#characters who exist in a radically different context to us?

[radlymona]

I find this video essay really interesting. As a Greek person, my issue with their "re-tellings of Ancient Greek myths/legends from a feminist perspective" has never really been about the whole cultural appropriation aspect, but the fact that few of these re-tellings add new dimensions to Ancient Greek female characters. It's less Feminist and more "I didn't have a good original idea." If anything, sometimes they feel like mouthpieces for modern causes/rhetoric, or just so utterly removed from their context, that the names used are essentially a marketing tool.

[not-poignant]

Hi Pia

Sorry is this ask is bothersome but I need some advice.

I while ago I was going through a really bad time mentally but found solace in a fandom. I became friends with a person that I met in a particular fandom and they encouraged me to get into fanfiction and it really helped my mental health as a form of escapism.

After about a year I took the plunge into writing my own fanfics for the fandom and at first they were well received. But then a gender swapped the characters.

For context- in this fandom most of the characters are male and almost all the fanfics available are canon compliant in this regard and I so I wanted to explore an au where all the characters were women instead. I posted a few chapters and was excited for feedback but then my friend from the fandom saw my new fic and messaged me telling me to take it down because it was problematic.

I asked them to explain why and they said that changing canon like that just for the "fun" of it wasn't ok and that if I'm going to "mess around with the characters identities" then I should make them trans instead.

I told her I wasn't comfortable making the characters trans because I myself am not trans and don't feel like I am educated enough to write about gender identities/experiences that I haven't gone through and I don't want to accidentally write something disrespectful.

My friend got back to me and said that take was even more problematic. I asked her to explain further because I was really confused by this point but she didn't get back to me.

A few days later I found out she had told all the people in the discord we were in together that I was being problematic regarding canon and I'm guessing she also went to my bookmarks and sent screenshots to everyone of the "problematic" ships and fics I like??

And now I'm getting hateful messages from people who used to be my friends in the fandom and I don't know what to do.

Should I make the characters male again like they are in canon? Or take the fic down altogether?

Hi anon,

So the short answer is:

You can write genderbending. Every fic is problematic somehow to different people and audiences. Trans people don't all agree on genderbending so you're not going to get a single "correct" answer. Don't take down the fic unless you want to. Don't change the fic unless you want to. Get some better friends. It's worth educating yourself further about this subject.

The longer answer is behind the Read More:

Genderbending is complicated and nuanced and there's a ton of discussion about it. I highly recommend you go somewhere like FanLore to check that out. Especially the further reading section, to see multiple sides of the discussion to then decide how you feel.

There are trans people who love cis genderbends. There are trans people who hate them. There are trans people who don't think they should exist. There are trans people who don't give a shit. There are trans people who want more to exist. There are trans people who think only trans people should be allowed to write any kind of genderbend. There are trans people who think no trans person should ever want to write cis genderbend.

My perspective (as a trans person) is closest to this archived Tumblr post linked here.

With this quote from mercurialmalcontent:

Changing a character to the ‘opposite’ cis gender is a very different thing than making them trans or nonbinary. Insisting that people only change characters to trans is also really damn invalidating, because it implies that being trans is interchangable with being cis. Whoopsie doodle!

And then the entire response from roachpatrol, especially:

so like. people now reducing the issue to ‘cis people are gross and hate trans people’ is pretty ridiculous. it ignores basically twenty years of women questioning, confronting and then dismantling the de-facto heteronormative, exploitative male gaze in order to create the radically progressive fandom atmosphere as we know it today on tumblr. 

And then also this from curriebelle:

there’s nothing inherently transphobic about art that explores gender - quite the opposite, I think - and that’s what genderbends are about. It can be hugelybeneficial to imagine male characters as female in order to explore roles that aren’t traditionally given to women

~

I think the main thing is that in fandom, many trans people have been forced to confront how they feel about genderbends (or cis swaps), whereas many cis people never have to think about it due to cis privilege. That doesn't mean writing it is bad by default, it doesn't mean fics that feature it shouldn't exist, and it doesn't mean problematic fanfiction is bad either. Like I said, everything is problematic to someone.

What actually bothers me the most is that people who you think of as "friends" are trying to police you in this way. Obviously I don't know the full story or the content of the fic, so maybe there's greater context going on that I'm missing. But on the surface, genderbends aren't inherently transphobic, even if some trans people don't like them, or feel dysphoria over them existing.

Ultimately genderbends aren't also often about the trans experience. It's really weird for your friends to assume that writing a story about a bunch of cis women, and a bunch of trans women is going to be exactly the same, or that one is inherently "better" than the other. Trans women experience some different issues (depending on the world), and the stories are likely to have different elements to them. And you're right, not feeling comfortable telling a trans story when you're a cis person wanting to write about cis women does actually make a lot of sense. That doesn't mean you can't do it, but it does make it clear why you didn't do it.

Anon, a friend who is quick to tell a whole bunch of people on a Discord server that you're writing a fic with content they don't like is not a friend, let alone a good friend. They might have once been very caring, but their response here indicates they're putting up a chance to seem righteous and 'moral' above actually caring about you or what you have to say. Especially in a situation where honestly a lot of trans people don't agree with each other, but we all mostly agree not to be dicks to people who write this stuff and to just live and let live.

(Also, trans people can write trans fic that other trans folk feel is transphobic! Something that heals and helps one person, hurts another, that's why the rule in fiction for things like this is very much: "don't like, don't read" and also: learn about it, do some research into it, but you don't have to morally justify what you like in fiction and fiction is the place to write this stuff - it is literally pure fantasy. Heck, some trans people love cis swaps precisely because it's a cis swap instead of a specifically trans narrative, the same reason some trans people hate them. We're not all a monolith with one opinion. Thank god).

Going into your bookmarks to reveal the 'problematic' things you like to a bunch of randos screams of anti-nonsense, people who judge other people's morals based off the fiction they enjoy. Folks like this think it's okay to humiliate, degrade and abuse people over what they enjoy in fiction.

Honestly, if it were me, I'd block these people. Trans people aren't magically free from being abusive shitheads, just like everyone else.

Your friend may have been a friend once, but what they're doing now is just shitty. Ironically, it's also pretty transphobic to the trans people who love and write cis swap and also the trans people who love and read it.

[stillness-in-green]

sorry, didn't see the answer until today. thank you for that but I mean proving AFO wrong that Tenko is filled with hatred and destroying and no one can accept him. we know thats a lie now but Tenko still dies?

Hey again, anon. So, I went back and tried to fit this follow-up context into your original ask—answered here for anyone who wants to look over it again.  My initial answer was based on you meaning that AFO should have been “proven wrong” in his assertions about human frailty and how, once someone has been rejected by society and become a Villain, there’s no way for them to come back.  Reconsidering your issue (that Deku killing Shigaraki doesn’t prove AFO wrong) with the knowledge that what you meant was him saying Shigaraki is only capable of hating and destroying things…

I guess in the end I don’t think the story believes AFO is wrong about that either? I mean, obviously he was, back when he first told those words to at-the-time-still-Tenko. But now? Not so much, at least in the author's eyes.

Below, if you want to subject yourself to my reasoning again, you can follow along as I talk myself through getting to that quite jaded conclusion.  My apologies if I misunderstand or misrepresent you again anywhere along the way!  Admittedly, based on my experience with the fandom and what names we choose to use in talking about the characters, I suspect we’re coming at them from radically different positions, but my position is the one I’ve got to offer you. Please know that, to whatever extent we might disagree on how much "Shigaraki Tomura" was ever a legitimate persona, we are united in our opinion that Deku should have done more for him if the story was serious about him being the Greatest Hero.

......

So, okay, the biggest issue with asserting that Shigaraki has any kind of moral core or personality independent of his AFO-instilled hatred/destructiveness is that the best arguments for it all revolve around the League and how Shigaraki wants to be their “Hero,” how that’s contiguous with his personality even from when he was “Tenko” because both fit a pattern of reaching out to the outcasts that everyone else around them ignores or mistreats.

I believed that too!  I still do, in fact!  I want to be clear that I think Shigaraki still has legitimate grievances and that his desire to make a world in which Villains will be happier is still, in its own way, noble and true!

But.

But that glorious spread where Tomura says that even if every bit of his hatred is smashed, he’ll still keep going because he has to be a Hero for the Villains that need him?  That spread comes before the montage showing AFO’s involvement in the Shimuras’ lives from before Tenko was even born.  And part of that montage is the absolutely buffoonish reveal that AFO even influenced Tenko’s sense of heroism by leaning on Tomo and Mikkun (the aforementioned outcasts) to encourage him to be a Hero.  I tend to assume that the two of them were from one of Ujiko’s orphanages—I can’t imagine how else AFO would be in a position to give two random children direct orders!—but whatever the case, it means that even Tenko’s draw towards standing up for outcasts is something influenced by All For One.

If you take that away, what else is left?  I could pick a few little traits here and there, but ultimately, what Shigaraki comes back to in the end, in that very last conversation with Deku in the shared mindspace, is destruction.  He pursued it to the end, his last expressed regret is that he couldn’t carry it out, and his final messages to ally and enemy alike revolve around the destruction he sought—telling Spinner he died fighting for it and telling Deku that it’s up to him and his whether any of what he destroyed actually stays destroyed.

To me, that suggests that the manga does believe that Shigaraki Tomura was, ultimately, an existence that could only destroy, and the fact that some of what he targeted deserved to be destroyed doesn’t negate the fact that he was still ultimately defined by the destructiveness that AFO meticulously crafted him to embody.  Even Deku seems to think that, in the end!

Like, really working through the timeline here?  Deku did want to believe that the Crying Child indicated that Shigaraki had some drive other than destructiveness at his core.  One of the (vanishingly rare) times he actually spoke to Shigaraki during their fight was his refutation of Shigaraki’s claims that he’d successfully devoured The Crying Child and thus transcended his humanity.

Running on the desperate certainty that Shigaraki was wrong/lying, Deku smashes his way into Shigaraki’s core and metaphorically uproots his hatred and psychically holds his hands, and Shigaraki still says that even so, the Villains still need him…  And if it ended there, maybe we could say that AFO was “wrong” in the sense you describe—that while the method Shigaraki uses to Be A Hero For Villains is warped by AFO’s influence, his desire to be that Hero is genuinely his own.  But then we get That Reveal, and even the parts of Tenko that seemed to predate AFO are revealed to be just another aspect of AFO’s machinations—Tenko’s heroism, his sense of injustice, even his very existence, all are indelibly stamped with AFO’s mark.

After that reveal, Deku never again pushes back against claims that Shigaraki can only destroy.  He never pushes back on AFO’s claims of authorship of Shigaraki’s life; he never tries to encourage Shigaraki by insisting that his bonds to the League are real regardless of how AFO raised him.  Heck, he never even suggests Shigaraki still has the chance to figure out who Tenko could be as long as he can break AFO's hold and reject his teaching. No, Deku just…accepts AFO's premise, apparently.

And so I come back to the same conclusion I did before: Deku is angry at All For One, but he does not disagree with All For One.

I genuinely think that, as far as the narrative is concerned, the tragedy of Shigaraki’s ending is thus:

Anyone Shimura Tenko was or could have been was overwritten by All For One’s grooming long ago.  Maybe this could have been prevented if things had gone differently—if Nana had beaten AFO, if someone like Deku had been there to intervene the day of the tragedy, if someone on the street had reached out to him before AFO—but as it stands, Shigaraki Tomura is too far gone to save.[See Note]  Deku can end the monster that was behind it all and try to honor the victims that Shigaraki’s actions brought to light by changing the world that created them for the better, but he cannot save Shimura Tenko because Shimura Tenko was lost long before he and Midoriya Izuku ever met.

(Note: One of those "Maybe If..."s the story dangles is Spinner taking some ill-defined step to help his friend, but my opinions are that disingenuous suggestion are just a long string of profanity. Suffice to say, if Shigaraki could still have been "saved" all the way up to the start of the second war, then the Heroes bear way more responsibility for failing to do so than Spinner ever could, and Deku is even more of a fuckwit for not arguing with AFO's assertions that Tomura is nothing but what AFO made of him.)

Of course we wanted more than that.  Of course we wanted Deku to do more than that!  We spent all that time watching Shigaraki grow and bond with the League—why, if the only reason for that growth and those bonds was to prepare him as a vessel for AFO?  We watched Deku resolve to try to save and/or understand Shigaraki’s heart no matter what—why, if everything in that heart was written in someone else’s hand?

The story told us that the best heroes always manage to both win and save, and that we were reading the story of how Deku becomes the best hero—why, if the story was only going to conclude that Shigaraki’s death at Deku’s hand was inevitable because the harm All For One did was impossible for either of them to overcome?

And to me, at least, that’s why Shigaraki’s death and Deku’s role in it feel so wrong: not for the in-universe reason that Deku and Shigaraki don’t disprove/disavow AFO’s claims, but for the meta reason that My Hero Academia lied to us and wasted our goddamn time.  It spent over two hundred chapters building up Shigaraki Tomura—as a villain, yes, but also as a victim, a friend, an enemy, an ally, someone who existed in the world he was rebelling against—only to then turn around and spend its remaining two hundred chapters tearing him back down to nothing and then telling us that’s all he ever was anyway.

All For One killed that crying child a long time ago, and all Deku can do is wipe away his tears and then wave him goodbye. 

By punching him to death.

It’s hard to imagine a bleaker outcome for the “Tenko” that started Horikoshi’s whole career as a mangaka, but I guess that’s what happens when your chosen career brutalizes you so badly that you come to define a Hero as someone who helps people endure their suffering instead of saving them from it.

...…

...Uh.  So, this got pretty bleak itself in the end.  Sorry, anon, everyone.  I write that way to get my point across, and I’m no little bit bitter about the whole thing myself, but ultimately, I just want to remind everyone that the story is over.  I’m not going to try to turn this whole thing into a positivity post all the way at the end, but just embrace that much: your obligation to care about the things Horikoshi wrote—to the extent that that obligation ever existed—is fulfilled.  If you hate the ending, well, so do I.  But now and forever, we and everyone else can go and do what-the-hell-ever we want to do with the characters and world that Horikoshi left us.

I hope we do.  I’ll be rooting for us!

[gwenllian-in-the-abbey]

What do you think of Grrm's portrayal of religion?

Hi anon, this is a really interesting question, and it took me awhile to put together what I hope is a coherent answer.

For context, I think GRRM's background is important to keep in mind. George is almost exactly my parents' age and belongs to the same demographic of American anti-war ex hippies who aged into broadly liberal baby-boomers. Their radicalism has largely mellowed over the years, they may not be the most up to date on the appropriate terminology, and they tend to prioritize nonviolent solutions to systemic problems (my mom often tells me the younger generation needs to do another March on Washington). One thing liberal boomers also tend have in common is that often they grew up religious but, as they entered their 20s and went to college, broke away from the churches of their childhood. My family is full of ex-Catholic liberal boomers like George. They might have dabbled in Buddhism or Hinduism in the 70s, New Age mysticism in the 80s or 90s, and ended up settling into statements like, "I'm spiritual, but not religious." Almost invariably, they have a sort of disdain for organized religion, which they associate with a kind of yokel mentality, a place for anti-Choice anti-LGBTQ traditionalists. Although they will profess "to each his own," to the average liberal boomer, the church represents regressive values and they cannot imagine why anyone would willingly return to it. Even those who did remain religious take great pains to make it known they are not like those Christians. And to be fair, liberal boomers have a good reason to feel this way. The churches of their childhoods were not fun places for people whose own ideas and values went against post-WW2 broadly white middle class values. Unsurprisingly, SFF authors tend to fit into this category.

And this sort of bleeds into a lot of 90s SFF. You see a lot of worlds that have religion, but rarely do you have characters that are religious, and even more rarely do you have sympathetic young protagonists who are religious. You might have the occasional kindly priest or nun type, but far more often these characters will be abusive, mean spirited, or narrow minded (think of Brienne's childhood septas). Religion is often treated with the same disdain by in-world characters as it is by the authors themselves. You might even have worlds that are almost entirely secular, with vague references to "The Gods," but without any real religious traditions constructed around them (Robin Hobb's Realm of the Elderlings series, which features two vague dieties, Eda and El, who seem to have no religious traditions surrounding them whatsoever). You might have cultish religions that are actively dangerous and must be stopped, or you might have Catholic church analogues, existing in opposition to everything cool and fun. Protagonists tend to be cynical non-believer types, or they might start off as true believers and lose their religion along the way. Rarely are they allowed to have sincere and abiding faith.

And you can see a lot of this in George's writing, in the way he portrays the Faith of the Seven and other religions, and the way the fandom receives them. The Faith of the Seven is Westeros' answer to the Catholic church, but there are also the Old Gods, the faith of R'hllor, and others, often presented in opposition to each other. George himself sees religion as a divisive force, and in ASOIAF, we see religions in conflict with each other, we see them weaponized to fuel vendettas, we see them used to drive prophesies and start wars. There's a clip somewhere, of George at a panel, where he's talking about religious conflict and his take is very reminiscent of George Carlin's-- you can tell he knows the bit. "Are you really going to kill all of these people because a giant invisible guy in the sky told you too? And your giant guy in the sky is different?" George asks, receiving a round of applause from the crowd. It's a very modern view on religion, which is fair, I think. He's writing for a modern audience who have modern conceptions of the church, and he is making a deliberate point about the harm religion can do. .

What I do think is missing, or at least downplayed, are the ways in which the medieval church was really a driving cultural and social force in medieval Europe. We live in a secular society, so we have the luxury of disregarding the church in a way that medieval people did not. This is one major way in which the worldbuilding of ASOIAF departs from the real world middle ages. To portray the medieval church as a primarily regressive institution that mostly drove conflict is too simplistic. The Catholic church is what culturally unified most of western Europe into what was known as "Christendom." The clergy served political functions, such as providing an important check upon the power of medieval kings, and when the power of the church declined, despotism grew. Socially, for most western Europeans, the church was also the center of day to day life. Insofar as medieval peasants had any opportunities for leisure time and celebrations, most of these revolved around the church. The church was for centuries a driving force behind art, music, literature, and architecture, and it also performed important social functions, such as operating poorhouses and leper-houses, and providing educations for children.

And all of this was just extremely normal. Most people prayed multiple times each day, and sincerely believed in heaven a hell. The state of one's soul after death was such a real concern that the sale of indulgences-- a way that you could pay to get your dead loved ones whose souls were in purgatory into heaven more quickly-- became a major racket for the Church. I've seen the HotD fandom react to Alicent Hightower's level of devotion calling her a religious "fanatic" and I cannot stress enough how absolutely normal Alicent would have been in medieval times. This is where I blame the framing of the show more than George, because it does set Alicent's faith in opposition to Rhaenyra's seemingly more modern values, but does it in a selective way. For instance, Alicent comes off as prudish, and modern audiences hate a prude, but we never see how her faith would have certainly inspired her, as queen, to take other more progressive actions such as giving alms to the poor or bestowing her patronage upon motherhouses. In another post about the fandom perception of Valyrian culture, I talked about how this modern view of devout belief, particularly Catholicism, tends to cast anything that is presented in opposition to it as an unequivocal good, and I see this sort of rhetoric slung around the fandom a lot, "why would you defend the pseudo-Catholics who hate women??" But the pseudo-Catholics are really just normal medieval people, and they didn't hate women, they simply lived in a patriarchal society and the material conditions did not yet exist which would allow them to challenge that in any meaningful way.

[batboopp]

Oh dear, those asks. As a new comic reader (derogatory) I feel so conflicted about Jason and co. Bruce can absolutely be abusive and shitty, that is a Thing that he can be (though honestly. now that I'm reading the source material it's not as bad as Tumblr and Tiktok make it out to be. I would say as a whole and minus a few radical outliers he is flawed. Not defending him but also defending him to some extent lmfao).

But I am steadily becoming allergic to the Batfamdom. I'm so stupidly Parlov'd to the Robin's, especially Jason, because Bruce in fanon (and even in other comics like Red Hood or Nightwing) is warped into either a monstrous villain who does ridiculously evil shit for kicks to prop up their Robin fav, or a bland, smiling Good Parent caricature that the rest of the cast slaps around for funnies. He is such an interesting character but as soon as the concept of Parenthood is introduced, you can only have two options: Evil Parent or Good Parent. No personality, no personhood can be allowed outside of taking care of or not taking care of your kids. Like you make a post that says "oh funny batguy :3" and you have a hundred people on your back that are like "He SLIT Jason's throat you evil abuse apologist!! He BEAT him!! How dare you like him as a character" and I'm just over it. They strip away agency of the Robins and act like literally every bad decision or flaw of theirs was caused by Bruce and wouldn't exist without him. blah.

oh I get your feelings 100%, mainly because i feel the same way. you post one thing about batman (or even the batfam in general) and people will be like “they’re actually irredeemably evil because *insert well-known bad incident* and because you like that character you are now evil. fuck you”

it gets even worse if you point out that no, actually they are all people in an impossible position, and they all have their negative traits that have influenced them to make horrible decisions. it’s dumb when people try to demonize one batfam member and put the other on a pedestal when in reality, none of them are exactly innocent (morally, spiritually, OR legally.) they are just people in a very unusual situation none of them are going to be perfect.

that can lead into a whole other thing of what a person thinks is “worse” or when they try to measure these bad actions when it’s sort of impossible. they’re all different people with different instances and tendencies that caused them to even do something wrong or bad in the first place, which makes comparing some of these moments a bit incomprehensible to me?? but that’s just me personally

i also think that who you relate to more as a character can influence if you like them more, obviously. like, i love cass WAY more than i love jason. jason and cass have both killed people, and it’s pretty strongly tied with their characters though, so what makes it different? for me, it’s because cass has used her murdering people to grow, to change and be better and happier, in the way she believes in total rehabilitation for murderers, in the way she will literally claw herself back from death to keep people from dying-or murdering. jason uses the means of murder very, very differently though, reasons that someone else might relate to more, and I think that’s more than ok.

tldr, I think exploring the negatives of each character is great, and it’s helpful of understanding who that character IS and why they even did that in the first place actually. but i also think that deciding if what they did was worse or better or even excusable compared to the actions of another character just spreads a lot of the misinformation in the fandom you’re referring to, unless done very well with full context from both situations. however i also think you are entitled to love any character for any reason, you are alive and breathing, but i think it’s also fair to expect people who dislike that character to sort of explain why they don’t (not on a random post about said character, of course, at that point I think it gets weird)

[weirdstuffinthewoods]

Music in I Saw the TV Glow

Possible spoilers ahead so read at your own discretion (I’m bad at determining how much information is too much)

I’m a firm believer that one of the most important facets of I Saw the TV Glow is its soundtrack. I don’t know if Schoenbrun has an uncanny ability to track down music that perfectly encapsulates the feeling of teenage ennui or if they’ve just got really great taste. Seeing this in a (mercifully silent) movie theater really let the soundtrack form an immersive layer around me, and the moment the first notes hit, I was 15 again. Unsure of myself, extroverted on the outside but barely connected to my insides, and feeling like I was just playing a role I’d molded from what I assumed people wanted of me. The dreamy, atmospheric chords that wound around soft lofi voices with only a guitar or a keyboard called to the part of me that wanted to connect but didn’t know how.

There’s something to be said about the order of songs on the soundtrack, although it’s been awhile since I listened to an official soundtrack that was a compilation rather than a score so maybe changing the track order isn’t as radical as it feels. For now, I’m just going to talk about a couple of songs, although I’m sure as I listen obsessively to the rest, I’ll have way more to talk about.

Anthems for a Seventeen Year-Old Girl by yeule

We start with the opening credits song that haunts my TikTok fyp, Anthems for a Seventeen Year-Old Girl. This is a cover of the original sung by Broken Social Scene. The original has a whisper quality- repeating lyrics over a simple acoustic melody with strings rising in the background as the refrain starts. It feels like a girls’ garage band of the grungy 90s, almost the vibe we need but not quite.

The covering artist, yeule, is a nonbinary Singaporean who is said to “…incorporate elements of ambient, glitch, and Asian post-pop…” (Wikipedia) which makes this version much better suited to an analog horror about 90s TV nostalgia. In yeule’s version, the same acoustic melody opens to a new beat made up of interchanging robotic and static tones, while in the background, strings wait for their chance to swell in the space between the verse and refrain. It sounds like an android is slowly waking up to be this jaded pop singer who’s just existing at this point, not living. The lyrics are the same as the original, and speak of someone that’s changed, either the singer or maybe a friend that left them behind.

You used to be one of the rotten ones and I liked you for that.

Now you’re all gone, got your makeup on and you’re not coming back.

Bleaching your teeth, smiling flash, talkin’ trash under your breath.

Park that car, drop that phone, sleep on the floor, dream about me.

In the context of the film, it feels like the crisis of identity both main characters face. This isn’t my home, you’re not my dad. The memories don’t feel like they’re yours, they belong to someone else. You’re different now, but also you know you were different then, and you’re only different now because you’re hiding in a disguise you hate. And, at least in Owen’s case (depending on your interpretation of the film’s ending), you’re not coming back. You’ll just dream about the person you know you are because you’re too far into the mask to find them again.

The bass joins in on the refrain and the ambience grows with glitch noises interspersed throughout. A strange sort of beauty begins to show and blooms when the drums kick into the chorus. You’re a teen again. It’s raining, you’re like Owen in the car, stretched across the backseat and staring at the ceiling, full of a feeling you can’t name that’s so much more than just being bored.

On TikTok, this song has become associated with a trend of kids, all much younger than me, sharing their stories of transness that was rejected by the people in their lives. A lot of them have detransitioned for safety and comfort, what little they can find by pretending it was a phase. It’s what drew me to this film, because the piece reflected their state of just physically existing in a world they don’t feel is theirs. For a lot of them, this film gave them hope or gave them new determination to make space for themselves, and I love that about it.

Another Season by Frances Quinlan

Immediately after this, we jump to the closing credits song that plays to a theater full of sobbing patrons who got it and laughing patrons who didn’t, Another Season. The jump is jarring, especially when you’re driving away from the theater in a throat-closing rush of tears (ie: me) and you’re brought straight from the introduction of this neon haze that is the suburbs to this fuzzy, pink screen that watches you come to terms with what you’ve just seen. The static breaks to silence except for a soft, melancholy acoustic melody. A soft voice speaks as if to a friend, and the chorus repeats, “If this isn’t over, what else could take shape? How will you remember it?” In the moment, especially post-there is still time, it feels like a call to action as you leave the theater crying. What could happen next? How are you going to remember your life? There are definitely multiple interpretations to this film, but I wanted to feel hope at the end, so for me, putting this song over the credits felt like Jane saying, “yes, it’s scary, and I’m leaving you to wonder what happened to Owen, but what we aren’t going to do is wonder what’s going to happen to you because there is still time.”

There’s so much more to look at in the choice of music and its juxtaposition with the visuals, but I’m going to leave this here for now with the opening and closing. Suffice to say, go see this movie. Support indie film, make the journey, it’ll be worth it if this resonated with you (but also why did you read this?? I’m sure there’s at least one mild spoiler in here).

[thewisecheerio]

Elden Ring and Colorism

I'm obsessed with the way Elden Ring handles hierarchy in the context of discrimination. It could have been a completely un-nuanced story of "purity/humanoid" vs "mixed/crucible" racism, where the former race holds their power over the latter. But no, they were careful to remind us that prejudice comes in many flavors. Even among the crucible-aligned Hornsent, colorism exists.

This is going to be an essay on why Romina, Saint of the Bud, might be the most radical reformist in all of the DLC.

For a similar post on why Miriel, Pastor of Vows serves this same purpose in the base game, see here:

The Crucible Feather Talisman tells us that Crucible races are one of the older races we meet in the game, and that their animal-like features used to be a symbol of the divine before oppression by the Golden Order:

...A vestige of the crucible of primordial life. Born partially of devolution, it was considered a signifier of the divine in ancient times, but is now increasingly disdained as an impurity as civilization has advanced.

We know from the varied appearances of crucible features—wings, tails, horns, blooms, breath, thorns—that the mixed race appearance of Crucible-aligned peoples comes in many forms.

We also know that the Hornsent revered the idea of mixed beings so much that they went to the trouble to try to force these properties onto people. We learn in Bonny Village from the Tooth Whip description that Shaman were particularly desirable because their flesh could facilitate melding when mixed with others inside of a jar:

...The flesh of shamans was said to meld harmoniously with others.

Additionally, we know that this process was considered "saintly", as various spirit NPCs (e.g. the ones in Belurat Gaol and Bonny Village) tell us that this is the purpose of the ritual. So does the Innard Meat description:

...This is what becomes of the condemned, who get sliced up and stuffed into jars to become saints instead.

At first glance, you might think this would lead to a society fundamentally different from the hierarchical Golden Order and its need to oppress those they deem racially "impure". Wouldn't you expect a society predicated on varied racial forms, built around a religious belief that the melding of flesh is saintly, and later discriminated against for being "impure" to have rejected the notion of racial impurity altogether?

However, we get at least two examples where the Hornsent seem to contradict this. First, the fly people don't seem to be high on the list of desirables, even though fly body parts are just as much animal characteristics as wings or horns. Zullie the Witch has a good video on this:

Second, we know that the Hornsent considered the horned Lamenters to be an undesirable expression of the Crucible, as the Lamenter's Mask reads as follows:

A stone mask twisted into an expression of rapturous grief. Use while disrobed to transform into a lamenter....This transformation tallies with the state of a denizen of paradise, but the people of the tower denied and hid it from the world. In their foolishness, they viewed true bliss with deep fear.

So what gives? Why is this society obsessed with mixing still somehow perpetuating the idea of a racial hierarchy?

This isn't as contradictory as it seems. This is something that happens in real life, and it's called colorism. While racism deals with the social hierarchy exclusively between races, colorism also includes discrimination even within a single racial category. It is focused on the differing effects that people can experience based on the nuances of their exact appearance.

So for example, there are often differences in how darker-skinned Black folks are treated in the US versus lighter-skinned Black folks. This harkens all the way back to the slave era, in which lighter-skinned Black slaves could work in the plantation house, while darker-skinned slaves were relegated to field work. This has, in some cases, perpetuated the biases of the white ruling class onto intra-community relations, as in the early post-slave era, many darker-skinned Black folks saw their lighter-skinned contemporaries as privileged or sometimes even "tainted" by white influence due to differences in how they had been treated. But the root of both white slave owner's racism and intra-community tension was the same: whiteness held above all else as the ideal.

This color discrimination persists even to this day, in which darker-skinned folk in media are often portrayed as more violent and more undesirable than lighter-skinned folk even of the same race. It's also why mixed-race folk can have such a hard time, being perceived as "too white" to have the "true" Black experience while being perceived as "too Black" to receive the privileges of being white.

As a result, color discrimination in the US cannot be modeled with racism alone, as the exact appearance of someone's skin can lead to varying experiences with discrimination. Assumed race is not the same as skin color, just as how being racially Hornsent is not enough for the fly people or Lamenters to be considered divine like other Crucible peoples. Their exact presentation matters to how they are perceived even within their own society.

And it points to the same solution for Elden Ring's ills as in our world. Ultimately, solving the problem involves rejecting the notion of a bioessential hierarchy altogether. It's the essential valuation of whiteness in our world that causes *both* racism *and* colorism; it's the rejection of whiteness as the ideal that can solve both. And we see the same kind of pattern repeated in Elden Ring's colorism, in which it is the essential idea that there are "pure" and "impure" forms of the body that is at fault for both the Golden Order's racism and the Hornsent's colorism; it is the rejection of "impure life" entirely that solves both.

And that's why Romina, Saint of the Bud is the true radical reformist of Elden Ring's DLC, embracing even the rotting, rejected forms of life. The Rotten Butterflies incantation reads:

The scarlet butterflies are as the Goddess of Rot's wings. Bereft of a master, they were soothed by Romina, who reached out to them.

Of all of the characters we meet in the DLC, she is one of the few modeling radical acceptance even of the "impure", rejecting the notion of bioessential impurity entirely.

Romina, Saint of the Bud by X37TC https://www.artstation.com/artwork/Ny1ABq

[antescompany]

There's so many posts I've seen arguing how to properly "conduct" D&D 5e (what can be done, how it should be approached, what is player-side authority and what is DM-side authority) that I think altogether it illustrates a really fundamental failure on the part of D&D 5e (also applicable to many, many other games).

Something which comes up a lot in talk about D&D 5e is that it is a game which every single table plays differently; not just in terms of the content or hierarchy of play (as in, what is being done and what is being prioritized), but also as in how the very rules are interpreted and used at the table, often in some pretty major ways. This is usually less of a good thing than a lot of people seem to think it is, and signals to me a failure by the rules to properly convey their intended design and usage. It's like the reverse of GURPS, which, despite having generally massive variety in its content and hierarchy of play (something WotC attempts, but does not succeed at), is generally pretty granular about the means by which the game is conducted, regardless of the context of play.

D&D 5e is often even worse at this than usual as a result of the fact it encourages radically different approaches to its own rules. "How often should we be rolling?" is given a rather concrete answer of conduct in the DMG; bafflingly, however, this answer is given in a different section than the section on rolling, which actually gives multiple, very different answers, some of which flagrantly instruct players to just ignore the rules of the game! These two sections are within one page of each other! I have no damn clue how you want me to play your game!

(we are talking about the game whose rules for new spells just tell you to guess how to balance them, though, so this is not a particularly surprising can of worms to open, but I digress).

The design of D&D 5e is, seemingly, a "toolkit of rules" designed for approaching various possible circumstances that fails to properly delineate when and how those tools are to be implemented - or even if you should implement them at all - made worse by the game frequently encouraging several approaches at once for seemingly no real reason other than to ensure it caters to more broad playstyles, despite not actually being mechanically designed for all those types of play! There has to be right and wrong answers of game conduct, or else you aren't really producing a cohesive game; players may see this initially as freeing, but it really just makes for a messy product that results in every table having their own weird Calvinball variant of an ur-game that doesn't actually exist anywhere.

This is not a D&D 5e problem only, of course. Rules issues like this being so frequently up to player interpretation creates for a really messy play environment, especially when there's very little ever given to the player to help them determine how to resolve such issues within the effective spirit of the game's design. You can write rules about your rules; it is often very possible to create an ordered means of approaching rule resolution, and if it somehow isn't, it is not difficult to instruct players on how to make interpretations which fit the spirit of the game. "Whatever seems most appropriate/fun" is not a good rule for interpretation, because those words don't actually mean anything, and definitely don't help players determine what means of rule resolution is actually going to be conducive to the kind of play your game is designed to create! "Rule zero" should not be a core part of your actual game structure; it is something that can be applied independently to it, if desired.

Part of this is possibly an issue in the seeming overtendency amongst D&D 5e players who don't really consciously acknowledge game design presuming that anything which is not directly referenced on a character sheet or stat block in numerics is functionally "not a game rule", leading to many players disregarding the established means of conduct altogether - something which the game's formatting does no favors in combatting (seriously there is so much roll resolution stuff tucked in random corners of the DMG, it's really bad) - but I presume a much larger issue is the fact that a lot of the time, 5e will not give you a straight answer as to what their game is intended to play or feel like, because they don't want to give you one! That is, again, not as much of a good thing as people seem to think it is!

As an addendum, this post is about this phenomenon in 5e in particular, but actually applies pretty broadly to most editions of D&D, regardless of the development team (I can't attest to AD&D 1e, I still need to read it!). That doesn't make any of these games bad games, but it does signal something a bit dire when 3e famously doesn't even tell you that you can, in fact, stop drowning after you've started to drown. Players shouldn't have to intuit multiple stacking layers of rules interpretations on top of one another, especially ones that can be drastically out-of-alignment with the rules that are clearly given, because that's what makes a game collapse. It's like when you're playing a board game without a thorough FAQ; once rules interactions start to occur that were not accounted for, if there's no clear means to resolve them, and no given answer, it becomes up to you to determine interpretations that can pretty radically alter the game state!

And for the record, I would love to dismiss these claims using the existence of the Sage Advice FAQ, but since WotC seemingly wants to make accessing Sage Advice as incredibly difficult as possible nowadays, I can no longer afford 5e the fact that it did once have a pretty robust (if rather disorganized) online FAQ!

[posmasc]

Male Attraction in the eyes of Fearful Women/Radfems and Double Standards (Ramble post)

Note: I use "Misandry" to name a phenomenon. I don't want a "pancakes/waffles" response to when I say misandry like I'm saying it's exactly the same as Misogyny.

So i have an interesting topic about male heterosexuality and double standards. You know how in the context of a "progressive space" any time a man displays their sexual love for women, people on the spectrum on feminist and misandrist/androphobes/radfems express how they are objectifying women in a morally harmful manner. However what counts as "harmful objectification" seems to be very loose. Technically you can objectify anything but in a patriarchal society some objectification leads to consistent real world harm. If a man draws a woman in a sexual pose, many women will feel uncomfortable and distrustful that they are contributing to real world harm even if the original artist doesn't believe women are objects. They fear many men who see their art will be encouraged to harm women. Those who don't understand this perspective just see someone getting bullied for expressing their sexuality and "purity culture".

The further extreme someone who is radfem/misandry, the further they believe that because of the patriarchy, men can't ethically express attraction for women. (Its like no ethical consumption under capitalism but for patriarchy). This partially leads to situations like Jocat who make posts about liking women and leading to an internet frenzy. (IMPORTANT NOTE: Most of the backlash and bullying against Jocat were by misogynist men not by radfem women but i can't discount them and they did exist). The portion of the hatred from women claimed he was objectifying women in his posts. Most people who defended him claim that it wasnt objectify nor misogynistic because he was finding beauty in all types of women where the patriarchy rewards certain types of women (white fat skinny). To radical feminist, they usually are aware of intersectionality but due to their beliefs that women are extremely oppressed at all time, intersectionality doesn't seem to matter to them as much. All Women are objectified to a significant degree that avoiding one patriarchal concept doesnt matter if you play apart in a different way.

Another example that sticks out in my mind is the stick out in my mind is the Twitter post about Men who are feminist allies shouldn't be attracted to women. Now this post got a lot other feminists who weren't as extreme to push back against this post as it implies women can't consent. I find this interesting as it demonstrates the central point of discourse around men finding women sexy and displaying it on the internet. It's viewed as either predatory or enables predatory behavior. When progressives agree that women have the right to be afraid of men and hate men due to femcide, rape statistics, sexual harassment, patriarchy, "misandry isn't real nor a big deal", "misandry only hurts men", you get this kind of response.

As I mentioned double standards, you can "objectify" men but since men as a class aren't objectified by the patriarchy, putting men in sexual poses, that would be considered harmful if it were a women, leads to no real world harm to men. To radfems and progressives, someone drawing men in a sexy and degrading way isn't going to lead to more men getting harmed in real life. How many women are going to see art of a sexy man and decide to sexually harass a man in real life? Not significant enough to worry. Now how many men are going to consume porn art of women and decide to further their oppression of women. A whole lot. This is the perspective they see. I've watched some YouTube videos talking about this. When people talk about about male objectification, or female gaze where men are the recipient of attention in fiction, they bring up that men are still well rounded characters usually in those stories compared to male gaze and female objectification where their sexualization makes the women poorly written or not much depth. In some cases, its a hilarious revenge to objectify men in ways women are typical subject to. See the anime "Dungeon Meshi". Senshi (a male character) is subjected to panty shots and getting groped but since its happening towards a male character and not a female character, it's funny. In fact, the reaction to fanservice of Senshi fanservice is more of a joke than the sexual nature one can derive from the fanservice. When women are tired of seeing their bodies getting commonly oversexualized in fanservice, they tend to dislike towards fanservice in general and even express it. Manservice or Fanservice centering sexualization of men is not very common in non-BL media so it's inclusion outside of that has meaning beyond sexualizationm

So essence. In a patriarchal society where women are viewed like sexual objects by men and women want to combat it, it creates a moral line of male sexualization that if crossed, they are no longer an ally but an threat to all women and feminism. The moral line is pretty loose as any man can abuse even the mild sexualization to further oppression and cause real world harmful. The more extreme you fear and hatred of men, you may think there's no line at all and heterosexuality is inherently predafory. This doesn't apply to Men since they aren't harmed by sexualization to a significant degree (according to radical feminist). When you take these beliefs to the extreme, the more hostility is created for any heterosexual desire by men. Even non-radfem/misandrist progressives share the thought process that encourages radfem and misandrists (unless they become terfs which i can make a sequel post about). In progressive spaces, those with privilege have to be mindful of oppressed and marginalized groups. To a leftist, they need to dismantle all hierarchies and not further fuel them that already exist. You can't punch down but punching up is fine. Punching up can seen as funny revenge against oppressors. When a radfem or misandry gets called out for pocket statements by other progressives, i find it interesting as they usually are operating on framework leftists subscribe to as mentioned above. Terfism isn't tolerated because then it becomes punching down but when radfems "mean things" about men, its punching up.

It may sound like I'm agreeing with the perspective but I'm looking trying to look at it from the leftist, progressive, radfems.

So what is the point of this tumblr post? I just wanted to Ramble about these observations. The dynamics of patriarchy and how it affects the way we respond to media that deals with female sexuality by men. I've seem arguments that relate to this topic where women express their dislike to sexualization of women by men whether it be fanservice, porn/hentai, and they get called puritans. I understand why this happens and not pretend like these fears and reactions come from nowhere. Sorry if it feels a bit disjointed. There is a lot more i can talk about but i can end it here for now.

[terranovathemust]

POST FOR ih8marysues PART 1

this post is dedicated to a user ih8marysues who regularly reviews my fanfiction on fanfiction.net and who follows me on tumblr. this is not meant to be a polemical post, but simply I want to clarify some issues that have been raised several times through his reviews. i want to say that i know i am not arthur conan doyle or stephen king in writing, in fact my goal is not to make a best seller, but to have fun telling a story even if it is not the best in originality or quality. the goal is fun for me, i don't have to ruin my days to tell a story. on the creativity issue, i know very well that i exploited events that are present in the game, but i didn't copy and paste, that would be hyperbole, nor did i radically distort everything, i did a middle way. it's called fanfiction, originality as important as it may be, is not an obligation. sure, it makes no sense to copy and paste something that already exists, but you don't have to obsess over creativity either, it's also fine to look for a middle ground without mentally killing yourself by necessarily looking for an extreme. moreover in the chapters that I will release in the future there will be totally original situations, contexts and characters and be careful, it's not something that I thought of now to make up for the lack of creativity, but it's something that has already been planned since the first chapter, like the character of Alice and her development in the third chapter. what I have done and what I will do I had already planned in due time, I didn't do anything haphazardly. among other things I would like to ask, what is the point of comparing a beautiful fanfic of 90 chapters, I repeat 90, like Young and Young At Heart, with one like The Deep Breath that only has 4 chapters? it's obvious that the first will be much more developed, it's 90 chapters, while mine has barely started, give me time. then there are issues like the meme on the Oneshot, that I find it useless to include it in a review, but I want to explain. that meme is about a sentence that you weren't the only one to say, plus I didn't do it with the aim of crying for the negative review you wrote to me, but I simply exploited that sentence, combined with a thought and created a meme with the aim of making people smile. the fact that reddit removed it is worrying, it shouldn't be a reason for enjoyment for you, because it's not normal to remove a harmless meme, which has the aim of entertaining people. obviously I know what a Oneshot is, meaning each chapter tells a different self-conclusive plot. the meaning of the meme is "guys I understand that my chapters have a very gradual approach in telling and I understand that some don't like it, that's fine, but you can't even get to the point of putting 80 kg of plot in a single chapter just to avoid you getting bored." my fanfic is not a collection of oneshots, but it is a choral plot divided into multiple chapters. What's the point of writing 20, 30, 80 chapters, if then I develop everything quickly in 2 chapters? if I wanted to be polemical or if I wanted attack someone, I would have made a much more aggressive or provocative meme at the very least, so don't worry, I'm not targeting you. I make the meme for fun and to amuse others, not to attack, I don't want to waste time attacking people and I don't cry if someone tells me I suck. I'll tell you more, in your reviews you are very aggressive, already from the first review, but especially in the last ones you write with frustration, as if I were ignoring them. I'm not ignoring you, in fact I read negative reviews more often than positive ones, since the former are much more useful to me.

[thekaijudude]

MAJOR Decker Movie Leaks + MAJOR implications on Ultra Lore

1. Ultraman Dinas is a "clone" of Dyna

So what exactly happened was that when Ravi was still a normal person, her planet got attacked by aliens and Dyna showed up to save her planet

And because she was near dead after the attack, Dyna gave her a piece of his light which allowed her to assume the form of Dinas

And she has seen this as an opportunity to use this power for good and help others ever since

But because she hasn't really been able to controlled the power well, Dinas' color timer is still red in color

2. Decker Dinas Type does not show up in the Movie

So I suppose this was a cancelled concept before they decided on who Dinas would be

-

So this is a very radical concept coming from this franchise, that being an Ultra can give portions of their light to hosts that they themselves have independent and permanent control over

Usually the case is like what we saw with Trigger where the remnants of Tiga's light allowed Tiga to manifest for a brief period of time only in his original form

And rmb that there was an info saying that Decker also has the same origin as Dinas?

Yup, this most likely means that Future Decker also received a permanent portion of Future Dyna's light and most likely has more time to master his control over it to allow him to of course have a blue color timer and assume his Strong and Miracle Types

This is so interesting cause it brings up so many new opportunities and questions about this new revelation

Considering that Kanata eventually evolved Decker to Dynamic Type, this clearly shows that recipients of Dyna's permanent light can master it beyond the basic Flash/Strong/Miracle, and this really puts what Future Decker said in context, like him noting that Dynamic Type is Kanata's "Unique Form", does that means that not all evolutions are the same?

Like will Dinas eventually look like Decker Flash Type after some time? Or each "child" will look different from each other, even as they evolve?

Imo, most likely since the chest patterns and color scheme of Dinas is totally different from Decker. But the fact that Future Decker knows of the concept of "unique forms" highly suggests that either:

a) Future Decker DOES have a Super Form of his own, which also means that all the evolution stages before their Super Form would look the same

b) Future Decker has seen the "Deckers" of other recipients, means that in the future, Dyna has given this power to others as well

Personally, would prefer the latter cause it'll give more possible designs lol

And the fact that Dynamic Type exists clearly hints that Dyna has some form of Super Form still up in his sleeves (Unity Type Theory back in full swing lmao)

Additionally, this would mean that one day, we would see Dinas gaining his/her own Flash/Strong/Miracle or even Super Form eventually?

And does this necessarily make Decker and Dinas the children of Dyna?

This whole thing is literally a huge Nexus reference

This is a very clearly a revolutionary concept cause its literally an alternate option for nearly unlimited legacy based characters of Ultras can simply just create new ultras out of the blue, very interested to see exactly what they can do with this new concept

-

UPDATE: I just realized a pretty shocking fact

Rmb O50 can also literally create Ultras outta nowhere? And that it's sentient as well?

Yeah u can definitely see where I'm going with this

And we do know from Tiga that Ultras can leave their body behind and live as light or sth

What if the Voice of Light is simply another Ultra altogether that's been giving permanent portions of its light to form New Ultras?

Suddenly the dynamics of this system makes so much sense on why theres so much flexibility with O50

Tho the VoL seems to be far more advanced as seen with Orb, it bestowed further evolution forms, weapons and even the Orb Ring that has the ability to merge the powers from Ultras of different universes

But another fact is that somehow they can also create kaiju, like how the VoL created Grigio Bone for Saki, which is similar to how Decker had access to the Capsule Kaiju as well

But the qn remains, how are they able to do this for kaiju???

And what could this mean for perhaps other sources of Ultras? Like we know that the Plasma Spark is artificial, but considering that it does have sentience and it did also gave Zero an upgrade. Also knowing the history of the LoL which if u recall, King alr existed before the Plasma Spark and is considered one of the elders that predated it.

What if the Plasma Spark is artificial in the sense that they've managed to isolate a permanent portion of light from either King himself or another elder?

And could we say the same for the Ultra Mind for U40? Z95? Planet TOY-1?

Hell, even the Absolutians which was something I postulated about the Lord's awakening being the reason the planet is gonna blow. Literally because he's the entire source of the whole Absolutians' planet itself

Holy shit the entirety of Ultra lore has gotten FAR MORE INTERESTING with this new fact

THE PLOT THICKENS

[adaninasatrici]

So, I read Stephan King

For class, I had to read _The outsider_ , by Stephan King. I've read King once before, when I was a pre-teen and I haven't touched him since.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, you can only publish as much as that man has if a) you have a formula that you can easily repeat and b) if you're willing to publish a lot of crap. Now, like I said, I haven't read much, and I'm sure he has some good books, but i'm sure plenty of it is simply meh at best. However, his formula works. There's a reason his books have sold so much. People enjoy his works, and in that sense he is a huge success.

Back to The Outsider (and there will be spoilers). The first part was interesting. It was obvious that there was something supernatural going on, but I did want to see where all of it led. And King does have a good way of gripping your attetion, despite his characters being somewhat two dimensional. But, frankly, the whole book turned into a comedy when the big bad turned out to be the Cucu. Besides, the way they found and killed a creature who's supposedly "pure evil" was, perhaps, the most disappointing, and somewhat riddiculous, conclusion I've seen in a while. Too simple. I did get a good laugh, however, so points for that.

So, aside from personal impressions, I do have some issues with the book on a more objective level (as far as objectivity is possible in this sort of thing). First off, chapter one has no place there. It doesn't give me any information in terms of plot, character, setting, nothing. You can take it out and nothing would be lost. I feel like the only reason he put that in was to say "black lives matter" and then not have a single black character in the rest of the novel. Politics have a place in litterature. But this is just a slogan that adds nothing to the story and that is never touched on again in the whole book.

Characters are sterotypes. The main character is an honest cop. Period. There is no depth to him. No conflict beyond "I'm good and I want to do the right thing." There is no conflict about what the "good" thing is. Holly is the image of the quirky neruodivergent girl with social issues. Yes I know she is a woman. She isn't narrated as one. In fact, when Holly first appears in the book, I had a radically different image of her than I had of her later on, which makes me think there's something off about how King is building her character. I know she appears in previous books by King, but I figure that should mean he has a good enough grasp on her character for that not to happen.

In fact, the whole book seems to be devided between the good guys and the bad guys and there is no middle ground, no grey area.

And, finally, the Cucu. First off, it's painted like this Mexicain mosnter, which I find problematic bcause that monster exists all the way from Mexico to Argentina. Second, the fact that this was the ultimate bad guy was the moment the book started to seem funny to me, and when I thought about it, I think I understand why. I get the idea of using monsters children are scared of to be the villan of a horror story, but the Cucu seems so out of context it almost seemed like a joke. A shapeshifting monster that goes after children can be anything, and giving it the identity of a popular latinamerican tale seems awfully like exoticization. And when the time came for the unavoidable "chat with the evil entity", it seemed like nothing more than your ordinary horrible person. Yes, he commits horrendous crimes, but he seems to me like a person commiting horrendous crimes. Not an evil entity. In fact, the way Holly provokes is by picking on his pride, and the supposedly incarnation of evil reacts just like a man with serious anger management issues would react, only to be defeated by a sock filled with heavy balls in a matter of seconds.

I will acknowledge that the book has good pacing, and I did want to figure out how it ended. King is good at that, and he has a good attention to detail. It is rather long, but it's an easy read so it's a good option if you're looking for something entertaining. In that sense, I do think the book does what it's trying to do. I would like to think it's not his best work, and I'm not particulary intersted in exploring his works any further but it's not the worst either.

[xenopoem]

The play "Declaration of the Technical Word as Such" draws its inspiration from a combination of ideas that came together in the playwright's mind. One idea was to have characters enter the stage, recite their lines, and die, with another actor immediately taking their place to continue the dialogue. The second idea was inspired by a manifesto written by the Russian Cubo-Futurists Velimir Khlebnikov and Alexei Kruchenykh in 1913, titled "Declaration of the Word as Such." This essay proposed that a poem could be built around a single word, using etymology and word histories to create a poem.

The Russian Cubo-Futurists had a revolutionary understanding of language and sought to expand its parameters by creating new words. They aimed to create a new language and new concepts for a radically different way of living and organizing society. However, their project was suppressed under Stalin's regime, and their ideas went underground. The playwright sees their work as a tradition that was forced into dormancy rather than one that needs to be broken with.

The influence of Velimir Khlebnikov on the play is significant. Khlebnikov's approach to poetry and language involved a mathematical perspective, with an emphasis on etymology, symbolic logic, and nonlinear mathematics. He believed that a change in a single letter could not only change a word but also change the world. His vision was to create a language that would affect reality itself. The play explores the idea of language as a transformative force and questions what a "word as such" would mean in a world where words are primarily mediated by technology.

The contrast between the philosophical abstraction of the dialogue and the materiality of the production is intentional. The juxtaposition of intellectual abstraction with physicality, such as the bodybuilders striking poses while making theoretical pronouncements, is meant to create an intriguing collision of worlds. It adds a comedic and carnival-like element to the play, reminiscent of vaudeville or folk theater. This contrast highlights the playwright's perspective of seeing the world as a high-theory slapstick routine and reflects their belief that existence is a comedy.

The bodybuilders in the play serve as ringmasters who introduce the "impossible" feats that the audience will witness. They embody hyperbolic physicality and represent the mediated nature of communication in the modern world. The play explores how technology and digital code have become mediums for our communications, and how our self-representation is often focused on the surfaces rather than deeper levels of significance. The bodybuilders also serve as an analogue to the infinite permutations made possible by binary code, highlighting the differences and similarities between human beings and computer code as agents of change and mutation.

The play seeks to revive Khlebnikov's approach to poetry and language while also bringing attention to his ideas among English language readers. It explores the potential of language, both in its traditional form and in the context of digital technology, to transform and shape our reality.

AW's play explores the tension between the performativity of the dialogue and the impossibility of performing the script. The choice to write it as a play was driven by the belief that it couldn't be articulated in any other way. Despite not being a "man of the theatre," AW's familiarity with the medium and the challenge it presented made it an intriguing choice. Additionally, writing it as a play encouraged readers to engage actively with the text, using their imaginations to bring the fragmented document to life.

The play's impossible elements serve multiple purposes. Firstly, they highlight the creativity and imagination required in both reading and performing the play. They push the boundaries of what is typically deemed possible, encouraging laughter and questioning of limitations. By refusing to conform to traditional expectations, the play challenges familiar notions and opens up new potentialities.

The inclusion of the columns, which contain text, numbers, and formulas, adds another layer to the script. These columns represent the same content as the play but are expressed in the source code that underlies word processing. They draw attention to the abstract and invisible nature of word processing, contrasting it with the concrete and tangible act of writing with pen and paper. The columns serve as a reminder that the tools we use for communication have hidden complexities and that our interaction with them is often detached from the underlying processes. Their presence within a performance is open to interpretation, but their absence could raise questions about the hidden control and power structures at play.

The focus on materiality and mortality in the play stems from various sources of inspiration. The idea of bodies littering the stage originated from a concept of a Looney Tunes-esque nightmare where the audience could remove actors from a bad play but would only be replaced with more of the same. The concept of entropy, both in digital information and the body, became a central theme. The fading ink of the columns represents informational entropy, while the bodies on stage represent material entropy. By exploring the intersection of materiality and mortality, the play raises questions about decay, persistence, and the potential for change. It emphasizes that everything, including systems of control, undergoes entropy, but this entropy also opens up possibilities for new articulations and forms.

Overall, AW's play seeks to challenge conventional norms and expectations while encouraging creativity, laughter, and an embrace of potentialities. It aims to elicit a refusal to confirm the familiar and an affirmation of the alien and unexplored. By engaging with the themes of materiality, mortality, and entropy, the play invites us to contemplate change, the persistence of blossoming potencies, and the emergence of new and unimaginable futures.

[hetaari]

2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 17, 20, 21,22 and 24 for that writing ask game :)

Fun fact it took me ten thousand years to answer this bc this ask was apparently long enough to crash the app multiple times whilst I was answering it lmao

*cracks knuckles, cracks neck, cracks spine*

2: Tell us about what you’re most looking forward to writing – in your current project, or a future project

Augh I want to. Hurry to get to the interesting bits of An Unconventional Sort Of Enployment quickly!!! I’m editing the chapters that were already published bc I must’ve gotten so excited to publish them that they came out rushed :/// what I’m looking forward to most is developing relationships! I plan for everything to remain non-romantic bc I’m not good at writing romance lmao but that doesn’t make it any less fulfilling! Developing platonic relationships is actually one of my favorite things to write so I’m really looking forward to it

3: What is that one scene that you’ve always wanted to write but can’t be arsed to write all of the set-up and context it would need? (consider this permission to write it and/or share it anyway)

It’s actually a whole fic idea and also it’s vocaloid so maybe you wouldn’t find it very interesting but anyway. It’s like:

Kaito: have you ever wondered what it’s be like to be someone else

Len: ???? Are you depressed again

Kaito: no I was just thinking about it

Len: I can help you with that

So Kaito changes his name (well, barely, it’s only one letter off) and pretends to be a girl but! He’s inadvertently committing identity theft bc the lady he’s pretending to be already exists and is actually related to him but he somehow completely forgot, and all his friends know her but either they actually thought he was her or they also forgot that she exists too

5: What character that you’re writing do you most identify with?

(Previously answered) Do ocs count? Madeleine wasn’t supposed to be a self-insert at all but at some point whilst I was drafting I was like “ah fuck that’s me innit” bc I realized her personality was far too similar to mine lol

6: What character do you have the most fun writing?

(Previously answered) Germany. I love making him miserable in particular. Also Japan, the way he speaks is so satisfying, same with Russia

8: Is what you like to write the same as what you like to read?

Generally yes, but—and I don’t mean to come off as someone who doesn’t read books—why is smut in fanfiction often better written than smut in published books? Is it censorship? A stylistic choice? Published smut often feels so weird and cringe in the way it’s written and I don’t understand why…In fact, fanfiction and standard published books really hit different in general, for better or for worse

11: What do you envy in other writers?

I feel a bit like I’ve stagnated. I’m writing the same things over and over again so I see someone else has written something radical I’m like “damn why didn’t I think of that” so I should really try doing something different…and while I know that the worth of written works is not in their length, I see so many writers put so much emphasis on the length of their works and it’s a bit discouraging as someone more used to brevity

13: Do you share your writing online? (Drop a link!) Do you have projects you’ve kept just for yourself?

Yeah lol. My ao3 is here lol. But yeah I’ve been playing around with an original work for a bit actually. Might consider talking about it more. Anything else I’ve kept to myself are just things that I couldn’t finish

15: Which is harder: titles or summaries (or tags)?

It depends but mainly titles. Summaries I have the least problems with because if all else fails, I can simply make the summary a phrase that’s connected to the title, but that may become a problem if I don’t have a title lmao. In the case of gore however, that’s when I struggle a bit with tags, like “this isn’t extreme to me, but would other people find it too much?” because if it is extreme, I don’t want to want to have people let their guard down, but if it isn’t extreme, I don’t want to falsely advertise

17: Do you think readers perceive your work - or you - differently to you? What do you think would surprise your readers about your writing or your motivations?

Yeah, I believe art looks a bit different depending on the eye of the beholder, no matter how slightly. I don’t think my motivations are very surprising or complicated—they’re pretty much along the lines of “hey you know what would be interesting?”

20: Tell us the meta about your writing that you really want to ramble to people about (symbolism you’ve included, character or relationship development that you love, hidden references, callbacks or clues for future scenes?)

Okay first of all I’m sorry for talking about Welcome Back again, it’s my first completed multi chapter work so I’m a bit proud it, like it’s my firstborn child lol.

The way I went about it is actually something I want to repeat—taking a canon moment (in this case, Vene getting kicked out and later being sent back to Germany in a box) and going in a wildly different direction with it. It was supposed to remain a one shot but I suddenly decided to continue it, which is why the transition between the first and second chapter may seem a little odd.

Vene did kind of turn out to be kind of the antagonist though, not that he meant it. But it was a lose-lose situation i think, because he effectively fucked Germany up by telling him he was a country in the first place, but at the same time, it was really fucking weird that Germany would just live his life not knowing about a crucial part of his existence! Not really knowing what else to do, Vene just decided to wipe Germany’s memory just to put him out of his misery. Of course, that may not last forever—even though everyone was sworn to secrecy, somebody is bound to slip up, or Germany may become concerned as to why he hasn’t looked a day past 20 in years (though, knowing how he lived his life before, not once questioning it at all, this is kind of unlikely) but mark his words, Vene would wipe Germany’s memories as many times as he’d have to, even if it does hurt to do so

Also a big fan of how vene and Germany telling each other welcome back for different yet similar reasons—Germany when vene kept showing up at his house after being thrown out, even when he came back quite literally dead; and Vene, even though Germany didn’t technically leave, but he seemed alive again after being put back in the dark about his true nature

21: What other medium do you think your story would work well as? (film, webcomic, animated series?)

Probably comics? I might just be saying this since my paragraphs and dialogue don’t tend to be very long most of the time, which would fit well in a comic strip

22: Do you reread your old works? How do you feel about them?

(Previously answered) Occasionally. Some of them still hold up, but others? I Can Tell They’re Old.

24: Would you say your writing has changed over time?

Absolutely. I’ve gained a wider vocabulary, and just the general way I structure sentences has changed a bit since I started writing seriously again two years ago. They also increased in length somewhat and are just less sloppy in general

[snotsloth]

It's frustrating that the discourse around Huck Finn has boiled down to "bad racist words vs. the actual message of the book" because even that lacks a bit of nuance. Yes, it has an anti-racist, anti-slavery message at a time where that was still radical. HOWEVER, it is still a novel written by a white man from a white person's perspective.

Now, of course, this was written at a time where the "white savior" trope had not been established and even having a white character that acknowledged that black people are PEOPLE was progressive. Plus there was a profound lack of opportunity for black authors to get their works published, and none of them would have received the level of market saturation that Twain did. But we now live in an era where we have learned that centering an "anti-racist" narrative on the experience of a white person is, in its own way, racist.

So how do you teach that level of nuance to teenagers who likely don't give a shit about books written by dead white guys? Specifically, how do you teach a book like this to a group of racially diverse students? A white kid who grew up, until now, kind of ignorant of the institutional racism that makes their life so much easier than everyone else will react to Huck Finn quite a bit differently than a black kid who grew up painfully aware of how the deck is stacked against them.

I'm not a teacher, but some of my college friends were English Education majors instead of straight up English Lit majors, and I did learn a bit about constructing a literature class curriculum from them. You can bring out more nuance like this in a book like Huck Finn when you construct a larger curriculum around anti-slavery and anti-racist American Literature. I think, when taught in tandem with autobiographical books from enslaved people, fiction written by black Americans from the same period as Twain and into the 20th century, students can get a better perspective on the context Huck Finn exists within.

This isn't a question of should Huck Finn still be taught in schools. The English Lit cannon is made up and the opinions of dead white men don't really matter when selecting books for a middle or highschool lit class these days. The actual question should be, IF you are teaching Huck Finn, what are you hoping your students get from it? How are you going to teach the literary and historical context the book exists within? Are you going to also assign anti-racist books written by black people that center black lived experience? Setting aside name recognition and "tradition" is there another book from around this period that is of a similar reading difficulty and written by a black American?

Ultimately, Literature classes should be about two things; exposing kids to multiple styles of literature and educating them on the conventional forms of narrative writing, AND broadening their perspective on the kaleidoscope of human experiences that can be shared through the written word. If a teacher can use Huck Finn to do both of those things in a modern, anti-racist way, then they should go for it. If they think they can do better by featuring a different book in its place, then they should. But the fact that so many people walked away from a Huck Finn reading assignment thinking, "Well, that was fucked up and racist!" means that the book wasn't taught with the proper context. (Or the student wasn't paying close enough attention. It's not my HS Lit teacher's fault that I didn't get Frankenstein on first read because I just found Victor annoying and pathetic and I didn't understand that was INTENTIONAL.) Reading or teaching a particular book is not a morally charged act. But it is important to process the message of a book and understand the cultural context it exists in. That's the truth for Huck Finn and for any book we read both inside and outside the classroom.

[rakiyablackfilm]

The spook who sat by the door (1973)

Based on Sam Greenlee's 1969 novel, this radical piece of cinema masterfully employs the conventions of both spy thrillers and social commentary to deliver a searing critique of institutional racism and American power structures that remains startlingly relevant today.

The film's structural irony lies in its protagonist Dan Freeman's journey. Selected as the CIA's token Black trainee, Freeman uses the very tools of the oppressor to build a revolutionary movement. This narrative choice serves multiple purposes: it exposes the superficiality of institutional integration efforts, demonstrates the transferability of counterinsurgency techniques, and highlights the inherent contradictions in American democracy. The film's title itself is a masterclass in double meaning, playing on the racial slur "spook" while simultaneously referencing espionage terminology.

The first half of the film, depicting Freeman's CIA training and token position, employs a cold, bureaucratic visual style that mirrors the sterility of government institutions. This contrasts sharply with the more dynamic, documentary-style filming of the latter half, where Freeman trains young Black militants in Chicago. This shift not only serves the narrative but also comments on the difference between institutional power and grassroots movements.

The film's historical context is crucial to its understanding. Released in 1973, it emerged from the crucible of the Civil Rights Movement, the rise of Black Power, and the aftermath of urban uprisings across America. However, what makes it particularly powerful is how it anticipates and critiques the limitations of racial integration within existing power structures. Freeman's position as the CIA's first Black officer eerily prefigures contemporary discussions about diversity in institutions without fundamental change in their power dynamics.

Lawrence Cook's performance as Freeman is remarkable for its subtlety. His character maintains two distinct personas: the acquiescent government employee and the revolutionary leader. This duality serves as a metaphor for code-switching and the double consciousness that W.E.B. Du Bois described as fundamental to the Black American experience. The performance highlights how survival in American institutions often requires a sophisticated understanding of power and perception.

Technically, the film operates on a modest budget but turns this limitation into an advantage. The stripped-down aesthetic lends authenticity to both the bureaucratic scenes and the urban training sequences. The action sequences, while not elaborate by today's standards, feel immediate and consequential rather than spectacular, reinforcing the film's serious political intentions.

The question at the heart of the film – whether true equality can be achieved within existing power structures or requires their fundamental transformation �� remains central to contemporary political discourse. The film's depiction of police brutality and community resistance feels particularly prescient in light of recent social movements.

The film's ending offers no easy solutions or Hollywood resolution, instead presenting a call to action that leaves viewers to grapple with its implications. This ambiguity, combined with the film's documentary-like qualities, creates an unsettling viewing experience that challenges audiences to confront their own positions within existing power structures.

"The Spook Who Sat by the Door" remains a powerful examination of race, power, and resistance in America. Its suppression upon release and subsequent rediscovery speak to both its radical potential and the continuing relevance of its message. In an era where institutions frequently adopt the language of diversity and inclusion while maintaining traditional power structures, the film's critique feels more relevant than ever. It stands as both a historical document of Black radical thought and a continuing challenge to contemporary audiences to examine the relationship between institutional power and social change.