#have the characters world and thus mindset be alien

[hybbat]

You know a world where your ability to carry something is determined by quantity rather than size or weight is very easy to accept in a video game, because of mechanical convenience, but would probably be so strange in a story in any other medium, and I think a few more books and shows could stand to get a little funkier with the fundamentals of their reality like that.

[bliss-in-the-void]

Satoru, Suguru, and the Detriment of Their Origins. (How their characters completed each other.)

This is going to be an analysis on how their differences came together and contributed to their downfalls once they parted. I really like how this turned out—it’s very interesting.

Long post, read under cut:

Satoru:

Blamed the Jujutsu Higher-ups for even burdening him and Suguru, who were both sixteen, with the task of escorting Riko—who was only fourteen—to Tengen. The fate of the entire world rested on the shoulders of three kids who were only put in their position because of abilities assigned at birth, and nothing else. The three of them literally had no choice in the matter. Also, because of what happened with Haibara. Satoru deduced that the elders shouldn’t be in charge of sending kids off to their deaths to fight uphill battles.

So, he in turn decides to raise strong allies in the form of students so that they one day can overthrow the elders in hopes of establishing a more fair and just system for sorcerers. Here, he recognizes the need for sorcerers to exorcise curses to protect the populace, but does not agree with the system as it stands.

Note, Satoru before the Star Plasma Vessel incident had barely any motivation to exorcise curses other than the fact that he could do it. He did it for fun. He just liked using his powers. He was always a self-assured person.

Suguru:

Blamed non-sorcerers for generating curses in the first place, and developed a deep hatred for them that was seeded after Toji (a non-sorcerer) ‘killed’ Satoru and killed Riko, as well as after he witnessed non-sorcerers applauding the death of Riko, a fourteen year old girl. He met Yuki, Tsukumo, who introduced to him the idea of getting rid of the source of curses. He also blamed humanity for conjuring a curse that killed Haibara. His turning point was finding two young sorcerer girls, Nanako and Mimiko (~seven years old) caged up like animals by non-sorcerers. It probably reminded him of his own childhood—I can only imagine how his parents must have at least alienated him for his abilities, since they were not sorcerers. It also in part probably reminded him of Riko, and how she’d been a young girl unfairly targeted due to her abilities. It definitely triggered him.

So, his goal became to rid the world of non-sorcerers, so that curses wouldn’t exist. To do this, he had to abandon all of the principles he had subscribed to thus far and become a villain who kills people��but he did it for his cause.

Note, Suguru has always been a self-righteous person. It’s a bit different from who Satoru is. He has had time to think about his place in the world because unlike Satoru, he was born to a normal family and had to find where he belonged himself. Satoru, on the other hand, was told where his place was from the moment he was born.

So, Suguru defined himself as somewhat of a hero who valiantly, selflessly swallows nasty curses to protect the populace.

Satoru never had to define himself. He was already defined at birth. A wielder of the Six Eyes and Limitless, a once in a lifetime anomaly, a scale-tipping, monstrosity more powerful than anyone else.

These origins are both of their downfalls, and this is ultimately why the two needed each other so badly. They did complete each other as people.

As I said above, Suguru had to define himself. He had to affirm to himself that what he was doing was for the good of the people—it was how he had convinced himself society had to run. The strong protect the weak, it doesn’t matter if one had a choice or not. If you are strong, you have a duty to become a protector.

The issue with this mindset is that he has absolutely no attachment to it whatsoever. The only thing it does for him is make him feel good about himself in his early days as an active sorcerer. Even Satoru calls him out, letting Suguru know he “hates righteousness” and that he just “makes himself feel better” by “spouting bullshit”, the bullshit being his ‘heroic’ beliefs. At his core, Suguru believes himself to be a hero of sorts, which is why when things go sideways, he does a one-eighty and decided to kill all non-sorcerers rather than protect them. In his mind, he’s still affirming to himself that he’s the hero. It’s just that now, he’s protecting other sorcerers. The enemy has changed. He’s still the self-righteous, martyr-Suguru he has always defined himself as, sticking his neck out for the good of his cause.

He lost his grip because he was not emotionally attached to being a sorcerer. He was just attached to being a hero. This is why when entering Jujutsu High, Yaga puts such a huge emphasis on digging deep and finding a strong, personal reason to be a sorcerer. He recognizes that he fell short in that aspect when it came to Suguru, and doesn’t want it happening again. Resolve is very, very important so that once doesn’t lose their mind.

Now, let’s take a look at Satoru’s mind in contrast. He is the strongest sorcerer. The ‘honored one’. He always has been. He had bounties on his head before he could walk, and grown adults feared him even as a child. He was always seen for his abilities first and not his soul, so he identified with his powers more strongly.

This caused him to become disillusioned with himself. He believed that being strong was all someone could need, and that he was untouchable. He was relied on by everyone. “Gojo can handle it.” “Just wait for Gojo.” He was the trump card. That’s why he strolled up to Shibuya so nonchalantly—the way he was raised gave him a natural arrogance. It’s not because he’s a jerk. It’s because that’s all he knows. He was raised believing he was all powerful, so what else can he default to? He was literally wired that way.

Unfortunately, because he leaned so heavily on his powers, he forgot who he was as a person. Especially after Suguru, the only person he was able to form a vulnerable emotional bond with, compared him to his powers and left him.

Caveat I want to make about that point: Suguru was the only person who treated Satoru like a human being. Everyone else saw him as the Six Eyes. Because he made Satoru feel seen, because he tried making Satoru a better person (teaching him manners, acting as his moral compass), Satoru grew attached to him. So, when Suguru’s psyche took a turn for the worst and he left Satoru in Shinjuku, the line “are you the strongest because you’re Satoru Gojo? Or are you Satoru Gojo because you’re the strongest?” dealt a fatal blow to his heart. This was the one person he trusted deeply, reducing him to a man with powers, just like everyone else his whole life did. It caused a rift in their relationship. It caused Satoru to rethink his entire identity—how much of himself was based off of his powers? How much of himself wasn’t based off of his powers? Suguru’s presence allowed him to feel more human and less like a creature than he ever had. But those words pushed him back into that constraint.

In chapter 236, Satoru reveals to Suguru that somehow, though he had love for everyone around him, he felt a line had been drawn where he felt more like a creature than a human being.

A TikTok user (lauravpvp) pointed out something that drives this point home. Satoru wears a blindfold over his eyes 90% of the time. As his powers grow, the coverings get thicker and more restricting. He starts with glasses, then bandages, and then the black blindfold. Eyes are the window to the soul—and as he gets stronger, the less he shows them; the less he beard his soul.

We look into someone’s eyes to see how they’re feeling, to connect to them. His eyes are always covered, so he prevents that connection and prevents people from knowing how he feels. He dehumanizes himself that way.

Because of that, when he goes into his fight with Sukuna, he goes believing he’d the strongest and that he would win. It’s all he’s reduced himself to. This blind attachment to his powers, to the idea that he had to do it alone, is what lead to his downfall.

Because he learned the hard way that he wasn’t the strongest.

In his final moments, he reinforces what he had discovered after Suguru left him in Shinjuku.

Strength alone is not enough. Why?

He said that if Suguru had been there to pat him on the back, he would have truly been satisfied.

Suguru, who had to fight to find his identity his whole life—who, because he spent so much time defining himself, helped Satoru define himself in ways that were separate from his abilities. And Satoru, who identified himself with his abilities so much that it reinforced Suguru’s confidence in his own abilities.

They completed each other. Suguru’s moral compass and strict principles held Satoru’s head on right, and Satoru’s confidence and youthful heart kept Suguru motivated and away from the dark.

Without each other, Suguru descended into madness and Satoru lost sight of his human side.

[holly-fixation]

Jenova is such an interesting creature/concept and is absolutely the reason this is the series I write fanfiction for. I have plenty of other games I've played for much longer yet the combination of Sephiroth, Jenova, the Cetra, and the Lifestream always keep me coming back.

So, for fun, here's the way I break down Jenova in my own work. Or what I like to call "the Jenova Mindset".

What is a mindset? I have yet to meet a single writer that doesn't immediately know what a "mindset" is even if they don't use the word. It's really the head space you need to be in to write a certain character. How they think, how they react, what their motivations are, what they want to do next vs what they need to do next, etc. I still find myself changing certain ways of thinking to fit characters more and more, even if I've basically solidified what they are.

Jenova is an interesting case for me.

I always stuck to rules for "Her", even when I first started. Jenova is the Calamity, the virus, the doppleganger, the first meteor. But Sephiroth did willingly go to her, so there must be some kind of draw, some pull. This draw is governed by the internal pull of Reunion and by "Her voice". But Jenova is an alien creature that consumes the life forces of planets. She doesn't sound like anything we would know or recognize or even understand. Not once do I describe Her voice with gender or pitch. Perceived emotions, intentions, dizzying feelings, and descriptions that do not exist for voices, that's what She would be. "Cosmic, astral, celestial, galactic, gravitational". I can go on all day.

Do I think She can speak in the games? Do I think she spoke to Sephiroth at Nibelhiem? I have no idea. I just like playing with potential draws of what She could say.

Now that She has a voice, what does she say? This is extremely difficult for me because every word must draw you in, give this feeling of concern and false care in your chest when you read. As a writer, this really difficult to pull off, but I try. How?

She is always kind to Sephiroth. Always. Ignoring whatever will happen when Evercrisis drops, we can easily assume he had a terrible childhood and a standoffish adulthood. Sephiroth is weird and sheltered and doesn't have a lot of common ground for normal conversation. He grew up in a cruel environment most likely controlled by Doctor Hojo. With a few words, she needs to make him feel accepted and cared for. She copies this perceived kindness from Gillian, Angeal's mother who canonically had Jenova cells implanted in her before his birth. She will only coax Sephiroth, she will never push. Drilling the same phrase into Sephiroth's mind is risky and is only used when there is no other option. If he is too far from Her or too distracted by his not-yet-completely-tragic life, small messages like 'come to me' or small feelings in dreams are Her best chance. Usually Her words spark Sephiroth's childhood desire for a mother, warm and comforting and uncomfortably safe. She speaks with a kindness he is not used to until he calls her 'Mother'. Only once he gives Her that title and unknowingly that power does She call him 'my son'. She fills that hunger within him with or without his title from then on.

Next, as you've probably already noticed, She should not feel normal. She should not seem the same as the other characters throughout the world, thus "She" and "Her" are always capitalized to give that subconscious feeling of Jenova having a greater presence in any situation. To aid in this, Her words are at minimum bolded. Maximum they are italicized and bolded, but this is usually reserved for telepathy. She does not speak in full capital letters. She does not lose her Temper, not anymore, not after failing to the Cetra. That's what Sephiroth's for. All she needs to do is point him in the correct direction. He is Her weapon. She is his support. They share one goal. She may be at Sephiroth's side, but by then he is already carrying out her legacy.

Lastly, (and silly me, I almost forgot), She will never lose. I make jokes about being "The Queen of the Nibelhiem Incident" because even when I'm given a scenario or set of steps where Sephiroth choses not to join her that makes perfect sense, I subconsciously take it apart, I analyze each detail before his decision is made, and I change the outcome back to its fiery course. Jenova will always be at Sephiroth's side and they will claim the planet. End of story. That's their goal. I've literally asked other writers for permission to make new endings for their own stories just because these plans never leave my head, and for SOME reason even the HAPPIEST, FLUFFIEST, NO FIRE ALLOWED writers say yes. Not every one of my fics ends or will end in flames, but there's a constant struggle between Her power and the will of the protagonists that I must keep in check. Though this isn't directly related to The Jenova Mindset, it's what constantly drives Her. She is a virus. She is a survivor. She is persistent. She is patient. She waited two thousand years to complete her goal and get revenge on the Cetra. She will use the last of Her control to use the son humanity gave Her.

I will never lose. I will never leave. Time is a precious resource. Use it well. Recover, build, control your puppets.

Claim what is rightfully ours when you're ready. Be patient. Be calm. Our time will come. Rest for now. Regain your strength.

That's what the Jenova Mindset is.

[punkpandapatrixkdailyread]

無音の一人のほうが楽 muon no hitori no hou ga raku／dancing to cosmic music only I can hear

Moon Day 1 in Virgo／New Moon

day’s V I B E – 9 of Pentacles Rx

In this grotesque world of phoney, authenticity is more hated than appreciated—most people are just lame enough to not have the courage to admit that. Those whose Souls shine with authenticity are often shunned and thus, they tend to be lonelier in this world.

If they are strong enough in character—or carefree enough—they may not always feel lonely, but Life can indeed be quite solitary. But what they must know is that it isn’t necessarily a sign of failure. Individuals who are uniquely authentic get misunderstood a lot because their Life Paths are of a higher frequency. It’s so… alien👽

Because many of us grew up in a world already drenched in instant connectivity, the inability to deeply connect to somebody may be perceived as a shortcoming, or even a failure of character. But that can’t be further from the truth. Some of us are just wary of cheap, instant knock-offs of true Soul Connections. This world the way that it is wasn’t built for us…

At any rate!🤪

On this amazing Leo/Virgo New Moon, affirm strongly to yourself what kind of elevated Reality you want to manifest. Your resolve needs to be followed through with actions that reflect your intentions. So, keep to your values and keep going in spite of the unknown.

Don’t be hesitant to indulge a lil bit on this New Moon if material prosperity is what you’re manifesting. If freedom is what you’re manifesting, maintain your ease and peace—both mentally and spiritually—in spite of the heaviness you’re faced with. If 5D relationships and friendships are your focus right now, well, don’t go back to people pleasing those whose entire focus is still in the 3D—they’re often conflicty, whiney, and gaslighty, right?😒

Anyway, today is not the day you indulge in stress or overthinking. Indulge in prosperity of mindset and conduct! As long as your indulgence isn’t incredibly harmful, why not bask in whatever sense of abundance you’re blessed with as of the moment? No matter how small that abundance looks like right now, it’s still something to be grateful for. There’s always another day to manifest more small blessings🧁

Just focus on the 24 hours in front of you~ A good day every day equals a good Life overall😉Be light of heart—and attitude😎

Priestess of Happiness

m o o n a v i g a t i o n ♥︎

‘Happiness is truly a fleeting concept for it is but a state of being. States of being come and go like a breeze. Instead of chasing after happiness that comes and goes depending on mood, try to build a livelihood that gives you a peaceful sense of contentment instead. It is meaning that truly makes one living. Virgo Moon is altruistic in nature, I ask your guidance what I’m supposed to do in this incarnation~’

☆♪°・. ☆♪°・. ☆♪°・. ☆♪°・. ☆♪°・. ☆♪°・.

[Main Blog] [Patreon] [Paid Readings]

☆♪°・. ☆♪°・. ☆♪°・. ☆♪°・. ☆♪°・. ☆♪°・.

[sorryyourenglishteachersucked]

Possibly my biggest problem with trying to make hard and fast rules about what kind of Problematic Subjects (TM) people are Not Allowed to Like or Create At All is that it's always so EXTREMELY limited in scope, so reductive about what constitutes "problematic", that it functionally ends up sorting stories into "as common-sense-bad as serving fried babies in the stands at a puppy-kicking contest and thus depiction of it is just as evil because if the story is fun or cathartic in ANY way someone might take it as saying it's good to reenact (because that's what common-sense-bad means, that people can be convinced it's good that easily)" or "wholesome perfectly imitable aspirational goodness that you should strive to recreate in the real world, no flaws, this is what utopia looks like, this is the ideal", and NOTHING in between exists, CAN exist...

And because human emotions are an irrational mess, this ends up meaning that a LOT of stuff showing some MAJOR unexamined biases ends up getting defensively shunted into the latter category.

How?

Hey, booktok! Look at this far-future military culture bravely standing up against aliens who are, by both their culture and their very genetic nature, just too evil and warlike to EVER reason with! Nearly 30% of the named characters are women including our lead couple and we have two trans characters too and we EVEN take 20 whole seconds to address the reasons that a military still exists at all so there's nothing sexist or problematic here! It's all but a post-patriarchal utopia! Never mind that everyone still looks down on survival skills like textile creation and sewing and gardening and cooking as soft frivolous nonsense only applicable to homemaking, that's a TRUE FACT and definitely not just an internalized bias because the author lives in a society where those are ~for giiIiIIrrRrRrllLLs~, and there's nothing even slightly questionable about the fact that the innately evil aliens are basically orcs transposed into a sci-fi setting, shhhh, orcs have never been written in a way that carries any kind of baggage, no more questions, don't you want cute lesbians surviving against the odds? What are you, some kind of homophobe!?

This also carries over to relationship dynamics; consider how...for all they get held up as the height of wholesome cuteness, coffee shop AUs aren't ~unproblematic~ at all. Sure, in the context of the story we can tell that the character cast as the barista is interested, but if that were a real-life situation? The only one who would be able to know if they're interested or not would be them, thanks to the limitations of Customer Service Mode. You can't ethically enter a relationship with someone in a situation where they don't have a safe way to firmly and unambiguously say no, and guess what, that's what most coffee shop meetings are! You see unproblematic fluff; well, when you call it that I just see workplace harassment. I'm not gonna say anyone can't write or enjoy these AUs! But I AM gonna side-eye the hell out of anyone who insists they're ~perfectly wholesome goodness~...at least, as long as the characters don't have an age gap greater than 2 years or so; if they DO have an age gap (and yes it still counts if it exists in canon but not in your fic) THERE'S an irreconcilable power dynamic! The only one in play here. Everything else about this scenario is 100% imitable and wholesome and healthy and fine!

...yeah. No. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

See, one of the big problems with the whole Irredeemable Media mindset is that it declares that if you DON'T make that argument, and make it convincingly, you're not allowed to like this thing and still call yourself a Good Person; if you do like this thing, and you can't justify why it's wholly Unproblematic and totally okay to reenact irl, you're morally equivalent to an actual, literal child molester (and that one is not hyperbole but in fact the most common accusation flung over this).

But the problem is, Liking Things is an emotional response, not a rational choice. Liking Things is not something you consciously decide to do after evaluating that the Thing is 100% consistent with your worldview; it's just something that Happens.

So, look. To simplify it to a short paragraph, media analysis is supposed to work like this: you examine the piece of media and the events in it and the world it illustrates, you ask yourself what context it was written in, you ask yourself about the culture it originated from and how that influence shows in the end result, you ask yourself what about it resonated with you, for better, worse, and neutral, and from there, at the end of the process, you draw your conclusions about What It Means and how it relates to real-world issues and human behavior and whether or not you'd recommend it to others, and if so, to whom.

But when you follow this liking-media-is-a-one-to-one-reflection-of-one's-real-world-values mindset, what often ends up happening is that you get the process backward and engage in some dangerous circular reasoning: You Like This Piece. You Are A Good Person. Therefore, This Piece Is Good. You Like It, Therefore It Reflects Your Values, Therefore Its Values Are Good. It Is Not Problematic, Otherwise You Would Not Like It.

Ironically, that approach is far more inclined to make you want to accept some really fucked up ideas because your favorite piece of media contains them, than delighting in liking problematic trash ever would. Why?

Because you're not analyzing a piece of media, you're defending your own entire character. Your value as a moral human being. Your inherent goodness. Your ticket to heaven. You're defending all of this as if you're on trial. In order for You to still be Good, your favorite piece of media must also be Good, meaning everything about it must be Good. Those space orcs don't have any racist baggage, because they're not human! There is certainly no history of Black and indigenous people being compared to races of inhuman monsters; in fact, anyone who points out how their broad noses and war paint and the dark tones of their blue skin do indeed have some Implications in racial coding, those people are full of shit, those people are the REAL racists for making the comparison! And, and anyone who suggests that your coffee shop AU, when read through a lens of realism, is just as questionable about consent as any pulp bodice-ripper, and that both of these subgenres use romance genre conventions as a shorthand for consent instead of showing it explicitly and that's okay as long as the target audience also understands what's going on - no, absolutely not, clearly this is just a bad-faith argument to hold up an ACTUAL problematic ship, you're nothing like those trashy edgelord authors, see, the barista laughed at and leaned into the flirty joke, no one in the history of customer service work has EVER done that as a professional courtesy or to prevent a conflict from escalating while silently wishing the interaction was over and wondering if the customer is going to stalk them after their shift, or at least no one is a good enough actor that if they were thinking that you wouldn't be able to tell, the consent was totally clear and totally illustrated 100% realistically!

Whereas, if you just admit to yourself that, yeah, okay, the author of Fight The Aliens And Make It Lesbian definitely tried to make something overall positive, and oh boy did they ever deliver in terms of letting a diverse cast be action heroes and examining how that kind of stress can affect a person and how people can still find joy in the direst of situations, but they still had some unexamined biases that show through and it's worth addressing so we can do even better in the future; or that actually, yeah, the reason the customer/barista meet cute is fun to fantasize about is because the nature of the narrative eliminates the uncertainty about everyone's intentions, even though it's every bit as inimitable as professor/student in reality (and holy shit more people need to be aware of that actually, workplace harassment is fucking rampant) - that shows far more moral integrity than trying to jump through hoops to justify these things. Under the other model, you were bending over backward to give these things a pass to prove you weren't a Bad Person for liking them, and in the process defending some genuinely indefensible ideas and irl behavior. Now, you're just letting yourself be a human person with emotions that don't necessarily equal something you should act on, or even that you would ENJOY acting on - I mean really now, when you stop and think about it, would you actually want to try and flirt with your blorbo over the cafe counter when you get nervous even just ordering coffee from a normal person?

[billconrad]

Confusing Characters with Real Life

   I begin writing by mentally picturing my characters and then imagining how they would accomplish or react to something. The goal is to create a story that the reader finds realistic and exciting.

    How do I get into this character? First, I place my reality aside and determine what this character is like. Then I picture this character reacting to their environment. So, I am pretending to be somebody else and think as they would think. Then I create (outline and write) dialog, scenes, and issues.

    This imagined person is difficult to conceive of for many reasons. The main one is that my boring life is far different from my character, and thus, we do not have much in common. Have I flown on a rocket ship or murdered somebody? Nope. But I have an imagination that allows me to pretend to be anything or anyone. How about a female lumberjack? That’s a giant leap from my present life but achievable. I would begin by using my knowledge of women and cutting wood. The results will never be perfect, but with some effort, readers will believe such a person (character) could exist.

    I like to write close to my reality so that the story and characters are as realistic as possible. So it is challenging to picture a character far outside of my domain. A comic book superhero, a soldier in jungle combat, a child fighting against a drugged-out parent, or a homeless man trying to survive in China? A bridge too far. (But I wrote about aliens. Hmm.)

    Does this mean I genuinely believe I am a female lumberjack during the writing process? I apply maximum effort to get as close as possible to that image. This mindset allows me to craft what a female lumberjack would do and say. (Or at least my baffling mind would find her believable.)

    Is imagining a female lumberjack creepy, immoral, or illegal? Yes, but no. Long before I held a pencil and wrote my first letter, I was an imaginative kid who thought about all kinds of things. Our imagination is both beautiful and a little creepy. Unfortunately, it gets immoral and illegal when we act on these unsavory thoughts.

    Books and movies take our imagination up a notch by providing examples. In 1976, I distinctly recall thinking I was Luke Skywalker after watching Star Wars. I am sure millions of other kids acted the same. Yet, we knew Star Wars was fiction and that we were pretending to be an unreal person.

    Yet, that is not quite the topic at hand. Pretending to be Luke Skywalker is like a costume we can wear and then take off. Creating a character is far more involved, and the characters never entirely switch off.

    For example, I might want to add to the dinner conversation, “Bob did the craziest thing today… Oh, Bob is one of my characters.” It takes a lot of effort not to make such statements. I also get hung up in the real world. Why can’t it work like my fictional world? In my made-up stories, the characters do precisely what I want. The real world had lasting consequences, responsibilities, true evil, laziness, and corruption. All that negativity is still present in my story but is used as a plot device. So, the unpleasant characters are not evil, just misunderstood. Want your broken arm healed? There, all better. Your mother is not really dead…

    I have been fortunate to have never talked/posted about my characters as if they were real. (Well, never been caught.) However, I feel the pull of my imagination, and I know it has led to decisions in the real world. So, an alternative perspective could be that I want the world to work as it does in my imagination.

    Writers often have lofty views on society and people. I suppose this is part of the creative process and what a writer wants to see. Their interviews sometimes show their imaginary world peeking out. They have bizarre quotes like, “(Fictional characters name) would never have voted for Trump!” Such a statement is a testament to a dedicated author who truly believes in their made-up world.

    A fine line exists between being a sane author and one that needs professional help. Perhaps the best authors have honed the ability to jump into a delusional world and return to reality. Maybe some have made one jump too many. On the other hand, history is full of amazing artists and writers who were truly mad.

    I will do my best to keep my characters on paper where they cannot harm anyone. The good news is that I know the difference between my imagination and the real world. Well, at least I think I do. The bad news is that this world has problems that my writing cannot fix.

    You’re the best -Bill

    May 20, 2023

    Hey book lovers, I published three! Please check them out.

    Interviewing Immortality is a psychological thriller about a 500-year-old woman who forces a disgraced author to interview her.

    Pushed to the Edge of Survival is a drama, romance, and science fiction story about two unlikely people surviving a shipwreck and living with the consequences.

    Cable Ties is a classic spy novel about two hunters discovering that government communications are being recorded and the ensuing FBI investigation.

    These books are available in soft-cover on Amazon and eBook format everywhere.

[digital-meat]

Yeah, you're right. But yet it doesn't seem to be a problem when it happens in White Wolf games.

Interesting or optimal are playstyle choices, they don't need to be justified in my opinion, as long as the group's on the same page. But an uninteresting, suboptimal choice needs to have a payoff, like the intricate roleplay of a Vampire Masquerade where the lack of in-character information is creating drama and intrigue.

When you try to run a vampire scenario in D&D, it's a completely different type of game and needs a completely different mindset. Crossing playstyles either way is a bit of a disaster. Maybe because D&D's about killing monsters (which is awesome) the only apparent way to turn hack and slash into intrigue and drama is by making how to kill the monster a mystery... Thus powergaming becomes the greatest evil because it removes the intrigue.

But D&D was never supposed to handle that kind of intrigue, blaming the system is really like complaining about how PbtA doesn't work with an old school dungeon crawl. Yet there are people who try to do intrigue in D&D or dungeon crawls in PbtA, and they get something that looks the same to them even though it's a completely alien playstyle*.

*- Dungeon World is as alien to AD&D grognards as Story-focused 5e is to a Vampire LARP.

Why does it seem like TTRPG players fetishize mystery and especially mysteries the players already know but have to pretend they don't. I've seen this in games I've played and online discourse too.

Like people hate metagaming a lot, but then they think metagaming is when you don't pretend that you didn't expect a dragon to show up in dungeons and dragons. See werewolves and silver and trolls and fire discussions. But also people trying to discuss magic systems.

[artbyblastweave]

So there’s this thing in superhero stories where (due to the anthropic principle) all the superheroes have useful and combat-viable powers. Otherwise the story would be boring. A lot of post-modern cape things try to justify this high level of uniform competence and power by advancing the practical (but really boring!) idea that there’s a wider bell-curve of superhuman power within the setting, where the principle cast is near the top, and that the vast majority of superpowered people just have incredibly weak, dumb or even self-destructive powers. BNHA, X-Men, Wild Cards, and The Boys all play with this to a degree. It is often framed as a “realistic” take on powers, although what’s actually happening is that it just maps to the familiar real-world idea of talent being on a curve. Superpowers work any goddamn way the writer wants them to.

Now, sometimes it works with the narrative. For X-Men, the idea that the vast majority of mutants are essentially people with weird skin conditions or chronic medical conditions or whatever, carries an enormous amount of water for the “oppressed minority” metaphor. And in The Boys, the fact that a ton of people who take watered-down compound V wind up with “powers” like an exploding head or eye beams that melt the users own eyes is thematically on point, because the whole goddamn series is about how corporations will throw countless people into a meat grinder in order to get a handful of shining idols they can market to hell and gone.

 But a lot of the time, the “useless power” trope and the “lol so random” power tropes are just kind of annoying for me. Like, if you’re infected with an alien virus that gives people superpowers, and you get the superpower to change the color of wallpaper, fuck you! Whatever gave you powers has a coherent understanding of the concepts of “color” and “wallpaper” and “change,” a better power was absolutely conceptually possible here! It feels, I dunno, contrarian, almost!

And now, as with so many of these posts, we come to something I love about Worm. Worm doesn’t do this! There are no useless powers. Every single Power is in some way viable in a fight! If a power doesn’t seem particularly useful, one of four things is going on. Either the power is explicitly broken (Oliver) the cape hasn’t figured out the intended expression of their power (Parian, Jack, Kid Win, Bakuda via Word of God ), the cape is sitting on an utterly terrifying intended expression of their power (Regent, Parian, Panacea, Crucible, Egg) or the power itself is more of a resource thrown into the mix to start a fight (Dinah, many many Tinkers and Thinkers.)

A super common trope with “Useless Powers” is the use finding some off-the-wall niche application, which lets the character with the useless power “cheat” and hit above their station by being really clever, thus Showing Them All. Which feels a little contrived when the “random” power is so specifically useless only by authorial fiat. Not a problem with Worm! In the handful of situations where the characters do  find that niche application, their ability to do so was baked into the setting’s cosmology, and their previous failure to do so reflects on their character and their mindset and is, like, actively additive (thinking of Kid Win here in particular.) Feels a lot less like the author is shadowboxing, I guess?

Edit: I miscited the Bakuda bit. Ignore that

[life-rewritten]

Fish Upon the Sky Episode 1-7 (The Problems with Walls; An analysis on Duen and Pi)

I swear, if I could just settle down, stop running away and actually analyse FUTS the way I usually do. I would have so many essays by now on how authentic and deep this show can get with some of its characterisations. As I  write this FUTS essay that has constantly been plaguing me and making me frustrated that no one else is seeing these themes, I realise again sadly how this director has sadly failed to show the vision of what he wanted for the series.  An essay on how DuenMeen and MorkPi mirror each other so much with their themes, it sounds crazy to think that they do because their storylines on the surface seem different at times. Still, also their love interests act differently towards them, and they have different dynamics with them. But that's what's so great about meta and mirroring in TV, especially in shows that aren't meant to be seen as deep or purposely filled with hints and clues to break down. Fish upon the Sky is one of those shows. It struggles to find a balance between wanting to be more profound and showing exciting themes vs pleasing and appealing to the audience, using humour and other exaggerated performances/narratives to do so. However, the writer of Fish upon the sky novel has always had her works struggle with these issues and themes. Jittirain always writes emotional stories about unrequited love, with different lessons, ideas, or characterisations that people fail to understand or truly value because the meta/depth of their personalities is hidden or misunderstood by their own directors. This is what happened in  2gether; this is what also happened in Theory of Love.

A Misunderstood Duo

In order to really understand how grand the narrative the show is failing to truly flesh out is, you need to understand that Pi and Duen (the two main characters of the show) are the narrators of both their own stories. Pi's is Fish upon the sky whilst Duen is Leech upon the sky (😂😂) but what's great is that you can already see the mirroring/similarities just by their titles. Even though their insecurities and worries seem different, it's the same theme for them;  both struggle with love because they secretly have a lot of self-deprecation and hesitancy from how people have treated them. It's not as noticeable when you see Duen's characterisation/storyline, but if you truly focus on the themes of his narrative without being distracted by the loud comedic routine he has, you'd see that his biggest insecurity, that he tries to be defensive and act like he doesn't care about is his dumbness. He genuinely feels weaker/inferior because he's known as being dumb to everyone around him. He struggles to process anything that is complex and requires more depth or thought.  It's played for laughs because he relishes in the idea that people feel exasperated by his actions. He acts like he doesn't get bothered by how people perceive him because he's still seen as socially acceptable, unlike Pi, who's actually bullied and alienated from society because of his own 'flaws'.

But you can see that it's all a façade when it comes to Duen, just like with how Pi handles his own insecurities and trauma to do with his perceived flaws. It's why Duen chooses to lie to Meen that he's a dentist. He didn't want him to see him the same way others do. This already should show that he doesn't actually enjoy being seen as dumb, but he has walls up to make it seem like he doesn't care. He knows he's constantly being compared to others, but he can't change who he is (just like Pi didn't also want to change how he looked or acted to please people at first). So he jokes and tries to see a positive in being that way; he starts to want to slack off and cheat off others when it comes to work. He stops taking University seriously and repeats classes constantly because he always fails. That is until Meen shows up, and then he starts to want Meen to believe he's something more. Why?

But in case I haven't repeated it enough, Duen is like Pi, whose insecurity is easier to see since we watched him get attacked and bullied for it immediately in the first episode. It's Pi's true thoughts and opinions we see in the show as the audience, whilst Duen's story is hidden with comic relief and unseriousness. They both try to act like they're okay with what they are being judged by in society. Thus, they act confident, they're both loud, they're selfish, acting like they don't care how people see them. Preventing others from getting to hurt them by making it look like they are in control of what they have and use that to their own advantage with others.

They both stay heavily in denial about their true feelings in general, but primarily with the critical focus; the people who make them question everything about their flaws that come into their life and frighten them the most. The ones that break down those facades; make them automatically want to run away whilst being unable to stop showing and escaping their true feelings whenever they're in their presence.

The Use of Humour and Sarcasm 

So what we end up with is a narrative with two incredibly annoying and flawed characters who are seen in the audience as exaggerated caricatures for comic relief and shallow storytelling. And it's brilliant because both their unlikable/loud, selfish personalities are just fake walls built, so they don't crumble and get affected by how society views them or wants them to act. So you see, there's the issue that people keep misunderstanding about these two stories, especially about these two brothers. They're realistic; they're flawed because they've been affected by society and the environment around them. They're acting like how anyone who's been hurt before would act, they have built up walls, and they've decided to just stay by themselves and let that guide them in everything. They deal with their issues with sarcasm and humour to reduce the seriousness of the situation, so they don't appear weak or let anything hurt them.  

That's why I love this narrative of FUTS, it's meta and more profound than people think, but because the director doesn't do the best to show it, it can get lost in all the exaggerated humour. For example, with Pi, because he's socially anxious and always overthinks how people think of him (due to his past experiences of being abused and hurt by being ignorant of how people thought of him), his world is wildly exaggerated in his head. The way he narrates the story is played for laughs and is a very telling and realistic representation of how overthinking is expressed in his mind; it's overdone, loud and nonsensical at times. That's what social anxiety does; it makes you cry about one stare, one laugh, one action someone does, it makes you panic over the most minor things, and Pi does that with panic and boisterous, sarcastic humour from the start of the show.

Hence his story also has exaggerated humour because he deals with his issues with that fake jokes and sarcasm. So the show also exaggerated humour too when we are in his perspective.  This is actually similar to Duen's breaking the 4th wall narrative style of his storyline. As with Duen, whose narrator of his story mocks and laughs at his actions ironically. When really that is just literally himself fighting with his inner voice about his true feelings about Meen. He breaks the 4th wall because he's internalising his own emotions and dealing with them as a skit; the narrator is his true self ridiculing him for not accepting that he has feelings for Meen and that he's not as bright/cool as he thinks he is. So if we understand this and notice that the narrator makes fun of him constantly and jokes about his actions, you'll realise that Duen sees himself that way too; he sees himself as a joke. He doesn't see himself as suave and carefree; he actually mocks himself internally for being dumb and being gross.

Pi: The Need for Protection and Avoidance 

So already, just from breaking it down with this point of view, Duen and Pi mirror each other so well, and their narratives because of this focus on the same themes and ideas of self-discovery. Both are flawed characters with a lot of vulnerabilities and pain that they refuse to deal with properly. An id ego defence mechanism catalysed because of their past experiences and protection of their mental space. They both stay in denial, hurting who they love by refusing to let them get to see them without the walls down and more. Pi hates that he loses control with Mork and refuses to let Mork have his heart because he believes Mork is too good for someone like him secretly.  He knows he'll be the one damaged. Hence the choice to intentionally misinterpret his brother's metaphor on the vaccine analogy and view it as the complication with getting with Mork. Let me try and use this to break down his mindset with why he chose to still choose Nan even though he knows (he does know) that he wants to be with Mork romantically. Listen to the analogy his brother uses. He mentions the iatrogenic vaccine, a vaccine intended for a patient that starts helping the patient be well but actually causes more harm than good. The end result is because of the incompatibility of the vaccine and the time it takes for those results to show up in the patient and make their lives affected in a negative conclusion.

 A vaccine ironically is meant to be an antidote, something that saves people, that helps and makes them feel better. And that's what Mork says he wants to be for Pi, it's romantic, but once his brother announces a different version of a vaccine, Pi jumps with that analogy and believes that's the truth about Mork and him that makes sense to him, than seeing it positively. So with this analogy, we can break it down this way:

The Iatrogenic vaccine was too different and incompatible with the patient. Which is what Pi believes about Mork. Remember, Pi doesn't think  (because of what people have told him) that he deserves loyalty and love from people better looking/capable than him. He sees Mork in this light from the start; he views Mork as a rival because Mork is good looking, popular, strong and cool, basically things that are not associated with Pi to others.  So Mork and him are incompatible in Pi's mind.  This is why Pi constantly asks Mork why he wants to be close to him. He just doesn't understand it.  

Second, the Iatrogenic vaccine starts off good but causes damages in an irreparable way to the patient. It's the patient that ends up being affected by this vaccine interaction, not the vaccine that caused it. Before Wan starts this vaccine conversation, he discusses how people around his hospital are patients primarily because of heartbreak; they come in with damaged mindsets, broken hearts and self-harming injuries because of being hurt by love and letting themselves be vulnerable to that. All Pi hears is people hurt themselves over the pain of heartbreak and being abandoned. That's the complication if he does finally trust Mork. Especially after Mork and him get to be close, it'd be just like with everyone who has gotten to know him in the past, who stayed by his side as 'friends', once they learnt about him, what they said is that he wasn't worth being loyal to. So many people used and deserted him, and it almost broke him. This is why Pi grow the walls he has now. Even though Pi is chasing after Nan, he's not expecting an answer from Nan that's positive; Nan is a fantasy, something he can use as a goal to want to keep chasing and distracting himself from that singleness and loneliness he felt at the start of the show. This is why he's doing all of this; he just wants a distraction from the mess of his life. But to Pi, Mork? Mork is real. He's serious; he's someone who Pi actually truly will be damaged by if he's hurt and left by him; he's someone who Pi truly loves and is real to Pi, it's terrifying, and so he rather just avoid that because of the risk of a complication. To be that patient tricked by the vaccine and left to deal with those consequences all alone? Yeh, no, he can't do that.  Pi sees him as a friend and doesn’t want to end that because that's the first thing in a while that has made him feel actually happy being himself and accepted. Being friends with Mork makes him feel safe. So again, it's selfish, but it’s all about him preserving what he already has with Mork rather than damaging it.

Those complications are exactly that result if he lets Mork in romantically and Mork sees his true self and leaves like everyone; it’s not Mork who’d be hurt. It’s Pi who’d have nothing more to believe in if he lets himself be that vulnerable. Again Pi is thinking with his head when it comes to Mork; there’s a massive risk if someone takes the wrong vaccine, that person is damaged because of it. Pis journey with Mork is the same thought process that friends to lovers have. The fear of losing each other if they cross that line, of taking things too far and ruining the foundation they had that made them safe. The fear of the love being false as it always has been from others.  Pi thinks he likes Mork because how can he not? However, Mork is always there, making it hard for him to think. He associates Mork with niceness and protectiveness, but that doesn’t mean he has to accept him romantically, and Mork sees right through him and is fond of breaking down those walls he put so high up to ensure he doesn't get hurt again. Mork is the one pushing Pi further away from him the more he clings because Pi doesn’t like losing control. Same as Duen. And Mork doesn’t let him just figure it out without manipulating everything; the more he does that, the more Pi feels manipulated and tricked into wanting Mork as a partner, and that's too scary for Pi. This is why it’ll be massive when he finds out who Mork truly is on his phone as the guy from nearby faculty.

Duen: The Need for Nonchalance and Ignorance

Duen is the inversion with his storyline; he tries to look cool and better to Meen,  refusing Meen to see him when he's worried, anxious or insecure because he himself shuts off those emotions whenever Meen triggers them. He doesn't want to face the truth, that he hates being seen as dumb and not being seen as a hero to Meen. He lies to Meen because he's trying to keep him by his side without actually letting him see his true self. After all, if he does, he also may judge or leave him too (guess what same as Pi's worries with Mork. Mirroring!).  Duen tries to act unaffected just like Pi does with Mork because again, they both know once they break down and give in, there's no turning back, they will be exposed, and the' truth' about them (which they believe and see about themselves) will push the people they truly want by their sides away.

So instead, they grapple for control by faking lack of care and feelings for their partner; they refuse to apologise quickly and refuse to give in easily to them to further their relationships, increase their trust and let them in. They refuse to let go of their fake personas and fake masks and walls they've built and try hard to hold onto the facade, which hurts Meen and Mork in the end. They both push and pull and show signs of vulnerability and romance only when they're alone with no one else around (like the tent scene with MeenDuen and the after school night scene with MorkPi outside). They show worry, devotion, and they show that they want them by their side. And these are the moments when we actually get to truly see who they are without their walls, their fake personas unshed, and their niceness, their care and protectiveness over them exposed.

Wan: The Comparison and Norm

When we're first introduced to the show, Wan is mentioned almost immediately as we see Pi's struggles. Because of Wan's reputation, people choose to crowd around Pi, and it's sad, but I also think Duen also had this same issue, just a bit different. With Pi, it's about his outer appearance, his beauty standards vs society's. It's exposed to him he lacks those, but it's his intelligence similar to Wan that makes people stay by his side at first.  He also studies dentistry as Wan studied Medicine, viewed by societal standards as impressive and praiseworthy. Pi is used by people who want to both get to Wan and want to profit from his brain and abilities. Duen is the inverted version of this; he is seen as handsome and cool and aloof, a bit messy, but the reason why Meen first leaches onto him is his street smarts and survival skills with social interactions, he knows the right people, he is seen as cool by others including Pi, but he's also seen as dumb. He's failed repeatedly, unlike his brothers at trying to obtain a degree.  So he has the outer appearance but lacks the next valuable thing in society's opinion; brains and the ability to increase your status by your talents and skills. Duen lacks that; he doesn't have any specific things about himself that he can fully be proud of. He's not highly talented, he's not intelligent, and he's also not viewed by women as extremely attractive or awe-worthy. He nonchalantly takes on this persona; he chooses to block any worries about things being serious because he lacks the smarts to think of things deeply or ponder about life's questions.

He's insecure, however, about this, and you see it when he tries to join in with Wan and Pi when they discuss vaccines and love. As Pi transforms for Nan, his lie is that he's well of without other people in his life like Mork; he pretends he's okay being seen as loud, not friendly, selfish etc.  Duen's own lie to Meen is that he is a version of Wan, of what people think Wan is; intelligent, put together and reliable. Because what Duen wants from Meen all the time (he doesn't realise he already has this devotion from Meen for just being himself when he's not trying) is for Meen to want to rely on him since that's precisely what Meen keeps telling him he likes about him, or wants to learn from him; street smarts etc. Duen likes being seen as a protector, a hero, a helper etc., to Meen. And that's why he stays adamant with his lie and refuses to let Meen truly see him below the surface.

Like Pi, he also doesn't want to admit what he knows and has fought to accept, which is, he loves Meen and wants him by his side. It's the fear of losing what he has with Meen that makes him do what he does, which is the same reason Pi also keeps rejecting Mork; it's the fear of losing him. And that's the ironic thing about Pi and Duen, they're ironically trying to preserve what they love, but because of scars, insecurities and walls, they're hurting the ones they love by just refusing to be their authentic selves. It's ironic because they think being themselves is the worst option. Yet, on the surface, they act like they're fine with who they are, they're loud about being carefree of what others think of them, they're okay if these two leave them, but in reality, their worst fears are admitting that they agree with what people see in them as flaws, that they also hate themselves for that. That's heartbreaking because they fought so hard to keep loving themselves, to keep believing in their worth, but society made them genuinely think that they're wrong. And it's painful but realistic.

Again they're all similar and mirror each other. I just want people to understand that FUTS is a deep show; I know the director doesn't do the best job with what he's been trying to show, but it is deep; there is thought at times put to it in the profound moments. In the moments where both Pi and Duen aren't being fake and are their true selves, you'll notice that the jokes and humour slowly reduce whenever they are true; the narrator also reduces for Duen because he doesn't struggle as much with his feelings for Meen like he did at the first time. All the stuff that happens in the show is on purpose, even if done messily and poorly. People love to hate on the show. It has a lot of flaws, I know, but it's not the worst thing; it has deep characters that are incredibly flawed and hurt (even Mork, who we still hope will get to understand his story) it has people that act one way on the surface but hold deep scars and pains below whilst wearing a mask. The characters are unlikable because they are realistic to how people with self-sabotaging habits and deprecation act. That's why I like this show. And I'm sad I wasn't writing out more all about the meta and moments I've enjoyed so far. Anyway, I'm grateful this show has been shown this year; it definitely made me ponder my own ideas about how I view myself and if I have walls up around the people I love. I think many people do relate to Pi or Duen somehow, and it's unfortunate that the director doesn't help us feel the same way about the narrative when it's actually a great BL story to unravel and watch.

[thejakeformerlyknownasprince]

Re: Star Wars prequel novelizations - the Revenge of the Sith book is genuinely one of the best things I have ever read and changed my life.

THANK YOU, anon, for reminding me about the Revenge of the Sith novelization.  I just reread it, and my crops are watered, my skin is clear, and — I cannot overstate this — I actually remember why I love Star Wars.  That love has been for too long stolen by The Fandom Menace sucking the life out of those movies to invent a new definition of suffering while digesting them slowly over a thousand years.

Revenge of the Sith by Matthew Stover is one of the greatest works of adventure fiction I have ever read, and it continues to inspire the way I write action sequences and character conflicts.  It does so damn much to transform a movie that is, to be honest, just okay.  There are a couple of big additions from the novel that make the whole Skywalker saga richer, and there are about five hundred little tweaks that deepen the lore in a way that shows that Stover loves Star Wars to the core.

First big addition: having Obi-Wan tell Padmé that he’s in love with Anakin. This is great because yay, queer representation!  But within the specific context of RotS, it also sets up the super-important contrast between Obi-Wan and Anakin.  Obi-Wan, Stover’s novel makes clear, is the quiet and unassuming embodiment of everything a Jedi is supposed to be: he’s selfless, loving, hard-working, and incredibly skilled with the Force.  Obi-Wan falls in love with Anakin, realizes that Anakin doesn’t love him back in that way, and... lives with it.  He spends time with Anakin, supports Anakin, enjoys Anakin’s company, and doesn’t act like the world will end if Anakin isn’t his.

Anakin loves Obi-Wan, in a siblinglike way, and he loves Padmé.  But he’s got a nasty habit of expressing that love through possession and control, through going behind Padmé’s back to “fix” her life without her permission.  Anakin falls in love with Padmé and immediately concludes that he cannot possibly live like this: they must begin a secret relationship, and he must both marry her and remain a Jedi.  Later he destroys the Jedi and eventually Padmé herself because he sees himself as having no way out of that dilemma.

And all the while, Obi-Wan is there in the background.  Also in love with someone with whom he cannot have a relationship, and just… dealing with it like an adult.  Because millions of people are in love with people who don’t love them back, and that’s just how it is sometimes.  It’s selfish to obsess over “having” their love at all costs.  For Anakin, that obsession with saving Obi-Wan and Padmé eventually leads to him killing them both.

When Yoda tells Anakin that he must deal with his fear of losing Padmé through letting go, Anakin takes this to mean “let her die.”  But what Yoda means is not “let her die,” but rather “love her the way Obi-Wan loves you: quietly, selflessly, and with a willingness to do what’s best for her, whether or not that means you get to have her.”  And Anakin never understands that, because Anakin’s view of the world is so intensely egocentric.

Second big addition: updating the Force to explain the Dark Side. Revenge of the Sith, even more so than any other Star Wars, is all about the contrast between the Dark Side and the Light Side.  Here, Stover’s contribution is brilliant; he makes the Dark Side egocentric and the Light allocentric.

Terminology! “Egocentric” in psych refers to the perspective that focuses on how the world affects you and how you affect the world.  At the extreme, egocentric thinking can be believing that a baby is crying in a deliberate effort to annoy you, or that every person in a crowded cafeteria will remember what shirt you wore when you ate there a week ago.  “Allocentric” refers to the perspective that the self is one of several disparate elements buffered around by the world.  At the extreme, allocentric thinking can be failing to realize that others are reacting to your presence, or viewing your own life as one thing you can give to help others.

Stover doesn’t use those terms, but he does describe how Dooku “drew power into his innermost being until the Force itself existed only to serve his will” (p. 64).  Later, Obi-Wan “gave himself to the living Force… the Force moved him, let him collapse as though he’d suddenly fainted, then it brought his lightsaber from his belt to his hand” (p. 285).  Dooku ultimately loses his fight against Anakin because he focuses on how everyone is responding to him, and misses that Anakin and Palpatine are beginning to build an alternate alliance right under his nose.  Obi-Wan ultimately wins his fight against Anakin because he allows the Force to shove him around, and sets aside his concern with both his own life and that of his best friend while fighting for the greater goal of peace.

Not only that, but Obi-Wan’s understanding of the Force moves beyond that of most Jedi.  He compares “the will of the Force” to “the will of gravity,” in essence stating that simply because it is beyond human comprehension doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its own rules.  One can be a Jedi without needing to understand the Force in the same way one can be a pilot without needing to be a physicist.  In RotS, we see that his refrain of “search your feelings” is a way of calling on a Force user to be mindful enough to accept realities that are already evident, if one can only allow oneself to have that knowledge.

Stover also uses these competing perspectives — allocentric and egocentric — to explain why the Jedi Order falls.  The tight control the Order exerts over the Jedi moves them away from the will of the Force and toward the will of the Council.  Its insularity creates a sense of superiority, which is the reason so many Jedi fail to see their clone troopers as threats until it’s too late. Stover tweaks the Jedi Purge scene to emphasize that the only reason Obi-Wan and Yoda survive is because of their selflessness.  Obi-Wan takes the time to befriend his alien mount, repeatedly confirming her well-being, and then she shields him with her body when his troopers open fire.  Yoda respects the Wookie command and puts himself in a position to assist rather than lead the resistance movement on Kashyyyk, meaning that when a fight breaks out between him and his troopers the Wookies don’t hesitate to side with him.  Yoda and Obi-Wan are the only two Jedi who truly give themselves to the service of others, and thus they are the only two to survive the Purge.

...and the million little favors this book does for the movie.

During the opening battle, having Obi-Wan tell Anakin to “use the Force” to fly a narrow trench and having Anakin roll his eyes at such an obvious suggestion.  It’s a callback to A New Hope, but one that drives home how much more the Force is integrated in the lives of Old Republic Jedi than it is in the lives of Imperial kids like Luke.

Fixing the minor continuity error from Episode III to Episode IV — why would Admiral Motti dismiss Vader as following outdated superstitions if there were millions of Jedi within his lifetime? — by explicitly stating that the Sith are considered a dead culture.  Ergo, Vader’s “ancient religion” isn’t the Force in general; it’s specifically the Sith creed.

Making Palpatine scarier and more seductive than he is in the movie.  Stover’s rhetoric about killing even the Jedi children is frighteningly rational and coherent, and he uses it to give Palpatine some stomach-churning speeches while corrupting Anakin.

Using the novel format for all it’s worth.  Stover skims over the physical-comedy elevator sequence in favor of having Dooku and Palpatine discussing their plans for the war.  He only tells us about Anakin’s conversation with Yoda after the fact, in scattered flashes as a panicking Anakin runs through the halls of the Jedi temple.  He gives us intense focus on Anakin’s mindset while trying to land the broken halves of Invisible Hand, less on what the ship itself is doing.  He cuts away from Anakin and Obi-Wan’s final battle, toward R2D2 and C3PO as they struggle to drag a dying Padmé into her ship out of a desperation to find some small way to help her.

Revealing that Palpatine spends the entire story trying to kill Obi-Wan.  This gets hinted at in the movie, but Stover includes several moments throughout Palpatine’s “rescue” from Dooku when Palpatine sets Obi-Wan up to die, and mentions like eight other attempts on Obi-Wan’s life as orchestrated by Palpatine.  It’s a great character addition, that Palpatine assumes he cannot get Anakin to fall unless he first eliminates Obi-Wan.

Expanding Padmé’s role in the movie (set dressing, and later refrigerator filling) by having her secretly organize and launch the Rebel Alliance right under Vader and Palpatine’s noses.

Those are just examples of how Stover clearly knows the Force, gets the Force, and strives to make the Force more internally coherent.  How he sometimes translates, sometimes preserves, and always improves the pacing and tone of the film.

I haven’t even touched on the FUCKING AMAZEBALLS imagery or introspection in the book yet, but this post is getting wicked long, so I’ll go ahead and leave it here for now.  Point is, all y’all should go out immediately and get a copy from your library and/or used bookstore, because Nonny is right and it’ll change your life.

[frankendeers]

I am Made of Love and It’s Stronger Than You: Steven Universe and Models of Queer Resistance in Science-Fiction

Chapter 1. Science-Fiction and Resistance in Queer Subjectivity 

“In other words, queer resistances emerge when the mechanisms of heteronormativity are exposed, when the concepts of gender and sexuality are being rearticulated in ways that defy the exclusion of subjects whose identities, desires, and practices are considered contradictory and unintelligible, and when ‘the presumption of heterosexuality’ no longer holds.” (Dhaenens, Articulations of Queer Resistance 4). 

In order to articulate how Steven Universe makes use of Science-fiction conventions to explore models of queer resistance, it is first necessary to examine how queerness is woven into the fabric of its setting. Although Gems as a species are distinctly queer, their society serves as a metaphor for the various ways the centre seeks to regulate categories of identity and desire. This section will not only demonstrate how the show utilises its speculative elements to express different modes of queerness, but also argue that herein lies a possibility for resistance. In the world of Steven Universe, queerness is not merely a vector for non-normative forms of desire and expression but also a powerful tool to dismantle systems of oppression. Refusing to assimilate to the hegemonic discourse means exposing the artificial processes with which these are constructed and denaturalising them in the process. These forms of denaturalisation function simultaneously as a legitimising force for queer subjectivities. It will, furthermore become clearer, how Steven Universe sees queerness in itself as a force of positivity. 

1.1. Gender and Performativity 

One of the most notable aspects of the show is the fact that all members of its alien race, the Gems, are presenting as female. Due to his hybrid nature, Steven is the only alien character to exhibit a male gender identity. This immediately separates Steven Universe from the values of hegemonic society which usually sees the masculine as representative of universality: “[…] the female body is marked within masculine discourse, whereby the masculine body, in its conception with the universe, remains unmarked.” (Butler, Gender Trouble 17). The show subverts the expectation of maleness being an unquestioned neutral, by never fully explaining why the gems refer to themselves using female pronouns and to what extent they actually identify with womanhood. Instead, Steven Universe asks the viewer to accept this premise and, in the process, turn the feminine into the new “unmarked” position. 

While the idea of single gender alien societies is not new, it is indicative of science-fiction’s power of questioning “heteronormative implications of progress” by “reimagining […] gender, sexuality, and identity.” (Thibodeau 263). In other words, while the Gems are repeatedly shown to be a highly advanced species, their singular gender separates them from the concept of heterosexuality. In fact, the heterosexual matrix cannot operate in Gem society, as it relies on both the existence of a rigid gender binary and the stability of the two genders it represents (cp. Butler, Gender Trouble 184). 

Steven Universe’s Gem race adhere to neither standard. Thomas adds that the Gems themselves have no biological sex or gender identity, in a way that humans might understand, therefore inviting queer analysis (cp. Thomas 4). Seeing as Gems are “outside of human conceptualisations of sex and gender” (cp. Férnandez 64), it only follows that their means of reproduction must also differentiate itself from human ideas about birth and sexual intercourse. In its place, the show offers an alternative model that shows Gems as artificially grown in gigantic plantations referred to as “kindergardens” (“On the Run”). The inorganic nature of Gem production completely subverts the heterosexual narrative around the importance of birth and family making. Such an analysis harkens back to Lee Edelman’s polemic No Future: Queer Theory and The Death Drive. Here, Edelman famously argues that the centring of the Child as the symbol for heterosexual reproduction stands in direct opposition to queerness. The Child is used to always deflect political action onto the future, stalling meaningful change (cp. Edelman 3). For Gems, neither children nor heterosexual reproduction are of any concern. The show establishes that they “burst out of the earth’s crust already knowing what they’re supposed to be” (“Greg the Babysitter” 06:50— 06:59). By utilising the genre of science-fiction, Steven Universe thus suggests to the audience that a separation of creating life and heterosexuality is possible, which broadens the perspectives about queer possibilities. 

The possibilities configured in the show’s alien species also expand to the realms of more profound matters of queer identity. The episode “Steven the Sword Fighter” reveals that Gem bodies are not material. A Gem’s consciousness is merely stored within her gem which in turn projects the body to the outside world. Therefore, a Gem’s appearance is merely “a conscious manifestation of light” (“Last One Out Of Beach City” 09:46—09:50). This feature of alien biology relates to Judith Butler’s theory on the performativity of gender. According to her work Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, gender is not essential nor innate, but produced through repeated performative acts. These behaviours are regulated by cultural norms which then are projected onto the body: “[…] [A]cts, gestures, and desire produce the effect of an internal core or substance, but produce this on the surface of the body, through play of signifying absences that suggest, but not reveal, the organizing principle of identity as a cause. Such acts, gestures, enactments, generally construed, are to express fabrications manufactured and sustained through corporeal signs and other discursive means.” (Butler, Gender Trouble 188). True to this notion, the Gems reflect their identity onto their bodies, proving that, at least for them “gender is always a doing” (Butler, Gender Trouble 34). Steven Universe successfully shows by means of alien biology how femininity is a performance that can be presented by anyone or anything (cp. Thomas 6). This is a notion that is conform with queer theory’s aim of rendering essentialist notions of identity obsolete (cp. Hall 93) and contributes to the larger goal of achieving queer liberation. 

The ways the different characters make use of their abilities to play with gender are manifold and reflective of their progression as characters.  Valentín rightfully states that one of the more interesting aspects of the show is the unique ways in which all characters straddle the lines between masculinity and femininity (cp. Valentín 203). 

Amethyst in particular promises deeper insights into the potential of different configurations of gender and identity. As Gem bodies are essentially illusions, Gems have the explicit power to shapeshift, stressing the usefulness of speculative elements for queer explorations. Here, Amethyst stands out as she makes use of this power the most, constantly shifting between different appearances. She impersonates people, turns into animals, and even embodies inanimate objects for her own amusement. The casualness with which she regards shapeshifting show cases a fluid stance towards identity that is explicitly revelling in the act of imitation and queers her abilities. Moreover, it could even be said that Amethyst constantly parodies the notion of identity itself and mocks those with a more rigid mindset. Thomas implies that her experimentation with different gender expressions suggests a complicated relationship to identity, while still remaining open and playful (cp. Thomas 6). When Steven’s father, Greg, tells her, he is uncomfortable with shapeshifting, she transforms into him and replies: “Oh, I forgot. You’re so sensitive.” (“Maximum Capacity” 09:00—09:10). For Eli Dunn, these instances can force the viewer to recognise the implications of gender as a construct in ways that hold meaning for making a queer worldview more accessible: “The ability of the Gems to change their gender representation at will is a type of magic that fundamentally disconnects notions of gender from gender identity in the mind of the viewer. When the viewer is told that the Gems bodies are constructed and unreal, the viewer is forced to reconsider the implications of the female coded body traits […]” (Dunn 47). 

Regardless, Amethyst’s queer approach towards identity does not mean a complete disconnection to the concept itself. On the contrary, the effects of internalised self-hatred are most visible in Amethyst’s expressions of body variance. A later episode shows Amethyst’s physical body being repeatedly destroyed, forcing her to retreat into her Gem and regenerate (“Reformed”). Due to her impatience, she does not undergo the process as intended and returns in a deformed state. As the episode continues, her teammates chastise her to do it properly, leading to her spitefully taking on more and more ridiculous forms. While doing so, she mocks the notions of what constitutes a “proper” body at all: “Just as bodily surfaces are enacted as the natural, so these surfaces can become the site of a dissonant and denaturalizes performance that reveals the performative status of the natural itself.” (Butler, Gender Trouble 200). In this way, Amethyst’s alien abilities function as a tool of critique, revealing how the body can act as performance. The interesting part is, that Amethyst’s questioning of bodily norms does not only read as  decisively queer, but also thematises how repressive norms can affect an individual. 

As Gem society is extraordinarily normative, Amethysts are expected to attain a certain standard of height. Even though shapeshifting is a possibility for Gems, the ability requires conscious effort and is therefore not sustainable. It is because of this reason that Amethyst’s lack of height is considered a defect on Homeworld. Melzer states that identity performance always acts within a “highly regulative set of norms” which dictate what is considered a valid representative of any given category (cp. Melzer 43). Amethyst moves between gendered positions by means of coping with Gem society finding her to be insufficient. As height is often associated with strength and masculinity, Amethyst occasionally takes on the wrestling persona of “Purple Puma” (“Tiger Millionaire”). While in this form, she towers over ordinary people, exhibiting a flat, hairy chest and uses masculine pronouns for herself (cp. Valentín 204). Jack Halberstam recognises that some forms of female masculinity are a form of “social rebellion” or “the place of pathology” wherein women use masculine signifiers to escape restrictive expectations (cp. Halberstam, Female Masculinity 9). These observations are in accordance with Butler’s assertion that gender as a performance is “open to splitting, self-parody, self-criticism, and those hyperbolic exhibitions of “the natural” that, in their very exaggeration, reveal its fundamentally phantasmic status.” (Butler, Gender Trouble 200). 

Not only does Amethyst’s repeated mockery of body and gender norms expose them as illusions, but the show itself hints at experimentation with identity possibly alleviating feelings of inadequacy. Amethyst confesses later that she does not need the figure of Purple Puma anymore, as she now accepts herself the way she is: “I needed it when I felt like I wasn’t good enough. But I don’t feel that way anymore” (“Tiger Philanthropist” 07:10—07:16). Nevertheless, the show manages to avoid pathologizing queerness. The end of the episode shows Amethyst return to her alter ego, not in search for validation but because her time as a wrestler “meant everything (to her)” (“Tiger Philanthropist” 09:03—09:06). Without disregarding the play on parodic masculinity as a coping mechanism, Steven Universe attests a healing quality to the experimentation with gender. The alien body is presented as the site of social criticism, as well as positive connotations to queerness itself. These positive feelings towards queerness are depicted as harbouring an immense power for resisting further oppression. 

How an acceptance of one’s own status as a queered entity can be harvested for resistance, is perfectly encapsulated in Amethyst’s confrontation with the enemy Gem Jasper. The parallels between these two opposing factions are clear: Jasper, similarly to Amethyst, was created to be a Homeworld soldier. Contrary to Amethyst, however, Jasper is described as the perfect example of what her specific Gem type should be (cp. “Beta”). Jasper herself asserts her superiority and makes clear the consequences of not fulfilling Homeworld’s demands: “Every Gem is made for a purpose: to serve the order of the Diamonds. Those who cannot fit inside this order must be purged!” (“Earthlings” 02:00— 02:06). In this sense, Jasper functions as the embodiment of Homeworld’s hegemonic discourse that excludes undesirable bodies and identities. She looks down on queerness and explicitly connects her abilities to serve the rigid system to her own worth: “Fighting is my life! It’s what I was made for! It is what you were made for too, runt.” (“Crack the Whip” 07:35—07:42). As Jasper repeatedly judges Amethyst according to normative standards of body and identity, Amethyst’s desire for victory over Jasper is framed as Amethyst complying to Homeworld’s demands. Instead of accepting her difference and alignment to queered identities, Amethyst attempts to meet Jasper on her terms which can only result in failure: “Steven... I can't win. No matter what I do, no matter how hard I work, she came out right, and I came out... wrong...” (“Earthlings” 03:54—04:05). It is when Steven redirects her focus onto the strength of their shared status as queer subjectivities, that they decide to team up: “That's just what Jasper thinks. She's the only one who thinks you should be like her! Stop trying to be like Jasper. You're nothing like Jasper! You're like me! Because we're both not like anybody.” (“Earthlings” 04:05— 04:18). In this way, Amethyst’s acceptance of her queered body leads to a connection to Steven as an ally in shared marginalisation. Their subsequent fusion defeats Jasper with ease where both of them alone where unable to do so. 

Although fusion will be examined in detail later, its role in this encounter is particularly meaningful. Fusion, as the process of merging bodies, revolves around the feminine realms of emotional connection and the queer concept of blurring the boundaries of body and mind, turning it into the perfect metaphor for the strength of acceptance and unity for queer liberation purposes. In contrast to Jasper, Amethyst’s closeness to fluid identities and queerness makes it easier for her to engage in fusion and find strength. While it is true that Steven Universe does not negate physical limitations, the show proposes queer solidarity and self-acceptance as means of liberation. 

The theme of gender expression standing in direct correlation to healing is also explored from a different angle in the character of Pearl. Pearl’s relationship to gender fluidity and performative identity is best understood when analysed through the lenses of lesbianism and female masculinity. Naturally, this beckons the question of how technically genderless aliens can be regarded lesbian. This is deeply connected to the nature of the category woman itself. Jack Halberstam criticises the mindset of restricting the boundaries of womanhood while leaving the lines of masculinity open: “[…] why is it [….] that one finds the limits of femininity so quickly whereas the limits of masculinity [….] seem fairly expansive?” (Halberstam, Female Masculinity 28). The policing of womanhood can be traced back to the masculine as unquestioned neutral territory when the feminine is only allowed to be represented by a highly specific set of features. When we return to Butler, the problem starts to dissolve in her theory of performativity. Womanhood is a set of behaviours and not dictated by biology: “The very subject of women is no longer understood in stable or abiding terms.” (Butler, Gender Trouble 2). The category of woman is henceforth rendered queer, as it is unstable and subject to change. 

To regard Pearl as a woman and lesbian is therefore to view her identity not in terms of heteronormative discourses of biology, but allowing for the possibility to extrapolate valuable insights about gendered positions in society: “However, in an exploration of the fundamental instability of the category “women” does not find against feminism but, in resisting the urge to foreclose prematurely that category, licenses new possibilities for a feminism that constitutes “women” as the effect of, not the prerequisite for, its inquiries.” (Jagose, Way Out 273). With regards to the popular definition of lesbians as women cultivating romantic relationship with other women, identifying Pearl as a lesbian is a valid point of analysis. Steven Universe takes great care to repeatedly emphasise and explore the relationship between Pearl and Steven’s mother, Rose. The romantic attraction Pearl harbours for Rose defines her character and affects most of her actions throughout the course of the show. Interestingly, her progression in terms of lesbian affiliations and resistance towards Homeworld’s demands are reflected onto her body in increasingly explicit ways. Pearl embodies a progression into female masculinity where her gender performance changes with her widening understanding of liberation. This harkens back to Halberstam’s identification of female masculinity as a tool to subvert masculine power by turning a “blind eye to conventional masculinities and refusing to engage” (Halberstam, Female Masculinity 9). 

To understand this better, one needs to examine the role Pearl is meant to fulfil in the social hierarchy of her home planet. Pearls, as a category of Gems, are made to serve and entertain elite Gems: “[…] Pearls aren’t made for this. They are meant for looking nice and holding your stuff for you […]” (“Back to the Barn” 03:02—03:12). Pearls are therefore, more than other Gem categories, marked with femininity and womanhood. Simone de Beauvoir remarks upon women’s role as subservient to  masculine powers, always forced to obey as the perpetual Other (cp. de Beauvoir 29). Pearls are not only meant for the purpose of servitude, but also reduced to their appearance which usually mirrors that of her master: Upon examining Pearl, a Homeworld Gem remarks: “It looks like a fancy one, too. Who do you belong to anyway?” (“Back to the Barn” 03:38—03:42). Pearl herself disturbs these lines and expresses liberation through a refusal of participation in the hegemony of Homeworld, going as far as to openly rebel against it. 

The progression becomes ever so clearer when the programme offers a flashback to show how Pearl conducted herself on Homeworld. Her dress is designed to be decidedly feminine while she defaults to a subservient body position. As Homeworld demands conformity to the role of a “Pearl”, the parallels to earth’s gender discourse become highly visible. Despite the Gem at the core of their being serving as the only material reality behind their existence, Homeworld society expects a certain set of presentation and behaviours from each Gem. Deviation from the norm is not allowed and can be met with punishment. With regards to her latter transformation, Pearl’s position on Homeworld recalls Butler: “Femininity is taken on by a woman who ‘wishes for masculinity,’ but fears the retributive consequences of taking on the public appearance of masculinity.” (Butler, Gender Trouble 70). After Pearl flees to earth and joins a rebellion against Homeworld’s regime, her presentation and performance become masculinised. She takes up sword fighting, fully knowing that this is not acceptable for a Pearl (“Sworn to the Sword”), and her subsequent regenerations take on more masculine aspects with each iteration: “The lesbian body, then, (like every body) is discursively constructed, a cultural text, on the surface of which the constantly changing, and contradictory possible meanings of “lesbian” are inscribed and resisted.” (Jagose, Way out 280). 

First, Pearl’s dress is exchanged for a pair of leggings with a tule skirt serving as a layer (“Gem Glow”), the second transformation shows her abandoning the skirt while still suggesting a feminine alignment by incorporating a large bow into her outfit (“Steven The Sword Fighter”). Meanwhile, the colour pink becomes less apparent in her design with time. The show suggests Pearl’s move from the feminine towards the masculine end of the spectrum that is used to embody resistance to Homeworld’s demands of femininity. In other words, Pearl’s female masculinity is constructed in the same way, even conceived through the same discursive means, as the hegemonic identity she inhabited before (cp. Jagose, Way out 278). Pearl’s identity becomes queered as her body proves to be signifier of gender fluidity that always changes within contexts (cp. Butler, Gender Trouble 188). This can be seen as a typical articulation of queer resistance, as it not only exposes the artificiality of gendered categories but also refuses to replicate them (cp. Butler, Gender Trouble 201). Steven Universe implies a connection between queer desires and the ways they are reflected on the body. Halberstam himself states that this mixture can be particularly dangerous to heteronormative society: “[…] when and where female masculinity conjoins with possibly queer identities, it is far less likely to meet with approval. Because female masculinity seems to be at its most threatening when coupled with lesbian desire.” (Halberstam, Female Masculinity 28). 

The programme outright states that the moment of awakening for Pearl is directly incited by her love for Rose to whom she was gifted as a servant: “I was supposed to make her happy. I just never could” (“Now We’re Only Falling Apart” 03:06—03:10). Seeing how Rose is uncomfortable with the restrictions on Homeworld, Pearl incites the first sparks of rebellion in an effort to make her happy. She suggests tricking the authorities and spending a day on earth when it was explicitly forbidden for Rose to do so (“Now We’re Only Falling Apart”). This slight misdemeanour quickly spirals out of control, as both Pearl and Rose grow endeared by Earth and develop a desire to live there freely. The liberational implications of their actions are hard to miss. They harken back to the building of queer utopia which proves how queerness itself “is a longing that propels us onward, beyond romances of the negative and toiling of the present. Queerness is that thing that lets us feel that this world is not enough, that indeed something is missing.” (Muñoz 1). 

However, Pearl’s freedom from authorities may be paradoxically stifled because of her connections to Rose. The programme grapples with the fact that Pearl’s wish to follow Rose may be interpreted as her remaining subservient to her former master instead of breaking free. To counter that, it can be said that Pearl’s love for Rose is completely inappropriate to Homeworld society. When Pearl attempts to fuse with Rose, she exclaims: “This is very not allowed.” (“Now We’re Only Falling Apart” 09:58—10:01). This means that their lesbian relationship is a societal taboo that gives room to further transgression and ultimately, rebellion. How exactly queer love and the war against oppression are cause and effect of one another within the show will be examined at a later point. For now, it is important to note that Pearl’s inability to let Rose go is presented as a failure to completely liberate herself. While the relationship is still queer, it is not equal and remains tenuously connected to the hierarchy out of which it was born. Various scenes suggest that even after Rose’s death, Pearl is unable to let go of their relationship: “Everything I ever did, I did for her. Now she’s gone. But I’m still here.” (“Rose’s Scabbard” 09:30—09:35). It is when Pearl accepts Rose’s death and experiences attraction to a human woman that her arch is completed. The episode “Last One Out Of Beach City” shows Pearl trying to flirt with a mysterious girl and breaking various rules in the process: “I am done thinking about the past. Tonight, I am all about the future.” (“Last One Out Of Beach City” 04:50—05:00). The symbol for overcoming the boundaries of her past and freeing herself from the last constraints of Homeworld’s oppression are encapsulated in her wearing a jacket. As a Gem’s attire is normally an inseparable part of her body, wearing clothes overstep Gem conventions and signify human territory. Here, she crosses lines between cultures to fulfil a romantic desire. Even her interest in the girl itself is significantly queered as an example of interspecies romance. 

The importance of this experience can be observed with Pearl’s last regeneration. Her new form reflects the change towards a more queer, liberated identity onto her body. The colour pink is entirely absent from her design, signifying her removal from symbolic femininity as well as her freedom from Rose. The ways the design incorporates pants and a jacket recall the events of “Last One Out Of Beach City” while suggesting a close alignment to the classical butch identity (“Change Your Mind”). (Fig. 1. Pearl in her jacket. “Last One Out Of Beach City.” 02:52) Amethyst shrugs off masculinist notions about strength and overcomes her desire to fit into hegemonic society by questioning the nature of normativity itself. Pearl, on the other hand, escapes demands of femininity and her fate as a servant with the transformative power of queer desire. Consequently, Steven Universe uses the alien biological components of shapeshifting and the fantastical element of alternative societies to subvert expectations of hegemonic gender and reveal the artificiality of identity as a construct. While doing so, the programme also refers to Butler’s theories in ways that renegotiate queer subjectivities along the lines of political change: “The critical task is, rather, to locate strategies of subversive repetition enabled by those constructions, to affirm the local possibilities of intervention […]” (Butler, Gender Trouble 200). Both Amethyst and Pearl gain the strength to overcome the hegemonic oppression put upon them by their home planet through means of performativity. The queer reality of Pearl’s and Amethyst’s victories negate hegemonic assumptions about identity in ways that threaten oppressive forces. Queering one’s own identity is deeply connected to envisioning a future where categories break down. By engaging in performative practices, one is already in the process of building this exact world: “Performativity and Utopia both call into question what is epistemologically there and signal a highly ephemeral ontological field that can be characterized as a doing in futurity.” (Muñoz 26).

Works Cited:

 Beauvoir, Simone de. The Second Sex. New York: Vintage Books 1989, c1952. Print. 

Butler, Judith. Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge, 2004.

 --. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. 1990. 

Dhaenens, Frederik: “Articulations of queer resistance on the small screen”, Continuum 28.4, 2014. Pp. 520-531. 

-- “The Fantastic Queer: Reading Gay Representations in Torchwood and True Blood as Articulations of Queer Resistance”, Critical Studies in Media Communication, 30.2, 2013. Pp. 102-116. 

Dunn, Eli: “Steven Universe, Fusion Magic, and the Queer Cartoon Carnivalesque.” Gender Forum: An Internet Journal of Gender Studies 56, 2016. Pp. 44–57. 

Edelman, Lee. No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive. 2004. 

Halberstam, Jack. Female Masculinity. Durham: Duke University Press, 1998.

 Hall, Donald E. Queer Theories. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. 

Hollinger, Veronica.: “(Re)Reading Queerly: Science Fiction, Feminism, and the Defamiliarization of Gender.” Science Fiction Studies 26.1, 1999. Pp. 23–40. 

Jagose, Annamarie. Queer Theory: An Introduction. New York: New York University Press, 1996. Print. 

--: “Way Out: The Category ‘Lesbian’ and the Fantasy of the Utopic Space.” Journal of the History of Sexuality, 4.2, 1993. Pp. 264–287.

 --: “The Trouble with Antinormativity” Differences 1 26.1, 2015. Pp. 26–47. 

Jameson, Fredric. Archaeologies of the Future: The Desire Called Utopia and Other Science Fictions. London: Verso, 2005. 

Melzer, Patricia. Alien Constructions: Science Fiction and Feminist Thought. University of Texas Press, 2006.

 Merrick, Helen: “Gender in Science Fiction.” The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction, edited by Edward James and Farah Mendlesohn, Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 241–252. 

Moore, Mandy Elizabeth: "Future Visions: Queer Utopia in Steven Universe," Research on Diversity in Youth Literature 2.1, 2019. Pp. 1-17. 

Muñoz, José E. Cruising Utopia: The Then and There of Queer Futurity, 2009. 

Pawlak, Wendy Sue: “The Spaces between: Non-Binary Representations of Gender in Twentieth-Century American Film.” Dissertation Abstracts International, 73.11, U of ArizonaProQuest, 2013. 

Pearson, Wendy Gay: “Alien Cryptographies: The View from Queer.” Science Fiction Studies 26.1, 1999. Pp. 1-22. 

--: “Science Fiction and Queer Theory” Published as a book chapter in: The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction. Edward James and Farah Mendlesohn. (Eds.), 2003. Pp. 149-160. 

Roqueta Fernandez, Marta: “Posthumanism and the creation of racialised, queer identities and sexualities: An analysis of ‘Steven Universe’” Monográfico: Nuevas Amazonas, 2.7, 2019. Pp. 48-84. 78 Shelley, 

Valentin, Al: “Using the Animator’s Tools to Dismantle the Master’s House? Gender, Race, Sexuality and Disability in Cartoon Network’s Adventure Time and Steven Universe.” Buffy to Batgirl: Essays on Female Power, Evolving Femininity and Gender Roles in Science Fiction and Fantasy, edited by Julie M. Still et al., McFarland & Company Publishing, 2019, pp. 175–215. 

Vasques Vital, André: “Water, gender, and modern science in the Steven Universe animation”, Feminist Media Studies, 2019. Ward, Pendleton, creator. Adventure Time. Cartoon Network Studios, 2010. 

Wälivaara, Josefine. Dreams of a Subversive Future: Sexuality, (Hetero)normativity, and Queer Potential in Science Fiction Film and Television. Umeå, 2016

[quirkwizard]

I feel I need to clarify what I think AFO’s feelings for Yoichi are. Now, this is pretty head canon as unless we get a full flashback arc of the two, it’s doubtful we’ll get any deeper insight into either sibling. All For One is deeply narcissistic. This is a pretty easy thing to see. So it’s my belief that his love for Yoichi came from a place of narcissism, valuing him purely as an extension of himself. He didn’t care about Yoichi because he was his BROTHER.

He cared about Yoichi because he was HIS brother. A semantic difference, but one of great importance. Yoichi was a worthless, powerless loser, but he had value insofar that he was All For One’s last remaining relative, and thus the closest thing in this world to himself. Or if you wanna see it more antisocial rather than narcissistic… rather than Yoichi being a mutual, he’s property. You can “love” a chair. But at the end of the day… It's a chair. Yeah it’s a bummer if it gets broken, you might be upset for a while… but eh. You get over it.

This is very headcanon, but it explains a good deal of his behavior regarding his belittling of Yoichi and his imprisonment, along with his desire to control him if you view it through the lens of narcissistic attachment. Because at some point All For One could’ve cut his losses and just killed Yoichi if he wasn’t gonna be valuable. But far as we know, Yoichi didn’t die at AFO’s hands. It’s possible he did, but he went to a lot of effort to try and control him specifically, even though in his eyes, Yoichi couldn’t ever be a threat.

Chalk it up to AFO being younger, but it seemed with Yoichi he almost had something to prove. So when I say that one of the reasons AFO wants One For All is as a means of having Yoichi by his side, it shouldn’t be seen as a happy “oh we’ve finally been reunited nii-san!” lense. But rather a “I’ve finally reclaimed what I lost” sort of way. As he gets victory over the only person whose resistance ever mattered to him on a personal level.

For context, here is the original question.

Yes, that was the idea I was trying to get across in my original post. That All For One is very much alienated from the people around him in everyway but physical given his power, goals, and mindset. And I honestly don't think that its that headcanon either. Given everything with how All For One has said, acted, and reacted, it is not that farfetched to see him in that light. He could have even cared for his brother n that way. Even when I said that All For One killed his brother, I fully admitted that was guess work. He could have easily died by proxy or accident given brief glimpse of his death. But yes, your suggestion does make more sense in that context. However, even with that context, I still don't think that All For One wants his brother back. Again, it just seems like too personal of a goal for him and it doesn't seem in character for him to want that at this point given everything else we've seen. And if even if he did feel that way at someone point, he has clearly gotten over it. Like he had zero reaction to seeing his brother again even though it was a least a century since they saw each other. In fact, his first words were to start insulting his brother's protégé and telling them to just give up already. To me, it just makes more sense that he wants "One For All".

[iandeocampo]

Community Pantries: Breaking the Myth of Scarcity

It was April 14 when social media first saw the Maginhawa Community Pantry. The concept was simple, take items that you need, and leave some for others who need.  

On it’s first day, AP Non, the organizer of the pantry shared her experience:

Some people have inquiries and doubts regarding the honesty and character of people. They worry some may take advantage and hoard. . .

Here’s what I observed earlier:

A homeless person took two oranges, others offered that he take more. He said, “this is enough for me to eat.”

(Ang daming inquiries and doubts tungkol sa honesty at ugali ng mga tao baka daw pakyawin ng isa o di talaga mga mahihirap ang kumuha. . .  

Eto po ang na-observe ko ngayong umaga:

Homeless na kumuha ng 2 orange nag-offer yung iba na kumuha pa sya. Sabi nya "eto lang naman ang kakainin ko".) [1]

Two days after, community markets began to sprout in different locations with photos shared in social media. There were also a group of farmers giving free produce for others. People started to send donations in cash and in kind. A movement of generosity has gone viral.

For some this movement may be unusual, and even illogical, because greed and hoarding is one of the biggest issues in our contemporary world. Our consumerist world teaches us that we need more, and so we buy more in a cycle that will never be enough. In a global scale, we have seen that a select few hoard resources beyond their capability to spend while billions of people live through poverty everyday. [2]

Much of our modern world has bought in to the myth of scarcity. Resources are not enough and thus we operate on a framework of lack; we hoard what we do not need and leave nothing to those in need.

In contrast, our indigenous worldview operates on a narrative of abundance.

Edilberto Alegre describes this worldview in the book Kinilaw. There he said,

Abundance.. dictates a way of life, an attitude: you take only what you need, what you can consume. Just like air--you inhale only as much as you need..

In abundance, one practices restraint, oneness with the environment, balance: the morality of satisfaction with what is enough. Greed is alien to those who grow in plenitude. They are secure in their faith in abundance..

We can only ingest so much and remain healthy. Beyond tolerable limit, gluttony penalizes our bodies. Correct balance--therefore neither a lack nor a surfeit--insures continued well being.

Kinilaw asserts this every time we have it: enough, just enough is heavenly. One takes only what can remain fresh in the meal or occasion immediately following. Excess is spoilage, wastage--and criminal. Honor the abundance by taking just enough.[3]

Besides the community pantries now multiplying in number, it is not uncommon for us to experience this abundance when we visit rural communities, tribal communities, and even slum communities. When we visit these places, there is always something to share; that extra produce from the harvest, a bottle of soda from the sari-sari store, or even pasalubong to take home to family.

This is the same framework the Bible presents to us. In the book of Genesis, we are presented with the creation of a world that is abundant in resources. A creation that is commanded to be fruitful, to multiply, and is repeatedly called good. With all that fruitfulness, creation is enough to provide where humanity can take and eat from any tree, and is able to stop for a rest during the sabbath without worry of scarcity.

Later however, humanity also bought in to the myth of scarcity. In one popular story, when God saved Israel from Egypt in the Exodus they began to hoard Manna in the desert. As explained by Walter Brueggemann:

Three things happened to this bread in Exodus 16. First, everybody had enough. But because Israel had learned to believe in scarcity in Egypt, people started to hoard the bread. When they tried to bank it, to invest it, it turned sour and rotted, because you cannot store up God's generosity. Finally, Moses said, "You know what we ought to do? We ought to do what God did in Genesis I. We ought to have a Sabbath." Sabbath means that there's enough bread, that we don't have to hustle every day of our lives.[4]

When we are liberated from the myth of scarcity, when we realize the abundance of God’s creation, we are able to give, to share, to restrain ourselves from taking more than what we need.

This is the same mindset of Jesus in the New Testament. He performed signs and wonders, turned water into wine, fed thousands of people with baskets of leftovers, and even rested in the midst of the storm.

The community pantry, from a small spark of hope in Maginhawa, is showing us a glimpse of how God designed us. It is a picture of what it looks like to be in community. To love God and neighbor. It has broken the myth of scarcity that encourages greed and hoarding, and points us to the way of Christ that says there is enough for all.

Just as Jesus said, “Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?”[5]

 [1] https://www.facebook.com/PatrengNon/posts/2880565265534504

[2] https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/worlds-billionaires-have-more-wealth-46-billion-people

[3] Edilberto N. Alegre, Kinilaw, 1991

[4] Walter Brueggemann, The Myth of Scarcity, 1999

[5] Matthew 6:26 NIV

[compartmentalisinghmpf]

Are We the Bad Guys, Hans? (unfinished Laundry essay dump, pt. 2)

First part: HERE.

---------------------------

For what it‘s worth: Bob really isn‘t James Bond; that would be Mo, of course.

Mo‘s greater Bond-resemblance also implies, almost from the start, (certainly from The Jennifer Morgue onwards) a greater ruthlessness – although she is kept relatable by the fact that we see her suffer considerable aftereffects from her „jobs“ - general PTSD and pangs of conscience both. We mostly see these through Bob‘s eyes. (Stross makes the IMO somewhat unfortunate decision of giving us Mo‘s own POV only after several years, when she has finally reached her breaking point - which means we never get to experience the POV of a pre-breakdown Mo. This is a bit of a shame, and makes her pre-breakdown character harder to get a proper sense of.)

Occasionally ruthless or no, Mo clearly is one of the good guys, too. The people she kills with her violin are generally evil fucks, and she‘s properly, devastatingly sorry afterwards. Like Bob, she is only doing her job, which, like Bob‘s, is Saving the World from things too evil to contemplate.

Right?

Here‘s the thing. If you take the more science-fictional part of the Lovecraftian worldview at face value (the Vast Inhuman Intelligences that want to destroy humans/other sentient life utterly part, that is - not the racism part), you can‘t help but root for the Laundry, broken eggs and all. Surely, preventing the extinction of sentient life on Earth is an omelette worth making!

Lovecraftian logic is a very convenient type of logic for the type of spy fiction that wants its Dubious Shit justified absolutely.

Which is to say: when you combine Lovecraftian logic with spy fiction logic, you almost inevitably end up in a dystopian place. If the threat is large enough – be it total nuclear annihilation, or total annihilation through extradimensional alien intelligences – radically utilitarian ethics begin to make a kind of sense that they don‘t, quite, when applied to less all-encompassing calamities. And very soon, you can justify just about anything.

By book eight in the series, the Laundry conspires against the British government – with the noble-enough intention of preventing so complete a form of enslavement of the public that even the idea of resistance would become meaningless. They accomplish this by installing, via a covert coup, another alien power that is only marginally less evil than the one that was attempting to take over the government, and whose main advantage over the latter consists in finding struggling humans somewhat amusing, thus preserving some modicum of free will, purely for entertainment value.

To drive home what kind of deal is being made here, the new Prime Minister quotes Hitler at length, to a senior Laundry official.

Mo is directly and knowingly involved in this conspiracy; Bob somewhat more proximately. Both of them are, by the end of the book (in fact, by the middle or so already) sworn to loyalty to this new Power, which in the Laundry universe means rather more than a simple matter of conscience. Why they end up in this situation, how they come to make the choices they do, is always understandable, the reader is always lured into tacit agreement. (To the degree that these are choices at all… Latter-day Bob, in particular, doesn‘t get to choose very much of his own accord anymore: the higher he rises in the Laundry, the more people seem to make all the most important choices for him, and imposing them on him by magic, though his narrative tacitly absolves them, rendering him a willing participant in his own subjection, if only after the fact. It‘s hard to get rid of the impression that he‘s secretly glad that he doesn‘t actively have to embrace that guilt – on top of all his other guilt… Bob still frames his guilt in terms of how many people he has killed, but that really isn‘t the most significant way in which he is becoming a monster.)

At some point around here – say, by the time the future Laundy-approved PM does his Hitler impression – it should dawn on the reader that what Stross has been doing, slowly and carefully, over the past several books, is to ease them (and thus, us) into the kind of mindset that justifies totalitarian dictatorships.

We have met the enemy, and they are us.

[spirit-science-blog]

“Time not important… only life important.” yep, we’re going there, things are about to get a little bit philosophical now that we’re dealing with the Fifth Element...no..not the Alchemical Quintessence, but close! That crazy 1990s Sci-Fi about a killer planet, the power of love… and… You know, Bruce Willis’s Wacky Taxi Adventures... and all that…

So, major spoiler alert… The fifth element is Love. Well, kind of...it’s this woman called Leeloominaï Lekatariba Lamina-Tchaï Ekbat De Sebat… For short, Leeloo is the fifth element, and in essence: a perfect, supreme being of sorts. In a way, she’s kind of like Avatar Aan, destined to unite with the other classical elements in an ancient Egyptian temple to act as a defense system against this super evil Dark Force called Mr. Shadow - which takes on the form of a cruel planet, whose only goal is to destroy life in a cosmic cycle every 5000 years.

It’s a movie that’s had its fair share of criticism, especially in the gender department… Leeloo is the only real female character, with others appearing randomly throughout as passive objects, sex objects, or with most of their femininity stripped away like Major Iceborg. Aside from the fifth element herself, there’s a real lack of divine feminine in this story, but then again, her nature itself does embody many characteristics of the divine feminine: powerful, unique, and beyond the understanding of nearly everyone that she meets.

Regarding the plot, we have kind of a Raava vs. Vaatu thing happening like from Legend of Korra… and it’s hard not to draw lines to Avatar here considering the whole elemental theme huh? In the intro, we see an archaeologist deciphering ancient words regarding the conjunction of celestial bodies, something we should all do more of you know? Which, by the way, if you haven’t picked up your edition of the 2021 Almanac of the New Age, I might highly recommend it, because it helps you do just that without being randomly surprised by a giant robot-alien! Before they show up though, the archaeologist has to keep yelling to Aziz to wake up, as the kid keeps nodding off… I wonder if this is subtly depicting how humanity keeps falling asleep and thus the light that illuminates sacred knowledge is not currently stable. Yet when the advanced beings come to show the way, the light is blinding… Powerful and concrete.

There’s also a sense here that humans are the custodians of Earth, so we have to protect it from darkness and destruction ourselves, and while these higher beings help when the time is right, they cannot do it for us. While Love is shown as this mythical force that these advanced beings can use to defeat the darkness, it could also be said that Love is neutral energy between Light and Dark, one that is capable of harmonizing both sides, ultimately resetting the cycle, something that is echoed in Zorg’s speech later on.

All this knowledge is of course passed down through a secret brotherhood of priests, acting as keepers through the generations, of which there are many stories of secret societies doing the same in our history, and amazingly in the future where the main story takes place, Priest Cornelius is also an “Expert of Astrophenomenon”. He’s not just an expert on the metaphysical, but also seemingly the scientific study of space, and there’s certainly a sense that he’s got that whole balance thing down to a tee, working to better his understanding of both science and spirit by combining the two fields.  

So when the military fires a bunch of missiles at Mr. Shadow, it’s interesting to see how they treat Cornelius, who tries to explain to them what Mr. Shadow is, to which he is mostly ignored, and they continue trying to brute force the problem. Yet Evil begets more Evil - as Cornelius explains, subtly referencing that the military's weapons, or at least their intentions. Mr. Shadow - symbolic of “our” shadow selves, demonstrates that it will grow in power if you try to destroy it with the same mindset that created it. The only way to truly harmonize the darkness is through love.

Even more impressive is this disconnect between the President of Earth and Earth itself. While, of course, they are trying to protect the earth and all of its life, when we see the world, we have to ask… are those living? Police and robots so heavily control everything, it’s smoggy, you see some crazy representations of people like the guy who tries to rob Korben in his apartment, and I’m not sure I saw a single tree…

Now, Major Dallas, to that end, of course, represents the divine masculine, also fulfilling the warrior archetype. While, of course, he checks all the classic hero tropes of the ex-lone warrior destined to save the world and fall in love with a perfect supreme sacred woman, the way it plays out DOES provides us with a bit of wisdom for ourselves concerning synchronicity. He describes that what he wants is to meet that perfect woman, and she falls from the sky into his cab. Perhaps this is a nod to manifestation in some way, as it’s their love story that’s the key to resolving the movie's conflict. It’s also a reminder for us that when we stumble into synchronicity, we have to be willing to take that leap of faith and follow where it leads us. For Korben, he has an opportunity to give LeeLoo up to the coppers but ends up putting his whole life at risk for her instead, but it’s THIS path that leads to the world being saved. Korben has to ask himself what’s important, following his heart and helping someone in need or earning more points on his taxi license…

Now, Leeloo on the other hand, through her character explores the nature of spirituality, DNA, and the physical capabilities of our souls within a body. A big topic in spirituality today is the science of ascension - we made a whole workshop on that which you can watch for free if you like - and what enlightenment might look like or do to our physical bodies. Leeloo’s DNA is perfect.. But it isn’t inhuman. There’s nothing really out of the ordinary about her DNA, she has the same genetic composition as us, just more of it, more tightly packed, allowing for greater inherent genetic knowledge and potential. Perhaps there’s a message here that the human genome is already whole, we just need to utilize its latent capabilities to find inner harmony, leading to a leveling up of what we are truly capable of.  

So if Korben was like Link and LeeLoo was Princess Zelda, Zorg would be Ganondorf, completing the trinity. Zorg actually drops some pretty interesting wisdom in his discussion with Cornelius. Despite his “evil” role, his whole name is Jean Baptiste Emanuel Zorg, being named after the prophet and saint in many religions, and Emanuel meaning ”God is with us” in Hebrew. Zorg explains that life itself results from chaos and disorder at times. He believes that by creating a little destruction, he is encouraging life to renew itself, so the Priest and he are really in the same business… while it might just sound like he’s been brainwashed by the Shadow, when we look deeper, we do find some hidden spirituality!

His ideology is in alignment with the wisdom of the importance and honorable role of darkness in our reality. Much like the tower or death card in the major arcana or the shells of the Qliphoth in the Kabbalah, agents of darkness often come to give structure, boundaries, and direction for light to move through, as well as clearing stagnant energy to make way for new and evolved paradigms. Much like the cycles and sine waves that move through nature, energy flows through peaks and valleys that balance each other out.

Zorg knows he is a monster and is proud of it. He’s a businessman at heart, powerful from the money of capitalism, and a reflection of society's state of awareness and evolution. As we mentioned, this future society is portrayed as consumerist and still dwelling on issues of pollution and crime, even in spite of great new technologies. Perhaps that’s why the Darkness had to come, to help propel the evolution of consciousness forward and bring about divine love. However, while the love between Korben and Leeloo is highly symbolic, it doesn’t seem to affect basically anyone else, which might call us to ask ourselves… would it have been better for humanity and its pollution to be destroyed? This - at the very least - seems to be the underlying thinking behind Zorgs criminal activity. Ultimately, in the face of darkness, humans must come together to accomplish things and stop evil, something we wouldn’t do otherwise… This is what makes us evolve as a species.

Zorg perfectly encapsulates his philosophy in his quote about glass, saying “this glass is serene and boring, but when destroyed, a lovely ballet ensues full of form and color”. He then knocks it off the table and a bunch of little vacuum cleaner droids come and clean it up. Describing that the “People who created them, technicians, engineers, now have money to feed their children. They are part of the chain of life".

Interestingly though, Zorg is only a monster because life experiences took him there, but he started like any of us. There is a nice lesson from Cornelius about how fickle life is: all of Zorg’s power counts for absolutely nothing when his entire empire comes crashing down because of one little cherry. Cornelius saves Zorg’s life regardless, showing us the virtue of the angels, even towards the demons.

When the team finally makes it to the alien space opera, we get to meet Ruby Rhod and Plavalaguna. Ruby is one of the most unique parts of this movie… Crazy sexual antics aside, he is unapologetically authentic to his true nature, bending gender standards and seemingly embodying masculine and feminine with grace and humor. Perhaps the epitome of the wacky human spirit. And then as for Plavalaguna, she has some very ascended master vibes. The Mondoshawans entrusted her with the safekeeping of the elemental stones, who actually carries them inside her body as a safeguard. From a Spiritual perspective, this seems to describe how we all embody the classical elements within us. She even senses Leeloo's presence behind a wall down the hallway, implying she has some measure of clairvoyance. Interestingly, like the Mondoshawan from earlier, she doesn’t seem overly concerned with her own death, echoing the movie’s sentiment that time is not important, only life. Deeper though, it appears that she knew she was going to die all along, in order for the stones to get out of her…. We’re not even gonna ask how she got the stones inside her in the first place...that’d be one hard pill to swallow, let alone perform an entire opera with these giant rocks in your belly. Mad props to her.

Perhaps the reason superior beings don’t fear death as we do is that they know the bigger picture, they know these lives are transitory, so they don’t mind dying for a cause, as they understand the purpose of this life in the bigger scheme of things. Knowing that the flux and flow between life and death is transient, they’ll be back in the right place and the right time as life requires it. In the same way, in traditional tarot the horse Death is riding, is stepping over a prone king, which symbolizes that not even royalty can stop change. Plava understands her role and accepts her death, after imparting wisdom to Dallas that Leeloo is still fragile and somewhat human, despite her seeming physical evolution.

This idea of Leeloo still being human, however, forms a key part of the ending, as up until this point she has been learning all of human history via an alphabetical database… When she learns of war, she loses hope in humanity after seeing the darker sides of our past. Certainly, we can’t blame her, humans are the only species to cut down a forest to make room for a billboard that says “stop deforestation”, I’d be pretty shocked about our history too. However, Korben’s love shows her that love is an undefinable thing, it’s not a stone like the other elements, but a feeling between people that permeates everything and is worth fighting and caring for.

It’s pretty funny that when it comes down to it, none of the characters actually know how to activate the super-love bomb. Leeloo doesn’t know what will happen, but she continues to follow her divine calling to be on that platform without second-guessing herself, even if she didn’t know at the end how to activate the final “weapon”..she follows her own inner voice and calling and is guided into defeating the darkness, speaking to the importance of following our intuition and own inner guide.

Ultimately love is shown to be something with no boundaries, no clear explanations, but still exists through us, changing our lives in powerful ways. And through thousands of years, it will stay as the most important thing worthy to fight for. It’s no accident that in a time of such modernized technologies and possibilities humanity once again has to turn to nature for help in the form of the elements. It reminds people that technology cannot always provide protection, it is nature that always has been the source of power, as it exists forever. And only things that are eternal, like nature and love, are of true significance. Today, it seems people either love or hate this movie, but whatever way the coin falls, it is undoubtedly a fun experience, and packed to the brim with spiritual wisdom!

So until next time, be mindful of what you do with the gift of life, cause we never know when a sentient evil planet might try and eat us. Toodles!

This video was created by Team Spirit Connect with the team at https://spiritsciencecentral.com/about

[philippmichelreichold]

Home

Analog Science Fiction Science Fact is the oldest surviving Science Fiction magazine. As Analog's  (then Astounding's) editor,   John W. Campbell ushered and nourished the  Golden Age of Science  Fiction. Campbell insisted on science in Science Fiction.  Today, Analog still  contains hard science stories and has a regular Science Fact feature. I had not read Analog in years, and am absolutely thrilled with my first issue in far too long. In a world where I feel I would be better off without a television, It's refreshing to find drama and suspense that does not reek of violence, and comedy and humor that is not redolent with obscenity/profanity. At a time when the Discovery Channel has reached new lows in pseudo science, it is encouraging to read science popularizations that are actually based in science. The underlying motif to this issue is doing the right thing. In Buddhist terms-- Right Action. Of course, reasonable beings may disagree as to what Right Action might be in a given situation. And sometimes one learns after the fact that one's action was not the best choice after all.

Rejiggering the Thingamajig by

Eric James Stone

is a

wonderful story

about doing what's right. Never thought I'd read a story where a Buddhist T. rex was the protagonist. Bokeerk is a wonderful character, and her companion for her mission, a sentient gun, is a delight. The gun reminded me of the talking bullets in

Who framed Roger Rabbit

or Yosemite Sam. To get home to her children's imminent hatching, she must follow the Eightfold path. Neptune�s TreasureBy Richard A. Lovett is an AI story.   Floyd has an AI living in his head name of Brittney. Reminiscent of the movie

All of Me

, only set in

Neptune

space and without Steve Martin and Lilly Tomlin. Floyd and Brittney have serious personal/autonomy issues. The science of the story is wonderful-- mass drivers and recovery vessels. And space bicycles as well. Also spracht Strattman

Thus Spake the Aliens

by H. G. Stratmann is a story about saving the world, complete with large red Doomsday-cutoff-switch-button. These aliens are in the same business as Clarke's

Others

with a more up close and personal approach. And they are quite implacable about weeding if the need arises. To say the story is rich in allusions to other works would be a vast understatement. The connection between the title of the story and of Richard Strauss's song, widely acclaimed for its use in

2001

, could not be an accident.

The key to the story is a problem that is not often addressed, or more to the point-- it's largely ignored. There is a dead line for establishment of a real presence in space-- the point at which we exhaust cheap, abundant sources of energy. Somewhere before we reach that point is the point where a struggle ensues for control of those energy sources that remain. Whether or not civilization survives that struggle will have little impact on  what happens next. No alternative, renewable source will be able to fill the gap that will be left with the depletion of fossil fuels. Nuclear power will remain expensive, dangerous, and will only postpone the collapse. Fusion will remain as elusive as a will-o'-the-wisp for some time. We have gigatons of Hydrogen, but fusion's most

promising process

relies  not on Hydrogen but Lithium. Even if a Lithium-to-Tritium  plant started working tomorrow, we have no way of foreseeing the consequences of eliminating any particular element from the biosphere and would need to work with highly radioactive Tritium.  

Unless Stratman's aliens show up soon to terraform Mars and Venus, and  hand us the keys to the secrets of the Universe, tough times are ahead of us. We will have to use less energy per person or reduce the number of people using energy. We would eventually return to subsistence farming with limited manufacturing powered by wind and solar power-- essentially back to the 17th century. Perhaps the answer to the

Fermi-Hart paradox

 is that no civilization has been able to solve the energy crisis and overcome the energy gap. (It takes a huge amount of energy to go from planet to planet. Witness the huge fuel tanks of the Saturn V's needed to send

Apollo

to the moon.) Even if one used  

the Orion nuclear pulse drive

to establish a local system space program, the unavailability of cheap, abundant energy would make it difficult to maintain the necessary level of technology. Once nuclear fuel became the mainstay of the economy, space exploration could be sacrificed as having a lower priority than meeting needs back home. Perhaps we are not the first civilization to see the stars not quite in our grasp and then to watch them slip away forever.  The Possession of Paavo Deshin

Kristine Kathryn Rusch

has a profile in this issue of Analog. I'm impressed by the thoroughness of her stories. Rusch builds her characters in a believable and sympathetic manner that leaves me yearning for more.

Possession

is one of her

Retrieval Artist

� stories. Retrieval artists are bounty hunters in a convoluted universe, and  Miles Flint is among the very best. Paavo was adopted after his birth parents fled to evade some outstanding alein warrants. But his birth parents have made sure they can keep in touch, naturally.  

Paavo's birth parents are Disappeareds-- essentially outlaws in the old sense of the word. Flint is hired by not one but two clients to locate the birth parents. His adoptive parents are well to do, powerful, and tainted by underworld connections. And they adore Paavo as if he were born to them. Maybe more so.  Rusch make quite plain her view on the subject of birth parents that re-enter a child's life wreaking havoc as they assert their rights. She equates them with terrorists, while Paavo's adoptive father is in his eyes, regardless of how others see him, the ideal and epitome of fatherhood.

(Uncle Orson review of the Retrieval Artist stories.)

Shame by  

Mike Resnick

&

Lezli Robyn

is a fairly straight forward example of what not to do. Given the colonists's mindset and attitude toward Satan, their actions should not have been unexpected. Perhaps that's the real shame of the story-- that as atrocious as the colonists's appear to the author and to his moral authority figure, given human nature they were unsurprising.

Simple Giftsby

Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff

is a story about the stereotypically greedy corporation out to profit on the simplicity's and naivety of the primitive, non tech natives. What could be more innocuous than a race that closely resembles (in appearance) the

Who's of Whoville

. The ethnologist and linguist sent to learn about the alien's language and culture implore the company to slow down on making a deal with the aliens and are disregarded as obstructionists. The outcome is inevitable, but the suspense building makes it all worthwhile. On Rickety Thistlewaite by  

Michael F. Flynn

is about the prison that is public service. Making oneself indispensable can be very rewarding and satisfying. Then it becomes an obligation not taken lightly by those who depend on you. As Harry Mudd exclaims to the

Enterprise

command team in

I, Mudd

. . . . A War of StarsDavid L. Clements writes a crisp and interesting story about questioning values and making choices. The concept of intelligence housed in celestial bodies-- the cores of planets and stars-- is reminiscent of

Rogue Star

in the

Star Child Trilogy

by Frederik Pohl and Jack Williamson. I would have hoped though that anyone advanced enough to use stars as weapons would also be advanced enough to not do so. Perhaps I'm just excessively naive.  

Copyleft of my material

Essentially, my work is Creative Commons Attribution-Required, Share Alike.

Adapted from their  Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license summary--

You may Share-- copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format  Adapt--  remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. I cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Attribution--  You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests that I endorse  you or your use. No additional restrictions-- You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Providing a link to my source document should suffice in attributing me. Where any condition(s) I place conflicts with the

Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license, my condition(s) shall prevail.

Copyright  of material that is not mineImages used in reviews are from

ISFDB unless otherwise indicated and are copyrighted unless otherwise indicated.

Copyrighted images are presented here under fair use. You would need to contact the copyright holder to use them. They are not covered by my creative commons licensing.

Coverart from ISFDB for Analog 2010 Jan-Feb