#evil phenomenon series | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

tritoch · 2 months ago

Text

why doesn't venat tell the convocation?

one thing you'll see come up from time to time: why does venat, the largest ancient, not simply eat the other sorry wrong notes. Why does Venat, who has access to time-loop knowledge, not simply tell the Convocation what she knows and try to fight the Final Days in her time?

it's an understandable question: why wouldn't you want to change the future, if you know what comes to pass? Answering this question does a lot to flesh out our understanding of the Ancients, as well as Venat herself, in fun ways. It also highlights the heightened tonal register FFXIV operates in where the Ancients are involved. Most crucially, it confirms that your ultimate victory in Endwalker is not due to time loop predestination, but because of the collective efforts of everyone along the way.

all quotes, as ever, sourced from xiv.quest (except for some stuff from the very end of myths of the realm which i pulled from gamerescape). spoilers through endwalker follow.

(post-completion edit: this got insanely out of hand and way too long and it's honestly not even very insightful. you were warned.)

The way I see it, there are two broad versions of this question: First, why doesn't Venat warn the Ancients about the Final Days? And second, why doesn't she reach out to the Convocation and try to nip it in the bud?

To start with, let's get the answer straight from the source:

Venat cannot tell the Ancients generally because she cannot trust that they will not panic. No judgment should be taken as unquestionable, obviously, but Venat is a nigh-immortal scholar and researcher who also did a long stint as traveling counselor and savior and friendly neighborhood video game protagonist, who repeatedly and fervently declaims her love of the people of the world and her belief in their ability to surmount any obstacle if they simply find the strength within themselves. She has also, in-fiction, seen the wider world unsundered. Our exposure to the Ancients, on the other hand, is: her; the ruling council of their people, turned evil dimension-hopping wizards; a slice of particularly detached academics in a mad science lab (comedy version); a slice of particularly detached academics in a mad science lab (horror version). That's it! And of course, the revelation of the Final Days ultimately does result in panic and a series of increasingly drastic measures. While we only have her reasoning to go off of on this one, I don't know that there's any evidence that goes firmly against her reading of the situation.

As to the Convocation, she's right: the first time Hermes got the full picture of the Final Days, he immediately turned against you and tried to wipe your memories to prevent you from using your knowledge to stop them before they start. And that's really bad, because Hermes isn't just pretty important to stopping the Final Days: without the benefit of time-loop knowledge, he's the guy who draws the conclusion that connects the Final Days to the celestial currents of aether!

"Having shed light upon the phenomenon, he dedicated to himself to devising a countermeasure. Were it not for [Hermes's] knowledge of the celestial, we would never have made the connection—and thence forestalled the Final Days." Elidibus strongly implies here that Hermes is the guy who conceived of the Zodiark plan in the first place, or at least came up with the the mechanism by which Zodiark could actually use aether to protect Etheirys.

Hermes is a guy you absolutely have to have on your team if you're going to respond to the Final Days, because he is not just the guy who knows about dynamis. He is also, as far as we know, the only Ancient with a meaningful knowledge of outer space and celestial currents. Meteion herself is pretty explicitly parallel to a prototype space probe, a first-of-her-kind interstellar traveler. Given that the Ancients use magical concepts for seemingly nearly all their technology (there sure is a lot of stuff going on with crystals, I'll grant...but crystals are just aether, sometimes with concepts inscribed in them!), he is the closest thing they have to an aerospace engineer.

Space in FFXIV is obviously weird (no one's wearing a helmet on the moon, Midgardsormr flies through it, etc.), but nonetheless we know that space travel is difficult, and Hermes highlights in his explanation that Etheirys is unusually rich in aether while aether is much rarer in space generally. And we can surmise no one before him devised a way for the extremely aether-dense Ancients to travel and survive in space, or presumably that would have informed his own designs and he wouldn't have had to turn to under-researched dynamis. And we know no one worked with him on Meteion or understands anything about all the dynamis and, celestial currents stuff; Hythlodaeus and Emet-Selch tell us as much.

Hermes might not be the literal only Ancient with knowledge of these things, but he is certainly the most knowledgeable, seemingly by a long shot. There is plenty of reason to believe the Ancients, while they have godlike power on Etheirys, don't have a huge body of working physics information. For example, the discovery and use of magnetism in creations was the signature achievement of Hermes' immediate predecessor as Fandaniel, per a Ktisis readable.

So you need Hermes, and cannot afford the possibility of losing him. Even with the benefit of the Warrior of Light's future knowledge, not having Hermes would fatally undermine any efforts by the Ancients to combat the Final Days—not only in terms of identifying which areas were likely to be affected, but also in terms of creating and implementing Zodiark, and with respect to any hypothetical "Ancients go to the edge of the universe to fight Meteion" plan.

That kind of full-spectrum involvement makes him only more dangerous. Sure, maybe you can approach the Convocation and convince them (and I'm not so sure of that: one of their members is there when you explain all this, after all, and he vehemently rejects the possibility right up until the moment the time-loop starts!), but how can you ever be safe with Hermes on board? Worse, what if this time he doesn't announce his betrayal? What's to stop him from building a flaw into Zodiark, or any one of the other plans along the way?

Well, but set the problem of Hermes aside for a second: why not approach other Convocation members? Aside from the information security concerns with Hermes, there's the fact that she already has some advance intel on that options. First, Emet-Selch already heard and experienced all these revelations, and he vehemently denied and rejected them. The only reason he ended up cooperative through the events of Ktisis is because "get to Hermes and stop Meteion" fulfills both your goals. You're literally out the door on your way to start the time loop post-Kairos and he's like "I still don't believe your future visions by the way! But if it's true then don't fuck it up!"

Second, if what you told her is true, Venat already has reason to believe Azem might not be willing to side with her. After all, one of the only pieces of knowledge you were able to pull directly from the records of the past is that even with 75% of the Ancient population sacrificed and preparations for the third sacrifice underway, Azem would not reply to the Anamnesis Anyder faction.

So she has good reason to believe her successor might not be willing to side with her, and she knows that successor's bestie will definitely counsel against trusting these future visions.

But what if she just shows them her memories and past events via the Echo? After all, reconstructing past events is a key part of your adventures in Elpis in the first place!

Venat can probably share her memories via Echo vision, but there's no reason to think that would work: after all, Emet-Selch was already there for most of these events and was still skeptical the whole way through. Plus, at that point you're really still just relying on Venat's testimony. Additional memory evidence certainly has some corroborating effect, it's not unimpeachable, particularly given the problem of Kairos. Hermes, Emet-Selch, and Hythlodaeus will all have memories that contradict Venat's because Kairos doesn't just erase memories, it straight up alters them.

But why not do the CSI crime scene reconstruction thing? Well, as Venat notes, those memories are prone to fading, and are etched on the aether of the world the same way memories are on the soul. So assuming, you were perfectly lucky and none of the aether got too altered by other events, you could reconstruct what happened from the moment Meteion connects to the hive mind . . . right up until everyone enters Ktisis Hyperboreia. Kairos functions by overwriting the memories etched into aether with yet more aether, and given that it targeted not just the group in the final room but the entirety of Ktisis Hyperboreia, it has presumably substantially altered whatever aetherial ripples remained of the day's events. Consider that if it's blotting out multiple days worth of memory over a large area (Ktisis Hyperboreia is a full-on spatial anomaly, after all), our only comparable event in lore is the Seventh Umbral Calamity. That's a lot of aether! Kairos moots any attempt to employ memory reconstruction as evidence.

So you can't tell everyone because they'll panic; you can't tell the Convocation because Hermes is untrustworthy; you can't tell the Convocation without Hermes because there's no point in recruiting the Convocation without Hermes because his expertise is what you actually need; even if you did want the Convocation without Hermes, there's reasons to believe that would go poorly; and you can't use the Echo to help you win them over because the well on memory-as-evidence is already poisoned thanks to Hermes inventing Kairos.

A brief interlude on the possibility of the Ancients getting to and fighting Meteion. Links to sources only because this post is already stupid long. Okay, pretend we perfectly secure Hermes on-side and rally all the Ancients. After making Zodiark early thanks to Venat's warning, the remaining 50% of the population sets to work on the problem of space travel to Ultima Thule. It'll be a lengthy process, since devising the propulsion systems of the moon took the Loporrits six thousand years, but sure, it's not like lifespan is a big issue for the Ancients. Then there's the matter of having enough energy to get there; Hydaelyn accumulates the aether of the Mothercrystal for over twelve thousand years to make that happen. But maybe we shortcut that with human sacrifice again. Okay, we've flown a spaceship full of Ancients to Ultima Thule. They can't do anything here because the dynamis is too thick for aether to do anything. Your allies can only reshape the reality of Ultima Thule to allow aether-based life to exist via dynamis in the first place. The Ancients themselves seem largely unable to interact with dynamis. Any familiars or entelechies they could try to use against Meteion would probably be overwhelmed by the transformative power of her own critical mass of dynamis. Probably your best bet is to send in wave after wave of Ancients to die in a delaying action while Hermes in the way way back with a megaphone tries to persuade Meteion to chill out? Part of the whole Endwalker thing is that the Warrior of Light's victory is an incredible piece of luck enabled by a whole host of actions both intentional and accidental. The thing about miraculous victories is they're miraculous because they were otherwise exceedingly unlikely!

"Well," one might ask, "shouldn't there still be something she can do? Couldn't she reach out to trusted friends to share this information and work to stop the Final Days and persuade the Convocation without accidentally reconnecting Hermes to the knowledge that caused this problem in the first place?" And the answer is: Yes, that's what she does! It just doesn't go great and results in the creation of Hydaelyn!

As you are departing, Venat confirms to you that she will try to find a different way to resist the Final Days. She also tells you that she will not take for granted that the future you have told her will come to pass, and will simply do her best to try to fight the Final Days.

We have a good sense of the results of her efforts because her closest and most trusted allies are left behind as the Twelve and the Watcher. Rhalgr and Oschon were literally just fellow travelers she met during his journeys. Nald'thal was a merchant. Nophica was a landscape architect. Probably the most outwardly accomplished members of their number were Halone (candidate for the seat of Pashtarot), Thaliak (brilliant university president), and Menphina (brilliant university student). They were, sometimes literally, just some guys she found by the side of the road.

The truth is that Venat's message and efforts were simply not that popular in the unsundered world. We see her efforts to reach the people, conveyed allegorically, in the Thou Must Live, Die, and Know cutscene: her appeal to the better natures of her countrymen fails. They cannot be deterred from their path of sacrificing the lives of others for their own comfort.

The result of Venat's best work to rally the world against the Final Days, outside the auspices of the Convocation, is the Anyder faction. And the Anyder faction, though it makes its case to the Convocation and to others, ultimately cannot win enough people over to shake the Convocation from its intentions.

The Ancient world in FFXIV often operates in a heightened register. From the name references that invoke Greek mythology and Utopia to aesthetic elements like their theatrical masks and genre-breaking art deco architecture, the game takes pains to emphasize how otherworldly the Ancients are. This helps make their stories work emotionally. Emet-Selch and Elidibus and Lahabrea are personally responsible for six worldwide genocides, plus countless other associated sins. Even in the already heightened fantasy world of FFXIV, trying to take their stories semi-seriously would break them down. Instead, the game uses a number of cues (Emet-Selch's dramatic nature and taste for literary allusion help considerably here, as does the English localization consciously adopting slightly archaic language) to indicate to the player that the Ancients' story is being told in an epic register, that they are a fairy tale, that their story is a creation myth.

Being a fairy tale or myth means that things can be narratively true about the Ancients which would otherwise not work in FFXIV, a story which tends to shoot for some degree of psychological verisimilitude. A person can survive untold millennia as the only remaining sane member of their people, retain their sanity, and never waver in their mission or crack under the pressure. Three-quarters of the world rising up to spontaneously sacrifice themselves out of love and kindness and a belief in the value of the natural world. In Hermes' case, we are literally directly shown and told, by both magical empathic bird-girl and magical mood ring flower, that he is literally not just the Saddest Man in Elpis, but the Only Sad Man in Elpis. People often poke at this point reflexively ("Why doesn't Hermes go to therapy?"), but his despair is not just all-encompassing and overwhelming. It is literally inexplicable and unfamiliar to the Ancients around him.

Similarly, Venat, actual wandering superhero and benevolent demiurge possessed of an inexhaustible love for humanity and surpassing skill in every field, scours the earth and comes up with just thirteen people (or like, them plus a few) who are willing to stand against the Convocation. Venat does use her time-loop knowledge to spur on a parallel effort to fight off the Final Days. It doesn't work because the Convocation's plans not only have the weight of formal authority behind them, but because the Ancients overwhelmingly did not want to accept their losses, form a plan of action, and fight back. They wanted to undo their pain and suffering now, as fast as possible, and damn the consequences or whatever other lives it cost. If this feels unrealistically emotionally extreme, that's par for the course for the tone of the narrative around the Ancients.

The truth is Venat was just doing the best she could with the knowledge she had and the understanding she had of the arena she was in. She doesn't end up forming the Twelve and sundering the world because she heard about it from the Warrior of Light—the Warrior of Light comes from a world in which she formed the Twelve and sundered the world because that is what she always already would have done in this situation.

We can surmise as much from how the time loop works across the rest of the game: even though there is always at least one person in the timeline who knows about the time loop, events always play out in a way that requires other people to exercise their free will, and those choices end up aligning with the time loop even absent the knowledge of the future. Either the Warrior of Light or Venat (also Fandaniel, now that I think about it, but I don't know of any meaningful insights to glean from that) is aware of the possibility of the time loop at all times: she knows about it from Elpis onward, then shows up in the boat at the start of Endwalker to say "hey fyi you're entering the Time Loop Zone," then you end up in the past with future knowledge of stuff up until you hit the time loop reset point and the whole thing starts again. But in the game through Endwalker, that knowledge never controls events; you and Hydaelyn are only ever individuals on a board with many players, and much of making the time loop work ultimately relies on the Ascians, a group we can definitely say both lacks time loop knowledge (except, again, Fandaniel) and is actively working to frustrate Hydaelyn's ends. On a broader thematic note, consider Zenos: he's ultimately crucial to your victory, and he's a complete wild card whose most important actions you could not possibly have told Venat about because they only happen after your return from Elpis. You don't win because you are predestined to win. You win because many people collectively take small actions which happen to, luckily, line up with ultimate victory.

The Elpis time loop only functions because of countless and almost entirely unknowing large and small actions by more or less every character in the game, and results from and is defined by those actions, rather than structuring and defining those actions. It's not that Venat, armed with knowledge of the future, chooses the time loop instead of averting the Final Days. It's that the time loop results from and incorporates a future-influenced Venat doing everything she can to avert the Final Days.

#venat #ffxiv #meta: durai report #emet-selch #endwalker spoilers

193 notes · View notes

komsomolka · 2 months ago

Text

The term Russophobia was centered on fear – fear of Russian expansion into the zones of influence of the British Empire, in Iran or India, for example. This “Russian scare” assumed such vast proportions that even the remote island nation of New Zealand built a series of coastal forts in the 1880s to ward off a perceived Russian attack. [...]

Russophobia is deeply rooted in people’s subconscious in the Western hemisphere and is virtually part of the local identity, which needs Russia as an opponent in order to reassure itself of its assumed superiority. [...] The phenomenon is “cyclical,” where narratives of a good Russia appear when Russia is experiencing a phase of weakness, while stories of evil Russia come to the fore in the Western media when the country becomes more “assertive.” These narratives are de facto timeless and almost mythological in content. [...]

For centuries, European colonial powers conquered, divided and appropriated the wealth of almost every region in the world. But none of these actions transformed their respective states into “voracious” and “hungry” empires in their own Western self-image. The stereotype of the undying Russian thirst for land, on the other hand, is a mainstay of Russophobia and is partly based on a forged but very powerful document. According to the English historian Orlando Figes, various Polish, Hungarian and Ukrainian authors forged a will of Peter the Great in the course of the 18th century and then circulated it within Europe. The forged document, which was submitted to the archives of the French Foreign Ministry in the 1760s, spoke of an extensive Russian plan for the subjugation of Europe, the Middle East and as far as the Southeast Asia. Although the supposed Tsar’s will was recognized as a forgery from an early stage, it was instrumentalized by Western foreign policymakers as a justification for war against Russia for about 200 years. [...]

Today’s insinuations that Russia would “carry on” with other Eastern European states after a victory in Ukraine also reflect the spirit of the forged will, according to criticism from the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in 2022. The fact that the will is a forgery has always been irrelevant to Russophobes, because it ideologically fits the stereotypical image: “Because, after all, forgery characterizes Russia’s policy better than any historically authenticated truth,” according to the German war propaganda concerning the document in 1916. Adolf Hitler made very similar remarks in 1941 – even though it was the German army that was stationed in Russia and annexed large territories during both world wars. The stereotype mainly reveals the projections of the politicians of Western powers, who assign their own way of thinking and acting to the Russian leadership. [...]

The stereotype of Russian backwardness is ancient and could historically only have taken root because contrary facts were consistently ignored in the West. “Russia is like another world,” wrote Bishop Matvey of Kraków as early as the mid-12th century in a letter to the French crusading preacher Bernard of Clairvaux. But the stereotype did not really catch on until the transition from the Middle Ages to modern times, when Europe began to form an identity as a separate cultural area, which was essentially achieved by distinguishing itself from other cultural areas, explains historian Christophe von Werdt: “Russia played a particularly important role in this interplay of European identity formation and perception of what was foreign. For in its case, Europe was confronted with a ‘foreign’ Christian land that it could not colonize or culturally assimilate.”

In the 16th and 17th centuries, Western Europeans increasingly came to Russia as diplomats, mercenaries or merchants, recording their impressions of the unfamiliar country. Eastern European historian Manfred Hildermeier writes that the cultural distance evident in the records was “increasingly combined with a sense of superiority.” German travelers, for example, reported with amazement that Russians bathed naked in the river in full view of others and men and women were not separated by gender in the saunas located almost everywhere, but went there together. [...]

The Swiss author Guy Mettan demonstrates the selectivity of Western judgment even more pointedly. He compares the popular 1761 travelogue of French astronomer Jean Chappe d’Auteroche with the contemporaneous account of a Japanese boat captain named Kodayu, who traveled the same route through Siberia at the same time as the Frenchman. “But they seem to describe two different planets,” notes Mettan; the accounts of their voyages could not be more different.

Whereas d’Auteroche discerned backwardness and barbarism everywhere in Russia, Kodayu soberly describes everyday life, living conditions and socio-political circumstances. Reading both books side by side is fascinating, because it painfully reveals the contrast between the impartiality of the traveler from the Far East and the Westerner’s urge to judge others from a position of superiority and emphasize his supposed civilizational advantage.

The craftiness and deceitfulness of Russians is another recurring paradigm of Russophobia. As early as the 16th and 17th centuries, Western visitors to Russia identified deceitfulness and mendacity as typical Russian character traits – not, however, as traits of individual Russians, but of all Russians. According to Russophobic logic, this general character trait, by association, will then also be reflected in Russian politics. [...]

Western observers have been indignant about the European-like appearance of Russians for centuries, meaning the Russians, in their clothes and appearance, are virtually lying already. The French writer Astolphe Marquis de Custine wrote in 1839: “I do not reproach the Russians for being what they are; what I reproach them for is pretending to be what we are. They are still uncultured… and in this they follow the example of the apes and disfigure what they copy.” [...]

If the Russians try to remedy their supposed backwardness by orienting themselves toward the West, then they are wrong again; at heart, they remain half-savage barbarians.

Russians are people “with a Caucasian body and a Mongolian soul,” wrote the U.S. journalist Ambrose Bierce in his “Dictionary of the Devil” in 1911. Bierce meant this satirically – as he did with each of the approximately 1,000 entries in his book. He critically echoed the clichéd thinking of his time. In 2022, the political scientist Florence Gaub told ZDF, a German public television broadcaster: “We must not forget that even if Russians look European, they are not Europeans, in this case in a cultural sense.” She did not mean this satirically.

Probably the most powerful element in Russophobia is the stereotype of Russian tyranny. It entails two complementary parts: a demonic leader and a sort of slave mentality of the Russian population.

Tsar Ivan IV – in Russian he is called “the Austere,” while in the West he is called “the Terrible” – was an archetype of the cruel Russian ruler, explains Oleg Nemensky. According to Nemensky, the “black myth” of the bloodthirsty tyrant, “whose brutality allegedly exceeded all conceivable limits,” emerged in the 16th century at the time of the Livonian War and occupied the most important place among the propagandistic Russian stereotypes of the time. Ivan the Terrible, in Western eyes, “combined the symbolization of evil and brutal power with the servile bondage of his subjects.”

Indeed, Ivan IV was a brutal ruler and apparently a sadistic character who employed cruel methods of torture and execution. However, whether this made him exceptional in his time is questionable. Yet, Ivan the Terrible’s legendary reputation established the image of Russian rulers in general in the rest of Europe, which was also basically applied to the Russian rulers of the following centuries: cruel, tyrannical, brutal. The fact that soon after the 31-year reign of Ivan, Tsar Alexei I, who bore the epithet “the meekest,” on the other hand, is something few will ever have heard.

Undoubtedly, it is common in wartime to demonize the leader of an opposing power as personified evil. According to Arthur Ponsonby, it is one of the tenets of wartime propaganda to direct hatred at the enemy leader. But in the Russophobic culture of many Western countries, this logic also applies in peacetime. [...] For example, the fact that Vladimir Putin was to receive an honorary doctorate from the University of Hamburg in 2004 caused such indignation in parts of the public that both the university and Putin decided against it. The reason for the storm of protest, it was reported, was the “Chechen war waged in a manner contrary to international law.” In 2011, the planned awarding of the Quadriga Prize to Putin (then the Russian prime minister) was also cancelled due to general outrage. In contrast, these standards were not applied to U.S. presidents: Bill Clinton, who shortly before had commanded a war of aggression against Yugoslavia in violation of international law, received the German Media Prize in 1999, the Charlemagne Prize in Aachen in 2000 and the European Mittelstandspreis (Medium-Sized Business Prize) in 2002. [...]

Nemensky emphasizes that it is extremely remarkable that the antithesis of Western freedom vs. Russian slavery is reproduced again and again across different eras of history, even if there is a change in the specific concepts. No role is played by the centuries of Western slavery, which lasted even longer in the U.S. than serfdom did in “backward” Russia.

According to the Russophobic narrative, Russians are a people incapable of governing themselves and therefore covet slavery. A people that is consistently ruled by tyrants and dictators must itself be inherently authoritarian and subservient, according to the circular argument that has been recapitulated for centuries.

“This nation finds more pleasure in slavery than in freedom,” the Austrian envoy Sigismund von Herberstein reported from Moscow in 1549. The Russians are a “tribe born into slavery, accustomed to the yoke and unable to bear freedom,” the Dutchman Edo Neuhusius told his readers in 1633. “Political obedience has become a cult, a religion for the Russians,” the abovementioned Astolphe Marquis de Custine noted in 1837. “Russia was for us the epitome of bondage and forced rule, a danger to our civilization,” wrote German public broadcaster ARD correspondent Fritz Pleitgen about the thinking of German journalists in the 1960s. “‘Slave consciousness’: Why are many Russians so submissive?” asked the German public broadcaster Bayrischer Rundfunk in 2022.

As strikingly interchangeable as these statements are across the centuries, this insight is useful for understanding the deep-seated, traditional hatred of Russia among the liberal middle classes of Western countries. It is precisely in these groups, represented today by the Democratic Party in the U.S. or the Green Party in Germany, for example, that the stereotype of a despotic Russia has always been extremely powerful. [...]

It has also been observed historically that Russophobia eventually subsides. This could happen even without war, as the end of the bloc confrontation in 1990 showed. However, the phenomenon will not disappear, but will remain latent as long as Western societies do not fundamentally address the problem. Historical models exist for this, and the parallels between Russophobia and anti-Semitism are a topic in themselves. [...]

Former CIA official Phil Giraldi [...] said in an interview that the Biden cabinet is full of Russophobes who blame Russia for all sorts of things. He also said that many people in the CIA were motivated by Russophobia and believed the stereotypes. In the political-media landscape of Western countries, however, people are usually unwilling to even recognize the problem. [...]

What is clear from all this is that the phenomenon of Russophobia has little to do with Russia and the Russians themselves – but a lot to do with Western societies. [...] Russophobia is at its core a racist phenomenon, notes Guy Mettan. Russophobes fundamentally refuse to recognize people from Russia or the Russian state as equal and equivalent to their corresponding Western counterparts.

#posted links #russophobia

189 notes · View notes

transbookoftheday · 6 months ago

Text

Trans/Rad/Fem by Talia Bhatt

Can a synthesis of trans liberation and feminism be easily arrived at? This collection asserts that, as a matter of fact, we possessed the answer to that question decades ago.

Second-Wave feminism is, today, nearly synonymous with ‘transphobia’. Any mention of this era or the movement of ‘radical feminism’ conjures images of feminists allying with right-wingers and the authoritarian state, providing legal justification for outlawing gender-affirming care and spreading deeply evil caricatures of trans women to rationalize their exclusion as feminist subjects. In the ensuing struggle to reconcile trans rights with feminism, the specter of the trans-exclusionary radical feminist has often reared its head in opposition. One may be tempted to conclude that the Second Wave, as a whole, has done irreparable harm to feminist, queer and trans politics, and must be discarded entirely.

But is that truly the case?

Radical feminism also is responsible for repudiating bioessentialistic notions of gender with theories that place it as a firmly social phenomenon. It gave us the language to describe patriarchy as a regime of mandatory heterosexual existence and dared to dream of a post-gender existence long before anyone spoke the phrase “breaking the binary”. Modern transfeminism owes much to radical feminist theory, and despite all propaganda to the contrary, the two schools of thought may be far more allied than believed.

This series of essays aims to reconstruct and reintroduce the radical feminist framework that its misbegotten inheritors seem determined to forget and in doing so boldly makes the claim that transfeminism, far from being antagonistic to radical feminism, is in fact its direct descendant. It shows how a comprehensive social theory of transsexual oppression flows almost naturally from radical feminist precepts and dares to declare that a materialist, radical transfeminism is the way forward to seize the foundations of patriarchy at the root.

#trans/rad/fem #talia bhatt #trans book of the day #trans books #queer books #bookblr #booklr

151 notes · View notes

merwgue · 9 months ago

Text

You thought I forgot? @naravelia

The Tamlin Mandela Effect: How Fandom’s Misremembering of Key Events is Turning into a Haters’ Anthem

There’s a peculiar phenomenon in the A Court of Thorns and Roses (ACOTAR) fandom that echoes something you might find more commonly in conspiracy theories or internet forums. It’s the Mandela Effect, named after an odd cognitive twist where people collectively misremember or distort facts—like a whole generation swearing that Nelson Mandela died in the 1980s, despite him actually living until 2013. But we’re not here to talk about Mandela (no, this is not that essay). We’re here to talk about how Tamlin, our misunderstood High Lord of the Spring Court, has been subjected to this exact effect. And it’s spiraling into disastrous consequences for his reputation in the fandom.

If you’ve spent more than five minutes on any ACOTAR discussion board, you’ve probably seen it. Tamlin haters, pitchforks in hand, rattle off the same tired arguments, claiming that he’s the worst villain in the series. “He sold Feyre’s sisters to Hybern!” they say, even though that literally didn’t happen. “He sexually assaulted Feyre Under the Mountain!” they continue, though that scene plays out very differently if you actually read it. It’s becoming a Herculean task to correct these misconceptions every single time someone drags Tamlin through the mud, but here we are, doing the Lord’s work.

Let’s dig into the mess, piece by piece, shall we?

The Non-Existent Sale of Feyre’s Sisters to Hybern: The Misinformation Continues

Here’s a hill people are dying on that is as fictitious as it is frustrating. There is this collective belief that Tamlin, in all his "evilness," sold Feyre’s sisters to Hybern in some dramatic betrayal. Let’s be real: if Tamlin were a sleazy car salesman in another life, he wouldn’t have any buyers. Because he didn’t “sell” anyone.

Let’s revisit the facts. Tamlin teamed up with Hybern in A Court of Mist and Fury out of desperation to get Feyre back. Was it the smartest move? No. Did he expect things to go smoothly without Hybern’s penchant for destruction taking the reins? Probably. But nowhere in the text does it indicate that Tamlin knowingly offered up Feyre’s sisters on a silver platter.

In fact, Tamlin seemed to have absolutely no idea that Elain and Nesta would be dragged into the mess. The King of Hybern double-crossed everyone, Tamlin included. Feyre’s sisters being thrown into the Cauldron was Hybern’s decision—not some malicious masterstroke from Tamlin’s end. This narrative where Tamlin is painted as the orchestrator of their suffering is wildly inaccurate. It’s like saying a passenger in a car crash is guilty of the accident. Was he complicit by being in the metaphorical car with Hybern? Sure. But did he plan for it to happen? Absolutely not.

And yet, despite this being pretty clear in the text, people still treat it as canon that Tamlin personally wrapped Feyre’s sisters up in pretty bows and delivered them to Hybern like Christmas gifts. The Mandela Effect strikes again.

The “Tamlin Assaulted Feyre Under the Mountain” Lie That Refuses to Die

This one is probably the most egregious example of people twisting canon to fit their own narrative. Now, look, I get it—Under the Mountain was a dark time for everyone. Emotions were high, trauma was rampant, and it was one hell of a mess. But this claim that Tamlin sexually assaulted Feyre during her time there? That’s not just a stretch—it’s an Olympic-level leap of inaccuracy.

Here’s what actually happened: Amarantha had Tamlin under her thumb. He was powerless, trying to bide his time and keep himself (and others) alive. Was he the best emotional support system for Feyre during this period? Absolutely not. Did he make questionable decisions? Yes. But at no point did Tamlin assault Feyre or take advantage of her.

The argument stems from a scene where Feyre, reeling from her third trial, is given a brief moment of respite with Tamlin. They have a charged, emotionally heightened interaction. It’s not comfortable, but it’s also not what people are accusing it of being. Tamlin is desperate, Feyre is desperate, and they’re both stuck in a situation with absolutely no control. If anything, it’s a moment that reflects the trauma of being trapped Under the Mountain—not a moment of assault. The fact that this narrative continues to be twisted into something more sinister is a disservice to both characters and to the complexity of trauma and survival.

Moreover, Feyre doesn’t feel violated by Tamlin in this moment. She doesn’t reflect on it later as assault. If Feyre, who narrates the entire series, doesn’t see it as such, why are we putting words in her mouth? The Mandela Effect here is just baffling—people are conflating Tamlin’s flaws with things that never actually happened. It’s like misremembering the plot of Titanic and insisting that Jack could have survived if only he’d kicked Rose off the door sooner. Except, you know, worse.

The Constant Gaslighting Narrative: Feyre’s Love for Rhysand Suddenly Erased All Else?

Perhaps the most absurd consequence of the Tamlin hate train is this retroactive gaslighting of Feyre’s own character. By the time we get to A Court of Frost and Starlight, Feyre casually drops that she’s loved Rhysand since Under the Mountain. Excuse me, what? Let’s go back to the text, shall we?

In ACOTAR, Feyre is doing everything in her power to save Tamlin—not Rhysand. In fact, Feyre hates Rhysand for most of that book (and rightly so). She is willing to sacrifice herself for Tamlin, to endure Amarantha’s torment because of the deep love she feels for him. The entire climax of the book hinges on Feyre’s determination to free Tamlin, not Rhysand.

But suddenly, we’re supposed to believe that she’s been in love with Rhysand this whole time? Yeah, no. That’s like claiming you’ve loved pizza your entire life but spent your formative years swearing you couldn’t stand the taste of cheese. It doesn’t add up. The revisionism here is frustrating because it attempts to erase Feyre’s complex feelings for Tamlin, reducing them to some passing crush while elevating her relationship with Rhysand to an almost predestined love story. It’s not only inaccurate; it’s unfair to the nuance of Feyre’s journey.

And for those who claim that Tamlin was manipulating Feyre from the start: let’s not pretend Rhysand wasn’t manipulative as well. Rhysand, for all his brooding High Lord charm, was hardly honest with Feyre at first. He didn’t tell her about the mate bond until after she’d fled the Spring Court, allowing her to suffer through an emotional tailspin in the meantime. If we’re going to talk about manipulation, let’s talk about it on both sides of the equation.

Tamlin’s Villain Arc: When Did Fandom Decide He’s the Devil Incarnate?

Let’s get one thing clear: Tamlin is not perfect. He has anger issues, control issues, and makes some boneheaded decisions. But turning him into the ultimate villain of the series is not just a misstep—it’s a full-blown mischaracterization.

Tamlin’s actions in A Court of Mist and Fury—his attempts to lock Feyre in the Spring Court, his alliance with Hybern—are not the actions of a villain, but of someone who is deeply flawed and unable to cope with the trauma he’s experienced. He is desperate to hold on to the one thing he thinks he can still control: Feyre. Is it right? Absolutely not. Is it a classic case of toxic masculinity and overprotection? Yes. But that doesn’t make him an evil character—it makes him a tragic one.

The fandom has somehow turned Tamlin into a one-dimensional antagonist, ignoring the deep trauma he’s endured and the complicated reasons behind his actions. People seem to forget that Tamlin genuinely cared for Feyre—enough to let her go at the end of ACOTAR. That’s not something a villain would do. Villains don’t sacrifice their happiness for the well-being of others, but Tamlin did. He wanted Feyre to be happy, even if it wasn’t with him.

But thanks to the Mandela Effect of the fandom, Tamlin’s complexity has been erased, replaced with a caricature of a monster. Every time someone falsely claims that Tamlin sold Feyre’s sisters, or assaulted her, or that he’s some irredeemable villain, it becomes harder and harder to pull the conversation back to reality. The narrative has been hijacked by misinformation and misremembering, and the truth is becoming increasingly difficult to find.

The Lord’s Work: Fighting Misinformation One Comment at a Time

At this point, defending Tamlin’s character feels like doing the Lord’s work. The sheer volume of misinformation being spread about him is staggering. And every time someone presents an accurate, well-reasoned argument about what really happened in the series, they’re met with a wall of denial from those who have bought into the Mandela Effect narrative.

It’s exhausting, and yet it’s necessary. Because if we don't keep correcting these misconceptions, the narrative only gets more distorted. The truth gets buried under layers of fan-driven exaggeration, selective memory, and willful ignorance. It’s as if every time someone tries to present a factual argument, they're drowned out by a chorus of “But Tamlin sold Feyre’s sisters!” or “He assaulted her!”—as though saying it louder makes it more true.

Yet, here we are, repeating ourselves like broken records, diligently doing the work to remind people of the actual storyline. Is it thankless? Sure. Is it worth it? Absolutely. Because when the truth is at stake, when a character as complex and tragic as Tamlin is being reduced to an easy-to-hate villain, it’s our responsibility to keep the conversation grounded in fact.

Why Do People Cling to These Misconceptions?

Here’s where it gets a bit more philosophical. Why, despite the evidence in the text, do so many fans persist in demonizing Tamlin and clinging to false narratives? The answer, I think, lies in the very nature of fandoms themselves.

Fandoms are not just about the source material—they’re about how people feel about the source material. And feelings, as we all know, are not bound by logic or facts. For many readers, Tamlin represents a particular archetype of toxic masculinity—one that they’re all too familiar with in the real world. When they see Tamlin’s controlling behavior, his anger, and his mistakes, it triggers a visceral reaction. He becomes, in their minds, the embodiment of every harmful, controlling man they’ve encountered or heard about.

Rhysand, by contrast, is portrayed as the perfect “feminist” male hero—someone who respects Feyre’s autonomy, who lifts her up instead of controlling her. It’s easy to see why readers gravitate toward Rhysand and against Tamlin, even when the actual story is far more nuanced.

The problem, of course, is that Tamlin isn’t just an archetype. He’s a fully fleshed-out character with his own trauma, motivations, and flaws. But once a fandom has decided that a character is “bad,” it’s incredibly hard to change that perception, even with cold, hard facts.

The Real Tragedy: A Missed Opportunity for Redemption

What makes this whole Mandela Effect situation even more tragic is that it closes the door on one of the most interesting possibilities in the ACOTAR series: Tamlin’s redemption.

Tamlin is a character who has made mistakes, yes—but so has every major character in the series. Feyre herself is no saint; Rhysand’s hands aren’t exactly clean either. Yet these characters are given the chance to grow, to learn from their mistakes, and to become better versions of themselves. Tamlin, on the other hand, is left to wallow in his misery, largely abandoned by both the narrative and the fandom.

Imagine if the fandom allowed Tamlin the same grace they allow other characters. Imagine if, instead of reducing him to a one-note villain, they embraced the possibility of redemption. Tamlin’s arc could be one of the most powerful in the series—a story about a broken man learning to rebuild himself, about a leader who learns to lead with compassion instead of fear. But as long as the Mandela Effect continues to distort his actions and his character, that possibility remains out of reach.

Conclusion: The Battle Continues

In the end, fighting the Mandela Effect surrounding Tamlin is an uphill battle. It’s frustrating, it’s repetitive, and at times it feels hopeless. But it’s also necessary. Because Tamlin, for all his flaws, deserves better than the treatment he’s received from large swaths of the fandom.

He didn’t sell Feyre’s sisters. He didn’t assault her Under the Mountain. He’s not the devil incarnate. He’s a deeply flawed, deeply human (or, well, fae) character who made mistakes but also showed moments of love, sacrifice, and growth.

So here we are, doing the Lord’s work, repeating the same truths over and over again, hoping that someday the message will finally stick. Because Tamlin’s story is not one of villainy—it’s one of tragedy. And it’s time the fandom started treating it that way.

#anti acotar #pro tamlin #anti rhysand #anti rhys #anti feyre #anti morrigan #anti ic #pro nesta #tamlin #anti mor #acotar #anti feysand #anti inner circle

197 notes · View notes

haveyoureadthistransbook · 4 months ago

Text

Trans/Rad/Fem by Talia Bhatt

goodreads

But is that truly the case?

Mod opinion: I haven't read this series of essays yet, but it sounds like it could be really interesting.

#trans/rad/fem #talia bhatt #polls #trans books #trans lit #trans literature #lgbt lit #lgbt literature #lgbt books #feminism #essays #nonfiction #politics #to read #btw just a warning if you cant be normal on this post i am actually going to delete my tumblr and go to bluesky because tbh i dont #trust tumblr to be normal about transfeminist writing at all. please dont make this exhausting for me. please be normal.#trans woman #own voices

68 notes · View notes

thecoolerliauditore · 7 months ago

Text

okay one last thing i do think it's incredibly naive to believe grian just wants his friends to have fun when the life series is one of the biggest mcyt phenomenon to hit the fandomsphere in ages, the main source of viewership (therefore income) for most of the cast, the series is branded with overpriced, mass-appeal-centred designed (except cherri's snail stickers I'd argue) merchandising, the last two seasons released during peak youtube interaction period (just before christmas for merch sales too!) and has only become more and more youtube-y with each season (gimmicks and reacting to them provide a lot more content potential than just straight up a vanilla hardcore smp)

when I see these points being bought up it's usually met with "oh so you think grian is an evil mastermind who plans everything for the algorithm etc etc" and, no, I don't think that's the case either. What I do think is that Grian is aware "having fun" is what the viewers want to see and when there is pressure to "make fun" and "have fun" that really isn't the same thing as actually just "having fun"

not to mention the fact that these all have to be, at the end of the day, presentable youtube videos. It all loops back to my thesis for c/cc divide and how your behaviour in front of a camera is always going to involve a certain level of performance compared to off-camera.

#random thoughts #crit

58 notes · View notes

the-blossica-fan · 9 months ago

Note

Bonk once said about two particular "evil" versions c:

Vertin: Cowardly, skittish, lack of any charisma: "Get in the suitcase quickly please oh god--"

Sonetto: Lazy, doesn't follow orders: "Whatever, Vertin." (<Doesn't call her by her title)

They took Vertin's Rizz away (I can't believe I said that)

You know the entire suitcase Is going to be hellishly worried, this multiplies when a disheveled, tired Sonetto walks into the room with clothes that are not ironed.

Her hair's a mess, she probably forgot to eat and laid on the sofa all day, acting unfriendly and lazy. The Evil Phenomenon (Silly Edition) has claimed another victim.

No one has an idea of what to do since Vertin is usually the one to take care of these things, but Vertin has been hiding behind any surface, avoiding contact and near the verge of tears every time. She just joined the pitiful girl gang.

So Madam Z had to take good care of everything alongside Tooth Fairy, her job is to watch over Team Timekeeper which is usually pretty easy because of Vertin's skills. Her work is accumulating and she has to figure out a way to designate someone as a temporary leader for Team Timekeeper.

Which would rely on Sonetto if she wasn't... Evil Sonetto.

Back to those two. Their relationship is just so... Weird, to say the least. Sonetto is pretty lazy and isn't doing anything other than lay around, when Vertin (stuttering and trembling) asks her to do something, she receives an "Ugh, why do I have to?" And then she (Vertin) backs away.

And Vertin is only talking to Madam Z and Tooth Fairy because she considers them reliable and trustworthy (they're her mothers basically)

A bit silly but people low-key got used to it, they just treat Vertin like they would treat Poltergeist while she's in this state.

As for Sonetto... She got into a fight with Pavia for taking his place on the sofa for two days straight. She's been doing nothing, saying mean-spirited comments and fucking up the Rules.

Regulus likes her this way, unfortunately for her, Sonetto goes back to normal rather quickly (call it the never-ending struggles of her normal self because oh boy would she hate this version of herself)

#reverse 1999 #defining sanity #evil phenomenon series #(silly edition)#Vertin without rizz is so cursed like #wearing a suoer cool suit with a cool too hat but can't speak for her life #and let's not talk about Sonetto because she hid that part of herself in the deepest put of her brain #she's NEVER talking about this again

31 notes · View notes

hoelandah · 7 months ago

Text

I wish I could study the whole "no sympathy for Homelander" phenomenon among viewers because...

Either people think you have more control over your life's path then we think at a very malleable age and enduring extreme trauma or people really don't be watching the show.

Like I get Kripke's deal: he's a shitlib riding the popularity of "orange man bad." Amazon is likely also in on that marketing. It's bad branding meeting mediocre writing at the end of the day.

But the audience... it's there in the text that this dude had no chance to be anything except what he is. You, as the viewer, know for a fact that he was ruined before he ever reached his teens but yet everyone's holding him responsible for his actions as if he lived a perfectly normal life then decided to turn evil at 40. I know what the show is implying but do you not remember the actual canon??? The text???? The literal described series of events?????

And then the other people are Nazis.

I do not understand how people were surprised by the US's election results.

#we are actually dumb as hell #homelander #the boys amazon #homelander meta #the boys #the kays meta #the boys meta #someone straight up to me a whole leftist blog yo retake world history and crt because i felt sympathy for him #love leftists throwing theory words around but having no actual critical thought beside “white ppl bad” 🙄

58 notes · View notes

vindicated-truth · 7 months ago

Text

What makes Lee Dongsik and Han Joowon stand head and shoulders above the fray of fictional partners in media for me is that they are truly equal.

In many other pop culture partnerships, albeit legendary in their own way, one person is very clearly the "star" of the show and the other is the "side kick". It's not a judgement of whether that makes it better or worse—it's simply a statement of fact, as their roles in the story.

One of the foremost examples I can think of is, of course, the one and only—Sherlock Holmes. He is the clear star of the story, and while John Watson is indispensable as his partner, it is also clear that he is the "second lead" or the "side kick".

The same can be said for all other equally beloved and legendary adaptations of the Holmes phenomenon, such as House M.D. (Gregory House and James Wilson) and Star Trek (James T. Kirk and S'chn T'gai Spock)—both of which are beloved series to me too, along with the original Sherlock Holmes' series.

In many ways it's partly why I was drawn to the dynamic between Dongsik and Joowon too, because there are shades of Holmes and Watson in them as well—Joowon as the cold and calculating but incredibly clever version of a Holmes character and Dongsik as the more personable and emotionally in touch version of a Watson character—but it's the way that they're written and portrayed in Beyond Evil that's different.

For a lot of Holmes adaptations, Watson (or whoever their counterpart is) is often one step behind of Holmes' genius, because that's how stories in general often are written, as a literary device: the side kick is the foil to make the star shine more. The Holmes character (whoever their counterpart in that universe is) is the clear captain driving the wheel even as their partner is their indispensable right hand man—and often their conscience and their touchstone to the rest of humanity (this is especially true in House's case).

With Dongsik and Joowon, they are toe to toe in everything. Wit matching wit, strength matching strength, heart matching heart. It's why even in their promotional posters, they are clearly shot as true partners: not with one man in the foreground and the other in the background, not with one man in the center and the other on the side, but together, back-to-back, clear in being each other's equal even when they couldn't even accept each other as partners just yet.

Because even when they were working separately, they were working together, each arc by each individual character indispensable to the overall narrative of the story and the overall development of their partnership.

And isn't that absolutely fascinating? That it's possible after all to write and portray true partners, without having to relegate someone to the role of an indispensable, beloved, but still clearly a side kick, and have both characters both be the heroes of a story—and have them both truly matter to each other equally?

#beyond evil #괴물

50 notes · View notes

kukuandkookie · 4 months ago

Text

Not a lot of energy to type up a detailed rant especially since I have a lot of other things I need to write, but…

Interesting phenomenon I’ve picked up recently (although this has always been an issue) is readers treating characters and fictional worlds as real and using that as an argument against someone who critiques the writers of the series behind those characters/worlds.

What does that mean?

Specifically, the reason it’s bothering me enough now to write this out is because I saw it a day ago when I saw a tweet criticizing Frieren (is that how you spell it?) as coming across as fascist because the bad guys in it are a demon horde completely incapable of empathy or goodness whatsoever. The OP specifically asked, “Why did the author write it like that? Doesn’t that sound like fascist messaging?”

Which okay, perhaps the way they worded it was obnoxious, because “fascist” is a word that gets thrown around sometimes to the point it can lose its meaning and people forget how bad it really is…

But fans of Frieren were defending it by saying, “Well, the bad guys aren’t capable of goodness ever so that’s why they have to be completely wiped out in the series!” One artist even qrt-ed it with a comic showing that someone trying to be nice to a demon will be killed, captioning it as “this literally happens in the series” and they got a shit-ton of likes—even though it completely misses the point of OP’s argument??

OP didn’t say Frieren the character is a fascist or that she as a character should try to extend sympathy to fictional demons that we know in her world are incapable of being better.

The question lies in why the author chose to write the world like this. In truth, you can’t easily glean an author’s morality from the fiction they write (Neil Gaiman is perhaps, most recently, a horrific and unfortunate example of this), because humans are too complex for that…

But when it comes to prejudice, it can seep into one’s work in uncomfortable ways.

For example, when people accused the Attack on Titan writer of including things in their work that felt supportive of Imperial Japan, or when Asian writers are criticized for the preference for pale skin in their work, or when Han Chinese danmei authors stereotype non-Han ethnicities in works set in ancient times.

So when OP asks why the Frieren author was comfortable with writing the antagonist as an entire species of evil beings, that’s fair to ask from a writing standpoint. It doesn’t matter that diegetically within the lore, the demons will never ever be good and that you wanting a demon to be good could get you killed—because those demons aren’t real. They are a product of the writer’s imagination…so why did the writer imagine them as an evil mass horde that deserves to be slaughtered?

And no, most people don’t have a problem with a villain who is genuinely evil. The reason Frieren gets special attention here is because it’s about an entire species—the main question is simply why, how come, and what the significance of that is, along with how it may demonstrate or even perpetuate a certain ideology, which in this case, can be seen as dangerous.

Now with that being said, I’m not a fan of Frieren or even someone who has tried it for myself, so I can’t properly critique it, nor would I make actual assumptions on the writer’s views. I’m simply saying that OP asked a question from a writing perspective, but rather than consider the nuances behind the writing choice OP was questioning, Frieren defenders defended it as if the demons were a real thing you needed to worry about where “you can’t question it because if you do and try to be nice to them, they’ll kill you!”

Again, OP did not ask why Frieren as a character doesn’t look for more good demons. OP asked why the author of Frieren the series wrote the theme this way.

Now for another example, The Legend of Korra, which has recently seen an uptick in discourse due to a new Avatar series that says being the Avatar is now a bad thing, which many Korra haters blame on Korra the character.

What I noticed is someone pointing out that the writers behind The Legend of Korra as a show constantly put her in punishing situations where she was violated and thrown around like a ragdoll much more than Aang was, and they said they felt like it was internalized misogyny by the writers.

People responded that Korra was always meant to be a darker show and, most frustrating of all—just as they did with Frieren—they spoke about the character as if she was real, because “well she was just way more headstrong than Aang so she got herself in all kinds of fucked up situations!”

Which, okay, yes, we can glean that an obvious flaw of Korra’s is her temper and stubbornness, but again, that wasn’t OP’s point. OP specifically wondered why the writers made Korra like this.

Like why make the female character so impetuous that she seems deserving of punishment through violation?

It doesn’t matter that Aang and Korra have fundamentally different personalities and approaches to battle in this particular discussion because the main point OP brought up comes back to writing choices. This invites us to consider the series critically from a writing perspective.

No matter how mad Korra makes you as a character, she’s still just a character—she’s just words on a page.

Her “choices” aren’t her choices at all because they were choices made by the writing staff, and it’s fair for some people to wonder why a writing staff would write her the way they did. Especially since they could still write her as headstrong and stubborn without making it so that everything always somehow seems like her fault to viewers, to the point no one is satisfied (because ATLA fans think she was too full of herself and thus ruined everything even as they think she deserves the punishment the series gives her, while Korra fans dislike that the writers put her through so much hell).

So with all that being said, I basically wish sometimes people would treat stories as actual stories. I know it’s easy to get emotionally attached to a fictional story or to emotionally respond to a character, whether they’re super amazing or super annoying, but at the end of the day fiction is still fiction and characters are still characters. Even if “normies” can’t look at things from a writing perspective, I wish they could look at a series as just that—a fictional series.

I’m not a fan of or even someone particularly well-versed in The Legend of Korra or anything, but I can still tell how silly it is when someone questions the writers and writing choices of a show and fans of the series as a whole respond that “actually it’s fine because it’s meant to be darker and Korra is flawed so she’s the one who makes a mess of things.” That doesn’t engage with anything in any critical or thoughtful manner.

Like yeah, we get it—the character of Korra is super stubborn so she messed up a lot in the plot and it backfired on her, or the character of the demons in Frieren are indeed irredeemable and it’s pointless to discuss otherwise. But who’s the one making them so flawed in the first place? They don’t actually exist; their traits and what happens to them are all details assigned by the writer(s). So it isn’t pointless to question why a writer chose to write these things the way they did.

Of course, you should not speculate either, and calling Frieren the series “fascist,” even in terms of its messaging, may be going too far, but thinking more critically about the different series you consume is usually a good thing.

If nothing else, it exercises your brain, which I’m starting to get worried that people refuse to use.

Remember: no matter how much a fictional character pisses you off, they’re still merely a fictional character who is a tool within the narrative. Some characters, like Boruto or Damian Wayne, are meant to be spoiled brats who go through character development, and other characters or themes or plot developments may be worthy of criticism even if they “make sense” within the established lore.

#frieren #the legend of korra #tlok #not sure I should tag these things 🤔#remember they’re not a direct criticism of the series themselves—#just a criticism of how some fans engage with the series #kuku rambles #kuku rants #(I guess)#kuku88

31 notes · View notes

silvermoon424 · 2 years ago

Text

Wuxing and Its Influence Over Sailor Moon

NOTE: if I get anything about wuxing wrong, please correct me! I did research for this post but I'm sure I greatly simplified things.

I don't recall seeing a post about this on Tumblr, so I figured I'd be the change I want to see!

Anyway, something I don't see discussed often in the Sailor Moon fandom is the fact that much of the Inner Senshi's powers and personalities are based on wuxing, or the Chinese system of Five Phases. Well, okay, technically wuxing influenced the Japanese naming system of the 5 planets known since antiquity (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn), as wuxing was originally used to refer those planets in ancient Chinese scholarship before it took on a broader meaning. But I still think Naoko Takeuchi was influenced by wuxing and not just the Japanese names of the planets themselves!

Anyway, you can kind of think of wuxing as similar to the Western idea of the classical elements, but it's far broader in scope. In traditional Chinese fields, it's used to explain a wide range of phenomenon, such as cosmic cycles and the succession of political regimes.

However, this post will only be exploring how wuxing is used to classify the planets and how that influenced Naoko Takeuchi when she created Sailor Moon. The elements and their planetary matches are:

Water: Mercury

Metal: Venus

Fire: Mars

Wood: Jupiter

Earth: Saturn

There are also certain mental/emotional qualities assigned to these elements:

Water: Wisdom, wit, intelligence, flexibility, resourcefulness, softness, anxiety

Metal: Determination, strength, ambition, self-reliance, strength of mind, rigid, leadership

Fire: Passion, intensity, resolve, spontaneity, dynamism, restlessness, hate

Wood: Warmth, generosity, idealism, cooperation, courage, kindness, anger

Earth: Patience, thoughtfulness, nurturing, honesty, stability, agreeableness

So yeah, I think there are some clear parallels here.

Sailor Mercury: Ami Mizuno means "Asian Beauty of Water" and Sailor Mercury has powers over water in all its states of matter (fog, water, and ice). I've sometimes seen people be confused over why Sailor Mercury has water powers when the planet Mercury is so hot and devoid of any semblance of water; well, it's because of wuxing! Anyway, Ami herself is also known for her intelligence and wisdom as well as for her soft heart.

Sailor Mars: Rei Hino means "Spirit of Fire" and Sailor Mars commands control over flames. Sailor Mars is known as the "Senshi of Flames and Passion," and lives up to that name by being one of the most passionate and intense Senshi in the series.

Sailor Jupiter: Makoto Kino means "Sincerity of Wood" and while Sailor Jupiter is commonly associated with electricity, her powers really encompass nature as a whole. In the manga/reboot anime, she has a number of attacks that involve plants. Mako is loved by her friends for being incredibly warm and generous, and Sailor Jupiter is known as the "Senshi of Courage."

Sailor Venus: Minako Aino's name ("Beautiful Child of Love") and her powers overall take much more inspiration from the Roman goddess of love and beauty, Venus, than from wuxing. However, she does still incorporate metal into her attacks, especially in the manga and reboot anime. In the manga/reboot this is done via her trusty chain, which is utilized for most of her attacks. Regarding personality, Minako is very self-reliant, ambitious, and determined, and of course is the leader of the Inner Senshi.

Sailor Saturn: There's not much to say here, because I don't think Naoko Takeuchi was inspired much by wuxing for Hotaru. However, "Earth" is reflected in Hotaru Tomoe's name- "Firefly Sprouting From Earth"- likely because the planet Saturn follows the wuxing naming convention in Japanese (it's called “Dosei," or "Earth Star"). That being said, Hotaru is very patient, thoughtful, and honest (I would not list "stability" as one of her qualities though, considering the whole "possessed by an evil alien and then reborn as a rapidly aging baby" thing lmao).

Anyway, that's it from me! I hope someone out there learned something new!

232 notes · View notes