#essentially it’s a misdirection

[rowanhoney]

I love behindthename . com cos it’s the only place that doesn’t straight up tell me my name is a diminutive of the Irish and means “pure” which never made sense to me and always bugged me. Turns out it’s much much cooler

[theygender]

I love being T4T. My gf has been on estrogen for a couple weeks now and she's been having a rough time with her mood so I'm teaching her about the ancient art of soaking in a bubble bath with a little drink to sip while watching shows on your laptop

[innocet]

anyone else up existing within larger systems of power that complicate your desires and identity

[hotpinkcyanmillie]

Making the left kinder and more empathetic should always be a goal we strive to attain but I think we do more damage than harm by pretending people, even young people, do not frequently choose to participate in systems of oppression explicitly because of the way that that participation benefits them. If you don’t acknowledge the problems for what they are, the reality for what it is, you will not come up with solutions that will actually work. 

I genuinely don’t believe there’d be a dip in people like Tate’s popularity if we cut the anti-men shit in Half. Its important to curb sure. But its not relevant Here, in This context.

[tealvenetianmask]

Blitz and social class rage- because I have no chill and like to write about uncomfortable things.

We've seen a lot of hints (reactions to how Stolas addresses him as "little," confrontation with Striker in Harvest Moon), but I think that we see that rage at its most intense here and here.

The symbolism in both of these scenes has been analyzed a ton by now, and I don't think the parallels in subject matter are accidental- both are essentially Blitz going into a terrified rage (are fear and anger linked for him?) at the idea- an untrue one based in real social class problems- that Stolas could never respect him.

There's imagery of Blitz as a servant in both scenes. Sillhouettes of Blitz fan Stolas in his drug trip in Truth Seekers. He adjusts his bow tie and claims that Stolas treats him like one of his butler imps during his rant in Full Moon.

But the anger Blitz feels about this ALSO came out, more subtly, in my most replayed couple of minutes in Oops (seriously- when I clicked on Oops to find screenshots, I was already paused here).

It's the scene where Blitz won't stop talking about how little Stolas cares about him, and Fizz gets fed up with him denying the obvious. It leads into a back and forth with Striker about social class and relationships with royals. It's one of those shippy moments that I watched on repeat to reassure myself that stolitz is mutual while we waited for Full Moon. Because it's clear in that clip that he CARES deeply about Stolas as much as he denies it.

But wait. When he calls Stolas a "fake privileged asshole . . ."

There's real resentment (and fear? hurt?) there. I mean the guy is fucking furious- it's also the side view with the sharp teeth and narrowed eyes again. This is not the face of a man who's just upset because the guy he likes doesn't like him back. This is deep hurt, and yes, anger. It hurts to see him feeling resentful toward Stolas because I love Stolas and love the potential they have together.

So what gives? Why is this anger/fear so intense that he can't see that potential? I saw a lot of speculation before Full Moon that Blitz might have another royal ex who we have yet to learn about, or that he was devastatingly wronged by one of Hell's higher ups in the past.

I don't think that's necessary personally. I think Blitz is angry about a lifetime of micro-aggressions and racial slurs, at living in a world where people are surprised that he's an imp who runs a business, etc., and that's enough. He's angry because he was taught from childhood that he was dispensable (not me taking a dig at Cash again just because). He's angry at himself for having feelings for Stolas, for feeling comfortable cuddled up next to him when he snapped that one picture on his phone, for wanting what seems impossible.

Blitz has anger issues beyond this- there's no doubt about that. And I think A LOT of it comes down to his self-hatred and inability to process the hurt and fear that simmer underneath. But yeah, there's legitimate anger about race and class issues there too, maybe misdirected at Stolas, but absolutely reflecting a reality in the hellaverse.

[stacy-fakename]

I’m sorry, but my type-a ass cannot be against the Rat Grinders. They’re essentially the kids that couldn’t get the special treatment from teachers and get by on stumbling through tests and happening to get an A without studying. The Rat Grinders feel less like people who cheated the system, and more like the kids who aren’t naturally gifted or lucky, and have to spends hours on end studying, doing extra homework and extra credit, losing their social lives and free time to catch up with the kids who can just breeze through it. Fig never went to a single class or did any homework but gets away with it because the coach, lunch lad, and vice principal are her dads, Kristin and Riz did literally the worst thing their respective class can do, Gorgug actively works to avoid using the main feature of his class whenever possible, Adaine became the Oracle through seemingly happenstance, and Fabian’s rich family bought his way into the extra curricular he’s now the captain of, and all of them skipped half of freshman year! Obviously we, the audience, know that they worked their asses off to get through school each year and to get where the are today. We know they earned every little good thing they have! Fig has worked so hard to become the rockstar she is! Kristin literally brought back a god! Riz in a supergenius detective! Gorgug is an incredible barbarian and artificer! Adaine works so hard to help all of her friends survive a toxic system! Fabian slaved away to earn his achievements himself instead of letting his father’s legacy be his identity! But think of it from an outside perspective, without all the knowledge that only the audience has! These random kids stumbled into three adventures that let them skip grinding for XP, got to miss half a year with no consequence, get special privileges and quests because they are related to or friends with the faculty, never do their assignments or go to class, became popular because of their privileges, and now randomly start spouting micro aggressions towards halflings? If I was one of the Rat Grinders, I’d be pissed off too! I’ve been both the gifted kid, seemingly effortlessly breezing through classes and befriending the entire faculty while secretly going through terrible struggle and stress, and the kid desperately trying to game my way through a system built to harm me while being furious at those who seem to thrive in it, and I can’t help but feel empathy for both. I don’t think the Rat Grinders are evil, cheating monsters who plan to destroy the Bad Kids out of spite. I think they’re just kids in a harmful toxic school system that have a lot of righteous anger at their lot in life, that has sadly been misdirected. Idk if this ramble made sense, sorry for the wall of text!

Edit:Introducing Ivy Embra, the first Rat Grinder to actually be antagonistic to anyone in any way! Also introducing Oisin Hakivar, a super nice guy who’s willing to take advantage of his generational wealth in order to help a fellow student! So the first Rat Grinder to actively be nice to someone too! He likely did something with the ice mephits, but he still seemed genuinely sympathetic and helpful to Adaine!

[trillscienceofficer]

THIS MIGHT BE THE MOST “THESE WOMEN ARE ALL DEEPLY UNWELL” VOYAGER DIALOGUE EVER

I can't believe I entirely forgot about it until now, rewatching “Lineage”. God.

The fact that B'Elanna has obviously a clear idea of what would made her daughter “safe” in a way that she wasn't and it's giving her blond hair and no visible Klingon trait (esp. the forehead ridges) which is so, so painful to witness even outside the Klingon metaphor

the fact that before going to have it all out with Janeway, B'Elanna clearly thought about how to defend her intentions regarding her daughter and what B'Elanna landed on was a reverse-uno-card ���well Janeway made Seven into a recognizably human (and blond) woman so I'm justified” and she's not entirely wrong to bring that up but also it's obvious that

it's well known among the Voyager crew that Seven had essentially no choice in determining the way she now looks but in B'Elanna's (deeply misdirected) cause-consequence thinking it was all worth it in the end because “Seven's life is much better”

Janeway obviously defends her own choices re: Seven saying that there's no comparison between the two situations and well... I'm not sure the show manages to make her rebuttal very effective, to be honest

Again, this thing where the show always frames Janeway as Seven's mother figure but I can't even be mad at that here because it's SO fucking insane how it's brought up. “You molded her into what you thought was best for her and it turned out to be good for her, so I'm going to do the same thing for my daughter.” BUT WAS IT REALLY GOOD?? HAVE ANY OF YOU ASKED SEVEN??

The way this dialogue makes it obvious that the way B'Elanna was hurt and still is by the racist harassment she encountered and encounters is THEE reason why here she can't see Seven's situation as anything similar to her own, because Seven was re-made into a (white, blond, blue-eyed) human and whatever difficulties she still finds adapting to a life free of the Collective, in B'Elanna's estimation she will always have a place on Voyager, while B'Elanna (and her daughter by extension) occupies a much harder and more precarious space within the ship (in the previous scene B'Elanna told Tom that he couldn't possibly know how it was like to be the one who's different among a group who are all one way). And this is true diegetically! ! ! ! ! ! !

And granted here B'Elanna is reacting more than thinking and I don't think this reveals any kind of deep conviction of hers. Panic in response to old trauma does not make any of us better thinkers, and B'Elanna's idea and reasoning are obviously deeply ill-advised. But the fracture between how she sees herself vs how she sees Seven's situation on the ship is also, imho, something she clearly had considered before.

I'm going to throw myself off a cliff goodbye

[doriandrifting]

It’s still so crazy how the writers essentially “outed” Will’s feelings to the audience right at the start of the season in order to cover for Mike. Take away that little scene with the girl trying to play footsie with Will that confirmed/reminded the audience of him being gay, and what do you have? Mike wearing strange clothes, and not hugging Will back, and acting awkward about Will painting for a girl, and blowing up at him for ignoring El, only to admit he was actually being self-pitying, and that he missed Will because he sees him differently than his other friends, all the while he can’t tell his girlfriend he loves her. Like Will had his moment at Rink o Mania with the “What about us?” line, but he was acting so fucking normal in comparison to Mike. And them starting the season with El claiming Will’s been acting weird/has feelings for someone only to reveal he’s gay is the perfect misdirect, because no matter how “weird” things get between Will and Mike because of Mike’s behavior, Will ends up taking the fall.

[deedala]

My submission for the Gallavich Fanart Masquerade 2024

Doing this art was so strange, i tried really hard to go against all my instincts and habits!! It was kind of a fascinating and weird exercise in trying to pick apart all the little things that makes my art look like me...and then *not* do those things. I even tried to draw ian and mickey from an era and with the haircuts that I usually don't go for. this whole artwork is me trying to not do my own artwork, and yet it still came out like me in the end anyway i think. wild how that works!! The title on ao3: You Are Pure Beside Me as a Sleeping Amber, (from Pablo Neruda's Sonnet LXXXI), was another meager attempt at misdirection as i essentially dont know a single thing about poetry. ...and also im usually quite allergic to proper capitalization 🤪 Very interesting experience but super fun!! Thanks @gallavichthings for the event and thanks to everyone who played and commented and kudos'd!! <3

[ghostflowerdreams]

When Fatima tried to enter the Colony House, it seemed like the door was locked. She got distracted by the smell of rotten vegetables, but the other woman entered without any trouble. Looking back, it’s almost always Ellis or someone else opening the doors for her. Could this mean she’s turning into a monster, or that her baby is one? That feels like the obvious route to take with her story, but it could just be a regular pregnancy, like Marielle suggested. Maybe they're trying a bit of misdirection with the audience, eh?

What did Marielle say, that it's hyperemesis gravidarum? Apparently, it's a severe form of morning sickness characterized by extreme nausea, persistent vomiting, which can lead to significant weight loss, dehydration, and electrolyte imbalances. Repeated vomiting can wear down tooth enamel and increase the risk of decay—not exactly tooth loss, but her condition is likely worse than others due to the lack of access to a dentist and basic oral hygiene products like toothpaste, floss, and mouthwash.

The next question is: why is she eating rotten vegetables? This could be explained by pica, an eating disorder that can occur when the body is low on essential minerals and nutrients like iron and zinc. Pica can happen at any time, to anyone, and women can develop pica during pregnancy. Some people might eat substances like dirt, clay, cornstarch, or even other non-food items like stones, mothballs, and paint chips. Given that she hasn’t eaten anything in three days, it’s quite possible that she has developed pica.

Some people have suggested the food was intentionally rotted to provide her with something to eat. This could hint at her having a monster baby, but it may also be unrelated.

Whatever force controls the monsters and the town clearly operates under its own set of rules, which are always rigged in its favor. It takes something away while offering something in return.

A lot of people in the Colony House died, but then a bus full of people show up. Interestingly, I can't recall who it was, but someone expressed concern about not having enough food to feed everyone. Shortly after, we see that the crops they were growing have all rotted away. Now, they really don't have enough food to feed everyone.

Tian Chen remained hopeful, suggesting they could grow the food by planting the crops in different locations to find suitable soil. Then, Jim and Kenny discover a patch of cabbages growing amid the remnants of an old village. That location wasn't there before, but now they have enough food again and a new place for their crops to grow.

It feels as though something is listening; it knows what’s on their mind, and offers them hope (or makes their fear a reality), only to crush it later. The townspeople aren’t just a source of entertainment for it, they’re likely the very means by which it sustains itself. It's their fears and hopes that make their despair (or soul) all the sweeter to consume.

Why else would the radio in the dinner turn on when Kenny was grieving? It taunted him, but at the same time, that radio was the same one that gave Boyd a sign to explore the forest.

It's clear that some kind of overseer entity is listening and watching them all. I wonder how long it will take for them to realize they need to be more careful about what they say aloud, as their words seem to manifest into existence.

[nocturnowlette]

does conversational hypnosis actually work like is it a thing people can actually do effectively and reliably or is it another one of those fantastical horny concepts

"Conversational hypnosis" is what I do most of the time, but that label just kind of annoys me for some reason. I consider it essentially the same as "covert hypnosis" which is what I also do most of the time nowadays. In my opinion, all that these methods really are are regular manipulation with goals that resemble hypnosis' goals.

Many, many folks can attest to me being able to seemingly remove all of their barriers and set things up without them noticing. Much of conversational and covert hypnosis is about framing and priming. I often frame things as if I'm explaining a concept and teaching, be it hypnosis or not.

Priming is much like setting up a twist in a story. While subliminals do not work at all, there is a commonly confused concept similar to it called preconscious suggestions. While subliminal stimuli are things that even when someone is focusing as hard as they can they are unable to process it, preconscious stimuli are things that could be processed if someone decided to focus on it, but they're misdirected elsewhere, and it's received without them noticing.

When a twist in a story happens, it can't just happen. Every element needs to be separately set up beforehand, setting the sort of narrative ambush in a way that once it happens, all of the things we noticed but didn't suspect fall into place at the same time. Priming is doing that very thing, planting seeds of ideas into someone's head to affect their perception so that when you do finally give a more direct idea (still under a conversational tone), it makes sense to them and they accept it willingly. It is, essentially, verbal sleight of hand.

I find most overt hypnosis kind of boring nowadays, and mostly use hypnosis to help people open up, so I use "conversational" and "covert" "hypnosis" to do so. Though, again, it's just a nicer way to put "manipulating someone's perception". C'est la vie.

[otiksimr]

I hope if we ever get a Johto legends game we get Lanturn as essentially our version of Basculeigon. Big thang. it confuses early boats and ships because its lantern above the water misdirects them because it looks somewhat like the ambient light of an inhabited island or a lighthouse. I badly want a gender split where the females are massive and the males can be the human sized mounts.

The Abyssal Whale, legends say you sail too far out to sea and you start seeing lights in the distance. Tens of hundreds of thousands, faint outlines of fish in the waves. Wailords swimming among the lights, dwarfed by the creature they hail from.

A then a loud boom, a cry that forms waves and sinks ships. And when you and your crew submerges, you see it. A being too big to exist and yet here it is. May you return from your journey with a ruined ship and down half a crew, or die witnessing what can only be considered a wonder of the world.

[steveyockey]

Some would rebut that “Oppenheimer,” being a Hollywood blockbuster with serious global reach (whether it will play Japanese theaters remains uncertain), will be many audiences’ only exposure to the events in question and thus might “create a limit on public consciousness and concern,” as the poet, writer and professor Brandon Shimoda told The Times. A corollary of this argument: The crimes committed against the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were so unspeakable, so outsized in their impact, that Oppenheimer’s perspective does and should dwindle into insignificance by comparison. For Nolan to focus so exclusively on an American physicist’s story, some insist, ultimately diminishes history and humanity, even as it reinforces the Hollywood hegemony of the great-man biopic and of white men’s narratives in general.

I get those complaints. I also think they betray an inherent disrespect for the audience’s intelligence and curiosity, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of how movies operate. It’s telling that few of these criticisms of perspective were leveled at “American Prometheus” when it was published in 2005, that no one begrudged Bird and Sherwin for offering a meticulously researched, morally ambivalent portrait of their subject’s life and consigning the destruction of two Japanese cities to a few pages. That’s because books are books, the argument goes, and movies are movies — and this perceived difference, it must be said, reveals a pernicious double standard.

Because they seldom achieve the narrative penetration and richness of detail of, say, a 700-page biography, movies, especially those about history, often are hailed as achievements of breadth over depth, emotion over intellect. They are assumed to be fundamentally shallow experiences, distillations of real life rather than sharply angled explorations of it, propelled by broad brushstrokes and easy expository shortcuts, and beholden to the audience’s presumably voracious appetite for thrilling, traumatizing spectacle. And because movies offer a visual immediacy and narrative immersion that books don’t, they are expected to be sweeping if not omniscient in their narrative scope, to reach for a comprehensive, even definitive vantage.

Movies that attempt something different, that recognize that less can indeed be more, are thus easily taken to task. “It’s so subjective!” and “It omits a crucial P.O.V.!” are assumed to be substantive criticisms rather than essentially value-neutral statements. We are sometimes told, in matters of art and storytelling, that depiction is not endorsement; we are not reminded nearly as often that omission is not erasure. But because viewers of course cannot be trusted to know any history or muster any empathy on their own — and if anything unites those who criticize “Oppenheimer” on representational grounds, it’s their reflexive assumption of the audience’s stupidity — anything that isn’t explicitly shown onscreen is denigrated as a dodge or an oversight, rather than a carefully considered decision.

A film like “Oppenheimer” offers a welcome challenge to these assumptions. Like nearly all Nolan’s movies, from “Memento” to “Dunkirk,” it’s a crafty exercise in radical subjectivity and narrative misdirection, in which the most significant subjects — lost memories, lost time, lost loves — often are invisible and all the more powerful for it. We can certainly imagine a version of “Oppenheimer” that tossed in a few startling but desultory minutes of Japanese destruction footage. Such a version might have flirted with kitsch, but it might well have satisfied the representational completists in the audience. It also would have reduced Hiroshima and Nagasaki to a piddling afterthought; Nolan treats them instead as a profound absence, an indictment by silence.

That’s true even in one of the movie’s most powerful and contested sequences. Not long after news of Hiroshima’s destruction arrives, Oppenheimer gives a would-be-triumphant speech to a euphoric Los Alamos crowd, only for his words to turn to dust in his mouth. For a moment, Nolan abandons realism altogether — but not, crucially, Oppenheimer’s perspective — to embrace a hallucinatory horror-movie expressionism. A piercing scream erupts in the crowd; a woman’s face crumples and flutters, like a paper mask about to disintegrate. The crowd is there and then suddenly, with much sonic rumbling, image blurring and an obliterating flash of white light, it is not.

For “Oppenheimer’s” detractors, this sequence constitutes its most grievous act of erasure: Even in the movie’s one evocation of nuclear disaster, the true victims have been obscured and whitewashed. The absence of Japanese faces and bodies in these visions is indeed striking. It’s also consistent with Nolan’s strict representational parameters, and it produces a tension, even a contradiction, that the movie wants us to recognize and wrestle with. Is Oppenheimer trying (and failing) to imagine the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians murdered by the weapon he devised? Or is he envisioning some hypothetical doomsday scenario still to come?

I think the answer is a blur of both, and also something more: In this moment, one of the movie’s most abstract, Nolan advances a longer view of his protagonist’s history and his future. Oppenheimer’s blindness to Japanese victims and survivors foreshadows his own stubborn inability to confront the consequences of his actions in years to come. He will speak out against nuclear weaponry, but he will never apologize for the atomic bombings of Japan — not even when he visits Tokyo and Osaka in 1960 and is questioned by a reporter about his perspective now. “I do not think coming to Japan changed my sense of anguish about my part in this whole piece of history,” he will respond. “Nor has it fully made me regret my responsibility for the technical success of the enterprise.”

Talk about compartmentalization. That episode, by the way, doesn’t find its way into “Oppenheimer,” which knows better than to offer itself up as the last word on anything. To the end, Nolan trusts us to seek out and think about history for ourselves. If we elect not to, that’s on us.

[cardentist]

I just wrote up a more, emotional? reactive? take on this whole thing here [Link], but I wanted to try to say this in a way that's easier to parse.

people insist that trans mascs don't have any unique experiences (as Opposed to trans fems).

people insist that trans mascs Do Not face misogyny.

people insist that trans mascs Do Not face physical violence.

people insist that trans mascs Do Not face medical violence.

or if they Do, it's lesser than/misdirected from trans fems, to the point that it's presented as Wrong (if not active bigotry) to focus on/acknowledge them in conversations about these topics.

(even when, as we've established, people have actively invoked trans mascs to deny them these experiences).

in other words, trans mascs have been facing Active Erasure from within (and sometimes from Outside Of) the community, specifically intended to deny them their experiences and then Also frame any attempt from them to counter those claims as aggressive rather than defensive.

and this all hinges on an Extremely binary and gender-essentialist premise. both in denying trans-mascs their experiences based on their gender (asserting that there are innate properties to Being A Man that trans mascs invoke by being trans masc), AND by presenting trans fems and trans mascs as Opposites.

there is a seesaw, and if trans fems experience one thing then it must be presumed that trans mascs Don't, and so if trans masc try to insist that they experience these things Too then it Must Be that they're trying to take that experience away from trans fems.

and what's important to understand is that this framing is wrong. not just because of the harm that it causes to trans mascs, but because of the harm it causes To Everyone.

and I mean that on two fronts:

1: this is not a case of trans fems vs trans mascs, the seesaw Is Not Real. it's not trans women putting trans mascs down, it's Gender-Essentialists enforcing a gender binary within the trans and genderqueer communities. this rhetoric comes from all sorts of people, cis people, trans neutral people, trans masc people, and (yes) sometimes trans fem people.

and just the same, it's people who are Against gender-essentialism who speak up about the harm that this causes, and often those people are trans fem! and that Both means that nobody is served by directing negativity at trans fems AND that it is not appropriate to assume that trans mascs defending themselves and speaking on their experiences is causing harm to trans fems inherently.

2: this entire framing leaves trans neutral, genderqueer, and intersex people out in the cold. being an Inherently gender-essentialist and binary argument, these people who do not fit neatly into the binary are Heavily negatively impacted by it while Also being erased.

I have read someone (another trans masc, even), completely unironically, write the words "trans men have privilege over trans women because cis women have privilege over trans women." completely boiling trans mascs down to their agab and stripping them of their transness.

people are using tme (transmisogyny exempt) to refer to afab trans people (separating them Out from cis women), to deny these trans people experiences that they have had.

and this Does Not only affect binary trans men. there are afab intersex people who very actively experience transmisogyny, there are nonbinary people who are being boiled down to their agab, forcibly rebinarized and stripped of their transness, there are gnc people (cis and trans) who are treated as if they don't exist and actively attacked and erased if they try to speak up.

but the conversations is Framed like it's men vs women, the argument is presented as inherently binary.

and that makes it Incredibly difficult and frustrating to dismantle. just Look at this post, I had to very specifically go on an entire preamble about men and women just to begin unpacking the situation (and to undercut the ways that people try to actively silence people when they speak about it).

and even while actively Trying to be inclusive, trans neutral and genderqueer and intersex and gnc people read as a Footnote in the entire first half of this post that I wrote Specifically To Acknowledge Them. the very conversation itself Erases them, which is a Major Problem that's Incredibly frustrating and difficult to unpack.

to Say "trans people who I interpret as men/masculine are lesser than, and are harming trans people who I interpret as women/feminine" you Have to decide what Man and Woman and Masculine and Feminine mean. there is no trans inclusive way to do this, there is no way to do this without throwing people who challenge gender/sex binaries and gender norms under the bus.

(this even Actively Harms trans fems, whether those trans fems are gnc, genderqueer, intersex, pre transition, aren't able to/don't want to transition, or are just perceived as Too Masculine by these people vilifying queer masculinity. gender essentialism Is Inherently transphobic and harms All trans people.)

and in this case, it's Incredibly frustrating to talk about, because many people can't get past the idea that deciding that a gender is Innately Bad (just, the very definition of gender-essentialism) is Wrong.

trying to voice the harm that this causes to people Outside of the binary is bogged down by the first step. you can't unpack it without unpacking the essentialism being pointed at trans mascs, because people are Going to keep acting like this as long as they're convinced that they not only can but Should treat trans mascs this way.

and it needs to be said, that for as frustrating as it is to be put in this position we Have to acknowledge that the problem is with the situation, not with trans mascs trying to defend themselves.

I Do absolutely think that Everyone needs to make an active effort to think about and include All trans and genderqueer people in these conversations, to point out how incredibly exorsexist the conversation is Without just being a footnote or an aside or a gotcha. genderqueer people can't just be a tool we use to advocate for binary trans people.

but At The Same Time, the timeline of events cannot be

trans mascs are denied having unique lived experiences.

trans mascs are presented as not only lesser than, but actively privileged on the basis of their gender.

trans mascs assert their lived experiences and address the gendered violence they're experiencing.

trans mascs are criticized for framing their defense around the gendered violence that they're experiencing.

to say that The Reason trans mascs are in the wrong for discussing transandrophobia (or Whichever term you prefer) because there are no experiences unique to any gender or identity, while Not holding that same standard to transmisogyny or exorsexism, is very obviously singling trans mascs out and making it more difficult for them to combat their own erasure.

what's necessary here is Solidarity. Everyone needs to be put on the same playing field, to have All of their experiences matter. trans people need to be Equal.

and this means trans mascs and binary trans men making an active effort to include intersex, genderqueer, trans neutral, and gnc people in these conversations that affect them, and as More than just an afterthought.

and it Also means people recognizing that the conversation is inherently gender-essentialist, and that trans mascs have to be able to effectively advocate for themselves in the face of their own erasure and demonization. to blame them for the gendered violence they're experiencing isn't any more fair than the erasure genderqueer people are experiencing.

[about-faces]

Batman: Caped Crusader, Episodes 1-2 thoughts (SPOILERS)

First things first, Harvey is as bad as I’d expected. I honestly can’t tell whether this is worse than the version we got in the last Timm-produced animated Batman show, “Beware the Batman.” That Harvey was a humorless prick straight out of the William Atherton school of jerkasses, while this one is a smug sleazebag who would be someone you’d love to hate if he weren’t also a complete inversion of a great tragic hero turned villain.

I’m just so sick of people portraying Harvey as a politician first and foremost, performing for the cameras and thinking about his career ambitions. I’m sick of him being a corrupt asshole and even an authoritarian. I’m sick him being two-faced, when the irony of his character is that he himself never WAS. Now that that’s out of my system, I’ll move on, because I know he has an arc in store that may prove more interesting than the usual Asshole Harvey takes.

They tried several things with the Penguin, and I’m not sure they gelled into anything that worked for me this time out. Making her a woman, that’s no problem, and I appreciate her classic style and appearance in a time when everyone just wants to turn Cobblepot into a boring Tony Soprano knockoff.

Ultimately, though, it all just served to make her a standard “Ma Barker” archetype. You know, the alleged matriarchal crime boss who was killed by Hoover’s FBI, who may have dragged her name through the mud to excuse their killing of an old woman? There used to be several takes on her in pop culture, although nowadays the only famous one is probably Ma Beagle from “DuckTales.”

With that in mind, they should have just cast Margo Martindale. Excuse me, didn’t use her full name: Beloved Character Actress Margo Martindale. Minnie Driver is a fantastic actress (I’m still mad that “The Riches” was not only cancelled but totally forgotten), but it was a waste not to let her use her real accent. As it was, she was fine, but she didn’t bring anything special to match the physical design. As an actress, she deserved more to play with.

Also, “Oswalda” is a terrible fake name. Like come on guys, you can do better. That’s on par with Revolver Ocelot’s real Russian name being “Adamska.”

The biggest problem with this take on Penguin is that she’s set up as some kind of brilliant mastermind, only to act incredibly stupid, reckless, and gullible. She kills not one but two innocent goons, including her own son, without so much as an investigation or even keeping tabs on the suspected rats to use them as pawns against Thorne! To paraphrase Dijkstra from the “Witcher” books, you don’t kill spies, you USE them. You feed them misinformation! You blackmail them into being double agents! This Penguin is bad at her job, so no wonder she loses everything within hours. It’s amazing she was able to build a crime empire in the first place!

I also dislike Bullock being a corrupt cop in the mob’s pocket. That fits Flass perfectly, but Bullock? Fuck no. Bullock IS dirty, but he’s dirty in a very acceptable way to cops. He’s brutal, he cuts corners, he’s crass, and he’s probably not above planting or concealing evidence, but selling out to the mob? Hell no. That’s just wrong. Hate that choice. Unless it’s a misdirection. This show sure does love its misdirections from what I’ve seen so far.

Batman himself is… fine. He’s Batman. He’s not a bad Batman. He’s serviceable but unremarkable. But at least he wasn’t an irritating asshole, which is more than I can say for most Batman depictions these days. I liked Bruce trying his “falling off a boat” joke a second time, delivered verbatim after it flopped with Barbara.

Barbara being a defense attorney is a rather contrived choice, one that gets to put her at odds with Harvey while also giving her a professional in with both Batman and Gordon. Essentially, she’s in the role Harvey Dent is supposed to play. Except here she’s a defense attorney, which SHOULD put her at odds with her dad, since lawyers and cops don’t seem to like one another, for SOME reason!

And Harvey, even as District Attorney, can’t be in the role of legal ally to either Gordon, because the story is far more focused on making him a mayoral candidate who throws people under the bus for his own advancement! Feh.

Anyway, that was episode one. It was fine, I guess.

The screenplay is by novelist and DC veteran Greg Rucka, so of course Renee Montoya is the central focus. Seeing her interact with Sleazebag Harvey gave me war flashbacks to what Rucka did with Renee and Harvey in the comics: setting them up with a poignant dynamic of tenuous respect and kindness before dashing it all with “Gotham Central: Half a Life,” which solidified the perception of Harvey as a creepy, obsessive stalker for a generation of fans. That version of them was very much of display here. Sigh.

Also, Lucius Fox is Bruce’s lawyer now? Why? And also, what the hell? God, poor Lucius. He starts off in comics as the guy actually running Wayne Enterprises, then “Batman: The Animated Series” makes him Bruce’s right-hand-man, then Nolan and Goyer get the inspired idea to make him the Q to Bruce’s 007, while the comics don’t know what to do with him and even make him an authoritarian to cause friction with his vigilante son, and now this? It’s such a random choice. There’s no reason why this character should be Lucius. Hell, Lucius could have shown up there WITH the lawyer and that would have been fine. As it is, it’s just weird.

That said! I overall liked this episode an awful lot! For DECADES now, I’ve wanted to see someone remember that Basil Karlo was an older actor in the classic horror movie vein (his name is literally a combination of Basil Rathbone and Boris Karloff), but ever since “Batman: The Animated Series,” everyone has just tried to make him BTAS’ Matt Hagen. Like, I really liked the “One Bad Day” issue for Clayface, where he gradually killed his way to the top of Hollywood stardom, but even that was still BTAS Hagen, the Serious Actor, not Karlo, the old horror ham actor.

But with this episode, someone finally drew on the old Hollywood horror roots of the character, and they found a way to combine his shape shifting abilities into the mix! I’m so happy!

Of course, this is me, so I still have criticisms. Like, I think it was unnecessary to frame it as a mystery, because that added unnecessary complications. I know the original Clayface story was a whodunnit and you can’t do that now that everyone knows that Karlo is Clayface. I was annoyed by the misdirection of Karlo’s “death,” in part because I feared this would be another Clever Subversion, just like how the animated adaptations of “Gotham By Gaslight,” “Hush,” and “The Long Halloween” purposely went against expectations from the source material in stupid ways. Hell, they’re doing the same thing now with Penguin (“But wait, there’s a twist: she’s a woman!”) and Harvey (“But wait, there’s a twist: he’s an asshole!”), so I was afraid this Clayface would end up being someone else entirely. I was okay with it in the end, but I’m annoyed at the cheap fakeout as a plot point.

Furthermore, I don’t get why Basil disguised himself as the doctor (whose name I don’t remember) for the benefit of the actress (whose name I don’t remember) he had chained up in his hideout. What benefit was there in making her think he was the doctor? She was already aware she was a prisoner and was scared, so why the facade? It served no purpose in context, only just to misdirect the viewers.

This is what happens when you try to make something a mystery when it would work better as a thriller. Stop trying to wow audiences with twists and surprises when you could just be focusing on telling a good story. So what if everyone figures out Karlo is Clayface? Who cares! Just go with it! Let them be in on it while Batman and Montoya figure it out themselves, that’s where the tension lies! Stop trying to be clever.

Regardless, I really liked this episode. I want this to now be the canon comics origin for Basil Karlo’s Clayface. Just explain that the treatments for his face gradually affected his whole body, and boom, you’ve successfully explained how classic Slasher Clayface became Mud Monster Clayface. This is how Karlo should always be written from now on. If you really want a sensitive, angsty lug Clayface, bring back Hagen. Let Karlo be the gloriously hammy monster with aspirations of stardom.

[novlr]

could you maybe do something on characters becoming serial killers? I’m was originally going to have some sort of characters going insane thing, but I think that the whole “insane people killing” is a little stupid and borderline dangerous (saying that insane people kill all the time) so could you give me some pointers?

How to Write a Serial Killer: A Quick Guide for Writers

Crafting a convincing serial killer requires a lot of research, imagination, and an understanding of the genre. Let’s dive into some quick tips to help you create a serial killer who is gripping, unique, and emotionally complex.

Develop their backstory

The key to crafting a convincing serial killer is in understanding their past to shape their present. Explore their backstory in detail — were they subjected to abuse or neglect? Did they endure a life-altering traumatic event that set them on this dark path? Developing a compelling backstory is essential, not only to justify their actions but also to cultivate a degree of empathy, allowing readers to connect with the character on a deeper level.

Give them unique motivations

Serial killers act based on what drives them; they commit their crimes for a reason. This reason could be a need for control, a hunger for power, or a wish to spread chaos. By connecting their reason for doing things with their unique personality traits and backstory, you can create a well-rounded and consistent character.

Include misdirection and plot twists

To maintain suspense, make use of narrative devices like red herrings designed to divert your reader's attention. The clever use of these diversions can delay the unmasking of the killer, increasing tension and anticipation. Additionally, unexpected plot twists that abruptly shift your story's trajectory can not only alter your reader's perception but can also reconfigure their theories keeping readers on their toes.

Draw parallels with your protagonist

Creating a unique perspective by establishing similarities between your serial killer and your protagonist can add multifaceted layers to your story. This might involve drawing connections in their backgrounds, aligning their motivations, or uncovering shared personal struggles. These parallels not only make the plot more engaging but also heighten the intensity of the conflict between the two characters.

Use foreshadowing

Foreshadowing serves as a powerful tool in constructing suspense and subtly hinting at future events in your story — carefully place clues that can suggest the identity of the killer or indicate their next victim. But remember to maintain an air of mystery by not unveiling too much prematurely. The goal is to keep readers engrossed, continually making and remaking their guesses about the unfolding plot.

Include an emotional subplot

Adding an emotional subplot in your narrative significantly enhances the relatability of your serial killer. This could range from them harbouring deep-seated love for someone, to grappling with a fear that surpasses the dread of getting caught. These contrasting aspects of their otherwise sinister nature serve to give the characters greater depth and dimension, thus enriching their complexity.

Did you know we have a Spotify account with lots of great playlists for writers? Here's one to inspire your next serial killer novel!