#he’s such a stereotypically masculine character and to see him explore this side of him means the god damn world | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

purplespacekitty · 4 months ago

Text

Three generations of Sisko men gathered close for a jambalaya dinner in Ben's ancient Bajoran lightship, as illustrated by celebrated science fiction writer, Benny Russell. Russell keeps a souvenir baseball on his desk, signed by the legendary Willie Hawkins. In the corner, Russell stashes the sketch that gave him the inspiration for this family's story: space station Deep Space Nine.

Deep Space Nine is my favorite Trek. It has nuanced, 3-dimensional characters who become part of the show's world over the course of 7 seasons. There are some off plot lines here and there but for the most part, the story seems to write itself. I've written at length on here about how much I love Captain Benjamin Sisko and I'd like to share a project of mine I did for a class (I have so far managed to fit Star Trek into three separate final projects for three separate classes, one of which I already posted about here).

Through the lens of Sisko's character, I wanted to examine Deep Space Nine's portrayal of Black masculinity, fatherhood and Afrofuturism with three episodes (although one's a two-parter): "Homefront" (Part I), "Paradise Lost" (Part II), "Explorers" (which I made a post about here) and "Far Beyond the Stars". Initially, the idea was to focus on Ben's fatherhood to Jake, how from the viewer's side of the screen, the two of them break down numerous racial stereotypes around Black men, an important thing to remember with DS9's debut not being far removed from the end of the Reagan Administration, from which sprung stereotypes of "absent Black fathers" and "welfare queens." As I continued with this project, I found I also wanted to analyze how Sisko's relationship with his own father informs his parenting of Jake and what it means to have three generations of Siskos in one room, on one planet. That was how I got "Explores" and "Homefront" and "Paradise Lost" in there, as I wanted to showcase episodes that focus on these exact dynamics.

"Far Beyond the Stars" offers a window into Earth's history as a commentary on racism within creative circles and the systemic racism that shapes the world we live in today and the world of Deep Space Nine. It not only invites viewers into the life of Benny Russell, a Black science fiction writer from the 1950s, but also invites us to consider the link between the future he envisioned of the life that Sisko leads in the 24th century as a Black spaceship/space station captain, father, son, husband and cook who carries the weight of his ancestors' legacy on his shoulders and the reality Russell himself lives in day by day. "You are the dreamer and the dream" has a whole lot more gravity to it when you recognize it as less of an obvious observation of what we've known and been shown throughout the episode (Avery Brooks plays both Sisko and Russell) and more of a nod to the Black future that Sisko inhabits and that Russell dreams of. As a creation of Benny Russell, Sisko and his family are Afrofuturism in a nutshell, carrying on the cultures, stories and knowledge of their ancestors as they live their lives in a future those ancestors imagined and built. Furthermore, Benny Russell's Deep Space Nine is not only important because it features a Black space station captain but also because it encapsulates a fragment of Russell's drive to write his own stories for himself and his Black readers, to breathe life into his creations, to share his art in the ways that he wants to. To cherish his experiences and ideas and imagination and reality through the creative process of putting pen to paper, stamping ink to page, painting scenes to canvas.

The DS9 finale was originally going to see Benny Russell wistfully wandering the promenade alone and implicate him as the creator of not just the story of Deep Space Nine, but of the Star Trek franchise as a whole. Obviously, this concept did not make the cut, but Strange New Worlds' "Elysium Kingdom" follows another story written by Russell, solidifying him as a real person who lived in the 20th century within the Star Trek universe and who presumably continued to write stories that got published after the events of "Shadows and Symbols".

Comprised of screenshots from "Explorers", "Homefront", "Paradise Lost", "Far Beyond the Stars", "Shadows and Symbols" and "Civil Defense" - in which Dukat flicks Sisko's baseball off his desk - (and also a picture of a random coffee table taken by me because we see surprisingly very little of Benny's desk), the collage above is my humble attempt to honor Benny Russell and his creative vision.

19 notes · View notes

baddygab-bi · 7 months ago

Text

My theory is that Eddie is going to be written as an ever straighter man in 7x05. Based on the leaks (however true they are), it seems like I’m going to be right, but I was thinking all of this before the leaks came out. I won’t say what they are, only the things I’ve been thinking for weeks or things that can be easily assumed based on writing and plot. (Also please don’t send me more spoilers, I want to have some surprise)

In s7 so far, Eddie has been seen as a guy who married a woman. I thought the line “you mean slept with,” was weirdly included to show that Eddie likes to sleep with women. Also he enjoys cars, martial arts, going to the bar, and basketball. Can queer men like these things? Of course, Tommy does, Buck does (mostly), but the point is that they’re seen as stereotypically straight-man stuff, which is why it’s more shocking that Tommy and Buck are queer. They’re giving Eddie more traits to make him ever more masculine. They mention his girlfriend a lot and show them standing pressed-up against each other.

We all know that Buck is going to come out to Eddie in his loft. I can 100% see them having Eddie being the very supportive straight best friend to Buck, because I think the show wants that dynamic of “queer man and best friend face no awkwardness, just support and love.” To show the audience that two men, even one who’s bi can still have a close best friendship with another man without it going romantic.

Oliver and Tim both said things along the lines of the crush not being on Eddie, no plans for buddie right now. Ryan said (around the time of shooting this episode) they’re going to be closer than ever, which I assumed weeks ago was that Eddie is going to call Buck brother in that loft scene. Closer than ever? They haven’t recently defined their relationship at all, so being referred to as brothers would definitely fit that mark. This also would create deniability for the writers not making buddie canon, because “they’re brothers.” Oliver also said “if one character realizing his bisexuality” and I know he was talking specifically about people’s reactions to Buck, but the singularity of it made me instantly think that he’s the only one exploring his sexuality this season.

Next, we know Eddie and Marisol have a sexy time moment in this next episode because the actress posted a picture. Easiest way for the audience to see Eddie as a straight man? Have sex with a woman. “But Buck had lots of sex with women and he’s bi!” True. But you have to think of it as a general audience, mainly straight, viewer. Woman = not gay. Especially with what (according to leaks) seems like the plot will be more about Eddie wanting sex than the other way around. We know he and Shannon had a good sex-life and that it’s implied that he and Ana hooked up at least once if not more. He’s no Buck 1.0, but when it comes to Eddie’s sex-life, the writers aren’t shying away from him being seen as a manly man.

In the promo we see him and Marisol at the restaurant and the one thing I noticed first was the fact that Edy’s shirt is low cut and her push-up bra is truly doing the most. Like half of her boobs are just totally out. Wardrobe dressed her to look all sexy (they very likely provided the bra too), to show that Eddie is a typical dude-bro with a hot female girlfriend. In an episode that Ryan mentioned included something about intimacy, and from what I know of the leaks, it’s really digging into the fact that men have sex with women and it’s all the show that Eddie is here for that.

If buddie ever goes canon, the earliest I can imagine things even starting on Eddie’s side would be season 8. I think Marisol is here to stay until further notice, which makes me sick, but I’m theorizing that the “looks at their relationship closer” thing will be him asking her to move in, because that’s the only thing it can be. From what we’ve seen and heard, their relationship is going good, and even though these writers have lost the plot (literally and metaphorically), because it’s been less than 5 months of dating and they’re still getting to know each other, they think that seems like the next step in their relationship. It once again will highlight the way they want Eddie to be seen as a macho guy. I know so many people are thinking that the writers are just putting Eddie through this relationship to show that he’s a repressed queer man, but i don’t agree. I mean, yeah he could been repressed, but I don’t think that’s why the writers are doing what they’re doing. I think we’re trying to find something that they’re not giving us, because what they’re giving us just feels so wrong with everything else we know about Eddie so far and where his story was leading to in s6.

Plot wise, buddie still made the most sense. Past tense. The end of season 6 really fucked with things to the point where had they gotten rid of both girlfriends, it would’ve been fine, but it still feels like Buck and Eddie are too separate right now for it to go romantic as it is right now. But as for partners, yeah, Buck and Eddie will always make the most sense for each other in theory. In practice though, the show does have to worry about ratings and hopefully the reactions to Buck show them that they don’t have to worry about it negatively affecting the show, but I just really don’t think that they’ll have Eddie be anything other than straight because they’ll lose fans that way. Granted it’s homophobic fans, and they’ll gain more queer fans, but when you think about the business side, the numbers would jump too much. I love how much we all love watching 911, but people watching through pirated links, illegal streaming sites, tumblr gifs, TikTok’s, and uploaded google files, while they are obvi massive fans, aren’t considered in the viewership counts. The show may gain a huge influx of viewers if Buddie happens, but the numbers they’re looking at aren’t tumblr users, they’re people watching on Hulu and live TV. Which tends to be people in older demographics, people they risk losing if they have the other “hot straight firefighter” ��go gay.”

This isn’t to be negative. I love buddie. I love BuckTommy right now too. I’ll be so sad when Tommy leaves. I’m just trying to be realistic because I can see so many people getting their hopes up, and not just in a fun shipping way, but in a real way where they’re confident buddie is going to happen this season. I’m so scared for the show and everyone’s heartbreak when it doesn’t happen.

#911 spoilers #911 abc #eddie diaz #911 theories #911 s7 #911 speculation #911 7x05 #911 marisol

29 notes · View notes

gegengestalt · 1 year ago

Text

Some thoughts on how Dmitri Karamazov and Pavel Smerdyakov are perfect foils

*Keep in mind that this contains spoilers for the entire book and that in order for this comparison to work, one must assume that the rumour about Fyodor being Pavel Smerdyakov's biological father has to be true.

While there is a lot written on the theological debate of Ivan and Alyosha Karamazov, I have yet to see a comparison of Mitya Karamazov and Pavel Smerdyakov. Perhaps I haven't explored enough, but these are my two cents (dare I say 3000 rubles) on the matter. Both taken care of by Grigory, both suspects in the murder of Fyodor Pavlovich, yet two men couldn't be more different from each other. I will write down my thoughts in this order:

Different from their birth (social circumstances)

Contrasting the individuals (their descriptions and characterization, side by side)

Brotherhood (relationships to Ivan and Alyosha, preparation for the next point

Narrative (their place in the narrative)

1. Different from their birth

From even before they were born, their paths are opposed. Mitya is born out of the union of Fyodor Pavlovich and Adelaida Miusova, an aristocratic, beautiful and educated young woman who married Fyodor against her family's wishes and was no innocent victim of his. Even when he left her son, it was her choice, though a hard one (and probably the best one, considering her fate.)(BookI,chapter1). Stinking Lizaveta didn't have much of a choice. She was a poor and mentally disabled woman who suffered violence from Fyodor shortly after Adelaida left, and died in childbirth (BIIIch2). Mitya keeps a connection to his mother through his inheritance, but for Pavel, it's a curse. He is "the stinking son of Stinking Lizaveta", and ironically the child that remains in his father's home for the longest time.

From these circumstances, the children grow up to be a firstborn who feels entitled to what he feels is owed to him, and an illegitimate son whose work as a servant is taken for granted. Yet, even when Mitya is of a good social position and Pavel is of a lower one, Mitya is the one who seems to sink below what is considered to be how an aristocrat should act in public and is compared to a beast, and he has often surrounded himself with peasants in his parties. Pavel is the one who takes small steps to strive for more than what he's given, he likes to dress well, he learns and has aspirations beyond what he's expected to do. (For this whole paragraph, BVch2)

2. Contrasting the individuals

Their differences come down to individual characteristics as well, and it's evident even in how they present themselves. Mitya is described as muscular and sporting signs of masculinity like a moustache that is often seen in military men (BIIch6) He walks with long strides, he's loud, outwardly emotional and often gesticulates in exaggerated manners. Pavel's main physical feature is his weakness and sickliness. Compared to Mitya's masculinity, Pavel is portrayed as emasculate, as he is compared to an eunuch. He has a silent and discreet demeanour, and he's not very expressive. (BIIIch6, BIXch6)

Mitya is impulsive. This causes him to have a temper and not be very smart in the way that requires focus, patience and forethought (seeing him as completely stupid leaves out so much of his character). What Pavel lacks in the physical strength that Mitya has, he makes up for with a more calculated and patient approach. He's neat and meticulous even in the night of the murder, while Mitya runs around stained in blood. Speaking of meticulousness, it's interesing to me how Pavel's behaviour could be described as effeminate, while Mitya's masculinity is overdone through several masculine stereotypes at once (the knight of honour, the brute, the sensitive and tortured artist).

When it comes to women, God, their country and poetry, their opinions are comically different. Mitya enjoys the attention he gets from women and returns it, he expresses love for God and Russia in the text and he's very fond of poetry, quoting it often and even speaking with rhymes and wordplays at times. (BookIIIchIII&IV, Epilogue 2). Pavel happens to disdain all of these. While he holds contempt for both men and women, the suggestion of marriage digusted him. He rejects God, claims to hate all of Russia and declares that poetry is rubbish ("who ever talks in rhyme?" well, it seems like Mitya does)(BIIIch6, BVch2).

3. Brotherhood

Ivan and Alyosha, the children of Sofia Ivanovna, have contrasting relationships with their half- brothers. Mitya, who quickly grew fond of Alyosha, puts him in a moral high- ground and pours out his heart to him. Alyosha accepts it and reciprocates his brotherly love, even if he isn't as outwardly enthusiastic. Pavel, on the other hand, looked up to Ivan on the basis of thinking they could be alike and shows great interest in Ivan's displays of intellect. Ivan is increasingly scornful of Pavel as the story progresses. Ivan and Alyosha's contrasts extend to their half- brothers as well. Mitya and Alyosha are the life- affirming pair of half- brothers, while Ivan and Pavel are the pair with the ideas deemed destructive by the narrative.

Two fun contrasts I noticed, as a side note:

Mitya and Alyosha are two sides of not working for money, and Pavel and Ivan are two sides of work.

Book III ends with Alyosha and Mitya parting ways and Book V ends with Pavel and Ivan parting ways.

4. Narrative

While Ivan and Alyosha carry the theological and philosophical discussion in the heart of the book, Mitya and Pavel are the main players in the world that puts the theories and ideals to the test. Dostoyevsky's narrative attempts to make the reader sympathize and have faith in the greatly flawed human being that is Mitya. Those who believed in his capacity for spontaneous good will never believe that he murdered his father, while those who didn't would have a harder time believing in his open- ended redemption. Pavel's case is a little more complicated. His inner thoughts aren't as exposed as Mitya's, and his motivations aren't explicitly nor reliably stated, so it's harder to consider his importance unless one pays attention to how the narrator presents him as an outsider, a shallow presence. Not even his relationship with Marya is explored. I have my reasons to believe this may be a deliberate choice, since a theme in Fyodor Dostoyevsky's work is the suffering of the lower classes. Mitya is a great character, but Pavel isn't, not because he's badly written, but because perhaps his conflicts aren't Mitya's intense and paradoxical angst and passion. Perhaps there is a lot of boring and unromantic pain in the world.

Mitya and Pavel execute Alyosha's and Ivan's respective positions, even further. Mitya's religious fervor surpasses Alyosha's, his faith is a simple and unwavering affirmation even when he's drowning in the guilt of sin or Rakitin pesters him to dissuade him from his faith. His religiosity goes so far that he overdoes one of the core ideas of the book: while he embraces Zosima's idea of guilt for all, it doesn't just mean that he should be guilty for everyone, but that everyone is guilty for everyone else. Those are fundamentally different things. As for Pavel, he dared to do what Ivan doesn't, he put his ideas in practice (BXIch7-8). However, I don't believe that he was directly inspired by him. I think he adapted the ideas to his own interests. Sometimes people love to realize what they already knew, and wait until they find a justification. One of my favourite things about Dostoyevsky is that we see the philosophical content happen in the world of his stories.

From their birth to their fates, two men couldn't be more different. Mitya, who acted or expressed himself in a suicidal manner well over ten times, ultimately stays away from the pistols and declares a sense of responsibility for a crime he did not commit. Pavel, who was shown to feel attachment to his own life and save his own skin, destroys himself out of his own volition after tormenting Ivan.

Thank you so much for reading if you made it all the way to the end!

#the brothers karamazov #how do I even tag this? tbh I could write even more on this #tbk #dmitri karamazov #pavel smerdyakov #fyodor dostoyevsky

75 notes · View notes

castlebyersafterdark · 2 months ago

Note

genderplay of the late 60s early 70s in music resonated because I really think that's accurate to Will, that's something that he could escape into and explore. Men, but outside of society's norm. There's definitely different ways to depict gnc elements and queerness and it's not always about wanting to change gender, but sometimes to exist off center, leave gender roles behind.

i also think its important and special to acknowledge that all this can be happening without will quite knowing whats going on, as is so often in teenagehood. girls can be drawn to traditionally masculine clothing for reasons other than queerness, maybe even practical reasons, and for boys the other side of the coin which is allowing some exploration of that which is not considered practical, or trad femme. when people discuss gnc will, they often use they way he is perceived by others (a tricky one, as the town is already working off of stereotypes about what a boy should be like), and sometimes his behaviour (being the show's damsel, crying). but does he even cryb that much? is it unwarranted seeing what he's been through?

he was also stereotypically masculine in some ways during his introduction - he was honest with mike about the roll (gentleness, loyalty, honour - traits more related to the fantasy roleplay game than gender) and then he was trad masc with the gun and his escape to the shed. the layer beneath is, ofc, lonnie's influence and the fact that will didnt fire the gun in the end, breaking that trad masc mould, but i still think those behaviours are just as related to fear responses + cleverness and smarts rather as gender or gnc-ness.

will loves bowie and glam rock, but he dresses pretty 'normal' and conforming for the era - until s4, where he's a little cuter, but it's still very straightforward 80s garb, and hints that his family have come into money (he knows how to groom himself and can buy nicer clothes now). 80s fashion, after all, was much more 'femme' and exposing compared to whats considered masc these days. the androgyny of musicians in the era was often related to theatricality or performance in the eyes of the public, while queer folk (and music stans) may have known more about what bowie or bolan's experiments with style also meant. but these are still all surface aesthetics! look at the hyper-masculinity of long-haired metal bands from the time. short shorts in the 70s and 80s weren't only seen as gay, queer or gnc. even will's tight and small clothing in s3 is more indicative of his family's class and wealth (hand-me-downs from jon, or thrifted) than of his self-expression.

i love an idea of future will that experiments with makeup. + what it would mean for will to be gnc means something different through our modern lens than it would have back then. will is both in so many ways - he's of the real world and also of the Upside Down. He's sweet but also fierce. He's a victim and a warrior. He can be viewed both as gnc and not, depending on your lens: a modern sensibility, the overall narrative, ST as a piece of art, versus music, idols and fashion of the era. Mostly i think will works best because he isn't categorical as either one, but rather is both at once (impossibly, but life is philosophical like that and so is the best art!). So i would say he is both gnc and not gnc!

Very good read of everything!! Thank you for the insight! Not much to add from me, rather just sit with this because there are a lot of good points covered here to ponder. That's really what I like about Will and his place in the show and his place in the fandom - there's a lot to build on from canon but he's also a little mysterious, and depending on how you analyze and interpret him - multiple ways to go that make a lot of sense for his journey (as long as he's not some badass out of character action hero masc guy or overly aggressive - who's that? Not my Will haha). The thing I like most is that certain traits and ideas can often change a character, but leaning into a gnc aspect with Will doesn't change him, only builds on what's already there. I don't think it fits for everyone.

#asks #queued

3 notes · View notes

sasheneskywalker · 3 months ago

Note

too shy to come off anon since eng is 5th lang but vvv interested in the omegaverse poll so wanted to just spill guts for a bit here.

I think Dick is particularly flexible to give a secondary gender to? So I'm really liking to see how people tilt to one side abt him LOL, it's interesting! Honestly, I dont mind any alpha/omega/beta signing for most characters as long as the portrayal hits. There's a lot you can do for Dick with any of the secondary genders, making him not to conform to some ideals as well as explore his struggles in diff ways.

Just throwing ideas out but maybe the beta assignment helps explore his peacemaker qualities with his family and can be used to balance the whole wayne family as a whole, the alpha one will bring more into light his issues with 'temper' (not really saying temper in terms of anger, but I love how at times he can be hardened and a little assholeish due to his pain, grief and upbringing and yet when confronted with it, is also someone who can evaluate himself well etc etc, it's wonderful) (more parallels with Bruce, more projection BY Bruce??) stuff like that! Beta and Alpha is what I tilt towards LMAO, but there's for sure so much to be explored by him being an Omega, it's just... not my cup of tea if I think about his position in the narrative as a whole (not just position in the batfam, but most incidents that've happened to him) and considering what social dynamics are usually in ABO verses.

But that depends from person to person! I just can't see him as an omega unless we're not including omega discrimination in society (which is fair!) but different strokes for different folks. It's just not a narrative vibe for me.

Somehow though, JASON is 100% an omega to me in any case so idk, (will explode if his 'agression' is ever inherent to him, pushing typical alpha traits on him just makes me offput + omega jason is fun to explore narratively to me in juxtaposition to alpha/beta dick too!)

Anyhow, it's so cool how people do have diff designations for every character, this was fun, tq! Would love to hear ur thoughts :)

thank you for sharing your thoughts! (don't worry, english also isn't my native language. and your english is great! also, you know five languages? mad respect.)

i didn't include the "beta" option on the poll because i wanted to see which "extreme" people would pick and now i regret it a bit. i was curious how other people hedcanon him, especially considering there's an entire fandom event dedicated to omega dick.

i've had the exact same thoughts as you. if we're going with traditional omegaverse traits and assuming personality is in some way influenced by the dynamic, i can see dick as every dynamic (alpha, beta, and omega). beta dick as a peacemaker, balancing the family. alpha dick as a leader, determined and persistent with a bit of a temper and a manipulative streak. omega dick as an empathetic and supportive person, the heart of the dcu. (also, a nature vs nurture debate in the context of omegaverse would be very interesting.)

i'm a big fan of making the omegaverse world mirror real-life, including discrimination and darker aspects, but i know it's not everyone's cup of tea. i can see omega dick fiercely fighting against the stereotypes that omegas are weak and shouldn't be heroes and struggling under other's people expectations (especially bruce's) compounded by his dynamic.

i think no matter which dynamic you pick for him, it recontextualizes a lot of his history and you can have a lot of fun theorizing which canon events or relationships would change depending on his dynamic (and your overall omegaverse worldbuilding).

i also headcanon jason as exclusively an omega. i like that jason at first glance seems very traditionally masculine: a muscular and tall antivillain/antihero with loose morals who uses guns and has a vendetta. but he also has traditionally feminine traits: as robin he deeply cares about abused women and victims of sexual violence, he reads romance novels, and he cries and shows his emotions openly. making him an omega contrasts his image as red hood even more. i imagine being an omega villain/crime lord would be particularly difficult and opens the door to metaphorically exploring his feelings about gender and people's perceptions of him. (that's also why i like fem!jason and trans!jason stories.)

thank you for sending the ask, i had a lot of fun answering it <3

#sashene answers #dc #dick grayson #jason todd

6 notes · View notes

alovelyburn · 2 years ago

Note

I was wondering who your top five favorite Berserk characters are and why you like them? My bad if you’ve gotten this ask before.

Not in a few years! 1-3 are easy for me, it just gets tough after that because at that point there are a lot of characters I like without any of them standing out as particularly more amazing than the others.

...this is very long.

Guts Despite I guess being more of a vocal Griffith advocate, Guts is actually my favorite character not just in Berserk but in Manga as a whole, and arguably in..... fiction. I mean I can't think of anyone I like more offhand, anyway. As for why... I'm generally fond of the kind of character that he is: a complex personality with a lot of heavy issues, rage and emotional struggles. If you look at any media with a Guts-like character I probably like them - Auron, Senji Kiyomasa, Jason Todd, whatever, they're just my kind of thing but Guts is really the granddaddy of that type and he's more nuanced and interesting than any of the other ones I've personally run across. Jason kind of skirts close sometimes but it depends on the writer... and Western franchise comics are just less consistent by nature. There's also the Punisher but he's a homicidal maniac.

So, even though I like this type in general, it's sort of rare that they're the actual protagonist right, like usually the protagonist is some teenager and the broody complicated guy is like the mentor, or a scary guy they have to deal with or, in the case of a romance usually the love interest. That doesn't stop them from being fun characters that I like, but it does tend to limit how much exploration they get.

I appreciate that he's a protagonist who isn't always a nice or admirable person - that he makes mistakes and hates himself for it, that he sees his own monstrousness and struggles to control it and sometimes gives in to it (or even makes use of it). And the coexistence of his sometimes seemingly contradictory traits - his protectiveness vs the way he hurts people, his desire to belong vs his tendency to abandon, his insecurity and his cocky swag, his uncertainty vs his steel will - also makes for a multifaceted personality. Miura said he designed characters with a mind toward what they'd bring out in Guts and as a result, Guts has a lot brought out in him, I guess. Generally speaking the more complicated a character is the more interested I'll be in them anyway. This is something that's going to come up with Griffith as well, but I also have an attraction to moral ambiguity. I genuinely believe he's capable of being just as cruel, just as monstrous, as Griffith ever was (and vice versa) - and in a lot of ways we've already seen him do that - it's just that I guess a lot of people don't register it that way because his specific priorities better align with their sympathies and also he's the protagonist so people will tend to side with him anyway. But that... doesn't change that he's a person who will use a child as monster bait, or that he sexually assaulted a woman he's supposed to be protecting, or that he let the pilgrim camps around the tower of conviction get sucked into hell in order to get his ex back. It doesn't change that he's selfish and cruel sometimes.

Traditionally I also tend to be drawn to characters who kind of defy I guess stereotypical gender...norms? Guts in a lot of ways is a classic masculine type, but I appreciate that he isn't the no-emo badass that, I guess, he gets perceived as by some people. I love that he cries more than most of the characters in the series, or that his primary motivation is heartbreak over Griffith betraying him. That his rage is more cope than anything else.

I always say he'd reconcile with Griffith if he had a chance, as we know, but if you think about it that's kind of a dick move, I mean Griffith did feed the Hawks to demons and rape Casca in front of him. But that doesn't mean I dislike that I feel he'd do it, on the contrary, that just makes his emotional workings more interesting to me because it's a little desperate and sad, and a little selfish and monstrous, and I think he'd... know that it was a dick move and that he's a little pathetic for being willing to do it. And I think he'd struggle with it and hate himself for it. But I still think he'd do it. Which is interesting to me.

I also love that he's not motivated by romance. It's a rare gem of a thing, and I mean I do obviously believe he has romantic feelings for both Casca and Griffith, but even with that being the case I don't think his romantic feelings for either are his true motivators - he's not attached to Casca just because she's the woman he was planning to be with, he's attached to her because she represents the Hawks in his head. And while his feelings for Griffith have a romantic component I do think it's just one color in a massive storm of feelings. I always think Griffith is in love with Guts, whereas Guts loves Griffith which includes also having romantic feelings for him but it's not necessarily the primary driving force in those feelings.

Also, I really love a stone-cold badass. I've never been a person who automatically gloms onto the underdog, I guess; I know a lot of people are inherently turned off by overpowered characters or characters who rarely lose or whatever, but that just doesn't bother me, I love watching a character cut through an army solo, it's just fun for me.

Along the same lines, I love that he's relentless and can't and won't be stopped. This is kind of an interesting one because I feel like for a lot of people a big chunk of his appeal is that he is always kind of struggling against larger forces and he gets fucked up and he takes hits but keeps going. Whereas for me, the part that appeals to me is just... that he keeps going, whether that means fighting and fighting and never taking a hit or taking hits and getting back up is less important to me than the fact that he's always continuing to go.

And I like the way he mouths off to gods and demons.

Griffith Even though Guts is my favorite, I do actually think Griffith is Miura's master creation. The subtlety of his characterization, the ambiguity that sometimes ripples back just enough to reveal the edge of this vast and complicated personality and the way the reader is left to connect the dots is really fascinating to me - though I do wish people were better about connecting the dots instead of drawing over them.

I say this a lot, but Griffith is the one who actually embodies the reasons I love Berserk the work itself, the world, the philosophy behind it, etc. That someone like him can break is evidence that anyone can break. That someone as good as he is can be cruel is evidence that anyone can be cruel. That someone as terrible as he is can be kind is evidence that anyone can be kind. He encompasses the breadth and depth of humanity in Berserk's world, in all its beauty and all its hideousness.

I love every Griffith, though I do think all of them are distinct in their own ways.

During the Hawks Era, there is a certain innocence to him that persists despite the things he sees and does. He is... childish, I mean honestly, when I think about Griffith in the Golden Age this is maybe the main thing that comes to mind? Because he can be the adult in the room, he can be the genius strategist, the brilliant combatant, he can be serious when he needs to but these are all roles, and when his guards are down (mostly around Guts) his reserve melts and he's expressive and silly and playful and ultimately his self-image is literally that of a barefoot child.

That kind of informs a certain earnest purity that comes through in the way he sees the world and the feelings he has about things or people, and the specifics of the ambitions he holds. Even some of the things that people use against him - the piles of corpses you could say - are things that by the standard of the day really aren't anything he needs to feel bad about, but he's tormented by them to the point where guilt ultimately becomes arguably the driving force behind his actions more than the original ambition that created those corpses to begin with.

I think in the end, what drove Hawks Griffith was still a kind of kid looking at the castle kind of idealism - the dream of self-discovery intermingled with the yearning to build the kind of world that wouldn't make people go through the things he did. The issue is that in a more realistic world, as Berserk has tended to be (magic and stuff aside), that is hard to sustain.

You know what he reminds me of? For anyone familiar with Fate/ there's a thing about Artoria/Saber where she became a martyr to her own Kingdom because she ended up living for the country and sacrificing for the country which made her increasingly dehumanized and Gilgamesh, charmer that he is, realizes she's trying to carry the world on her shoulders he basically determines that she's inevitably going to be crushed under the weight of her own self-imposed burden, which he thinks is hot. Aside from the hotness of it, that always reminded me of Hawks Griffith - the way he tried to carry the Hawks on his back and never let them see that he was imperfect, the way he lived to maintain that image so they had something to believe in, and the way it strained the man underneath.

And that! Is! FASCINATING, look as much as I love Guts for being basically made of steel, I also love Griffith for not being as mentally resilient as Guts is - in fact so many of the reasons I glommed onto Griffith are the direct opposite of reasons I love Guts - so much of Griffith's character is driven by his feelings for Guts, especially during the Golden Age, and I find that to be just as fascinating as Guts' romantic ambivalence. In so many ways Griffith seems larger than life and inhumanly perfect - invincible like he can withstand anything, but all that strength can't hold him up when his heart breaks. In the end its his fragile human heart that is his downfall every time. And the breakable interior underneath his epic hero exterior makes for an interesting cocktail.

This is getting too long so I'm going to try to be brief with Neo - obviously he embodies the larger cosmic themes of Berserk even more than Hawks Griffith does - but I also find him fascinating as the fallout from everything that went on with Hawks Griffith. Because Griffith tried so hard to be a person who lived for his dreams and wasn't battered about by his emotions but he couldn't manage it and so when he's remade in the image he desires he becomes the thing he wanted to be, and its beautiful and epic and inspiring but also kind of hollow and sad. Griffith lives in the fallout from making the wish with the consequences he didn't expect, and it's interesting because it's not wholly clear how much he realizes what he's lost - how much he feels it - until the external imposition of factors that bring his emotions back full force for those shreds of time between transformations.

Farnese She's been my third favorite for... ages. That said, she's not Guts or Griffith so I don't have as much to say about her. I just think she's an interesting character - the changes that take place in her as she tries to reinvent herself are really cool to me.

If you line the events we know up chronologically you get a pretty cohesive story about this emotionally abandoned girl who cycles through various forms of trying to locate herself and her place in the world and forming kind of frantic dependencies on various copium flavors until she is ultimately forced to face the lie that her life had been, at which point she has to start over from nothing. I think that's a cool and very human story. Also, it's interesting to me to see this person who, when we first meet her, seems so powerful (in a political sense) and determined have all those masks torn down until you see the terrified lost person inside all the trappings... and then to see her build herself back up, but in the way she chooses and through the means she desires, having finally been untethered from the obligation and demands of her family or the church.

Farnese is kind of a normal person to me, you know? Like Guts and Griffith are Epic Heroes - they're Made Differently in that heroic form. And people like Serpico are kind of skirting the edges between normal and epic - I'd call him kind of a normal hero as opposed to an epic hero and then there's Farnese who is very cool yes, but ultimately also a basically normal person. And watching her grow and adjust in this world that is deeply hostile to normal people - not just the Berserk world as a whole but the specific path that she goes onto by following Guts - is A+ entertainment for me. It also makes her admirable, because she was born to such extreme wealth and could have had such an easy life if she decided to put her tail between her legs and run home, but she didn't.

So... yeah I mean I think it's a good arc.

From here the short list was Charlotte, Serpico, Zodd and Rickert.

Charlotte I talked a lot about why I like her so much pretty recently, but to quickly recap... I enjoy watching her develop from a sheltered shy shrinking violet into someone who is, while still very gentle and quiet, far stronger and more resilient than one would have expected. I love that she has these progressive views - I assume she got most of them from her father who was quite progressive as well before he lost his damn mind, but it means she and Griffith are aligned on a lot of political views.The risks she takes to save Griffith, the way she loves him even when he's lost everything and can't talk anymore, the way she's able to fight off the King without assistance and protect herself for the year that follows... it works for me. She's a different type of character than someone like Guts or even someone like Farnese, and of course she doesn't get a lot of screentime since she's a relatively small character, but I've seen a lot of growth in her. I also think she's adorable and her romantic fantasy version of the world is kind of... just. Interesting. It's interesting when one character is in a different genre of story than everyone else, I don't know.

Rickert He stole Zodd's spot. Mostly because I always like that "last of the old Guard" type of character, and I find his emotional struggle where Griffith is concerned really interesting. In a lot of ways it echoes Guts' struggle, albeit without the UST. The bit where he smacked Griffith - that whole scene and everything leading up to and after it, is one of my favorite parts of the series - I love that despite knowing what Griffith has done, he still wavered on the edge of whether to stand with him or not. I also love that he decided not to, and that at the same time he still holds his reverence and love for the Griffith who used to be, even though he can't accept the Griffith who is. Even then after that, he's still reluctant to believe Griffith would have him killed - which I think he's right to doubt, because I'm so sure it was Locus who did that. Anyway, he doesn't do much - rather he does a fair amount but he does it in spurts and then vanishes for years at a time - but I'm always glad to see him when he shows up.

Serpico is still on the edge for me right now, but I've been warming to him more during the current reread, I guess because I had to think about him more than I normally do. So I wouldn't be shocked if he eventually overtook Charlotte or Rickert - not sure which. I just need to see more of him/think more about him to get a sense of where he falls for me.

I also think that if we get the full backstory on Skull Knight and Void there is a high chance that they'll just knock the bottom two off entirely and give me a legitimately solid Top 5 instead of, honestly, a Top 3 + extras.

#ask #hawkfawun #ariel talks about berserk

27 notes · View notes

jzhwritingaboutlove · 2 years ago

Text

Love is Vulnerability (Week 6)

Moonlight follows Chiron, a boy who grew up in a black neighborhood as a queer individual and how he explores his queer identity and masculinity based on societal expectations. Although the film focuses on gender, race and this one specific individual, I think what it reveals about performativity and identity can be applied to all individuals in the society because we are all subject to perform under certain social norms in order to survive and to be welcomed.

I really liked Demory’s analysis of the film in the article and I agree with a lot of the article’s arguments. This blog will be me expressing my commentary in response to Demory's comments on the film. My first impression of the film is that it feels very real and that instead of viewing them as fictional characters in a story built by the director, the characters seem to be real life individuals that I can encounter walking down into a particular neighborhood. Such realness owes to the complexity and ambiguity that all the characters share. Juan, the local drug dealer, is both this father figure that provides love and care to Chiron and the direct root of his mother’s drug problems. Kevin, Chiron's friend, is both a supporting witness who knows the secret side of Chiron and the person who betrays him and hits him in public in order to fulfill societal expectations of masculinity. The complexity and multidimensionality of all characters all support the theme that everything is a facade and the nature of living under social norms is performativity. Rather than viewing a person and judging their appearance, putting negative labels on them, it is important to think of how their environment impacts and shapes them to be like that, or whether that environment even allows them to deviate and be different. Notably, Chiron’s adult image starkly contrasts to his childhood self. People who do not know him might see him as an intimidating and tough drug dealer but he is actually a sentimental and sensitive person who trains himself to act tough to avoid troubles.

Demory describes how the film is queer not only in having characters that are queer, but that it displayed narrative discontinuity and alternativeness. Oftentimes films tell stories chronologically and show how stories take place amidst continuous time. This film breaks this norm and focuses on three distinct periods of Chiron’s life and adopts multiple time ellipses in between where we do not know exactly what Chiron has been through, giving us that room to analyze and interpret what Chiron has experienced based on context. This three-act design and discontinuity highlight the difference of Chiron at the different stages and demonstrates how society gradually conditions and disciplines a person. This narrative structure, according to Demory, also escapes the conventionality of characters reaching a heteronormative happy ending, where male characters are portrayed to have succeeded in their careers and female characters are presented to have married, as if this is the written and ideal script of how people’s lives should go.

Moonlight’s escape from conventional storytelling and use of a different structure allows us to focus on the now, and analyze Chiron’s actions in detail, through which we see how gender performativity dictates his life and his approach to love. Demory refers to Judith Butler’s concept of gender performativity to show how people, learning from their environment, do a series of repeated actions to maintain a uniform presentation or performance of their gender to fit societal standards. For Chiron, this uniform performance that he puts on at last is being a tough drug dealer. He seems completely different from his teen and child self and transforms from being bullied for seeming weak and gay to someone who perfectly fits the stereotypical image of a masculine man. Yet, despite usual success in consistently maintaining such performativity, there is an unknown, which is the “‘excess’ that is always threatening to erupt within the intervals of those repeated gestures and acts that construct the apparent uniformity of heterosexual positionalities, indeed which compels the repetition itself, and which guarantees its perpetual failure” (Demory 363). From the hard shell and facade that is built from repetitive performativity we see hints of Chiron’s original self poking through and all of the moments where this “excess” does emerge is when Chiron is with someone whom he loves. That sensitive, sentimental, emotional, and vulnerable Chiron comes back, almost ironically contrasting against the macho and stereotypically manly image he has as an adult.

Although his mother has been a very irresponsible figure throughout his life and he tries to escape from her presence and be as independent as possible, when his mother does apologize to him he can't help but cry. Such uncontrollable revelation of his true emotions shows that it has been very difficult to navigate life as an unsupported child with no proper adult guidance. Despite his strong physical physique and how he seemingly has his life collected, internally the emotional support from the mother figure is still missing and the resulting emotional vulnerability persists. More of such revelation takes place when he meets Kevin, the only person who is aware of his queer identity and has even explored it with him together. “You the only man that’s ever touched me.” He says to Kevin. Even though Kevin has betrayed him in public, he seems to acknowledge that they are both products of their environment and both are struggling to survive and not be picked on. That love, bond, and trust they share makes complying to social norms unnecessary and strips away the barrier Chiron builds for himself. In his eyes the awkward yet resilient teenager comes back to life. Therefore, if our love for people differentiates them from all other people in this world, then what characterizes or defines love is probably the sense of security in this relationship that allows us to be vulnerable, the most raw and original versions of ourselves, free of worrying of judgment.

The vulnerability love enables us to feel and share juxtaposes with the empowerment that this revelation of “weakness” brings. Thus, in the end we see Chiron in the sea. As the environment continues to impact him, Chiron seems to reach a point of self-reconciliation, standing firmly as the currents and waves beat on. Indeed, nothing is more powerful and assuring than knowing that it is okay to just be you around the ones you love.

1 note · View note

purplespacekitty · 5 months ago

Text

Magnifying Glass: "Explorers"

Episode: "Explorers"

Series: Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

Season 3, Episode 22

Original Air Date: May 8, 1995

Teleplay Writer: René Echevarria

Screenwriter: Hilary J. Bader

Director: Cliff Bole

“Explorers” provides a window into which we, the audience, peer and see dimensions of Sisko’s character and his relationship with Jake that he is not often allowed to nurture. He’s the captain of a space station; he’s busy at all times of the day with the demands of his crew, of the governments of Bajor and Cardassia and with the imminent threat of invasion from the elusive yet brutal Dominion. In this episode, Sisko gets the time to spend doing something he is purely passionate about, exercising his creativity and the side of him that’s a big history nerd (”Why [build an ancient Bajoran lightship by hand]? Because it’ll be fun!”). We also get to see him spend some quality time with his son, Jake.

For a project of mine exploring Afrofuturism and Black masculinity, I chose this episode as one of three to study and analyze under Sisko’s importance as a character not just within the Star Trek franchise but in the broader world of television.

Benjamin Sisko’s role as a Black father is particularly pertinent to the plot of “Explorers”. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine first aired in 1993, not far removed from the hell that was the Reagan Administration. Reagan contributed grossly during his presidency to the denigration and humiliation of popular notions of the Black family and the framing of Black Americans as criminals. Mainstream films and television during and before the era, if they include Black characters at all, portray Black men as aggressive, violent and insolent, an image very much in line with Reagan’s manipulative message. Avery Brooks’ casting in Deep Space Nine as it’s Starfleet commander was an historic first for the Star Trek franchise and a step against the popular stereotypes of “welfare queens” and “absent Black fathers.” Ben Sisko - whose most defining characteristic aside from being the commander and later, captain of a space station is being a father to his son Jake - completely demolishes the “absent Black father” stereotype and all the others, firstly, by just existing. Sisko is very present in Jake’s life. Even with his duties keeping him at the station’s beck and call, he makes the time he spends with his son an unconditional priority and is quick to assure Jake of that fact. The two of them share common interests in cooking and baseball, threads that bind them to each other and to Jake’s grandfather, Joseph, who owns and runs the family restaurant back on Earth. Sisko is diligent in his care of Jake as he is for all that he loves. He is an actively loving, caring, protective and supportive father every step of the way. Sisko’s strong sense of justice means that Jake can’t really get away with his and Nog’s various shenanigans, but he is lenient and fair and always there to comfort Jake when anything goes wrong. There are multiple moments throughout the series in which they both learn from each other (this episode being one of them): a quality of their relationship that Sisko warmly welcomes. It is Jake’s care for and faith in his Ferengi friend that helps Nog earn Sisko’s respect. Their closeness allows them to have difficult conversations, to resolve arguments in a place of understanding and compassion, to be vulnerable with one another unconditionally. While initially disappointed when Jake tells him he’d rather be a writer than follow in his father’s footsteps by enrolling in Starfleet Academy, Sisko is ultimately supportive of his son’s interests because all he wants is for Jake to be safe and happy. Which is where this episode picks up from the last time the two of them discussed Jake’s future.

At this point in the series, Jake is ready to apply to college and has been hard at work writing pieces to submit to schools he’s interested in. Yet, even with his father’s enthusiastic blessing to pursue what brings him joy, Jake is hesitant to share his acceptance to Pennington back on Earth. Not because he thinks his father will be angry with him about going behind his back but because he doesn’t want his dad to be alone. By no means would they be losing each other to this new stage of Jake’s life. However, it would be the longest time they’ve spent truly apart from each other and they wouldn’t even be in the same region of space. They certainly won’t be able to go off on impromptu trips in ancient space ships on a whim or watch historical baseball games in the holosuites together as often as they do on DS9. And above all, what this episode most emphasizes is their father-son relationship, this relationship in which they are each other’s security in a turbulent, violent world that placed them at the threshold of a wormhole in the middle of a war-torn sector of the galaxy directly after losing Jake’s mother and Ben’s wife, Jennifer. Whether or not either of them are ready for it, Jake going off to Pennington means that that security in each other will change. Hence Jake’s ultimate decision to defer admission for a year to spend more time with his father and gather more experiences to write about.

This episode showcases our hero doing exactly what Starfleet is all about: exploring the cultures of other worlds and engaging with their ways of knowledge. At the same time, he is beginning an exploration of what life will be like with Jake off at school (and what life will be like with a beard) and he is also getting an insight into his son’s inner world. Both are journeys the two of them embark on together, even if one must be undertaken across many lightyears of space.

Sisko stands out as an intentionally Black character against the backdrop of the undeniably important if, comparatively, rather flat representation in Lt. Nyota Uhura and Lt. Geordi LaForge. Deep Space Nine’s writers and Avery Brooks made a conscious effort to ensure that Benjamin Sisko’s Blackness was not simply seasoning sprinkled sparsely on top of his character, but instead the essential binding factor that brought all the elements of the Captain’s personality together. Not only do we know he has his family’s Creole restaurant to thank for his cooking skills, but we get to see him be at home and with family more than once in this series. And aside from what is clearly directly tied to his Blackness, he has other interests and hobbies, like baseball, building, art and studying ancient technologies. He uses his experience as a Black man and father and his deep knowledge of Black Earth history to inform his actions multiple times throughout the series (i.e. “Far Beyond the Stars”, “Past Tense“, “Badda-Bing, Badda-Bang”, “The Abandoned”, “By Inferno’s Light”, “Waltz” and “The Maquis”, to name a few). In this episode, we even see him wearing a top inspired by West African dashiki patterns.

Commissioned on Deep Space Nine, his identity as a Black man, even in the supposedly utopian Federation, positions him as someone able to sympathize with the Bajorans in a way that none of his contemporaries Kirk, Picard, Archer, Pike, Lorca or Janeway ever could: both his people and theirs have histories of violent systemic oppression and persecution, as well as continuously developing histories of liberation. He understands their need to reclaim their land, knowledge and ways of life because that is what his ancestors began and saw through. And it is what he, Jake, Joseph and Kasidy, their descendants, carry on and embody in the 24th century. He builds the Bajoran lightship in order to prove that the ancient Bajorans were capable of such technological prowess as to get all the way to Cardassia without a warp drive despite dubiety from both his coworkers and the Cardassians themselves. So not only does he connect with the Bajorans’ struggles in a way that a white human captain cannot, but he actively participates in bolstering the repatriation of their culture and history. Little wonder why the Prophets chose him as their Emissary.

12 notes · View notes

ephemeronidwrites · 2 years ago

Text

I mean, I have a lot of complicated thoughts about Anders's relationship to his rural upbringing and how that interacts with his other experiences in life, and I'm not even sure how many of them are fully supported by canon and how many of them I just cooked up in a fever-brain fugue in a headcanoning frenzy I had one random day. But I do think this one defining mental image of his life, of Anders’s father being glad to hand him over to the Circle as the templars led his twelve-year-old ass away in handcuffs, while his mother wept oh-so tragically yet so conveniently helpless in the background, probably explains more about his psyche and his gender issues than I ever could in a full-on meta essay that no one ever asked for.

But will that stop me from trying? Not really.

The weird thing about Anders and his personal relationship to gender, I feel, is that I feel like he isn't macho in the obvious, stereotypical way many men are… where they are very invested in the maleness of their identity, but also feel insecure to various degrees in whether other people acknowledge this about them.

Just going through the DA2 roster, I think you see this in various degrees wrt characters like Carver (whose gender complexes are pretty self-evident, I feel) or Fenris (whose lived experiences probably give him lots of valid reasons to be insecure about whether people will give him even the most basic respect about core parts of his identity, gender absolutely being included).

With Anders, I feel like the opposite is really the case, on both counts. A lot of people seem to headcanon him as being in touch with his feminine side, or feeling some kind of ambiguity when it comes to his gender identity, and that discourse does bring a lot to the fandom and I welcome it all but also I do have to admit that I just personally don't see Anders this way. The way I personally see him, I don't think he lives with an ounce of doubt in his mind about being male, being masculine, cisgendered, having a dick, whatever you want to call it.

And I feel like that's part of the thing about Circle politics, and especially Circle gender politics… that the utter lack of privacy and dignity afforded to anyone there does in a weird way foster a certain lack of prudery that can mimic a culture of open-mindedness. And I see how that can ping on the genderfluid / queer-friendly / feminist vibes for a lot of people, but I also do feel like those sorts of vibes really are just that and don’t hold up to the barest bit of logical scrutiny. You can’t have a real culture of sexual liberation and egalitarianism inside an environment that is repressive in every other way. And I feel like a lot of the relational behavior that Anders had modeled for him in the Circle was a certain kind of performative promiscuity that may in certain ways mimic sexual emancipation, but in reality is much closer to sexual entitlement, aggression or even outright predation… not just from templars towards mages, but probably from senior mages towards junior mages, taking advantage of the power dynamics that must exist there.

Along those lines, I also feel like the Circle is an environment that really forces the people in it to make early commitments to being whatever they can be—quickly, accessibly, immediately—rather than what they might ultimately blossom into if they'd been left to explore themselves in a more genuine way. On their own terms, without duress. So I feel like there’s probably also an extra performative aspect to gender identity in Circle life as well, something you pick as a badge of belonging quite early and consciously in the way you pick a fraternity to join—Aequitarian, Libertarian, Isolationist, etc.

That being said, I do also think it's very significant that Anders was twelve years old when he came to the Circle. Still a child, undoubtedly, but in the medieval-tech-stasis world of Thedas, it's not actually that young… the boy in Athenril's Act 1 quest whom Hawke / the player may choose to liberate from his obligation to the smuggler gang is living a fully adult life with adult dangers and responsibilities at a barely older age, and children like Alistair and Sebastian are also routinely forced into adult commitments they are barely ready for, at the same age.

Basically, Anders already had about as full a childhood as anyone in Thedas probably gets, before being shipped to the Tower. I say this not to downplay the tragedy of Anders being torn from his family and the only home he’d known up till then in the way that he was, but actually to highlight that that very home life and family background were likely formative influences for him in a way they aren't for other Circle mages. Which is why I do feel like a lot of his conditioning, his familiarity with misogynistic patterns of behavior, might indeed come from growing up in what was probably an impoverished rural community, and likely an immigrant rural community at that, which would probably make it even more isolated and therefore put the women in those communities at more risk for all the social factors that tend to reinforce and exacerbate misogyny.

But unlike with people like Fenris or Carver or Alistair, I also feel like Anders's specific life trajectory after leaving that very community probably gave him a basis of comparison by which to contextualize some of what he grew up with. And I think those experiences probably led him to decide that—even if he misses his home and misses his mother—when it comes to the heternormativity of assuming a certain role from women and another one for men, and putting people into certain boxes based on what the larger community needs from them… he doesn't really want any part of that, not anymore.

At the same time, I can't imagine that those lived experiences of his—Circle gender politics with its open relationships and free-for-alls, existing on the outskirts of society while being a runaway apostate, likely doing survival-level sex work—would have done much of fuck-all to teach him anything about what it means to actually do better than what he decided to reject. To give him a workable model to go off of, when it comes to reconstructing a healthier way of handling power dynamics when it comes to other people in his life and especially to women.

Sorry in advance for Anders romance/predator discourse.

I feel like if Anders were actually a predator, he would be targeting like his patients or the Circle mages he’s helping liberate, ie. the people who he interacts with that he actually has power over, instead of trying to mack on Hawke who has a mansion and a job with the Viscount and the power to toss him out on the street and cut him off from their shared social network at any time.

But I do think it’s interesting that he seems to, like, borrow the language of abuse when talking to hawke (and f!hawke in particular). I wonder where he learned it from? The possibilities are really vast between a childhood in rural poverty in an immigrant community, the Circle, and the Wardens.

It’s something I like to think about despite knowing that his writer was basically just writing her own abuse but within a power fantasy where she had unlimited power to curbstomp the perpetrator. Like, idk, writer sends mixed messages that undermine her overall point, but the results in the text itself are quite fascinating.

ETA: Just so we’re clear, the things I’m talking about are like- Anders issuing ultimatums, ie. ‘if you really loved me/were on my side, then you would do x no questions asked’, doing things to drive away the rest of Hawke’s friends, ie. antagonising and chasing Merrill out of the estate at the beginning of the act 3 friendmance, or weaponising his suicidality and that Hawke (presumably) cares about him to avoid the emotional discomfort of Hawke’s anger, ie. ‘hurt/kill me or don’t be upset with me at all’. And there’s no way I can find the meta posts now, but I know other people have catalogued the places in the f!hawke romance where Anders attempts to weaponise misogyny. These are the kinds of controlling behaviour I’m talking about. (And, again, I think Anders would pick another target if he was sincerely interested in finding a partner he *could* control, but clearly someone or someones have taught him that this is what love looks like.)

#dragon age 2 #character studies #character: anders #the-cryptographer #ephemeron’s meta ramblings

20 notes · View notes

irenedubrovna · 4 years ago

Text

A post regarding Euphoria for the benefit of myself and basically no one else

So, it really bothers me when people say Euphoria is groundbreaking, progressive media. Here’s a dissection of why I don’t think it is, because this is what I feel like doing at work:

The character of Rue is objectively great. She by far receives the least overt sexualization, and is treated neutrally in terms of active sexuality. She’s treated like a normal teenage girl with mental issues and an addiction to drugs. She falls in love with a girl who she pines for and places on a pedestal. The reason I think she is written this way is because she is a Sam Levinson proxy. She written with gender ambiguity and with little regard to the experiences she’d go through as a black gay female, probably because Sam Levinson has no insight to that aspect of life. Her performance is heightened of course by Zendaya, who breathes unique life to the Sam Levinson’s artistic extension, and without her performance this show would not get even half the acclaim it gets. Attribute that to Zendaya of course, because the director has done little to deserve this acclaim.

The rest of the females, sans Lexi, are pornified to a disgusting extent, not only due to the fact that they are supposed to be underage, but also because their existence as people is treated as being absolutely secondary to their sexual appeal. They are foremost presented in terms of their relation to sex. Cassie, Maddy, Jules, and Kat cannot be removed from their sexuality without disrupting the plot or their journeys in relation to the plot. Why are the females so intrinsically linked to uber fetishized versions of female sexuality, or uber fetishized versions of blossoming female sexual identity?

Maddy is presented not only scantily clad 90 percent of the time, but also dressed in a precariously unattainable sexual fashion. At any given time she is styled to look straight out of, simultaneously, a high fashion editorial, and a “barely legal” porno. She is airheaded and profane, and promiscuous, her mannerisms dictated by the adult films she’s “studied” in order to project an image of perfect hyper sexual femininity. She’s complacent in becoming a prototypical housewife because it will earn her a comfortable place as a trophy wife. She has no aspirations beyond that. So, let’s unpack all of that. Maddy’s role in the show is mostly passive. The most active thing she does in the plot is revenge fuck a man in the pool of a party. Nearly everything else she does in the show that is plot relevant is of someone else’s volition. Even less of what she in the show is related to anything other than a man. She is abused and then pressured into framing another man for said abuse. She has no agency as a character. The only notable difference to this rule is when she takes drugs at a carnival, knocks a pot of chili over, and calls her ex’s mom a cunt. Removed from her active sexual life and carefully cultivated aesthetic, she’s a trite stereotype of an unambitious girlfriend who gets treated poorly. I see people call Maddy iconic, but if she wasn’t gorgeous and well dressed, I doubt anyone would even think twice about her, let alone create fancams and Instagram pages dedicated to her. She exists as a plot device, and as pretty set dressing to build up the shows aesthetic. Her emotions are not well explored, her motivations are sexist, and she is often there to be demeaned, objectified, or to say a bad word. The most damning part of her involvement in this show is her episode where it is stated that she, as a fourteen year old girl, lost her virginity to an adult man, and it is stated she was in control of the situation. This is a dangerous thing to say about a character, to any audience, but especially a young one. To imply that a precocious young girl was in control during her first sexual encounter with a much much older man implies things that frankly border on rape apologist ideology. This show states this unflinchingly and with no further elaboration. If there’s one thing that tells you that Euphoria is a bad show, let it be that. Also, if there’s one thing that tells you about Sam Levinson as a person, and the way he views girls and women, let it fucking be that.

Jules is a young trans girl. She also likes to have sex with men as a means to “conquer femininity”. Scratch that, she likes to have degrading sex with older men in order to “conquer femininity”. This mindset is shown to be toxic, of course, but I think the problem with this idea in general is that there’s no deeper exploration for what this mindset means. It implies that she believes women are the sum of their intrigue and degradations. This mindset I can only assume would be a cultivation of dysphoria and internalized misogyny, which this series is absolutely not prepared to address in a tactful manner. Jules is a teenager with mental illness, trauma, and is undergoing an identity crisis. There’s something powerful in her character, something worth saying, however we only get trimmings of those meaningful things, and are ultimately left with a hurtful depiction of a trans girl because all of her musings on womanhood and identity are incomplete, and they fail to reach beyond the surface of their thesis statement. She wears colorful clothing, is overtly feminine and artistic in her presentation. Everything about her screams insecurity over her own womanhood. That is the crux of her character. Now, I think we should ask ourselves, is trans person who is insecure about their identity peak representation? Is this what trans people deserve? Is it “groundbreaking “? If this show was run by someone else, I might be inclined to say that there’s nothing insidious about this, but this is the guy that made Assassination Nation, so I think we know what he thinks of young women, the way they should be portrayed (that is, for the capitulation of a man) and realize his inclusion of a trans woman in his cast is no more meaningful than the inclusion of any other woman. Women to him are made to be categorized and should, at the end of the day, be easily palatable for the capitulation of a man. The device of having Jules being interested in older men and rough sex for identity reasons is transparent. Trans women are exploited and objectified with a similar fervor to cis women, the caveat being that they are “a forbidden fruit” of sorts to straight men. Jules is sissified, her presentation fetishistic. Her role in the plot is more involved. Her relationship with Rue is sweet, though toxic on both sides. She is ultimately betrayed, blackmailed, and snowballs into something of a manic episode, all well portrayed by Hunter Schafer, but I don’t think her inclusion in the show absolves it of any of its many sins.

Let’s talk about Cassie. Cassie is the Eurocentric beauty standard exemplified. She is the blonde haired blue eyed girl next store, and her boobs are of course always on display. She is notably promiscuous, something I say right off the bat because that’s how she’s introduced, as a so called slut through the words of the devil (Nate Jacobs). She is a girl with daddy issues, which we are all familiar with at this point. Her sexual boundaries begin and end at the whim of her partner. The terms of her consent are much like the terms of consent of many young girls brainwashed by society and the rising tide of degradation porn: everything is alright as long as you provide them comfort and affirmation afterward. You can touch them roughly without asking, you can use them as a tool to affirm your masculinity. This is the way men prefer their women now: just broken enough to say yes to anything they want. It’s become a joke at this point. Men like girls with issues, but only the ones that will feed their own desires. Cassie Howard is meek. Her inclusion in the plot I suppose ties to themes of drug addiction and how it divides and destroys the people you love. It doesn’t show what it does to her beyond shaping her sexual encounters, which is no surprise. Overall I’d say Cassie is in this roster of females as the most traditional categorically, in relation to how men view women and further how they sexualize them. She has a relationship with someone who doesn’t really love her. That mostly what she does here. Gets used. Doesn’t drive the plot or conflict much. More pretty set dressing. More aesthetics. How this show consists of so many women but is driven so much by men is unsurprising, and, again, very enlightening in the grand scheme of things.

Lastly we touch on Kat. I’d like to begin with the fact that self actualization through sexual exploration, in a show run by a man, is just a cloak for a woman to gratify the audience with her sexuality. Regardless of whether or not she is plus sized, this is overt objectification. She is on this show to be sexy. Beyond that, the fact that a minor using sex work as a form of liberation is disgusting. Whether or not she is portrayed as “owning” her sexuality is negligible, and speaks to the same mindset discussed with Maddy. Minors cannot fucking consent to sex, sexual acts, or anything within the confines of such. It’s crazy that this occurs with two different characters in such a similar way. It has echoes of “Well, she looked older..” and “Well, she wanted it..” or “She’s advanced for her age”. Never, not once in the events of the series is there meaningful introspection on what doing this kind of thing does to a minor. Moreover, these acts are explicit, and made clearly for sexual gratification. None of these things are absolved by the fact that she’s plus sized. If anything, her body type is fetishized in this context. It’s also another case of a “good girl to bad girl” transformation, which are archaic and, of course, sexist. With the rise of adult websites targeting minors for explicit content, this is even more reprehensible. Once again, in terms of representation, is this really what speaks to you as progressive? Groundbreaking? A girl gains control of her own narrative by having sex with lots of men. She gains control by being sexy. She gains control by dehumanizing and objectifying herself. No she doesn’t. Media controlled by men will tell this story to you thousands of times, don’t listen because she’s bigger than a size four.

ALL OF THESE CHARACTERS ARE UNDERAGE. ALL OF THEM HAVE EXPLICIT SEX SCENES, EVEN THE SEXUAL ASSAULT IS MADE CINEMATICALLY PORNIFIED. THESE SHOTS ARE MADE TO BE OBJECTIVELY SEXY. THIS IS NOT A CASE OF SOMEONE CREATING SOMETHING FOR THE SAKE OF REALISM. IT IS ABOUT MAKING SCENES THAT SPEAK TO A MALE AUDIENCE. THAT CATER TO THE MALE GAZE. ARGUE WITH THE WALL.

I won’t go further into the plot, other characters, or the structure or the episodes for sake of brevity, but I felt compelled to air my thoughts on this to the void. I can only hope I was critical enough that Sam Levinson will one day see this and cry because another bad feminist thinks something that he made sucks

#euphoria #I don’t even think anyone will read this but #it’s just not good #sorry #anti euphoria #anti Sam Levinson

421 notes · View notes

baya-ni · 4 years ago

Text

SHADOW’s Queer Coding

I first started exploring this idea of Sk8′s implicit queer rep (as in stuff other than explicit same sex intimacy) in this post.

I know we like to joke that Hiromi is the Token Straight of the protag gang, but I argue that he’s as much an example of queer rep as any of our main characters, albeit in a less conventional and fanservicey way.

So that’s what this post is gonna be, an analysis of Hiromi/SHADOW as a queer figure, how his character fits the Jekyll/Hyde archetype as a metaphor for queerness and The Closet, the similarities between SHADOW as a skatesona and early drag, and how his character represents a larger problem of exclusion within queer fandom spaces.

The 1886 Gothic novella The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson is the origin of the phrase “Jekyll and Hyde”. What I’m calling the Jekyll/Hyde archetype, refers to the same thing; it refers to duality, to a character who is “outwardly good but sometimes shockingly evil” (as described from the novella’s wiki page).

And the Jekyll/Hyde dynamic has also long been associated with Queerness. The antagonism between Jekyll and Hyde as two sides of the same person resonates with many people as similar to the experience being in the closet, and many many scholars have written about this queer reading of Jekyll and Hyde. Do a quick google search if you don’t believe me.

Hiromi experiences his own Jekyll/Hyde duality through his SHADOW persona, which seems to entirely contradict with Hiromi’s day to day personality.

Whilst Hiromi is sweet, romantic, and generally very cutesy, SHADOW is mean-spirited, sadistic, described as “the anti-hero of the S community.” And though these two personalities seem entirely at odds, SHADOW doesn’t exist in a vacuum, he’s very much a part of Hiromi. In the show, this manifests as SHADOW’s sabotage moves being all flower themed, as Hiromi works in a flower shop, and how he’ll “step out” of character when playing babysitter to the kids.

Below is passage from an essay titled, “The Homoerotic Architectures of Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” which reminds me a lot of Hiromi’s character, such that I think his character arc can be read as an allegory for coming out and self acceptance.

The closet, here, is a space not only for secrecy and repression, but also for becoming; it is the space in which queer identities build themselves up from “disused pieces” and attempt to discover the strength needed for presentation to the world. The closet is both a space of profound fear and profound courage—of potentiality and actualization. (Prologue)

Unlike the kid/teen characters, the show’s adult characters all lead double lives. When they aren’t skating, they have day jobs. Kaoru is a calligrapher, Kojiro is a restaurant owner, Ainosuke is a politician/businessman (but tbh his job is just being some rich dude), and Hiromi works in a flower shop.

But of the adult protagonists (so not Ainosuke), Hiromi compartmentalizes the most.

Kojiro leaves his face totally exposed such that he can be recognized both on and off the skate scene. Kaoru at least covers his face, but his trademark pink hair and constant use of Carla doesn’t make it very hard to connect the dots between him and CHERRY. He’s also always with Kojiro in the evenings, so if you don’t recognize him as CHERRY when he’s on his own, you certainly will when you see him interacting with Kojiro/JOE.

Next to these two, Hiromi seems the more adamant at separating his Work from Play.

Even when he’s been clearly found it, he still tries to deny that he and SHADOW are the same person. Miya even uses this to coerce Hiromi into helping him and the boys:

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the separation between Hiromi and SHADOW can be interpreted as a metaphor for being in The Closet. As SHADOW, he leads a secret life, one characterized by an tight-knit underground community with a vibrant night scene, where he behaves in ways typically frowned upon by larger society. He worries about being found out and judged by the people close to him.

But in Ep 4, the walls of his Closet begins to come down, or in this case is literally imposed upon by other members of his community, by its younger members, who don’t feel the same need to hide their passion for skateboarding or lead the same kind of double life.

We then see the line between Hiromi and SHADOW begin to blur.

He becomes less of an antagonist, and instead the audience sees him become a mentor and “mother hen” figure for the younger skaters. Later on in Ep 4, we see him casually interacting with the other protags in full SHADOW mode, not as an “anti-hero” but as a friend. In Ep 6, he acts as a babysitter for the kids, and we see him totally comfortable appearing both in an out of his SHADOW persona throughout their vacation.

And I think that this gradual convergence of Hiromi and SHADOW will culminate in this tournament arc.

There’s something more personal that’s driving SHADOW to do well in this tournament. It’s not just for bragging rights or his pride as a skater, but the results of this tournament is going to have some kind of greater impact on Hiromi’s personal life. Personally, my theory is that Hiromi is using this tournament to prove to himself that he’s worthy enough to ask his manager out on a date.

Hiromi is no longer compartmentalizing, his two lives are overlapping and influencing each other. Recall the essay quote I cited earlier:

The closet... is the space in which queer identities build themselves up from “disused pieces” and attempt to discover the strength needed for presentation to the world... of potentiality and actualization.

This is exactly the case for Hiromi. Through skating, he is piecing together the disparate parts of him such that he can present himself to the world as a more unified and confident being.

And the show presents the very skating community that Hiromi has been working so hard to keep separated from his personal life- Reki, Langa, Miya, Kaoru, and Kojiro- as the catalyst for that becoming.

That, my dear readers, is queer coding if I ever saw it.

But there’s probably gonna be people claiming something along the lines of “But SHADOW can’t be queer rep because he’s Straight!” And I assume that’s because he shows romantic interest in his female manager.

First of all, Bisexuality. Also Ace/aro-spec people. And second of all, SHADOW is Hiromi’s drag persona.

And before anyone can say anything about how Hiromi can’t do drag because he’s straight (assumption) and cis (also an assumption) uhhhh no, fuck you.

Drag didn’t start with RuPaul’s Drag Race, that’s just how it got mainstream. And it’s also how it got so gentrified and transphobic. You heard me. But anyway.

Drag is, and has always been, first and foremost about exaggerated, and oftentimes satirical, gender presentation and performance. It’s about playing with gender norms through artistic dress and theater, not so much to do with sexuality or gender identity.

Literally, what’s the difference here?

SHADOW is a persona of exaggerated masculinity with a punk aesthetic. Regardless of his sexuality or gender identity, Hiromi’s gender performance as SHADOW is drag- that makes him queer representation, change my fucking mind.

Queerness is more than same-sex romance, and by extension, good queer representation is not limited to canonized gay ships. The very word Queer, in it’s ambiguity, is meant to encompass the richly unique experiences of everyone within the LGBTQ+ community.

In my opinion, Queer =/= Gay. I mean, they’re colloquially the same yes and even I use them interchangeably. But for the purpose of this post, they’re not the same, and that’s to argue that Hiromi/SHADOW’s lack of acknowledgement as queer rep illustrates a larger issue of exclusion within fandom.

I mean, this is something we all kinda been knew, but in the case of Sk8 specifically, there are a two main reasons why I think Hiromi is rarely acknowledged as queer rep.

1. He’s not shippable with another male character

Fandom favors mlm ships when it comes to what’s considered good queer rep. And the ultimate mark of good queer rep is explicit acts of romance or intimacy between two male characters. Unlike with any of the other characters in the show, we can’t point to Hiromi and automatically clock him as gay, especially because he expresses romantic interest in a woman.

So by default, he’s less popular, because “Ew Straight People” amirite /s.

2. He’s not attractive

This is really interesting, because like JOE, Hiromi is a beefcake.

But fans don’t thirst over him the same way they do over JOE. Granted, the show really plays up JOE’s muscles in a very strip-teasey way that literally encourages viewers to find him attractive. By contrast, Hiromi is pretty much covered head to toe and he paints his face in theatrical makeup- the point is to look scary, not attractive.

In essence, even though Hiromi engages in “queer behavior” through his SHADOW persona, his queerness isn’t palatable.

But I also think there’s some pretty insidious undercurrents of fetishization going on here, of both Asian people AND gay men. Which is... a whole other thing I really don’t have the capacity to unpack completely.

But basically, Hiromi doesn’t fit into any of the popular BL archetypes so he’s less likely to recognized as Queer. Relatedly, he’s also less often subjected to a fetishistic gaze as other characters. I mean...

So again, fans just don’t find him as appealing. Attractive characters are always more popular than ugly ones.

And I’m sure there are a lot of people who just don’t care for Hiromi’s personality, that’s fine, he does act like an asshole sometimes. But this post is meant to illustrate that queer rep takes multiple forms, and unfortunately I think a lot of media just tends to fall back on stereotypical portrayals of queer people for the sake of broader appeal. And by consequence, the fandom’s idea of what constitutes queer rep narrows to same-sex romance, usually between two cis gay men.

With the release of Ep 9, I know a lot of people queer people are going to find representation in the Kojiro’s whole “unrequited love” thing. But personally, I feel more represented by Hiromi, his journey of self-acceptance and subversive relationship with gender- that’s what resonates with me as a trans person.

And I think it’s important to see that kind of less palatable type of queer representation more acknowledged in fandom, and in Sk8′s fandom especially, because I know the demographics of this fandom lean heavily queer.

But that’s all for now, lemme know what you guys think :)

#if there are typos forgive me i'm tired #i've been sitting on this take for a number of weeks now #i rlly hope i'm big braining rn #and not just like #yelling into a void #i love hiromi #yall Sleeping on my mans #hav u seen his leather clad ass???#bodacious #sk8 #sk8 the infinity #sk8 theory #sk8 meta #sk8 spoilers #sk8 shadow

185 notes · View notes

heavensenthearty · 3 years ago

Note

Ship that needs more love: 💖

(atla)

Thanks for the ask, J! 🤗

Mmmmmm... I think it is Taang.

I know, I know, it's a popular ship on its own and there are many events for it, but I feel like it still doesn't get as much attention as it deserves and some people don't recognize the benefits it brings to the story as a whole.

Aang and Toph push each other forward in their character arcs. They inspire softness and stability in each other, respectively. I think that what really rubs me the wrong way is that many people misinterpret Toph's character or don't see how much significance she had for Aang, and how much more significance she could have had for him and for everyone. So many things in the story would have turned out differently had Aang been more assertive the way Toph taught him to be and, as the Avatar, he needed that assertiveness to make decisions that not only affected him but also the rest of the world.

Their very different backgrounds also formed them to have very similar definitions of freedom, which is something important for the two of them: Aang sees freedom as goofing around and, as selfish as it sounds, caring more about himself to a certain point because — according to what we were shown in canon — these attitudes were encouraged throughout his childhood as much as gentleness and cheerfulness. Toph sees freedom as being autonomous and also caring about herself because of her fear of being considered helpless born due to her controlling parents. They also balance each other in this aspect: Aang knows what it is like to live without limits and have no one holding you back the way Toph's parents did to her, and Toph taught herself independency whereas Aang usually needs people to watch his back for him.

Had this (👆🏽) side of their characters and their dynamic been explored, they could have become less selfish/closed-off after seeing so much of themselves in another person.

There is so much more they could have learned from each other and their dynamic could have been filled with mutual teachings.

And another thing that bugs me is the issue of portraying Toph as excessively harsh and insensitive to make her seem "masculine". And saying Aang would only find her attractive after the stereotypical 'extreme makeover' and her acting more "feminine".

No! Aang appreciated Toph as she was, he found her fun to be around with, he learned from her! But in case anyone wants to focus only on looks: in the Latin Spanish dub, Aang describes his vision of Toph as "a girl in a beautiful white dress". Boom! In the face of shallowness!

At the end of the day, to heck with canon, too! It didn't give Toph the appreciation she deserved either! 😑

Special mentions for the Ship That Needs More Love Award: Mailee, Jinko, and Jinkotara.

Controversial Shipping Asks!!

#you know i would have listed zutara too #but i think I'm already used to the bullying at this point #that's kind of sad too isn't it?#taang #toph beifong #aang #angel answers 🤍

50 notes · View notes

you-cant-spell-subtext-without · 4 years ago

Text

I’m back on my bullshit and we have GOT TO TALK about 13x08 The Scorpion and the Frog; which serves as a good example of why you should not ONLY watch spn episodes with Cas (partially because of that scene I shamefully blogged about earlier - no I will not link that cursed post here). The episode title comes from a fable in which the villain is the scorpion. Interpretations of this fable note its uniqueness lies in the concept that “the scorpion is irrationally self destructive and fully aware of it.”

To quote the scorpion, buddies - “it’s in my nature.”

Anyway, this episode is subtextually predicated on exploring Dean Winchester’s nature and specifically - his bisexuality, and I’m not only saying that because it opens with Dean in his Bi Colors Plaid (that also he wore on his burger date with Cas).

Let’s get started, after the cut!

Season 13 on its face gives me absolute whiplash because it starts widow arc-reunion-TOMBSTONE and then Jack yeets himself off to Chuck knows where so Cas can go out Looking For Him Because Otherwise He Will Definitely Kiss Dean there is no other option for the writers at this point. Sigh. Here, have another shot of Dean anxiously cleaning his gun as he always does when Cas has Gone Off For Reasons -

Anyway, this feels like a filler episode at first, but as always they bury the ENTIRE damn world in it and I am here with my dossier to Unearth It.

Lets start with Bart (demon of terrible nicknames and microagressions) meeting the brothers at Smile Diner to talk about some spell or whatever.

(I am not thinking about the Cherry Pie meta I AM NOT)

THEY HAVE THE AUDACITY to start with these lines immediately introducing the theme of duality, a thread throughout this episode.

BARTHAMUS

Everything. I've been following your careers a long time. You're a real pain in the pitchfork. And the halo. Natural disrupters. We have that in common, you and I. DEAN

Mm. Yeah, we're twinsies.

***MORE DUALITY! But as we know, Dean does not like Bart because He Is A Freakin’ Demon

DEAN

Well, see, here's the thing. When a demon tells us to jump, we don't ask how high. We just ice their ass.

UMMM excuse me Barting Bacting Boices? What is that sexual gaze?

Then we find out that Bart has 1/2 of the spell. They need the other 1/2. Oh, a spell with two parts, you say? [ I am going to scream :) ]

***Also, Dean eats the pie Bart ordered. I cannot begin to explain to you the state of unwellness that I am in regarding how important this is. DEAN NEVER GETS TO EAT THE PIE, remember? But in This Filler Episode, Dean eats the pie. While Sam looks at him with a very quizzical expression. Pie -> what Dean wants but never actually gets -> Dean actively eating this pie. Dean is coming to terms that maybe he can have what he wants.

***I am reminding you again that this is post widower-arc, post-reunion, and especially post-Tombstone. Anyway-

Now we get to Smash and Grab. Not literally even though I want to Commit Such Conduct at this point. We are introduced to two one off characters named

Smash (human/female presenting) - can crack any safe built by man

and Grab (demon/male presenting)- expert in bypassing supernatural security.

Reaching or no, you can’t disagree that when spn introduces one off characters - it is almost always a Narrative Parallel or Mirror.

So we have a human and a demon (and Dean Winchester, a human who has been a demon)

who are experts in cracking open/bypassing something that has been secured and guarded (breaking down walls, if you will).

They also use fake names identifying them as Tools to be Used ( Dean Winchester, the Michael Sword/daddys blunt little instrument)

BONUS:

Dean himself is literally used as a tool in this episode.

So yeah. Smash and Grab are physical representations of Dean’s duality. Human/Demon. Femininity/Masculinity. Dare we say something else, too?

Anyway, Dean is paired with Smash and Grab; Sam is off to idk negotiate weird artifact purchases lawboy style with Luther Shrike, a man who cannot die so long as he never leaves his house (I cannot even begin to unpack this shit; please just sit there and think about it. I’m not even going there here. I CANNOT DISCUSS Luther Shrike RN).

Speaking of things I cannot discuss without halgdhsag;lsa - Smash has very Specific boots (a look overall, really).

DEAN

Hey, Winona. The '90s called. They'd like their shoes back. SMASH

Shh.

***That’s right girl - do not take his shit; he actually LOVES them and is therefore Overcompensating for it with this little jab.

***Dean’s pop culture references and particular attention to the details here Should Not Be Overlooked. 90s! Winona! Ryder!

ANYWAY, then Dean and Smash bond over a caffeinated beverage -

[While Dean is doing a spell, Smash opens a can of drink, takes a mouthful and burps loudly. ] SMASH

Ahh. DEAN

You're weird.

***This scene makes me literally insane. (even aside from Dean living on something named NERVE DAMAGE as a KID. They could have called it anything. You’re saying this wasn’t a Choice)

She chugs a swallow of the drink and burps. Something stereotypically associated with masculinity. Not feminine. Dean’s reaction is that she is “weird” - because she is not acting in a way stereotypically, J*hn Winchester brain-rot patriarchy bullshit-tily associated with Being Female. But also, says the stupid show, they like the same soda. They are The Same. She shares the soda with Dean. HIS FACE WHEN SHE DOES -

Other similarities are addressed throughout the episode (they are working for demons because they have no choice; they don’t discuss feelings/emotions, they both sold their soul, they both This Thing -

DEAN

You know, we could help you. SMASH

No, you can't. I gotta take care of me.

etc. etc.) Smash is absolutely dean-coded.

****Also it’s textually established that Smash thinks Dean is attractive -

GRAB

[looking at Smash] Oh. You said he was just a pretty face. SMASH

Shh.

***But Grab flirts with him too.

DEAN

I will kill you. GRAB

I bet you say that to all the girls.

***sorry, Grab - you won’t get far with Dean, but only because as he mentioned in the beginning of this episode -

Drowley rights.

Now Dean has to put his hand in the mouth of this stone lion thing and all of a sudden he is acting....very-not-like-Dean.

[Dean looks again and takes a deep breath.] DEAN

I… how about this? What if I cut myself, put it on, like, a little piece of paper? We'll just wad it up and throw it in the mouth, okay? Okay.

***Dean Winchester, who has been to Literal HELL, who has been torn apart by hellhounds, who has battled the devil and angels and God’s sister - all at the expense of his own life is now - afraid of spiders. Well, technically he has always been afraid of spiders, but why isn’t ‘he being performative about it At This Time??

***Come to think of it, this sends me right back to how Jackles was playing Dean in 12x11 Regarding Dean THE episode dissecting Dean’s performative masculinity [one day I will clean up and post that analysis sitting in my drafts like a sad hamster]. That makes sense actually, because -> -> ->

that episode and this one are both written by Meredith Glynn. Girl get in I want to torture you affectionately with a barrage of questions.

So here we have Dean and he’s not performing for Reasons, and he’s scared he’s genuinely scared of putting his hand in this stone lion-gargoyle-pig-creature’s mouth and then -

Smash gives him a push.

She gives him a push. I cannot stop thinking about how she gives him a push. A push to go do this thing that he is scared of; his fear being something he was hiding under his performative masculinity. Smash - dean coded dean mirror who does not perform femininity and is ‘weird’ - she gives him a p u s h.

***linking here for the jackting joices that follow.

Now, let’s circle back to Smash’s story; why she is working for Bart in the first place -

SMASH

You think I wanna be here? Like I have a choice? SAM

You made a deal. SMASH

Wow! You think? SAM

You sold your soul. SMASH

And if I could take it back, I would.

there is no reason for this picture here other than I needed you to see the jackting again

***How does the story end for Smash?

DEAN

Take care of you. [Dean glances down at the box, and then at Smash. She sees that Dean has put a lighter on top of the bones.] BARTHAMUS

Alice, chop chop!

[Bart indicates she should get his bones]. SMASH

Yeah. [She grabs the lighter and sets Bart's bones alight. Bart screams as he bursts into flames. ]

***She accepts help and breaks free from the narrative, literally burning it down. The female presenting but not female-performing “weird” ooc representing a side of Dean breaks FREE because she makes a choice. The lighter Dean drops? It’s a push. And she goes with it.

Alice reclaims her story.

(Also, Grab gets ganked. The male presenting ooc; the performative masculinity side; the demon; the darkness; the not-humanity - gets ganked).

Guess what Dean says to Alice when they say goodbye?

DEAN

Hey, Alice. Stay weird.

[I know the peace sign is probably just a Charlie throwback but I’d still like to say duality. Two. ]

Dean’s not just talking to Alice. He’s talking to himself; because the walls have been breached and for once Dean isn’t as scared of being different. Maybe, just maybe, he’s going along with the push. That’s exactly how the episode ends - with Dean feeling a little more hopeful, a little more at peace; a little more Considering he is capable of not only loving Cas but also not hating himself for it.

[until the knowledge that Mary is still alive and the guilt of allowing himself ANY happy thoughts instead of looking for her miserably rears its ugly head in 13x09 and round and round we go but for NOW at least -> ]

DEAN

I'll drink to that.

(oh look Dean is just wearing his henley. It’s almost as if a layer has been peeled back).

tagging @im-shaking-like-milk and @deanwasalwaysbi for letting me ramble on to them while writing this; and @lilac-void because you are always so kind about my stuff :)

#my spn meta #spn analysis #spn 13x08 #bi!dean #destiel #deancas #hellerism #spn #supernatural #spn fandom #spn family #spn meta

133 notes · View notes

trixree · 4 years ago

Text

Feminist, Queer, Playboy, Philanthropist: Why Ironman Belongs to the Shes, Gays, and Theys

Introduction:

This material originally comes from a media critique project I did for an undergrad philosophy course and I've attempted to adapt it into a tumblr post that doesn't make your eyes bleed. I may or may not have been successful. Upfront, I'm giving you a trigger warning for discussion of sexual assault/rape. If you'd like to skip that part of the analysis, mind the red content warning [start/end].

Trix, what are you up to today? Well, I’d like to present an alternative narrative interpretation of the capstone of the MCU. At face value, Tony Stark shows us a wise-cracking, suave, and hyper-masculine superhero. His soundtrack is AC/DC and he arrives on the battlefield in a shower of gold sparks and hydraulics, wearing sunglasses that cost more than my uterus would fetch on the black market. However, this character presents us with so much more than just a hyper-masculine caricature of straight, cis heroism. Not only does he embody typically “feminine” film tropes—such as the hypersexualized “fighting-fucktoy” role, the policing of his body and promiscuity, and the climactic “rape scene” in which his predatory father-figure drugs him and steals his “heart”—additionally, he embodies classically queer film tropes. Unlike most male action-movie protagonists, his story line is an identity crisis at heart, culminating in a climactic “coming out” scene. His character is promiscuous and spurned for it, and camp is a constant underlying theme in his character design as a whole. I explore these themes in two main parts: the femme and the queer. We'll start with the femme.

Hyper-Masculinity & Tony Stark

In order to understand the subversive nature of Tony Stark, we must first establish the typical nature of hyper-masculine and the hyper-feminine character tropes. Before we can ask the question, “how is this character coded as femme?'' We must first ask, “how is this character coded as masc?”. Further, what do these tropes tell the audience about those characters? Ultimately, the hypermasculine caricature lends power to the subject while the hyperfeminine caricature strips the subject of all agency.

Hypermasculinity is defined, generally, as the exaggerated portrayal or the reinforcement of “typically male stereotypes” (typical male meaning, in this context, that of a Westernized man) such as aggression, strength and power (both physcial and otherwise), as well as sex appeal, and integrity. Hypermasculinity takes a keen focus on the physical male form as a dominating force (1). A hypermasculine character, then, would be one that portrays a domineering, powerful man that is above his peers in some way, and is sexually desirable, in that he exemplifies a pornified picture of a male physique. This desirable and desiring caricature of manhood “socializes boys to believe that being a man means being powerful and in control” (2).

In contrast to this idea of hypermasculinity is the media’s typical portrayal of women. The typical hyperfeminine characterization of women in media is that of a passive, pretty, and overtly sexualized side-character with little agency or autonomy within the story. This is true of both blockbuster hits starring men and movies starring women, too. “We had many more interesting characters on screen in the '20s, '30s, '40s than we do now… They could be the femme fatale and then turn around and be the mother and then turn around and be the seductress, and then turn around and be the saint, and we accepted that. They were complex human beings” (2). This is no longer the case for a typical role for women on screen.

The documentary Miss Representation (2) presents a common caricature that a woman in Hollywood might find herself portraying. Action movies with a female lead surely must exhibit agency in their own story lines. However, the female-action-movie-lead is dubbed the “fighting fucktoy” by Miss Representation. Although she makes her own decisions and it is her narrative that drives the story, she primarily exists as eye-candy. Thus, even the “fighting fucktoy” is just that to audiences--a “fucktoy”. She may be “strong” but primarily, she must be pretty. The MCU character Black Widow perfectly exemplifies the “fighting fucktoy”. Her physical strength may be unquestioned, but primarily it is her beauty that is the focus on-screen. Never do we see her fighting in a t-shirt and sweatpants. Even outside of the skin-tight deep-vee catsuit, Black Widow’s plain clothes outfits consist of tight jeans and even tighter shirts.

This is true for both hyperfeminine and hypermasculine stories. Both the men and women starring in mainstream productions are expected to exemplify a western ideal of peak beauty standards at all times. However, where the hypersexualization of male’s bodies is associated with power, dominance, and strength, the sexualization of women’s bodies is linked to submission, frailty, and possession. Hence the name, “fighting fucktoy”. Her beauty does not make her powerful, it makes her a “toy”, an object, a possession. The sexualization of men in media gives them power within their narratives. For women, it does the complete opposite. It makes them objects, even when they are strong. Beauty and sex make them the victims of their own stories. Ultimately, the hypermasculine male character is envied and emulated, not coveted.

Ironman: Femme Fatale

The storyline of the first Iron Man movie is one concerned with bodily autonomy in a way typically reserved for women--Tony Stark is presented as a fighting fucktoy with an unattainable heart. Not only that, he must struggle against the literal policing of his body by friends, family, and government agencies alike. This subversive, unexpected feminine story culminates in the pinnacle “rape scene” wherein a trusted older-male drugs and assaults Tony in order to take advantage of his “body”, the arc-reactor.

Let’s examine Tony’s coded “fighting fucktoy” persona in two parts: the “fighting” and the “fucktoy”. Miss Representation identifies what female leadership often looks like in movies. “When it comes to female leaders in entertainment media, we see the bitchy boss who has sacrificed family and love to make it to where she is” (2). Odd as it may seem, this perfectly encapsulates the metaphorical role of the arc reactor powering the Iron Man suits. First and foremost, the reactor represents Tony Stark’s heart. Not only is it literally located within his heart for the purpose of keeping it intact, it represents his rebirth as a caring, philanthropic man--it encapsulates Stark’s “fight”. Before his kidnapping and the subsequent implanting of the reactor, Stark was every inch the “bitchy boss who has sacrificed family and love” as well as morals themselves in order to be a war profiteer. His “fight” consists of standing up against the same system that had allowed him to amass his fortune. This “fight” is inextricably tied to his “bitchy boss” caricature as someone who has had to surrender love.

It is clear to the viewer that Stark has had to sacrifice love to get where he is in life. Many allusions are given towards the “will they won't they” nature of his relationship with Pepper Potts and Stark’s work is identified as the reason why they won’t. At the end of the movie, Stark attempts to seduce Potts, asking if she ever “thinks about that night” to which she replies, “Are you talking about the night that we danced and went up on the roof, and then you went downstairs to get me a drink, and you left me there, by myself?” The viewers are aware that the reason Stark ran off was because he had received news that Stark weapons had gotten into the wrong hands. Later, Potts will gift him the original arc reactor with the engraving: PROOF THAT TONY STARK HAS A HEART surrounding it. In an unconventional way, Stark portrays the frigid boss who sacrificed everything to get where she is in his titular fight against a war profiteering machine.

Next, let’s examine his role as the fucktoy. This is a more subtle theme throughout the film, present in body language and subtext. I will focus mainly on scenes which present a femme-coded sexualization--scenes where emphasis on Stark’s body does not lend Stark power, but instead strips him of his autonomy. Take for example the scene pictured below. In this scene, Stark bares his chest to Stane. He is quick to cover up and fruitlessly attempts to redirect Stane’s curiosity. Much like a scene where an attractive woman shows skin, the emphasis is placed on Stark redirecting Stane’s predatory interest. Notice the tension in Stark’s stance, the challenge in his eyes and the contrasting pose of Stane, mid-motion, pushing so close into Stark’s space. Stane is clearly coded as the aggressor once the reactor comes out. The same effect is observed as when a woman bares skin--an apparent loss of autonomy as other characters (and even the cinematography itself) takes a pornographic view of her body. Instead of a powerful male character baring his chest in the heat of a battle, giving the audience a glimpse of corded muscle and strength, this scene leaves the viewer feeling uncomfortable on Stark’s behalf.

[TW Start] This femme-coded sexualization that leads ultimately to a loss of autonomy again rears its head in the titular “rape scene”. This is the clearest instance of the reactor--a literal part of Stark’s body, symbolically present as his heart--lends itself to his victimization. Just as a hypersexualized female character with no bodily autonomy, Stark’s bodily autonomy is forcefully violated so that a powerful male figure in his life can exploit a part of him. This theme becomes horrifyingly clear when the scene is examined up close.

Notice the position of their bodies. Once again, Stane towers over Stark, pressing into his space on all sides. In the first image, to the right, he has an arm draped over the back of the couch--a parody of a romantic or perhaps affectionate gesture from one intimate partner to another. Stane visibly radiates power in this position, even if the viewer were unaware of Stark’s paralyzed state. Stane’s shoulders are squared, even sitting down. The position of the reactor in his hand is relaxed and undeniably taunting. Looking at Stark himself, the horror and powerlessness of his situation is clear. His eyes are open, but almost appear to be unseeing. He is not looking directly at the reactor nor at Stane. In fact, it seems as though his eyes are looking below the reactor and to the room at large. I can only describe his expression as hollow--the blank eyes fixed out to something the viewers cannot see, his mouth partially open, his skin sickly pale.

In the second image, pictured above, Stane leers over Stark’s body, cradling his head in, once again, a parody of a lover’s tenderness. He coaxes Stark’s now limp form down onto the couch, having just paralyzed him with a fictional, technological nerve agent. The horror is shockingly clear on Stark’s face and the perverse joy is just as clear on Stane’s. This scene itself is an undeniable parody of rape, or, at the very least, physical assault. [TW End]

Tony Stark presents us with a clear, femme-coded character as his story line draws upon classicly feminine tropes wherein the sexualization of the character’s body is exploitative at heart and leaves them vulnerable to physical predation. In this way, though he is strong, his “body” makes him the victim of his own story. Not only that, his character arc itself travels from the heart-less profiteer to the philanthropic man with a heart of gold, drawing upon another classically femme-caricature of the “bitchy boss”.

Queer Tropes & The Closet

Queer tropes are much harder to draw upon than that of feminine tropes. Queer tropes in film developed in a time of great censorship and as a result are often subtle. There are three main tropes I would like to reference for the purposes of this critique. Within the Iron Man franchise, there exists a distinct sense of camp, a problematized sexual promiscuity, and, ultimately, an identity-reveal/coming out storyline.

One of the most obvious of these tropes is camp. Camp is “defined as the purposeful and ironic adoption of stylistic elements that would otherwise be considered bad taste. Camp aesthetics are generally extreme, exaggerated and showy and always involve an element of mockery” (3). Camp is present in queer culture most commonly in the ball and drag scenes. Camp is the gaudy, the glitzy, the over-the-top, the classic-but-not, the in-your-face… Camp is all of the above and more. This is why it is so easily recognizable to audiences.

The Advocate identifies a series of seventeen queer caricatures in media for consideration, one of them being that of the “promiscuous queer”. Everyone knows the myth of the promiscuous bisexual, even when the reality is that bisexual individuals are no more or no less likely to view monogamy as “sacrificial” than gay or straight individuals (4). The stereotype of the promiscuous bisexual is inaccurate and harmful, and they are by no meals alone in being labeled overly promiscuous by a general audience. The “promiscuous queer” is defined as a character that may struggle with emotional intimacy and, as a result, sleeps around to mask the love they are missing in their life. “Films going back as far as the ’80s British period piece Another Country have featured gay male characters who use sex to cover for their inability to feel true intimacy with another human being” (5). Among their list of guilty perpetrators are Queer as Folk, The L Word, The Good Wife, and How to Get Away With Murder.

The last trope I’d like to present is that of the “coming out” story. Far from being problematic, the “coming out” is often necessary when telling a queer story. Coming out storylines can be problematized when they are presented as “Big Dark Secrets” that weigh heavily on a person until they are spoken. Ultimately, coming out is a choice. Many queer people choose to come out while many do not. There are many people who fall in between--some people may be comfortable being out to select individuals while not to others or to the world at large. In any case, people can be satisfied and fully fulfilled in any of those choices. Coming out stories are undeniably part of queer culture in media. Consider the recent hit, Love Simon alongside Transparent, Empire, Supergirl, and Glee.

Camp, Secrets & Sex

Through the camp of the Iron Man persona, the problematized sexuality of Stark, and the underlying theme of a “coming out” journey, Tony Stark presents audiences with a classically queer experience in film. Take the Iron Man suit itself. The iconic red and gold, the whine of the repulsors, the sleek metal edges and the furious glow of the arc reactor all scream camp. The red and the gold, the opening bars of Back In Black, the facial hair cut into odd spikes, and the sunglasses do, too. Each and every part of the Iron Man persona is camp. “Stylistic elements that otherwise would be bad taste”... talk about gold-plated biceps and a bright red, glowing chest piece! It's camp, baby!

The problematized sexuality of Stark is harder to see as reminiscent of a queer trope. Take, for example, one of the first scenes in the movie. “I do anything and everything that Mr. Stark requires, including, occasionally, taking out the trash”, Potts remarks in reference to a one-night stand she’s ushering out of Stark’s home. Here, Potts implies that Stark sleeps with “trash”. The following scene gives us the feeling that this is not a one-off occurrence. As Potts enters the room, Stark asks, “how’d she take it?” References to his repeated promiscuity are obvious. “Playboy” is an integral part of his persona. Equally obvious is Potts’ disapproval. Taking these inferences of his playboy lifestyle with what viewers know of Stark’s lack of attachments--his “bitchy boss” exterior, if you may--it appears as though his promiscuity is a symptom of the promiscuous queer stereotype.

“Don’t ever ask me to do anything like that ever again,” Potts says after removing the initial arc reactor model from Stark’s chest cavity. “I don’t have anyone but you,” Stark replies. The viewer has a clear picture of Stark as a playboy type who is truly lonely on the inside--who struggles with emotional intimacy. This struggle is evident, given that Potts, Stark’s secretary and co-worker, is the only person in his life he trusts to assist him in what is essentially open heart surgery. His playboy lifestyle mirrors the circumstances of the promiscuous queer trope in media.

Finally, we come to the last scene of the movie-- the climactic reveal. “I am Iron Man”, Stark says. This scene most clearly illustrates a queer story-line. Stark reveals his “identity”, shedding his last secret, and declares to reporters (and effectively the world) that he is Iron Man. To understand how this scene evokes such a strong sense of queer experience in viewers, I’d like to reference another recent in-universe identity reveal in the Marvel Cinematic canon. In Spiderman: Far From Home, the end-credit scene shows Peter Parker reacting in horror to his identity being leaked via doctored footage from the villain Mysterio. This scene can read as nothing but a deep violation. Even the main characters themselves react in abject horror at the news. The Spiderman identity reveal and the Iron Man identity reveal are two sides of the same coming-out process. In one, the character had full agency. In the other, the reveal was non-consensual, a complete violation. It is clear that both of these scenes draw explicitly upon themes that resonate particularly with queer audiences.

To Infinity(War) and Beyond

Growing up, I latched onto Iron Man and Tony Stark as an outlet for my “otherness”. I was well and truly obsessed with the character for reasons that I could not really put into words. He was weird, he was loud, and he was, frankly, unapologetic about any of it. I remember very clearly on my first day of tenth grade listening to Thunderstruck by AC/DC in the car and putting on the brightest shade of red lipstick I could find. Tony Stark gave me confidence. He gave me a voice. Throughout high-school I must have watched the first Iron Man movie upwards of twenty, maybe even thirty times. It was a comfort to me because it showed experiences I resonated with and it showed a strong character recovering from them. Tony Stark rose from the ashes every time and gave me the strength to rise from my own ashes every time he did.

Our heroes can be anything. And Tony Stark was mine.

#thechestnuthead #here you go #yall asked for it #long post #really fucking long post #meta #trixree speaks #ironman #tony stark #marvel meta #analysis #this took a long time rip #if yall want the full paper you can hit me up for a PDF #my posts #trixree gets meta

26 notes · View notes