature now, but it wasn't then. history decides.

and this book, that's written around a complicated derision for overinvested fans of a more established but self-indulgent and slightly trashy genre of pleasure reading, it can only find reception in its original context in the way cervantes' target readership was both familiar enough with chivalric romance (xianxia bullshit) to recognize and enjoy its elements as reproduced in the novel, and yet also be very comfortable with making fun of it and people who take it too seriously. (especially the sexy bits and their conventions.)

there's a balance that has to be struck there, with a satire that implicates its own audience and is also supposed to be fun to read, you know? recreational clown on clown violence as thesis lmao. and i feel like it's present in both works.

does that track? i know no comparison between pieces of art is ever going to be perfect because everything is its own thing in its own context, and these contexts are over 400 years apart on opposite sides of the planet lmao. but also you Have Done School On This so you will definitely have more informed insight on cervantes.

Oh you know what book Scum Villain is actually very much like?

Don Quixote.

Goofy-ass comedic narrative-about-narratives that can be summarized as 'a lot of unnecessarily stupid things happen to a man with just so much genre-poisoned misunderstanding of everything, including himself.'

Yes Don Quixote went on to be enshrined as one of the foundational texts of Western Literature, and has been interpreted by Great Minds as being About an incredible range of really deep political and identity things, some of which may even have been correct.

But also just. We've got a protagonist guy whose identity has become lost inside a Lord Somebody as a consequence of reading wayyyyyy too much pseudohistorical schlock. A guy who inspires simultaneous responses of 'look at this clown' and 'omg he's me irl.'

Satirical genre pastiche relying on the collision of the modern banal and the imaginary elevated past for both bathos and social commentary, and the conflict between literary convention and real human psychology for narrative and even some pathos. The incredible embarrassment around the entire wildly inappropriate romance. Don Quixote was always first and foremost a comedy about fan behavior.

It's the same Kind of a novel.

[basil-isk]

Can The Author Be Killed Today?

    The concept of “Death of The Author”, once primarily used by literary critics, has become a common phrase in the online landscape surrounding media criticism of all sorts. Twitter media critics throw around the verbiage recklessly, often times caught up in a cross fire of whether it is morally justifiable to enjoy a piece of media created by someone now seen as “problematic.” But when the scriptor Roland Barthes explained the concept in his famous essay “The Death of The Author” it wasn’t simply about the righteousness of consumption – but rather a critical look on how we criticize literature and writing.

    Barthes provides an argument for why analyzing a narrative should not be about finding the author, but rather about creating a meaning. “In the multiplicity of writing, everything is to be disentangled nothing deciphered;” Reading should be about critically thinking through the complex signs and signifiers one is viewing, and the context they hold through the relation they have with each other. There is no one true meaning to a piece of writing. The meaning of a text has its own standpoint to readers as thinkers, and it should not be our goal to use a narrative to biographically pick apart an Author – but instead to simply pick apart the text which is on the page. Barthes proposes, instead of an Author, a scriptor – whose purpose is to “preform” the concept of a narrative by using an immense knowledge of signs and their cultural significance. A scriptor uses cultural significance to guide, but is not limited by their own world view – thus the reader is not limited by the viewpoint of a specific person, but can be open to a myriad of perspectives being told through the signs on the page.

    Barthes also argues that the idea of the Author is a contemporary one, an idea which has been perpetuated by capitalist desires of Property ownership – which has in turn created Intellectual Property ownership. A scriptor removes this elitist “IP” owner, and instead insists writers to preform narratives in a way that has inherent value –  not just out of a desire for the recognition of being the Author.

    Barthes is proposing not simply returning to a time with no authors - but a way of viewing writers as a consequence of their writing, rather than the opposite. A framework where we know the narrative itself before the creator, and the narrative is not fixed on a right or wrong way to interpret. By removing this fixed interpretation, it is removing the control of a singular entity over an entire concept – and thus killing God in a literary sense.

    So how does this relate to a modern audience, one which is bombarded with a variety of pieces of media which may have many different creators involved.

    I believe what Barthes is somewhat proposing is for writing to be open-source. In the software world, open-source projects are simply tools, lines of code which anyone can propose edits to or use in a way which they see fit. Sometimes open-source requires credit given to the original creator, sometimes it doesn’t, but the point is that there is no one dictating how one person can use the code the original scriptor created – it has been released, free to the public to use or change how they see fit.

    Authorship, creates a proprietary view of a narrative – there is only one way to interpret it (the author's way) and if the narrative is to be transformed by another creator, the original Author must be a guiding hand in the entire process. There is no freedom for creativity, or critical thought, just a simple answer. Barthes also explains that Narratives should distance themselves from having some sort of deeper theological, singular meaning to be deciphered and found. The scriptor is an actor preforming a concept in the best way possible, simply interpreting the abstract script ideas have gifted them and portraying it through language.

    As Barthes alluded to, Capitalism has created a system which perpetuates Authorship. Consuming a narrative isn’t simply consuming a narrative, it can have consequences. Regardless of whether the author exists within the text, you still have to purchase a book to read it (usually) and that money goes to the seller, the publisher, and the author. Those in the modern age have a lot of consideration over where their money, or influence will end up. Consumption of media SHOULD be a neutral act, an act where you can think about the narrative separately from why it exists – by the very act of consuming something tells the endless algorithms to make more of that product. There has been a death of thoughtful media consumption, because media is not created as art, but rather as product.

    While yes, thoughtful reading and watching can still happen, the discussion in the modern age is less about Authorial Intent and about where the money goes and about whether you support the people it goes to.

    The Author is alive and well in the modern age, while reading a text individually it is possible to kill them in your own mind – the modern media consumer is still incredibly focused on who is behind the creation rather than the work itself. Consumers are critical of work before they have even seen it, simply based on who is behind it and how they have branded themselves. Social media has allowed for a closer connection to creators, which has thus influenced the creation of ideas following the names attached to new pieces of work. A complex web of moral considerations, about wanting to support the “right” people rather than interesting concepts, due to a social context where people themselves have become narratives in their own right.

[vonderbarr]

can you tell us more about your midnight cowboy essay?

Sure! I wrote it over 10 years ago and I can't lay my hands on it, but I’ll talk about it a little. For the paper we were supposed to compare a piece of media and its adaptation. It might have been for a History of Film class. There are a lot of differences between the book and the movie, but most of the changes made were to simplify and streamline the story. It's really a great book to movie adaptation. Obviously big spoiler alerts if you haven't seen Midnight Cowboy.

The first thing that came up was the main characters hair colors. In the book their hair colors are actually switched making Ratso Rizzo a blond and Joe Buck a brunet. That's pretty unimportant in the grand scheme, of course, but it's the first thing I noticed. After seeing the movie it was tough to picture Ratso as a blond.

Joe Buck's back story is really streamlined in the movie, but the emotional beats are all there. The book goes a lot into Joe's childhood being raised by a series of blondes, eventually ending up with his grandmother who gets taken out by a lot of younger cowboys who Joe grows up idolizing. His mother also went on a lot of dates with cowboys and it’s suggested that she was a sex worker.

The movie combines two traumatic incidents in Joe's life into one series of flashbacks. In the movie a teenaged Joe is caught with a girl in the backseat of his car and they are both gangraped by a group of men. The viewer learns this via a series of disturbing images and barely there scenes that spells out the situation as clearly and artfully as a 60s film can and, honestly, still hold up pretty well today.

In the book the girl is used by teenagers and young men, they literally line up each night to have a turn. Joe is the only one she has ever enjoyed having sex with and they start up a secret relationship, but her father finds out and has her committed. Later, Joe is living with a male hustler who he finds attractive in a conflicted way. It's been a long time since I've read the book, but at some point Joe is raped by him and, I think, another man. Again, the scene kind of fades out to the point that I can't remember if they drugged Joe before or not. It’s still clear what happens, though.

Ratso's backstory, however, is completely different. In the movie the pair visit Ratso's father's grave and he tells a story about how his father was a shoeshiner. It gave his father back pain and after he died they couldn't get the boot black out from under his nails so they had to bury him in gloves. It's a poignant scene and one I really like, and it's a good, short background that explains why Ratso tries so hard to get ahead and refuses to do work that he feels is beneath him.

In the book, though, Ratso gets lost among the many kids in the Rizzo household. Ratso was born with a club foot and was ignored by his parents to the point that he almost died of pneumonia because no one noticed he was ill. There’s a line about finding him curled up under the stove nearly dead. Every week Ratso’s father would take the family out to eat and they took up the biggest table in the place and his father was so proud of his gigantic family. Slowly all of Ratso’s siblings and his mother either die or leave until it’s just Ratso and his father sitting at a shitty two-top by the kitchen every week. At this point Ratso is his father’s favorite by default, but all his father does is feel sorry for himself instead of trying to have a relationship with his only remaining child.

It could have been done, but I can understand why they cut Ratso’s backstory considering the movie focuses mostly on Joe. Even though the book is from Joe’s pov, Ratso’s childhood takes an entire chapter and I think it would do it a disservice to reduce it to flashbacks. It might also be confusing since all the flashbacks in the story are from Joe, while the only flash-forward fantasy is from Ratso. This makes Joe a reflection of his past and Ratso the forward thinker and planner.

Both the book and movie show Joe’s arc from an idealistic young man who needs to be saved or taken care of to an adult who’s willing to take care of others. The book especially does a good job of this. The relationship between Joe and Ratso in the movie is more homoerotic than in the book. This is partially because near the end of the book as Ratso becomes more helpless and their roles switch, Joe starts to think that he’ll get married to a girl and Ratso will be like their child. In the movie there’s no inner monologue to clarify Joe’s feelings towards Ratso. On set, both Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman picked up on the homoerotic subtext in the script and may have played it up. There was an article I read where Dustin Hoffman was talking about how the characters should have been sharing a bed, for example.

This is getting away from me, but I do want to mention a scene that I think was perfectly transferred from book to movie. Joe gets invited to a party by this hippy, Andy Warhol-esque couple and there’s a scene on the stoop in front of the building. Ratso is getting sicker and he’s sweating and most likely feverish, but Joe is super excited to go to this party. On the stoop Ratso gets really self-conscious about how sweaty he is and his general appearance and Joe comforts him. He untucks his shirt and uses it to wipe Ratso’s face and fix him up and Ratso just kind of holds him and leans up against him. It’s exactly like the book and is a great example of adapting a scene from book to film.

Like I said, it’s been about 10 years since I read the book and wrote the essay and a few years since I’ve seen the movie so bear with me on my memory here. The essay was, I think, 5 to 10 pages and I have no idea where it might be, but this is just a little bit of overview/what I remember.

Fun Facts! Dustin Hoffman put rocks in his shoes to get Ratso’s limp right and in one take coughed so forcefully that he vomited on Jon Voight’s shoes. They obviously didn’t use the take, but it’s the scene where they’re crossing a bridge in profile.

I think most people know that “I’m walkin’ here!” is an adlib because they didn’t have money to shut down the street for filming and that taxi really almost hit Hoffman. I think most people don’t know that the suit he’s wearing was found in a dumpster by the costume designer.

[tendercoretroglodyke]

... I’m interested in legitimately gay Reese (I assume one piece of evidence is “look at what they’re doing and tell me you’re not gay”)

okay this is like 2 days late but this is why reese malcolminthemiddle is legitimately gay:

(side note: did anyone need a queer media thesis paper or something... I am willing to share lmao)

so none of this is like... rock solid evidence or anything but I need to believe at least one main character of a show is gay and/or trans to maintain interest and reese is the most plausible gay character. also it’s early 2000′s so he just gets a lot of vaguely homophobic jokes lmao

first of all, yes, the biggest piece of evidence he’s gay is those lines from that episode I quoted the other day--thinking malcolm is gay, he tries to show his support by giving him a gay porno: “’Naught Pool Boys 3!’ I watched 10 or 12 of these, and this one seems to have the most stuff you guys like.” and when malcolm says he isn’t gay, reese responds “Malcolm. Check out what those guys are doing in that movie, and THEN tell me you’re not gay.”-- so, 1) reese sat down and watched like a dozen gay porn movies to ““find a good one for his gay brother”” and 2) he thinks malcolm would reconsider his heterosexuality if he watched what was in that movie, implying that HE reconsidered his sexuality after watching that movie, or at the very least found it hot

in the same episode, the character tricking malcolm into thinking reese is gay lists the following as evidence: he obsesses over his hair and his looks, loves his gourmet cooking, has a bunch of magazines covered in comically muscular men, and that he’s angry and acts like a jerk because he’s “dealing with something weird and confusing.” now obviously, the obsession with hair/looks can be chalked up to the fact that he’s a teenage boy, and there’s nothing inherently gay about enjoying cooking. the dozen magazines of muscle-bound men could certainly be taken as gay evidence, though, and it IS established in the show that his entire bully persona is his way of masking his inner feelings and insecurities. there’s literally a whole episode where he & malcolm realize they have no friends because they act like little shits to push people away because they’re afraid of rejection and/or abandonment from their peers. they ostracize themselves before they can be ostracized by the other students at school. I could probably write a whole other essay on reese’s psyche tbqh lmao there’s a shocking amount there!!

of the brothers who are actually old enough to be attracted to girls (reese, malcolm, and francis), he shows the least interest. now bear with me here. you might be thinking, “well, yeah, it’s malcolm’s show, we’re not gonna see things from other people’s perspective!” but that is actually surprisingly untrue, the show is very much equally shown from each family members’ perspectives. starting about s2, when malcolm is in early middle school, he starts getting crushes on girls and pursuing them. francis goes after a few women in the first couple seasons and then marries a woman we see a lot throughout the show. 

in the roughly... 130?? episodes I have watched so far, nearly all of reese’s “interest” in girls involve either: competition with malcolm, genuinely just liking her as a friend, or some completely ulterior motive. the only exception to this I can think of is in the early seasons where he has a crush on a cheerleader and tries to get on her good side by joining the cheerleading squad, which the writers clearly set up as a way to make gay jokes about reese. let me give you a few examples of his relationships with girls

the first relationship we see him in is with a “stupid girl” that malcolm tried (and failed) to date, and the main reason they get together is that they think on the same wavelength and genuinely seem to enjoy hanging out. they take breaks from their bro chats to make out every once in a while. eventually he gets her to break up with him because he doesn’t want to go to the school dance with her (he doesn’t want to go at all). years later, he’s dating some girl we meet for like 5 minutes, before he goes to confess to her that she’s the first girl he’s ever loved. she then breaks up with him. he’s sad, but taking it fairly well. he’s about to leave when he sees malcolm hiding under the bed, and learns that he stole his girlfriend. he then runs away to join the army. he was clearly MUCH more upset that his brother stole his girlfriend than he was that his girlfriend broke up with him. there are many more instances of him and malcolm competing for a girl’s affections, and he seems mostly motivated by the competition itself.

in addition to “stupid girl,” he also manufactures an “attraction” to his female army buddy in the last season. the premise of this episode is that his old army buddy (a girl he play-wrestles with and insults like he would his own brothers) comes to visit him, and malcolm convinces reese that she’s attracted to him, and that reese’s nervousness at learning that fact is proof he’s in love with her. there’s a misunderstanding where reese asks her if she has certain “feelings” and she says she does, but what she ACTUALLY means is that she has a crush on reese’s MOM. she’s a lesbian. reese later propositions her (saying he’s saved his virginity for this--he’s probably about 18 here), and when she says omg no im gay, he is HUGELY relieved they can go back to being friends. CLASSIC mlm/wlw friendship moment. 

there’s an episode where these cute girls pick up reese (& nerds) to kiss in front of their boyfriends to make them jealous. reese is all for it, and when malcolm argues that it’s not worth his dignity and the beating he’ll get from the girl’s boyfriend, reese counters that that’s WHY he wants to do this--he’s completely invisible at school, and thinks getting beaten up for kissing some guy’s girlfriend will at least make him known around school. at no point does he indicate he’s actually attracted to this girl, and when it comes time to kiss her, he finds the weakest excuse to run away at the last minute. 

im not gonna list all of these but there’s more lmao

the following is a random assortment of one-off gay jokes and out-of-context lines with gay reese implications, often homophobically bc its early 2000′s writing:

says “I’m gay” to a girl to give malcolm a better shot at her

(again in competition with malcolm) tries to flirt with a girl by spraying milk in her face as the punchline to a joke, which is. well. hm. self-sabotaging, to say the least!!

Reese: “Do you think it’s right to totally change who you are and turn your back on EVERYTHING you believe in, just to impress a hot guy??” [his dad gives a long, blank stare, before asking:] “...Burt Reynolds hot, or Sting hot?”

“YEAH I like clouds! I call them sky kittens :)” (I just think that one’s sweet!)

“Look, Christie, here’s the thing. When I first met you, I was just messing around. But we’ve gotten so close that, now... I really like you! I can’t keep this up anymore. I’m not the person you think I am. I’ve been pretending since the day I met you. It’s so hard having to constantly cover my tracks to keep my story straight... and I don’t WANT to anymore! I’m tired of living this lie! I’m done with it. I’m sorry.”

he catfishes some guy to blackmail him, but is implied to continue the flirtation even after the catfishing/blackmail is revealed

reese is, technically, married to a man. this particular plot point is played as a joke and manages to be both racist and homophobic, so I won’t go into it. but I believe he is still married to that man. technically.

reese takes care of a huge box full of caterpillars until they pupate and become beautiful butterflies. I feel like there’s some kind of gay coming out metaphor here somewhere.

I think there are a couple other times where he comments on a guy’s attractiveness but I couldn’t find specific instances.

In conclusion: Reese is a deeply repressed gay kid who was socialized SO thoroughly as an early 2000′s straight boy that, despite his attraction for men and his obvious compulsory heterosexuality, he still cannot admit to himself that he is gay even as he enters adulthood. Furthermore, his subconscious frustration about this fact is turned outward to form the “schoolyard bully” costume he uses to mask his insecurities and keep others from getting too close to him. 

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk. I could be convinced to come back for another talk about how Dewey is trans or about how each and every member of that family is neurodivergent in entirely different ways. Assuming anyone has read this far in the first place!!

[antianakin]

I find it a little funny that you said "I completely agree with this" and then expended a ton of effort in the replies telling me that I'm wrong about everything I said in my post and ended this with the incredibly passive aggressive "but don't worry I will totally respect you as a person if you do not share my specific positive opinions on this show and its characters." What part of my post DO you even agree with after this essay you have written me on why everything in it was wrong? Why even write that when it so clearly isn't true?

I won't do you the disservice of claiming the same. I disagree with everything you said pretty much, and here is my essay in return about why.

You like the show, so you're giving it the benefit of the doubt, which is what happens when you like a piece of media, but also you're giving the show a lot of credit for some incredibly terrible writing choices.

I'm aware that this show claimed that TBB were bullied, I have seen the entire thing. I just think that that's an absolutely stupid writing choice to have made that is out of character to how the clones were represented in literally everything else we've ever seen them in and insulting to the very message that the clones in TCW were sending with their stories. We never see Domino Squad get bullied despite how badly they seem to do (aside from by the trainer who you will notice was not a clone). They do get scolded by Colt, obviously, and one of the other groups brags about how well they did, but there's no true BULLYING that we ever see among the clones themselves directed at Domino Squad. It's a very popular headcanon that Dogma was bullied by the others in the 501st/Torrent, but that simply isn't shown in the Umbara arc, either. They shush themselves when he walks in the room because they're discussing treason and things they know Dogma would get upset about and they actively work to obstruct him when they're doing more treasonous things, but none of that is truly bullying. All of which tells me that even when some of the clones struggle or seem "different," that the general instinct is NOT to bully them, that that's not actually super common among the clones.

So it actually makes very LITTLE sense that TBB act the way they do towards the clones because they were bullied and makes way MORE sense that they act the way they do because the trainers (and possibly the Kaminoans) made them feel superior to the clones BECAUSE they were different and so either they isolated themselves out of a desire not to interact with "regs" or because they were so rude and difficult to be around that the clones just no longer want to even try. Aside from a little bit of snickering we get from Kix and Jesse in TCW season 7, TBB are pretty consistently far more belligerent and hostile towards the clones than the clones are to TBB. The fact that TBB came up with an insulting name for every single other clone that they use as an insult to their faces to emphasize their own superiority, the fact that Crosshair literally tells Rex that Echo's life is worthless BECAUSE he's a regular clone, the fact that Wrecker actively admits they don't care about any of the clones except for a select chosen few, the fact that Wrecker regularly uses his strength against the clones in TCW up to the point that he literally picks Rex up BY THE NECK in order to defend Crosshair who had just said Echo's life wasn't worth saving. They generally have be convinced into going out to risk their lives to save a clone, which is exactly what we see Echo do for Gregor even when Rex is the one asking.

By contrast, aside from ONE SCENE on Kamino where they get called "Sad Batch," we really don't see the clones react super negatively to them. Cody says their name very proudly to Rex and is the first thing he thinks of as a solution and when he's describing who they are to Rex, he gives them a lot of accolades. Rex never once treats them badly and all Kix and Jesse do is snicker a little. Depa's Captain that we see in the TBB premier immediately recognizes them and appears to have a positive reaction to their sudden appearance in the battle. Gregor doesn't seem to have a negative reaction to them at all when they arrive. Cut doesn't, either. So the idea that the clones ALL hate them and bully them to the point that they literally have come up with a slur for the clones never seems to be particularly supported by what we actually see other clones doing upon meeting TBB.

And I feel like we do get to see a continuation of that in season 2 via Mayday where he doesn't even recognize Crosshair as a member of TBB once and never has a moment where he questions if Crosshair is a clone, he's always treating Crosshair like he's one of them. I was prepared for Mayday to react poorly upon seeing Crosshair's face for the first time, but there's literally nothing. Mayday never ONCE treats Crosshair any worse than Crosshair treats Mayday and actively treats Crosshair like another clone.

So I don't really buy into the whole concept of "poor uwu bad batch got SO BULLIED and isolated by the meanie regs" bullshit because quite honestly it makes no sense, it's insulting to the clones based on everything we've seen of them, and it just doesn't jive with what we've been shown most of the time anyway. It makes 10x more sense that TBB were the bullies because they saw themselves as superior and expected the clones to all think the same and then decided they were the victims when the clones stopped interacting with them because of that.

And sure, was there a growth arc that could've been done with that? Of course. Does the show actually address it? Never once, no.

At no point in either of Crosshair's two episodes this season is it ever brought up that he actively believed clone lives to be completely worthless. He doesn't interact with Cody's squad in any meaningful way and mostly just runs ahead to be the cool person aside from a few comments made to Cody directly, but even then Cody's doing all the real work. With Mayday, there's STILL no real acknowledgment of Crosshair's beliefs in order to really allow him to grow. It feels a lot more like Crosshair turned on the Empire because he realized that he's not going to get special treatment just because he looks and sounds different from the clones, the Empire seems him as a clone even if he doesn't see himself that way. Had Mayday actually known Crosshair and been brave enough to confront Crosshair about how he's heard of Clone Force 99 and the way they treat clones, how callous they are towards clone lives, and then challenged those beliefs to the point that Crosshair decides to save Mayday and gets mad on Mayday's behalf, THAT would've worked. But they don't. So we don't truly get that message for Crosshair.

TBB never even interact with Howzer, so that's kind-of a terrible example to bring up and I'm not even going to touch it because honestly it's just a terrible example and doesn't work for your own argument.

They treat Echo like shit, too, tbh, they definitely don't really listen to him or learn from him about caring for the clones more. During the two episode arc this season where they were on Coruscant with Rex, not once do they give a single iota of a shit about the clones whose lives were on the line. Echo leaves very specifically because he's the ONLY ONE who gives a shit and despite campaigning to get TBB to care more, it just isn't going to happen. He gets rebuffed by Hunter every time because Hunter really doesn't want to help the clones because he just doesn't care about them and is unwilling to put his life on the line for them on a regular basis. He doesn't even understand why ECHO wants to do so. They're not even that upset at Echo not being around. Echo is definitely doing better now that he's working with REAL clones who actually treat him like he's one of them and share his values and priorities in a way TBB just never will.

There's no way season 3 is going to allow any of them to connect to the other clones. Of course they're going to ask Rex for help, who the fuck else are they going to ask?? The refugees on Pabu? Cid, who just turned them all in to the Empire? They don't have any other friends who could even remotely be of any help, that's not a huge leap of logic. The ONLY reason Hunter and Wrecker even care about going is for Omega and MAYBE Crosshair. When Omega walks into that room in the finale that is full of clones on biobeds, she doesn't show an ounce of horror until she sees CROSSHAIR. In the trailer for season 3, the only person we see Omega show any ounce of worry towards is CROSSHAIR. We don't see Crosshair helping other clones either, so any level of growth you think he's had over the last season in his measly two episodes clearly isn't allowing him to connect to the other clones at the facility. His entire escape attempt was about warning TBB and saving THEM, not the multiple other clones in the facility. Echo and Rex are absolutely going to go in there to save ALL the clones, but TBB? They're there for two people and two people only. If the other clones happen to escape with Echo and Rex while TBB are saving Crosshair and Omega, that's a happy bonus maybe, but it's not going to be their goal.

To each their own opinion, obviously, I have liked my fair share of complete trash that was badly written, so while I despise TBB and its characters and hope it dies a sad whimpering death or even gets canceled before that third season can air, I respect you even if you don't.

Wow so this episode REALLY hammered home that Hunter and the rest of the Bad Batch (sans Echo) just... aren't real clones. Like not even in the more scientific genetic aspect of it that they so clearly are closer to what we'd consider engineered offspring than a more legitimate clone, but in the emotional sense.

Hunter just never understands why it's important to Echo to save the clones. He initially assumes Echo's just trying to take down the Empire and Echo almost angrily replies that it's about saving "our brothers" and Hunter's only response is to say "sure, but when will it be enough."

Because whether it's "enough" or not so clearly isn't the point to Echo or Rex or Fireball or Gregor or any of the other clones who are working with them. Of course it's never enough, they're never going to save everyone. But they saved Howzer. They saved two more of Howzer's men. That's three clones who are still alive and free that would not have been otherwise and that means the world to those three clones. Of course it's sad that they couldn't save Howzer's other 6 men who got taken to the prison, but it still MATTERS that they saved Howzer and the two other left. It matters to TRY, to not just ABANDON all of the other clones to death and torture at the hands of the Empire that enslaved them.

But Hunter (and Tech and Wrecker) don't have the same values and priorities as the real clones. They just don't. We know that they didn't really view the war the same way the clones do based on how they've spoken about it in TCW. The clones generally tended to believe in lofty causes, to believe in ideas and ideals. They fought because they believed in the Republic, in freedom and justice. Rex said last season that he's always been fighting to save the Republic and can't really figure out how to stop doing it even when it's become an Empire. The clones had a lot of emotions about the war. As Rex said, they wouldn't exist without it, but many of them hate it because of how it kills them and traumatizes them. They believe in the cause and can't deny that they only exist because of it, but they don't care for the lack of choice they were given and the consequences it has for them. TBB seem to see the war as more of an extended mission without a lot of emotion attached to it. And they prioritize themselves and their own personal survival over literally everything else. They will never put themselves on the line to protect someone else unless they care about that person or someone they like cares about that person. Echo (and sometimes Omega) often have to cajole and convince the rest of the squad into doing things like that, unless they're on the mission because they're getting something out of it like money.

So for Hunter, he's prioritizing his family, which solely consists of Omega, Tech, and Wrecker, with the occasional admission of people like Echo, Rex, and Crosshair. But for Echo, all of the clones ARE his family in some way. They're one giant extended family, they're a community connected through an experience no one else can understand. But TBB are not, truly, clones. They aren't part of that community, they don't truly understand that shared experience because in many ways, they didn't share it. They isolated themselves from the other clones and alienated themselves from that community. They used a separate term to refer to the clones, even, to differentiate themselves even more. There's a reason that they all have such an easier time integrating themselves into the community on Pabu than they've ever managed to do with the clones.

They call themselves clones because they were raised on Kamino and created in a lab, but in all the ways that truly matter, they're not clones at all. And that couldn't have been made clearer this episode in that conversation between Hunter and Echo.

[aspoopalypse]

theres a real problem imo in how we present a lot of academic subjects through pop science/sharticles/youtube essays/etc, and how that warps peoples judgements with regards to their own understanding of subjects, as well as a sort of latent anti intellectualism in how it reduces the complexity of the subjects at hand. its not unlike how every true crime nerd acts as some armchair psychologist armed with buzzwords and snappy synopses using layman definitions of terms with real significance and weight with full confidence they know everything there is to know. its like an insipid pseudoscience built off the impressions of actual science in that its presenting people with real facts in such a simplistic and dead end fashion that is presents them as bulletproof, and by extension the understanding the viewer is left with is equally invulnerable, creating a state where you know true facts in an entirely false fashion. then from this people start to think that not only is their knowledge of the matter sound but so is the science, yet their view of it is so simplified and sanitized for consumption that they practically know less than they did before by virtue of being so wrong in what they know. like you could make a 30 second infographic and reduce the average internet user’s knowledge of a given subject by a non insignificant factor. this kind of content feels like giving just enough knowledge to hang oneself with, and its all sort of by virtue of the nature of the content. like in trying to make a mass market approachable piece of media you have to oversimplify and pave over the actual information and impart an incomplete picture, one that ideally would be taken with a handful of salt - which hinges upon the viewer knowing how much is or at least may be being omitted, running counter to the intended audience of the video, and never presenting the information given as incomplete or flawed by the demands imposed to appeal to said audience, leaving them with an image painted as complete and issued from a position of relative authority on the subject and without the knowledge to question nor expand upon the information given. this then of course has insufferable knock on effects of people acting as authorities on things they know next to nothing about and spreading through word of mouth and similar the same half truths, granting them an intellectual inertia what must be overcome to have any fruitful discussion on the topic. in a similar vein this sort of dead end knowledge is anecdotally inclined, lending itself to being used to make a point in the abstract rather than the specific context within its meant to exist, often overstating what was a facsimile or thought experiment regarding the original topic and understating the scientific context from which it is meant to exist, and ascribing some sort of academic weight to what amounts to them talking out of their ass. it also just kinda suggests that all science can be boiled down to entirely non academic contexts in a way that can make sense on a level anyone can pick up which is patently false.

[cruelfeline]

Anyone who hangs about Twitter potentially saw an unfortunate Hordak take cross their timelines today. 

As is custom on this blog, I’ll be taking it apart for my own personal amusement (and for the amusement of any of y’all who like to watch me do so). I doubt the poster will see this, as they’re on Twitter and not apparently on here, but in case they do: this is for my own enjoyment and the enjoyment of followers; it absolutely does not need to be responded to if that’s not your cup of tea. 

So, that little disclaimer in place, let’s see what we can make of this! Because this is on Medium, I’ll be using screenshots as quotes; just a heads-up.

So... this first bit isn’t really anything Hordak-related. It’s more... fandom drama, I suppose? Not really something I can pick apart. I can, however, give my own personal opinion on this sort of thing, for what it’s worth.

It’s true that people can and should be able to feel whichever way they wish about a character. And to talk about that character. 

However: it is also true that people who dislike Hordak can be very unpleasant in making that known to those of us who enjoy him. Including descending into personal insults for no discernible reason. Add to that the fact that his character means a great deal to some fans for intensely personal reasons, and it is not difficult to see why some fans aren’t keen to see anti-Hordak content on their timelines, in their mentions, etc.

Censoring character hate isn’t a requirement, but in some circumstances, it can simply be a polite thing to do. It doesn’t take great effort, and it prevents people from experiencing just another bit of unpleasantness on their social media. And if you don’t want to do it? Well, that’s your right; but don’t be shocked when people voice their displeasure by replying to your words. Because that is their right.

And that’s all I really have to say about that. 

Odd way to phrase things, really. These aren’t “reasons to forgive.” The first two scenes involve Catra’s asphyxiations and are things that would need to be forgiven, not things to forgive.

Though, y’know, I really only apply that to the first scene, where he assaults her without her necessarily doing anything wrong. Mind you, I believe he does it out of a combination of needing to maintain a hierarchy for safety purposes (this is a man who needs people to be afraid of him to maintain his own safety) and poor leadership skills mimicked from a narcissist, but it’s still a terrible thing.

However! The second time? After he asks her about Shadow Weaver? This isn’t torture-fun-times. This is Hordak neutralizing a threat to the entire Horde. Because that is what Catra is in this moment: a threat to the security and wellbeing of him and the entirety of the Fright Zone. She lies about a critical mistake. She proves herself to not only have poor judgment in serious matters, but to be very willing to lie about it in order to guard her own selfish motives. While I can’t condone the method Hordak uses, I do wish people would stop using this second instance of punishment as some sort of proof-of-torture. He does not do this for no reason. He does it because Catra released a dangerous prisoner into the wild and lied about it. And his concerns over it ultimately prove correct.

This entire qualification doesn’t have much to do with whether he deserves forgiveness or not, but it’s a point I want to make because it combats this idea that Hordak did this to an innocent girl “for no reason” or “just to be cruel.” That’s simply not the case; no matter how unpleasant the method, Hordak is a military leader punishing a subordinate for seriously endangering him and everyone else in the organization. Badly. I don’t know what the equivalent would be in modern military, but Catra’s error is massive. It doesn’t make what Hordak does right, but it does give a reason other than a simple “he’s a bad, bad man.” So.

Adding this scene is... actually kind of odd because he doesn’t really do anything to Adora here. And also: this scene is... what’s the word... meaningful-in-hindsight, so to speak. Essentially: in this scene, Adora is claiming that Hordak is responsible for stealing her, for robbing her of a peaceful life with her family. And Hordak is claiming that he neither knows nor cares who she is, and that she does not matter to him. 

The interesting aspect of this scene, and something that OP fails to acknowledge at all, is that both Adora and Hordak are wrong.

let’s see if I can talk about this without crying... nope, already starting to tear up

Hordak never stole Adora; Light Hope did. Hordak did not orchestrate this unfortunate life for her. Rather, Hordak, a lost clone dealing with his own insecurities and fears and problems, found an equally lost infant in a field and gave her the only home he really knew how to create (and one that, for its flaws, was still better than the absolute nightmare he was “raised” in). In all likelihood, given Light Hope’s lack of understanding of infants, he probably saved Adora’s life by doing this: without him, she may well have perished alone in that field.

Hordak likewise does remember her, eventually. And she is not inconsequential to him: by saving her, he ends up saving himself, and all of his brothers. By forging this near-unknown bond with her all those years ago, by choosing to take in an infant rather than letting her die, he plays a key role in deciding the fate of the universe. 

This scene that OP sarcastically claims is a reason Hordak shouldn’t be forgiven has a sibling:

The fact that OP apparently fails to recognize this and realize that these are the only two moments in the series during which Adora and Hordak directly interact, that they’re a pair, means that OP misses the connection between the two and the significance of how they misjudge one another initially. It indicates a lack of understanding of the themes of the show: themes centered around connections with other people, love, and forgiveness. Which, given the contents of this essay, is unsurprising.

Moving on!

Y’know, whether or not one believes, in terms of definition, that Hordak is a colonizer (I personally don’t for pedantic and clone-cult reasons, but that’s not really relevant to this post), it’s interesting that OP notes how Stevenson confirms that he is... but conveniently leaves out the part where she confirms that he did it because he was brainwashed.

That’s... an important piece of information to leave out when discussing whether Hordak should be forgiven or not. A very important piece.

And it doesn’t really matter whether he’s a colonizer or a conqueror; the reason it comes up is because people seem very stuck in the mindset of “if it’s a colonizer, it must die” without acknowledging any sort of nuance. There’s also the question of whether what Hordak did actually caused the same sort of upheaval and lasting damage we see resulting from legitimate colonization, and all of the implications of that, but this isn’t really the place to go into that. Honestly, I don’t really think SPoP as a whole is the place to go into that.

No. Hordak is not the person who taught her all of these things. 

Shadow Weaver is.

Hordak did not personally teach her that Princesses are evil. He did not teach her that wanton cruelty is fine in getting one’s own way. He did not feed her propaganda. 

Actually, as an aside: can we even confirm that Catra ever thought that Princesses where evil? I mean... she works with Scorpia, and she has no apparent morals to speak of. She does as she wishes for her own personal gain, not because she displays any sense of “fighting the evil Princesses.” And in terms of disposing of Entrapta because she was “manipulated” into viewing Princesses as evil: Catra disposes of everyone. She manipulates and uses everyone. That is one of the key aspects of her arc: she uses and abuses people for personal gain. She does this whether they are Princesses or not: just see Lonnie, Rogelio, and Kyle. Add to this the fact that Catra, from the first season, knows that she and Adora have been lied to, manipulated, and that the Horde is in fact evil, and... this entire line of reasoning falls apart. 

None of this is an attempt to “absolve Hordak of blame.” Hordak just... legitimately had no hand in raising any of the children. That was not his role (and while I know that this was confirmed by Stevenson at some point, I don’t have memory of where; potentially the last podcast?). And Catra did not operate on any sort of propaganda that she actually believed in: she simply used and disposed of people as she saw fit because she cared more about her own rise to power than she did about those around her. This was one of her major character flaws, and really? Trying to pin this on Hordak, or even fully pin it on Shadow Weaver? It absolves Catra of the blame, of the intentional bad choices she made (as emphasized by Adora) and thus weakens her entire arc.

All in all: Hordak may have created a poor environment for the raising of children, but of note is the fact that only Catra turns out this way. The other kids, whatever their problems, are not in the habit of manipulating friends, lying to them, using them, and then tossing them aside. That is a Catra Problem. Part of this can be attributed to Shadow Weaver (who only treated Catra in the poorest way), and part of it is just... Catra being not-the-best.

All right. Now we get to the really disingenuous portion of the essay.

First, as just stated: Hordak is not Catra’s abuser. Shadow Weaver is. Hordak had no hand in raising her. Hordak did not direct Shadow Weaver to abuse her. Hordak did not personally feed Catra anti-Princess propaganda, and even if he had, we know by the first season that Catra sees through whatever propaganda she was exposed to and has no actual moral objections to Princesses. But that’s not the main aspect of this portion that irks me. 

The main aspect that irks me is that this is not the scene Hordak stans mark as abusive. And I cannot imagine that OP does not know this.

But let’s talk about this scene, for a moment, before getting to the actual, legitimate abuse.

OP talks about his scene almost flippantly: “Hordak finds out Catra lied about Entrapta, he becomes angry and attacks her with a clear plan to kill her.”

Yes. Yes, he "becomes angry.” He becomes angry and attacks because as far as he knows, Catra killed Entrapta. This isn’t some annoyed “you lied to me!” moment. He legitimately thinks Entrapta is dead because Catra sent her to Beast Island. OP just blissfully glosses over the fact that Hordak is attacking Catra in rage and grief because Catra, as far as either of them know, killed his only friend and then lied about it for approximately a year. Like... how do you gloss over that in discussing this scene? How do you gloss over the enormity of what Catra did, and the unimaginable pain Hordak experiences when finding out?

So. The writeup of this scene is poor. It misses all of the emotion, all of the reality of what Catra did and what Hordak felt. But! That’s not even the unfortunate part of this portion. Let’s get to the real disingenuity.

This is the abusive scene. This is that stomach-turning moment when Catra removes a disabled man’s ability to move with dignity and without pain solely to force him to escalate a war for her own personal benefit.

Hordak is not a danger to her here. Hordak has not been a danger to her for a while because he has been holed up in his private quarters, trying to deal with the emotional fallout of Entrapta supposedly betraying him. He wants nothing to do with Catra. He wants to lick his wounds and gather himself and somehow heal from this deep personal pain that’s been inflicted upon him.

And that’s a problem for Catra because it stands in the way of her using the war as a way to best Adora.

So Catra identifies Hordak’s physical weakness and exploits it for the purpose of spiting her ex.

The fact that OP completely fails to acknowledge any of this is... well. Disingenuous. Absolutely so.

The next portion of the essay talks about people feeling that Catra was too easily forgiven and isn’t really Hordak-centric; I won’t really go into it here. Moving forward:

Ah, one of the most annoying questions I see asked. Let’s, again, acknowledge and move past the fact that Hordak was not actually Catra’s abuser...

When, pray tell, was Hordak supposed to show this remorse? When? While he was serving on Prime’s ship, trying to forget the pain of losing Entrapta, of failing to prove himself, of losing everything? Should he have done it while screaming in agony in the purification pool? Should he have done so while alone on Prime’s ship, trying to serve quietly while piecing together his memories?

Not only was Hordak simply not in a position, narratively, to go into a whole remorse bit, but he had other problems. Like, life-endangering problems. 

The appropriate time to go into his feelings on Etheria and the Princesses and All of That would have been after Prime’s defeat, upon Hordak’s re-introduction to Etheria... but then the show ended. So.

Agh, vulgar. Taking a brainwashed, conditioned slave and bastardizing his triumph at finally seeing himself as a real person, instead claiming that his intent was to glorify his own misdeeds. No. Just... no.

Again: this is not the time for guilt. And it is a demonstration of why guilt and remorse were not front-and-center in Hordak’s arc during season five: his arc was about finally realizing that he was his own person, a person worthy of identity and love and care and freedom. And this arc culminated in him separating himself from his abuser and declaring his personhood. 

That is what this scene is: not Hordak reveling in his makeshift empire, or in the terrible deeds he’d committed, but in declaring himself his own person. 

I should hope that he is proud of doing that. I’m proud of him for doing that daunting feat, of defeating his abuser and defying his god and recognizing that he is worthy of more than what Prime thought of him. And I recognize Entrapta’s role in it: not as the sole inspiration for his change, but as someone who showed him a foundation of love and acceptance, someone who introduced him to the idea that he was worthy of care and happiness and affection simply because he was a living being, no strings attached.

Trying to shoehorn in some sort of claim that this is about pride in his misdeeds, rather than joy at finally accepting his own sense of self is a massive misinterpretation of this scene, a misunderstanding of Entrapta’s role in Hordak’s arc, and... can I say it’s disingenuous again? Because I’m going to: it’s disingenuous.

All right; we’re at the end. And while the first sentence here is something I absolutely agree with - the decision to forgive Hordak is personal and subjective both for viewers and for in-show characters - the whole conclusion falls apart from there.

It highlights another glaring omission from OP’s arguments: the fact that Hordak is a brainwashed clone slave.

Hordak did not choose to “spend his life trying to prove his worth to Horde Prime.” He did not choose the method of said proving: that Prime would look kindly upon conquering rather than some other task. And he did not choose to have certain concepts and ideas (all beings must suffer to become pure; all creatures, no matter how small, have a place in service of Horde Prime; failure is when something ceases to serve a purpose) conditioned into him.

Hordak was manufactured as a cultist slave. He was “born” with hardware implanted into his body against his will to better control him. He was indoctrinated and brainwashed to the point that he believed that Horde Prime was his literal god - and in a way, Prime was, because he could mentally invade and possess and physically control the clones whenever he wished. 

Hordak was not allowed to have a sense of self. He was not allowed to have a name. He was not allowed to express emotions. He was not allowed to live without that life serving to glorify Horde Prime. Hordak was so absolutely sick with this mentality that he saw himself as a failure due to physical disability and assumed it was his responsibility to fix that. 

The idea that Hordak simply chose to do what he did, that he had the same foundational morality and mindset as any “normal” person might, shows a glaring lack of understanding even the basics of his narrative. 

Yes: Hordak did bad things. But he did them for legitimately tragic, nigh-horrifying reasons that this essay just ignores for the sake of... I don’t know? Trying to justify OP’s distaste for the character? I am uncertain. But it’s a mark of a poor essay, of a poor understanding of the character, and is honestly just disappointing to read when the show itself tries so hard to drive home its wonderful, hopeful themes through Hordak’s story.

Whether one forgives Hordak or not is one’s personal choice, but I certainly hope one makes said choice with better insight into his character than this essay provides.

[absolutepx]

So I've been playing Death Stranding lately. Wait, that's not what this post is about. Well, it kind of is. Hang on. What is Death Stranding about?

A: Norman Reedus getting bare ass naked B. Sneaking around ghosts with the help of your sidekick, an actual baby C: Carrying 50 Amazon packages up a hill while trying to not topple over D: Waking up in the morning and drinking 5 Monster Energy™ for breakfast

For those following along at home, the answer is actually none of the above. Despite the set dressing being bizarre to the point of near absurdity, what the game is actually about, like thematically, is actually really simple.

See, the development of Death Stranding was actually quite a trip. Hideo Kojima is the video game world's equivalent of an auteur director. He has a very recognizable personal style. It's thoroughly horny – he caught a bunch of shit for the design of Quiet in MGSV, but like, a lot of Kojima characters are just -like that-, including the dudes. Also, this is going to possibly be important later.

Anyway, so Kojima was going to do a rebootmakequel of Silent Hill, and the demo actually made it to the PS store and I could actually write a whole side essay about why P.T. (it was called P.T. for some reason btw) was brilliant game design for how it used the same hallway over and over and it was somehow beneficial to the overall feeling of horror. So Konami it turns out kinda sucks nowadays and they like, fired Kojima (they were huge dicks about it behind closed doors, too) and scrapped the project and kicked him out on the street and kept the Metal Gear series which was his baby (literally the baby in the sink in P.T., he snuck a bunch of messaging about the Konami situation into the demo like a breakup album) and Kojima would go on to form his own studio and poach some of the people who worked with him to boot. So the thing about Kojima is this: he's got a reputation for already putting some wild shit in his games, like a ladder that takes like 10 real time minutes to climb in MGS3 for dramatic effect, and a boss in MGS3 that summons the ghosts of all the people you were too lazy to stealth past and killed, or a sniper battle with a really old guy that he wanted to have last two weeks or some shit until he died of old age but he was "told that "this was impossible and not recommended." That is a real quote I just looked up. So he's coming off the heels of making this hugely successful game with MGSV and the hype of the P.T. Demo and he fucking, he like took all the people that were going to be working on P.T. Along like Guillermo Del Toro was going to co-write it and Norman Reedus was going to star in it, and he's like, I'm going to make this game called Death Stranding. And the first trailer comes out for it and it's completely nuts. Norman Reedus wakes up naked on a beach crying with a baby and there are floating people in the sky? So we're all like hooooooly shit, there's no one to tell him "this is impossible and not recommended" anymore. What's he going to make now!?

So the whole time the game is in development I keep seeing these tweets where it'll be like, Kojima and one of his homies smiling with some saccharine message about being spiritual warriors and changing the world. And not just Del Toro and Reedus, there was Mads Mikkelsen (another guy Kojima puts in the game just because he apparently loves him), and the band Chvches, and also like, Keanu Reeves at one point? You know how everyone has just kind of accepted that Keanu is a being of light? Here he was endorsing Kojima. The hype was pretty confused and frantic.

The game eventually comes out. A lot of game journos hate it because I think there was this expectation it was going to be, you know, less weird and have more of the conventional structure of a video game. That's not to say the average gamer wasn't also dismissive of it, but I think on the ground level there was more of an understanding that like, yeah, Kojima just be like that sometimes.

Because the game was a timed console exclusive and your homie don't play like that, I spent the first year or so cautiously viewing Death Stranding from a distance. I wasn't sure I was going to like it – except for being really impressed with P.T., I wasn't actually a big fan of Kojima's games as games – but I -was- sure that I was going to buy it, because of the way Konami fucked him over, just out of support. And the shit I was hearing was really out there. The primary mode of gameplay is just delivery packages. You collect Norman Reedus' bathwater and pee and use it as grenades. You get a motorcycle that looks like the one from AMC's The Ride with Norman Reedus, and when you sit on it, his character in the game says "Wow, this thing is like the one from AMC's The Ride with Norman Reedus!"

But I didn't really want to know that much about it. Something has that much fucking crazy person energy, you want to go in mostly blind, right? So maybe people just weren't talking about this, or maybe I wasn't seeing it, but then I watched Girlfriend Reviews' video about it and they came right out and said it (link provided if you want to hear Shelby say it more articulately than me):

Death Stranding is basically about the exact opposite of Twitter. It's about remembering how to be kind to each other, how to reconnect in a world where people are so often hostile to each other by default. Prophetically, it's about a world where people are afraid to go outside or touch other people and how damaging that is. It's not a game about carrying packages, it's a game about helping people by being brave enough to walk through a wasteland carrying their burdens because they can't. It's about rebuilding the lost connections between people, about restoring roads and giving people hope. I bet, for Kojima and the people close to him, it's about how to answer hostility with compassion. You can't kill people in Death Stranding. You can and are absolutely encouraged to fucking throw hands with people sometimes, but all the tools and weapons are nonlethal. So I think Kojima took all the Twitter heat he got over the Quiet nontroversy, and all the feelings of isolation he had from Konami separating him from his team during the end of the development of MGSV, and all the support and encouragement he got from his bros Del Toro and Mads and the rest, and decided to channel that into making a game that was a statement about all of it. And sure, it's a little heavy handed, and sure, it's a little saccharine, and sure, the gameplay sometimes borders on miserable in service of creating emotional payoffs. For me, especially in 2020, this message is a huge success. Social media should be an opportunity for all of us to feel more connected to each other, yet primarily it feels like one of the main forces driving people apart. Why is that? Why is the internet of today such a hostile place? I'm old enough to remember web 1.0: I can haz cheezburger memes; YTMND; the early wild west days of Youtube... What happened to us? I've thrown the blame at Twitter in the past, and I think the architecture of the user experience on Twitter is absolutely a big piece of the puzzle, because it fosters negative interactions. But in terms of the behavior, people have observed that 2018 Twitter was actually almost exactly like 2014 Tumblr. (For the record, Tumblr is now one of the chillest places left on the internet, because so few fucks are left to give.)

I think part of it is the anonymity. The dehumanizing disconnection of the separation of screens and miles. Louis CK, before he was cancelled, had a great point about cyberbullying, and why it's so much more savage than kids are IRL. When you pick on someone in person and you are confronted with seeing the pain you caused them, for most sane people it causes negative feedback and you become disgusted with your actions and eventually learn to stop being a shithead. Online, at best you can "break the wrist, walk away".

At worst, you can become addicted to "clout chasing" and the psychological thrill of being cheered on by your social ingroup. It's even worse if you feel like it's not bullying and your actions are justified because whoever you've targeted is a bad person so you don't have to feel bad about what you do to them. This is where reductive, unhelpful catchphrases like "punch a nazi" come in. For every argument, one or both sides have convinced themselves that the other side is subhuman because their beliefs are so disgusting. And sometimes it's even true! A lot of times, especially these days, people really are acting like animals or worse online. Entire disinformation engines are roaring day and night, churning out garbage and cluttering the social consciousness. (Kojima talked about this bit, too, way back in MGS2. As if I wasn't already in danger of losing my thread through this.)

The human brain was not built to live like this. You can't wake up every morning, roll over and open your phone, and be immediately faced with a tidal wave of anger and indignity. It wasn't built to be aware of fully how horrible the world is at any moment ALL AT ONCE, ALL THE TIME. And you will be. Because of another way that our brain works – the way we are more likely to share negative opinions. And because of the cottage industry built on farming outrage clicks, and because of constant performative activism.

It's not that I don't agree that being informed is important.

It's not that I don't agree that the causes people get riled up about are important.

They are. They absolutely are.

But we can't keep living like this. The constant, unending flood of tragedy, arguments, and hot takes. How much of the negativity we associate with online culture is the product of this feedback loop? What if the rise of doomer culture has been, if not entirely created by, has been nourished and exacerbated by our hostile attitudes toward each other?  Incels and TERFs, white supremacists, radfems, tankies and Trumpers – it seems like on every side of every issue, there are people simultaneously getting it wrong in multiple directions at once and there are more being radicalized every day. They are the toxic waste left behind by the state of discourse. And any hill is a hill worth dying on.

So what am I actually advocating? I don't know. There are a lot of fights going on right now that are important and we can't just climb into bunkers and ignore our problems hoping that Norman Reedus and his fine ass are going to leave the shit we need on our doorsteps. We need to find the strength to carry those hypothetical packages for ourselves sometimes - and hopefully, for others as well. Humans are social creatures. We need interaction and enrichment.

We need love.

So just try to remember the connections between humanity. Try to put more good stuff into the world when you can. Share more shitposts and memes. Tell your friends and family that you love them. Share good news when you hear it. Go on a weird fucking tangent about Death Stranding. Find a way to "be excellent to each other, and party on, dudes."

[thevirgodoll]

I need advice for confronting my friend about skipping meals, it gets pretty awkward and she brushes everything off. The anon reminded me to ask you for help about this.

This is a very, VERY touchy subject and I know you know this. I’m happy you approached me with this because this is directly up my alley in subject matter.

PSA: With things like self harm behaviors, understand that it’s difficult to get a loved one to admit it’s happening because of the brain’s response towards confronting it: shame, guilt, and burdensome feelings. And if she has been doing this awhile, by now her brain has been conditioned to use this as a positive coping mechanism because it relieves her of whatever is going on in her life...

So try not to be too hard on her. I know a lot of people get easily frustrated and place blame but perspective and empathy is extremely necessary if you’re going to be here for the long haul because this is not something that she can just stop doing. In the past, people were very ignorant about any self harm behavior so I really had to get that off of my chest so you could approach it correctly.

Things to know and consider:

Think of her history. Has there been any life changes? Has she ever had mental health problems? What has happened before the eating habits?

•Something deeper is usually going on when an eating disorder actually occurs. It is not about food entirely, it’s about emotional eating and lack thereof depending on which ED it is. Now sometimes it’s not always due to the person’s own doing (some medications can create issues), but most of the time it’s due to an underlying problem that has been going on for a long time.

•She may withdraw from social interactions as a result of this disorder. This is a symptom of her illness.

•Often times, eating disorders are coupled with depression and anxiety. So keep in mind, her mind is a hard place to be right now if this is the case.

•EDs can create a need for control. If she feels out of control in an area of her life, in some way, it helps her feel in control of something.

Symptoms to check off (not all have to be marked; this is for everyone’s reference to keep and have):

•Fear of weight gain to the point of obsession

-> conversations pertain to cleaner eating or wanting to look better, expresses disdain

-> obsessed with fitness or diet apps to the point of concern

•Excessive exercising

-> upset if they cannot exercise

-> increases exercise, but avoids increasing calories or is on a fad diet/extreme regiment in an unhealthy manner

•Irrational perception of body weight or image

-> checking body fat, tugging on skin

•Weight gain

-> compulsive eating, large quantities of food

•Lying about eating habits or downplaying them

•Food often on mind or always an issue

•Skipping meals often or rationalize skipping meals

•Cutting food into pieces to make it less obvious that it’s not as much food

-> habitually does this or only eats certain portions, weird rituals around foods, maybe a lot of condiments

•Avoiding eating with other people

-> goes to the bathroom often during meals

-> gets upset during meals if certain meals aren’t available, refuses to even eat

•Hiding food

•Fatigue, lack of concentration, irritation

•Uncharacteristic social withdrawal and isolation

-> A note about mood: Extremely depressed or seems extremely energetic depending on mental state. Mental health concerns are definitely there.

-> Caffeine may be involved if they are overly hyperactive to lose more weight

So, keep in mind that it’s not just one type of eating disorder which is why I included many different signs off the top of my head. Sometimes, people are unaware that their behaviors are unhealthy until it’s too late. Some people won’t accept they have an eating disorder, especially black women.

Something to know: Black women, regardless of specific nationality or ethnic background, tend to have a certain culture around food, so eating disorders with Black women are often overlooked. Black women adopt cultural values that are linked with binge eating disorders, and are at high risk for emotional eating. Many will not ask for help. The stereotype continues to be that it is just the Black woman being “fat” or “needs meat on her bones”.

Why? It is due to the societal and cultural expectation. Most women in media are depicted as white, skinny women or plus size white women for opposite ends of the body image / ED spectrum.

However, the culture around Black female bodies is something to be acknowledged... the rates of “thick” vs. “skinny” body image problems regarding Black women. Anorexia is the rarest disorder amongst Black women, and Binge eating is the most prevalent.

What To Do Now?

When someone downplays an eating disorder despite you pointing out the symptoms, it’s not personal. It is a symptom of their illness. Persistence and empathy is key. Take a different approach than aggression in order to get them to open up.

Do not say how they look when starting your sentences...they have a perception already of how they look and it won’t work. Do not say what they “should” do for your benefit of seeing them well, this will come off aggressive. They will tune you out, and feel like a burden. If anything, you want to put your empathy above all. Do not frame their behavior as something malicious that they are doing to you. These approaches are often used and alienate the person, which makes the process longer. No ultimatums also. People always say “if you do this again I will stop being your friend.” It ruins it and drives people to more self harm behaviors often or worse, suicide / hospitalization due to feeling alone (more than they already do). Do not do this!

Have patience, move forward with love, and involve empathy not pity or demeaning language. Avoid “should”, “need”, and “you don’t”. Just speak from a place of concern, because that’s your primary feeling. No lecturing, no criticizing. Pick a private place, where they will be calm. NO OFFERING SOLUTIONS! It’s about offering SUPPORT! Do not tell them what they have to do! Just use “I” statements only! If there is resistance, again, be patient because this is hard for THEM! I say this with a lot of conviction because it is extremely serious!

Example: “Hey ____, I’m really worried about you. Perhaps I am wrong in my observations, but this is what I see(*this allows them to not feel defensive*). I feel like you are struggling with something(gives them the chance to open up). I want to help you and I am here for you.”

Example: “Hey ____, I really wanted to speak to you. I feel like something is going on. It’s hard for me to see you unhappy (observation of how they have been acting, no weight comments). It’s really scary to watch you skip meals sometimes(shows that you are concerned and have noticed). I want to help you. I want you to know I’m here for whatever you want to do. I’m listening to you.” *The ending gives them an opportunity to feel supported because they are. If they show response to wanting to take the next step / or open up to you about the eating disorder then say this: “I’ll even go to the doctor with you. I will be in the appointment.” And please go with them!

Good luck and keep me updated! We should all stick together on mental health (especially us black women.) Always send me questions like this!!! ❣️

xo, thevirgodoll ❤️

*If anyone is curious as to why I’m so knowledgeable, I’m a psychology major girl, I had research ready before I answered because I already did research on this topic a long time ago in an essay for black women and EDs. I got my clinical reference from earlier lol -> clinical reference to black women and eating disorders link study

[thebeltanequeen]

The (Blurred? Nonexistent? Inconsequential?) Line Between Canon and Fanon: An Impromtu Essay by Me

I’m currently have an existential crisis. An absolute, balls to the walls, pull my hair out, stare at the walls wondering what the meaning of existence is, kind of existential crisis. Why, you may ask? Because the older I have gotten, the more Fanfiction I have read. That’s normal. Millions of other people read fanfic like me. Well, in the past few years, I have also realized that the more fanfiction I have read, the less shits I give about the actual canon of the media I love. I care less and less about what “actually” happened, and delve into fanon instead. It’s as if the two have SWITCHED ROLES in my brain. The canon is the lie, and the fanon is the truth. This used to not be the case though, so how did we get here? And why… why is this realization sending me into an absolute spiral of insanity? Why do I feel like I have been sucker punched in the jaw? Let me explain.

I’ve been reading and dabbling in writing my own fanfiction for over twelve years. It used to be an escape, a way to further delve into my latest obsessions and become consumed by them. I have this annoying habit of also picking ships that do NOT become endgame, so I’ve always sought out fanfiction as a balm for my shipper’s soul as well. I still read fanfiction as if my life depends on it… but now it’s at the expense of reading new books. Watching new media. When I do eventually dip my toes into a new fandom, I either reject it quickly or become consumed again and make a grab for fanfiction… but in the past few years, something in not only me, but in fandoms in general has shifted.

The difference between me now, and me back then is this… I used to uphold the canon as sacred. Untouchable. Set in stone. The only credible source for the media I consume. All of the fanfiction I read was just beautiful window dressing. A lovely past time to further increase my dopamine intake.

This is no longer the case.

Now, when I read and write fanfiction, it’s as if it is an act of protest. I am actively seeking to reform the narrative. It’s to “take back” the story, the characters, EVERYTHING, for myself. To make it anew. To make it perfect. I’m not alone either. I see you. I see all of you. Now more than ever, I see more and more of us doing this exact same thing.

THIS is why I am having an existential crisis. I have just realized that I will no longer be content with the canon. Ever. Even the canon of my favorite media. It’s not enough. It’s no longer enough. It won’t ever be enough again. Why? Because there will always be places where the canon is falliable. The authors of the canon, are falliable. As an author myself, this is at once an alarming yet powerful realization.

I went to college for creative writing. At the beginning of my academic career, I thought of fanfiction as a beautiful fairytale world. It was glorious, but it was other. Separate. Not as credible as canon. Had I read fanfiction better than the media it was based on before I entered college? Absolutely, but in my head it still didn’t matter because the canon was the word. The canon was the law. As a writer, I held the power of the author (and by extension the power of myself) as sacred. By the end of college, that began to change.

The more I was taught about writing, the more I came to realize that sometimes, authors are just straight up WRONG. Sometimes, there’s soooooo much potential… AND THEY JUST FUCK IT UP!!!!!!! The bones are incredible, but the canon is weak, the logic is lacking, the story makes no sense, the characters don’t reach their full potential and you know what? I’m tired. I’m tired of it. This is why fanon is canon’s salvation. Fanon makes canon look pathetic. But… if I accept the fanon as the reality, and make the canon the lie, does that still make it fanon? No. I don’t think it does. I think fanon has become something other. Something greater.

I have become disillusion by “published” or “credible” books. 95% of the novels I actually buy at the store today are garbage. Trash. Half written nonsense that only serves the purpose of paying people. I’m TIRED OF IT. I’ve become disillusioned by the “power” of the author. I have become disillusioned by canon. FUCK canon, quite frankly. Rip it apart. Dissect it. Take out it’s beating heart and transplant it into a new body. Give it the soul that the narrative was begging for. REVIVE IT. LET YOUR OWN IMAGINATION MAKE IT ANEW. Characters mean too much to people. Fiction means too much to people. Stories mean too much to people for anything less. Only then will you or I be satisfied.

Now, even an impromptu, unedited, gibberish essay is not complete without examples. I’ll start with one that you probably thought of while reading this. Game of Thrones. I think that two years ago, the ending of the most influential show of the entire decade, is where my subconscious began to shift in this direction. Now, I doubt my opionions about GoT are the same as yours, but you know what? It DOESN’T MATTER because FANON CAN FIX THE CANON. The stories that meant so much to millions can be fixed by accepting the fact that THE CANON ISN’T THE LAW! IT FUCKED UP!!!! CANON DOESN’T DESERVE TO SPEAK ANYMORE!!!! TAKE BACK THE STORY AND TRANSFORM IT INTO A VERSION TRULY WORTHY OF THE GLORIOUS BONES IT HAS!!!!!

We also can’t ignore the role that monetization plays in the media we consume. Why leave our fiction in the hands of just the big names? Why let money dictate what is real and not real? WHY SETTLE FOR MEDIOCRE STORYTELLING JUST BECAUSE IT WAS SOLD TO YOU AND THEREFORE IT’S “LEGIT CANON”??? FANFICTION IS FREE, AND THE MOST BEAUTIFUL PIECES OF WRITING I’VE EVER READ WERE WRITTEN BY FANFIC AUTHORS WHO DID IT FOR THE STORY. WHO DID IT FOR THE ART. WHO ACTUALLY DID IT JUSTICE. FUCK THE CONCEPT OF FANON AND CANON. THE STORY WE WANT IS ALL THAT MATTERS. GET MONEY OUT OF HERE.

Ahem. To avoid going on even more of a tangent, I’ll move on and give the example that triggered my existential crisis in the first place. Sailor Moon. To give some background, Sailor Moon is it for me. I have grown up with it. I’ve watched it my entire life. As a child, I ran around with my toy moon rod and desperately wanted to be Usagi. Ironically, I grew up to be quite a bit like her (but with Rei’s temper admittedly). It is my comfort show, my happiness. It makes me laugh, it makes me cry. I never tire of it. It makes my heart swell. I have never, nor will I ever, love any piece of media the way I love Sailor Moon. Flash forward to today, I watched Sailor Moon Eternal, the two new movie adaptations of the Dream arc in the manga (stick with me non-manga and anime lovers). I liked the films, but I was left with a deep, disatisfied yearning. I want back the feeling of complete bliss I experienced while watching the 90’s anime as a child. The problem with this? I’ll never get it back. I’ve just realized this. I’ll NEVER get it back. Why? Because it’s no longer the perfect version of Sailor Moon that it was to my young eyes. Crystal, while good, is also not the perfected version I seek in my adulthood, and Eternal has not scratched my insatiable itch. I am heartbroken because I’ve realized that Sailor Moon in its perfect form doesn’t exist anymore. If I held any canon sacred, it was this. But the story is flawed. The manga is flawed. The anime is flawed. It’s not infallible, as much as it truly, deeply hurts me to admit to the world and to myself. The only perfect version of Sailor Moon is the one in my heart. It’s the one I choose to piece together for myself with the building blocks that others who came before me have handed over.

Another, more recent example of falliable canon is The Grisha Verse. More specifically, the Shadow and Bone trilogy. I was brought in to the fandom by Ben Barnes’ depthless eyes and magnificent scruff. And you know what? I liked the story, but I stayed for Ben Barnes. I liked the Darkling so much that I bought the entire grisha verse books. It was a premature decision. I’ve only made it halfway through Storm and Seige, and you know what? I’m tired of the canon already. It’s not that great. The bones are there, but it could be SO. MUCH. MORE. I haven’t read the crow books yet, and by all accounts Leigh Bardugo has improved tremendously as a writer. Which incidentally proves my point. Authors are falliable. Ergo, the canon is falliable. I can’t help but think while I read these books, “Damn. I could write this better.” and you know what? I’ve read fanfics that HAVE written it better.

Am I saying this to trash Bardugo? Or even GRRM? (Yes I admit to trashing D&D but that’s beside the point ahem…). NO. I am NOT trashing the writers. I’M A WRITER. I GET IT. YOUR STORY IS YOUR BABY. I G E T I T . But I’ve realized, and what I think future authors will also have to realize, is that fiction doesn’t belong to anyone. As soon as it’s out the door, the fiction no longer belongs to the author. It belongs to us. The people. That’s what is beautiful about fanfiction. It’s not here for the money. It’s not here for the clout. It’s here for the fiction itself. Plain and simple. It belongs to no one and everyone.

In the past, I would have fought this. I would have wanted my work’s canon to be law. To be the word, the truth, the way etc. Now? I can’t be a hypocrite. I can’t be selfish. It isn’t about the author. It’s about the vision. It’s about the story, the narrative, the characters. It’s about art. And sometimes, the authors give birth to the idea (and they deserve credit for that without a doubt), but it’s also true that sometimes, someone else just writes it better. Someone else quite simply saw the vision, the story, the characters, more clearly than the author did. I make this vow now, as an author, to strive for the vision. If someone takes my vision and does it better than me, that only improves my perspective of my own story. It improves the world of fiction as a whole. It makes me better.

So, canon? Fuck the canon. Take back the story. Take back the characters. Take back the art. Fiction is ours. It belongs to us, and we can do with it what we please. Let’s strive for OUR OWN perfected version of the media we love. Canon doesn’t truly exist. The concept of Fanon doesn’t even exist anymore in the way we used to think of it. The author’s version of events is their own Fanon of the story. Canon is meaningless now. There is only the story that you accept in your own mind. There is only the story that I accept in my own mind, no matter how different it is from yours. There is only the art. There is only the limitless potential of countless people’s imaginations. Let’s continue to collaborate and celebrate beautiful stories together, in any conceivable way, over and over and over again, until the end of time.

Fin