#humanised symbiote

[momosartgalaxy]

3/5

We're still waiting for more to arrive at peoples homes, this one is another Birthday and Christmas Card. This one is for the lovely @1exist1gu3ss

We'll start with the Birthday card!

The return of the Ford Fiesta, Sky is really becoming the next HB between the friend group. A little request of our Hazbin ocs, Pablo is cleaning up Faynne after dealing with some of Hell's Overlords. Finally an old OLD sketch from one of my sketchbooks I thought would be better appreciated by her.

OKAY

ONTO THE CHRISTMAS CARD

Some fantasy/dnd ocs who kinda just evolved in a night. Captain Carmine of the Salted Breeze and his pretty blue bird, Cylia. They've not seen one another in a long time, Carmine being a captain n all. The Lesbians. Big goth woman(who btw is actually a Symbiote this is just more aesthetic to the homies) and her dark academic streamer gf who are vigilantes. HUMANFORMERS TRIGGER AND SKY!!! AFTER SO LONG! Finally the DC - Young Justice babies. We all need a Manny(with the maraca's) in our lives, even if he's the third wheel a lot of the time (who also refuses to let it get him down, also refuses to believe hes the 3rd wheel. Mans is married too Atreus(the lavender hair))

I feel like you can tell that some of my markers are just struggling with some of these Hopefully the last of these packages will get to their recipients soon.

<Previous> <Next>

[battyblog]

Scorned Women Media

This post was inspired by my recent watch of the gorgeous new Sophia Coppola biopic Priscilla. As Coppola does so well, the film created a hazy pastel world, a series of snippets from Priscilla’s time with Elvis Presley. Allowing us, the viewer, to watch the teen girl slowly be manipulated and abused by this rock and roll legend. The perfect femme fatale, no doubt that she is the victim in this scenario. Priscilla adds to the growing pop culture catalogue of scorned women media. This post will explore the intricacies of the femme fatale and whether or not our obsession with the female victim can be empowering. 

When I say the term ‘Scorned women media’ I mean both fiction and non-fiction stories that focus on the women as the victim in the scenario. We love depictions of woman suffering in the same society we do. Whether it is their lived experience or as collateral in another’s story. See the popularity of Princess Diana. A clear example of this is the shift in attitude towards Paris Hilton after her 2021 YouTube documentary. Paris disclosing that she was actually playing more of a character and a victim of abuse in the Troubled Teen Industry. Through such a personal disclosure she went from being a bimbo who can’t DJ, to a survivor and businesswoman who leveraged societies prejudice to make millions. The truth being that this Paris was there the whole time, we just weren’t looking.  

Biopics are a staple of cinema and becoming ever more popular. The biopic allows us to enter the world of a well-known figure, satisfying our natural human curiosity with a healthy dose of nostalgia. In terms of Priscilla, Coppola not only told her story but recreated her world, which I personally loved being a part of. But when we look back at the Biopics of the past few years the female led stories are greatly overshadowed by those of men. Just 33% of films in 2022 were those depicting solo female protagonists. In 2023 we had twice the amount of male led biopics to female led (18:9). It is important to tell stories of iconic figures in society, but the Hollywood funding bias leads to an oversaturation of white- male led stories. 

Something that made Priscilla stand out as a female biopic was the inclusion and input of Priscilla herself as a producer. Blonde and Spencer are recent films (2021 and 2022) posthumously telling the struggles of their main characters. In both cases, this lack of humanisation of their main characters leads to a violent depiction of their suffering and presents fiction as fact. Although Spencer does admit itself as more of a ‘fable’ it is a tough 2 hour exploration of ar Di’s presumed mental state and provides the titular character little relief or redeeming characteristics. Is it too much to ask to see a woman succeed?  

Priscilla peppers in scenes of abuse, yet still spends enough time with our main character for us, the audience, to see other characteristics of hers. There has been slight backlash into the favourable view of Elvis in this story, but with Priscilla herself as the producer, could this not just be her personal view. I hope that Priscilla is a sign of a shift in scorned women biopics to be made based on stories of its victims and prioritise what they WANT to say rather than sensationalise their suffering. Such personal and vulnerable depictions of women need to be more empowering, rather than add to the exploitation that they have already suffered from.  

Another 2023 hit was the autobiography of Britney Spears ‘The woman in me’, that allowed her to finally speak her truth after years of public exploitation. Spears’ book allowed her to reclaim her narrative, which is never a bad thing. The change in public attitude towards Britney shows a more general shift in how we view women and the symbiotic relationship this has with the media (we’re nicer to women so they are too). In her youth, Britney was so heavily exploited through stories told about her, the relentless hunting from paparazzi and their capitalising on her most vulnerable moments. The demand and space for her to write this book shows that we are more sympathetic to the struggles of women and our it-girls. ‘The woman in me’ will draw rage from any reader, rage towards how Britney was treated by the media, her family and her ex-partner Justin Timberlake. Their relationship was heavily prevalent at the time and was used by Timberlake to further his own career, by creating a false victim narrative and feeding into a pre-existing sexist hatred of Spears. He spread rumours that he was the victim of cheating, discussed her virginity in interviews and used a lookalike in his music video, all to draw sales. With the release of ‘the woman in me’ his reputation was shot through, his exploitative actions exposed (not like they weren’t already obvious) and Britney winning the public court of opinion.  

It took the release of the Britney’s autobiography to cause such a shift in public opinion. We, as a society, needed the victim to underline and contextualise his shitty actions, it brings into question whether anything would have happened if Spears had not so clearly corrected his lies. Well, in a clear case of Justin Timberlake, we see that it did in fact take a dressing down from Spears for him to admit his wrongdoings, not only to her but to Janet Jackson. The Janet Jackson incident being a wardrobe malfunction that led to him exposing Jackson’s breast in the 2004 Superbowl. This resulted in Jackson being uninvited from the next Grammys, and Timberlake winning multiple. Whilst Janet Jackson herself has only spoken positively about Timberlake and the incident, was her not allowing herself to be portrayed as a victim stopping us from seeing Timberlake as a controversial character. If Jackson had filled this role of scorned woman would we have seen her as being unfairly treated. Victim or not, the cancellation of Janet Jackson for this incident was disgusting and heavily sexist.  

But the point of Jackson vs Timberlake also brings into question the racial element of scorned women media. Previous examples of Priscilla, Spencer and Blonde all show beautiful, young, WHITE women. I believe this is due to the pre-existing views on white women as natural victims, frail and those to take care of. Although the slow feminist shift in attitudes has allowed us to now support the Paris Hiltons of the world- the reliance on big budget offerings to do such takes the little funding and heavily directs it to favouring space for white women to share their woes. Sexist predispositions are one thing to fight, but Black and POC women are handed another burden of racial bias. This dichotomy leads to stereotypes such as the ‘Angry Black woman’ , this pre-exsiting bias limits opportunities of scorned black women to present themselves as such. Our feminist shift needs to evolve to allow space for ALL victims of sexism to speak their truth in an EMPOWERING way. By no means do victims need to share their stories if they are not ready, but priorities must be shifted to allow those who choose to, to have the ability to. With this needs to be space for victims' stories to be consumed without them being patronised or sensationalised. 

Whilst we may benefit from seeing the representation in victimhood, we, as consumers, need to be aware of the forms of scorned women media we consume. We need to demand the depiction of women at their most vulnerable to be empowering like Spears’ autobiography. It needs to cause a shift in perception like Paris’s documentary. It needs to benefit the ones at the center of it rather than benefit from their suffering. The scorned woman is not just the beautiful white woman. An unfortunate fact about our society is that every woman is scorned. But now this growing societal focus must shift to stories of POC women, to further dismantle stereotypes and force self-reflection.  

[designimpactmovemen123]

Unveiling the Design Strategies Shaping Movements?

In the dynamic realm of contemporary society, the intersection of design and social movements has become increasingly pronounced. As we delve into the intricate tapestry of design strategies influencing movements, it is imperative to discern the design impact movement and unravel the nuanced threads that weave together to shape the socio-cultural landscape. This exploration transcends the conventional boundaries of design, plunging into the realm where aesthetics meet advocacy, and where visual elements serve as powerful catalysts for change.

The Evolving Dynamics of Design in Movements

To comprehend the profound implications of design in movements, one must first recognize the metamorphosis occurring within the design paradigm itself. The conventional understanding of design as merely an aesthetic endeavour has given way to a more expansive perspective. Design, in its contemporary context, is a potent tool for communication, mobilisation, and cultural transformation.

Design impact movement is not a mere happenstance; it is a deliberate orchestration of visual elements that resonate with the ethos of a movement. The visual language crafted through design becomes the silent messenger, conveying messages that transcend linguistic barriers. This strategic use of design is pivotal in igniting collective consciousness and fostering a sense of unity among diverse groups within a movement.

Design as a Catalyst for Social Change

Design, with its manifold facets, serves as a catalyst for social change by embedding itself in the core of movements. It is not confined to the realm of aesthetics but extends its reach into the psyche of the masses, leaving an indelible imprint on collective memory. The strategic integration of design elements can evoke powerful emotions, galvanising individuals to become active participants in a movement.

Visual Storytelling and Empathy

One of the cornerstones of effective design strategies in movements is the art of visual storytelling. Design, when wielded as a narrative tool, has the capacity to evoke empathy and solidarity. Through carefully curated visuals, a movement can convey its narrative, humanising the cause and fostering a connection between the audience and the issue at hand.

In the realm of social justice movements, for instance, impactful posters, infographics, and multimedia presentations serve as visual narratives that amplify the voices of the marginalised. The empathetic resonance created by these designs not only raises awareness but also fuels the momentum of the movement.

Symbolism and Iconography

Design impact movement is often epitomised by the strategic use of symbolism and iconography. Symbols have an innate ability to transcend language barriers and communicate complex ideas succinctly. Icons become visual rallying points, encapsulating the essence of a movement in a single image.

Consider the clenched fist, an enduring symbol of solidarity and resistance. This simple yet powerful image has permeated diverse movements, from civil rights to labour strikes, symbolising collective strength in the face of adversity. The deliberate choice of symbols in design becomes a language of its own, articulating the values and aspirations of a movement.

Technological Advancements and Design Innovation

The symbiotic relationship between technology and design has ushered in a new era of innovation in movement aesthetics. The digital landscape provides an expansive canvas for movements to disseminate their messages globally. Social media platforms, in particular, have emerged as dynamic arenas where design plays a pivotal role in shaping the narrative.

Infographics and Data Visualization

In an age inundated with information, the strategic use of infographics and data visualisation becomes paramount. Design, in this context, serves not only as an aesthetic embellishment but as a conduit for clarity. Complex data sets and statistics, when translated into visually compelling graphics, enhance the accessibility of information, empowering individuals to grasp the nuances of a movement's goals and challenges.

The deliberate intertwining of information and design transforms intricate details into digestible visual narratives. Movements harness the power of infographics to educate, inform, and mobilise, ensuring that their message resonates across diverse audiences.

Virtual Realities and Interactive Experiences

The advent of virtual realities and interactive experiences has further expanded the horizons of design in movements. Immersive technologies provide a platform for individuals to engage with the narrative on a visceral level. From virtual reality simulations depicting the experiences of marginalised communities to interactive online platforms that facilitate real-time dialogue, design becomes an interactive agent of change.

The integration of augmented reality (AR) into movement campaigns, for instance, allows users to superimpose digital content onto their physical surroundings, creating a seamless fusion of the virtual and the real. This innovative use of design not only captures attention but also transforms passive observers into active participants in the movement.

Sustainability and Ethical Design

As movements increasingly align themselves with environmental and ethical causes, the spotlight on sustainable and ethical design practices intensifies. The design impact movement extends beyond its visual allure to encompass the ethical considerations embedded in the design process itself.

Eco-friendly Materials and Practices

In the realm of physical manifestations of design, the choice of materials becomes a critical facet of ethical design. Movements advocating for environmental causes often prioritise eco-friendly materials, ensuring that the production and dissemination of visual elements align with the movement's ecological ethos.

From biodegradable banners to recycled paper for printed materials, the conscientious selection of materials becomes a tangible expression of a movement's commitment to sustainability. Ethical design, in this context, transcends aesthetics to embody the values it seeks to promote.

Inclusivity and Representation

Ethical design extends its purview to the realm of representation. Movements that champion diversity and inclusivity recognize the power dynamics embedded in design choices. Inclusivity in design is not merely a checkbox; it is a conscious effort to amplify voices that have historically been marginalised.

Consider the adoption of diverse imagery in promotional materials, ensuring that the visuals reflect the heterogeneous nature of the movement's supporters. This intentional inclusivity in design fosters a sense of belonging and dismantles stereotypes, strengthening the movement's foundation.

The Future Landscape of Design-Driven Movements

As we navigate the current landscape of movements shaped by design, it becomes evident that the trajectory is continually evolving. The fusion of technology, sustainability, and ethical considerations propels design into a realm where it is not just a passive participant but a driving force behind movements.

Integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Design

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in design processes heralds a new era of possibilities. AI algorithms can analyse vast datasets to discern patterns, preferences, and sentiments, informing the creation of designs that resonate with specific target audiences. This data-driven approach enhances the efficacy of design strategies, ensuring that they are not only visually compelling but also strategically aligned with the goals of a movement.

Collaborative Design Platforms and Decentralised Creativity

The future of design-driven movements lies in the democratisation of creativity. Collaborative design platforms, facilitated by blockchain technology, empower individuals from diverse backgrounds to contribute their artistic skills to movement campaigns. This decentralised approach to creativity ensures that the narrative remains authentic and representative of the collective consciousness.

Conclusion

In the intricate dance between design and movements, the contours of societal change take shape. The design impact movement is not a passive embellishment but an active catalyst, shaping narratives, fostering connections, and propelling social transformation. As we peer into the future, the evolution of design strategies within movements promises a landscape where creativity is not only a reflection of societal aspirations but a driving force behind the movements that shape our world.

[land-of-brains-and-chocolate]

genuinely am obsessed with the way The Writers Of That Era use gay subtext; it's like, those associations make you unsettling, yet pitiable. it's simultaneously humanising and dehumanising. it's like the love itself presents a split second of sympathy, in theory, but the concrete manifestation of it could only be ridiculous, revolting - and evil, a lot of the time.

i've seen it elsewhere but obviously i am the most informed on the symbiote's history wrt this and it's like, when peter david writes that poison what-if, peter is the symbiote's "first true love" and this leads into the symbiote being an abomination beyond boundaries. when peter david writes symbiote spider-man, the symbiote is a semi-protagonist that can mimic a human and be understood, and in that case its feelings for him remain shallow and platonic.

[shwoo]

I actually drew something! It’s a humanisation of Rotom Dex, specifically the anime version. His name is ‘Awiki, and I have two AUs involving him. One is a war-torn world with no Pokemon that is half an excuse to have Kukui be Ash’s actual dad, and half an excuse for this humanisation. Humanised Meowth can come too.

The other AU is an AU where everything’s the same but Rotom Dex is a human. And there are no Pokedexes I guess. And he can have have the same backstory as in the other AU, why not.

He’s named after a Hawaiian vine, ‘awikiwiki, and the vine name was my intention from the start. It fits the plant theme of a lot of Pokemon names, and a vine seemed appropriate for a symbiotic Pokemon. That there turned out to be a Hawaiian vine that shares an etymology with a type of database was too good of a coincidence not to use.

[uxannie]

Group Meeting, 31 Jan

Meeting Minutes (recorded by Annie)

Logistics

Ethics form filled out

Left blank: section on research materials to be prepared

Informed consent forms

Participant information sheets

Interview schedules

Questionnaires

Free-form discussion

Algorithmic Food Justice Project

‘Ecological capital’

Methods of measuring ecological benefits?

What ‘matter’ matters to whom?

E.g. bees matter to Gemma; trees matter to Rosie’s dad

Systems rely on shared beliefs

Volatility of financial system (e.g. value of currencies dependent on public perception/attitudes, political status)

TRUST is key to these systems being upheld

Social mobility

Films: Joker, Parasite (Gemma)

Are there alternatives to government welfare?

‘community projects’?

Attract a particular type of person?

Can smart city tech be used to empower people to occupy many roles in society, as opposed to one determined, fixed role?

Book (re: predetermined roles in society): Anthem by Ayn Rand (Annie)

City as playground

1st week reading (Rosie?)

disjuncture between smart cities for corporate vs civic good

Social good evaluation of city as ‘fun’

Gentrification?

Measuring impact? How?

Ideas of play in the city (Rosie)

Piano stairs - encourage use of stairs

Talking bin - encourage use through fun interaction

Would redesigning everyday objects to be fun catalyse behaviour change?

Could contradictory solutions be the answer?

Gamification of values (Gemma)

Monopoly = capitalist values

Could we gamify other social values?

Libraries

Library of tools

Group trip?

Social media study of types of libraries?

Somerset house cooperative collective

Access to tools & facilities

Enabling small projects & innovation

Seed library

What kinds? Trace history and learn about diversity over time

Raising awareness-- things are not just the way we see them now

Alex’s light stories

‘Library of lights’ -- understanding meanings over time

Reuse

Freecyle = terrible website

Why? UI / IA / etc - design eval?

Could a connection between a ‘freecycle’ type website and real physical/material library precipitate a wider message?

Pain points: epic clearouts with moving

TIME is the limiting factor

Adherence to values through behaviours takes TIME and RESOURCES

E.g. veganism takes time & knowledge to cook and money to buy

Olio: food sharing app

Obnoxious adverts (inappropriate sexual references?)

How does it work? Do people pick up the food?

Trade programs / valuing waste

Algo. Food Justice participant: gave food in exchange for recycling, measured by weight

In Oregon, cash for recycling

In Germany, coupons for recycling

Extremely organised, incentivised

In these scenarios, people see waste as a resource

How can we transform wider public perception of waste as a resource?

Can we put the onus on corporations instead of consumers?

Flytipping everywhere - everyone piles on, legitimising practice

‘Social capital’ - Badrilliard (Rosie)

Art world, affluence

Anthropologist Marcel Moust, The Gift (Rosie)

North American society (Pot Latch?)

Burning stuff in ritualistic way

Alternative values of exchange, value, $

Gemma’s 1st blog post: social movement of trees empowering people

South London project in Greenwich -- Farmopolis

Reclaimed strip by Thames - old cargo

Also something similar in NYC

Wilderness festival! - nutrition, wellness, music

Wayward company - art, design, farming

Brownfield parks -- implications of ‘covering over’ old dumps & polluted sites?

Freshkills park (Joyce)

Tugman park, Eugene Oregon (Annie)

London garden bridge project; cancelled

Cancelled because of cost?

But what is the cost of NOT building these resources?

How do we quantify ecological & social value?

Does this rely on our definition of success?

‘We Live in an Ocean of Air’ exhibit, Saatchi 2019 (Annie)

Making visible the invisible symbiotic relationship with trees & plants

Does visibility = change in behaviours / policies?

TED talk on synthesis of air in 20 yrs time (speaker?)

Ice Cream exhibit (Rosie)

Visualising emotion

Article in HCID kitchen (Gemma)

Factories humanising employees & customers

‘The Rise of Surveillance Capitalism’ (Joyce)

People as data, not humans

Emotional AI surveillance implications

Game: ‘The Quiet Year’  (Joyce)

Concepts raised- follow up?

Philip Pulman books, Golden Compass (Rosie)

Particles of dust in air - create meaning?

Mushrooms & cannabis as revolutionary materials

Building materials

Food (minerals, proteins, etc)

Medicine (physical & psychological)

Album on Shutterstock about Hemp (Rosie)

[creme-meme]

More symbiote world building thought dump.

The complexity with humanising the symbiotes (esp. Venom, since it’s the one that we know the most about) is that they’re not human; simultaneously, not humanising them when the one most notable example, Venom, has shown to be highly receptive to human culture and incredibly intelligent and thoughtful in processing the cultural standards of a foreign species is doing Venom, and its entire species, a massive discredit.

What to take away from this is that symbiotes are not human but they are of equal or greater intelligence relative to humans and are highly versatile to their hosts and environments. They are capable of learning at an extraordinary rate and therefore should be treated on par with humans, but what makes them different should still be accounted for. Venom understood what love and different kinds of love meant (and imo if given the correct time and writer to develop this aspect of it, it can be made clear that Venom understands romance from friendship, because it’s starting to make that distinction between Eddie and Flash where it said everything was easy with Flash but with Eddie it’s always more difficult; not saying that this is what friendship vs romance is always like, but I feel that’s the case with Flash and Eddie for Venom), it understood morality, initially in an incredibly basic and destructive way with Peter Parker and Peter’s desire to fight crime, but over time it came to understand the complexities of wanting to be good, and it spends a lot of time thinking and processing everything it learns while Eddie sleeps.

I feel like like a lot of humans (and also the writers of comics) in the Marvel universe forget that Klyntar are incredibly intelligent simply because they judge them by their own standards, unable to break free of the restraints of the context of their own lives and assess the Klyntar free from those contexts.

Klyntar are probably one of the most interesting alien races in all of fiction because they don’t appear human - like am I really supposed to believe that Gamora, Nebula, Ronan, and M’Lanz are all different species but they’re all bipedal with two eyes two ears one nose one mouth etc. etc. and they’re all barely any different to humans in physical appearance. Yea, more Klyntars please.

[dutchgoldphilosophy]

I'm not against animal rights, I don't begrudge people for veganism or the like, but I've always gotten the sense that PETA types think more highly of animals than humans (please note that I'm trying to phrase this as the least inflammatorily as possible). I'm currently reading Animal Liberation in preparation for an essay, as I feel that genuine engagement is requisite for a good faith discussion, but I'm immediately put off by the comparison of the treatment of animals to slavery. Like, I'm extremely thankful to be able to take the train out to where my food is produced and see it having a nice life in a field, and I abhor factory farming, but I can't see the comparison as doing anything other than dehumanising the oppressed. That said, I am trying to approach the arguments with an open mind, despite how unimpressed I am thus far. A charitable interpretation would be that the goal is to humanise animals by placing their liberation movement alongside other liberation movements, but as Singer himself points out, there is a history of making that correlation to discredit, for example, the woman's rights movement.

For me, I feel the issue of species is fundamental. Yes, I feel bad about the mistreatment of animals and that is, despite patriarchal notions to the contrary, pragmatic information. That is something I would like to avoid. However, it does not compare to my consideration for my own species. We are social creatures and we depend on each other. Beyond their part in ecosystems, I'm fairly blasé about any other creature. I don't wish them undue suffering, in fact I'd rather avoid it, but if I can manage eating them without messing up the ecosystem I'd place my stomach over their existence.

It's worthwhile to note that we have become inextricably tied to the life cycles of certain animals. Sheep need to be shorn. Chickens need to be culled. Physiologically, they need our intervention. The real turning point is realising a symbiotic relationship with nature. Not only should we not dominate it, but we should no longer consider it separate. We are animals. We are part of nature. When we learn to live in harmony with the land, as a society, we will see more progress than 1,000 years of individual veganism.

[delusion-of-negation]

Lol yeah. Two writers on opposing genre rafts, made with our backhair and seaturtles, fighting against the obnoxious puritans who flip out because they can't handle heavier topics. I actually love moral ambiguity. And toxic love is something I enjoy occasionally. Especially since it's FICTIONAL so no one actually gets hurt. I also think: If you read my stuff, you're responsible for your own comfort. I'm not forcing you to read it, you chose to, so don't be mad at me, for the choices YOU made. 😛

re this

yeah, exactly! and you can put it down at any moment, like if you get to a part and you're like "this is too much" you can just put the book down. it's not hard. and I talked to a friend recently who was worried about problematic fiction (particularly fanfics involving minors) because it might lead to objectification, similarly to how the way revenge fantasy action movies (deadpool, punisher, generic terrorist-killing manly-man movie number 500, etc) don't cause people to just up and become violent, but they are in a symbiotic relationship with the culture we have at the moment of dehumanising "bad guys" and thus seeing anything done to them as okay (eg prison, war, etc). the way these movies handle the mobs of slaughtered criminals, terrorists, etc, is a good example of how the relationship between fiction and reality isn't "bad thing in fiction make people do that bad thing", nobody goes on a killing spree because of them, but there's a reason these movies will sometimes have funding from the military. there's an element of propaganda there, born from a preexisting cultural narrative, and somewhat reinforcing it - ie fiction that aligns with your preexisting moral framework can provide a space for you to apply said framework, and this can be a good thing in media that is testing interesting and complex moral structures, but in the case of these action movies it's the dehumanisation of "bad guys". put bluntly, the media is the smallest part of that equation, and the part with the least power to actually change the other side of it. same with other forms of objectification in media that go along with preexisting cultural opinions. and I think it's probably one of the more solid foundations for a concern regarding problematic media (albeit the wrong answer), but the solution (as even my friend conceded) isn't to do authoritarian bans of said media or hate campaigns (which only cause more harm), it's to improve society and socioeconomic situations - teach people better to view others as humans and respect them, to be able to critically watch media, to be able to watch media with their brain off but still recognise a theme that they shouldn't internalise, etc (something most of us do all the time when watching old movies with outdated ideas we no longer have culturally reinforced). because I love action movies, I turn my brain off and watch the newest "soldier man kills the baddies" thing, but I am a passionate advocate for humanising people who've done bad things, for treating prisoners better, etc. having a better moral foundation removes that cyclical relationship between dehumanisation in media and cultural trends. nobody gets hurt in fiction because these people are characters, not real, and we need a space to explore weird and messed up mental processes safely, like fiction. what we don't need is a cyclical relationship between bad cultural norms and propagandistic dehumanisation. and, notably, the norms still exist when you ban media, you actually have to target the norms themselves to fix it - "we should improve society somewhat" and all that. ironically, antis and puritans are the ones who seem to not understand that media doesn't exist in a vacuum, they just point at the media and the creators, as cause and solution, and not the surrounding culture where the problems and biases actually originate and manifest.

my friend is a more moderate person, still technically a little bit of a puritan at times (like the aforementioned convo, that definitely started out a lot less moderate than it ended), but also against the public campaigns to harass people, assume motive, act like it's some kind of entertaining freak show to "call out" people for "accountability", so not an anti in the social sense. it's an interesting point though, the assumption puritans make is that fiction affects reality in a causal, 1:1, mostly one-way, specific, contrary to one's own moral code, dangerous way - degenerate thing in fiction causes degenerate thing in reality, to put it bluntly. the truth is the opposite, but not that fiction has zero effect on reality - cultural trends in reality can inform trends in fiction, and on a mass-scale these pieces of fiction give people a space to reinforce that preexisting morality, in a vague, not 1:1, two-way relationship, that can be positive or negative. the so-called "jaws effect" they cite is the perfect example, sharks were already vilified, mass-media (newspapers and entertainment) capitalised on the fear, creating a zeitgeist that kept it in the back of people's minds, this didn't make people attack sharks, it took people who were already scared of sharks and told them "you're right" and surrounded them with that fear, and fear in the real world can lead to violence. unbiased education on sharks, and having a range of shark media (rather than just banning all negative shark media) decreased said fear and decimated the zeitgeist, and now our relationship with sharks is improving - we targeted and corrected the norm. it's how you can have situations like the misnomer of the "jaws effect", but also ample studies showing violence in video games and movies does not increase violence (in fact violence has been on the decrease), because it's not 1:1 at all, it's a complex interplay of psychology and sociology - you don't view a fictional character the same way as you view a real person (hence why you can't get ptsd from deadpool, but likely you would if you saw even one of his kills irl), it's different areas of the brain, and so doing violence in video games doesn't desensitise you to real world violence, it doesn't make you want to commit it, etc. however, if you're the kind of person who already believes that certain people deserve to die, and you're surrounded by media that gives you a biased space to explore that belief and tells you that you're right, you don't challenge that belief ever.

part of why I love moral abiguity is that I give people the space to explore that belief, and then I don't tell them if they're right or wrong, I just make them think - sometimes I show a world where every choice would have ended in tragedy, or the whole choice was an illusion anyway. sometimes I intentionally write a situation where the conclusion I know most people would come to turns out to have been wrong, or isn't the one the characters go for, or whatever - one of my characters, in a novel about essentially a giant cosmic event that causes intense radiation that decimates most life on earth, is a convicted child abuser who escaped prison when the event destroyed everything, and within the group of survivors is a guy with a kid. throughout the book I know the audience is gonna constantly expect this guy to do something, and spoilers but he won't. writing with an awareness of the biases of your audience is important for crafting stories that will challenge them in ways they aren't usually. what if this guy, who's essential to the group's survival, is hindered in efforts to help because of their biases? what if the people you least expect to fuck you over actually do so? what if you focus too hard on who in the group is going to stab you in the back, because you've all lived in a capitalist society that tells you people are untrustworthy and just waiting for a moment to get ahead, and you forget that your real enemy is kinda the whole end of the world situation? obviously not explicitly stated, I take these topics with a subtle approach, but that's probably the closest I get to moral lessons into my work, and even then it's not me going "hey look people can get better" or "hey here's something moral to learn", it's just that I had this character in mind and that's how it played out, and I liked the idea more because it went against what I knew people would expect while reading it. it's first and foremost a story about a group of people in a bad situation. my stories aren't these big allegories for the whole world, it's how this one specific scenario played out this time.

so the tl;dr is that puritans don't understand propaganda, they'll use examples to support their arguments, but don't follow all the nuanced ways those situations came to be. and this sucks, as it necessitates a lack of understanding that propaganda will feed on their preexisting biases, rather than plop new things into their brain, along with hindering their ability to make media that actually challenges preexisting biases. and in turn they attack small authors and fanfic for things that have no cultural influence, and are entirely fine as long as reader and author have an awareness of the separation between fiction and reality, instead of attacking the way mainstream movies are literally funded by the military on some occasions to reinforce biases. I've seen people claim you can't square "representation matters" with any worldview but the anti one, but I think I've outlined here how it can be simultaneously true that it matters (in the mainstream and zeitgeist), but also not true that reading a story about werewolf sex will turn you into a furry. and all in all, "we must control the media to make it conform to our morality and create a moral populace" is very common in fascism. this isn't actually an effective practice alone, you need other forms of control to actually manipulate a populace effectively... it's also fucked up. media exists as a safe space to explore ideas, entertain, tell stories, and on occasion challenge beliefs. it's not anybody's moral foundation and should not be forced to be, that's destruction of artistic freedom and leisure. puritans take a step in several damaging directions, because they're afraid of people getting hurt, as a result of their lack of understanding about these complex relationships. release via leisure, be that entertainment in general or even sexual abnormalities, can be a very good thing, and abstainance and guilt and repression can be damaging things that lead to real world harm to that person and others - but a fear, from their misunderstanding of the links between fiction and reality, leads the puritans to believe that it's the reverse, that there isn't an initial thing being repressed or released via enjoying the media, the media made it happen (and simultaneously the author of said media must've been into the bad thing, and I really wonder about that chicken and egg line). since they blame the media, they don't consider the risks or rewards of actually giving people who already have thoughts a space to explore them (with, as noted above, a proper unbiased education predisposing them to do so in a healthy manner, with good preexisting frameworks). to them, the bad thing comes from the media and we must stop the media (and everyone who creates the media or enjoys the media either already is bad thing, or is on the path to becoming bad thing, all other potential reasons and thought exploration is ignored). their belief system really is detrimental on a macro and micro scale - it's a black and white worldview, lacking nuance, lacking the ability to genuinely assess risk with a basis in how propaganda really works, etc.

[firstpuffin]

My expectations for the Venom movie (2018) based on the trailers; and my review (when I watch it):

Venom movie expectations:

-Note= This will contain some small amount of spoilers from the trailers and mayhaps the movie.

Venom is one of those movies that I am going to have to watch with a deliberately open mind, because it looks bad.

  To start with, I am a lifelong fan of Spider-man; I normally include that to mean all superheroes, but Spidey has always been my focus and I have time and again attempted to keep up with his adventures, although that is one hell of an ordeal. Because of the mess of comics that ran at the same time (Amazing Spider-Man, Web of Spider-Man, Peter Parker the Spectacular Spider-Man and all that tosh) with chapters of the same story published in different series, it’s hard to keep up; but I’ve tried and so I know quite a lot about Spidey and, naturally, his enemies. While I’ve never read the Venom comics, I know enough about him to see that his upcoming movie isn’t quite… loyal.

  Let’s begin with the symbiote’s origin: from the trailers I’ve seen this hasn’t been established yet, but it looks like there’s a bunch of them in a lab, but before that? No idea. In the original Spider-Man comics the symbiote was from a world that Spidey was dragged to in a crossover called “Secret Wars”. After his suit was torn up and his web-shooters lost, he was directed to a machine by another hero who had new clothes, only to approach the wrong machine and boom! Symbiote!

  Naturally that isn’t going to happen in any one movie, much less a standalone like Venom and it is obvious that the cartoons, movies and even alternate universes have had trouble finding ways to implement the alien suit (although with what happened in Infinity War part one, Spidey may be in the ideal situation to bring the symbiote back to Earth, but that won’t happen), but the reason why I bring up the origin is not how it is going to be on Earth, but that fact that Spidey isn’t involved.

  The last I heard, there was something like a thousand symbiotes on Earth (although don’t quote me on that) but Venom is unique not only for being the first, but for copying Spider-Man’s powers and to a degree, his appearance. I suspect that more recent comics may have tried to write their way around this but honestly, screw it. Without Spider-Man with his spider-based power-set, there is no spider on his chest, no webbing or sticking to walls (although symbiotes seem kinda sticky anyway) and it isn’t Venom anymore. In one scene from one trailer, we see Venom turn itself into blade-like things which it waved around, but Carnage was the first to do that and Venom sticks to, and I’m beating a dead horse here, Spidey’s moves. That’s why he’s such a quintessential Spider-Man villain, he’s literally his shadow.

  A Venom movie without Spider-Man is just a symbiote movie, which would actually be totally worth watching. It could be done Alien-style with people being hunted down by this symbiote creature and the finale has one of them possessed and attacking the others. It could be so good. Call it “Symbiote”.

  Back on track, another of my problems is that the first trailer made it look like a generic action film. There’s nothing wrong with that except why use an established comic book character like Venom for what is basically the next Mission Impossible movie? The following trailers made it look a bit better, but nothing really authentic, nothing really interesting. He’s a big, angry, cannibalistic Flubber and that actually sounds better than what I expect to see.

  Finally, Venom has changed a lot throughout his time in comics and I personally really appreciate how he was represented towards the beginning. He hated Spidey because the web-crawler “stole his innocence” (creepy, I know) but otherwise he was actually a bit of a hero; that’s why he had his own series. Eddie Brock has had his issues but he’s not a bad guy. The Venom I’ve seen in the trailer is more in line with what we see when the Venom symbiote bonded with Mac Gargan (aka The Scorpion). From what little I’ve seen of that pairing, Venom would literally eat people; it was disgusting. It feels like that’s the version we’re gonna have in this movie, and that’s not what I want to see.

Apart from commenting on how most of the trailers seem to be set at night (starting to think he’s been written for DC), that’s me done until I watch the movie.

Venom movie review:

Boy was I wrong.

  I really enjoyed this movie; maybe it was because I went in with low expectations while trying to keep my mind open, but I was very, very pleased. I will try and keep this review spoiler free (I personally DESPISE spoilers), but I will reference things that I mentioned in the expectation part of this article.

  First of all I want to bring up the fact that something I said earlier was wrong: we don’t see Venom creating blade-like things to fight with, that scene is the antagonist symbiote (we knew there would be another symbiote so that’s not a spoiler, right?) and they are actually one of my problems with the movie. Have you ever bought or seen sunglasses where the lenses are called silver but look black in many lights? I own a pair and I’m pretty sure that’s the colour of this symbiote. On its own, and in certain lights, it looked to me like Venom but thankfully when the two are on screen together, they are very distinct.

  On the topic of flaws, Venom is not a character driven movie; Eddie Brock is a rather generic action hero, the obligatory love interest is just that, an obligatory love interest and the token rival-in-love is probably the most interesting character who is neither villain or symbiote. Still, the human antagonist (seen in the trailer) is more interesting by far. I like his motivations although I personally feel that they get a bit fuzzy towards the end, although I may just need to watch it again. I like the intelligent, calm and collected villains who feel that they are doing the right thing, even if sometimes it feels like he is there solely to be an antagonist to the hero.

  And the titular Venom; I really enjoyed the symbiote for how he was, ironically, humanised. He was pretty amusing, had personality outside of his connection to Brock, even if I didn’t quite understand HIS motivations. I’m starting to notice a pattern here. It was great watching Brock realise that something was different after infection, with his body moving oddly as the symbiote controls him from within, and when the symbiote comes out and becomes the Venom we all know and love, he moves like a force of nature. He ploughs through objects like they aren’t even there which is quite exciting to watch.

  I wasn’t wrong when I said it looked like an action film, because it was. But the pacing was good, never too fast nor too slow, and events progressed at a satisfying, er… pace. There won’t be much emotional gratification from the “romantic” sub-plot (not quite sure it counts as such), and the film is really more about the action than anything else. Still, as an action flick it is pretty darn good, with the extra-terrestrial element helping it stand out from other releases such as Mission Impossible: Fallout (although I haven’t actually seen that yet).

  Finally, it sets up a possible sequel that I would love to see, although whether or not it could join the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) I can’t say. One of the staff members at the cinema suggested that as the film takes place in San Francisco and not New York, it wasn’t as though they contradicted anything from the MCU and so they could potentially bring Venom in. I’m not sure if I’d want to see that, I’d rather like to see a more traditional origin for the symbiotes (by which I mean to Earth via Spider-Man), although I did really like this movie’s take on it.

So Venom (2018), how was it? Well it defied expectations, although that doesn’t say much; it was an enjoyable action film, the visual effects were really good, although I did feel that occasionally the characters were not looking at the CGI symbiotes, and apart from one oddly auto-tuned song, I quite enjoyed the soundtrack.

[the-desolated-quill]

The Butcher’s Knife Cares Not For The Lamb’s Cry - Star Trek: Discovery blog

(SPOILER WARNING: The following is an in-depth critical analysis. If you haven’t seen this episode yet, you may want to before reading this review)

Couldn’t they have thought of something a bit less clunky for their title? When the title of your episode is so ridiculously long that it ends up taking up half the screen on Netflix, maybe you should think about condensing that shit down just a tad.

Right then. The Butcher’s... No. Fuck that. I’m just calling it Episode 4. What did I think of it? Well it’s better than Context Is For Kings. In fact it’s a lot better than Context Is For Kings. There are still some problems, sure, but at least I could watch this one without tearing my hair out in frustration.

The bulk of the episode revolves around Michael studying the creature from the previous episode. Admittedly it does that annoying thing at first where everyone says they need Michael’s help only to then prevent her from doing anything because they don’t trust her. Well if you don’t trust her, why are you asking her for help in the first place?

Gabriel wants Michael to study the creature in order to weaponise it, so Michael starts looking into its behaviour. A very sensible idea. I mean you don’t want to start rushing in with scalpels or syringes or anything until you fully understand what this creature is thinking and what it’s capable of, right? Enter obnoxious bitch Commander Landry. See Little Miss Dumbass over here is getting impatient that Michael isn’t progressing fast enough for her liking and so, knowing full well what the creature is capable of because she tangled with it in the previous episode, promptly marches into the containment cell with a gun, planning to crudely lop bits off the creature only to then get a faceful of monster. (Also the irony that she, a woman of colour, is negatively judging another life form based solely on their appearance appears to have sailed clean over her head). What an utter tit!

Still, once all that bullshit is out of the way, I can’t deny the stuff with the creature is interesting, as is the characters’ reactions to it. We see Michael’s compassion and curiosity start to creep back in as she interacts and tames the creature, and we start to see Paul Stamets open up a bit more. Okay, he’s still a little bit too whiny for my liking, but I do appreciate the show’s attempts to humanise him as we see just how much his work means to him. His joy when he realises that the creature and the spores are symbiotically linked is pretty uplifting and I hope we see more of this side of Stamets.

But what i find especially clever is that while them getting the warp drive working is a cause for celebration, it’s dampened somewhat by the fact that they are exploiting a living creature for their own ends. That was a really nice touch as we see Michael looking visibly uncomfortable at what they’re doing to creature whilst everyone else is cheering at their accomplishments. In fact Michael’s guilt plays a large part in this episode. Her friendship with Saru has hit an all time low and the last will and testament of Philippa just adds more salt in the wound as she and the audience question how much more of her morality she will compromise in order to win this war.

But while all the stuff about the creature and the ethics surrounding it was interesting, my big problem with it is this feels like the wrong episode to be doing this in. This all should have been done in the previous episode where it felt more relevant because this is not the time or the place to be exploring this. The main premise is that a mining colony is under attack by Klingons and the Discovery needs to get there and rescue them. This should be a pulse pounding, race against time with hundreds of lives in the balance, but at no point does it ever feel like that. There’s almost no tension or suspense. Nobody is desperately scrambling around or panicking over the fact that the warp drive isn’t working and that they’re running out of time. In fact it’s the complete opposite. Everyone seems to be casually strolling around, cool as cucumbers. Even the audio of one of the colonists saying a preemptive goodbye doesn’t seem to worry anyone into action as far as I can tell. The only time it ever gets close to tense is when the ship nearly crashes into a sun. Apart from that, nobody seems particularly bothered that people are going to die. Part of the reason is because the focus is largely on the creature, which is all wrong. It just distracts from what should be an extremely tense scenario and it just feels really jarring. It’s hard to be entranced by an alien eating spores when people are getting killed as we speak.

While everything that occurs in Starfleet is hit and miss, the action that takes place on the Klingon side is incredibly good. We get more of an insight into how the Klingons work, specifically their obsession with purity. They’d rather starve to death in the vacuum of space rather than loot one of the Federation’s starships because they consider it to be blasphemy. We also learn that the Klingon Empire isn’t as united as it first appears. The 24 houses may be fighting for a common cause, but they’re not in any way allies and will gladly stab each other in the back for personal gain.

One thing I was especially impressed with was Voq, the outcast and new Torchbearer from the opening two parter. The show did a really good job of getting us to empathise with him and better understand just how much this cause means to him, to the point where I was surprised to find myself actually feeling sorry for him at the end when he was betrayed and seemingly left for dead (even despite the fact knowing that he ate Philippa’s corpse). This is largely down to nuanced writing and great acting. It would get boring real fast if the writers stuck to the whole angry space orc thing, which makes the conversation between him and L’Rell (I think that’s her name) while they’re salvaging the dilithium processor that much more powerful and interesting. It’s smaller, quieter and more touching than what I would have expected from the Klingons based on my very limited knowledge of them, and a lot of credit has to go to David Iqbal and Mary Chieffo for their brilliant performances. They have arguably the hardest jobs of any of the actors in this show and they did exceptionally well here. I’m genuinely curious as to where they go from here.

Yes there are flaws and quite a few things I can complain about, but overall I thought Episode 4 was pretty enjoyable overall.

...

I still think that title is way too long though.

[beanscube]

Uplifted Canines in the 25th Century - InCubeverse Humanoid Open-Species

A serious stab at a ‘species’ fan-inclusion for the InCube Corp universe.

What is an Uplifted Canine?

Uplifted Canines - or ‘Updogs’ for short - are a canine-based human-spliced hybrid race of genetically modified domesticated canines from Earth circa the late 21st Century.

Humanoid in the most literal sense. A functional and acceptable blend of human to canine resulting in what you’d more or less expect to come out of the child of man and dog, though with limitations of course.

Some conversions are impossible, or at least impossible to employ while remaining aesthetically appealing. While updogs benefit from a massive improved range of vocal control, they still cannot make ‘proper’ human noises. As such, each one is fitted with a collar containing (among other things) a translator capable of actively translating their mumbles into proper language. Functionally, almost all are at least bilingual. Able to speak both a human standard language - english usually - and their own simplistic canine language more instinctively. Other less hefty problems that’ve since been tackled include making or modifying appropriate clothing for their altered biologies. Tailors trained to modify clothing appropriately (as well as some companies producing for them directly) to accomodate their tails and canine paws, etc.

Their organs, including brain, are a mixture of both human and canine as well. This results in a variety of differences in culture, values, personality, diet, etc from that of human.

They are highly empathetic, group-minded, unselfish, and very friendly. Generally glowing with an aura of approachability. For this reason, they make amazing party hosts, tour guides, and ambassadors among other similar things.

Who made them? Why?

In short, updogs were created by a Chinese-based genetic research and modification group as a means to bypass laws preventing direct human modification in the last 21st Century in order to continue a studying a variety of technologies of a genetic nature on humanoid subjects.

The Chinese-based group was a secretive one at first, a smaller part of a larger collective of investors interested in bypassing regressive laws they perceived as ‘stunting’ human advancement.

Their funding and equipment came from all over the world, and their Chinese location serving to allow them to privacy required to do what they had to.

It took about ten years for them to begin to result in relatively healthy, more useful products. Functional uplifted canines, though only barely.

It took nearly thirty years to perfect the process, learn the intricacies. The research was grizzly for those on the inside, those who truly understood the process.

There existed a file at one point accurately listing the precise number of failed attempts at life that were required to reach their conclusion, the stable hybrid species that resulted, but it was deemed too sad to acknowledge and thus deleted. Forgotten.

The time, technology, and man-hours put into the uplifted canine project were immense. As a result, the uses that their discoveries were expected to fulfill broadened from the main, original purpose. Different donors were taken on as a means to an end, adding side-goals to the project as a necessary division to acquire the resources they needed.

One of these necessary side-projects was the specific breeding of a line of updogs for use by the Chinese military and police forces. Large breeds, like the german shepherd, to replace the already-existing ‘feral’ K-9 forces. Their inclusion was shaky at first, and rightfully so, but quickly became just part of life to chinese citizens. Their effectiveness noteworthy.

Media of these humanoid canine officers spread quickly once first employed, confirmed as more than rumor. It was then that the project was catapulted onto the world stage. Though, now with enough power though the support of the Chinese government (among many other powerful groups), and progress so as to not fear destruction via any regressive mentalities. They had broken through the filter, and would not be stopped.

Updogs were mainly used as albino mice are today. Research subjects, replacing humans. A grim life, though leading to a ridiculously positive string of discoveries that still benefit humanity today.

They were like, slaves? What are they doing in society today?

Today, updogs are only two hundred years out of this mostly-slavery. Once an incredibly controlled, objectified and oppressed people they are now just as free as any given human of equal socio-economic class.

They’re abhumans. Human for most intents and purposes. Not a lower class or an entirely different species so much as a side-race. Treated as equal in law, racism notwithstanding.

They are a minority for sure, only 4% or so of a given Earthen-human population at highest, though they do tend to collect instinctively and live in their own inclusive and open communities.

Once the laws on human testing were changed, lifted - largely as a result of the Uplifted Canine project serving to make the laws useless - it eliminated the need for the continuation of the project.

Then also, with it all brought to light and in the public view, it wasn’t long before the combined lack of need for the furthering of the project and the pressures from more empathetic governments and peoples lead to the freeing of any existing updogs and the relinquishing of their methods and genome. Part sold, part made public willingly, part leaked by bleeding-heart associates or ex-employees attempting to ‘redeem’ themselves.

What followed was a collective effort by charities and governments alike to identify, humanise, populate, and integrate what existed of the updog species into normal human life. Not dissimilar to efforts past regarding intra-human racial integration.

The features of a given updog, both mental and physical, depend highly on their genetic mix. Just as humans vary in their features, so do updogs.

For example:

Larger, more padded breeds such as the Saint Bernard find themselves more at home in colder climates doing labor jobs, such as fire-fighting or farming.

Sleeker racing breeds such as greyhound find their place more often than not in high-paced environments, utilising their natural affinity for quick and well-trained decision making.

Socially, updogs take large influence from their domesticated canine heritage. As such, they are much friendlier, more community/family focused, and innocently curious on average.

They struggle to live and act alone much more fiercely than a human, succumbing to the symptoms of isolation much faster and more intensely than a human. As a result, they never live alone, and will always pursue work that has them working with others as opposed to alone.

Their communities are very open, very welcoming. Very loving, supportive. Platonically, largely, though unafraid of any romantic or otherwise feelings and much less averse to themes of polygamy. Selfish is not a commonly-used word to describe an updog. ----- Warning: ‘#InCube Corp’ and its surrounding universe is focused on - but not exclusively - alt/pregnancy themes (such as MPreg, alien surrogacy).Continue at own kinky risk, and be 18+.

With great respect to the creators, this is my attempt at fitting a variety of themes and elements I find personally entertaining WITHIN the rules and modes, both spoken and unspoken, of ‘#InCube Corp’ and the fictional universe surrounding it.

I attempt to place what is essentially anthropomorphic versions of domesticated dogs within the universe in both a scientifically reasoned way equal to the requirements of the universe as well as keeping within the themes present.

My interest in the universe is not precisely the same as that of its creators, nor are my characters. I have a much more feminine/female focus about my interest, to disclaim. Not a conflicting interest, rather a cohabiting one. Symbiotic, say.

I would be over the damn moon if my creations/ideas were to be officially incorporated, but am happy settling as an add-on fan creator.

The creator, Abdomented, can be found here. http://abdomented.tumblr.com/

Co-creator, Monster-At-Heart, can be found here. https://monster-at-heart.tumblr.com/

Further reading... “Genetic Engineering Will Change Everything Forever – CRISPR” by Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAhjPd4uNFY If you spot errors and stuff, feel super free to tell me.

[land-of-brains-and-chocolate]

what would you think of... a month of symbiote-themed prompts... symbruary... hypothetically... something like

- symbisona/symbioc - favourite symbiote - favourite host - jars - bonded form - humanised form - goop form - food - family - friendship - romance - clothes - symbiote rights - favourite fanwork - FREE DAY (something that reminds you of symbiotes) - alien biology - sharing a brain - what they do at night - noises - sense of touch - team - hero - villain - names - finding a host - living without a host - emotions - favourite official work

[land-of-brains-and-chocolate]

the fact that michelinie eddie is this hateful boisterous melodramatic supervillain and then when the symbiote seems to die his immediate reaction isn’t to freak out at the loss of his powers or to curse spider-man and promise he’ll be back but to break down quietly sobbing is really good

not just humanising for eddie but specifically showing that there is mostly a very real sadness underlying his anger, as well as framing the symbiote as a person to be mourned instead of a means to an end

[land-of-brains-and-chocolate]

in the cates run, in the cates interview - even though we only see the symbiote express ambiguously romantic affection for eddie, not the other way around, the symbiote pretty much does take the classic narrative role of Man's Love Interest.

as in, we aren't asked to take its perspective, ever. when it's going through horrifying mental problems, we're only supposed to think about what a poor guy eddie is for having to put up with it. after it has undergone great personal revelation and change, we're only supposed to think about what it can do for eddie. even as it lays dying, we're only meant to think about how this is going to affect eddie and what his reaction says about him. it is more a symbol of some part of eddie's psyche than its own person, though usually the female love interest at least symbolises something soft and humanising in addition to the man's downfall, but i do think that'll still happen since we're on this path already

it just struck me that eddie not seeming to care or know anything about the symbiote as a person and only using it to fill a hole in his heart which we're supposed to feel incredibly bad for him for is, in fact, in itself a Man's Love Interest trait. wow. revelations on this late five pm regional train