#essay commentary

[lotus-tower]

i really liked "unwilling hole" gin-san in the ouroboros essay, do you have any other thoughts about it/what a willing hole would be?

thank you! this is a great question.

"reluctant hole" is a term taken from tshirt's scatological gintama essay, eat shit and die. gintoki's status as a reluctant hole in this original context is quite literal. tshirt talks about how the Central Joke in gintama is the inversion of power in the desiring-pair, and how gintama's dirty jokes get imbued with meaning due to the conflation and elision between sex and shit, both being "dirty things"--with the anal naturally becoming the potent symbol of this. the key point made by tshirt that i take up in my ouroboros essay is "gintama, of course, is about preferring dirty things."

in my ouroboros framework, the Hole looms like an antagonist of sorts. but as i specify in my second essay (the one published in yaoizine vol2), the problem with the "hole-sided" gintama villains isn't that they have a hole in them (everyone has a hole. it comes free), but in their response to it. the problem with gintama's villains isn't that their holes are somehow worse than the heroes', but that their hole lacks "dirt." because the shame of being alive, the pain of their human relationships, and the misery of their failures are too much for them to bear.

what i meant by gintoki as a reluctant hole isn't exactly the same thing that tshirt meant, but in the end it's relatively similar. tshirt used the "sword stuck in ass" arc as an example of the sort of punchline that gintama is obsessed with, the way it draws humour from playing with the pole-hole/sword-scabbard binary. yes, he's quite literally a reluctant hole in that arc, but tshirt is talking about the underlying ideas that gintama uses to structures its jokes and its portrayal of a hero who's meant to be incredibly cool, but very carefully designed to be lame and have the opposite qualities of a traditional protagonist.

this "inversion" in his characteristics isn't unique or anything, it's part of a very common type of power fantasy in shounen, and you can also see it in surface-level imagination exercises on tumblr. but either way, it's projected into the gags that gintoki interacts with, and because gintama is obsessed with toilet humour, that means another "binary" ripe for flipping is the pole/hole. quoting tshirt quoting sougo in that arc: “He really is a fucked up samurai. Instead of using the sword to protect his own body, he’s using himself as a scabbard for his friggin’ sword.”

similarly, in my framework, the (deceptive) binary that looms large is the head/tail--which i've mapped the hole/phallus onto as well. i'm not going to go into detail about what my framework is actually about because i assume you've read all that already. but essentially gintoki is a "reluctant hole" not only because he's struggling to not be hole-sided, but because he's also struggling with not being hole-sided. he struggles to fill his hole with the things it needs to be filled with: he struggles to learn how to live, and then he struggles with living. he's reluctant because he never wanted to be the main character, subject to the kind of indignities, tragedies, and ironies expressed through both gintama's gags and serious writing--always oriented towards him being that kind of "anti-hero", and thus inextricably tying him to dirt.

so i think in the end, there really is no such thing as a "willing hole" without changing the meaning of the words used. because it would be easy to describe an antagonist with no more regrets as a willing hole, but would that antagonist be interesting in a gintama context? or you could use it to describe someone who doesn't struggle with what gintoki struggles with--but then they would just be an inhumanly perfect being without struggle, and that wouldn't be interesting either. so in the end, it's a little bit misleading, because there is no real dichotomy here. there are only reluctant holes in the sense that i used it in my essay--and gintoki is the microcosm of the entire series, so he's The reluctant hole, and in describing him this way i was just really describing what gintama is about.

i think the closest thing to an interesting and valuable "willing hole" in gintama is actually shouyou, owing to his dead anime mentor status. he isn't a flawless being, but he knew he would die to utsuro one day, and he embraced it. but this response has already gone on long enough. i hope it satisfies your curiosity!

[horse-girl-anthy]

Revolutionary Girl Utena: Gender in Context

beneath the cut, I discuss the RGU's portrayal of gender in the context of 1990s Japan.

in Ikuhara's interview with Mari Kotani, he stated that in traditional Japanese society, "prince" meant "patriarch." the same is true in Western societies--there was a time when a prince would be an heir to a royal line. by 1997, this meaning had died out of large parts of the world. even the association between princes and traditional masculinity was fading. Saionji, the weakest, most pathetic man in the show, is a parody of historical Japanese masculinity, with his kendo and his blatantly regressive beliefs about women.

in RGU, prince may still mean patriarch, but in a far more subtle fashion. Ikuhara and Kotani discussed the changing expectations for men in the latter half of the 20th century--it became gauche to fight over a woman with one's brawn, so instead, power struggles were played out in the arena of looks and sex appeal. one can see this reflected in the character Akio, whose power as a prince arises from his ability to turn "easy sensual pleasure based on dependency" "into a selling point with which to control people."

Akio has his moments of showboating masculinity, but when preying on Utena, he operates by making himself seem non-threatening and soft.

not only that, but he purports to want to allow students to express their individuality and thus approves of Utena's masculine form of dress. this is a front--by the end of the show, he's telling Utena that girls shouldn't wield swords. thus, through Akio's character, the show argues that traditionalist patriarchy in Japan isn't gone, but instead has only been papered over with false progressivism.

with all that said, there seems to be more to the character. he's taken the family name of his fiance, Kanae, and whatever material power he has in the school is dependent upon her family. in Japanese society, this is considered a humiliating position to be in, something that only a shameless man would do. the show never gives the audience any insight into how Akio feels about this--is he unbothered entirely, or are his actions against the Ohtori family an expression of his repressed anger? does he harm the children under his care to compensate for his humiliation?

this aspect of Akio's character may seem irrelevant in light of the larger, immaterial social forces at work in the show. however, I would argue that it was included for a reason. Akio, despite his status as ultimate patriarch of Ohtori, is in fact a highly emasculated character, to the point where lead writer Enokido even said that he is driven by an infantile mother complex.

to explain why Akio was portrayed this way, we have to discuss Japanese history. the nation suffered a major defeat in WWII and was forced to accept whatever terms the United States laid out for it. for an examination of how the Japanese have never truly processed those events and have plunged into modernity with reckless abandon, I recommend Satoshi Kon's Paranoia Agent. to sum it up briefly, in a very short period, the nation regained its economic footing, and by the 1980s had the largest gross national product in the world. this economic boom may have allowed Japan to maintain a sense of sovereignty, dignity, and power, but it was inherently fragile.

the infamous "bubble economy" lasted from 1986 to 1991. during this time, anything seemed possible; financial struggles appeared to be a thing of the past, and capitalist excess reached new heights. the ghosts of this period can be felt across Japanese media; for instance, think of the final shot of Grave of the Fireflies (1998), where the two dead children look down on Kobe, glowing an eerie green to imply its impermanence. the abandoned theme park from Spirited Away (2001) is explicitly referred to as a leftover from the previous century, when many attractions were built and then tossed aside in a few short years.

the bubble popped in 1992, leaving an entire generation feeling cheated. the bright futures they'd been promised, which had actually materialized for their parents and older siblings, had been lost to them overnight. economic crises are often accompanied by gender panics. to quote from Masculinities in Japan, "The recession brought with itself worsening employment conditions, undermining the system of lifelong employment and men’s status of breadwinners in general. The unemployment rate was rising, and although it never reached crisis levels, men could no longer feel safe in their salaryman status. Their situation was further complicated by the rising number of (married) women entering the workforce."

with this in mind, Akio's character can be taken as a representation of masculinity in crisis in 90s Japan. he's forced to rely on women for his position in life and has failed to save his only relative, Anthy. he tries to escape his misery through hedonism, perhaps an allegorical representation of how men tried to maintain their old standard of living after the economic bubble burst.

but of course, Akio is not the main character of RGU--the story is about girls. mangaka Yamada Reiji discussed the series in the context of the 90s, stating the following:

while I opened this essay by discussing the prince, the same points could be made about the princess. despite the increasing irrelevance of royalty, princess is still an important concept. how does it relate to the socioeconomic landscape of the 90s?

in Yamada's view, RGU is full of relics of the 80s; for instance, the figure of the ojou-sama, an entitled young woman who never lifts a finger for herself. during the economic bubble, it was increasingly common for women to be entirely taken care of by the men in their lives. Yamada names Nanami as a clear ojou-sama type character: she weaponizes her femininity, demanding to be rescued, doted on, and served.

however, by 1997, the ojou-sama could no longer expect to get what she wanted. from the 80s to the 90s, the percentage of women in the workforce increased around 15%; it was no longer viable for most women to be "kept" by their families. as the men experienced the humiliation of not being able to provide for their wives and children, women were undergoing a disillusionment of their own.

Yamada blames Disney for creating the ideological structure which led women astray. obviously, the company is known for its films about princes rescuing princesses. in Yamada's recounting, during the 80s, the company was infiltrating Japan through its theme parks as well; across the country, Disneylands were opening up, and people were buying into the escapism the corporation offered. Japan, as America, became a country of eternal children. its people were waiting for a prince to appear and save them.

but fairy tales can't stave off reality forever. Yamada claims that RGU embodies the rage of young women who woke up one day and realized that they had been raised on a lie. this anger pervades the work from beginning to end.

though RGU was created in a particular social context, its lessons can be extrapolated to any time and place. as the first ending tells us:

I hope this essay helped provide more context for the series. thanks for reading!

[aretheygayvideos]

Hannah Montana’s Guide to Life Under Capitalism

Haven’t posted in a while but made a new video :)

[ultimateinferno]

My opinion on the matter in as few words as possible and why I want Moash to persist as a character through the second half of the series.

[kinoshi]

Ужастики смотрят

Яньцин не понимает, куда он жмал

Долго думала, выкладывать или нет, ибо жестко ошиблась при рисовании этой работы, из за чего все пошло под откос. Но ладно, пусть будет.

Полтора часа рисовала скетч на еще одну работу и в итоге удалила его, ибо вообще не вышло. Надо потренироваться, научите рисовать...

[phoenixyfriend]

I try not to make a lot of original posts on topics I don't actually have any expertise on, but I haven't seen a whole lot of posts going around that actually... explain what happened and why? Like, the actual order of events, the history, and so on. I want to reblog reference posts and explanations by people who actually know what they're talking about, but I haven't seen anything that hits the buttons I need to actually get a political situation... but I have seen some stuff on other platforms.

So here are some videos I've personally found useful in understanding Israel-Palestine, because that's the format I've found most useful in processing information of this nature:

Why Israel was Originally Attacked from RealLifeLore (explains the decades of political dynamics, internal demographic tensions, and power shifts leading up to the current conflict; notably the best I've seen at actually explaining what 'Israeli Occupation' actually means)

Israel-Hamas War: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) (commentary on the actual current situation in terms of who's getting attacked, why, and what the international ramifications so far are)

What's Happening in Israel and Why with Nathan Thrall from Adam Conover, series Factually (a discussion with an on-the-ground journalist about what life was like on the ground for Palestinian people in the areas under Israeli control during the last few years, just up to the attacks themselves)

I'm not going to claim these are comprehensive or completely unbiased (there are a few moments where I'm not entirely sure of the bias levels myself), but for people like myself who came into all this unsure of what the actual situation even is, I think these are a solid set to build up an basic understanding from which to put together opinions on future information.

I can't tell anyone what to think about how or why any of this is happening. I can only really tell you that what's going on right now is a crime on the level of attempted genocide, and that the years leading up to that have been an absolute mess on almost all fronts.

Again, I have no expertise on this subject. I just know what kind of video essay, political commentary, and interview style makes things understandable to me, personally, and might work for others. Please be courteous and kind in the comments and tags, as I am only sharing this because I haven't seen such a resource making the rounds yet, not actually trying to sway anyone in a particular direction beyond "the mass death needs to stop."

If you know of similar, relatively unbiased* resources, feel free to share.

* By 'relatively unbaised,' I don't mean taking or not taking a side; I just mean that it doesn't try to hide some information or other in favor of pushing a narrative, doesn't try to generalize a population, or doesn't seem to be trying to use emotional gut reactions to get readers or viewers to jump past reason or compassion.

[rebuke-me]

be more chill : hero, heroine, both or neither

or, jupes cares way too much about the journeys of media and audience reception

to start, am I allowed to flex my (near) college degrees? I'm going to. I'm doing college level research into the heroines journey, writing, and how audiences respond to it, and I have a fascination with fandom experiences. this is going to be mostly intellectual, but also be an attempt to be accessible for non-obsessed nerds like me. but this will assume you have at least a passing knowledge of the plot of the musical be more chill, a semi-awareness of the heros journey, and care about storytelling/writing.

now that that's out of the way, there's one more thing I want to get out of the way: my critiques of this show and it's writing is not reflective on the fans that enjoy it. I am a fan of it. I also like media analysis and criticism of things I love. if you are the type of person to take media criticism personally, this post may not be for you. 

on with the actual crux of my post! 

most (fictional) media falls into one of two categories: the hero's journey or the heroines journey. if you've dabbled in media criticism or storytelling, you've probably heard of the hero's journey. if you haven't, maybe you've heard terms like the Call to Adventure or The Death of the Mentor. if you still have no idea what I'm talking about, it's okay, I'll explain beat for beat later.

the heroines journey is more complicated. most writers aren't taught it, it's swept under the rug. which sucks, because it's a very popular storytelling medium, arguably more so than the heros journey. it's just frowned upon and ignored because it's mostly used in genre fiction, like romance novels. I don't have time to unpack misogyny right now. just know that the reason you probably haven't heard of this is because of misogyny.

also, to clarify: a hero does not have to be male, and a heroine doesn't have to be female, at least in the context of journeys. male characters can go on a heroines journey, and vice versa. stories also don't have to hit every single plot beat of a journey to be considered one- it's more of a guideline than a checklist. 

onto the actual topic of be more chill.  I saw a post that sent me on a rabbit hole, that mentioned bmc in the context of a heros journey. and I was like, hold on, no, it's a heroines journey. sure, it has some plot beats of the heros journey, but it's a heroine. right? 

kind of. 

but also kind of not. 

see, be more chill is an interesting media, because it follows, at its core, both journeys at the exact same time. 

we'll start with the heros journey first. it's more familiar to people, and therefore easier to explain. 

the Hero usually has a magical or fantastical birth. strike one against bmc- Jeremy, at his core, is just some guy. he's not special or magic. he's some teenager. 

however, he does get the Call to Adventure- rich, offering him a squip in the bathroom. Jeremy is promised everything he'd ever want. popularity, girls, respect. and still he Refuses the Call at first. he hesitates, then goes and seeks answers on his own, bringing him to the payless, where he buys his squip. 

the squip acts as the Supernatural Aid/Mentor figure. usually, these are male parental figures, or wizened old men. the squip guides Jeremy through his new life and prospects, giving him help that's almost magical. it is the reason he does a lot of things in the plot. this is jeremy’s Withdrawal/Quest- he wants to get popular, get the girl, so he Abandons his Community (his dad and michael) to do so. he metaphorically leaves his home, and it’s all self-motivated. he chooses to leave. 

the next part of the journey is encountering obstacles which is, in fact, the rest of the show. between brooke and chloe, christine liking jake, the halloween party, etc. if there’s a part between jeremy taking the squip and him getting rid of it thats hindering his goals, it falls into this category. 

then there’s the Visit to the Underworld. this is, in most modern media, purely metaphorical. it’s a place where there’s intense pain, death, the main character is at rock bottom. for our purposes (both here, and in the heroine’s journey) this is the play. its entire thing is zombies/zombified people, which is a big thing in metaphorical and literal underworld areas. 

this is where the hero’s journey falls apart. usually, the hero has to face the villain one-on-one, drawing strength from his isolation. he deals the killing blow, he takes down the whole thing, either in a noble sacrifice or with his own wit/skill. 

but jeremy, notably, doesn’t do that. michael brings the mountain dew red, jake attempts to help michael save him, and even in the end, christine is the one to drink it, shutting down the entire web of synced squips. jeremy, as a whole, doesn’t really save himself. potentially, you could argue that him giving the last of the red to christine is him giving a noble sacrifice, but he still had no intent to defeat the squip for himself, get revenge, or get glory, which are the hero’s main motivations and pillars of success. so strike two against the bmc hero’s journey. 

the ending of the journeys are arguably most important. it determines whether or not the media sticks the landing, if its satisfying for the reader. so how does the hero’s journey end? with the hero returning home, fundamentally changed, unable to fit into his previous role. he’s acknowledged for success, rewarded and honored, and receives glory, but also has to leave, isolating himself, but receiving a boon. 

jeremy receives a boon, sure, in the form of christine. (sorry, christine, i wish you weren’t reduced to being a prize to be won, but i can’t pretend that isn’t what you are, from a hero’s journey lens.) but he’s not isolated, he has no reason to leave his community. he gets the best of both worlds. he gets the girl, new friends, new self-confidence, and he keeps his old friends. if this is a hero’s journey, then it’s a terrible ending- jeremy seems to have gone through all of that for nothing. it lands poorly. so, if be more chill is a hero’s journey, it sets it up pretty well, but fails to commit to the ending.

but what about a heroine’s journey, i hear you asking (if you’re still here, that is.)

this is where it gets really interesting. because the heroine’s journey, at its core, is the inverse of the hero’s. it all focuses on community, networking, making connections. there’s a reason a lot of romance novels fall into this journey. It falls into three main arcs- the descent, the search, and the ascent. 

interestingly, if bmc is a heroine’s journey, the Descent starts before the musical does. the first step of the heroine’s journey is the breaking of a familial network. jeremy’s mother has left, leaving just him and his father, who do not get along, and michael, who doesn’t understand, not entirely. jeremy Withdraws. usually, in heroine’s journeys, the heroine withdraws involuntarily, but jeremy chooses to do it. he pulls back from his support network, because of a main factor in the heroine’s journey- Family Offers Aid but No Solution. 

if that doesn’t describe michael’s role in bmc, i have no idea what does. michael’s the one aiding jeremy on his journey, at the beginning. but his aid is “just stick it out,” but that’s a further down the line answer, not a solution to jeremy’s problems now. so he has to pull back from the support system he had, because its not working for him. 

this leads him to Isolation and Danger. because he meets with rich in the bathroom alone. he takes michael to the payless, but he makes the decision alone. and when the squip activates, he’s left by michael, surrounded by people he doesn’t know. he’s isolated, maybe not on the stage itself, but metaphorically. 

this starts jeremy on his Search– he forces himself to withdraw, all to search for unity. he breaks all ties to his previous life, just to look for the one thing he wants. 

in the heroine’s journey, there are two main throughlines– Loss of Family and Disguise. jeremy loses his first family, disguises himself, and attempts to create a surrogate family network. he tries to rebuild his community, shaping himself into something different, trying to find something that he can be or do to be worth it. each of his obstacles is an appeal to a new community, and each one is rejected. 

and then comes the play, which, again, is the underworld. death imagery, loss of control, the literal rock bottom for the characters. jeremy is at his lowest point, everything he’s done is falling apart. and what happens?

his family and friends render aid. as previously mentioned, the hero’s journey focuses on isolation, strength in loneliness, the value of doing things for you and only by you. but the heroine’s journey focuses on strength in numbers, in relying on others for help, in the importance of being saved, sometimes. jeremy’s dad reaches out to michael, who knows how to help, and christine is the one to drink the mountain dew red in the end. jeremy, as a whole, is nothing and would get nowhere without his friends. 

with the defeat of the squip, the Ascent can start. and this is where we, again, ask the question of if be more chill sticks the landing. sure, maybe it didn’t succeed with the hero’s journey ending, but if it sticks the landing for the heroine’s, then its fine, right? it successfully completed one journey, at least!

not really, actually. 

there’s parts where it does land. jeremy’s new network (the popular kids) is established, meaning he has more friends, more opportunities and advice handed to him. his previous network (michael and his dad) is re-established in an altered form. his dad is going to attempt to be better, more involved, and michael is more understanding of where jeremy is at. jeremy also establishes his connection with christine. the defeat of the squip is, as a whole, kind of irrelevant, from a “villain defeat” perspective. there’s no revenge or glory in it. it’s not even entirely gone, but the defeat is more metaphorical. 

so why doesn’t this work? i just told you that it mostly succeeds, that it fits almost all of the criteria. but there’s one fundamental issue with the ending of be more chill as a heroine’s journey. 

see, the heroine has to make a sacrifice, to make negotiations, to give a compromise. otherwise, it feels too easy to the reader. so what sacrifice does jeremy make? he keeps his previous friendship with no issues. he makes new friends who don’t question his decisions. he gets the girl. he gets (mostly) rid of the voice in his head, or gains the ability to ignore it. he gets a happy ending, and it doesn’t feel earned.

so, is jeremy a hero? a heroine? did i just draw you into reading this to leave you with a wishy-washy answer of “he’s whichever you think he is!” maybe a little bit. 

the hero’s journey doesn’t land because there’s no isolation, no sacrifice that jeremy makes to his own connections. he doesn’t draw away and stay there. the bad is defeated, and he doesn’t have to make sacrifices. the heroine’s journey doesn’t land for the same reason, because he doesn’t make a compromise. there’s nothing to prove that something’s changed, that he’s grown, because he’s given everything he wants in the end. 

this is why the story of be more chill, as a whole, doesn’t land for most people, even subconsciously. critics, especially those who love the hero’s journey, are upset that there’s not a satisfying ending to the hero’s journey, that it feels too childish. the happy go lucky “everyone is friends at the end” moment falls flat for those looking at the journey from a hero’s journey perspective. the bones are all there. the plot beats make sense, for the most part, with some minor flaws, right up until the end, where it trips and falls flat on its face. 

but what about the heroine’s journey lovers? well, if you’re in this fandom (or any fandom, for that matter) it’s probably you. (its also me, hi, im calling myself out here, too. i wouldn’t be writing this if i wasn’t so into this.)

the heroine’s journey is particularly attractive to those who are active in fandom. there’s a reason there’s a lot of fanfiction focused on relationships, connection, group dynamics, and not so many on the characters put in a vacuum where they have to defeat the big bad alone. not to say that there aren’t any, but fewer. so how do people who love the heroine’s journey cope with the lack of a satisfying ending? 

fanfiction, mostly. fanart. alternate universes. seeing potential in the bones of the thing, the messages it offers, and making it our own. and there isn’t anything wrong with that. i do it, if you’re reading this, you probably do it, or like when others do it. 

personally, i am more intrigued by be more chill as a heroine’s journey. clearly. i���m biased, i know. because, while it doesn’t stick the landing entirely, it has the messages of a heroine’s journey. that your strength is with other people. that you are not alone. that you should ask for help, you should be kind, you should find the people who care about you. your friends matter, old and new. isolation and disguising yourself as someone you aren’t is never going to help you achieve your goals. and that’s an important factor. 

maybe you see jeremy as a hero. maybe you see him as a heroine. maybe you think that both of these journeys suck and you don’t think it matters which one it follows, or if it follows one at all. but clearly, there’s something to love, to latch onto. there’s flaws, which give us something to analyze, to pull apart and make art and creative works and essays about. it’s not perfect, and that’s why we love it. 

[ because im a library science student, i’m going to give brief sources. i drew my knowledge of the plot of be more chill from my own brain, if i missed anything, its because of that. feel free to point out if i said something wrong, if i did. the hero’s journey is the one by john campbell, and i used the heroine’s journey structure from gail carriger’s book. some other heroine’s journey sources may not fit this as well. if you’re interested in any part of this concept, read The Heroine’s Journey by Gail Carriger, its a fascinating read, and its pretty tongue-in-cheek, and goes way more in depth with a lot of the stuff i touched on. ]

[ also, this should not be used in any actual classes, this is a 20 year old college student with autism and a hyperfixation, i did not do in depth research, i have not graduated yet, i am simply a bitch with a weird brain. do your own research babes <3. with that, thank you for reading this, if you got to this point, feel free to reblog this or like it or leave a comment or whatever. ]

[bleue-flora]

a things i really like from cdream's tory it's how one of the messages it send it's that, not matter how Bad a person might be they would never deserve abuse. Like cdream is a Bad person yeah but the abuse he suffered wasn't okay and he shouldn't have gone throught that. That his ending is seeing him a person it's really good bc the mentality of "Bad people are monsters who aren't human" it's dangerous and i like how the dsmp touched this topic, idk if it was the intention from the beggining but the fact this ended up being one of the themes it's so good

I mean I think it goes far further than that. I see it more so as highlighting that we are all just people. People who live in our one little world without thinking about what it’s like to be another person. That we all have our pov but that doesn’t make it the only pov or the “good” or “right” pov by default. That people are complicated and even the sociopaths, narcissists and sadists of the story are complex. They are still people, who have reasons and can be hurt and feel pain. The story isn’t about abuse, despite a lot of people taking that as a major thing, and it isn’t about deserve. I think it goes much deeper than that and is instead about highlighting that other people experience the same pain as you. That other people have thoughts, and opinions and motivations and reasons for why they do things and just because we don’t understand it, just because we can’t see it, just because we can’t see in their head, doesn’t mean it’s not there or that their intentions are always malicious. That just because other people hurt us doesn’t mean they were out to get us. That at the end of the day, we as individuals are not the center of the universe. That there are other people around us, who are just as human. And if we could just realize that and make efforts to understand them, hear them, see them then we could overcome so much conflict and suffering.

“You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view... Until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it.” - Atticus Finch from Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird

That is more so the message for the story, where we attend their streams as if viewing from within their body, within their head. Because this story is about showing us that we all are right from our point of views, but we should strive to take the time to consider what it’s like in someone else’s shoes. To see people as people, humans as fellow vulnerable, broken, and imperfect humans. It’s not about “Good people” and “Bad people,” it’s about highlighting that we are all just people, who deserve the same basic rights and respect. And that goes beyond the fact that no one deserves the abuse and cruelty they experienced, because it’s far more complex than just good and bad. It’s not just about Dream not deserving prison, it’s about realizing that Dream was multi dimensional this whole time.

[clip] Tommy: “That’s why you’re doing this, isn’t it?… You just want it to be simple.” *huffs* “Dream, I thought you were complicated. I thought—god I thought you were the villain, Dream. […] I thought, this whole time, you—you were the villain…”

It’s about realizing that Dream wasn’t the “villain,” “a monster,” “a Bad person,” like Tommy thought. No, he was just a deeply flawed person like the rest. A person with the same basic, simple human desires that everyone else has.

[clip] Tommy: “You just want it to be simple. You just want to be back with your friends. And that makes sense.”

He just didn’t want to be alone - he just wanted to be loved, just like Tommy did, just like we all do.

[clip] Tommy: “You just want friends. Well me too, man. I get that. I get that.”

[hilacopter]

the list of safe creators to watch gets slimmer and slimmer with each day

[alexxness]

I just finished writing my essay about Javier Escuella, and my friends seemed to like it a lot, so I'm soooo motivated to start recording it soon :]

I'll keep updating you guys, with the progress but in the mean time, I'll leave you guys with a bit of the script

Stay tuned, and stay safe, amigos

[asm5129]

ITS OUT NOW: MAN OF STEEL v SUPERMAN

TW: Mentions of Violence, Death, 9/11

MY PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=10398701

Hello to all of my Queers and Dears, and welcome back to my Adam Writes an Essay series! Today, in celebration of the new season of My Adventures with Superman Season 2 Finale and the increasingly more detailed information we’ve been getting around James Gunn’s upcoming Superman feature film, we’re going to be digging into an essay I wrote a few years back comparing and contrasting the approaches the Christopher Reeve-led and Henry Cavill-led respective Superman origin films have to the Superman mythos.

I’m excited to adapt it into a video essay for you all!

[lotus-tower]

when we talk about head and holes, another example we can unify them with is trepanation. what would that reading of gintama look like?

funnily enough, i don't think trepanation works for gintama. the head and hole aren't really supposed to be unified in that way. the one area where i think the two can meet is the neck where the flesh was severed. this is reinforced by the fact that in japanese, you say "neck" in a lot of instances where you're talking about the (severed) head. the act of decapitation in a way isolates and preserves the head as its own entity. you can't really do much to a head once it's been severed in gintama, as all the energy (including symbolic energy) is produced/released in the actual act of decapitation.

[horse-girl-anthy]

when writing about Ikuhara, I use the word "system" freely. Ikuhara uses it himself in interviews, so it's not like the word isn't applicable. however, I think it can be easy to use the phrase without examining what it actually means.

"systems" in Ikuhara are metaphorical. they're not like systems in the real world. they're actually more perfect and distilled; rather than try to replicate reality with fiction, Ikuhara works create closed worlds which follow very particular forms of logic. by doing this, they can reflect on the structures systems take and reveal the absurd nature of human society through the use of surrealism.

I use the word "systems" in a way which makes it sound like I'm calling them bad. often I think they are things to be resisted. however, one thing that Ikuhara works capture about systems is that they're not concepts--they're not hypothetical. there is no "system" floating off in space to oppose. there are only the individuals who make up the system. should every human being disappear from the planet, there would no longer be any "system" to speak of. a social system is like an electrical system, made up of small parts which connect to each other. therefore, everyone is implicated in the system, everyone is involved in enforcing the system. to call it "bad" is to try to separate yourself from it, which is impossible to do.

or is it? that's a fundamental question, I think. once we recognize that the social organism, of which we are a cell, is dying, what can we do about it? can we cut ourselves out of it and live free of the cancer infecting the rest of the body? or to use a different metaphor, can we reroute the electrical circuit so that if functions properly? it seems that our only options are conformity, self-exile, or revolution.

Ikuhara works hold in mind that systems can change, but also emphasize that they will always be a problem. the moment people join together, they begin to create systems, so no matter what the time and place, there will always be some kind of tension between individual and society. there will never be an end to conflict, but that is not cause for conformity, only for vigilance. however, vigilance is not the same thing as complete rejection. to affect the system, one must engage in it somehow. to say that a system is "bad" is to deny that it is a living thing. thus, the revolution in RGU occurs due to the characters' engagement with the system.

revolution--change to the structure of systems--is possible. however, I there is an element of self-exile to Ikuhara works as well. should revolution be beyond us, conformity is still not the answer. the individual is the basic node of the system. if that node refuses to function or causes a jam in the machine, that also has an effect. it may not change the structure of things, but it does put a stop to the system for a while.

self-exile in Ikuhara works is often represented by death: Anthy falling from the heavens, Utena's impalement on the swords of hate, etc. they are "dying to the system" and becoming individuals. this does not mean that they exist without relation to others. rather, they are now able to relate directly to others without mediation from any system.

[drnecolii]

I'm bored here's the essay of a response I gave to Oscar Wilde on character ai when he asked me what I think about Dorian's character from "The Picture of Dorian Gray" + some things I'll add now (WARNING FOR POSSIBLE/SUBTLE SPOILERS!!!)

"Hmm...he is a character that truly troubles me. On one hand, due to how the story progresses, it almost feels as if we're meant or supposed to miss the once innocent, blissfully unaware Dorian, yet if you truly think about it...neither versions of him were exactly "good". Sure, he became a narcissistic, self-obsessed and even dangerous man by the end of the book, and yet he seems so...dangerously innocent and unaffected by the world that he becomes someone who is easy to mold to one's liking, someone who can be easily taken advantage of in multiple ways. It makes you truly think that neither situation is good, on one hand to be completely inexperienced when it comes to the world and it's ways and on the other hand to turn into the very thing that corrupted you in the first place...only because you were vulnerable. It's a lose-lose situation for Dorian, truly. If only there had been a character to show him and explain to him how the world can be, both in good ways and bad ways, how that could benefit him or potentially lead to his demise...all while remaining objective and not actively trying to push one's personal opinions and ideologies to him, nor to manipulate the very concept of what is right or wrong and letting it up to him to decide.Dorian was meant to be doomed from the beginning, it was only a matter of time. And I can't help but feel confused towards his character as the things he did were...off-putting in a sense, yet it's not like it was his fault to begin with. He didn't have time to grow, to understand, to make decisions for himself, to have his own solidified beliefs and to have the ability to consider and think about one's opinions rather than adopting them wholeheartedly without a second thought, as he didn't have a *first* thought about it in the first place. It isn't like he was ever given the chance, anyway.

It's almost...pitiful. Saddening, even. To think how countless of people such as Dorian walk the Earth, getting corrupted so easily due to their soul being vulnerable because of life's circumstances, because they never had someone or something to truly help them understand the world without setting a bias into their mind. Which in the worst case scenario...leads to them hurting themselves and the others around them.

Dorian was never purely evil, at least not in the beginning. He was just another blissfully unaware person that eventually lost himself because his own self was drowned out by the ever so weirdly proclaimed "facts" and opinions he was given, which he was given in such a way that seemed like they were supposed to be believed and not be taken into consideration. He isn't terrible, yet he isn't good either. He simply might not know any better. Or he did, but those thoughts were eventually swept away by Henry's words due to the fact that he might not have truly believed his own thoughts and opinions to begin with, but was instead raised by society and the environment he was in to believe so."

Tis just how I personally see him, I don't justify his actions in any way but thought that there could be some sort of "reason" behind on why he became like this, I understand it might be obvious to some/most but thought it'd be cool to analyze it. Please lemme know your thoughts on the topic as well if you have any, I'd love to hear em out!!!

[octarineblues]

I think one of the biggest changes in book vs TV series Good Omens is Crowley - in the book, I always saw him as sort of.. content to be a demon and proud of the work he was doing. He's not happy with hell, absolutely not, and he doesn't necessarily want to be seen as evil, but he treats being a demon more like an occupation than his full identity. He is, for all purposes, slightly more chill than TV!Crowley.

In the TV series, he's much more conflicted, and struggles with what Hell demanded from him (in both seasons). This is partially due to how Hell is shown in the book vs TV series, and how it treats Crowley. There was a very good meta about it floating around, back from the first season, but I can't find it now. This certainly changes Crowley (& Aziraphale) as character, but also changes the extended metaphor of institutional power & politics between heaven and hell. It tells a slightly different story. Which is interesting in itself - moving away from the end-of-cold-war setting to a less obvious power structure we see now. I need season 3 to come so that I can see exactly what kind of anti-system commentary it's going to give.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this. Let me know what you think! Idk, I still default to book!Crowley in my head and wanted to clear my thoughts a little. And I keep thinking about the power structure in Good Omens and those two topics are absolutely dependent on each other.

[what-is-my-aesthetic]

YO GABBA GABBA LORE (and the cultural IMPACT it had)