#i dont know if anyone has actually written a book or a thesis about this

[variousqueerthings]

Asking this genuinely in good faith but: im confused about what you mean when you say sex is a construct like gender? obviously like. The social and societal expectations around sex/gender are a construct. But I dont see how actual biology is? Obviously there needs to be greater understanding of the nuances of differences in sexes, and its not a binary like how a lot of people talk about it. But the difference in chromosomes, anatomy, hormones, etc. between different sexes is real, and it’s scientifically relevant to distinguish between them when performing clinical studies etc. so i guess i just wonder if you could elaborate on what you mean exactly when you say that? Thanks!

hiya, hope all is well in wherever you are anon. EDIT: well this got long

I assume you mean the post I reblogged about acknowledging that sex is also a construct that shifts depending on the agenda of the person speaking about it

first things first, gonna acknowledge, this is not my expert topic. a big reason why I reblogged this post (and a few other similarly ones over the years, reminding me that my tagging is a mess and I need to clean that up) is my allyship for intersex people - I want to listen to what they're saying, so my first big shout-out is to read up on what intersex people are saying about their lived realities and politics

also as a recommendation I've been enjoying a lot of what @genderqueerdykes have been writing (I believe I rb'd that post from there), which is a general widespread queer intersex-gender-and-aromantic-fuckery-based positivity, that is good for my all over the place soul (also I am currently unemployed, but if someone has a bit of cash to spare there's a continuous fund to help support through homelessness at the top of that blog)

secondly to second, I agree with you --it is important to be able to distinguish various characteristics in human bodies (for example, say, the ability to give birth, let's go with a big one there, not everyone can do that one) so that we can effectively support people medically, do important clinical studies, and also, for sure, speak about elements of bodies that are gatekept, monitored, denied agency, and otherwise become elements of a society that is white supremacist, colonialist, patriarchal, ableist, queerphobic, transphobic and -- returning to aforementioned under-discussed elephant in the room -- intersexist

so to clarify on the idea of the post you're referring to, whilst also going into why I've just listed out some of the violating institutions of our society, the way we decide what defines sex, is changeable, and comes from our cultural norms, it's 100% what you said "The social and societal expectations around sex/gender are a construct" <- you're very much understanding the post with this sentence

take sports. sports is currently one of the biggest spaces we're seeing this out in the open. the notion of what defines a Woman (sex-and/or-gender-malleable-depending-on-the-speakers-agenda) is changeable depending on skin colour, country of origin, "masculine" features (also white supremacist in function, who can forget that tweet where three cis non-white women were "called out" for being trans women -- I've seen similar many times), being intersex (whether or not the person knew about it beforehand, and in Caster Semenya's case, she was tricked into giving up that information, so that's a big non-consensual medical violation amongst all the others), and of course, the patriarchal idea that women just must be weaker all the time, and if they won't be it on their own dime, then we'll change the rules and force/coerce them to do things to their bodies that they did not consent to. gender roles enforcing sex as social construct

I note that since the 20s and all through today, women have had to undergo various humiliating checks to "prove" that they were real enough women to play sports. which coincidentally is what people have been saying girls are risking having to do now in America if things continue the way they have been

as a sidenote, I was watching a neat little documentary interviewing various trans people in sports called "Game On, Queer Disruptions in Sport," which included a story by a Bulgarian ex-rower who back in the day was ousted from professional rowing for being tested positive as intersex. in their story they talked about how actually over half the team were, but it was only because they told their coach and it became public that it was a problem. where does sex end and gender begin in all of this? whose agenda does it prop up when not talking about something "allows" some people to be women and others not to be (to be clear, they no longer ID as a woman, but if memory serves as intersex as their gender so that adds a whole nother dimension, but boy oh boy this is getting long)

sex -- in the sense that people are born with different chromosomes, levels of hormones, developmental Stuff that hijinks how those hormones interact with the body, and a million other facets that affect what we call sexual characteristics -- is real, in the same way that height differences are real (here's a video by philosophytube, which from memory is very trans-skewed, which, understandable, she was going head-on with the terfs and transphobes at the time, but I do think less overall on intersex people -- but yeah, she did the height example there, I'm borrowing it)

how we decide to enforce gender through sex, what sex counts as Enough to be allowed access to [insert gender], what sexual characteristics are allowed without censure and/or other forms of violation of body and (you guessed it) how that overlaps with ideas about gendered characteristics, how we create the gender roles based on our assumptions about sex, and then how we enforce those gender roles onto sexual characteristics like a depressing game of ping-pong, in which each reinforces the rights of the other part of the "argument" to say "well, we need to constantly remain vigilant in order for the world to be neatly divided into two, easily distinguishable categories, otherwise Chaos will ensue! how can we know what a Man and a Woman is if it's not clear cut somehow!" (deep breath)

we're.... sort of on the path of going "well alright non-binary is a thing, as long as we assert that this is purely Gender, the Thing Going On In Your Head Ya Weirdos, perhaps we can just about allow something that's a catch-all third gender type thing in a few countries (although, notably to meeeee, not in the UK)," but we haven't yet truly begun to deal with the fact that whatever is going on with the human body is so much more complicated than that and people are absolutely suffering because of this

and the more one thinks about the sheer rabbit hole of this reality, the more one realises just how damaging we're being, first and foremost to intersex people, and then spiralling, hitting every bigoted institution branch in the book on the way down, because well, okay, gender we'll juuust about accept can be fluid and changeable, but we'll not actually... interact with how bodies are fluid and changeable, because of genes, geography, medical intervention, illness, or idk, a hundred things I havent thought about

so in conclusion: how do we decide to define sex-and-gender? what is our agenda with discussing sex/when we bring it up in our politics (and I mean this not just as a hypothetical for frothing at the mouth rightwing bastards, us, who I believe to be well-meaning, too)? is it to end surgery on intersex babies, is it to make sure transmasc people can access pregnancy support, is it to allow girls and women (any and all girls and women) access to healthy outlets in sports, etcetcetc? is it to be able to more effectively discuss the ways bigoted institutions interact with one another to enforce their ideas onto bodies? or is it to rigidly enforce the divide and insist that while we'll allow the gender thing (again, just about, with caveats, heavy disclaimers, etc) there are two sexes, and never shall the twain intersect, interact, overlap, or indeed have anything to do with gender, for they are immutable objective realities that are not at all affected by our politics and ideals...

it's a sad, unsexy state of affairs

I hope this gave a little introductionary Thing and curiosity to poke at it further. potentially somewhere where someone has much more detail on the actual Philosophy of all of this, because I'd think that's cool, and also for this is like. pokes here pokes there, and also can you tell I'm actually jock from the focus I decided to take there? no? whew still in the closet on that one

[fadelbison]

the power dynamic between mangkorn and yai is so layered that it fascinates me endlessly, there are the obvious variables of who is in control determined by their BDSM activities [and i dont mean to imply that the dom is in control, maybe in a scene but not of the relationship] and the SD card ie blackmail material.

The upper hand keeps changing hands through the episodes until it is essentially rendered useless.

i think we as the viewer always knew that mangkorn never intended to release those videos. he's consistently used it to get closer to yai but takes little else other than his time. mangkorn shows all the signs of someone who's been in love with yai since before the show started (which...bless the strength of his heart)

it just makes me think about how real the power imbalance even was to begin with when the first thing yai asks himself upon mangkorn blackmailing him is this

when you think about it yai is very rich. in the series he's even richer than mangkorn, so how much would the sex tape even affect him and how much damage could mangkorn actually do to him? and perhaps moreover did yai actually ever intend to make this tape. he pressed play but what did he even intend to film?

In the book yai himself never means to be on the tape but in the show yai just gets right on top of him doesn't he (lol? like im laughing but its awful). I usually hate voiceovers but this moment keeps ringing in my head because what *do* you want from mangkorn, yai? and perhaps more importantly what have you always wanted from him?

[more embarrassing need of a cut on my seemingly endless thesis length meta about big dragon]

yai is almost suspiciously ready to submit to mangkorn, using the ballgag on their first night decisively feels like a yai idea [ep 2 mangkorn asks him 'you like the violence, right?'] and i think its significant that the show makes a point of showing that yai hasn't submitted to anyone else since mangkorn either.

with the embarrassing amount of time i spend thinking about this show [and its also book canon but the show preserves literally 0.1% of the book thankfully] i am getting more and more convinced that yai too has been in love with mangkorn the entire time.

there are two routes enemies to lovers usually go: 1) due to circumstance you get to know your enemy and you find your view of them was incomplete/you have more in common than you thought/ it was some stupid misunderstanding 2) you've always been obsessed with them but are too emotionally stunted to admit it

I think we are lulled in the beginning into thinking its 1 but it is starting to feel like 2 - so what is the powerplay in their relationship even for? and how much do they actually know each other?

yai demands to know why mangkorn couldn't just tell him the truth about his engagement but my immediate thought was when?? when would he have- like at what point did yai start feeling entitled to this information? they legit entered into this relationship in some official capacity the morning of their conversation about mangkorn's engagement. but the earliest confirmation we have that yai feels entitled to this info is here:

but yai follows mangkorn around everytime he's in the vicinity of a woman almost compulsively...and the first episode his reason for doing whatever he did is...that mangkorn was hitting on a girl [who yai supposedly liked but im just pointing out the common theme here]

anyhow the point im trying to make - and it is perhaps the worst meta i could have written about yai - is that drugging and a failed attempt at raping him is yai's method of wooing his crush which in and of itself isn't particularly new [toxic relationships are the bread and butter of BL] what's new - and maybe even unprecedented - is that mangkorn is the type of person who would successfully be wooed by this to the point of becoming the active wooing party [so is the SD card even a symbol of power? or is it interest?].

they are both such garbage cans of a human being and most importantly to equal measures through and through, they both have plunged into this relationship with naught a thought in their pretty heads, they've both created the problems that plague their relationship - at this rate there is little hope of them being together unless something significantly changes between them or about them and i just - when i say im vibrating to find out....

[sapphicambitions]

hey! hey! why do you hate the television format??

Ah yes, thank you for reminding me

I would like to state for the record before we begin that this is my personal reasons for not enjoying the format of television and not “why television is bad'' because im sure there's many people whose reasoning for liking TV is the same as my reasons for disliking them. please dont get mad at me if you disagree lmao

I feel like the short answer could be: “I have a degree in theatre and i prefer books” 

But really i hate the fact that the story is subject to change via outside forces.

In a well written play or book, there is a beginning, middle and end. It is a complete story that has been well thought out and woven together. Every detail is important and makes sense dramaturgically. You have your characters and your plot and nothing about that changes. We’re taught in Theatre School (TM) that the playwright is the first artist, and everything goes back to the playwright’s words. The story cannot change because of outside forces and it will not change over time. Once a book has been published, it is done. And yeah in theatre, a play can be done by many people with multiple interpretations of the story but it always goes back to the playwright’s words as they are the first artist and it is about honoring those words. Yada yada. you get it.

TV is always subject to change. Actors leave because there was drama on set or because they have other projects to work on. Writers change and the tone of the show changes. Or they go to a different network and the show changes. You never know how long the show is actually going to go so it could be cancelled in the middle of an important plot they never got to wrap up or the show could extend past the original plot idea and the seasons get more and more ridiculous as they’re just trying to come up with shit to do so they can keep the show running.

Like supernatural, which went on for far too fucking long and just kept spitting out nonsense when they could have wrapped up in season five.

Like the Vampire Diaries, where the main fucking character Elena Gilbert left the show (which was ridiculous!!) or when her little brother Jeremy was just like written out of the show and then never talked about again like what the hell

Like Timeless, which got cancelled after two seasons and left so many loose ends (they had to like, beg for a movie to wrap everything up) 

Like the Magicians, which just, like, sigh. Y’all know. I don’t want to get into it. Y’all know. 

Hell, even Parks and Rec, with Ann and Chris leaving the show. If Parks and Rec had been a book Ann would have never left!!! Never!!! 

Characters get pregnant because the actors who play them get pregnant and suddenly THAT’s the plot line of the season. (Wynonna Earp, Brooklyn 99, The Office, How I Met Your Mother, Sex and The City, Bones, Friends, The Big Bang Theory, Once Upon A Time, Charmed, The Vampire Diaries, Parks and Rec, Grey’s Anatomy, The X-Files, Yes I Looked Up This List To Prove My Point)

If an actor breaks their foot then the writers have to change the plot. Everything about the story is subject to change due to outside forces and that might be a selling point for some people but i do not vibe with it!! 

And also, you’re watching the story unfold over the course of time and something could change halfway through the season and they abandon the really cool plot they were working on to suddenly set up a way for them to kill off the main character of the show. (okay apparently i do want to get into it with the magicians).

Like call me a snob but i like a concise arch! Something that the show is working towards, the story that they’re telling and the thesis of the show, and the end goal they’re working towards. I just honestly don’t like the “stories wrap up in one season and will we get another? Maybe? Okay yes we will so let’s come up with a new big bad for the characters to fight who’s got ideas” or like if you get seven seasons into a show and they’re like “And here’s my long lost sister that ive literally never mentioned before but we needed something exciting for the plot so here she is!” like i hate that shit. I know my old roommate loooooved when TV shows pulled twists like that so im not saying it’s bad writing im saying I personally hate this style of writing. 

I just keep throwing in these disclaimers so no one gets pissy at me lmao 

I think what caused me to realize and put a name to these feelings was watching the Schitt’s Creek Finale. I love Schitt’s Creek because it feels like one concise story. The characters all grow and develop and have an arch and at the natural conclusion of that arch, the story wrapped up. I loved that shit. It was a game changer for me. Any other show would have kept going and the tone of the show would have been totally different and frankly im glad they wrapped it up when they did and as they did. It was a perfect ending. 

I haven’t really watched the Good Place but I’m told similar things about it. 

Avatar the Last Airbender which we can all agree is the greatest show ever written had a clear plotline throughout the whole series and a goal they were working towards even if they did have side plots, it was all building up to one endgame. And it was stellar. 

I also recently rewatched parks and rec which is one of my favorite shows of all time and i do truly love it but like the whole point of the show originally was that they were gonna build a park and there were times in the show that they just totally forgot about that goal to work on other storylines until they were like ANN’S LEAVING WE GOTTA BREAK GROUND. That’s annoying! And once parks and rec started getting really popular and making more money they were able to be like “let’s send them to england! France! DC! Scotland! San Francisco! Let’s bring in Michelle Obama and Joe Biden and John McCain and Madeleine Albright! Which like all of that was really cool and some of the best parts of the series but also just another example of how the show changed over time as they got more name recognition and money. 

Also lmao i just had the thought that it doesn't really matter what community did because the point of that show was to be batshit and they succeeded spectacularly. What a good time. Just had to add that in there. 

So yeah that’s why i hate the television format because everything is subject to change from the plot to the tone to the writing to the characters and a lot of times there isn’t a clear narrative arch as they’re just coming up with nonsense to keep the show going and i just don’t vibe with that. 

So if i hate the television format why do i still watch it, you ask? You never shut about tv shows on your blog and yet here you are declaring that you hate them. What’s up with that. Well, the answer is simple. I have major FOMO. Also lmao quite honestly i just recently came to these conclusions and put words to these feelings during the quarantine so after 23 years of being pissy at tv shows all the time i honestly probably will watch less of it. I probably wont stop completely tho. Ive already said that im not gonna watch tv shows with queer characters until the show is over and its been confirmed for me that the show treats its queer characters and viewers with respect and dignity and i stand by that. (It’s the only reason why ive started to watch black sails.) im for sure never watching another cw show again. I have literally never finished a CW show because something has happened in it halfway through that pissed me off so much i never finished the series

So that’s my opinion does anyone also feel the same way? I feel like im crazy

[zuzuslastbraincell]

Katara!

KATARA KATARA KATARA

why I like them

oh god where do i even start. katara just contains so many multitudes - she's sweet and feminine and caring and attentive but she's never reduced to just that, she's never just 'the girl', she's also allowed to get mad, to be petty, to laugh at her brother, to be headstrong and stubborn, to express vulnerability, to cry and to laugh, to make ridiculous facial expressions and *be* very expressive. she's dealing with a lot of trauma not simply from the loss of her mother but that loss represents also how her tribe have been decimated by the fire nation, how she's the last waterbender, how all this pressure exists on her shoulders (but also pride, but also determination, to bring it back) and that is expressed subtly throughout the series with the same depth and love that male characters are afforded with regard to their respective traumatic experiences. and despite all this she never tries to stop making the world good? She's always pushing for change, she's always wanting to make things better, she's relentless and doesn't give up when it comes to her vision for a better world... she has such a big heart. and that coexists with a deep anger in her, and deep hurt. Not to make an ocean metaphor so early on but she's as deadly and deep as the ocean but she chooses to be kind and warm and that's so powerful.

why i don't

honnestly while katara's instincts to mother people are a sad symptom of how she was forced to grow up to soon and automaically asigns herself a role of emotional responsibility she has mixed feelings about, i know that if katara tried to mother me, i would be annoyed. but that sounds more like a me problem.

favourite episode

oh it's either the episode where she beats the fucking shit out of pakku or it's the southern raiders. the first one because it's so gratifying to see how she's grown and developed as a bender and really come into her own. the second because... god i love how *messy* the southern raiders is, and it really taps into what i love about katara - she's flawed, she runs off on an ill-thought out revenge mission with zuko, she's got a great capability for darkness as she quite seriously considers murdering a man she has every right to loathe and to kill - but she chooses against it, in the end. it would not be right for her, if not him. she chooses what's right for her in the end.

favourite season

I'm gonna be a wee bit controversial and say book 1 had the best conception of katara's arc from student to master and really saw her grow and flourish, from someone yelling at her brother' oafish prejudice to a real master, that really solidified her as an idealist and presented that as the strength that is, that showed her struggling with petty jealousy of aang's progress and had her stumble in ways that made her character comeplling and interesting - like what an introduction to her character! book 2 had some fantastic moments but i can't think of anything particularly remarkable about hee character arc - largely because it tied into aang's romantic arc i think at this point. book 3 had some absolutely fantastic moments (scam queens katara and toph!! painted lady!! southern raiders!! the final agni kai) that really shone but also book 3 lays a lot of groundwork for fanon i hate (e.g. katara as the mom friend - wish that headcanon would die tbh)

favourite line

fuck there's a lot of good ones but my underrated fave is when sokka says he's kissed a girl before but she's never met her and katara says 'Who? Gran-gran? I've met gran-gran' and it's bruuutaaall

but my favourite serious line is 'I will never ever give up on people who need me'. powerful.

favourite outfit

water tribe anything!! and i actually think her book one/book two braids are her best hair. underrated katara hair. personally she looks just adorable in her parka in the flashback to when she was like. eight.

OTP

katara/personal fulfilment

katara/happiness

katara/fulfilling her goals and dreams

katara/loving minor background character who is never named

there's some ships i like in AU situations - yuetara is actually one i lov, especially with waterbender yue, i just love the whole sea/moon thing as well as katara and yue rebelling in loud/quiet ways, being girlfriends who refuse to have their lives defined by the expectations of older men, who have a great sense of duty towards their nations and won’t let gendered expectations stop them.

and most of you know i like the messy drama of katara/azula in a lighter AU situation where they're like, school or academic rivals, and the legacy of imperialism isn’t quite so personal (and azula makes better choices, obviously), but it’s not as much as i “ship” them as i just find the potential dynamic interesting, they’re both driven by a sense of duty for their home, it’s just that means *very* different things depending if you’re SWT or FN.

none of them are OTPs though - they’re more just fun thought experiments

brotp

katara & sokka - absolutely love their sibling dynamic its amazing. both have been impacted negatively by the shit in their lives and are not always dealing with it in functional ways but theyre there for each other, through thick and thin, always have each other's backs, they roast each other and bicker and sometimes make stupid decisions and sometimes lash out but at the end of the day their love pulls through, they’re able to work past those conflicts.

katara & aang - honestly while i feel kataang was just so poorly executed in the show (listen guys I just can’t after ember island players, i know that was a bad episode, but i can’t) & i cant imagine katara wanting to leave the south pole after the war for long spells (it would have to be long distance love, lots of profound and heartfelt letters and occasional visits, if anything, but i dont know if that’s what katara wants or needs? so maybe it wouldn’t pan out?), but regardless, i really do think these two had a life-changing friendship where each really represented hope for each other, that's at the core of it, they both truly believe in each other, and inspired each other. katara & aang good.

a headcanon

chief katara anyone?? chief katara?!?! 

oh oh OH i also think that katara, while primarily a combat bender during the war, actually takes to healing a lot more after the show and gets proper healing training at some point with the help of a trained medical expert and maybe yugoda. tbh i feel like the show was a bit dismissive of healing as an ability - i feel like having that is *extremely* useful in any combat situation, you always have a medic on hand - but i understand why katara, who wanted to be recognised as powerful regardless of her gender, and wanted to hold herself in a fight alongside sokka & aang, pushed for combat waterbending training because that is what 'powerful' looks like to her in the moment. obviously katara is capable of incredible healing feats (see: saving aang) but i think given we see her as a healer in lok (not a decision i necessarily disagree with) would mean a shift in focus. i think katara actually comes to realise she likes healing a great deal, but really she excels in all aspects of waterbending and is the south’s most respected master who helped rejuvenate southern style waterbending  

unpopular opinion

the main reason people think katara is straight is because we see her have very few meaningful interactions with other girls outside of toph. ATLA as a show is a bit romance obsessed, and very heteronormative in that regard, and so interactions with minor characters almost always line up with a potential crush for sokka or katara, and later, zuko (suki, haru, jet, yue, song, jin....). we rarely see katara build friendships with other girls and it’s such a damn shame.

(anyway bi katara for life)

a wish

the version of the puppetmaster we saw was actually fire nation propaganda, i feel like katara would have felt deep compassion for a prisoner of war and after maybe some clashes, would have agreed to help smuggle her out of the fire nation and secure passage home for hama, and tried to assure her that she still has a place there. the treatment of hama in that episode was awful (but also hama was written to be almost cartoonishly evil, very much an evil witch in her cottage in the spooky woods? like the whole horror movie / spooky story opening was such a big tell) and tbh i reject the thesis that we saw ‘katara’s dark potential’ in that episode completely, or that bloodbending as a power is inherently dark, or katara’s use of it to stop hama ‘corrupted’ her. I feel like katara might feel this way as a teenager perhaps but with time (she can be a little black and white at times), and especially with more training as a healer, i think she might realise that’s not the case, she’ll realise that she was right to try and oppose hama, her elder (she was lashing out rather than really trying to oppose the fire nation), and it wasn’t a betrayal of her or her beliefs, but also her use of bloodbending wasn’t wrong or evil inherently at all? and maybe she’d find ways to use it for healing purposes? anyway my wish is that, i like the idea that they meet again, speak about their differences, reconcile a little / come to an understanding, and katara learns more from hama again

an oh-god-please-don't-ever-happen

anything where katara’s character is reduced to a comforter or a healing device for a man and his trauma. particularly zuko. (they don’t have that dynamic in canon thankfully, zuko would never, zuko respects her too much)

5 words to describe them:

idealistic, hard-working, powerful, headstrong, kind

my nickname for them:

chief. or comrade. :^)

[thebubblemaster]

Its midnight and I gotta wake up at 5am to go to work tomorrow but I've been thinking about this for a while and I gotta get it off my chest!

Yall are always complaining about how english teachers find meaning in literature that isn't there and then go off and try to analyze media like youre writing a dissertation. And i can always tell which one of yall actually pays attention in English class bc some of yall don't understand what makes a good analysis! Some of yall just list evidence and expect it to stand for itself and some of yall just go off on explanations without providing any examples. Half the time i ask myself if the person even watched/read whatever it was in the first place! And this applies to both positive and negative analysis. Either way yall have to learn how to analyze things well bc sometimes I see a post I do not agree with but it's well written so I can see where they're coming from, but other times I'm just angry bc its obvious you either didn't pay attention in class or had shitty english teachers.

As someone who considers herself very good at writing analysis essays I can't just stand by and watch yall make fools out of yourselves. Not to flex but, ive been getting As on my last minute essays since freshman year of highschool, so you can be sure that that this advice isn't coming from an amateur.

Anyways, here's my tips on writing an adequate and organized essay for all of your academic and fandom needs.

Forget about the intro. Trust me. I've heard so many people say they get stuck forever on their introductions and it's heartbreaking. If I'm not writing something in class, I always write my introductions last.

Start with your thesis. This is the last sentence of your intro, and really the only important part of that whole paragraph. The basic formula for a thesis is something like, "In Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, he shows that the American dream is futile through his use of symbolism of the green light, Gatsby's idealization of Daisy, and Gatsby's eventual death." Havent read the book in 5 years but you get the idea. You state what it is you think the author is doing and 3 ways you think you can prove it.

The first sentence of each body paragraph will introduce one reason and briefly elaborate on what it is about the reason you will focus on.

Gather evidence. Pick out exact quotes that appear to support the reasons you've provided in your thesis and separate them by each reason. Even if youre going to paraphrase or cite a scene as a whole as evidence, it's good to have the exact words recorded so you can reference them easier when you go back to actually write the essay. Dont forget to record the chapter and page number each one appears on so you can cite it later on. I usually gather more than I think ill need so I have options when I'm writing my analysis, but you'll need at least 2 per reason.

Explain why you think these quotes or scenes support the reason you gave. Why does the light represent Gatsby's unattainable goals? How does his perception of Daisy and her reality differ?

Connect it all back to the original point of your thesis. How does Gatsby's unattainable goal of a relationship with Daisy compare to the unattainable goal of the American Dream? How does America's perception of this dream and the realities of it's futility reflect in Gatsby and Daisy's relationship?

Repeat 3-6 for every body paragraph and you've got 60% of your essay done.

Conclusion. Restate the thesis. Give brief, one sentence summaries on how each of your paragraphs connect to your overarching point. End it with something like "It is due to Fitzgerald's use of symbolism and characterization that the message of the American Dream itself being an illusion throughout the novel is successful." Praise the author or something along those lines. Dont bring up anything new that you didnt talk about in your previous paragraphs.

Ok, back to the Introduction. The introduction is there to provide context for the analysis. Youre always supposed to write as if your audience has never read the book youre writing about. Introduce the author and the specific work your essay is about. Use the authors full name the first time you mention them and then just the last name every time after. Only mention things that are relevant to what you will be talking about. Keep it concise and build up to your thesis. Introduction paragraphs for analysis essays Do Not have to be long. In fact, it should be the shortest paragraph in the essay. 4-5 good sentences should be enough.

Now here are just some basic tips everyone should know

Book titles are typed in italics: The Great Gatsby. Poems and short stories are written in quotation marks: "The Raven," or"The Yellow Wallpaper."

Never use contractions. Ever. The only reason an apostrophe should be in there is if it's there to be possessive.

Don't use a thesaurus. Seriously. If you're not entirely familiar with a word, don't use it. It's obvious when someone has filtered their essay through one because they're usually unreadable. You don't have to use long words to get your point across.

DO NOT WRITE IN THE FIRST PERSON! There is no "I am going to write about" in a formal essay. This is obvious to anyone who is reading it. Dont say what you'll write about, just write about it!

Don't use words like "attempts" or say things like "this might connect to this" or whatever. State everything as of it is an undisputable fact. Be assertive with your points. It makes you look more credible and like you know what you're talking about.

Write in the presnt tense always even if the author is dead: "Fitzgerald uses symbolism." As well as about a character's actions of the book's events: "Daisy crashes the car and runs over the woman," "Gatsby throws lavish parties."

When teachers say avoid passive voice they mean the noun goes before the verb. "Nick drives the car" not "The car is driven by Nick."

It doesn't matter whether you agree with what you're writing. If you see evidence for a point and its the easiest thing to write about, just do it. No one will care or notice if it's not your real opinion.

If you can frame something in a way that will help your point, then do it. Even if at first glance its not exactly relevant.

You can make anything into an argument if you try hard enough. Which is basically what youre doing when writing an analysis essay, arguing that your interpretation is the right one.

Be as concise as possible. Avoid all tangents to your main point and stay on topic 100% of the time. This will help you keep your essay organized and your reader convinced that you have a solid grasp on the text.

Now go forth and make convincing arguments! Even if they are about weeb shit.

Thank you for your time.

[moquall]

Dissidia Final Fantasy : SECRETUM～秘密～ (Part 1 / 2)

P.S : If you have seen a similiar post before, yes,  I actually posted this one but i was stupid.. accidentally delete it because an error from my mobile browser ==“.  I got the copy of this DVD in May 2018 and wanted to post it in August 2018 but i’m really sorry, I don’t have much free time since i need to focus on my thesis ==“ . Sorry for keep promising to post as soon as possible.

———————————————————————————————————–

I dont know if you’re interested  but anyone remember SECRETUM ～秘密～ ?

This one is the official DVD and Bluray cover but i personally like the cover of the pamphlet that used in ffwikia and the premium edition cover that nomura drew :(

It’s DISSIDIA NT Special Live reading event held in December 18th - December 19th 2017, which is also part of FF 30th anniversary starring the Japanese voice actors of the casts.

From left to right : yuuki ono (amnesiac man), masakazu morita (tidus), toshiyuki morikawa (sephiroth), hideo ishikawa (squall), takahiro sakurai (cloud)

I posted some point i’ve collected before, but i am sorry i did a lot of mistake. Now i have the DVD version, so i want to share what really happened in this live reading event since no one talking about this, or more like people forget about this event -_-”

Let me remind you before you read,

First, I don’t have the script which is a part of the premium edition so i need to rely on my listening skill and there are a possibility i misheard something.

Second, I understand Japanese though it’s not 100%.

Third, my english skill is so bad so i’m sorry if I translated it wrongly and see a lot of grammar mistake .. so let me know if you see mistranslated and grammar mistake._.

Fourth, I actually uploaded this live reading somewhere so if you’re interested, i can give you the link but please ask me privately and do not redistribute it elsewhere. P.S : It’s in Japanese and of course no english version and english sub

FIFTH, IT’S A VERY LONG POST, a total of 8 act and some dialogues, so i decided to divide it into 2 parts. 

—————————————————————————————————

The story start with Morikawa-san and Sakurai-san as the narrator, introduce a little bit about what fantasy is and then continue narrating about Phantom Train from Final Fantasy VI. When the Phantom Train was on the Rift, on the way to send the dead to the afterlife, One of the souls broke the window and escaped. When he jumped out, this soul was illuminated by the light and falling off the train, just like a shooting stars. And then the scene switch to our three heroes.

——————————————————-

ACT 1

Somewhere in NT world (or i think you call it “World B”), the Weather Trio (Squall, Tidus and Cloud) who were under Materia’s request are on their way to investigate a mysterious light that fell into World B. Squall complained why he is doing this but Tidus said it can’t be helped since it’s Materia’s request and Cloud add it will be a trouble if they didnt help her so Squall decided to think it as a “mission” .

Tidus : But aren't you excited to pick up the shooting star ? Squall & Cloud : Whatever.. // Not interested (in the same time) Tidus : Oh okay... (silence) Tidus : What is this ?! a moment of silence ?! or a trial ? ... Hey, Cloud- Cloud : It seems we are closer to the fading point Tidus : Is that so ? Squall : Yeah, If the goddess's words are true, It's must not that far. Cloud : I'm happy for you, Tidus. the 'trial' will be over. Tidus : You sure have a good ear Squall : It's on the east. Let's go. Cloud : Yeah. Tidus : Roger.

And Squall's first monologue start.

“We all are not from this world. Because our origins are different, Cloud and Tidus are actually not the people whom i supposed to meet. At first we were forcibly summoned, forced to fight, couldn’t even escape and it was the worst situation. But as we keep continue fighting, I started to think I’m glad to be involved in this war with them and I can’t believe we meet again. This is not bad at all.”

Tidus asked the true form of the mysterious light. Cloud assumed since Materia said the light is a powerful source, it is probably a Summon while Squall doesn’t really care about it .When they reach their destination, They didn’t see anything or even feel a summon’s presence so Cloud thought Materia gave the wrong directions and just when they are going to return, they heard someone’s voice and what they found is a man.

Tidus : Ew.. He is dead.. Squall : A corpse won't speak Tidus : So he is just sleeping. Hey !! Are you okay ? The man : Ugh.. Squall : does he has any injury ? Tidus : No, it doesn't Cloud : Looks like it's not a summon Tidus : But isn't amazing ? falling from the sky and uninjured. The man : Sum...mon... Tidus : Oh, he woke up. The man : Where am i ? Tidus : Hmm.. I don't know how to explain.. Cloud : Perhaps this is not the world where you lived. The man : Huh ?

They asked the man's about his origin but the man doesn’t remember anything including his name so they came up with conclusion he has amnesia just like what happened in previous war. (Cosmos & Chaos war)

Tidus told him when the first time they were summoned to this world (he mean during cosmos-chaos war), their memories were hazzy and the man shouldn’t be worry because they are his allies, but Squall refused the call him “ally” because a warrior can’t fall from the sky and Materia wouldn’t say it as the powerful resource. Tidus and Squall start debating but Cloud stopped them. The amnesiac man thanked Tidus for his welcoming but also understand why Squall being so cautious. He want to know who is he and then ask Cloud what he should do and Cloud suggested to bring him and report to Materia. Cloud monologue’s start.

“We brought the man to the goddess’s tower and explained we found him instead of the mysterious light but our investigation is not over unless we bring back the powerful resources she sought and prove if there is abnormal thing or not. And we know nothing about this man’s identity. She said “i didn’t summon him”. Materia, the goddess who summoned us to this world is a novice god and not reliable.” 

The four back to their starting point. The man ask the weather trio if he can join them and Tidus is happily accept him because he need someone he can talk with. The man promised to Squall he is not going to slow them down. Squall replied “whatever” and again, Squall’s inner monologue start.

“I want to think he is not our enemy but i have bad feeling since the goddess doesn’t know at all about him. Moreover, if a greater power is approaching, there is a possibility he is the one who summoned it. 'You must imagine the worst possible scenario'. That's what they taught to me.”

———————————————————————

Since this man has an amnesia, Tidus suggested to give him a nickname. He told the man some of their allies has a nickname like horned helmet (warrior of light) and onion kid (onion knight). Cloud stopped Tidus for coming up with weird nickname and The man thought a nickname based on their characteristic doesn’t suit him.

Tidus : You’ll understand when you see them ! But your clothes looks normal.. The man : Okay.. Sounds risky if i leave this to you. so, Squall, Have any idea ? Squall : ... <- (thinking) The man : Squall ? Squall : ... The man : SQUALL ?! HEY SQUALL ?! You have an idea, right ? Squall : ... The man : Squall ? Squall !! Squall !! Squa--!! Squall : JOOOHHHHHHNNNNNNN !! The man : Eh ? Huh ? Squall : John...

Squall explained he heard “John” is a name that used as an alias and the man is okay with that so they decided to call him John until he remember his name. The four then continue their investigation and again.. Squall’s inner monologue start.

“John Doe, It is a name given to unidentified corpse. It was written on the book i read before. If i abbreviate it to ‘John’, I am sure he will never know the real meaning”.

——————————————————-

ACT 2

The four now is in Alexandria. John asked why he didn't see people at all and Tidus explained it looks like the real one but this place is created by the gods and used somewhat as an “arena” for the conflict so nobody lives here yet .

John : A conflict and a match, huh ? Is Materia run an arena ? Tidus : Yeah ! And we fight on her place. John : eh ? with who? Tidus : with other warriors. I also fight Cloud and Squall. John : Are they the enemy ? Tidus : Hmm.. I think they 'turned into enemy side' a lot lately. John : Huh ? What about the audience ? Tidus : No, everyone participate in this conflict. John : And what's the point of doing that? Tidus : Hmm.. If they fight here, this world will be lively. John : But no one is watching, right ? Tidus : That's not what I mean 'lively' . John : Huh?? Hmm.. I'm confused Tidus : Yeah, me too.

Squall and Cloud who are done with their investigation join them. John commented they sure went through a lot fighting in the battle between the gods but Squall think it’s a part of mission and while Cloud think as an easy job which left Tidus surprised since he really enjoyed it. John thought they are willing to participate in the battle that probably risk their life and Tidus replied the battle looks more like a sports match (he actually wanted to said blitzball) and assured John could fight with the knife in his waist like one of ‘thief’ friend, Zidane. John then explained when the first time he look at this place, he said there is so much blind spot to hide which left Tidus wonder who John is.

They decided to go to another place. Tidus asked why Squall being unfriendly with John and He replied they know nothing about John and advised not to be so friendly but Tidus doesn’t care with that because he can’t leave him alone. Squall let out a sigh and told him to do whatever he want and then Tidus’s monologue start. 

“It’s a story about my homeworld. When i came from Zanarkand to Spira, i was puzzled and feeling anxious. But I am very happy when they treated me with kindness that time. That’s why i cant leave John alone.”

———————————————————————

They arrived in Cornelia Plains and fight some of manikins there. Squall asked where John is and Tidus answered he told John to hide under the hill to watch them fight but he is nowhere to be seen and suddenly John who is on a tree called and told them it’s a best place to hide and see how the battle progress. John asked if that zombie-like creature is their enemy and a part of the abnormal things but Tidus replied its’ an enemy from the previous war but they didn’t appear as much as before. Squall offered to investigate alone. John jokes Squall doesn’t trust him but Squall replied it “It’ll be a trouble if you hide your presence like before.”

Tidus and Cloud then explained the abnormal things they look for is something more powerful than manikins and they assumed it's a summon which something like a mythical beast, spirit or guardian deity of this world. John feels like he heard about summon before and trying to remember it but no luck and that time Squall is back and reported he didn’t find anything.

John : You sure you didn’t see anything ? Squall : What do you mean ? John : You didn’t let me to investigate alone because you’re hiding about summon, right ? Please. Tell me truth ! I’m sure It’s important to me. Squall : Who is hiding it ? Tidus : Squall, please... Squall : You’re not the only one who came here recently but Y’shtola and Noctis remember everything about their origins. Tidus : Ah ?! John : Again.. another name I never heard. Squall : I see… I don’t know where you got the info but the warriors suffering from amnesia is happened a long time ago. John : You think I pretending I have an amnesia ? For what ? Squall : It’ll be easy for you to collect information. Cloud : Stop it ! There is no end for this argument. Squall & John : ... Cloud : Let’s go to the other place

John decided to leave the party to find the clues about his memories because what Squall said make sense and since he doesn’t have his memories there is a possibility he is their enemy. Tidus tried to stop him and assured he is not an enemy and doesn’t look like it, like the arrogant man with golden armor (Emperor Mateus) or the one who seek the power of void (Exdeath). John thanked Tidus and left. Tidus then confront Squall and he answered if he is enemy’s spy, he would not leave them and explained..

Squall : Up till now, I don't have a proof he is not our enemy. But we will be killed if he suddenly attack us while hiding his presence like before. That's why I can't lower my guard. Tidus : Oh.. You're worried about us ? ...Sorry for thinking you're stubborn and troublesome. Squall : Stubborn ?! Tidus : Sorry.. Cloud : Let's continue our investigation Tidus : But I'm worried about John. Cloud : Are you going to find him ? Tidus : I want him to rejoin the party because i trust him. Are you okay with that, Squall ? Squall : Yeah... Tidus : Okay ! LET'S GO !

———————————————————————

Some time passed after John left the party and now he is in the Floating Continent . He saw a lot of manikins roaming around the meadow but since he is not familiar with this area, walking alone will be tough. The fog is getting thicker and the manikins doesn’t even leave the area which left him with no choice to fight but just when he is ready to attack, Cloud and Squall come to help him. John wondered why the two are here and Tidus come and said it’s obvious they are coming to help their friend and encouraged him to fight together.

Cloud : Glad we made it. John : You’re coming to run after me ? Tidus : Yeah ! We all wanted to go together. John : We all ? Tidus : Right, Squall ? Squall : …For now John : (chuckle) For now, huh..

Tidus said even their objective are different, he want the four as a party and John replied he is okay with that since going alone to find the clues is difficult. John thanked Squall for helping him and Squall said “Whatever..”. Cloud then encouraged him “If you don’t know who you are, You can believe on yourself.” the four continue their journey and the scene switch to John’s inner monologue.

“Even though I have no clues about who I am, I started to feel that I’m different with them. When my memories returned and know my true identity, I hope I’m not their enemy. That’s what I believe for now.”

———————————————————————

Meanwhile, there was a commotion in the Phantom Train after one of the soul escaped. While the souls are talking about this, a man in black cloak is sitting alone at the corner, looking at where the soul fall which is dissidia world from the train’s window. And then this man started to lament.

“Aah… The treasure I keep is gone. The one who escaped this train stole it. If I have the treasure, I can take you all to the paradise. Please.. lend me your hand. Shake the Phantom Train and make it fall into the real world. Take the treasure back from the insolent thief.”

“If we have the treasure, we can go to the ‘paradise’ “ . Those words are enough to instigate the souls scared with the hell. The souls believe those words and made the Phantom Train derailed and go to dissidia world instead. While the souls were absorbed with the treasure to revive the dead which is unknown if it is really exist or not, No one realize the man in black cloak is nowhere to be seen.

——————————————————-

ACT 3

The four had check every place but they found nothing. Tidus complained Materia fooled them but Cloud and Squall sense something bad and they saw a train in the sky.

Tidus : WOAAAH !! The train is coming here !! Cloud : It won’t crashed here. Tidus : Why are you so calm ? We will be died if it crashed here. (The train crashed) Squall : Calm down. Tidus : DON’T SAY AFTER IT CRASHED !

They wondered if it’s a part of the abnormal thing and the area is suddenly surrounded by the smoke. John suddenly felt a pain, said he heard a voices which make his head hurts and passed out after that. The trio wondered if the smoke affect him since they don’t feel anything.

Tidus : The voices John has heard.. Who is it ? .. Huh ? Cloud : It’ll be dangerous if we get close to it. Squall : Yeah.. Let’s go back to previous place Cloud : Right. We need to let John rest. Tidus : Yeah.. yeah. Wait ! Wait a minute. Squall : What ? Tidus : No.. it’s nothing. Nevermind. Squall : What do you mean ? Tidus : Hehe.. Your voices are similiar Squall : Huh?

"What I heard is a song to soothe the souls of the dead in my world and a voice of the old man i know. I kinda get a clue what the train is so I am not scared anymore when i noticed it. Well, because I'm kinda similiar to them."

Tidus laughed, enough to make Squall confused and asked if he look like with someone. Tidus then decided to investigate the train alone but stopped by Cloud and Squall. He assured it will be quick and told them he is not ‘alone’. Just when Cloud and Squall is going to carry John back to the previous place, “One winged Angel” plays and Sephiroth came, told them to hand John to him or die instead . Cloud refused but Sephiroth explained John is the man who escaped the train carrying the dead and got revived. Cloud fight him and told Squall to escape and take John somewhere.

"Is it John who caused this ? or Sephiroth’s plotted it ? What did Tidus noticed ? I don’t know but my role is obvious. I’ll stop Sephiroth !"

TO BE CONTINUED ON PART 2

[edwad]

If you had to choose 10 marxian econ books for someone who has only read marx, what would you recommend

by “marx” i have to assume you mean capital because that really is the root of “marxian econ”. it won’t suffice to just have read the manifesto or something like that and i don’t want to recommend books that will be saying things that you’re totally unfamiliar with because you’re skipping straight into the secondary literature which already largely assumes a reader which is familiar with capital. anyway, heres a list, which isnt in any particular order and which includes a few things that i’m still working through for myself:

1. essays on marxs theory of value - isaak rubin 

hugely important book which essentially all value-form theory derives from. written by an extremely knowledgeable marx scholar who had a much better idea of what marx was doing in capital than most marxists today. last month brill published a book called “responses to marxs capital” which includes some of rubin’s other writings, most of them being published in english for the first time. hes a huge figure in the literature and definitely worth looking in to. 

2. marx, capital, and the madness of economic reason - david harvey

i was obviously going to put something of harvey’s in here and i think his last book is a fairly good summary of the best of what hes done up to this point with some welcome additions (the visualization of capital, the stuff on anti-value, etc). not perfect but he definitely provides a good framework for how to understand the geography of capital which doesnt require necessarily agreeing with him on everything. honestly, if you keep up with harvey at all you’ll be able to tell that its mostly just typical harveyisms with the inclusion of some stuff from his recent talks (which have all been almost exactly the same). 

3. in the long run we are all dead - geoff mann

maybe this looks more like a book on keynesian rather than marxian econ, but its real argument is that keynesianism as a long historical project (meaning long before and after keynes himself) has been an immanent critique of liberalism and revolution and that keynes is to us what hegel was to marx. a really great book that covers a lot of ground which isnt always explicitly economic, but definitely worth the read if you have the patience. if you want a longer review, i left a pretty lengthy one on amazon a few months ago where you can get a better idea of what i got from this book, what its limitations are, and why i think its so important. 

4. monopoly capital - paul baran & paul sweezy 

an older book which hasnt exactly aged well, but its thesis has become extremely popular again since the crisis. written by baran and sweezy, the fathers of “the monthly review school” of economics, its played a huge role in the direction of marxian debates from the 1960s up until today. the authors were both tending in the same intellectual direction in their earlier works (sweezy’s theory of capitalist development and baran’s political economy of growth, the former still being considered one of the best introductions to marxs work and its relevance to the 20th century, with much controversy of course) and this was the result of them coming together to talk about what they saw as a monopoly capitalism which was fairly different in character than the “competitive capitalism” of marx’s day and therefore had to be dealt with differently. 

5. capitalism - anwar shaikh

probably the most ambitious work the left has seen in a long time which tries to thoroughly critique neoclassical theory and develop an alternative economics which is rooted in what shaikh calls the “classical” school (”classical-marxian” would probably be more appropriate but i think hes trying to downplay his reliance on marx). in it, shaikh takes a good look at many of the competing schools of thought (neoclassical, post-keynesian, sraffian/neo-ricardian, etc) and sees how they stand up analytically and empirically, taking issue with their underlying assumptions and the inevitable problems which arise from building a theory on false foundations. 

one of his bigger points is that the neoclassical theory of “perfect competition” is nonsensical but wasnt thoroughly combatted by heterodox economists, who only made it so far as asserting the “imperfect” nature of competition, which, in shaikh’s eyes, is to simply add imperfections after the fact into the theory which necessarily begins with the absurd assumption of perfection. the book’s argument is that the theorists of “imperfect competition” still rely on the theory of “perfect competition” as their starting point and never really manage to escape the latter because they havent actually created an alternative way of thinking about competition, they’ve just inserted a complication into a theory which was a completely unrealistic assumption to begin with. much of his attack is directed at the monthly review school and the idea of a “monopoly capitalism” which is supposedly different in form than the allegedly “perfect competition” of capitalism during marxs life. in this sense, this book serves as a counterbalance to the MR approach and is also probably the most successful attempt at situating marxs TRPF within an empirical study of kondratiev waves. 

hes also got a website with a bunch of resources and a lecture series from a course he did on the material in the book which is pretty interesting, but it assumes a good deal of familiarity with economics. 

6. a history of marxian economics - michael howard & john king (2 volumes)

this is a pretty thorough history of the internal debates among marxian economists ever since the death of marx all the way up to 1990. it covers a lot of ground and doesnt shy away from controversies where marx didnt come out on top. of course, a good amount of this is subject to the interpretation of the authors and they definitely have a great deal of input, but its a very impressive work which i frequently use as a marxian encyclopedia of sorts. 

7. the making of marx’s capital - roman rosdolsky

despite some problems, rosdolsky’s classic book on the development of marx’s critique of political economy is easily one of the most important marxological works ever written and it still holds a lot of sway. taking the grundrisse as its starting point, the author unpacks marx’s project and constantly asserts marx’s method and in particular his explicit reliance on hegel’s logic, pitting marx (as he was in his drafts) against the then contemporary thinkers and critics which were prone to misusing or misunderstanding the arguments in capital. as a disclaimer and partial criticism of rosdolsky’s portrait of marx, i dont believe that we can simply say that marx in the late 50s was identical to the marx of the 60s and 70s that wrote and published capital, but i also dont think that means we necessarily have to discount the grundrisse (or theories of surplus value, etc) simply because they werent written at precisely the right time for marxs thinking. 

i only just got my own copy a couple of weeks ago so i cant say too much more but i have skimmed through chunks of the pdf and its totally unavoidable in the secondary literature so im not totally unfamiliar. its one i plan on tackling in full very soon.

8. moneybags must be so lucky - robert paul wolff

another marxological one, this tiny book is a literary analysis of capital and in particular the first part of volume 1. wolff does a great job of deconstructing the arguments in chapter 1 to try and clarify what marx is doing and why with a lot of humor and philosophical tangents. one of his biggest points is that marxs heavy reliance on irony was the only adequate way of capturing the contradictory nature of capitalism and is therefore part of the theory itself, rather than simply being a way to dress up the theory and make it more palatable to readers. i approached this book after id already “read marx” too, but it was extremely useful because it wasnt until i read it that i finally started to actually understand marx. for that reason, i dont feel particularly bad about recommending it to anyone thats already familiar with capital because it does a great job of making the most difficult part of volume 1 infinitely more exciting and comprehensible – especially since its never enough to just read capital once. 

9. the production of commodities by means of commodities - piero sraffa

against my better judgement, i’m putting this on the list knowing full-well that i’m going to be harassed by an anon which has been on my ass for about a year now ever since i first recommended sraffa’s book in a reading list despite the fact that ive never finished it (barely even read it to be more precise). i do, however, know that its had a huge influence on the trajectory of marxian thought since 1960 and that many of the thinkers are still trying to recover from the theoretical displacement implicit in sraffa’s thesis. 

its a math-heavy book (which is why i havent been able to wade through it) and its status as a work coming from the “marxian” approach is hotly contested, but its certainly had its way with the marxian school (not to mention the neoclassical school, which has an easier time simply ignoring sraffa entirely), generating countless debates among scholars, many of whom simply wish that this book had never been written. for a short summary of the debate and whats apparently at stake, ive got an old post where i worked out some of the initial responses to sraffa and how this has snowballed into the controversy that it is today. ive got it on this list because of how unavoidable it is. you cant go into the secondary literature at anything resembling an intermediate level without knowing sraffa’s name and why everyone feels so strongly about him.

10. an introduction to the three volumes of karl marxs capital - michael heinrich

i dont quite like that im ending this list with a book that presents itself as an “introduction” when we’ve already established that this is a bunch of recommendations for someone thats already acquainted with capital, but sadly this is the only full-length book that heinrich has in the english language and its reading of capital is so unorthodox that it feels totally alien against all the traditional interpretations of marx. honestly, it doesnt feel like an introduction in the first place, reading more like a challenge and an intervention into the secondary debates about what marx is saying in capital which derives from the german debates which constitute the parameters for the “neue marx-lekture”, or “the new reading of marx”, which sits uncomfortably among the more typical marxisms that surround it on all sides, especially among non-german theorists/readers. 

as far as the dominant reading of marx goes, nearly everything this book says betrays marx’s project, but heinrich knows marx very well, better than most of us (as even his biggest critics readily admit). this may be considered reflective of a “new reading”, but that doesnt mean the old ones are any better or that this one is necessarily a “revisionist” project as many claim (or at least, i wouldnt consider it to be revising marx even if its guilty of revising “marxism”, which is by no means necessarily a bad thing). on the contrary, i think heinrich has the best understanding of marx out of pretty much everyone else right now and thats why i wanted to end with this one. yes, you should read all of the others, especially since you cant understand the way we read and think about marx without coming across the work of people like sraffa and sweezy, but that doesnt really change the fact that heinrich points to a big problem with the way we read and think about marx, that the debates have been getting it wrong all along and largely misunderstanding marxs actual project, miscontextualizing it and falling into dogmatism for various political or academic reasons. 

what heinrich does is to show how the way marx is read and interpreted often misses or downplays the most crucial elements of what marx is actually trying to get across. marxs critique of political economy simply gets converted into a newer, more correct political economy which simply builds on the classical school (shaikh), or it suffers in the hands of those that believe its foundations need to be updated as if it isnt all that relevant anymore (sweezy and baran), or that many of its categories are lacking utility and can simply be done away with (sraffa). rubin’s work plays a big part in establishing the NML reading and harvey draws on heinrich’s scholarship a lot, but nobody really does it as well as heinrich himself and i genuinely think hes lightyears ahead of everyone else. a lot of people are starting to agree and i was one of the most recent converts on the heinrich hype train which has been growing for the last couple of years. 

any day now, we should be getting one of his older books, the science of value, in english and i plan on devouring it as fast as i can, but sadly its been in limbo for several years, with its initial release scheduled for 2014 (if i remember correctly). in the mean time though, we’ve only got his introduction to capital and a bunch of shorter pieces/videos.  

so i guess thats my list of 10 things to read after marx with some explanations on why i think theyre important, culminating in ideologically correct heinrich-worship. this was sorta fun and if you have any other questions feel free to ask. 

[dont-give-money-to-jkrowling]

Remus Lupin in HBP : notes

hey guys ! i am currently trying to reread the hp series, hoping to gain a better understanding of remus’ character. i started with this book bc it was physically closer to me than the other ones and i hate moving.

i will transcribe all these messy notes in a fully detailed and well explained analysis, but first i thought i would post the notes i took from the book bc they are fun and very extensive, so maybe other people can then use them for their analysis of the character ( if you do, please credit me )

warning : they are, however, not very academic. i tried not to get subjective, or at least to state the facts before to add my own reactions. also, i read the book in french so i wasn’t able to quote the book directly and also sometimes i nickname dumbledore “dumbie the meanie”

oh and also a lot of these were written late when i was half asleep so my english is probably terrible and they might not always make sense.

and finally : i swear a lot. and capitalize a lot. get ready.

- Molly mentions that he comes to visit the Weasley household

- Hermione mentions that he tried to make Tonks feel better about Sirius’ death ( including the fact that she didn’t manage to defeat Bellatrix therefore stopping her from killing him ) what a sweet and gentle bean

- first actual apparition in chapter 6 : Harry says his clothes look even more miserable than ever, that he seems too thin and depressed and that he had a lot of white hair SOMEBODY HUGS THAT CHILD

- also he talks about an ex death eater that had been killed and says « i’m surprised he survived an entire year after leaving the death eaters ; if i remember correctly regulus only lasted a few days » which shows that he knows a lot more about regulus’ death than everybody else – makes quite a lot of sense

- literally can’t stop speaking about the war and people who died and how things aren’t looking up for their side

- we see that a lot of protection spells and such are against werewolves : while most of them are scams, i wouldn’t be surprised there was a lot of silver going around at the time, which isn’t a good sign for remus’ safety and health ( mental and physical )

- draco says fenrir greyback is a friend of his family – was he possibly a friend of the blacks ? I need answers

- at hogwarts, harry says that he hoped lupin would write to him, but that he didn’t. He seems disappointed

- he spends christmas with the weasleys ! Why is no one talking about this friendship

- when harry sees him, he thinks he looks skinnier and more miserable than ever. I guess dumbledore is too busy getting harry ready to die to buy him some FREAKING FOOD

- also even on christmas eve in the middle of some bloody party he stays by himself near the fire and looks depressed, he only starts partaking in the conversation when the war is mentionned

- says dumbie the meanie sent him with the werewolves where he was unable to communicate with anyone. He also says ( will have to check in the english version ) that the werewolves are « his pears and equals » in a probably self pitying way

- harry says he seems bitter about having been asked to do this job. ( again, need original text ) but he also appears to be upset to be seen as the token werewolf here

- as soon as he realizes he sounds bitter he tries to smile and says he isn’t complaining and that it’s true that he should do this job and that it is necessary blablabla much BS

- he says other werewolves have a hard time trusting him bc he lived with wizards and they had to steal and kill to eat ( bc… you obviously look… so well fed… and privileged… )

- when harry asks him who Greyback is, he visibly tenses , but when he is the one to mention him ( talking about his mission ) he seems pretty normal

- ALSO he apparently has to see Greyback for his mission what the fork dumbie

- says greyback wants to create an army to overpower the wizarding world sounds festive and also that werewolves have a right to blood and should seek revenge on « normal people »

- seems surprinsingly open to discussing how he got bitten ? Like harry asks if it was when he was a kid and remus just roll on about what happened and his feelings good for him

- for a long time he thought the werewolf who bite him had done it by accident and felt sorry for them and apparently learnt the truth much later HOW DID YOU LEARN IT SOUNDS SO ANGSTY

- when harry says remus is normal and just has a « problem » it reminds him of james and he immediatly starts laughing his heart out this is both nice and really sad

- then starts sharing precious childhood memories and cheers up once again this is both nice and sad

- after that he jokes a bit and wow only a mention of james and his childhood made that sad lonely man so happy i want to cry

- AND MORE AND MORE CHILDHOOD MEMORIES ABOUT THE MARAUDERS

- talks a lot about james but avoids mentioning sirius even when harry tries to bring him up and doesnt even come close to talking about peter

- apparently he got a weasley sweater for christmas this is the cutest thing ever

- remus confirms once again that he isn’t speaking to anyone and probably avoids human contact as much as humanly possible this boi needs a good old therapist

- harry considers remus a patronus expert ??? chill just bc he thaught you that doesn’t mean he wrote his thesis on it

- but apparently he did bc guess who knows exactly why your patronus would change ???

- gets a bit awkward when tonks’ patronus is mentioned and is less at ease with words than usually. Also talks very slowly ( to remember when writing pining remus !! )

- hermione asks about him at hogwarts after the holidays PEOPLE CARE REMUS STOPS AVOIDING EVERYONE

- HOW COULD I FORGET TO MENTION THAT WHEN SNAPE IS MENTIONED HE IS LIKE « YA SURE HE RUINED MY LIFE AND THE ONE OF EVERY OTHER WEREWOLF IN THE COUNTRY BUT I SHOULD BE GRATEFUL THAT HE MADE ME THIS POTION »

- also he says harry’s feelings of hate towards snape come from the old predjudice inherited from james are fucking with me 1) hate justified 2) he literally used the m slur against lily and took part in racist bullying becoming later a facist and 3) i dont really think james had the time to teach harry that snape was a bad guy do you ? #calledout

- tonks hints that remus isn’t giving her any news about, for example, whether he’s alive or not. Remus really ? Bad manners.

- when Harry looks at all the detention’s files, he says Remus’ and Peter’s names were only occasionnally associated with the ones of James and Sirius, who were much more punished. Prank example : inflating another student’s head

- so this is more about greyback than remus but he talks really freely about biting children ( which must have been joyful to hear about poor lil remus ) and other death eaters hex him ? They never hex each other ? So they probably feel pretty entitled to hexing any werewolf that come their way

- also something about this attack bothers me. Dumbledore said he asked for the order members in hogsmeade to come to defend hogwarts but why was remus here then ? And later, when he tells about the battle, he says he saw greyback but there is no mention of them fighting or something yet greyback was supposed not to know remus was a spy for the order ? What is going on here i need answers

- i think remus’ bite mark was probably somewhere on his neck bc that’s where greyback wanted to bite harry. Does remus have to wear constant turtlenecks to hide it ? Omg

- REALLY SNAPE ? When they are both fighting after he killed dumbie he wants to run off and harry calls him a coward and he answers “oh yeah well when your dad bullied me it was always four against one so ha who’s the coward now” like WOW i do not appreciate you and oh also i guess possible information about the fact that the marauders acted together against snape but it’s kind of a contradiction with snape’s own memory where it’s only sirius and remus ? Guess snape is just making things up

- at the school hospital, remus has to stay with bill, who just got attacked by greyback, and that cannot be fun

- people don’t dare to say the word werewolf around remus for some reason

- HOW DOES REMUS KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO BILL AFTER HIS HALF BITE WHAT DID HE WITNESS WHILE SPYING

- when he learns that dumbledore died, he has a complete breakdown ( well he falls to a chair and hides his face in his hands and looks really distressed ) and harry says it’s the first time he sees remus losing control of himself. People underestimate how loyal to dumbie the meanie remus was

- he justified snape for a very long time but as soon as he learns he kills dumbledore ? He goes full ‘i hate him’ mode and says he has been a death eater spy the whole time

- he also used to say snape versus marauders was just old school rivalries but now he says « um, snape hated james » so really a lot of his attitude was really influenced by dumbledore

- as he is himself completely devastated, he takes time to comfort everyone and says « nah it’s not your fault » to everyone who blames themselves

- says a death curse nearly hit him during the battle. That is not a part of his character analysis but damn

- he « recovers » pretty quickly from his breakdown. Like they say his tone is harsh but that’s all lol wish i could get over something that fast

- nah kidding he’s probably just used to all the ‘don’t let them see, don’t let them knoooow’

- MOVING ON TO THAT REMUS/TONKS SCENE I DISLIKE

- as soon as tonks opens her mouth to talk about them dating, he ‘suddenly tenses’

- OKAY WHAT THE FUCK when remus tries to say that he doesn’t want to date tonks she grabs him, yells+ at him and shakes him down ? WHAT THE HELL BACK OFF

- apparently, when having a conversation about his love life, remus loves to stare at all this beautiful floor

- apparently remus predicted that the board members would try and close off hogwarts

- at the funeral he is holding tonks’ hand