#class disparity narratives

[lurkingshan]

Hi Shan

I've been watching your commentary on Peaceful Property with regard to its mishandling of its class conflict themes and I have to admit that I'm coming to agree with you on it.

I had to basically go "Welp, I can't see how they get out of the mess they've made now - I guess I just have to give them a pass on the grounds of found family?" in order to keep enjoying the show, which did let me do that but also left a bit of an icky taste in my mouth.

So I guess I wanted to ask - do you think there's a way they could have handled the wealth disparity and classism issues more gracefully within the show's narrative? And also whether there are any QLs you would recommend that do handle the topic to your satisfaction? I could use something good to watch!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I feel like you always make me consider topics more deeply and reflectively, even when I don't agree with you.

Hi, thanks for dropping in! I feel you on this, and I want to be clear that my criticism of the show is not criticism of people who still like it despite these failures. If you have still been able to connect to the friendship and family themes without this getting in the way, that's great and I'm glad for you. Just because the show is doing one thing very poorly doesn't mean there's nothing of value in it.

That said, you're right, they've passed the point of no return on their missteps with the class disparity themes. Early on in the show, after several episodes in a row of ghost stories involving poor or working class folks harmed by Home's wealthy real estate developer family on top of the class disparity between Home and Peach/Pang, I said I was confident that the show had something to say about this issue. And that was true! Unfortunately, what it had to say was garbage.

To your first question, I actually think it would have been very easy for the show to handle the wealth disparity and classism issues more gracefully, and that's a big part of my frustration. They had all the ingredients--a family history of exploitation, a ghost busting team including working class folks to shed light on the family's sins, and an ignorant grandson uncovering wrongdoing case by case and learning that there was always a price for his privilege. All the show needed to do was allow Home to come to some natural realizations about his family's treatment of others, via both the ghost case work and his relationship with Peach and Pang, and then use the power and resources he has to take accountability in the form of restitution and reparations to the people and communities they harmed. My ideal story line based on what they set up in the first half of the show would have had Home setting out to right his family's wrongs and take real steps to restore the communities they harmed. Even if a full on wealth redistribution narrative was too much to hope for, at the very least Home should have been made to reckon with what his family did and set out to do better in the future, both by Peach and Pang and by his family's countless victims (including Kan).

But that's not what we got. Instead, the narrative tried to sell us on the idea that none of this is anyone's fault, and that any harm that came to people at this family's hands was the result of a "curse" or one bad apple's wrongdoing. Instead of saying anything meaningful about systemic inequality and the responsibility of the wealthy and powerful to avoid extractive and exploitative practices, they painted Home's Gramps and family corporation as benevolent, concluding that they destroyed a bunch of people's lives by accident and without intent or even knowledge. I'm sure I don't have to tell you how utterly absurd and insulting that is. On top of all that, despite Home being the one with the most power in this little friend family and making some very serious mistakes that caused harm to the others, the show consistently centered him and his feelings in all conflicts, including Peach's near death and the death of Kan's father and destruction of her community. It also ignored the very real stakes it set up for Peach and Pang's dire financial situation whenever the plot demanded. The second half of the show became all about the poor people Home and his family have harmed forgiving him without any accountability because they felt guilty he was sad, and then those same people spending their time and energy fighting to save this rich family's reputation and livelihood. That's not me offering an interpretation, that is what literally happened on our screens!

So yeah, it was bad! It was clear weeks ago that it was not going in the right direction, but I understand holding out hope that they'd pull a rabbit out of a hat or look into the camera and say sike. But that ship has sailed at this point, and Peaceful Property becomes another in a pattern of GMMTV shows that try to incorporate class disparity in their narratives and get it very very wrong.

Which brings me to your second question: are there any QLs I recommend that do this better? Yes! Here is a short list for other Thai shows that have genuinely done this better:

Moonlight Chicken: not a class disparity narrative, but the only GMMTV show to date that has depicted working class people with full dignity and empathy

Dark Blue Kiss: the only GMMTV bl to tell a romance story that involves class conflict and not completely bungle it (snaps to TayNew for having another show that did better on this)

My Ride: a slow burn romance between a doctor and a motorcycle taxi driver that gets the way their class disparity would shape their relationship right

Love Sea: this one isn't perfect (I think the working class character in the pair gets too little narrative attention relative to his rich counterpart) but it does take the class disparity seriously and ensures it informs the relationship the whole way through

Laws of Attraction: don't laugh at me, I'm serious! This show is mostly absurd but the core narrative is all about class conflict, and it informs the romance quite thoroughly, too

The Loyal Pin: including this one on the word of @twig-tea because I haven't watched yet, but I understand it's dealing with class very directly in its core relationship (with the disclaimer that it still has two episodes to go so something could go sideways)

I'd also throw in some shows that aren't really about class disparity but do include it as part of the narrative background to inform characterization and plot like I Told Sunset About You, Love By Chance, Khun Chai, and 3 Will Be Free

Outside of Thailand, South Korea is always a safe bet for strong class disparity narratives, and in QL you'll find the best examples in Hwang Da Seul's works (Where Your Eyes Linger, Blueming, To My Star 2, and currently Let Free the Curse of Taekwondo). Japan and Taiwan actually don't do much of this, because most of their shows are about middle class and working people as a rule. Miseinen, a Japanese BL that just started airing, looks to be tackling a class disparity narrative, though, and doing it well so far (not a coincidence that the source material is from Korea). And We Best Love is a classic Taiwanese BL with a significant class disparity informing the romance conflict. Blue Canvas of Youthful Days is a currently airing Chinese BL that is doing a class disparity romance and has been killing it so far.

So there is my incredibly long answer to your questions! Thank you again for sending me this kind note; I'm so appreciative that we can chat about this stuff and still maintain our love for these shows. I hope you find some things you like on the rec list, as well. :)

[blueheartbooks]

"Unveiling the Depths of the Soul: A Profound Exploration of 'Jane Eyre: An Autobiography' by Charlotte Brontë"

Charlotte Brontë's "Jane Eyre: An Autobiography" is an enduring literary masterpiece that transcends the boundaries of time and genre. As I immersed myself in the hauntingly beautiful narrative, I was captivated by Brontë's ability to craft a compelling story that delves into the complexities of love, identity, and societal expectations.

The title itself, "Jane Eyre: An Autobiography," sets the stage for a deeply personal and introspective journey. The novel unfolds as a first-person narrative, allowing readers a direct glimpse into the innermost thoughts and emotions of the protagonist, Jane Eyre. Brontë's decision to frame the story as an autobiography adds an intimate layer to the narrative, creating a profound connection between the reader and the resilient, independent, and fiercely intelligent Jane.

The novel begins with Jane's tumultuous childhood, marked by abuse and neglect at the hands of her aunt and cousins. Brontë paints a vivid picture of Jane's resilience and thirst for knowledge, setting the stage for a character who defies societal expectations and challenges the limitations placed upon her by her gender and social class. Jane's journey from the oppressive Lowood School to her position as a governess at Thornfield Hall is a testament to her indomitable spirit.

One of the most compelling aspects of "Jane Eyre" is the complex and evolving relationship between Jane and Mr. Rochester. Their connection is not a conventional fairy tale romance; rather, it is a nuanced exploration of love that transcends physical appearances and societal norms. Mr. Rochester, a brooding and enigmatic figure, becomes a symbol of Jane's struggle for autonomy and equality in a society that seeks to confine her to predetermined roles.

Brontë's prose is both eloquent and evocative, creating a rich tapestry of emotions and imagery. The novel's atmospheric descriptions contribute to the Gothic undertones, particularly as Jane navigates the mysterious corridors of Thornfield Hall and confronts the secrets concealed within its walls. The vivid landscapes and settings mirror the emotional landscapes of the characters, adding depth and resonance to the narrative.

Beyond the central love story, "Jane Eyre" grapples with profound themes of morality, religion, and the search for identity. Jane's moral compass is unwavering, and her internal conflicts with societal expectations and her own sense of right and wrong provide thought-provoking reflections on the human condition. The novel also addresses issues of class disparity, gender roles, and the constraints imposed on women in the 19th century.

In conclusion, "Jane Eyre: An Autobiography" is a literary tour de force that continues to captivate readers with its timeless themes and complex characters. Brontë's exploration of love, independence, and societal critique is as relevant today as it was in the Victorian era. As I closed the final pages, I marveled at the enduring power of Jane Eyre's story and the indelible mark it has left on the landscape of classic literature.

Charlotte Brontë's "Jane Eyre: An Autobiography" is available in Amazon in paperback 17.99$ and hardcover 25.99$ editions.

Number of pages: 476

Language: English

Rating: 8/10                                           

Link of the book!

Review By: King's Cat

[blueheartbookclub]

"Unveiling the Depths of the Soul: A Profound Exploration of 'Jane Eyre: An Autobiography' by Charlotte Brontë"

Charlotte Brontë's "Jane Eyre: An Autobiography" is an enduring literary masterpiece that transcends the boundaries of time and genre. As I immersed myself in the hauntingly beautiful narrative, I was captivated by Brontë's ability to craft a compelling story that delves into the complexities of love, identity, and societal expectations.

The title itself, "Jane Eyre: An Autobiography," sets the stage for a deeply personal and introspective journey. The novel unfolds as a first-person narrative, allowing readers a direct glimpse into the innermost thoughts and emotions of the protagonist, Jane Eyre. Brontë's decision to frame the story as an autobiography adds an intimate layer to the narrative, creating a profound connection between the reader and the resilient, independent, and fiercely intelligent Jane.

The novel begins with Jane's tumultuous childhood, marked by abuse and neglect at the hands of her aunt and cousins. Brontë paints a vivid picture of Jane's resilience and thirst for knowledge, setting the stage for a character who defies societal expectations and challenges the limitations placed upon her by her gender and social class. Jane's journey from the oppressive Lowood School to her position as a governess at Thornfield Hall is a testament to her indomitable spirit.

One of the most compelling aspects of "Jane Eyre" is the complex and evolving relationship between Jane and Mr. Rochester. Their connection is not a conventional fairy tale romance; rather, it is a nuanced exploration of love that transcends physical appearances and societal norms. Mr. Rochester, a brooding and enigmatic figure, becomes a symbol of Jane's struggle for autonomy and equality in a society that seeks to confine her to predetermined roles.

Brontë's prose is both eloquent and evocative, creating a rich tapestry of emotions and imagery. The novel's atmospheric descriptions contribute to the Gothic undertones, particularly as Jane navigates the mysterious corridors of Thornfield Hall and confronts the secrets concealed within its walls. The vivid landscapes and settings mirror the emotional landscapes of the characters, adding depth and resonance to the narrative.

Beyond the central love story, "Jane Eyre" grapples with profound themes of morality, religion, and the search for identity. Jane's moral compass is unwavering, and her internal conflicts with societal expectations and her own sense of right and wrong provide thought-provoking reflections on the human condition. The novel also addresses issues of class disparity, gender roles, and the constraints imposed on women in the 19th century.

In conclusion, "Jane Eyre: An Autobiography" is a literary tour de force that continues to captivate readers with its timeless themes and complex characters. Brontë's exploration of love, independence, and societal critique is as relevant today as it was in the Victorian era. As I closed the final pages, I marveled at the enduring power of Jane Eyre's story and the indelible mark it has left on the landscape of classic literature.

Charlotte Brontë's "Jane Eyre: An Autobiography" is available in Amazon in paperback 17.99$ and hardcover 25.99$ editions.

Number of pages: 476

Language: English

Rating: 8/10                                           

Link of the book!

Review By: King's Cat

[captaingimpy]

Parasite: Who Is the Real Parasite?

This review was intended for Release in 2019, shortly after we saw the film. We contemplated deleting it and letting this mistake pass after so long siting in the drafts folder, but in light of the recent passing of Lee Sun-kyun on December 27 of last year, we decided this review would serve as an informal trubute. Rest in peace, and thank you for bearing your soul to the world so that we could…

[itsabouttimex2]

I hope this isn't an odd question

But, do you think Wukong or Macaque would act or treat different their "cub" if they genders were swapped or being a female version? This is also for a Yan behavior

I don't know too much about how is the raising of a monkey from the father and mother so I was curious with this since they're both mystical demons

I was thinking about this when I saw some fanarts from the artist @/car_nimbus on Twitter, they made a neat versions of the characters with another gender

Monkey Mama

(Hmm okay let me build a hypothetical OG “Female Monkey King” to work off of here and then I’ll try to translate that into LMK’s SWK. Also, I’ll probably make a second variation of this afterwards with other characters, haha. This got a little long to do both SWK and Mac!)

Sun Wukong as a character is already heavily defined by rebellion and personal choice, so I think that making him a girl only really compounds that layer of his character.

In many older narratives, female characters are often expected to be more obedient or modest than men, and very frequently only exist as prizes or, more rarely, villains. A female Sun Wukong; assuming she plays the same role as her original incarnation, defies the expectations of how “traditional” women should behave, shirking the demure and passive “ideal” and adding another layer of rebellion to her character.

(JTTW is actually pretty great in terms of female representation, with characters ranging from the perpetually good Quanyin, the eventually repentant Princess Iron Fan, and the straight up evil White Bone Spirit. I’m a big fan of how the women aren’t slid into any one “role” throughout the story.)

I think: in story, she’d likely be viewed as a sort of “anomaly”—a woman too strong, too outspoken, and too unwilling to conform to typical feminine ideals. Her defiance and arrogance might be viewed as even more scandalous by the Celestial Realm.

Instead of being made a “stable-keeper”, I think probably she’s sent to whatever Heavenly Scullery exists in that divine realm, and put to work very quickly. She would treat this “job” with indifference or even amusement at first-after all, physical labor or menial tasks don't diminish her self-worth or confidence! She’s had a life of hard work, leading an army of Yaoguai, cultivating Flower Fruit Mountain,

So she’s fine with this… at first. Then it turns out that the food she makes with her fellow low-class workers isn’t distributed amongst the people making it, but plated up nice and pretty for a bunch of “stuffy old gods” who didn’t lift a finger! Bullshit!

So obviously, the prideful Monkey Queen goes on a destructive rampage in regards to the unfair disparity of treatment, then storms back down to Earth to throw a “feel-better” party with her fellow Yaogaui.

(Which isn’t just a party, but a symbolic reclaiming of joy and community, with her monkey tribe representing the freedom she craves and the earthly bonds she prefers over heavenly authority. It's not just an escape, but a statement of independence.)

After an extensive set of repairs, the Court sends down someone to drag her back, because, you know, the local super-powered monkey is back on the loose, and that’s not exactly great for them. This time, they offer her a “better” role- she gets to become an official Peach Maiden, lucky her!

Of course, it’s just another form of entrapment, but within a prettier cage. Even though she's given a cushier position, it's a veneer- she's still being silenced, controlled, and stripped of her freedom. The role played by a Peach Maiden is an inversion of Wukong's essence, as these women are happily serving the role of passive caretakers, nurturing with gentle smiles—a direct contrast to the free-willed, brash nature of the Monkey Queen.

(And while there’s nothing wrong with being demure, passive, and feminine, having people try to force her into that role is where Sun Wukong draws her line.)

Here, she is expected to watch in silence as others revel in the freedom and power denied to her. It's a different kind of prison, one that quietly erodes her spirit. When the Celestial Court tries to reintegrate her as a Peach Maiden, they are once again attempting to place her into a docile, decorative role, one that strips away her power and independence. Those immortal peach orchards, a symbol of immortality and divine favor, becomes a prison for her.

Surrounded by "ideal" women who embody the quiet, submissive role she despises, the Monkey Queen finds herself chafing under the pressure of conformity. Her energy, once boundless and chaotic, is now caged, and the simmering resentment builds.

The buildup to her inevitable rebellion after being made a Peach Maiden, then, becomes a very sympathetic moment because it's not just a rejection of the role forced on her, but a rejection of the very system that tries to diminish who she is at her core. Her rebellion isn’t about anger and shame- it’s about reclaiming her true self after having been suffocated by the expectations of the Celestial Court. Her rampage becomes an assertion of her identity as something that can't be confined by heavenly rules or social mores.

The Court, in its attempt to “contain" her, only fuels her defiance further, leading her once again to rebel.

It was never going to end well. But it ends all the same, and punishment is to be levied to the Queen, just the same as any other rebellious rule-breaker... actually, probably harsher.

There’s “you broke our rules and tried to lead a coup”, then there’s “you did all that, and we also find your very person to be wrong on a fundamental level”, and then she gets the book thrown at her twice over.

But! Then she meets Tang Sanzang, who sees something in her that neither the Celestial Realm nor her own band of Sworn Brothers saw. Not a heretic simian savaging a holy realm. Not a Queen to rally behind for their own gain.

But a lost soul in need of guidance.

And from there the Great Monk works on building Sun Wukong up as a person instead of leading her astray or trying to cut massive chunks of her personality out? And talks to her about the things she cares about? And teaches her about all the things she missed after spending five hundred years under a rock?

And then she meets Zhu Baije, who starts out a little too happy and carefree about having a beautiful woman around, but eventually comes to smash open heads when Wukong is disrespected, because that’s not just a hot woman, that’s his sister?

Or Sha Wujing, who helps her with even the smallest things, from trimming her claws to cutting her wild hair to preparing meals for the monk? And lets her perch on his shoulders and head so the queen can get some skinship in?

Then Ao Lie, who is every bit the “disappointment to the world at large” that she was considered? And they take turns braiding each other’s hair and wiping the mess from the other’s face, and sleeping in the same tent and same bedroom because it’s less effort?

She gets a dad and three little brothers?

She gets a family.

And then loses it and is alone again for several hundred years more.

So if we go with this theoretical “My natural existence has been rejected for being seen as ‘improper’ by a court of stuffy traditional assholes” and then “I dearly love/miss my dead found family” angle, I think she’d be portrayed as a very different sort of character in LMK.

She’s quicker to lash out and defend herself, and much less willing to sit around and let the world pass her by- because that’s what was demanded of her by the Celestial Realm.

Be good. Be quiet. Be demure. Be obedient. Be anything except you.

I don’t think she’d be as willing to “rest on her laurels” as her canon counterpart, given that a “quiet boring life” was what she had fought so very hard to escape in the first place, so instead of isolating herself from the world in the first place, she probably sets up a little “souvenir shop” at the foot of Flower Fruit Mountain, taking a human form to sell little knick-knacks that herald to the journey she undertook with her old friends.

In part, this is how Wukong works to honor them. To spread their legacy. To ensure that they aren’t forgotten, left as a footnote in the annals of history. To remember them.

In part, it’s how she justifies all the mistakes she’s made and the suffering she’s been through. Settling in to a pointlessly relaxed life is exactly what she fought against, after all. She’s heavily fallen into the “sunk-cost fallacy”, where giving up and settling in, to her, means “losing”. It means “everything I went through was all for nothing”. So she keeps at this little store instead of just retiring and isolating herself from the world, even though she’d be happier to ditch it and lounge about.

So when MK and his eccentric bunch of friends comes around with their boundless energy and mischief, she immediately goes, “Oh, okay! This is what I wanted!”

(It’s not. All she’s ever wanted is her friends back. How could there be anything else?)

The Monkie Kids are vibrant, eccentric, and full of qualities that immediately resonate with Wukong. They remind her of the energy, camaraderie, and sense of adventure that she once shared with her old companions. She sees MK's arrival not just as a chance to teach someone a few of her old tricks, but as an echo of her own life—a life she hasn't been able to truly let go of.

So she starts projecting- on the surface, MK is very much like her. He's spirited, good-natured, and curious- and reckless. Just like she was. Wukong latches onto this quickly, sort of using the kid as a proxy for herself. After all, if she can't go back to her old life, why not embrace a new one that feels close enough? In some ways, this marks her refusal to accept the passage of time, a desperate clinging to the hope that, through MK, she can rekindle the connections she once cherished.

However, underneath that initial enthusiasm is the repressed understanding that MK, despite his similarities to her younger self, cannot truly replace what she lost. The friends she fought beside, the battles they waged together, and the lessons they learned are unique, irreplaceable moments in her life. No matter how much MK’s gang reminds her of the past, he and his friends a stand-in for the companions she still longs for. But her deep desire to reconnect with her old friends clouds her ability to see MK for who he truly is: his own person, on his own journey.

It takes her a while to get to that point, though. So she’s more doting and affectionate, in a way that somewhat stifles her student’s training because she wants to be both her old carefree self and also a good mentor, and the two just get jumbled.

Sidenote: I think with the difference in actions and behavior, MK would be more open to viewing Fem!Wukong as a parental figure than the OG, especially since he doesn’t really have someone to fulfill that “mom” role.

For their dynamic, I think something like this would be the outcome:

———————————————————————-

The afternoon sun hangs low in the sky, painting the landscape in hues of varied orange and blue. With a tired hand, MK wipes the sweat from his brow.

He’s perched on one of the rocky spires dotting Flower Fruit Mountain, gazing at the view with a small smile of accomplishment. Training had been intense lately… if only because he had been doubling down on the time he spent practicing, without giving as much care to rest or aftercare.

After all, even though his powers were blooming steadily… his enemies also were growing in power and quantity, leading to the ever-creeping edge of fear that anything less than a constant one-hundred percent just wouldn’t be “enough”.

And right as he reaches back to grab the golden staff he has inherited from the Monkey Queen-

“MK! I told you to take a break, not run off to do more training!”

Her voice, uncharacteristically sharp, cuts through the formerly tranquil air, causing MK to jump. He turns just in time to see Sun Wukong strolling toward him, her hands on her hips and a look of mock annoyance on her face.

MK grinned sheepishly, shifting his grass-stained boots against the dirt. “I was just, you know… checking out the view.”

She raised an eyebrow, the corner of her mouth twitching in amusement as her eyes narrowed in annoyance. This kid... “Uh-huh. Checking out the view or sneaking in some practice when I wasn’t looking?”

Caught fast in his lie, MK rubbed the back of his neck, face scrunching up in embarrassment. “Maybe a little of both?”

In spite of herself, Sun Wukong quietly laughs, the sound echoing like a chiming bell through the mountain. Her long, golden hair flowed behind her in the wind, each strand catching the light like molten fire. Despite her legendary status- the rebellious warrior who’d fought the heavens and nearly won!- there was a warmth to her that MK had come to cherish.

“All work and no play, MK,” she said, sitting beside him on the rock and ruffling his hair with a fondness that always made him feel like a little kid again. “You’ll burn out before you get anywhere.”

He looked at her, eyes shining with admiration. “But you never stop training. You’ve been at this for centuries! I just…”

A pause, as his chest turns over, unsettled by the notion of opening up. But… it’s the Monkey Queen. So it.. should be okay, right?

“I want to make you proud.”

Sun Wukong’s expression softens, and she wraps an arm around his shoulders, pulling the boy close in a tight embrace. “You already make me proud, kid. You don’t have to prove anything.”

MK leaned into the touch, feeling a wave of comfort wash over him. Even from the start she’d been like this with him- protective, nurturing… and maybe a bit overbearing at times. But he didn’t mind. It made him feel safe, like no matter what challenges lay ahead, he wasn’t alone.

MK chuckled, turning his face up to meet his idol’s eyes.” I’ll keep up,” he triumphantly declares, pumping a fist.” I promise.”

“Good.” Wukong shifted, her clawed hand lightly missing his spiked locks. “Now, how about we head back to the shop and grab something to eat? You’ve earned it.”

MK’s stomach growled at the mention of food, and he nodded so eagerly that she wondered if his head wouldn’t ache from the motion. “You know, I won’t say no to a good meal.”

The Monkey Queen stood up, dusting off her mentee’s clothes before offering him a hand. “Of course you won’t. C’mon, my treat.”

———————————————————————-

Now, to answer your question about how she acts in regards to her own cub… in general I think she’s much more doting than the OG, willing to express herself through constant displays of physical affection, in ways that are far more varied.

Constant forehead smooching, cuddles, grooming sessions, all of it! Mama Wukong never wants to let go of her baby! Sit down and let her paint your nails! Let her comb and braid your hair! Let her make you a nice lunch (loaded with mystical drugs to keep you nice and sleepy for extra cuddles), or at least a filling snack! Let her pepper your face with kisses as she spins you in her powerful arms!

Lots and lots of indulgent fluffy days of binging unhealthy foods and watching cozy reruns of old shows, your head in her lap as she hums and does up your hair with her lazy hands.

Lots of reminiscing about old suitors as she considers the quietest and quickest ways to kill anyone who makes the futile attempt to pursue you in the same way.

Despite her obsessive behavior, Wukong struggles with conflicting feelings about wanting her child to be strong and independent, just like her! She pushes you to train hard and become powerful, but when you inevitably seek their own freedom or autonomy, she’d experience a mix of pride and heartbreak, pushing her deeper into possessive tendencies.

If you ever tried to leave or even just start to break away, Wukong’s worst traits would bubble up like hellfire. Just as she fought against an entire realm’s authority, she would absolutely wage a war to keep her child close, all while justifying her actions as love.

The Monkey Queen is also more willing to take routes outside of brute force if it means securing extra protection for Y/N. If Macaque or maybe Azure (or someone else like Erlang Shen) wants to try and play “suitor”, well, she’s not too interested… until the thought arises that having him around makes you extra safe! And then she’s willing to think on it.

(That’s assuming that you aren’t one of their biological kids to begin with, in which case there might be a sort of “yandere triangle”. Azure/Macaque/Erlang Shen doing his damndest to reclaim his wife, before he learns that she’s had a child while he was gone... or maybe Pigsy and Tang decided that MK needs his mentor in a more ‘accessible’ position, and plot to drag her to Megapolis…)

Lots of potential monkey mama shenanigans, basically!

[my-rose-tinted-glasses]

Peaceful property is a bl even if it's not. It's also about so many other things although not really delivering on a consistent message.

I thought about adding my thoughts to this thread but it was getting long and I started to get sidetracked so I decided to just make my own post about it and share my thoughts on it. @lurkingshan @bengiyo and @twig-tea all made good point about why this show is faltering with its own themes, and @respectthepetty made a compelling argument that the show knows what its doing.

I think no one is wrong and I land somewhere in the middle with it. As in, depending on what I choose to care about. Much like @respectthepetty, I am bias about this show. For different reasons tho. I like Tay and New a lot so I lead with that instead of my critical thinking. just as a personal aside, I tend to do this when my brain and heart don't align. I ignore when my brain tells me that the show is doing something wrong so that I can enjoy the rest. This works particularly well with QL for some reason. I am after all a person who liked Dangerous Romance even when my brain kept trying to damper my enjoyment with logic. And also sometimes I'm a hypocrite and there's no reason for why I like a show and not another. Ok, there's usually a reason but it's most often not a good one, or a rational one at least. That's just how it is.

Anyway. Because of all the excellent points made by that post I decided to fully engage my brain and I've been thinking about what this show is trying to say and I agree that unfinished business is the main thing in the ghost stories but I would have to shut off my brain completely to not see how class factors into all of it as well.

The ghosts up until now, except the chef, were all lower class and one can argue that it played a part in how they died or what happened after. I'm not including episode 7 for reasons that I will explain in a bit. Even if Ride's unfinished business was about love, the fact that he was the only rider doing deliveries in the rain, at least to me, read as he was driven by the need to make money in the first place. Even in the chef's case, the customer that Peach basically poisoned was rich and it was a part of the headlines about it and the reason for the restaurant getting shut down. Also most of the individual stories didn't get deep into these issues, case of the week usual issues, but it was always an underlying theme. Also as @twig-tea said all the parallels work even better because this disparity also exists between Home and Peach.

All this gets me to how I started this post. This is a bl even if it isn't. The choice to include the tragic bl storyline in the middle of this, in my own brain, can only be explained if I believe this is a bl. (The tragic bit was thematically consistent with this show.) Specifically a gmmtv bl. Cause ultimately they have a tendency to forsake narrative consistency if it stops serving the main romance. It's also the only way I can explain having a bl pair mirroring the other bl pair on screen. So in that way it's consistent with gmmtv. Just brush aside anything that can get in the way of the couple not having a happy ending. This is also how I explain my biggest issue with it. Pangpang. She's the shipper. She's been the shipper from basically the start.

Home basically killed her brother, why would she be the driving force in getting him forgiven? Because of my previously admitted bias, I forgave Home almost immediately. It's New and he didn't mean it, it was an accident and he wanted to call for help and do the right thing but his family interfered and.... I could come up with a lot of reasons because I want to forgive him. So everything else can be ignored. But all this obviously doesn't apply to Pang. So it can only be the bl in the not a bl show.

Now, on full brainy mode, this last episode makes no sense with everything else this show has been saying until now. They used a branded pair to ignore any class disparity between our mains, since the last ghost story didn't really parallel that, and over the forgiveness part, and jump straight into Peach has forgiven Home and will probably now become his saviour. Don't even get me started on the fact that Peach is still broke but saving the rich dude that turned his life to crap will be the most important thing right now. I wonder if gmmtv has ever ignored class disparity between a main couple and instead focused on the richer dude's drama while ignoring the struggle of the other one, all in favour of the main romance and lovey dovey moments 🤔. But I guess I'll reserve full judgement on that until the next episode.

yeah, so basically this is where I am at with this show. My two sides are fighting but come next wednesday my brain will take the back seat for 45 minutes so I can enjoy Tay and New and after that maybe I'll think about it some more.

[lesb0]

It's hard to explain this to financial illiterates but you and me are much, much financially closer to "poor" millionaires than the poorest rich. You need to rewire your brain to understand that the black square and green square are THE SAME CLASS. these people all serve the same ruling class of billionaires and ultra high millionaires.

this is the best visual reference I've ever seen to explain it

billionaires thrive on selling the narrative that everyone else needs to define their wealth into faux micro factions delineating middle from upper, when the difference between $1 and $100,000 is like a penny to them. I know MANY millionaires who have become evicted and hotel homeless multiple times. they are quite literally the working class, and have been forcibly made aware that they aren't so far away from the baristas they used to look down on. But the real rich can buy and sell a home just because they casually needed a place to vacation in for a few months. Billionaires are absolutely terrified that we could ever gain class solidarity, because this thin illusion of "wealth disparity" between thousands and never framing our thinking in millions is exactly what's keeping them in power

(The blue cube goes on for 2 more pages, Bezos' goes for over 100 pages).

Black women who save up for a telfar or get treated to fancy dates on the weekends aren't the ruling class, you are just racist and extremely ignorant about wealth.

We are all literally a giant servant class for 5% of people because that is the ideal function of end stage capitalism. the sooner we can accept this fact, the better.

[rottenshotgungames]

Alright, let’s start with discourse, shall we?

Gatekeeping Combat

Three days ago, the Gorgon Bones blog made this post about fighters in TTRPGs (particularly the OSR): https://gorgonbones.blogspot.com/2024/02/choosing-fighter-means-choosing-violence.html?m=1

I recommend reading the post, it’s fun (and the comments are hilarious). But, for those who don’t have the time or attention span (trust me, I’m lacking in spoons right now too), this is a relatively short joke that suggests protecting the Fighter class’ niche by making it the only class able to participate in combat. This, on its face, seems like an inherently silly idea—because it is—but people have been interacting with it as a serious suggestion. This comedic concept has spawned a legitimately interesting design discussion. So, let’s engage with it as a thought experiment. How would one make this function in a fun and reasonable way? The simple answer is that you have to start with conflict.

Conflict in RPGs, particularly in Dragon Game derivatives (such as the OSR), is often violent in nature. This presents the first hurdle: How do we centralize combat to 1 class when it’s a major source of conflict, conflict that people inherently want to engage in? As I see it, there are two approaches:

Decentralize Combat.

Redefine “Engaging in Combat.”

Decentralizing combat is kinda just what it says on the tin; make combat a less important source of conflict and means of resolving it. The two biggest examples of this—to me—are Investigative Horror Games and Stealth Games, both of which rely on central conceits that CAN involve violence but don’t necessarily rely upon it. A non-OSR example would be John Harper’s Blades in The Dark, in which combat is resolved the exact same way as every other conflict: through a series of dice rolls that result in ticking and unticking a clock (with possible complications).

Redefining what it means to “engage” requires a bit more definition than the prior approach. “Redefining” can be subcategorized into two somewhat disparate techniques: Redefining goals and redefining interactions.

In any TTRPG combat, the party tends to have a list of goals that exist in a hierarchy of priority. For example, in a traditional D&D or Lancer combat the hierarchy of party goals might look like this:

The Contest (express martial superiority, wipe out the opposition, or otherwise win the combat)

The End State (survive the combat and prevent as much harm to yourself or other party members as possible)

The Barrier (achieve the exploration or narrative goal that’s being hindered or prevented by the combat)

“Redefining” these goals is more accurately described as a re-ordering of their hierarchy based upon whether you are or aren’t the Fighter, usually through gameplay incentives. An incredible example exists in the form of Mike Pondsmith’s Cyberpunk 2020, in which the Solo role (through virtue of acting first and being generally able to specialize heavily into combat) can almost singlehandedly decide the outcome of any fight in which they are present. If there is one Solo on the field, their side is probably going to receive a swift victory; your job, as the non-Solo, is simply to not die and accomplish what you actually came here to do. If there are two Solos on opposing sides of the combat, their goals change to winning their private fight; your job, as the non-Solo, is to survive the surrounding combat until the Solo is free again (or to run if they lose). In almost every combat, the Solo will prioritize the Contest while the rest of the party will prioritize either the End State or the Barrier, something aided by Cyberpunk’s lethality and its nature as a heist game.

“Redefining combat interaction” is . . . actually found everywhere. This is your basic class differentiation taken to a greater extreme than you may find in most tactical RPGs. For example, let’s look at the Combat relevant difference between the Thief/Rogue/Mercenary and the Fighter in a majority of games that use such classes:

The Fighter - Deals a lot of damage with consistently accurate attacks (sometimes also makes multiple attacks on their turn). Has high health.

The Thief - Deals a lot of damage with one really powerful attack made from stealth, sneaky (sometimes good at dodging). Has low health.

The differentiation is there, but it’s not really significant (for the purposes of this thought experiment). Both classes focus on damage output, but one makes multiple attacks and one makes a strong attack that requires setup. Let’s try to take this difference and expand it (with a little help from our dear friend Tolkien), particularly by focusing on what makes the Thief unique in comparison to the Fighter:

The Fighter - Deals a lot of damage with consistently accurate attacks (sometimes also makes multiple attacks on their turn). Has high health.

The Thief - Subverts direct combat through the use of trickery and cunning, plays support for the Fighter (sometimes good at dodging). Has low health.

“Subversion,” in this context, simply means fighting dirty. The Thief shouldn’t be engaging in a head-on fight, they’re a Thief. Their interaction with hostile entities should always be tinged by deceit, their goal should always be to throw their enemy off balance, to create openings for others and themselves to use. If your Thief isn’t constantly throwing pocket sand and disarming opponents and knocking chandeliers on top of them and pulling cloaks over their eyes and poisoning them and . . . are they really living out the Thief fantasy? By strengthening the Thief’s core identity, leaning fully into the trickster aspect, we have redefined how both classes interact with Combat in such a way that has made direct, head-on-head violence the apparent specialty of the Fighter.

Conclusion

As much as the original Gorgon Bones blog post is a joke, Jenx does point out a real issue that’s plagued class-based games for a while: a weak niche makes a weak class. Not necessarily mechanically weak (although that can also happen, looking at you CP2020 Cop), but weak in the sense of fundamental design. Strong niches, even if every class has the ability to participate in combat, are born of purposefully and carefully built interactions with the conflicts presented by a game’s rules and environment. If combat is too great of a focus, everyone is going to want to be able to play the guy who’s good at combat; if winning combat is the sole goal of any given encounter, everyone’s going to play the guy that’s good at winning combats; if every class gets good tools for dealing damage . . . well, I don’t really have to spell that one out, do I?

If you’re designing a tactical, class based game: don’t make the Fighter the only class able to engage in combats. It’s lazy, it’s silly, and it won’t be fun for very long. You may notice that, while the two games mentioned here have classes that EXCEL at direct combat, neither of them fully limit it. Instead, the proper lesson of this thought experiment is a far more common one in our field: keep in mind the incentives you’re building into both your game and your classes, and be aware of how all these moving parts interact with and affect each other. After all, the Solo wouldn’t be nearly as good if Cyberpunk wasn’t so lethal, and the Cutter would be far more ubiquitous if Blades in The Dark had a dedicated combat chapter.

Self Promo

Hey! Thanks for reading. Sorry to leave ya with Baby’s First Game Design Lesson, but I hope ya enjoyed the journey there. If you’d like to see my recent attempt at a class based fantasy game, you can click here to check out Hollow Halls. Otherwise, I hope y’all have a great night and a great day!

[batsplat]

pecco rant please please

*spins wheel on possible topics* absurdly underrated but in a dumb way. you'd think you can stumble your way into two premier class titles. I don't care he's on the best bike - let's be honest, how often this century have the title winners not been on the best bike? 2004 and to a lesser extent 2005 you can say clearly weaker bike, 2007 late 2010s 2021 there's a clear enough disparity with anyone else riding the bike that you can say clearly the rider is making the difference/it's an unrideable wreck one guy is making respectable, then there's a few seasons where it's at least very close whose machinery is best or they're fighting with people on equal equipment, which pecco has done! but generally speaking, good/promising riders end up on good bikes and then they win. that's how the game works!

the thing about 2022 is that it had such a massive mid-season swing that overhauling a ninety something point margin cannot come down to any single factor. is it fair to say fabio lost that title? on balance, it's a bit harsh - yes, there were a few too many errors post-sachsenring, yes, some were driven by desperation, but also you can't really expect anyone to ride a flawless season. but pecco did win that title as much as yamaha lost it. I don't care if you're riding a literal rocketship with two wheels, you can't win four races in a row if you're not extremely good at what you do! if we're saying that title was worth less because the yamaha turned to shit in the second half of the season, then let's keep going. let's put an asterisk next to 2013 because jorge and dani both got injured (let's not even get into the 'if marc hadn't been injured' asterisks because that's where you get into truly silly territory). is 2006 not a legit title because of all the bad luck valentino faced that year? let's say all titles between 2007 to 2015 were worth less because at any one time only 4-6 bikes had a realistic chance of winning races. throw out any title before 2009 because they were constantly fucking about with the tyres and there wasn't a level playing field. if you're motivated enough, you can play this game with basically anything, but it's dumb and pointless because that's not how sports works! you can only win against whoever you're facing. it has always been thus and it will always be thus

it's narratively fun and juicy that pecco has these insecurities himself - but within the context of everyone else doing discourse over it, the whole thing is massively overblown! linked to some of the worst sports discourse about how much people love to disparage late bloomers, because they need every single successful athlete to fit the same mould of the ultra-talented wunderkind, apparently. it's more interesting when it's not always the most 'talented' (whatever tf that means), naturally gifted, *fast the second he touches a bike* bloke who wins. sometimes they have to work hard for it, sometimes they have to improve themselves year on year and be smart about how they do it, sometimes they have to be in the right place and right time, sometimes they have to be very lucky. sports is all about competition, and competition is all about contrast. it's a contrast that can be generated in a whole lot of ways, and in fairness to motogp they have come up with a bunch of interesting narratively tense contests that don't rely on a massive fundamental 'talent' differential - but at the end of the day, that's one of the best ones you can have! the more ways you can have to win in any given sport, the better, both in the literal sense of how you go about the actual process of winning and how you even become a winner. none of this means that pecco isn't very very good, it means he got there in a different way than every other multiple champ this century has. it fundamentally flattens the sport if you want every top-level competitor to be an alien-level talent... one of the best things about this current era is that it has given us something new and exciting in that regard, where you well and truly believe some very different blokes might have what it takes to eventually be champion

anyway, pecco is absurdly adept at digging himself into holes and absurdly adept at digging himself out of them. he's one of the worst frontrunners imaginable in every sense, biologically incapable of dominating without at least a perpetual hint of jeopardy, both in the context of a race and a season. but when his back is against the wall, somehow he keeps finding performances you never imagined he was capable of. his mixed up and slightly odd skillset, his strengths and weaknesses, how he's better and worse than he has any right to be... all of it lends itself to perpetual momentum shifts and thrilling seasons - because you never quite know what you're going to get. love him or hate him, he's a gift to the overall competitive landscape! god knows the racing hasn't been much to write home about these last few years (though, yes, we did have a good little run this season), but somehow he's managed to get himself involved in two out of the six title deciders this century back-to-back. is that not the dream for the viewer, to have a bloke at the top of the sport with a little self-combust chip in his head every time he builds too much of an advantage? build a hundred of those guys! throw a marc marquez at him and see what he does! I can't wait to see what he'll come up with next

[dangermousie]

It is fascinating watching him navigate the crazy. It is deliberately murky how much of it is driven by concern for her (I'd say close to zero) and how much by his desire to avoid more insanity at least in the short run.

Like look at this - he's vvvv much like a powerless concubine trying to placate the powerful person in charge with concern/love/sex/whatever will get them to stop making their life hell.

I mean, what genuine feeling could there be with such a horrific power disparity especially when the powerful one is always reveling in the same/reminding him of it (and it's especially galling because it's the reverse of expected gender roles and he started out as a traditional scholar.) But also, the wound thing on her part is creepy as hell. Lady, you would have had an amazing time if you could find certain specialty clubs, and probably would have been chiller to boot.

Man looks as happy as someone about to be led to jail.

It really is the reverse of the narrative seen in harem dramas - there can be no trust or love or anything but at best a desire to use the power of the other person for your benefit or more likely, just mute endurance because what choice do you have, in a set up where the power imbalance is so huge and one partner controls the entire life of the other and sees them as a fun toy at best - it's actually pretty interesting that this is the default fate of women at the time but this time it's experienced by not just a man but a very very proper scholar who probably intrinsically believed that this state of things was right and proper until he got to see how the other half lives. (It also reminds me of Qi Heng and the Princess in Minglan in that in that society, if push comes to shove, class will always trump gender, in terms of control.)

I mean, this is such a gender norm reversal again, where she's the aggressor and he's the recipient - she's undressing him, she's the one who throws her arms around him and his just stay at his side until he does raise them because he knows what his job is supposed to be (and because let's face it, he may not want to take the first move but also knows she may take offense if he does.) It's actually an interesting commentary whether it means to or not that it's not that men are worse as a gender and that is why they are selfish, like control, driven by pleasure etc. It's that if you give someone power, boredom, control and a sense of superiority, a decent chunk of those people, regardless of gender, are going to get drunk on that and treat others as lessers.

[chaoticace2005]

I’ve seen a lot of people talking about how the exorcists look like demons, and while I do understand where the complaint is coming from I also wanted to talk about how them looking like that kind of supports the narrative.

I’m going to start this off by staying this is from a perspective looking at the narrative presented to us in the Hellaverse, not any specific religion because 1) I am an atheist who doesn’t have the knowledge or background for making any calls on that and 2) the canon hasn’t confirmed this adheres to a specific belief system. There’s Adam and Eve and Hell and Heaven and yes, but this show arguably works as a parody of all of that.

Now that that’s established, I want to bring up one of the main points in the show: the idea that those in Heaven and Hell aren’t that different. In Helluva we’re shown the experiences of hell-born, and we even see cherubs later on who seem to fulfill the parallel role of them in Heaven (with the IMP vs CHERUB fight.) We also know that Lucifer was an angel in this canon. So some of the characters with the most authority in those domains are from the same stock.

The main difference seems to be punishment. Lucifer was punished for his actions and was given those who were deemed “Sinners.” The Hell born seem to be just natives living there and many seem to be products of their environment. So while Sinners may be “bad” and Winners “good”, all those born in Heaven or Hell have no reason for being there.

Whether exorcists are brought to heaven or made there, there is still that view of superiority. The way Lute talks makes it clear she’d be willing to kill the hellborn if she could, despite them not having done anything to be there like the Sinners. It’s similar to how some people born into high economic status view those born into lower. It’s just luck of the draw but now you have access to different opportunities and that influences the way you view others. Those born in Heaven probably look at those born in Hell and argue that if hellborn aren’t bad, then why does Hell suck? Ignoring the fact that Hell is established for the purpose of containing Sinners, who often end up being more powerful that the majority of hellborn.

Even some of the Sinners likely fall into that issue where people who gave to endure harsher environments may have to resort to more extreme measures to get by, and then punishment for it just causes them to need to do even more because their conditions worsened. As seen with the rate of people who keep returning to prison. With Hell some may have fallen down this path (think of Angel, who was born into a crime family, it’s likely a lot easier to fall into drug addiction then when you have access and more things you’d like to forget, but drug addiction can be a slippery slope and the other stuff he needed to do to survive basically condemned him.) Obviously not all Sinners fall into this category and are just monstrous pieces of shit, but they likely isn’t the case for everyone.

Then, once you get to Hell it’s essentially a larger prison, except you aren’t separated and are given powers, causing some of the more malicious individuals to rise up and acquire power, making it even more of a nightmare for everyone else. This continues that cycle of having to do certain things to survive. Similar to have in jail that fear of getting hurt by some violent people make you align yourself with slightly less violent people. Except now in Hell there’s that added issue: there’s no escape.

(Also, Hell is a prison but you STILL have to pay rent and work to survive, so you really get the added stress of both worlds.)

Anyway, this whole cycle causes a similar effect to the growing class disparity we see in many countries. Those on top (Heaven) continue to have power while those lower have to deal with most of the burden. Reinforcing that belief in exorcists that Heaven is “good” and Hell is “bad” because they are unable to see the full picture. They just see it as “they blew their shot” without thinking of why that may be or considering the people who didn’t even have a choice being there— like how some people blame others in poverty for being that way because “they are lazy.” That’s not even remotely the full picture. But because certain things come easy for you it’s hard to understand why it can’t come easy for others.

Exorcists are then given the excuse and opportunity to kill others, people who they believe are lesser than them. And some take genuine joy out of it, yet they continue to see themselves as the “good guys” because that’s what they are and the others “deserve it.” And this shows how when some people are given the opportunity and reason to be assholes they’ll take it- millionaires don’t HAVE to exploit their employees, but they view it as being to their benefit and helping the bottom line.

So now, both exorcists and those in hell have reason and excuse to be violent, albeit for very different reasons. Yet because of this exorcists are still “good” and those in hell are “bad.” And this is largely because of the lack of consequences for their actions. Heaven reinforces their behavior, before episode 8 there was no push back from Hell, so they could continue to use their reasoning as an excuse to kill others.

They’re blind and don’t see it though. They only see the world from one perspective, which is ironic given the exorcist mask is missing an eye. They can put masks on and hurt others and then take them off without dealing with the consequences. They “go down” to the level of the very people they despise and then write it all off, because they have the comfort of taking their masks off at the end. Of having a choice.

It’s also interesting how their masks don’t resemble sinners but Hellborn. Which almost reminds me of mocking another’s culture while actively hurting them. They may not be able to physically hurt hellborn, but they’re still viewed through the same lens as Sinners. They’re still “bad.” So exorcists can don caricatures of their appearances, go around “pretending” to be them by committing violent acts, and when they’re done they can take it off. As I’m writing this I’m now thinking about how in the past black-face has been used to reinforce racist stereotypes, making racist caricatures.

This also camouflage in a way, maybe they were previously asked to “fit in” before things got all crazy, and when told to look for “demon disguises” they all fall back onto the stereotype and dressed up like that.

The usage of exorcists wearing demon-looking masks could be them both “playing bad” while also clearly showing the fact that at the core people aren’t so different. For as much as they hate those in hell, they’re just as likely to fall into the same traps and patterns as them.

Having written this all now, I wanted to bring up Vaggie. Vaggie who took her exorcist mask off to show sympathy for someone only to be punished and marked with an “X” that mirrors her mask. Vaggie who previously was part of the “elite”, where she could forgo consequences until she couldn’t for not following them and was cast out, being permanently marked. Vaggie, who was previously allowed given the gift to “play bad” due to being in Heaven, but when she was cast out “playing bad” wasn’t an option anymore. Taking off her mask can’t get rid of mistakes anymore, and now she has to display them for the world to see.

I don’t know if the “X” was intentional on her part or irony, but if she did choose it it could also be her recognizing her role in the system. Her realizing she can’t go back and using the “X” to remind her of what she’s done. Because she doesn’t have the luxury of pretending she’s a good person anymore— she doesn’t want to forget.

[incorrect-jojolands-quotes]

Hot take but I think what we saw in chapter 13 was necessary.

I don't think a lot of people realize how important it is for Araki to portray what he did, even if it extremely difficult to take in. Let me explain.

Araki has discussed about topics like racial and class disparity through both Steel Ball Run and Jojolion, but JOJOLands is different because the discussions are now very direct. We had Chapter 1 open up with police brutality and Chapter 13 open with intense bullying; both acts were committed by people of higher social standing/power and seemingly White (or white passing) and both are harming a dark-skinned queer individual. Not only that, remember that Hawai'i is an island stolen and colonized by the US and many indigenous individuals who were supposed to live and maintain kapu are being forced to endure housing problems, loss of culture, etc. due to gentrification and exploitation of its lands. 2020 was when we saw global protest towards the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor due to police brutality, which has spread as far as Japan in terms of demonstrations and rallies. Araki has made it clear that he tries to take real world experience into his writing, and this is no different. He is also no stranger to portraying law enforcement throughout his parts without glorifying or downplaying their behavior.

As a mutual of mine (who themselves identify as a black GNC individual based in US) has put it, those who identify or even appear as Black while identifying as trans-femme or women are subjected to some of the worse kinds of oppression possible in America. Queer women of Color are one of the most susceptible to sexual violence-- especially when they are young, and the darkness of their skin really plays into it. This is transmisogynoir; it is a hard pill to swallow and acknowledge, even if it feels excessive, and its a multilayer of oppression that connects a person's racial identity, gender, and sexuality as targets of discrimination. It's the fact that one is POC, a woman, AND queer that makes one a target--- not just one or the other. You can’t turn a blind eye to this because it happen constantly throughout America's history and American society even today, but you can't simply water it down or downplay it. In fact, many victims of transmisogynoir have no choice but to downplay their experiences because of their Black identities or because they appear too dark to be taken seriously; when they, especially if they are Black, try to hold people in power accountable, these individuals are suddenly labeled aggressive, indignant, etc. and they are further discriminated for attempting to speak up. Dragona downplaying the bullying isn't them just trying to avoid further conflict but a reflection of how many who were in similar situations like Dragona are forced to simply forgive and forget the trauma they have to endure. To downplay it ourselves is reinforcing the narrative that individuals like Dragona in real life should remain silent and endure their harassment rather than rightfully protect themselves and others from it.

Another thing to add is that the way Japan portrays and treats the LGBTQ community, particularly the trans community. In Japan, the process to legally change your gender is complicated and requires a lot of steps that include, but not limited to, being diagnosed with gender identity disorder, proving you have no kids/guardianships, and sterilization. This causes a lot of individuals to be forced to quickly transition as a means of getting their gender recognized, which takes away the time to let them explore at their own pace, and this is due to how the process can lead to hindering career and life opportunities that wouldn't be hindered had they already transitioned or stayed closeted. Many Japanese trans individuals unable to go through the process quickly either remain closeted or move away from Japan to transition at their own pace. So, as a result, the trans community and its struggles is not as noticed compared to outside of Japan. Another thing to add is that the trans community in Japanese media is often portrayed as comedic relief or a gag. Oftentimes, the trans character or character who diverts from gender conformity (i.e cross-dressing, acting more flamboyant) is the butt of the jokes. Some thing to note is that, when Dragona was first introduced, a lot of people thought that Araki put Dragona in simply for comedic purposes. I had people joke about how Dragona is just there because they believed Araki is trolling. Not only that, the racial issues that Japan has often results in jokes towards non-Japanese individuals in media, especially if they are of darker skin color.

So, Araki putting Dragona in these difficult situations is also meant to subvert expectations that his Japanese, and possibly Western, audience may be expecting. The expectation was to laugh and toss Dragona aside as a single-dimensional character, but Araki instead forced us to face the trauma through Dragona's experience head-on. We are made aware of Dragona's situation, how real and difficult the struggle is, and we end up emphasizing with it rather than laughing at it. Through this, we get a glimpse into real life experiences of trans POCs without it being downplayed and have it show how Dragona is a fleshed-out character with importance to the series. As some have put it, this chapter proved that Dragona isn't just a side character but arguably a complex individual on the same level of importance as Jodio. I don't think it would have been easy to have the same impact if another approach was taken.

While talking to others who identify as trans and/or GNC about their thoughts on the chapter, I was told by many of them that, while Dragona's experience hits close to home and was hard to digest, they appreciate seeing it being expressed and hope it will help other people understand their struggles. One noted how the introduction of Smooth Operators with the backstory as empowering, seeing the Stand as a symbol of surviving the trauma that comes with trans discrimination. I do find this a bit telling with how many people online who are against Araki's portrayal barely mention what trans/GNC people have said about it.

My main concern, as well as what I see people have rightfully critiqued, is the excessive trauma reinforcing the fetishization and violent voyeurism towards trans individuals; it also reinforces the problematic narrative that dysmorphia can only happen as a result of trauma and the trans experience can only be full of pain. There's also the issue that Dragona's experience also happened while they were under age and their harassment is similar to that of Lucy. It's a common trope in Western media to put marginalized people into these situations while upping the ante simply for clicks and pleasure, and even worse when the character portrayed is a minor. As I reiterate, it is a very uncomfortable chapter to read and I don't find it enjoyable at the slightest. Just because I understand why it is necessary doesn't mean I condone the approach done. I also understand Araki as a Japanese man can only relate and portray a queer American's experience to an extent. But, at the same time, the exposure was necessary because it gives us the awareness and a voice to trans people that is lacking within media even today. We need to be aware and acknowledge what our BIPOC trans community goes through as a means of being better humans--- and especially our younger community members. We need to make our society safer for them so they can thrive and have the respect they deserve. Oftentimes, that starts with how they are portrayed and how their experiences are portrayed. While it is still a journey and not every representation will be perfect, we can't simply toss it aside and bash those who try to show something realistic just because it is uncomfortable.

I only hope that Araki wrote Dragona and these scenes as a result of doing extensive research and reaching out to actual POC queer individuals, particularly transfemmes/women, to understand their experiences and have their blessings to use their words to shape Dragona. I feel like that would show that Araki was serious about discussing these issues through his characters rather than simply using Dragona's traumatic experience it for entertainment. I have higher expectations for Araki now, knowing that it may not be the last time he shows a character experience harassment and possibly have Dragona be harassed again, so I will keep my eyes open for this.

[lurkingshan]

I gotta be honest, this show is really not working for me at all anymore. It’s not just the very fucked execution of the class disparity themes, either. This is purportedly an ensemble show about a group of friends who become like family, but only one of those characters actually matters to the narrative. Literally everything is about Home rather than being about them as a unit who mutually care for each other.

Peach is angry someone he thought was his friend ran him down in the street and ruined his life. But Home feels bad now and it’s making him sad to be held accountable, so better get over it quick and never mention it again.

Pang had her entire life turned upside down and her brother nearly died, but it doesn’t matter that any of that actually get addressed as long as she can still think of Home as a brother.

Kan’s community was destroyed and her father literally just died, but Home needs to save his family’s reputation and is feeling sad about Peach maybe moving away, so she better drop everything to help and comfort him.

Even the restoration of the ghost hunting contract in this episode was weird—that is explicitly an exploitative contract, is Home not going to give his dear friends and family fairer compensation after everything they’ve been through? This is just not what friendship actually looks like. Instead it’s a story that is determined to center and cater to Home at the expense of everyone else. The other characters don’t feel real to me anymore because the story doesn’t take them and their needs and feelings seriously.

[bestworstcase]

Suddenly reminded of your remark in one of your essays about Lionheart being the token Faunus headmaster in the academy system, and something about… idk the irony of him being in Mistral, which you indicate is one of the most racist places for Faunus aside from Atlas. Just amusing cuz I never saw that take before.

not just irony, imo, i think it does a lot of thematic work for the faunus subplot

regarding the question of whether atlas or mistral is worse for faunus: while faunus are systemically disadvantaged in all four human kingdoms (and menagerie is politically marginalized on the international stage)…

in atlas/mantle:

jacques schnee, a virulent bigot behind closed doors, is at pains to present himself as a tolerant benefactor to the faunus in public; one of his conversational partners during the charity party in v4 is another businessman who pushes back on jacques’ covertly bigoted rhetoric by specifically citing class disparities between atlas and mantle and the reality that faunus in particular face a lack of opportunity that can’t be overcome by just being employed. this bit character isn’t an activist—he’s a businessman. that means these are mainstream, normative viewpoints in atlas.

mantle news media and law enforcement are apathetic to the disappearance of several faunus in arrowfell, but when it turns out that the man responsible is a political figure beloved by mantle’s human working class, his support evaporates. (there’s further nuance in that he acted under duress, but even his most enthusiastic supporters react to the news that he hurt faunus miners with horror)

robyn—also a beloved political figure to the mantelian working class—explicitly includes faunus and this does not diminish her support with humans in mantle whatsoever.

when racist grandma goes off in v8, her daughter tries anxiously to get her to stop and, importantly, nobody else in the crowd of scared / stressed out / angry people in mantle speak up in agreement with her.

when weiss slams a drunk guy into a dumpster for making a racist remark to blake, the drunk guy’s buddy more or less just goes “woah!” and then double-takes because is that weiss schnee—what he doesn’t do is react like he thinks weiss or blake was the one out of line.

in the CFVY novels, it’s revealed that velvet’s dad works for the atlas military and she’s spent at least some time in atlas with him, but she doesn’t feel any particular wariness toward people from atlas or assume that they’ll be racist to her until they prove otherwise.

ilia remembers her classmates at an atlesian prep school being very openly racist, which tracks with how weiss is when she arrives at beacon; these were, in all likelihood, largely the children of covert bigots like jacques—kids who picked up rancid attitudes at home and lived in a sheltered bubble where these attitudes were allowed.

SDC operates globally, so we don’t know where adam suffered that hate crime or what happened to the perpetrator

so, while atlas/mantle do have systemic racism against faunus and some individuals are quite bigoted on an interpersonal level, it plainly isn’t socially acceptable in atlas or mantle to be openly racist, because a strong majority of the populace in both cities seems to fall somewhere between neutral to supportive of faunus rights. given the “no faunus” sign the madame had in her swanky hotel a decade ago, this may be a fairly recent swing in public opinion.

in mistral:

the white fang is headquartered in mistral and the bulk of its operations seem to be focused there, suggesting that this is where the pain is sharpest; sun, who attended haven academy and isn’t exactly a deep thinker, scorns the group as a “cult” and “a bunch of creeps who use force to get whatever they want,” which is less an objective statement of fact than it is an expression of what the dominant cultural narrative in mistral probably is

mistral has sundown towns.

qrow is from mistral; his narration of the world of remnant faunus episode is laced with very clear unexamined biases even though his stance is generally pro-faunus—very much what you’d expect from a guy who grew up in a very racist environment (there are no faunus in the branwen tribe) and then learned better but never really did the work to unpack his subconscious aversion to faunus

lionheart is politically marginalized to such an extent that he’s able to plausibly use his impotence with the council as cover for his deliberate sabotage

during mistral’s prewar occupation of vacuo, faunus were enslaved in mistrali dust mines in vacuo as per the CFVY novels

in stark contrast to velvet’s indifference to atlas, she is terrified of mistralis and associates the kingdom with, specifically, sexually charged racist harassment; so while in atlas she undoubtedly dealt with microaggressions and the occasional open racist, her experience with people from mistral has led her to presume “virulent bigot” as the default.

at least some businesses are segregated even in the present. (and at least one of qrow’s informants is a regular at a segregated noodle shop, underscoring the previous point about his attitudes)

now obviously there are mistralis who aren’t aggressively racist and others who support faunus rights, the kingdom isn’t a monolith, but the details were given suggest that open bigotry is normative and socially acceptable; there are certain places in mistral where faunus risk being murdered just for setting foot there. mistrali faunus may not face such quite sharp economic pain as in atlas (because the systemic issues mantelian faunus deal with intersects with the rampant classism which harms everyone in mantle), although mistral also has steep class divides that would likewise fall harder on faunus than on humans; but it seems to me that mistral is, culturally, a lot more hostile to faunus than atlas/mistral with bigotry allowed to flourish out in the open.

and, a pit stop before bringing this around to lionheart: ozpin offers lukewarm vocal support to the cause of faunus rights and vague platitudes about “taking strides” to close the divide (which blake calls him on in remarkably sharp terms given the sheer amount of power he holds over her as her headmaster), but… he shames blake for hiding her cat ears rather than do anything about the racist bullying that goes on at his school; he singles out blake, clearly suspects her of being salem’s spy and makes implicit threats when she doesn’t cooperate; he jumps to the worst possible conclusion about lionheart but trusted ironwood without hesitation in v5 despite ironwood’s objectively much more alarming behavior; he gifted lionheart salem’s old tea-set. so ozpin is not… especially a good ally to the faunus even though he notionally is on their side.

which brings us to lionheart. why did salem choose HIM, out of all the headmasters or teachers she could have tried to convert into a spy?

she picked the one faunus—not just headmaster, lionheart is the only faunus faculty-member we’ve met so far. the faunus appointed by the ruling council of a notoriously racist council to be the headmaster of the school where a faunus student absorbed the message that the faunus civil rights movement is a violent cult.

in other words, the most vulnerable member of the inner circle, someone who would have been walking a precarious political tightrope under extreme pressure to be absolutely beyond reproach because anything less would have gotten him torn to shreds, figuratively speaking, by a hostile public; and as if that isn’t bad enough, ozpin didn’t trust him either. ozpin is extremely quick to jump to the conclusion that lionheart is a traitor, in contrast to his blithe certainty that taking the lamp to atlas after ironwood closed the borders and withdrew his troops from mistral right before salem attacked haven!!

raven asks lionheart what salem has on him. it’s this. it’s him being the token faunus headmaster with his hands tied by the council in front of a racist public that he knows will rip him apart if he screws up even a little, and allies he can’t count on to have his back because ozpin is weird about faunus too.

is it any wonder that he folded like wet cardboard when salem threatened him. ozpin thinks she was just so scary that she sank her claws into lionheart and deleted his courage but the reality is the man was working under enough pressure to turn anyone into a nervous wreck with or without salem putting her thumb on the scales, and she just… recognized that and took advantage.

[sasheneskywalker]

This video is not about The Batman | Renegade Cut

Transcript [emphasis added by me]:

"Okay, stop me if you've heard this a million times before. Why doesn't Batman use his wealth to solve poverty instead of punching criminals? That's a pretty loaded question huh. The most common counter argument is: Batman has the Wayne Foundation. Don't you read the comic books? The statement in this counter argument is technically true. The fictional narrative of Batman in the comic books and sometimes other media references the Caped Crusader’s charitable donations. But this counter is only meaningful if we're talking about whether or not the fictional Bruce Wayne gives some of his fictional money to a fictional city which we're probably not. The question “why doesn't Batman use his wealth to solve poverty instead of punching criminals” is not a condemnation of Batman as if he were real, like a real guy. It's not some righteous indignation about some man, some bibatted man who doesn't exist. It's only a question about our values in the real world. This question about Batman is not about Batman. The question is really “can there be justice under capitalism”? 

Capitalism does not resolve poverty. Capitalism simultaneously enforces poverty through stratified economic classes and income disparity all the while criminalizing poverty to protect private property interests of the ruling class. Marginally improving conditions under capitalism does not serve to resolve capitalism but to stabilize the labor class enough to continue labor. Furthermore many crimes are the products of poverty and crime cannot be resolved under a system that enforces and criminalizes its own poverty. The contradictions of capitalism cannot be resolved. This question about Batman is not really about judging or exonerating Batman. Thus the answer to this question cannot be about judging or exonerating Batman either. 

I mean I think we all love Batman. Or we all hate Batman, I can't keep up. The Wayne Foundation counter-argument applied to the real world is simply another way of saying that this is the best we can hope for. Capitalism with a somewhat more socially conscious ruling class. A teeny tiny bit less Jeff Bezos and a centimeter more Oprah Winfrey. And that's it. Isn't this perspective the result of capitalist realism? Thinking that this is as good as it gets and we should all ever expect. We enter into our viewing of The Batman with this cultural bias about our relationship with wealth and the wealthy. A presupposition that helps hold up the narrative and a presupposition that could be deconstructed. Isn't this fun? Talking about art, seeing how art relates to reality, trying not to get too defensive about it. I enjoy this.

Let's talk about film criticism.

A structuralist approach to film criticism puts more emphasis on the fixed nature of language conventions and code to convey particular information. A structuralist analysis relies on the premise that communication has a specific goal or meaning and that finding that meaning through signifiers and the signified is the essence of analysis. Here is that tree you've seen before. A structuralist analysis of The Batman would emphasize how Batman's character arc fits into the pre-existing conventions of film, how well it adheres to this and how much it subverts it. 

A post-structuralist analysis to film criticism recognizes that words and images we choose to convey information are imperfect and that this communication contains contradictions. A post-structuralist approach to film criticism might emphasize the pre-existing cultural biases of the creators of the film as well as the presumption of those cultural biases in the audience. For example the Batman addresses race and class but spends more time ignoring grievances related to race and class than it does acknowledging these grievances. Mere absence is not immediately meaningful but absence as contrast might be. For example the absence of a floating pink elephant in The Batman might not be meaningful to a post-structuralist because there is no opposite of this, no signifier of its contrast. But the absence of significant commentary on criminogenic conditions in a film that frequently references crime and comes to its own conclusion about how to resolve crime might be meaningful to a post-structuralist. 

At the risk of being reductive a structuralist analysis of a film places greater emphasis on the author signifiers and signified as the primary subjects of examination whereas post-structuralist analysis of a film places greater emphasis on the viewer, the existence of the viewer, and the viewer's world between the signifiers and signified. Just to be clear this is not a complete definition of post-structuralism or a proper lesson. Also, in reducing these terms this way I run the risk of inaccuracy but this is also, you know, a youtube video.

Here is a structuralist approach to explaining The Batman. In the beginning of the film Batman's inner monologue mythologizes crime in Gotham City. We experience it as a force of nature or human nature, something in the air or something in our blood, but in either case inevitable. Batman is skeptical of our humanity and believes more should be done to fight crime. Batman is visually represented as shadow, as the darkness of night. His first targets are thrill-seeker criminals performing unambiguously vindictive acts on complete strangers. Randomized violence with no goal except the act itself and perpetrated by a stylized evil visage that is completely dehumanized. When his voice over monologue is complete, his first spoken words are “I'm vengeance”. At the climax of the film Batman recognizes that vengeance is not the same as justice. Batman leads his people out of darkness and toward the light, visually represented by his torch and finally by the dawn that shines on them on this new day.

A structuralist analysis might conclude that justice outweighing vengeance is the authorial point of the film or the message of the film or the meaning of the film because it has laid bare at the climax where it's supposed to be and because it is foreshadowed many times and that this is the progression of the protagonist's character arc. It was dark but now there is dawn. Justice has been served, Batman is a hero, a pseudo-biblical figure that leads his people from bondage and sends them towards the heavens. Whatever else this is, rest assured that this is justice. This is what the movie is trying to say.

A post-structuralist approach might say that at the end of the film Batman uses different words to describe Gotham City and his mission and he is visually represented differently but he still mythologizes crime as a force of nature or human nature. Within the film there are multiple explicit references to income inequality and a passing reference to a comorbidity of racial inequality and income inequality. But this is all practically suppressed by what Batman tells the audience, both before and after his character arc is complete. The audience for The Batman is expected to have a cultural bias about criminogenic conditions, the circumstances that produce crime. The Batman ritualistically moralizes crime and speaks in platitudes that are originally dark, eventually uplifting but always vague and most importantly: apolitical. 

The passing reference to the conditions that create crime are covered under the banner of an apolitical unity that tends to ignore disparate racial and economic power dynamics. 

In the film the company called the Gotham Renewal Corporation, originally intended to assist Gotham City, has been corrupted by a series of criminals. In the end these criminals are exposed or pushed out and the day is saved. This relies on the presupposition that our systems are good and are only corrupted by bad apples. What is vengeance in The Batman anyway? Is Batman saying he simply needs to exercise a lighter touch? Because it feels like what Batman is instead pushing back against is corruption and radicalism. Corruption in the form of Renewal and radicalism in the form of those who oppose Renewal. The Riddler and his people and Catwoman's willingness to use more violence than Batman is willing to use. Radicals are portrayed as only seeking vengeance instead of justice and the audience's presuppositions about our systems and about radicalism are what makes this ring true to them in the end. 

In The Batman justice seems to be working within our institutions. The Batman recognizes corruption and acknowledges corruption but recognizing corruption is not a condemnation of our institutions because corruption is the institution not working as intended. Recognizing corruption only condemns corruption and may still tacitly endorse the institution. But what if the institutions working as intended create and enforce poverty? What if they create and enforce injustice? What if they must be replaced by something more than reform, something that requires more than voting? Well, that's radicalism and in The Batman that is portrayed as vengeance not justice. For only within our institutions can justice be found, no matter how much evidence exists to the contrary. The mayor was dirty but the new mayor will not be dirty. The bad politician is bad but the good politician is good. Trust in liberal democracy.

The police initially do not trust Batman and there are dirty cops but Batman tells Jim Gordon that he's a good cop. The bad police are bad but the good police are good. Trust the police. The wealthy criminals control much of Gotham but Bruce Wayne has sway in Gotham as well and Alfred reminds him of his responsibilities. The bad billionaires are bad but the good billionaires are good. Trust in capitalism. 

Batman also operates outside the system but in the end he is part of the system, an ally of the system with all that that implies. Trust in our institutions. Corruption and radical politics are both outside of the system in equal measure and in the center an apolitical unity that ignores the actual causes of crime and indeed the causes of injustice.

Is this a good take? Is this a bad take? I  don't know. As always that is entirely for Twitter to decide. To clarify, I'm not judging who is right within the confines of the narrative that they made. The Riddler kills a bunch of people and floods a city. I'm analyzing why the narrative looks like this in the first place and what it says about our culture. The Riddler is not right but the Riddler is also not real. The portrayal of his fight for the downtrodden perspective as radical, dangerous, terroristic, and motivated only by vengeance and not justice is a choice by the filmmakers. The conclusion of the film that basically serves as a love letter to the good people who reinforce our ultimately good institutions that exist to serve justice is also a choice. These choices do not necessarily have these intentions but finding authorial intention is not the goal here. These choices are worth thinking about because they reveal cultural biases and presuppositions that existed prior to the creation of the film and outside of the industry of film."

[feminismisstillahatemovement]

So overall you think men have things worse off than women? You don’t think that DV statistics, rape statistics, the wage gap, harassment statistics, lack of power/representation etc might run contrary to your claim?

The internalized model you've taken on from feminism/Marxism/identity politics is what is underpinning your faulty assumptions about reality here: I don't think of men and women as warring nations, but rather the human family: it's not a "who's the biggest victim" competition: If your father and brother are suffering, it's not a triumph for you; If a man's mother and sister are being abused, they're not going to applaud or celebrate.

Feminism itself created "the gender war", and this model of thinking about ourselves has been incalculably corrosive and destructive to all human relationships.

So it is not my intent to replace the narrative of perpetual female victimhood with one of male victimhood. The only reason i argue against feminist claims is because they are harmful lies, and because feminism itself is the most sexist movement that has ever existed in the history of the human race, whereas I support equal rights, opportunities, care and concern for all.

The "wage gap" has been disproved endlessly:

but feminism relies upon this narrative of injustice and oppression, even when it's not there: it's been illegal to pay women less than men for the same hours at the same job doing the same task for over 50 years everywhere in the western world. Women on average work fewer hours, and gravitate towards careers that pay less than work that is harder, more stressful or dangerous. They also take years out of their working lives through maternity leave, and after giving birth often come back part time: women work the majority of part-time jobs, which pay less because of how much easier and comparably free from responsibility they are.

All these things on average add up to a lower total of lifetime earnings than the male column, even though there is no month-by-month "wage gap" at all, and in fact childless women in their twenties have been out-earning men of the same age for a couple of decades now. It should also be obvious that the older men who are working longer hours in unpleasant conditions to increase their paycheck are usually doing so because they have a wife and children to support, so the money they make is going to, and being spent by, women (women make 80% of all purchasing decisions in America and presumably most of the rest of the world).

Once again, everything is interconnected: human beings are not nations at war against each other but families and friends helping and relying upon each other. The "class war" lens through which the feminists and others look at the human race is evil and only destructive.

As for domestic violence and rape and harassment, etc., it's been gone into here and elsewhere in great depth, but in all cases, men are not counted or treated equally to women in the eyes of the law (or by society) in any of them, and there have been many instances where a man has been assaulted in his own home by a crazy women, and when he called the police, they arrested him instead of her. Feminists pushed for this sexist "primary aggressor" law, which urged police to arrest men rather than women, even though any woman can pick up a knife or a gun or a frying pan and kill someone they're with just as easily as a man, and only someone who sees all women as innocent children incapable of any violent thoughts whatsoever would maintain otherwise.

Women coercing a man into sexual activity against his will is in most countries not counted as "rape" at all, but rather one of a variety of lesser charges with names like "forced envelopment" or somesuch, so it's hardly likely that the rape statistics reflect such a great disparity when one half of the population cannot be charged with the crime. Right?

Now, I personally think quite a lot more men rape women than women rape men, but then on the other hand, I've seen with my own eyes far more women hit men than men hit women. Intimate partner violence is about equal between the sexes, although interestingly enough, the highest rate of domestic violence reported is by lesbians, with straight couples in the middle and homosexual males coming in last.

The fundamental truth is that people pheromonally bound to one another are sometimes terrible to one another. I wish they weren't, but they always have been, and it's idiotic to try lay the blame at the feet of one half of the human race and not the other.

But what political hold would feminism still have in the world without asserting otherwise?