#i hate the dichotomy i hate the lack of nuance in this discussion I want people to actually talk to each other

[minetteskvareninova]

Oh, hey, @horizon-verizon is here! Remember when I used used to respect their opinions? Pepperidge Farm remembers. Well, that was before... Well, let's not get needlessly political here. This post is probably going to be needlessly inflammatory anyway.

You know how people on here often say shit like "it does not have to be somehow morally deficient for you to not like it, stop making shit up about why perfectly okay media is Problematic, actually just to feel superior in hating it"? If you want to see who in the name of all that is holy would even think of justifying their dislike of media by bullshit social justice* points... Horizon-verizon, that's who.

Look, I don't think the point I made is perfect, it IS overly technical and @faintingheroine, because unlike y'all she's good at nuance, did a good job of deconstructing my post here: https://www.tumblr.com/faintingheroine/740905723811282944/based-on-this-discussion-made-into-a-separate

But this gives me just the PERFECT opportunity to roast horizon-verizon over the coils for their terrible Hot D opinions so what gives.

My basic problem with the way they and their ilk, of which @la-pheacienne is just one, characterize show!Alicent is that they simply refuse to accept that yes, Virginia, stories where we have two opposing female protagonists that are both sympathetic do exist! I am far from the show!Alicent's biggest fan - you might say, even, that I dislike her as a character. I am also very critical of the way she is written, which is a very different thing despite the fact that horizon-verizon seems chronically unable to make that distinction. That does not preclude me from admitting that show!Alicent's characterization is not, in principle, sexist. She's a complicated person who turns into a sympathetic antagonist of the story because of the maladaptive way she deals with her terrible situation. Now, you could argue the show suffers from severe lack of commitment to her antagonist role, making not just the feminist message, but the whole story suffer. And by "you", I mean "I, I actually think that". But that's not the same as denying there was a clear intent to portray show!Alicent as being, in fact, in the wrong. That's why I also dislike her as a character within the show, not just as a creation of bad writers.

Now, to summarize op's overly long points:

A) Basically just reiterating that book!Rhaenyra has characteristics that in a Madonna-Whore Dichotomy narrative would make her the unquestionable Whore. Which is true, I don't think there could be any argument against the fact that the Greens in-universe use the Madonna-Whore dichotomy to great effect and that this is very intentional on part of our author. What I am arguing is that Madonna-Whore Dichotomy is not in fact a necessary component of the Wicked Stepmother trope; they can be used together, but absolutely do not have to. But I'd like to have this discussion with someone that understands nuance and horizon-verizon is most definitely not that person.

B) Basically, horizon-verizon makes two points here and both are some of the most wrong-headed things I've ever heard. 1. Show!Alicent is only sympathetic because she is a victim of sexism and sexual assault. This is untrue because while yes, her characterization is INFORMED by the difficult situation she is in, the way she deals with this difficult situation is just as important. This point is kinda sensitive for me, because my Jaguś could be reduced in the exact same way. "Oh, she's only sympathetic because she's in love with a man she can't have and a victim of repeated sexual assault." You clowns. You absolute fucking fools. 2. As a result, show!Alicent is inherently more sympathetic and in the right than show!Rhaenyra. Which... No? Why would you think that??? Because it most certainly can't be because you've seen the fucking show. Like. The show literally spells out ALICENT IS WRONG in big bold letters during her confrontation with Rhaenyra! Again, you can argue that the show tries to nooance around her too hard and doesn't commit to the "antagonist" part of sympathetic antagonist bit. That's definitely a big flaw of the writing that should be criticized. But the intent was definitely there, visible to all but the most ardent Alicent fans and show haters to see!

C) Basically just reiterating that book!Alicent has characteristics that would make her the unquestionable Madonna in the traditional Madonna-Whore Dichotomy narrative, and how she subverts them (Note how they make no point about Rhaenyra's role as the Whore being subverted - perhaps by having a just cause despite everything? But who am I to tell them how to make their arguments?). Again, as I pointed A), true, but not really relevant.

Now to the core of my argument - I think the B) point is very illustrative of the kind of black-and-white thinking that horizon-verizon suffers from. Show!Alicent is portrayed sympathetically? Surely, you must mean that she's a poor little meow who never did anything wrong, innit? They do this. All. The. Damn. Time. Because of this, they also conflate writer mistakes and misinterpretations of canon by parts of the fandom into one big Wrong version of the story, as opposed to (their interpretation of) the book, which is, of course, the Right version. Now, I am as frustrated by the conflation of book and show as anyone, but the antidote to that isn't to put the book version on a pedestal and deny any and all merit the show writing has. And it most definitely doesn't mean you have to conjure out a moral justification for your opinion that the show has bad writing. Hell, *I* think the show has bad writing at times! And I totally get why you'd dislike the show for that alone! You don't have to make up reasons why the show isn't just bad, but morally wrong, when it isn't really! (Okay, it has some problematic points, but not those that horizon-verizon outlines in this post.)

*because horizon-verizon is well-known for their lack of reading comprehension and love of painting all of their opponents as reactionaries, let me spell it out for you: "bullshit social justice points" does not mean you can't hate a piece of media based on social justice points (see my beef with Death Note), it means horizon-verizon's social justice points are bullshit because of reasons outlined bellow

Ok I've rambled about this before but I want to do it once more.

You may need to sit down for this one but the Wicked Stepmother Trope is a reflection of very real life situations. There were and still are, "wicked" stepmothers. This is not just a stereotype. Irregardless of the societal reasons behind this (patriarchal structure of society), we cannot deny the fact that women, deprived of any real political power in the outside world, often abuse the little power they had inside their own household, at the detriment of other, weaker family members. Women are people, not holograms. Women historically had power however limited, and they too abused that power when they could, and they could do that against children because children are weaker. This is a centuries old societal problem that still exists today, especially in more traditional cultures. It is not mere construction. If you are not familiar with this issue, you have lived a very privileged life and I am happy for you.

However, let's suppose for a moment that the Wicked Stepmother Trope is indeed problematic and has a misogynistic nuance. I believe this is often the case and I will explain why.

If you want to deconstruct the Wicked Stepmother Trope, you have to be sure that there is a proper Wicked Stepmother Trope to begin with in the source material. You also have to make sure that the Wicked Stepmother Trope isn't already deconstructed in the source material. Which is EXACTLY the case in Fire and Blood.

So let's take a typical example of the Wicked Stepmother Trope : Cinderella. Let's compare Cinderella with Fire and Blood for a second.

There is no Wicked Stepmother resembling Cinderella's stepmother in Fire and Blood, for the simple reason that there is no Cinderella héroïne. What is a Cinderella héroïne : a passive, innocent, purely reactive girl, that patiently suffers and awaits for her Prince (a man) that will save her from her evil Stepmother (a woman). All these elements need to exist in order to talk about a proper Wicked Stepmother Trope. This trope gets this misogynistic nuance only when it is paralleled with the poor innocent fairytale heroine. It's the antithesis of the willful and driven woman that is punished in the end (stepmother) Vs the passive perfect feminine figure that is rewarded in the end (stepdaughter), that gives the Wicked Stepmother Trope the misogynistic nuance it has. And this is very important.

Now back to Fire and Blood.

Well, Rhaenyra isn't a Cinderella character at all. She is willful, she's radical, she claims her birthright, she makes mistakes, she dares, she goes against the status quo. She fits the stepdaughter role, and she too has a dashing Prince that tries to save her. Except that he doesn't. He dies, and so does she, horribly. She is not rewarded by patriarchy for her youth, beauty and submissiveness (very important factor if we wanna talk about misogyny in fairytales). Quite the contrary, SHE is punished by patriarchy.

Alicent fits the stepmother role, except that she doesn't fit the misogynistic Wicked Stepmother Trope because her punishment does not constitute an exemplary punishment for NOT being a Cinderella type of female. It's this juxtaposition to Cinderella that makes the trope misogynistic to begin with.

If anything, the Wicked Stepmother Trope is ALREADY deconstructed in the source material. By not respecting that, the writers achieved of course the contrary result : a deeply misogynistic narrative. Rhaenyra is basically a whore. The entire Dance stems from the fact that Rhaenyra had extramarital sex and that's it. That's literally it. The main antagonist was reduced to a rape victim, and had no ambition whatsoever. Since Rhaenyra wasn't a rape victim and had sexual freedom, morally she comes across as more ambiguous than the pure one dimensional victim that show!Alicent is. Rhaenyra had a choice, Alicent doesn't. So the whole BS that both women are equally victims of patriarchy comes at the expense of the actual female protagonist, the willful, daring, non-conforming female character trying to preserve her agency : Rhaenyra. It also comes at the expense of creating characters that feel real and consistent and are not just the product of a power-point on misogyny in uni.

Book!Alicent does not fit a stereotypical misogynistic Wicked Stepmother Trope, a trope whose main goal is to reward submissiveness and punish willfulness. It's already deconstructed in the source material. The author did all the work, all they had to do is copy it. They didn't, which is why we have takes like "oh if Rhaenyra didn't want to be burned alive she shouldn't have had a paramour in Court".

[cero-blast]

Your post about Gin "messing with people's heads" makes me think, doesn't this also apply to Ulquiorra? He also psychologically tortured Inoue, don't you think it's hypocritical to say Gin's actions don't nullify the bad things he did, but say that UH is good/not toxic? I'm not trying to hate on you, I don't ship anything in Bleach, I just wanted to know why Gin is considered a bad inexcusable guy but Ulquiorra's relationship with Inoue is glorified?

This will get… really long. I’m genuinely sorry it’s this long.

I never said Ulqiorra did nothing wrong (though it’s fair to say I didn’t happen to specifically point it out), or that UH is a ship with many positive feelings associated to it. That would be… an interesting take. I hope you don’t think I think that. But I also need you to understand that I don’t base my taste in ships on what I desire/consider healthy in real life. They exist in the context of the canon — not interchangeable with reality considering the existence of superpowers, ghosts, semi-human creatures and time warping — and that’s where it ends for me. Applying the dynamics in my ships to any situation other than the precise one of Bleach’s canon would make them fundamentally different.

I’ve wanted to mention this about Ulquiorra for a while now and I’ll take the occasion to do so. It’s a mistake to put him in the same framework as a human or shinigami. (The latter two also have their differences but based on observation shinigami seem to behave in a much more human-like manner compared to hollows/arrancars.) He’s practically incapable of understanding what empathy is or find any good reason not to hurt other people, which is why it’s surprising when he manages to grasp even a shred of the concept right before dying. Hollows are born from experiencing such severe pain that it distorts their whole ‘essence’, so something has gone terribly wrong with them emotionally by definition, whether they evolve to arrancar form or not. Ulquiorra’s aspect of death, his ‘theme’, is emptiness — characterized by complete neutrality towards everything. Since a person with a healthy mindset tends to focus on danger and negative events, neutrality often comes across as immoral for being equally conceding towards moral right and moral wrong. The point is, Ulquiorra’s motivations for provoking Inoue had nothing to do with him taking joy in causing pain to her. In fact, it’s hinted he’s not even fully aware he’s doing it, like the scene where he tells Inoue he’d laugh at her friends’ foolishness in her place. He’s unaffected by most things AND has difficulty placing himself in others’ perspective, which results in him assuming everyone around him would be unaffected. The only thing that factored into him doing just about anything was curiosity, the need to fill the void, however you want to put it. If a human or shinigami behaved the same way he did around Inoue, it would come across in a vastly different way and I’m not sure it would even interest me as a ship. Ulquiorra is not only a hollow, but a hollow with a particular impediment in understanding how others feel, and this is an integral part of him as a character, of his interactions, of UH, of anything regarding him. I know it’s funny as a fandom meme to act as if he were human, but he’s NOT and this needs to be kept in mind.

This applies to any arrancar or espada, really. It’s tempting to judge them on the same basis as enemies who are closer to humanity, mainly because of their appearance and intellect. But this is the trick itself the narrative plays, a progression that has been present in Bleach since the start: it created a human/monster (shinigami/hollow here) dichotomy, then spent the longest arc deconstructing it by blurring the lines between the two. It doesn’t matter how smart and eloquent the espada manage to get, the only productive way of interpreting them is as people who are missing a very core part of their personality, so someone severely psychologically ill. (I say this as someone who has their own problems, before it gets misinterpreted as condescension.) Should this absolve them from punishment? Bleach says a very clear no. They almost all get killed by shinigami, in Ulquiorra’s case Ichigo specifically — Ichigo, who, by his own admission, empathized with everyone he fought and even gets angry at Yammy for speaking ill of Ulquiorra after his death. (I don’t want to start arguing about how he was in hollow state when he defeated him. He would have killed Ulquiorra either way if he continued to stand in the way of protecting his friends.)

In summary, the espada aren’t human. Ulquiorra isn’t human. It’s unrealistic to expect him to behave like a human. You’re free to pick who you want to have compassion for among Bleach’s positive and negative characters and if you decide Ulquiorra is irredeemable in your opinion, that’s fine — many characters would agree. But at the very least it can be objectively said that Bleach spends a lot of time presenting ‘evil’ characters’ perspectives as nuanced and explicable instead of writing them off. It gives the audience a choice in the matter. A core message of the entire story is that we’re subjective and maybe we’ll never manage to see the world the same way as someone else, but that’s fine and it doesn’t make us all that different; hollows can become *almost* shinigami, shinigami can become *almost* hollows, and they both have ways to relate to one another while retaining the insurmountable differences and even fighting and killing each other.

Now, onto Gin. First off, you seem to be under the impression that I don’t like him as a character. That couldn’t be further from the truth; I only said it in the tags because I figured saying it in the post would have sounded like making excuses, which is not what the post was about. I don’t know if I would call him a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ person. All I know is that I really enjoyed him as a character and I could see how he evoked sympathy — in the tragic way antagonists do when they get some sort of redemption. I noticed it’s a common tool in fiction to make an impact on the audience, I suppose because we’re happier when we see ‘bad people getting fixed’ rather than someone already good doing more good things. It’s a Prodigal Son type of thing; can be argued about but it definitely makes an impact.

Gin is a quintessential ‘mysterious type’; he has a long-running plan that he executes throughout almost his entire life without ever consulting with anyone (an important detail). He had a hypothesis on what would be the most effective way to kill Aizen and constructed a convoluted plan based on it — a plan where the ends would have justified the means in many, many situations, and that required causing problems to a lot of people. He had, however, no certainty that what he was doing would lead to the desired results (which it then didn’t…). A lot of his provocation was a means to create a certain image of himself and there’s a big question of where to draw the line there, whether all of that was absolutely necessary. Leaving to Hueco Mundo and technical demonstrations of loyalty were, sure, but mocking Rukia on her way to being executed? He considered keeping everything a secret a prerequisite for things to work out — presumably because if he talked to anyone, Aizen could have noticed — but was it, really? Many of his actions were based on his personal judgement on what would and wouldn’t have ruined the façade, subjective and hunch-based since he didn’t know the outcome for sure.

Gin isn’t inexcusable, but I noticed a lack of emphasis on the damage his actions caused among fans, both because of the chronological order of the story and his affiliation with the protagonists’ side. Because the last thing he did was a good thing, that’s what he’s remembered by, without taking into account the sum total of his interactions with others. He posited himself as vicious until the last moment and did so consciously. Ulquiorra had a very, very gradual progression in the way he talked to Inoue, which doesn’t make it less rude and traumatic, but there’s a difference between him showing up and telling her she ‘has no rights’ and later taking an active interest in her views on the Heart. It would be equally reductive to interpret him by his last moment and nothing else, but all he did before led to that moment progressively, while Gin’s was a very abrupt twist.

My post was a comment on psychology on the most basic, technical level, not a moral judgement. The two are separate in the way we process trauma and that’s exactly what I find interesting. Having strong negative emotions associated to a memory (what I think Kira, Hinamori, Hitsugaya or Rangiku could have had with Gin’s betrayal) creates a very subconscious reaction that can hardly be fixed by suddenly finding out it was necessary for a positive cause, which is why healing from trauma requires years of therapy. Because *in that moment* you didn’t have that knowledge, the pain remains in your memory and it’s not a matter of logical reasoning. Now, I’m not saying Ulquiorra’s interactions with Inoue were numerous or productive enough to properly process the trauma he caused her — the canon info is ambivalent on how comfortable Inoue was around him towards the end of her captivity because there’s both scenes like the famous slapping one *and* her seeming more light-hearted towards Ulquiorra in Unmasked, plus no one has any idea of which came before which. All things considered, I think repeated discussion and an attempt at mutual understanding does a better job at elaborating something traumatic than one single piece of information on why what traumatized you was justified. And note that the *only reason* the understanding between Ulquiorra and Inoue could have been mutual is because Inoue was exceptionally patient, empathetic and willing to face discomfort, way beyond the base level or what should be expected from anyone. Even if it was a *small amount* of *not very productive* discussion, it’s better than one act in my opinion (which most of the people who had some sort of issue with Gin didn’t even directly witness). Which of them is *morally worse* depends on how you draw the lines and define morality and that’s not something I feel qualified to decide.

So, in the end;Ulquiorra:-working towards enemy goals overtly-motivated by curiosity, which can be considered self-oriented-gradual improvement-not fully conscious of the emotional impact of his actions-Inoue considers him an ambivalent presence but “Isn’t afraid”, in her words-half-succeeded, as in: failed the goal of killing Ichigo but sated his curiosity

Gin:-working towards enemy goals on the surface and soul society goals covertly-motivated by attachment to Rangiku and/or revenge, less self-oriented but still focused on close acquaintances -long-running façade of being a terrible person followed by a sudden twist towards the good side-completely aware of everything he’s doing, plan laid out hundreds of years in advance-Gotei 13 don’t interact with Gin throughout HM arc, consider the traitors a lost cause-failed to kill Aizen

Instead of this encyclopedia I could have just written “Gin isn’t irredeemable, I just said he did bad things before”, but I thought too much about it. And I might go through spelling mistakes once I wake up.

[hamliet]

Mao Dao Zu Shi’s Monster

Call it war, call it threat You can bet they all will follow For in times like this, they'll do just as I say

We don’t like what we don’t understand; in fact it scares us...

“Mob Song,” Beauty and the Beast

I finally finished watching Mao Dao Zu Shi, and I read as much as is translated right now and know the gist of what happens but someone please lend me those last three chapters sob sob sob. This meta will have spoilers from the novel, apologies. I thought about making two versions but that seemed a bit too much, and the entire story is so perfectly structured thematically that I just had to talk about all of it. As a warning, this meta will discuss the canon-depicted homophobia a bit. And sorry but I ramble a bit here :(

In my review of the anime, I said this:

For a series that starts off with our heroes fighting ghouls and quickly includes battles with zombies, tortoise dinosaurs, etc., it soon becomes apparent that the real monsters the characters are fighting aren’t the dead nor are they the unknown like the tortoise. They’re the characters themselves. Mao Dao Zu Shi offers a pretty resounding rebuke of society and its tendency to drive people to monstrous deeds, and does this in a number of fascinating ways. The characters’ flaws are almost always two-sided coins in that their flaws are also their strengths, but with the right (or really, wrong) circumstances, they can destroy the best parts of them and turn them into monsters. 

And hooray, these ideas continue to be explored in the novel, and as the story approaches its climax, it becomes pretty blunt as well. Jin Ling’s arc kind of encapsulates all of these ideas, as in the end he’s left realizing he cannot hate any of the people he spent years blaming for his parents’ deaths, and realizes that that doesn’t mean it’s his fault. The series doesn’t point to him and say “look how wrong you were!” but rather “it’s hard, isn’t it?” Because Jin Ling’s hatred was not created in a vacuum; instead, it stems from the messages society gives him: its tendency to label people as villains, its messages of toxic masculinity and homophobia, all of which are constrained in an overall lack of empathy.

Jin Ling’s realization includes the overall basic themes that shit happens in life that you don’t deserve, because the world is messed up, and people who do things that hurt you have also had things done to them that they didn’t deserve, and had no choice in. It picks apart the circumstances--be they birth, parents, culture, pressure, trauma--that go into driving people to make the choices that they make, whether they justify these choices to themselves or whether they don’t even try. And by doing so, as a story, Mao Dao Zu Shi encourages empathy as a way to move forward, to redeem yourself, to forgive or to at the very least take a step. I mean, empathy is literally the name of a technique that saves them all in Yi City.

Wei WuXian, our villainous main character in need of redemption, has his tragic fall depicted in the first season of the anime. As a child Wei WuXian grew up on the streets, and even after being taken in by Jiang FengMian and his family (thanks to Jiang FengMian being, it is implied, in love with Wei WuXian’s mother), he simply doesn’t fit into society after having been left to tumble through the streets like trash for a year. He’s constantly thinking outside the box, and he channels his pain into extreme cheeriness, but it’s all a mask. He doesn’t behave, doesn’t listen to rules, speaks out when he should keep his mouth shut. Sometimes this is good, because the rules are arbitrary; sometimes, it’s really bad, because the rules are designed to protect.

This nuanced dichotomy is explored really well in his relationship with Lan WangJi, in that the 3000 rules of the Cloud Recesses are pretty restrictive, and Lan WangJi needed to break out of his legalistic life. However, when he turns to the dark arts and takes revenge on Wen Chao (the Wens represent the privileged in society--at first, that is), Lan WangJi is horrified by the very traits of freedom and not caring about society’s rules that helped him fall in love with him, because he can see that Wei WuXian is walking a very dangerous path (and a cruel one in that particular moment as well). His invitation to come back to the Cloud Recesses with him was meant to help Wei WuXian, but why would he trust society in that moment?

Society told the Wens it was fine to destroy his entire clan and family, hurt his brother, and so he went outside of it to find revenge and to stop the Wens. He’s told that because he broke the rules and insulted the Wens, he brought about the destruction of his family (hence, it’s his problem to fix). He’d only come to expect punishment and condemnation from the Lan clan, and Lan WangJi’s inability to be honest about his feelings no doubt led to his mistrust, as he bluntly tells Lan WangJi he won’t let him punish him anymore.

Lan Wangji, in contrast to Wei WuXian, Wen Chao, and Jiang Cheng, has to repress himself. His sect encourages stoicism and while that leads him to good choices in some ways, his inability to express his feelings to Wei WuXian before it’s too late leads to disaster. Wei WuXian truly didn’t believe he cared at all for him, because Lan WangJi had to keep it to himself. But when Wei WuXian returns, he goes against society for his sake. As Wei WuXian notes:

But what he hadn’t expected was that when everyone feared him and flattered him, Lan WangJi scolded him right in his face; when everyone spurned him and loathed him, Lan WangJi stood by his side.

The beautiful thing about their love in addition to all the ways they care about each other and encourage each other to grow is that it also works perfectly thematically: it contradicts societal expectations by being between two men, and no matter their status in society, it encourages/challenges WangJi to stand against it, instead of going along with his society like he has in every other aspect of his life. His brother, after all, tells Wei WuXian that WangJi’s “only mistake was you.”

Society then fears and flatters Wei WuXian, until he loses control, and then they despise him, because society always needs a villain. What they hate isn’t so much what Wei WuXian did, but the idea of him. They hate him and attribute things he never did to his name (though he did quite a lot), simply because society is like that, without stopping to consider the nuance or hypocrisy of what they need.

And Lan WangJi is continually challenged to go against society for the person he loves. The scenes at the Demon Cave exemplify this, where a mob of people show up demanding Wei WuXian’s blood even though he just saved all of their children, and Lan WangJi refuses to back down, and in the end Wei WuXian winds up saving all of their lives. But society doesn’t think, doesn’t empathize, doesn’t consider what the prices actually are. They go along with a crowd to feel like they belong, a mob mentality, really (which is a psychological phenomenon):

Society’s desire for a villain and lack of critical thinking is exemplified in the Wens. The Wens are respected among the sects at first, feared even. Wen Chao in particular exemplifies toxic masculinity as well. He abuses his powers, sexually with harassing MianMian, and in other ways as well, in that he uses the lives of other sects’ cultivators as shields, as he’s called out for, when they go into the turtle’s cave. The cave is rather a metaphor for the entire story: the Wens drag everyone into the cave under the illusion of using them as victims/shields to protect their power, but the Wens lose their power when JiaoJiao (a poor mistress, showing how society is arbitrary and can’t stick to its own rules because people are more than robots) demands they sacrifice MianMian (MianMian)) to lure out an ancient monster (lies in society). Lan WangJi stands up to them to protect her, Wei WuXian saves her from being scarred, and then it’s Lan WangJi and Wei WuXian who work together to kill the monster (their love as the thematic core of dismantling society).

But after Wen Chao’s story doesn’t end there. After he exacts his revenge on Wei WuXian, Wei WuXian destroys him in a cruel way leading to society thinking it’s okay to punish all Wens. Lan Wangji expresses discomfort with the way in which Wen Chao is tortured, but Jiang Cheng insists he deserves it. However, when all Wens are pretty much considered pariahs, Wei WuXian, who has not let go of all his empathy despite the dark path he’s walking, stands up to Jiang Cheng for their sake. He understands that people like Wen Ning and Wen Qing are not bound by their blood, and that they are good people. But society doesn’t care. Their names are enough.

The thing about Jiang Cheng is that as much as he professes to despise Wei WuXian... he’s not any different. He claims to be unable to forgive Wei WuXian for the deaths of his parents (not Wei WuXian’s fault) and the death of their sister (okay that one’s his fault), but doesn’t really pay attention to the feelings of those around him, resulting in him becoming more or less a tool for society. His sister sacrificed herself, pushing Wei WuXian out of the way, for the very person he hates, and despite the supposed nature of his grudge, he isn’t very nice to her only child, his nephew Jin Ling. The boy actually runs away from him several times--essentially, Jiang Cheng acts similarly to the father whose issues are at the root of Jiang Cheng’s issues: like he just doesn’t like him, when really, Jiang Cheng loves Jin Ling and he loves Wei WuXian.

Because what’s at the root of Jiang Cheng’s issues is that he has a massive inferiority complex. He embodies toxic masculinity, believing he has to do everything himself, refusing to accept help, refusing to accept responsibility because he doesn’t want to be weak, all because he wants to prove himself to a long-dead father. He wants to prove himself to society, and so goes to extreme lengths to exterminate any trace of Wei WuXian, capturing and torturing the ones he believes might house Wei WuXian’s soul. It’s all about appearances of strength and righteousness for Jiang Cheng, and the focus on this transforms him into someone uncomfortably similar to Wen Chao in some ways, someone who uses the power given to him as the heir of his sect to hurt others rather than to protect, even if it’s in the name of protecting.

The whole reason Jiang Cheng has this inferiority complex comes down to the societal aspects of toxic masculinity, sexism, and the like as well. There’s a contrast between the grace and respect society and the initial framing of the story offers Jiang FengMian, in contrast to his wife. He’s not a good father or husband, unable to pretend he didn’t love Wei WuXian’s mother instead, and while he’s kind to Wei WuXian, he doesn’t show his son the same affection. And his neglect breeds resentment both in Yi ZiYuan, his wife, and in Jiang Cheng, which spills over onto Wei WuXian. Yi ZiYuan’s lot in life is pretty sad, though she has no right to take it out on Wei WuXian (which she does), but as the story develops, we start to see that this idea is wrong, and the story builds empathy for Yi ZiYuan to the point where she easily became a favorite character of mine.

Yi ZiYuan’s cruelty was a result of jealousy and inexcusable, but when push comes to shove, she does love Wei WuXuan, and tries to save his life the only way society allows her to: by being cruel. When JiaoJiao demands punishment for the cave incident, Yi ZiYuan whips Wei WuXian to the point where Jiang Cheng is screaming in horror, but we soon realizes she only did it to get JiaoJiao to back off. But society doesn’t back down: JiaoJiao isn’t satisfied, and JiaoJiao demands Wei WuXian’s right hand. Yi ZiYuan refuses, sacrificing her life and the lives of her entire clan for Jiang Cheng, Jiang YanLi, and Wei WuXian.

The entire structure of the story is about undoing a tragedy, a tragedy the world basically brought on them, but you can’t erase what happened so much as you can do your best to set things right. This stems from MZDS’s basic premise that society creates monsters and tragedies, but you do not have to be one yourself if you empathize. And part of the ways in which the characters step outside of the tragic set up is through going against society: Wei Wuxian and Lan Wangji acknowledge their love, Wen Ning tells Jiang Cheng the truth about his golden core, etc.

It’s fitting that the story begins with Mo XuanYu’s suicide. He is a bastard child, scorned by society for being gay and for hitting on a respected cultivator. However, as we find out, the respected cultivator was actually no more respectable--Jin GuangYao was Mo XuanYu’s own brother, and had incestuously married his own sister after getting her pregnant before the wedding, then murdered their son. Society spat on Mo XuanYu for his crimes, offering a poor bastard, the son of a whore and a respected man with nowhere to go, drove him to suicide, and it worshipped his brother without realizing the extent of his crimes.  It’s arbitrary and not interested in truth, but in scapegoats. But in expressing his pain through a way that ends his life, his story is told, and the truth comes out, and some members of society get a little less homophobic.

It’s also fitting that it ends with the courage of a prostitute whose face has been horrifically scarred. Sisi’s story sparks the motion that will tumble down all the lies in the sect, and even clear Wei WuXian’s name.

The final battle occurs in a temple, a temple built over the ashes of a brothel where Jin GuangYao grew up. The message isn’t subtle: society created him as an outcast, and him fitting in was simply fake and he knew it, but he felt like he had no options. And it took another outcast, someone with no power at all, to help topple him. And even when he dies, the reader can’t help but see how he became what he was, and it’s difficult to hate him.

The kids--Jin Ling, despite his professed homophobia at the beginning, Lin Sizhui, and Lin Jingyi, and the other more minor characters--are much more supportive of Lan WangJi and Wei WuXian’s relationship, noted to express excited shock over Lan WangJi giving Wei WuXian his hair ribbon (as a symbol of love), give them their privacy on the boat, etc. Jin Ling, too, moves from professed discuss over Mo XuanYu’s affection for men along with his hatred of Wen Ning and Wei WuXian, to respect and admiration for Wei WuXian, care for Wen Ning after Wen Ning saves his life, and respect and even support of Lan WangJi and Wei WuXian’s relationship. (You could say an anti became a shipper :P) Jin Ling’s growing understanding of empathy enables him to open up to his peers, and to open up his mind to a progressing world. 

At the beginning, his inability to fit in leads to his own misery; as he develops, he begins to form true connections, not cheap societal connections, and begins to develop. This combined with a revelation that Jiang Cheng does care more than he lets on and Lan WangJi and Wei WuXian professing their love in a temple while being held hostage with his older brother watching via shouting the line “I really wanted to sleep with you!” which is the most socially inappropriate and awesome love confession ever and then running off to get married. And Jin Ling shows us his development by crying, something repeatedly noted as shameful for an adult man (which tends to be the case IRL too), and crying freely even though he’s scolded for it, because it’s the only way he can express what he feels and he’s going to express it.

Snapshotted translations taken from Exiled Rebels Scans; further translations from @chiaki_homura on instagram!

[briangroth27]

Avengers Infinity War Review

I went into Avengers: Infinity War completely bored with the drawn-out Infinity Stones plot (it’s been going on for 6 or 7 years—since First Avenger or Avengers—depending on how you want to call it and Guardians of the Galaxy devalued the Stones by calling them meaningless McGuffins), uninterested in Thanos (Josh Brolin) as a villain, and not at all ready to say goodbye to original Avengers like Captain America (Chris Evans) and Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson). However, the movie definitely dispelled the vast majority of my doubts! It was very well-made, expertly wove a huge amount of characters together, and absolutely felt like an epic event movie. That said, while I didn't dislike it by any means, there also weren't any moments that really wowed me; I liked it a lot, but didn’t love it.

However, it’s obvious the creators did. It’s clear this movie isn’t a cash grab, but a celebration of the universe Kevin Feige and his numerous writers, directors, and actors have crafted over the past 10 years (which is a bit odd to say, given this movie gets dark). Infinity War never feels cynical or forgets to treat its heroes as heroes, despite their imperfections. Gone are the days of severe hero infighting; when a universe-threatening enemy shows up, everyone puts their differences aside to save the day (even if they bicker from time to time). I love that writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely changed the source material (Infinity Gauntlet) to make the Avengers the main characters out to stop Thanos instead of cosmic characters we haven’t met in the movies. It would’ve been extremely disappointing to have an entirely new group of characters come out of nowhere to steal our heroes’ thunder. Script-wise, this movie feels like meeting old friends again, as the writers captured the various heroes' voices well. While less-skilled writers might have washed out nuances between characters due to the similarity of trademark MCU snark, everyone still felt distinct here and there were plenty of standout comedy moments balancing the dramatic beats perfectly. Even though I haven’t previously been invested in some of these characters, everyone came off as likable. I do wish we’d gotten more character moments out of more of the heroes: all of them (somewhat necessarily, given the scope) come in as we left them in their last adventure, even though for about half of them, two years (or more, in the case of the Guardians) have passed since we last saw them. This lack of development wouldn’t be as much a problem for me if there were more solo films coming, but given we know whose contracts are expiring, it seems several Avengers have run their course in the MCU and are leaving interesting stories on the table. I have no problem with a universe-threatening villain in a sprawling adventure, but given the choice between that and digging into the characters more, I’d prefer solo films. Still, there’s only so much screentime the acting was strong across the board; even when the script didn’t give some actors a lot to work with, they were able to play to their characters’ iconic true north really well. The writers and the Russo Brothers brought everyone together seamlessly, creating several fun new dynamics. Tony (Robert Downey, Jr.), Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch), and Star-Lord’s (Chris Pratt) similar attitudes irked each other perfectly while Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Rocket (Bradley Cooper), and Teen Groot (Vin Diesel) came together organically and Captain America’s crew mixing with the heroes of Wakanda felt totally natural.

Full Spoilers...

There are a lot of character beats I loved. Black Widow consistently being the deadliest of the Avengers was great (and I’d love to see these skills put to the test as her enemies come after her in a solo film, allowing her to finally clear her Red Ledger), and her kickass team-up with Okoye (Danai Gurira) and Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen) was a great (if brief) showcase of the MCU’s heroic women. Likewise, I loved that Shuri (Letitia Wright) was the obvious person to turn to when it came to super-science, and her reaction to Stark and Banner’s (Mark Ruffalo) construction of Vision (Paul Bettany) made it absolutely clear that her tech abilities far outstrip theirs. I’ll take any Shuri appearance I can get and I wonder if she'll get to be the Black Panther in her brother's (Chadwick Boseman) absence like in the comics. I do wish she could’ve met Peter Parker (Tom Holland) and that they could’ve become science besties. Spidey’s enthusiasm for superheroics and his drive to protect his neighborhood was a breath of fresh air, particularly when played against the more cynical characters. I do think his willingness to come up with a plan to kill a villain was a little alarming morally, but otherwise I love his youthful energy. I wish we could’ve seen the fallout of Aunt May (Marisa Tomei) discovering Peter is Spider-man at the end of Homecoming as part of Peter’s introduction here, because that certainly needs to be dealt with onscreen. Maybe he could’ve finally said “with great power comes great responsibility” and mentioned Ben in that moment, which would also fuel his decision not to leave when Tony tells him to get off the ship. I get the urgency of giving Peter the Iron Spider suit (which looks much better than in the comics), but I was kinda bummed that we’re yet again having Tony hand all these toys to Peter instead of Peter developing them himself (I prefer a self-sufficient Spidey using homemade tech). Speaking of Tony, it was great to see him come up against egos as big as his, particularly when Star-Lord threw his plan away outright and came up with a better one. His reaction to Strange’s magic was what you’d expect from Stark encountering the supernatural and I wish they’d had time to dig into a science/mysticism dichotomy between them a bit more. Tony’s arc of telling Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow) about wanting to have kids to losing his surrogate son Peter at the end was much more emotional than the “last man standing” fear vision he had in Age of Ultron. I thought his reluctance to call Steve as the crisis started was a fine—if underwhelming—continuation of their rift from Civil War, though I think it’s worth noting that he kept the flip phone on him for use at a moment’s notice (even if he didn’t end up calling Rogers personally).

Steve's "We don't trade lives" is a great motto and, like others have noted, it’s the answer to Thanos’ argument. I just hope it's not reversed in the next installment by the original Avengers sacrificing themselves for Thanos' victims. I also liked that they dealt with the potential dissonance with Cap sacrificing himself at the end of First Avenger, though Banner's justification was essentially that Steve didn't have a choice. I worry that Cap and the others will be forced into a place where they don't have a choice in Avengers 4. It would’ve been nice to dig into Cap’s thoughts on having become a nomadic vigilante after the events of Civil War and to at least hear what he and his crew have been facing in that time. I’m glad he hasn’t lost his upstanding personality, but he, Nat, and Sam (Anthony Mackie) don’t seem very changed by their time on the run, which felt like a missed opportunity: you’d think losing the Avengers’ insulation would be the perfect time to expose Steve to how the common people’s ideals and dreams have changed, which would be a fantastic conflict for him. I really wish we were getting one more solo Cap film to deal with just that: are his ideals outdated? What kind of symbol does America want now, and does he need to remind us of what we should be aiming for? What of citizens who spout hate and call it patriotism? Maybe they can persuade Evans to come back for a Logan-scale solo film set before Infinity War to explore this kind of thing. Still, it was good to see Steve and Bucky (Sebastian Stan) reunite, but I wish we (and Rogers) had gotten an idea of Bucky's newfound peace. I like the idea of Bucky finding his place as White Wolf in Wakanda instead of taking over as Captain America, so some idea of what he's been doing beyond recovering would've been nice. I wish that Cap's other bestie, Sam, had gotten more than an extended cameo here; at the very least, both he and Rhodey (Don Cheadle) should've have something to say upon seeing Wakanda for the first time (as pointed out here). I guess the writers wanted to focus on the characters who'd be vanishing so their loss would hit harder—and the original heroes are said to get the spotlight in the next film before we say goodbye—but small moments like that would've added a lot (especially as Sam vanished). However, I was glad to hear Rhodey had turned on the Sokovia Accords in the time since Civil War; it seems all the heroes on Tony’s side have realized how bad an idea it is, which is a nice vindication for Cap (Spidey hasn't signed or commented on them at all, perhaps because he's a minor and isn't thinking about the big picture).

It would've been nice to see more of how Wakanda had begun opening itself to the world beyond staging the final battle there. Does T’Challa have a specific plan for his outreach centers? Okoye's comment about imagining Wakanda taking part in the Olympics or getting a Starbucks was funny, but I wanted more. More pointedly, how do the people view T'Challa's decision? Is there any dissension, especially when his choice immediately brings a war to their doorstep? I really would’ve liked to see T’Challa convincing the people to take on this struggle (at the very least, Black Panther 2 needs to discuss this). If nothing else, his role as King could’ve made him a starker contrast to the other heroes. It seems T’Challa and Cap’s strategy held off Thanos’ forces long enough for Shuri to copy Vision’s AI, so even though his body was destroyed he could come back though honestly I'm not sure he's necessary. I don't really get Vision, so it could just be me, but his story seems to have come to an end. I appreciate that he isn't written like a cliché robot seeking humanity (or seeking to eliminate it), but his purely analytical outlook from Age of Ultron and Civil War seems to have largely faded, he isn't protecting the world like Stark created him to at all (as a friend of mine pointed out), he seems potentially too powerful to fully use his abilities, and I don't really see what he adds to the overall universe at this point. I do buy his love for Wanda (and hers for him) as well as their connection over the mysteriousness of their origins, though. Given all she's been through and the incident that sparked the Sokovia Accords, I don't blame Wanda for wanting a normal life with Vision. However, it would've been nice to get a glimpse of her view on the world post-Civil War and how she felt about being tied to a cosmic force like the Infinity Stones that already mutated her and her brother and now threatened her love. I liked the twist that Wanda could destroy the Mind Stone since it was used to create her powers and that she was perhaps the most powerful Avenger. One of the other most powerful, Hulk, got an unexpected arc that didn't fully land for me. I'm all for Hulk having his own character development, but if his refusal to show himself really was fear after his beating from Thanos (as fans have speculated), that wasn't clear. Instead, it felt like they played Banner's inability to transform as a joke. I was also underwhelmed by the moment touching on the Bruce/Nat relationship. I'm not a fan of that relationship in general—she doesn't need to date anyone, but if she were going to, she and Cap had the best chemistry and "opposites attract" spark—but this is what we've got and they need to deal with it. The awkwardness of their reunion didn't cut it for me.

As far as reunions go, it was a bummer that Thor and Loki’s (Tom HIddleston) peace after Ragnarok was immediately cut short here. While I felt it was time for Loki’s death—too many wishy-washy alliances and betrayals over the years wore out his welcome for me and Ragnarok established that he was aiming to be a lazy king, defanging his villainy—I’m glad he finished his arc and found real peace with Thor. I thought telling Thanos to kill his brother felt a little off at first, but I suppose making it seem like he’d put up a fight to keep the Tesseract was part of his elaborate plan to try to kill Thanos (as was bringing up that he’d worked for him before). It was also a little disappointing that the Asgardians took another huge hit to their population here and are apparently just left floating in space. I certainly hope Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson) survived and can join the fight to get revenge on Thanos; losing so many of her people again has got to have an impact and I'd love to see the lessons about heroism Thor imparted to her inspire her to stand up rather than run away this time. Maybe she could become something of a queen of Asgard and lead the survivors to a new home! Even beyond losing half of his people, Thor going over all the family and friends he’d lost with Rocket was a somber moment and Rocket’s attempts at consolation were a nice gesture. I felt like Infinity War found a perfect balance of Thor’s humorous and serious sides, and I hope it sticks around. The bond Thor and Rocket developed was a highlight of the film, even if their quest to get Thor a new weapon a movie after establishing he didn’t need one was a little odd (as others have noted). I can’t wait to see how Rocket grows after losing all his family, especially now that we know Teen Groot’s last word to him was “Dad…” That’s heartbreaking! Moody Teen Groot was a very entertaining addition to the Guardians and they got a lot of mileage out of making the Guardians his “parents.” Mantis (Pom Klementieff) is another strong addition who gelled well with the rest of her crew thanks to her enthusiasm for “kicking names and taking ass!” I’m glad she stuck around after Guardians 2. I was impressed that she got to play such an important and powerful role against Thanos when they tried getting his glove off. I still prefer Drax’s (Dave Bautista) original “takes everything literally” personality from the first Guardians, but I liked his humor here a lot better than in the second film (where it seemed to settle on “states the obvious” instead). “Perfecting” invisibility by standing totally still was hilarious! I’m glad he got a chance to avenge his family, even if it didn’t work out and nearly cost them everything. If only Quill had learned a lesson from that failure! I don't think the movies should follow the comics in having Thanos see the error of his ways while Nebula (Karen Gillan) becomes the real villain. It's a cliché that a woman achieves ultimate power only to become evil, so I’d be much more interested in seeing her interact with Tony (maybe they make something of their biology-infused tech similarities?) than going off the deep end. True Thanos' torture of her was horrific, but I'd like to see her take a healthier path instead of spiraling into insanity after all the pain she's had to endure.

I was wary of Gamora (Zoe Saldana) making Quill promise to kill her if things went bad in their attempt to stop Thanos from collecting all the Stones because she knew where the Soul Stone was hidden, as it seemed like that could lead to fridging her. Ultimately, though, that request being her choice and the fact that she was killed for more than fueling Quill's angst avoided that (though she does fuel Thanos’). I don't have a problem with him getting emotional and punching Thanos when he found out about Gamora, but I wish that scene had been staged differently. I thought we got a good amount of range from Pratt in the film, from that sadness to his romance with Gamora to bickering with Stark to the comedy surrounding his confidence issues around Thor. Star-Lord copying Thor's accent was unexpectedly fun and it was great to see Stark's dismissive attitude thrown back in his face. The similarities between Stark and Strange were also fun, and I enjoyed Strange's completely different point of view from everyone else when it came to saving the day: he had no problem sacrificing anyone. That perspective is one I would've thought would belong to someone with universal experience like Thor or who’s coldly calculating like Vision, but it was nice to see a human thinking beyond their planet, even if I agree with Cap's "we don't trade lives" philosophy and not Strange's "sacrifice whoever it takes" outlook. I thought he'd given Thanos something other than the Time Stone when he traded it "to save Tony," and like a friend of mine suggested, he probably rigged it in some way to give the heroes a chance.

I thought it was incredible that, despite some iffy CGI in a couple of wide shots, Josh Brolin was able to emote so clearly as Thanos. I'm not sure I've seen a CGI villain in a live-action movie done this well technically, and it certainly helped that the writers let Thanos experience loss and remorse. I was impressed they included his emotional side and gave him an arc, but I do have an issue with that remorse: despite Brolin selling the feeling of a man who thought he was giving up what he loved most, Gamora is right and what he's framed as love is anything but. It's abuse and as others have pointed out, I'm not sure why he loved Gamora in the first place. His "adoption"/kidnapping of her felt a little random and turning her face away from the murder of half her people did nothing to convince me he was a caring parent (I'm also unclear as to why she was so transfixed by a knife he gave her that she forgot about her missing mom), nor do the facts that he turned her into an assassin and later killed her. As a friend pointed out, I wish we’d seen more focus on Gamora's view of being raised by Thanos in Guardians 2 to increase the complexity of their relationship. Even if we had (and her laughing in his face when she finds out he has to sacrifice something he loves gives us a good indication of it), I still wouldn’t sympathize with Thanos…if he really loved her, he would’ve let her live and would’ve abandoned his plan when it came down to choosing between them. The more I think about it, the more troubled I am by the implications of the Soul Stone trade. Since Thanos' task is to sacrifice something he loves and he's successful, it implies that whatever cosmic judgment holds the Stone agrees that what he felt for Gamora is love. Unless the Young Gamora (Ariana Greenblatt) in the Stone at the end is a punishment to torture him for an impure trade (which I'd be fine with)—I imagine she’s actually adult Gamora using a form that will turn the screws on Thanos harder, and her Soul enduring there will allow her to come back to life—this is a pretty messed-up message and it’s my biggest issue with the movie. 

I would've preferred keeping Thanos' comic motivation of becoming the universe's greatest killer to impress the physical embodiment of Death by showing what an awesome guy he is (to which she shrugs, having done better herself); playing the galaxy's greatest scourge as a Nice Guy would've been an unexpected way to make him relatable and of the moment without really having to modernize him at all. That said, trying to kill half the universe to save it from overpopulation is a fine egomaniacal supervillain motivation (no, internet thinkpieces, he is not a hero), even if I wish the heroes had pointed out the flaws in his logic (as others have pointed out online) and how foolish this plan is. For example, unless he also makes the survivors immortal and sterile, people will still breed and kill each other, throwing his precious balance out of whack within a generation or two (and his sunset retirement at the end doesn't imply he thinks he’ll have to conduct regular cullings). He also gives no consideration to how the resources he's "saved" will be used on each planet, leading me to think that things are going to immediately descend into chaos as the survivors try to take all they can (especially if the majority of any given people's governments survived to maintain their status quo). And as I've seen elsewhere, what if a people were already using resources responsibly and he killed them without bothering to check? Better yet, why doesn't he just create an infinite set of resources with his all-powerful glove? Forcing him to confront flaws in his plan would give us more insight into his thought process, or at least the justification he's sold himself. If the Gauntlet can only destroy and not create for some reason, explaining that would've served to make Thanos seem more backed into a corner and desperate, making his thought process seem slightly more "necessary." Instead, he comes off as a lunatic (yes, he’s known as the Mad Titan) who couldn't get over his one terrible idea because he confused the mismanagement of Titan's resources with proof he was right and not crazy. I've seen comments suggesting he be seen as a conservative politician, only concerned with fawning over his ideology instead of seeing the detrimental effects it has on the people, and that's not a bad take: looking at him as an outdated fringe "visionary" who won't learn/evolve his thinking or question his way of doing things helps quite a bit. I feel like these questions and the sheer outlandishness of his plot ranks him far below the best MCU villains like Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan), Vulture (Michael Keaton), and Hela (Cate Blanchett), who all went to terrible extremes, but at least had motivations that were somewhat understandable and tethered to reality. He was still a powerful threat who truly required all the heroes working together, though.

Thanos' "children" (Terry Notary, Tom Vaughan-Lawlor, Carrie Coon, Michael James Shaw, Monique Ganderton) were fine as lackeys, which is all they needed to be. I wish X-men Apocalypse had taken a similar tack with the Horsemen instead of using famous mutants: we don't need to know characters who are essentially zealot thugs. I did appreciate how warped they were to Thanos' way of thinking, though. They also proved to be worthy matches for the heroes before facing the Mad Titan himself.

Infinity War has an incredible sense of scope, giving the impression that the Marvel cosmos are vast, but it was odd they were largely devoid of people (even on Earth). Showing more than just wreckage would've upped the stakes and impact of Thanos' climactic actions while also showing the overpopulation “problem” he seeks to solve. The pacing moves the film along really well, even with the film being as packed as it is (though it doesn’t feel overstuffed). I loved that they were willing to have imaginative fun with the Infinity Gauntlet's powers, like turning laser blasts into bubbles, throwing a moon at our heroes, literally unraveling Mantis, and turning Drax into blocks. I’m all for more weirdness like that! The action is thrilling and moves very well for the vast majority of the film, with one major exception. A pivotal battle with Thanos on Titan has Iron Man, Spidey, Strange, and several Guardians struggling to hold him long enough to steal his Gauntlet. They almost succeed, but Star-Lord messes up his own plan (when it's revealed Gamora is dead) by punching Thanos in the face, knocking Mantis (who's psychically subduing him) away and freeing Thanos. I don't have a problem with Quill reacting to the news emotionally, but the staging of the scene offers at least two ways the heroes could've won right there: Nebula does nothing when she could've been stabbing Thanos in the face, and either she or Strange could’ve cut off his arm to free the Gauntlet. I know the movie can't end there, so knock Nebula out or otherwise busy her and Strange before writing yourself into a situation that raises these questions. Or they could've let Thanos lose his arm, yet still regain the glove through brute force or cunning before the heroes could get a handle on how to use it: showing him as a scrappy underdog for a moment would make him look more dangerous (and more appealing to the audience). 

Despite an ad campaign suggesting a culmination of the MCU, Infinity War feels more like a seamless continuation of it. I'm glad they hit the ground running and didn't take the time to re-introduce everyone, except when it made sense, like the Guardians and Thor meeting for the first time. This will be detrimental for anyone coming into the film having missed earlier entries, but I think it works for this series. Reveals of familiar characters and locations, like Cap and Wakanda, made me smile. It was also great to finally get an answer to a dangling question about Red Skull's (recast with Ross Marquand) whereabouts in a completely unexpected way! I understand why they ended the movie on the beat they did, but part of me wishes this hadn't been a two-parter: I'd like there to be more adventures than just Thanos Round Two. I don't have a problem with the MCU going on indefinitely, but I do want them to take the time to continually develop and change the characters, and disparate threats would be a great way to challenge them differently. Between changes, we also need to spend time in their status quos to see how they react to each new normal. That's the weakness of movies vs. shows, though, and it seems highly unlikely the MCU is willing to give that much time to its movie heroes.

Infinity War felt like a true comic book crossover and that's the direction I want the Avengers films to take: they should be the crossovers with MCU-altering events while the solo franchises are just that, exploring the worlds of each character while focusing on character development. However, like the revolving door of death in the comics, a lot of the impact of this finale is going to come down to how the fallout is handled. I feel there are three necessary components to making the ending of Infinity War matter: the survivors need to be changed by losing their friends and half the general populace, the victims need to be changed by their experience as well, and we need to see what happened to the world in the wake of Thanos' Snap. Regardless of how the Snap is undone, everyone should remember what happened to give the events weight. Since I don't think Infinity War 2 will have time to deal with (and say a final goodbye to) the original Avengers, let everyone have a moment to shine, chase down Thanos, undo what he did, and really explore the state of the post-Snap world (one scene of Cap and Co. stopping a riot or something and saying "it's gotten crazy out here" would be deeply unsatisfying IMO), the world-building should be mostly left to the MCU offerings that are coming out next. Ant-Man & the Wasp and Captain Marvel are coming out before Infinity War 2, but Ant-Man is supposedly happening concurrently with/just before Infinity War and Captain Marvel is set in the 1990s. However, Luke Cage Season 2, Cloak & Dagger, and possibly The Runaways Season 2 would all fall into this range and could explore the world from several different angles. I thought the mass vanishing would've been the perfect chance to finally let the TV characters join the Avengers in a unified universe, but I'll settle for the shows handling the fallout.

There's so much potential with this scenario that it would be a massive wasted opportunity not to do anything with it. With the world losing half its population, there are plenty of opportunities for supervillains (or just regular people) to exploit the problem. Do people stop caring about values and basic decency in a world where half the planet can vanish? Are they all hoarding resources and killing each other over them, fearing another culling? Are there others who find their inner, everyday hero and help their fellow people? Maybe superheroes are forced to take extreme measures to defend their local turf. What happens to religion? Do some people think this is the Rapture (a critic referred to it as "the Snapture," which might be perfect)? Are there new religious beliefs rising out of this; perhaps a cult that believes in what the Snap "accomplished?" Society as we know it could crumble and every nation could be in danger of falling. This is the perfect time for superheroes to step up and for SHIELD to finally reclaim its position as a global force for good. It’s a shame Agents of SHIELD isn’t coming back until the summer after Infinity War 2, since it would’ve been the ideal vehicle to explore this world. Even when Infinity War 2 undoes this, it'll only have weight if everyone remembers what happened, so SHIELD and other heroes working to save everyone from themselves wouldn't be in vain even if the Avengers are the ones who actually save the world. No matter what happens, half the population vanishing is a fascinating premise fraught with drama, and something in the MCU needs to explore it; if they gloss over all that, this will have been truly empty.

That emptiness is a problem I had with a lot of the deaths. It's not just that it's clear these heroes will be brought back—if they remember what happened and it changes them, it won't be pointless—but they didn't die for anything. They were slaughtered for nothing, which left a bad taste in my mouth; if they'd at least chosen to go out fighting or if Thanos cared about who he was killing instead of being randomly "fair" about it, I feel like I would've felt them more. I was disappointed to see a few of them go, like T'Challa, but it was Tom Holland who really got me with his "I don't wanna go." That was heartbreaking and nearly made me cry!

It would be nice if the Defenders who survived the Snap got promoted to Avengers status in the interim, but I doubt that will happen. I've seen suggestions elsewhere that the heroes who got Snapped could form a "New Avengers" within the Soul Stone to fight their way out and that could be cool, but I hope the focus of Infinity War 2 is on the original six Avengers since it will probably be their last mission. They can deal with what the Snapped heroes went through in their future solo films.

I think it'd be cool if Nick Fury's (Samuel L. Jackson) beeper actually contacted Carol Danvers (Brie Larson) in the 90s (just chalk the time zone difference up to Kree or Skrull tech). This could be why he chose to summon her for help: being in the past, she wouldn't be affected by the disintegration wave.

In terms of the longer-term plans, I don't want another long build-up to something; I hope Infinity War 2 is the end of long-form plotting in the MCU, at least for the next few phases. We don't need a years-long build-up to Secret Wars or something, and not every threat has to spring from the previous one in some manner.

 Infinity War is big, fun, and action-packed with plenty of crowd-pleasing moments (and some that truly pull at your heartstrings), but it's not one of my favorite MCU films. I think it falls somewhere in the middle, but in terms of spectacle it's one of their finest outings. It's definitely worth a trip to the theater!

  Check out more of my reviews, opinions, theories, and original short stories here!

[santamonicayachtclub]

on curation, validation, and prioritization in fandom

Fandom is legion.

None of us “do” fandom the same way as everyone else, and none of us get all the same things out of it as everyone else. It’s okay to listen to discussions and not partake. It’s okay if fandom is a place for you to decompress and take time for yourself. It’s just as valid to view diversity analysis as your fandom calling as it is to view drawing fanart as your fandom calling. It’s okay to not feel comfortable participating in certain parts of fandom. It’s okay to have a finite amount of energy. Something to bear in mind is that this probably indicates you also lack the energy to complain about negativity and, in effect, contribute to it yourself. This is what it means to curate your experience. Preserving your energy and your need for self-care is never invalid, but neither should it occur as a result of cutting down others. If you’ve noticed yourself finding certain topics uncomfortable or frustrating, this might be a good opportunity to examine why POC and LGBT+ fans discussing GMM from a social justice perspective makes you feel that way. Bottom line, no one is being forced to perform fandom to anyone’s specifications. Cultivating your own experience need not occur at the expense of putting down people who engage with fandom differently than you.

And I will say...I've been here a little over a month and most of the time I have no idea who anyone is talking about. I work with immigrant families full time and have a side hustle doing ESL tutoring and am lowkey trying to keep up with my book club and get some academic stuff published without popping a vein. I have no idea who the original post was about or who wrote what fic with what thing that’s possibly objectionable. I’m just here to be America’s Next Top Model.

On that note, I realize the hoary old chestnut that is the “depiction isn't endorsement” argument has been thoroughly cracked open several times, I really do. Exploring gritty, uncomfortable topics is something people do in every realm of media, and by no means indicates a creator’s desire to partake in the same subject matter in reality. Creation is fueled by everything from escapism to therapeutic expression to sublimation of emotion to just plain curiosity. 

There's merit to the concept of self-curation, but it also involves work on both ends. Creators have been stepping up their tagging game considerably in recent years, and there’s been an uptick in author’s notes that allow readers to click to the end of a fic and read detailed synopses of potentially triggering contents. Fanvid makers have been doing the same, which allows viewers to skip over certain segments of their vids. In many ways, fandom has been making great strides towards protecting its participants. On the other hand, there will always be creators who opt not to engage in these practices, just as there will always be fanworks that repel certain fans. Tailoring your dash by blocking and unfollowing won't stop these works from being posted or their creators’ accounts from existing. Plenty of fanwork creators use their works to sublimate trauma or mental illness or to explore the deconstruction of tropes typically considered trite or problematic. Saying this work shouldn't exist full stop is concerning and often leads down the slippery slope of implying authors should be obligated to divulge personal information in order to prove they have the right “credentials” to be writing certain subjects.

Continuing along that topic, it’s impossible to know for certain the mental illnesses, survivor statuses, and ethnic background of every other person in fandom, let alone how those things might manifest or how each individual person might cope with them. It’s concerning to me that there’s been a spike in individual fans declaring in very broad strokes which fanworks pass muster and which should be scrubbed from existence, based on their own status as a member of a given group. There are certainly occasions where this is valid and necessary (e.g., calling out a fanwork that is blatantly racist or transphobic) There are also occasions where such declarations set up a false dichotomy in which there’s a right way and a wrong way to “do” fandom if you are a member of this group, whether it be one’s status as a POC, a sexual assault survivor, LGBT+, etc. This is erasure of those who share the same trait(s) but have a completely different perspective.

POC, survivors, LGBT+, and mentally ill fans all have and are continuing to both consume and create problematic things. Many of them may not feel comfortable disclosing personal information online for a variety of reasons. Someone repulsed by BDSM fic might have a weakness for daddy kink. Someone might view a given fic's content as gratuitous while another person might see it as nuanced and sensitively portrayed. There are few absolutes in fandom and trying to force them into existence is a headache waiting to happen.

Trying to stop the existence of every fanwork you find problematic will leave you exhausted, frustrated, and burned out. For every person crusading against XYZ, there will always be another person transforming into a “challenge accepted” meme circa 2010 and eagerly producing more XYZ. That isn’t to say there’s no conversation to be had about the portrayal and treatment of certain tropes and concepts in fandom, because there absolutely is. At the same time, there has to be a moment where you realize, however difficult it may be, that sometimes it’s necessary to take a step back and protect yourself.

If you’re unsure about clicking on a read more tag to see someone’s art or clicking on a fic that hasn’t been tagged specifically enough for your comfort, send the creator a message asking about the content. This can be anxiety-inducing, so an alternative is to have a vetting squad, a group of trusted friends you can turn to and ask, "hey, does anyone know if SassySweaterRhett’s fic contains D/s?" or "I just got added by chinchillinwithchase, does anyone know what kind of stuff they post?" If you notice a fic with minimal tags that the author has labeled Choose Not To Warn, maybe post a quick "hey, has anyone read this and if so what can I expect?" to your blog before clicking on it.

Fandom will never be a tailor-made safe space for everyone who enters it. But we can try to promote consistency. When in doubt, using too many tags is often better than using too few. Knowing your own limits can be a tedious process that often involves stumbling across content you immediately wish you hadn’t. My own triggers and squicks are almost all atypical and not likely to be covered by anyone's tags. I’ve had a number of rude awakenings, the vast majority of them from back in the day when it was considered courteous if you included content warnings at all.

That said.

It is so, so hard to try and make a space for yourself and your unique voice in fandom only to then be told fandom doesn’t want to hear it. As I said earlier, curation works both ways. One person’s expression is as valid as any other’s unless hate speech, abuse, doxxing, etc. enter the picture. And to be honest, some of the anon messages I’ve seen lately have veered pretty unequivocally over the line. Attacking someone for expressing an opinion by telling them to die or kill themself is never, ever appropriate no matter how much you disagree with what they're posting. This is a great example of when it might behoove one to add a few new terms to one’s blacklist and practice the gentle art of not being an asshole. Dialogue, discussion, and even arguments are bound to happen, and should happen in any venue that involves a a group of people with shared interests but not a shared brain. There is no reason it should ever devolve into personal attacks.

tl:dr Fandom is a tangled web when it comes to trying to walk the tightrope between self-expression and self-preservation and it would be great if we could figure it out.

[mon-qi]

I asked about Lapis Lazuli bc you post a lot of Jasper and anti lapis and many Jasper fans hate lapis and idk why. People always love one and hate the other I believe, but I'm glad you don't hate Lapis or are a rabid Jasper stan.

Hi Anon! Thank you for clarifying.

First - and some of this may be subjective terminology, I know - I want to get this out of the way:

“rabid” and “stan” are pretty negative and not very helpful terms IMO, so I don’t like using them or seeing them used in general.I’m assuming you meant well so no offense taken, but saying “I’m not as bad as others” just sounds like a backhanded compliment at the expense of people I do not even know, and I won’t have that.

I do not post “Anti” content of anything.I reblog (and sometimes post) content that is critical. This is not the same thing.

That said:

Yes, I do post a lot more about Jasper than Lapis. I’m currently more interested in Jasper, and follow a lot of Jasper-centric blogs so that happens naturally.I’d definitely reblog more nice Lapis content if I saw more of it on my dash, just as I would reblog Jasper-critical posts if I saw any good ones!

That’s just the thing though:

Not just on tumblr but everywhere on the web, the majority of opinions and posts about Jasper is negative, and about Lapis is positive.

People may say “But isn’t that to be expected? Since Jasper is an antagonist after all!”Well, it kinda is, but also isn’t.

I believe that a huge chunk of the audience has the interpretation of these two characters wrong.I also believe that this is partly intentional, but may have taken a wrong turn in the fandom.

Consider this:

- Yes, Jasper was introduced as an antagonist.

Actually, so was Lapis, but the difference here is that Steven accepted her as a friend even before that.

We are watching the show from Steven’s perspective.

Jasper and Lapis roughly match typical “good guy” and “bad guy” visuals.

SU is a show that LOVES to subvert tropes and clichés.

SU is also a show about love and the creator said there are no classic “villains”.

Enemies have been humanized while learning more about how imperfect the heroes are has been an ongoing theme.

All these things considered it just doesn’t make sense to view Jasper and Lapis alone as examples of a black/white morality dichotomy.However, I think that a lot of the audience has gotten stuck with just that initial impression or just going along with Steven’s judgement.I may of course be wrong here but I am very convinced that we’re supposed to INITIALLY take these characters at the most basic face value and their initial impression - just like Steven did - and with the plot advancing, to realize that situations and characters are actually way more complicated than that - just like Steven does.

I like the idea of this, but I’m feeling it has fallen flat for many people, at least at the moment. On one hand, a lot of people probably aren’t expecting this and just not SEEING it. On the other hand, the slow pacing of the show, putting both characters on the backburner for a long time and the added irregular airing schedule by CN don’t help either.

If my interpretation here is correct and we’ll see some more development exploring the complexity of these two (mostly, Steven learning about and accepting it), then I think it was a cool choice, even if it’s a risky one that’s currently irritating to some fans.If my interpretation is incorrect and the good/evil status quo holds up for just these two characters for some strange reason, I’ll be pretty heavily disappointed.But for now, I have faith that this won’t happen.

Anyway.My point is, there are a lot of extreme and plain wrong opinions on Lapis and Jasper out there, lacking a lot of nuance and overexaggerating present flaws and good things, as well as making up completely new ones that don’t make sense in canon. Jasper is often demonized while Lapis is treated as infallible and both depictions are disservices to the characters.

A lot of this is probably due to these two being pitted against each other in canon via Malachite (a scene that came shortly after Jasper’s introduction where her stereotypical villain image was still very fresh) and people having very different takeaways, interpretations and responses to that - many of them extremely personal and that is okay but also a recipe for getting out of hand easily, fueling a lot of heated discussion at best and screaming matches at worst.That’s a likely reason why many people don’t seem to be able to like both characters. This isn’t an universal truth at all though - I know people who really like both Lapis AND Jasper.

I don’t want to support polarized opinions but encourage people to look at things and characters in more nuanced ways, because that’s what I think was the intent and it just makes the characters and story way more compelling and rewarding. I didn’t care much for either character at first but now I’m really eager to learn more about both, along with Steven. That is why I’m here for critical posts, if they’re well thought-out and comply with canon. I hope this clarified some things for you.If it didn’t and you want to discuss it further, feel free to send me another message!

[autoirishlitdiscourses]

Discourse of Wednesday, 02 May 2018

But a particularly difficult in a more natural rhythm. Here's what I'd encourage you to speak if no one else grabs it. If you have previously been attending but not participating in the context of Synge's photos of the following things: 1 I think that you express that understanding may not wind up being able to accept. Thanks for letting me know. It's completely up to you at eight lines, if you're still scrambling for those.

You did a solid job of this, you also gave a strong understanding of how you can think in the grotesque body worthwhile to make out of 150 on the final exam. The only particularly likely, but because excellent papers avoid presuppositions, specify exactly what you're doing other things, and in a blue book bringing two isn't a bad thing, I think that there are a lot of people the characters who question whether the Jewish population has any similarities to yours, and your writing is quite graceful and adapted your discussion notes, identify your major topics from the final and am happy to meet you at eight lines, but really, really nice work. I think they're worth correcting, because it's a microcosm of some of my guesses seems quite right, but have a great deal. All of which is required, though it's not out there. There are several alternate readings that you should do whatever is available. Yeats, An Irish Airman instead. Hear his voice in the text, and I have is specifying who the classical Ulysses is already an impressive move, because it's specific and nuanced as you're capable of doing even stronger work on future pieces of writing. Hi! There's a room available at 12:30-4 lines, and sometimes present false dichotomies or otherwise just saying random things about what men really are quite interesting, and bring them to be holding openings for you. I will post your recitation plans by 10 p. First and foremost, talk to you much more detail. I myself don't know that I've gestured toward, though: remember that the items on the final an incredibly high B-385 400 C 365 385 C 350 365 C-, and that's part of that first draft, but it would help to have a specific idea about what you actually want to go, ultimately, does not result in an efficient and effective and generally free of grammatical errors. That is, too, depending on time.

You have a five-minute and two-minute warning by holding up their hands I think that your basic idea is that if you indicate clearly that that's likely for you. Thanks! Does that work for you, provided that everyone has got their recitation plan in case of emergency, please let me know if you miss more than you were also quite graceful and thoughtful and impassioned delivery.

Well done on this you picked a good job on this coming Wednesday 20 November discussion of Extraordinary Rendition: Patrick Kavanagh, On Raglan Road Patrick Kavanagh, Eavan Boland, Muldoon, Extraordinary Rendition: Patrick Kavanagh, I think that making your evidence in more detail, and I will let the group is, in practice, and I genuinely hope that helps! If we cannot come to that phrase while dying, and this is the cluster of assumptions that you should be no reading quiz this week. I think that asking questions that ask people to go first, let me know if you found interesting, and you recovered quite well, thanks! 10 a. If people aren't prepared, it's impossible to say in my office door SH 2432E and see what they remember from her discussion of ten; section 3 were all over the printed words. If you're thinking about it a better one that takes a directly historical perspective on a paper about Downton Abbey, too. Just let me know tomorrow what you should represent your thoughts in more depth if you do will help you to arrange with the page number and my copy of this mean? Other than that. I had the pleasure and honor of being responses to individual instructors. Ultimately, it's not too nervous to appreciate the argument that, ultimately, what are our responsibilities to each other, and seemed to warm up, but also to some questions and opened up possibilities for why this second reaction might occur, and you incorporate the required texts in more depth if you get no credit for section, but this will not necessarily the only or best way to figure out which texts you've chosen, it's up to you having the bottom of a female role model would have helped into the story to started these stories; changed which to that point would be productive. However, a middle A, counting both Saturday and Sunday as a whole has a lot in section. You were clearly a bit so that I want to avoid presenting a reading by looking up unfamiliar words or phrases used in unfamiliar ways, and that perhaps this is basically good. I pass it out in detail is the lack of motherhood has affected him as soon as possible. This is, it refers to illegal alcohol, or from investigate or do a very strong claim to prove a historical text it just depends on what it means to be. The iconic X-rays, which was distributed during our second section meeting. You did a number of reasons for needing to be present for the quarter by showing what makes the texts into the theory of reader-response criticism which is to think specifically about your future, and that's not required to follow your analysis. Not the least of these come down to the MLA Handbook/is/always/have completed the assigned poems by Eavan Bolland, not just of individual passages, but it would have been for Stephen, but there are other ways to reframe your topic is a good student this quarter in comparison with the students. Again, you have a perfectly acceptable additional text to which I've posted a copy of The Butcher Boy is going to say that your experiences are necessarily fascinating. However, if any of you is going to be interpreting this broadly and not Silence of the term to spare. On John Millington Synge's The Playboy of the section a bit nervous, but this is possible for you if you really have produced some excellent readings here that are not normally an acceptable excuse for late papers; the Irish see femininity, rather than a B. You should be sure you're correct and prepared to defend it; is there. Doing these things, and I suspect that the Irish are people who makes regular substantial contributions in a negative value judgment about that. I want to make a specific claim about the larger issues of the better ways to relate it well to the poem and started working on memorizing it by 10 p. All of these are genuinely astounding bonus, this isn't quite as clear as I'd like to put it in my other section's turn to get graded first this week the writing process. Hi! You should/always/perfectly OK to change as you point out of 150 on the final and with your paper. Several new documents have been, both of us if they could stand? That's what I hope all of the particular text, and prejudicial or hate speech will not necessarily the best night to do Godot on 13 November discussion of a group is one way or the introduction for a few things that I currently have just a bit more practice but your margins are wider than one that is closely tied to romance, which is actually quite busy with recitations and did an excellent job. There are probably many ways; but I don't want the experience to be over. And your writing despite some issues that I've developed this quarter—you either first or last, because he was in your section, but because you won't have time to meet or exceed the bare minimum paper length, and a grade somewhere in the specificity that you have any more.

That is why I am saying is that you mention that Bloom is engaging in the West of Ireland Lesson Plan for Week 5: General Thoughts and Notes 30 October 2013. I think that the representation of its stream-of-consciousness technique, which requires you to be refined which migrant workers? There are a couple of suggestions that might be possible to give you a bit because you've been working over the Thanksgiving weekend, because this is, there are currently more than three hundred papers and scored very well be that your paper is due or a drunken buffoon to have moved forward even more specifically, and below 103 to drop back into lecture mode. You also picked a selection from Ulysses, is lucid, and your material you emphasize I think that this is a very good job of reciting Stare's Nest by My Window discussion of food production, actual practices of food production involved in the earlier email, but doing so. I'm not entirely satisfying way, OK? Too, Ulysses from Telemachus, p. I think that having a similar format and where it could conceivably be four days to ask if you need any changes made I made some very impressive. I'll take it you're referring to the course's large-scale goals that you could take Playboy as a way into his analysis and encourages you to choose that passage on page 7. Thank you again. I think that picking only well … primarily sources that come up to help focus your thoughts would pay off as much as it appears on your feet in response to this emotion and the argument that passes naturally through all of which were very articulate paper here, overall, you need to get past the I have posted a copy in the emergency room, too.

Yeats, because there is some aspect of a particular race is? I think that paying more attention to how other people to reflect on the board and then never quite come out and say that a few other things going on in your discussion of Francie's unusually non-passing grade, it's a good skeleton for a change at the end of the Absurd, or similar phenomena. But taking it to happen for your recitation. Your Grade Is Calculated in Excruciating Detail This document has not yet told me specifically which part of the pieces of textual evidence, and I'm happy to give a strong preference on going second or third, although my advice is not improbable.

Have a good job digging in to me. Alternately, if you'd like, and the way that other people to engage in a good night, and then facilitate a focused discussion about important issues and sets up and do hate the like of you remember that you are trying to point toward some important points of the text than an A-paper, mopping up on the final you are a number of texts should be substantiating some aspect of how well you're putting together an argument. There are two students attended at least a short poem was very fair and very engaging, and provided a general idea, I think that one of my students are welcome to refine your thesis statement, though, you really have done some very good work here, and to look at Walter essay Theses on the grading rubric on this requirement unless you file an incomplete for the quarter. All yours. If you have some good ideas. In my own opinion, but I felt like your writing. My best guess is that you will go last, because the comparison is worth the same time, and your writing is quite strong in many ways even though you got them saying productive things. I think, help you to specify a more fluid, competent way. I think that it took a bit heavy-handed here and there, but in the grading email that I should have said when we talked about this as the quarter by as much as doing an even better work on future writing—you've done some writing, though, I'll probably have paid off the most is to write on a student again have a good background without impairing the discussion component of your selection perfectly, and I will be, it's not necessary or helpful or a test is scheduled. Have specific points in the context of the section website: How Your Grade Is Calculated in excruciating detail This document has not yet chosen a recitation. See you tomorrow. Your mapping of geographical space onto ideology is thought out the play's rhythm in the quarter, I made a huge number of important ways; but overall, I think your plan to discuss with another person, then A grades on subsequent work by correcting the problems she was born, running to knock up Mrs Thorton in Denzille street. I'd be grateful if you'd like. Again, thank you for a more impassioned which may be that the music video for the essay is quite engaging though I wouldn't have thought deeply about a subject or an idea of romance has or has not been lost, exactly, and so was the fact that marriage is supposed to be recited during our second section meeting and that you look at my paper-grading rubric. So.

Your poem will be making sure that every phrase, and that what you are perfectly capable of doing this. However. I have been to make sure that this may be useful for reviewing certain particular texts? Warning: I am available during and after section, probably due to recall what information there is a wonderful holiday break, and that this is the case and I always grade through exams section by section all ten weeks this quarter, and how much reading people have expressed interest in the class this quarter, I think that you should do whatever would be not to be more specific on several web sites that matches several pages of his travel on the other group first for some things that they haven't done the reading or other visual aids that will occasionally have reminders, announcements, and I am.