#i don't know if this analysis is anything substantial

[arscorpii]

the way utena held onto wakaba and anthy's hands, trying her best to not let go (even though utena was barely holding onto anthy's hand, i'm sure she never wished to let anthy slip away from her grasp). both shots were lit with soft lighting ⟶ to highlight the importance of the person utena was holding onto and their bonds to utena.

the fact that she reached out to them with her left hand, the hand on which she wore her rose crest ring (the ring being clearly visible in both shots) ⟶ utena believed that she could only save wakaba and anthy by being a prince/playing the role of a prince.

utena caught wakaba's right hand with her left hand; wakaba wasn't holding back. meanwhile, anthy reached out to utena's left hand with her left hand as well. i think the difference in how each pair held hands may lie within the ideals between the pairs in their respective circumstances. with regard to wakaba, she harboured lots of pent-up emotions and thoughts about how unfairly the (ohtori) world treated the people it regarded as "special" and "ordinary," such as utena and herself. wakaba was clouded with feelings of inferiority and wanted to be special, to put it simply. utena didn't understand/wasn't aware of these dichotomous mechanisms/systems at play, at this point at least. these conflicting ideals, as in, awareness versus ignorance, were represented in the way they held hands; the hero/chosen one with her firm grasp on the motionless hand of the underdog/forgettable one.

with regard to anthy, the moment utena cracked open her coffin was the first time the both of them saw each other as they truly were. utena believed in a world beyond eternal pain and suffering anthy had to endure and wanted to share that view with her, wanted anthy to see and experience such a world, to save her from this needless perdition for good. eventually, anthy took the chance on the possibility, given how unyielding utena was in trying to reach her despite being stabbed by anthy herself; anthy hesitantly reached out to utena. both utena and anthy wanted to believe in a world where suffering is transient when they reached out to one another through the coffin opening, and not an eternally all-consuming pain as their fates in ohtori. they shared similar hopes in that moment.

utena reached out to both wakaba and anthy with kindness and love:

in the duel with wakaba, she never drew out the sword of dios or fought her. utena de-escalated the duel carefully by taking hold of wakaba's sword (the sword pulled out of saionji) and cutting off the black rose. despite not understanding the sequence of events that had them facing each other off in the dueling arena, wakaba was one of utena's closest friends and utena would save her. it's a little interesting to note that the audience (and utena, too i believe) didn't get a glimpse of wakaba's face during utena's speech as above. in addition, the focus on their interlocked hands when utena mentioned about not understanding the situation and saving wakaba is also interesting (even though the interlocked hands were due to them struggling against each other). it's possible what utena said at that moment may have reached her heart even while being under the control of the black rose. perhaps the speech may have made wakaba realise that she was indeed special. this "specialness" was emphasised by utena not letting wakaba fall into the outline of one of the bodies like the other black rose duelists; because she mattered to utena. "to not be chosen is to die" but in a way, she was chosen by utena here beyond the presented choice between her or anthy. utena chose wakaba and anthy.

in episode 39, akio used the sword pulled out of utena to break through the rose gate. utena was injured and incapacitated by anthy's stab, while anthy was relentlessly impaled with millions of swords embodying humanity's hatred. akio's futile attempts eventually broke the sword and he gave up on the pursuit. so long as he had anthy, he could try again, as in, try again to gain the power to "revolutionise the world" instead of freeing his little sister. utena tried opening the rose gate with her bare hands; dragging her injured body there, clinging onto the thorny vines of the roses on the gate, pushing through the large stone doors. she only wanted to stop the swords from hurting anthy, to help her. utena's love and care for anthy finally unlocked the rose gate into anthy's coffin. utena steadfastly held out her hand to anthy despite anthy's protests. utena's efforts moved anthy to tears, and she reached out to her. in episode 38, utena chose anthy over akio, and all the way back to episode 11, utena chose anthy over the power to revolutionise the world. utena had always chosen anthy against all odds and choices.

the aftermath:

wakaba wasn't holding back possibly due to being under the control of the black rose while anthy's hand eventually slipped away from utena's hold.

nevertheless, utena's efforts matter, very much so, because wakaba will always be on utena's side no matter what happens and anthy will find utena no matter where she is.

[thethiefandtheairbender]

Had a good chat with my partner about it today that maybe let me put a finger on what's always bugged me about "we're here to fix canon" attitudes being so prevalent in fandom (especially in the past 10ish years) throughout my life. This is not to say there's never a time or place for that (I've written fix its myself, or the occasional meta on how something could be fixed/improved) or that people are wrong to (we're anti fandom policing). It's also not an issue to me on the basis of "I love my blorbo in canon and fandom mischaracterizes them in the name of 'fixing' them" etc as it is just... coming from a fundamentally different perspective for story analysis / interaction than most (not all) people in fandom, I think.

One of the reasons I enjoyed getting my English degree was because I was finally being encouraged to and taught in alignment with what my brain had always be inclined to do: you always assume that there's a reason, and a good reason, for the story to do whatever it's doing. It assumes that the story is already exactly what it is supposed to be as it is supposed to be, and it's up to you to find the reasons Why.

The story was boring, or made you feel uncomfortable/bad, or you couldn't root for a character or relationship? All of that, at least at the beginning, doesn't really Matter. You assume that the story is paced fine, you assume the discomfort was intentional or part of something broader (historical shit that hasn't aged well) or that the dichotomy of "I feel invested or not invested" isn't useful. And in doing so, you replace all that with asking why.

An example I'll use is 1984 by George Orwell. I read that book in high school and I fucking hated it. Normally, I like the protagonist the most in anything I watch/read, but in that book, I loathed both the two leads and were actively rooting for them to be captured and tortured so the book could end faster; it was an actively miserable affair. I don't think that was necessarily the author's intention (certain amount of death of the author is baked in, but for a lot of the texts I was reading, we didn't even know the author or anything substantial about them, i.e. Beowulf) but, more importantly, I don't think any of those things are Flaws or downsides in the text.

Part of this is because 1984 is a dystopian novel (if a romcom book breaks genre convention that badly where you're miserable reading it, yeah, maybe something went wrong, but more on that in a minute) but even then it doesn't really matter on the basis of genre; I'm sure some people read 1984 and felt fascinated/excited while reading.

Rather, the focus becomes: what do I find so unlikeable about the protagonists? Why would they be written that way (on purpose)? What does it say about the society they live in? What does it say about their characterization, social stratification, etc etc? If a character does something that I think is non-sensical, why? Have I missed something? Should I watch retrospectively for clues? Is there another way to engage and to understand? Is what I label as confusion potentially a, or the, Point?

It is only after finding the reasons, and/or finding them unsuitable, that I let my subjective feelings into play. While a story can have great merit on the basis of relatability, relatability or "this aligns with my worldview / expectations / desires / etc." is not the be-all end-all of discerning quality

For example, I'm never going to be a fan of Jane and Rochester (she's 18, he's her 40 year old employer who routinely lies to her) but there are reasons, Good reasons, they get together in Jane Eyre (a book so subjectively boring I struggled through it twice) in response to both when the book was written and with the book's themes / symbols / their characterization. If they didn't end up together, it would be a fundamentally different story; it would not be Jane Eyre. So objectively, it's fine and an understandably massive influence on the western literary canon; subjectively, it's so fucking bad and I'm so glad I never have to read it again. But if I stopped there with my lack of interest or dislike of the main romance, I'd be missing out on what the text has to offer as well, the text.

This applies to more modern day stuff as well. I don't like Double Trouble from SheRa as nonbinary representation, and I'm nonbinary myself; however, I can acknowledge that the things I don't like about them were probably simultaneously empowering and exactly what the author (who is also nonbinary) wanted to be per his own experience of gender. Having a "I assume the text is right" mindset means that I can hold space for my own feelings/analysis (i.e. I also did not like Catra's arc, as I think she needed to learn other things / be written under a different lens) while holding space for the text as is (under the canonical lens of Catra learning it's never too late to be saved, I think her arc is conclusive and well done). And these two viewpoints aren't fundamentally opposed, but can coexist as analytical soup, being equally true / having equal value under the subjective (my view) and more 'objective' (the canon text's construction, or what I / the scholarly consensus, if it exists, believes it to be, anyway) at the same time.

Again, none of this is to say that you can't take issue with a canon text, or want to change something. I remember one time I was watching a show where their refusal to explore a romantic relationship between the female lead and her guy best friend was actively making the show worse; I understood their reasonings of wanting to put them with other people to explore their relationships, and wanting to emphasize a male-female friendship at the core of the story, and I still wanted them to put the two together as a Ship instead for various reasons. But that doesn't mean my line of thinking would've been Objectively Better—assuming if they had been paired together would've been executed in the manner I'd enjoy, or that them being paired with other people couldn't have been executed in ways I would've enjoyed more—merely that I likely would've enjoyed the series more per my own subjective preferences.

What I see in fandom sometimes is that people, understandably, aren't approaching at the start from a "the story always has a good reason" as much as they are speed-running from a "this didn't make sense to me or felt bad/off" and maybe examining why (which is supremely useful!) but not going back to examine the other side of the coin as to why the story would do it anyway.

Because sometimes the story—or a part of a story—is still 'bad' to us. It's just worthwhile to look at why it's 'good,' too.

[bantersnatch]

welcome back to the madness, friends. as i do every time we get an appearance from bianca, i'm going to break down the new lore -- which is a lot more than usual, this week. not only did we get our first spoken lines from our favorite producer, we got a lot of information about her dad and her home life with host!vic. so... let's get into it!

i'm actually going to start out with an inventory of all our new information about bianca's father, aka the host's husband:

his full name is "david michaelis". this means i have something to write on the dolls i'm burning in effigy! yay.

he travels a lot for business -- he was a small business owner, but he "sold to a bigger business". this seems to confirm my speculation about the host's husband being wealthy.

he is one of ta'tania's regular suitors/clients (and thus cheating on the host in spectacular fashion), and has a thing for ketchup/squished tomatoes; he has talked about the host to ta'tania as well as requesting ta'tania dress in a suit like theirs during their sessions. i am violently holding myself back from kink-shaming this man.

the host has not seen him in six months. six months.

about bianca, we've learned:

she "hang[s] out all the time" with ta'tania. (learning this distresses the host to the point that their professionalism slips substantially; even hearing about their husband's cheating didn't prompt such a strong reaction, interestingly.)

the host has asked bianca to spend time with them, including a trip to new york city together. she has repeatedly declined -- despite planning her own trips. she and the host are sufficiently divorced from each others' schedules that the host had no knowledge of her trips to nyc (despite the fact that they live in the same house. alone with just each other. again, for six months).

bianca has explicitly asked the host to only use her full name rather than the familiar nickname "b".

we now have a clearer sense of the dynamic between bianca and the host: the host seems desperate for a closer relationship (perhaps in a bid to resolve the curse they received in season 1?), but bianca repeatedly and firmly shuts them down with thinly veiled irritation.

below the cut, i'll outline some of the questions raised by this episode in the interest of getting people's theory-brains going. do i have any answers...? nope.

so -- there's a lot going on here. let's take a look.

what is the nature of bianca and ta'tania's relationship? is bianca a suitor of hers? are they friends? if they met through david, is his relationship with ta'tania tight enough that he wanted her to "meet the family", or did he instead refer his favorite dominatrix to his daughter?? is it all a coincidence and this nyc-based fairy just happens to be particularly popular with this la-based family?

what specific kind of business is david in? when vic gets vague, i get suspicious that they're hinting at written-down lore.

six months. that's so long. this isn't a question i just feel like it bears repeating.

why does bianca dislike and reject the host so strongly? is it just a matter of them being an abusive boss with terrible politics and a personality that is, and i say this affectionately, bad? well... maybe. maybe. but with vic michaelis and talia tabin, i don't know if anything can be that simple.

if the host's investment in bianca liking them is motivated by trying to fix their relationship and thus the curse, how is the curse concretely manifesting? the episode where they receive it hints at a "crumbling life" and a monstrous transformation, and we certainly are seeing the former -- but it also seems like the host's life has been in a state of complete disaster and ruin from childhood to now, so i'm not sure if the current state of affairs would feel too new to them.

that's all i have for this post! if you have anything to add in terms of analysis, theories, or details i missed, please feel free to add on.

[casscainmainly]

I deeply appreciate your input (especially WRT agency) on that 'was Cass just *conceptually* racist after all' issue, not least because some wags defending the 'Birds of Prey' flick's character changes took exactly that 'meh, classic Cass was just an insulting silent fighter stereotype anyway' tack. That just didn't seem like a fair read for her, but as a pasty white dude I didn't trust my ability to put a finger on it.

Thank you!! Yeah a large part of my incentive to make this post was to specifically address the Silent Asian allegations. I feel like a lot of people lobbying them at Cass don't understand her character, and using an Asian stereotype to undermine one of the most popular DC Asian superheroes is so misguided to me!

I feel like when people use racism as a way to put down fictional characters of colour, that's when we cross the line between calling out racism in media to using racism as an excuse for liking/disliking certain characters. Racism isn't a tool to be used for media analysis; when people identify racism within media, it's because of the harm it causes to real people. I wasn't online for the Birds of Prey discourse, but I can bet 90% of the people saying the movie changes were good either weren't Asian or didn't know anything about Cass.

Something I didn't bring up in my previous post (because I wanted to prove Cass didn't fulfil the stereotype in text) is that Puckett was well aware of the stereotype, and Cass learning to talk was an active repudiation of it. @dailycass-cain covered it somewhere, [about Asian editor Jessica Chen calling up Puckett and pointing out the Silent Asian trope (if anyone has the actual post please reply with it, I can't seem to find it!).] Correction: it was actually Jenny Lee and Cliff Chiang from VERTIGO who called up Joseph P. Illidge from the Batman editorial office (link here). Thank you dailycass-cain for the correction!!!!

This demonstrates the importance of POC behind the scenes - it doesn't even have to be the writer, but having POC in DC positions goes a long way to combating racism within the stories.

All this to say that racism and racist stereotypes aren't some 'gotcha' for why some characters are better than others. Many people who interrogate fandom and media racism are fans of the media/characters themselves, and want to see things improved. Anti-racism requires a deep interrogation into our own biases as well as the media we consume, and blindly calling characters of colour stereotypes and/or bad representation is careless. Cass isn't above criticism, but the criticism should be substantial!

Check out this article from the DC blog for another take on how Cass defies stereotypes!

[infinitelystrangemachinex]

Mel Medarda Is Alive probable evidence megapost (cope with me)

League of Legends UK calling the gold on Mel's back "armor" and then withdrawing the post, first pointed out by @moonsdancer:

This marks an "official" source calling Mel's gold "armor." It implies that once whoever made that post realized that most of the Arcane audience is expecting Mel to be dead, they recognized that hinting that she's wearing armor is actually a spoiler. So, they deleted the post.

Mel featuring in storyboards depicting a scene that did not happen in season 1, shown by @jshepardtsoni and @mollysunder and @miraofhearts2point0:

The Riot-Fortiche workflow has been described as: extensive time and resources spent on writing up front on Riot's side, and then the scripts are sent to Fortiche and storyboarding begins. If writing and storyboarding don't happen in parallel, then that's how Fortiche was able to showcase the one-to-one relationship between storyboards and the finished animated product. There's a lot less throwaway work for the animators, which would happen with major story rewrites.

This means it is less likely that the storyboards featuring Mel in a scene that did not air in season 1 were simply cut content from season 1, and more likely that it's a canon scene that we'll see in season 2. I think relatively little ends up on Fortiche's cutting room floor. The main scene that I'm aware of that did get cut was the "boy savior" scene where young Ekko tries to save Jinx (and I have high hopes that the scene will still be used in S2).

Toks Olagundoye, Mel's VA, saying she's "not allowed to say" whether she's returning to voice Mel in S2, and saying that it would be cool to come back for flashbacks:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Toks Olagundoye (@toksolagundoye)

If she's not allowed to say anything and Riot is taking pains to hide whether Mel or Jayce or Viktor (sorta, lol) survive the attack, then of course she can't hint that she is returning. Her comment about the flashbacks definitely says to me that she was told to hide whether Mel survived the attack - she probably was not instructed to hide whether Mel gets more flashbacks in S2. She's almost certainly implying that Mel does in fact feature in more flashbacks in S2. A fan asked the question, and she wanted to give a substantial and encouraging answer other than just "I can't say anything." Her tone did not personally leave me with the feeling that her character has been killed off.

Toks saying she doesn't know much about Arcane S2 and its airdate etc. doesn't mean anything serious, considering that voice acting for the season seems to have been completed a while ago. Like most actors and especially voice actors, Toks has probably already taken on several jobs since then, so her work on Arcane isn't the project that's freshest in her mind.

The German (and Hungarian, I think) S2 trailers have Ambessa say "Half of the Council is dead" and not "Your Council is dead":

I noticed people in the comments of this trailer analysis video by Necrit talking about how the German trailer says "Half of the Council is dead." After watching the German trailer, and then poking around the other dubbed trailers, I found that the German trailer and the Hungarian trailer both seem to say "half." (I would love it if someone here fluent in Hungarian could confirm!)

From a translation standpoint, I could see this happening because some languages don't have different words for "council" and "counsel" as in "advice." Even in English, the words are homophones. So saying "your counsel is dead" would make no sense. If a translator tried to instead say "your ENTIRE council is dead" to make the meaning clearer, then if some Council members survived, the translator would have to be corrected, so we end up with "HALF of the Council is dead."

If some Council members survived, then I think it's likely that Mel is one of them, considering her armor and her several unfinished plot threads.

Please feel free to add on to this post with anything else you find!

[astralleywright]

everyone pivoting to arguing about semantics as we've finally gotten a decision is pretty interesting now cause you've got "the gods aren't colonizers, because exandria isn't a colony! it's resources aren't being exploited to brought to somewhere else, checkmate liberal!" i mean sure but if you went to somewhere and killed everyone already living there and built your house on their graves then uhhhh

also there's this weird undercurrent of OMG! the gods are having their dignity and agency taken for things out of their control! but god forbid you say laudna was ever coerced or fcg was treated like property or ashton's family was nuked or that orym damning himself with nana morri is bad actually or dorian's brother dying wasn't his fault or imogen-

it's just a long way of saying "reparations are bad because you're blaming privileged people for having privilege" which is a very shallow opinion to have. i don't think everyone who dislikes the c3 story is a bigot but damn!

so ive been sitting on these asks forever in the hopes of gaining enough intelligence in the intervening weeks to give a really good answer to them.and i didn't because that's not how anything works. and then i started answering it but then end of c3 news broke and now i'm in the torment nexus forever. but i want this out of here before it ends so, i'm gonna give it the best i got

to start off, i would discourage casting any group in this fandom at large as white as untrue and unhelpful. there are people of color on every side of this issue! and as mentioned, semantics and language are at the center of this discourse, and so is identity reductionism. a lot of these people make the same generalization about our side of fandom, erasing plenty of fans of color while dismissing their analysis. as well as many of the people of color who have actually been a part of creating c3! so to do the same ultimately just substantiates its place in legitimate discourse, which it does not deserve.

but, yes, this is an incredibly lib way of approaching the topic. it seems like, finally realizing the disconnect between what they thought c3 was saying and what it actually is, a lot of people have fallen back on the only lens they really know how to critique from, one of representation and identity. and the tumblr understanding of representation is a very shallow, largely western perspective, one void of history and power dynamics. it's especially notable with the colonialism critiques, which often seem ignorant or disinterested in the actual processes and strategies of colonization in favor of a much more simplistic tumblr approach to race and representation. sometimes, that manifests in posts accusing the primordials and eidelons of being bad indigenous representation because they attacked the gods with no provocation, both ignoring that colonization itself is violent and leaning into the Noble Savage trope. sometimes that manifests in posts noting the underusage of Marquet, a continent inspired by Africa and Asia (and as such not white), in comparison to the Eastern European Wildemount (and as such white), and expecting that to stand in challenge to colonialism being a theme of C3. but not actually elaborating on the extensive history of both colonization and colonizing on each continent, or the way racialization explicitly occured as a process to justify colonialism, or that the history of Eastern Europeans being seen as white is very, very complicated and still evolving. that second one is particularly annoying, because the original critique about Marquet is actually a really good and relevant one when it's not being thrown around as a lame gotcha.

there's a deep focus on connecting broad labels and definitions in a way to make one Exandrian group or another look oppressed or victimized, when in reality the difference in power and agency that group has versus the real life counterparts is like. comical. see that one post comparing the armies of Vasselheim being perturbed by BH to pacifistic Buddhist monks being met with colonizers. The monks and the Vasselheim armies are both religious, the colonizers and BH both bring challenge; ignore that these Exandrian acolytes are armed exactly as heavily as the colonizers and backed with the same mandate of heaven.

that's also where you get the arguments about the god's agency being erased, about Bells Hells taking away their choice, etc etc, from the same people that will say it's Dorian and Opal's fault the Spider Queen murdered Cyrus and turned Opal into a puppet. because of course when you're blind to power dynamics, you end up siding with the powerful. if you see the world as something that makes sense, is broadly fair and merit-based, of course you would. if someone is unpleasant or makes bad choices or even just gives you the ick, that must be because they're bad, inherently. the primordials attacked the gods for no reason!! and so on.

[annabelle--cane]

Sorry if this is weird but I’m working on this book that feels like my first substantial foray into literature, and I’m really proud of it. But it’s also a lot of work and my life is…life, so I get into motivational slumps a lot.

Lately I’ve been like “But think of the random thoughtful tumblr posts (by people like you) where they realize something I was trying to say, or reveal some new way to read the text entirely!” and it gets me through the slumps.

If you published a work with a lot of hidden messages and metaphors, would you want to tell people what you meant? Would you correct people if they got it wrong?

I used to think I would tell everyone EXACTLY what things meant. It has always been frustrating to me when authors are vague as hell about their meanings behind things. But now writing this story, I kinda want to see how much people catch on to. If I write it well enough, they’ll get all the main ones. But maybe some of them will only get one or two! And there’s like a puzzle network of understanding in your audience!

I think I’d correct them if their interpretations were somehow harmful, but that would also mostly be about figuring out how those messages came out of the text so it doesn’t happen again.

saur. my answer to these questions are layered, and I'm going to answer them kind of out of order.

as an audience member, about 70% of the time I really enjoy hearing what authors have to say about their work. it can often point me to areas of consideration that I hadn't really been focusing on before, and creators usually care a lot about their text and have paid great attention to it and so their opinions are often well-informed and consider all angles. and then that other 30% of the time I hear what an author has to say about their work and it's like we're discussing completely different things, and I'm sure they meant to write their work to come off a certain way, but something appears to have gotten hideously lost in translation because that is Not what I read. and I sit there like 😬 you don't know him (this story you wrote) like I do 😬 .

as an english lit student, I could not care less what authors have to say about their work. the text is the text, the book is in my hand, and sure, I might look into what commentary an author has made, but that is ultimately superfluous to my analysis and I'll treat it with exactly the same weight as any other interpretation I come across. if I can back up my argument with evidence and criticism then no one can tell me I'm wrong, including the author. overall I don't think someone can actually be "wrong" about their interpretation of an art work as long as they have sufficient supporting evidence. if a meaning has been successfully put into the text then it's there and I will be able to find it, and if it hasn't then no amount of creator commentary will insert it post hoc.

as a creative writer, this is one of the main things that I think peer review and workshopping is really useful for. as a little story time, I took a creative writing class last year and submitted a piece for workshop that I thought was truly just an embarrassingly unsubtle fairytale-esque allegory for addiction, where the protagonist is in a toxic but thrilling relationship with a tricksy fairy named poppy who will bring them to intoxicating magical ballrooms out in the woods, but only at the cost of all their human relationships and, eventually, their own physical wellbeing. only one person in the class got the metaphor, and this told me that a) wow my experiences are not universal, and b) during revisions I should focus on making the story substantial enough on its own that readers can enjoy it even if they don't twig anything about the fairy literally being named poppy.

a lot of other people in that class got feedback on their work about interpretations they didn't intend, and depending on how wildly a reading varied from their intention they would then try and remove whatever made that reading possible in subsequent edits and emphasize what they actually meant. of course, you can't write for your hypothetical worst audience who will actively disinterpret your work as much as possible, but if you've got a workshop group or just a few friends that you think are reasonable readers then I'd recommend sharing what you've got with them and hearing what they're getting from it.

as a person in fandom, oh my god do I not want to touch anything with a ten foot pole if the author goes around correcting audience interpretation, because that makes for an absolutely insufferable fan environment. even when authors are aware of fan culture and try to phrase their gripes with their work's reception as inoffensively as possible, it can still shut down a lot of creative spirit and galvanize fandom hall monitors into taking matters into their own hands. and most authors aren't even that nice about it.

to sum up what I would do (might eventually do? depending on how my life works out?) were I to publish something for wide release, I think I would want to do fairly regular peer review to double check that what I'm writing isn't completely out of alignment with what I want it to be, and I'd probably write some of my own interpretation of my work but keep it out of the way enough that it's clearly not meant to be taken as part of the work itself, and be very clear that my relation and reaction to the text is based on my own mind and life experiences and may not line up with others', and that's fine.

[crepes-suzette-373]

Germa's Ancestors

(+ Shandora connection?)

This is a kind of long theory post. I feel like at some point it would make more sense to narrate this as audio/video, because I think people don't like walls of text.

Anyway, bear with me for now, this is a long post.

I want to begin by analysing this scene:

To my knowledge, the phrase 無念の魂 is very specifically only applicable to the souls of the dead, and you can't use it to say souls/spirit in a euphemistic sense. E.g "put my soul into my work", or something like "the spirit of the age". I did my best to check various examples of usage, and far as I can find it really just means dead people.

In that case, then the dialogue about 300 years in the raw would mean "To think that I entrusted you with 300 years' worth of my kingdom's regretful souls".

"Regretful souls" is, as it says, the souls of people who died with a lot of regrets or resentment. It's quite a different sense from "longing".

Also another thing, he says 合わせる顔もない about the dead. This isn't "disgracing their memory". This is "I'm so ashamed (of myself/my failure) that I cannot face them", hence the "I despise myself" dialogue that comes after. It didn't really specify a word for "direct ancestor" so I assume he meant all people of Germa of the past.

So... this could be either/or, but if failing to restore Germa = regrets, and supposedly people there have been dying in regret for 300 years, then it sounds like wanting to restore Germa was the people's dream ever since their destruction.

Though, that is still open to interpretation. It doesn't have to mean "reconquering North Blue" really was the goal that was passed down through generations. Maybe actually the ancestors just wanted to have some land again, but over the years that goal becomes corrupted and twisted.

Or all of that was just crazy talk and the ancestors never actually wanted this. Who knows?

(I do apologise to anyone who really don't like Judge for putting this stuff on your dash, but he's kind of the only one who ever actually said anything substantial about Germa history, and for analysis purposes he has to be in there)

Also a little conspiratorial bent.

The dialogue text said that the souls cannot return to their homeland, it strongly implies the land is just completely obliterated. It's similar to how the Shandians said that their ancestors no longer has a place to return after the sacred trees were cut down.

Germa, or at the very least Judge, has a similar attitude towards the ancestors as the Shandians. Perhaps not quite to the point of worshipping them as gods, but Judge view the past dead of Germa with deep respect.

I feel like it's hinted that "Moon = high technology", as shown by the robots on the moon that Enel saw in the cover story. I've made theories before speculating that Germa is thematically connected to the moon, but maybe they actually literally are related to the moon via one of the moon tribes that descended to the Earth.

I'm not sure how canon it is, but one of the Data Books had said that Skypieans don't actually have wings. Their wings are just costume/decoration.

Assuming this is real (Data Books and Vivre Cards are sometimes wrong), are there humans in the world who are actually descendants of Skypieans? After all if they literally have no wings, then they would look no different from regular humans. Skypieans didn't really have an obvious strong ancestral worship like the Shandians, but perhaps there is some shared culture that we don't know.

That, or possibly somehow the Shandians' wings are also fake. In the moon murals you can see that the Birkans' wings are differently-shaped from the other two. If the Skypiean wing is fake, who's to say that the Shandian one isn't?

Also, an interesting thing is that the Shandian ancestor seems to be the one making the robots, while the Birkan is either observing or giving instructions. So the Shandian ancestor is at least some form of engineer. Curious.

On that note, the people of Wano also deeply respect their ancestors, as real Japanese people do. They have curious Princess Kaguya hints, as well as strong prevalence of moon symbols all over.

As I noted in my analysis of honorifics, Skypieans, Wano, and Germa all share the 上 honorific usage. This is an unusual honorific that no other kingdoms in the world seem to use. Aside from the above 3, only the merfolk royalty and the Tenryuubito use them.

It could be that it's simply "archaic language" even in the One Piece universe, and it just fell out of use in most of the kingdoms. It still makes me wonder if there are actually a lot of humans who have blood ties to the moon tribes that isn't revealed yet as well.

I've also previously mentioned that young Judge has a "Kabuki face" that reminds me of Kin'emon, but I didn't consider that Kalgara also kind of looks like that too. It might just be design coincidence, but maybe it actually means something, I don't know.

[transmascutena]

Hey hey, I forget if you've ever posted about this, but one thing that fascinates me about Utena is the food side of everything. How Akio bakes, how Anthy basically only successfully makes shaved ice, and how Utena talks about the food going bad from lack of refrigeration. How it's not the job of the Rose Bride to cook. How Wakaba being able to prepare food makes her a good wife. I have thoughts about this, but I'll avoid saying too much because I wanna hear what you have to say too

i have gotten an ask about anthy's cooking before, where i talked about the ability to make food as a symbol for agency/freedom/independence, and how anthy can cook certain things like festival food, shaved ice, rosehip jam, the cantarella cookies, but not really anything that counts as a substantial meal (the curry is a bit of an outlier here. i guess it shows that her agency is mainly expressed through messing with nanami?) anthy says she wants to get better at cooking, and i'm inclined to believe her. i think she has the potential to be good at it too, but that akio has.... discouraged her from trying, as a way to make her more reliant on him. although, i actually can't recall if akio ever does anything in the kitchen other than (allegedly) bake that cake to impress utena, so maybe i'm way off. or maybe that's another piece of symbolism i haven't quite figured out.

you bring up a good point about gender roles here in regards to wakaba too. cooking is traditionally a woman's role in a lot of cultures, which makes it interesting that anthy, who as the rose bride is supposedly meant to be the ideal bride/wife not only cannot cook very well, but, according to touga, should not cook at all? i guess that ties back to the agency thing, though. but does wakaba have a lot of agency? she has a certain degree of freedom, at least, that comes with not being tied up in the main narrative most of the time. i'm not sure. i think food and cooking is one of the (many) things within this show that does not have one specific meaning that can be used to interpret everything related to it. i suppose my conclusion is that cooking can be both a limiting role if it's forced on you (in the sense of "you need to cook well to make for a good wife which is of course something you should want to be"), and something liberating if you do it for yourself. it's also just kind of a necessary survival skill, which is why it's so telling that anthy doesn't have it.

surprisingly enough i've never really posted about utena's food talk in episode 33 or how it may or may not play into this symbolism, so i guess i'll take this as an opportunity to do that. first, during the othello game, she talks about messing up measurements when cooking, and about the flavor coming out wrong. "you can't undo it once it's done." this shows her worries about what is happening/what will happen, and is already hinting at her regret afterward. it's a metaphor, but it also kind of ties into the agency symbolism. it tells us that utena is not very good at cooking either, and hints at the similarities between her and anthy. later she talks about what to make for lunch the next day. she's rambling, trying to distract herself, dissociating, and i don't tend to read a lot into what specifically she's saying. that's not really what's important. however, i do think it's signicant that she's bringing up anthy, for one, but mostly that she's talking about something urgent she needs to do that isn't here. she's making excuses to go home, to stop. if you buy the cooking as agency thing, utena's worry about the food going bad could once again reflect her worries and doubts about the whole thing. is there symbolism to the fact that she specifically brings up salmon and eggs and asparagus and sandwiches? maybe. but i think it's too easy to get caught up in all the little details and miss or ignore the bigger picture of what actually matters (very vaguely referring to an analysis of this scene that i hate. if you know you know.)

[colossal-niamh]

A long vent on MJF's world title run shaped like an essay

There's been a consistent debate about the quality of MJF's title run post mortem and I think I fully stand on the side that it was terrible. Possibly even the worst world title run AEW's had yet (aside from CM Punk's nonexistent 2nd run). Overly lengthy, rarely defended the belt on tv (a total of 5 times in 406 days), diminishing returns on title matches (the Double or Nothing and Full Gear matches are especially bad) and I grew more cold on him as he turned more and more face.

In retrospect I fully believe he should have dropped the belt at All In. obviously creative didn't have the booking foresight to plan around Adam Cole's ankle exploding, but I don't think we needed another 4 months of MJF title run. They should have started the big betrayal and new heel faction at the biggest show the company's ever run and not when both sides of the big feud are too bruised and beaten to work an angle. but that's more fantasy booking than proper analysis.

The Length of MJF's run felt excessive and unnecessary considering the lack of anything substantial for several stretches on TV. A lot of the builds for his title defenses were him being challenged by someone and then MJF sets up a bunch of stipulations to get that match like a gauntlet his opponent would run through. This led to some solid TV matches like Bryan vs Rush, but left the show devoid of MJF himself outside of being essentially a talking head. AEW prior had made sure the world champ was on the card and the belt was a hotly contested prize. Without those regular matches on TV it felt the world champion was distant from the product and was what the world title scene had avoided up to that point, avoidable.

The actual matches MJF did have were inconsistent in quality and in particular his pay per view matches steadily got worse as his run went on. I will say up front I like the ironman match with Bryan and the match with Tanahashi is the only title defense I haven't seen, so maybe that one might be some hidden gem I missed. As for the others, they either range from alright like the Mox and Samoa Joe matches where he won and lost the titles respectively, to legitimately the worst PPV world title match AEW's had in the 4 pillars 4-way. A match where 4 guys nowhere near skilled or experienced enough to put on a quality world title match, which also floundered due to the build up being MJF failing to bounce off of 3 guys with sub par promo skills (side note, Sammy Guevara is the worst promo in the company, bar none). I think the main factor for this is a borrowed observation from Joseph Montecillo's review* of the Jay White match from Full Gear

"This match with Jay White is a strange mix of good and interesting ideas shaped into the entirely wrong fashion. It’s an unwieldy uncanny valley kind of creation–all the elements of “good” wrestling are there but in the wrong order, mutated and warped into an ugly whole. Everything about it feels discordant, unpleasant to behold.

MJF knows all the words, but not the music."

MJF knows what a good match looks like, but doesn't know how to pace or structure one. he's like a artist with some cool OCs and a story in his head, but he doesn't get the mechanics of panel flow and puts too many speech bubbles in the panels.

I found his heel work as champion standard practice for him but good, however as he pivoted to being a face I was fond at first but progressively soured on him. He's an excellent chicken shit heel and capable of some absolute bastard behavior, in fact he's too good. Face MJF comes off as disingenuous mainly for two reason. Number one his entire AEW run was defined by how heinous and untrustworthy he was, literally in the same run he turned face he hospitalized William Regal and shoot threw a drink at a kid on live PPV. Number two is that once he was portrayed as a face, he kept doing shit the exact same as when he was a heel, but now with a cheep city pop and a "I'm your sucmbag!" Once he had a friend AEW portrayed him as a loveable scamp for stuff commentary would curse him out for over half a year ago. He kept the sleezy prick routine and the body shaming and the only real noticeable change is his name calling somehow got worse. The big example of how face MJF doesn't work is the Jay White feud. Lizzy Flanagan at The Sportster* makes the point I'd like to make exactly.

"MJF’s go-to tactic to being a babyface has been garnering sympathy, but his sob story about being bullied as a well-off middle-class child in Long Island has been repeated three or four times now. He then resorts to humor, but the best he can come up with is calling Jay White tofu. Then, he tries some crowd work. This usually works fairly well, as the AEW crowd wants to see MJF succeed, but the promos can’t help but come across as cheesy and cliché. You can put lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig. You can put a t-shirt and a smile on MJF. MJF is still a heel."

His face work feels fake and undercooked, so when put in a program with a fully realized and, frankly, better character like Jay White, Face MJF falls flat. The guy who's supposed to be the man of the people who recently turned over a new leaf is the same guy that flipped of a child at a public autograph event and mocked Darby Allen's dead uncle. The only thing that's changed as a character is now he has crocodile tears.

MJF's run as world champion was an abject failure. A spotlight that exposed the weakest parts of one of AEW's most popular performers during a creatively frustrating time in the company's short history. An example of many flaws in the modern wrestling landscape and the creative short comings of the man himself. As I write this I assume once Max recovers he'll take up the vengeful babyface role, chasing Cole and his faction. Do I hope it works? sure, but to I expect it to work? No, the experiment failed and it's inevitable that MJF will turn heel again. He has nothing without the bitter chicken shit heel persona, as a face he's a dog with no teeth. All bark, no bite.

*(Links to articles referenced in the replies below)

[myuiis]

(same anon who asked for sinu analysis) well first off let me ask your thoughts on YeonhuixSinu

Despite my undying love for this man- I'll admit they're cute n all BUT I always felt it was undeveloped.

I don't know if it's just me but when Jason (I think) said he'd snitch about him being with neko to her I was confused back when he was still under the influence of those pills at workers. Like, Did I miss something? Did I forget something from the gaps between the arcs? Idk. But even if she was shown to be worried over Sinu, it didn't seem romantic at all especially that all the big deal girls cared too. PTJ also made it seem like an already established relationship and I'm still questioning when?? She seemed to know him well and all but no hinting of any romantic attraction was there, just your average big deal romanticism and admiration lol.

I understand that PTJ has to leave some details away for the sake of the pacing but I think he could've at least thrown some hints here and there.

ok yeah. so this won't be a super long post because i am tired but good lord i am very... lukewarm about sinu and yeonhui. im with you on the "who?" when yeonhui was mentioned again in 2a. now im glad that sinu is with someone he's happy with but man... sinu and yeonhui is just such a mid ship compared to literally anyone else he could've been shipped with. let me explain.

yeonhui's lack of presence in the story. now this is probably the main reason i find this ship so lackluster. how am i supposed to root for a ship when the female love interest is literally like npc #125? while she did have more presence than the other girls on the street, this isn't really a high bar considering ptj's track record writing female characters. and this isn't to say she was boring or had a bland personality either (even though she KINDA did...). she was strong and independent, stood up to samuel when he tried to extort them for money (iirc), bore the burden of sinu's sacrifice and stayed strong for big deal, and was there to comfort jake when he learned of the news. she could've been a REALLY interesting character because she was so strong and also stuck to her ideals in the same way sinu did, so they could've been such a power couple, had yeonhui been developed more. it would've been nice to see yeonhui and sinu strategize about how to protect big deal together, or see more of yeonhui bandaging and caring for sinu after he gets hurt, or seeing sinu bring yeonhui gifts and money... or anything, really. the two have barely have any substantial interactions over the entire arc besides the last part where sinu's about to sacrifice himself, so much so that it makes me wonder... who is this yeonhui person? why are they important again.

chemistry. this mainly comes up to personal preference but yeonhui and sinu feel more like an older sister-younger brother dynamic to me. yeonhui took sinu in as a child, fed, clothed, and cared for him, and then continues to take care of him as an adult, which comes off as big sis behavior. again, some people may like this dynamic romantically, but i personally find it super platonic and sibling-leaning.

other sinu ships. idk. just find it a LITTLE heteronormative that any man and woman who share a little bit of screentime together are instantly a couple while sinu and jake can be out here pulling "you are my everything" and "i came back to big deal for you and you alone, jake" moments, and they'll still be just "good bros". again, kind of up to personal preference, but if you compare yeonhui x sinu to jake x sinu or even samuel x sinu, there's a clear lack of interactions and chemistry for yeonhui x sinu

so yeah. thats kinda it. this ended up being way longer than i expected so im not gonna write a conclusion paragraph but those are my thoughts around yeonhui and sinu together romantically.

[cptn-m]

One Piece chapter 1139 review and analysis

It's definitely not the blockbuster that the last two chapters were, but the rollercoaster had to peak somewhere, and I don't think there's many who'd complain about getting a Scopper Gaban reveal. Even with a shorter pagecount and break week to really make things feel like old times.

I'm on record somewhere on the internet saying I didn't see where the fanbase's obsession with Scopper Gaban comes from. Like yeah, any member of the Roger Pirates who shows up is automatically going to be a big deal, but a lot of the discussions on the topic treated the character like he has some kind of established personality and role to fill despite his having maybe two or three lines in total. Yes, he was most likely, being one of the few recognisable in Buggy's flashback from way back when, but the material before now was thin enough that you could elevate any member of the crew. But it's Scopper! And now that he's here he can start being built into an actual character.

The early pages put a big spotlight on the summoning circle, but they don't really tell us much we didn't already know. Rodo's never been in the castle, so he couldn't say if it predates the current day or not (although Scopper implies he's been through here before and doesn't make any remark on it). There's no debris on top of it, but I'd say it's fairly likely the plumes of smoke and fire we see when they activate could push obstructions aside to let the user through. Or it's just an aesthetic choice from Oda to ensure the design sticks out. All of the Elders' circles remained totally clear despite Egghead Island literally falling apart around them. We'll have to keep waiting for any real info on how these things work.

My first impression of Scopper is that he seems fun. A little similar to Rayleigh, but I can live with that. The flying axe that precedes him is proportioned to Rodo, not the humans, and he easily picks up the giant-scale key at the end of the chapter, so I'm wondering if he'll have a fighting style centred around oversize weapons. The training regiment could involve using a giant's weapon until you can swing it as easily as you would a human one. The scar on his head is certainly an attention grabber - and we know from that cover story that he's known to leave Elbaph and travel the seas, so it's feeling pretty reasonable this is the burn scar man with the last Poneglyph. And as exciting as that is, it substantially raises the odds that Elbaph is the last regular arc before things get very final war-y. I didn't mind the idea of one final voyage to track down the last piece of the map, but I'm sure it's all part of the plan.

Scopper drops some interesting lore as well. Mainly that Buccaneers are a mixed blood race. But of what? Partly human, obviously, but aside from being fairly bulky and tough they don't have physical characteristics to align them with anything we've seen so far. Sticking a pin in that.

Also it's interesting that Collun seemingly got the full giant lifespan. That must make a very interesting father-son dynamic. I wonder if Luffy'll try telling him to step up because he's older than he is later on. And on the topic of family dynamics, it threw me for a loop that Rodo calls Scopper Ripley's husband and he talks about marrying a giant like he's done it, rather than it being something he would or wouldn't do. I had to look back a few chapters to double check Ripley identifying herself as his "common law wife." And I understand that term, I do, but we use a different phrase for that kind of partnership where I live, and the people under it wouldn't describe themselves directly as husband and wife like that.

I'm not expecting much more than a skirmish from Luffy fighting Scopper over the key, just enough to prove he's on the level and get Scopper to internally make the obvious comparisons to Roger and Rayleigh, and maybe identify a final area of weakness or absent technique to mentor Luffy through. Still, that should be pretty damn exciting just on its own, even if it's only a chapter. What's the bet the arrival of the third Holy Knight interrupts the bout though?

It's crazy to think we're only reaching the halfway point of volume 112 in this chapter. That book is going to end up being one of the most absolutely stacked tones in the whole series even if nothing else happens for the next five chapters (which I seriously doubt). And there's almost no one important to these chapters you could put on the cover without someone crying foul about spoilers. But the possibilities there make good thought fodder as we go into the break.

[castlebyersafterdark]

when are you gonna post your big write up on the gnc topic? not rushing you! just wondering if you still are or if you decided to ditch it. I'm really eager to read whenever it gets posted

Haha I don't know if I would call it my big write up, I don't want to seem like I'm some guru professor on the topic - I'm not! Still learning. I don't want to say the wrong thing? Because its a topic that I've taken an interest in and a character trait I really found I've enjoyed for Will, and many anons have sent me insightful things - but I'm setting it aside until I have more mental space to do it as chill and thoughtfully as possible since I don't consider myself a resource for the topic and don't want me making these long, dramatic posts about it to look like I'm trying to be an authority figure on the topic? Coming at it as fan analysis of a fictional character, rather than real world insights if that makes sense? It's on the plate. I do promise I'll post something eventually. I know it's just a fan blog I have here and personally I'm not under any deadlines or obligations, but I feel bad if I promise something and don't follow through (which is also why I've said most of my other fic ideas I've shared will EVENTUALLY post but I can't promise anything substantial with the Boarding School AU even though I adore it. Don't want any hopes up in case I can't deliver on the idea).

I've also had a hard time focusing on any one thing when I go online lately, full disclosure there. I'm still bopping around but between really getting into writing fic and answering all the wonderful asks people send, I keep jumping back and forth and drafting more asks than posting. Since my brain is leaning heavy into trying to write fic when I use the free time I dedicate to fandom stuff. Which is I think needed! I want to post more stories! I find thats my favorite part of fandom now is presenting a polished fic. So, keep sending stuff but if it's an ask that isn't something I can answer off the cuff when I'm slacking at work during the week 🤭 I'm probably giving it a longer answer or drabble in the further future. Thanks all for sticking around, love yall ❤️

[rorah]

Do you have any thoughts on Claude’s route in 3hopes? Your analysis of Dimitri’s run was so awesome and I share similar criticisms. I’m personally not a fan of Claude’s characterization in 3hopes, and I’m a diehard Claude fan lol, so I’d love to hear your thoughts (positive or negative! your rant was just really well written and interesting!) have a good day/night :-)

My thoughts on Claude? Sure.

Well I have to be honest and start with the fact that I still haven't finished his route lol rip but I've been spoiled enough to know that this is the route where most of the characters/deers seem a little to too much OOC (for what I have read. Tbh I can't be sure about ALL DEERS but Claude is mostly the point here). And I am a defender of "characters in Hopes are still substantially the same as the one presented in Houses" argument, just different circumstances bring different outcomes. But also seems like the writers in charge of giving nuance to the characters don't know how to do it properly without taking some neurons and mental capabilities away from said characters, aka: make them look dumb.

GW and SB are the routes where I am hesitant to look for arguments that can backup such outcome or it's just a matter of "the devs forgot about that part in the original game" issue, as it's planted in some interview that I don't have the source at hand, sadly.

But I am quite convinced of one thing. Hopes is presenting us the opposite resolution of Houses with a subtlety masked by sweet fanservice (just a certain percent of fans, I must say). What I mean by that is, Cloud in Houses is the one discovering the truth behind the mystery of Fodlan and kills Nemesis for some reason at the end of his route. And in Hopes, he is the most notable affected by this change by not discovering much about Agarthans and also kills Serios instead of Nemesis at the end of his route.

In Azure Gleam Dimitri gets his revenge and that does nothing for his personal journey. Actually, it's the opposite because he learned in houses that revenge will get him nothing but more collateral damage.

In Scarlet Blaze well… I am not entirely sure tbh.

Back to Claude. I think the main problem with his characterization is that it was not quite clear what type of person he is. I remember doing his route with the idea that he was the most relaxed, "meme" fun lord, and all positive of the three because the fandom painted him as such, and I feel utterly confused and betrayed because that wasn't what I perceived of him in his route. He has a little arc about open up and trusting others, while getting rid of his own prejudices about the lands he isn't well versed. But that's in houses. In Hopes, that part of his character is taken away because once again: No Byleth.

Let me remark that I haven't played his full route yet, so take what I say with a grain of salt. So tl;dr, we can say that his characterization in Hopes is bad because it was meant to be bad. You can see it as a mirror universe without the person who functions as guidance. And once again that brings us to another conflict when we recruit Byleth, but that's another issue to tackle on its own separately because it has tints of "devs fcked up and ran out of time/resources to properly do anything with it or give coherent resolution" issues. --- Edited because I accidentally type Azure Moon instead of Gleam lol But anyway, Claude fans, let me know your personal interpretation of Claude ~

[earlgreytea68]

Notes on the Andy Warhol Decision

Sometimes people ask me about big fair use decisions that come down, but nobody really asked me about this one, which made me wonder if everyone in fandom just collectively shrugged at it, which, I don't blame you, tbh.

I have to confess that I didn't read the decision when it came out because sometimes I just don't feel like it, but I have now read it and if anyone was curious about what it is, I figured I'd write up a little something.

Here's the deal: Lynn Goldsmith was a photographer, largely of icons of music, who took a photograph of Prince many years ago. Also many years ago, Vanity Fair wanted Andy Warhol to make an Andy Warhol print of Prince (really no other way to describe the print, it's just the Andy Warhol style). Andy Warhol wanted to start with a reference photo, so Vanity Fair contacted Goldsmith and licensed her photo of Prince for use. The terms of the license basically just said that Vanity Fair could only use the photo the one time.

Fast-forward to Prince dying and Vanity Fair runs ANOTHER Andy Warhol image of Prince based on the Goldsmith photo, because it turned out Andy Warhol made a bunch of prints based on the photo which Goldsmith didn't know about. Now the license didn't cover these other prints and uses, because by its terms it was very limited. So Goldsmith called up the Andy Warhol Foundation and was like, "Yo, the license didn't cover this, so you are infringing on my copyright in my photograph." (This is the effect of not being covered by a license.) And the Andy Warhol Foundation was basically like, "Nuh-uh," and they went to court and asked a court to say that they weren't infringing Goldsmith's copyright and Goldsmith is wrong SO THERE! (This is honestly basically what a declaratory judgment is ["You're wrong, SO THERE!"] and please use this definition if anyone ever asks you what a declaratory judgment is.)

Here is the photo at issue and the Andy Warhol print of it:

Okay, so I think you can see the issue in the case pretty clearly, right? Like, those two things look very like each other, I think everyone would agree.

Here's the problem with this case: I don't actually think it's really a fair use case and it annoys me that that's where we ended up. Because fair use is a DEFENSE to copyright infringement. What that means is that there has to be copyright infringement first. Copyright infringement means that the sued-upon work is substantially similar to the first work in something that is copyrightable (original to that creator). Fair use is only relevant once a court has decided you've created something substantially similar to something that someone else owns. Courts often just skip straight to fair use, though, which is a VERY ANNOYING HABIT because it muddies everything up, and the parties complicated it here in this case by only appealing one very narrow issue: Is the Andy Warhol print transformative? Which is one of the fair use factors.

Because that was the only issue before the Supreme Court, that's the only issue the Supreme Court decided (this is technically what the Supreme Court is supposed to do but like most things Supreme Court these days, one never knows what the Supreme Court might do). But it irritates me because I'm not sure this actually IS copyright infringement. I think it seems substantially similar, probably, but I'm not sure it's similar in anything that is COPYRIGHTABLE by Goldsmith, meaning anything that Goldsmith can own. By which I mean, maybe these two images are only similar because they both look like Prince, and nobody can own what Prince looks like (not even Prince). I think this is an interesting point for debate and I could see it coming out either way but we get zero discussion of this because it's not what the parties asked for analysis on. And that's annoying because there's a Kagan dissent in this case (Kagan disagreed with the majority opinion) that is basically all THIS DECISION WILL DESTROY ALL CREATIVITY, EVERYTHING WILL NOW BE COPYRIGHT INFRINGING, and I get where Kagan is coming from but that's only because this decision didn't actually get to decide copyright infringement. Like, it starts from this assumption that this is infringing unless fair use saves it, and then the majority doesn't let fair use save it, and so the dissent is like, THEREFORE EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE INFRINGING. But the analysis is in the wrong spot here! Anyway, I hope that makes sense, I'm a little in the weeds here.

The opinion of the Supreme Court was that the Andy Warhol print was not transformative, which is a big deal word in fair use law. Basically, if you are found to be transformative, you win your fair use case. And if you're not transformative, you don't always lose but you have a greater chance of losing. So a lot of the energy in a fair use case is around this transformativeness analysis (this is why AO3's parent org is called the Organization for Transformative Works).

What the Supreme Court basically says is that the first factor (which we have shortened to transformativeness) is "the purpose and character of the use." The Supreme Court says basically that there are two parts to this, as you can see: purpose and character. So it seems like Andy Warhol has changed up the original photograph and so maybe has a different message (art critics argued this vociferously) but the purpose of the Andy Warhol print in this context was the same as the purpose of the original photograph. In other words, this is not a case about this Andy Warhol print in a museum. This is a case about this Andy Warhol print being used by a magazine for the same purpose that the magazine would have licensed Goldsmith's original photo: to illustrate an article about Prince. This made all the difference to the Supreme Court.

A lot of the commentary about this case found this to be an outrageous conclusion for some reason. I'm not bothered by it, but I suspect that's because I come from fandom circles. To me, I am not confused by the idea that my fanfiction is transformative if non-commercial, but not transformative if its purpose shifts to be the same purpose as the original (to make money). I mean, I'm not entirely sure I agree that it would automatically be infringing if turned commercial, but I get why the different purpose makes a difference to my analysis of what's happening there. So I was a little bewildered by people who found it ridiculous to conclude that a use could be fair use for one purpose and not fair use for another purpose. I'm okay with that. I don't think it's destructive of fair use to say that, Idk. It's maybe a little destructive of commercial fair use, and that might grow to be problematic, but I don't think the opinion is attempting to be that broad. Although it could be broadly read. I just think the opinion is meant to say "don't forget that it's not just about the new message, it's also about the purpose that message is being used for, and those two things need to be balanced." At least, that's what I think it's saying. It's not just what the work is, but also how the work is being used.

One thing I have to say and that I have long thought is that copyright law and trademark law and many other types of law tie themselves into knots to protect Andy Warhol, and I feel like this is the first opinion I've read that...doesn't. But, look, this case would not be where it is today if the Andy Warhol print didn't so very obviously use the Goldsmith photo, and this case also would not be where it is today if the person using the photo hadn't been Andy Warhol. Like, I can't shake the idea that if any other average human had taken the Goldsmith photo, done that to it, and sold it to Vanity Fair, courts would have found this an easy infringement case, but because it was Andy Warhol it made courts uncomfortable to say that. The opinion that the Supreme Court affirmed (the Second Circuit opinion all of this) said basically that: We cannot have an Andy Warhol exception to copyright law. Andy Warhol could have used the photo for inspiration, for reference for what Prince looked like, to get ideas, and still come up with something that looked completely different (even if it still looked like Prince - there are a million photos of Prince that are all different even though they all look like Prince), and we wouldn't have a case here.

I just think about this case as compared to "Oh, the Places You'll Boldly Go," a case in which people took the Dr. Seuss book "Oh, the Places You'll Go" and remade it for Star Trek. They kept the basic message of the book (a problem for transformativeness analysis) but they changed all the artwork to be about Star Trek (although keeping the Dr. Seuss "style," as distinct as Andy Warhol's) and they also changed the words to be about Star Trek, while keeping the distinctive Dr. Seuss "style" there, too. You can have the book read to you here. Anyway, while agreeing that no one can own a particular "style," the appellate court in the case (the Ninth Circuit) was like, "This is not transformative, this is copyright infringement and not fair use." And I'm not saying that decision's wrong, but if something could be changed that much and not be considered to be fair use, to me it makes sense that the Andy Warhol print also wouldn't be fair use, Idk.

ANYWAY. These are my musings! Lots of people disagree about the outcome of this case and what it means! I think there wasn't a huge fan ripple reaction from it because I don't think it means much of anything in terms of fair use as applied to fandom. Again, I think it's a much bigger deal in the commercial fair use world, which frankly has always been a complicated mess. (Also it revives the parody/satire distinction, which is nonsensical, but no reason to get into that now lol.)

You can read the opinion for yourself, if you're interested, here.

[nerves-nebula]

what did matpat do??? not trying to be rude, im just confused (looking it up didnt really help)

i do not need to justify my dislike for someone, nor do i need to write an entire essay on why i hate them.

but I guess I'll do that anyway! only because i feel like it tho.

i think he's a bad person who parrots bigoted jokes to his huge audience and who's "theories" are some of the least substantial, highly nitpicky nonsense i've ever seen.

idk if you're too young for this, but imagine if nostalgia critic spent his time crafting wild theories about movies instead of just talking about them, except his theories are made entirely of his most cinema sins DING nitpicky and unimportant stuff. and he STILL manages to somehow majorly misread the piece.

it'd be far less annoying if he was just doing stupid "how rich is mario" gaming bullshit or whatever but every time he tries to do real film or game theories or analysis you realize he can't even identify a surface level theme if the movie spells it out for him.

he constantly focuses on minor details and somehow misses things they LITERALLY SAY TO HIM (for example he claims that the underground people from the movie US don't have souls when it is explicitly stated that they share a soul with the above ground people. I only know this cuz i watched a big joel video critiquing Matpat, because i don't follow matpats garbage. because i fucking hated him already)

he also exemplifies a kind of white man mediocrity and stagnation that i despise artistically.

THAT BEING SAID I haven't gone out of my way to learn anything new about him in like 7 years, but i did see a video where someone compiled some of his bigoted gender/sexuality based jokes and the comment section was AWFUL. just full of garbage people making fun of the person who made the video compiling his ""jokes"" so i think that's what's reignited my hatred for him.

i try not to let people i hate live rent free in my head cuz that's where the turtles go. there's only one guy i hate that i learn more about on purpose and he's the author of the hated webseries. but i still know why i hate matpat. and it's because his art is wack and he is a hack and i hope he dies or changes. but he prolly wont do either cuz he's a successful white guy.