#i literally have to research correct terms for fandoms idk | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

thecoleopterawithana · 5 years ago

Note

Hello! I really adore your blog and all the work you put into it! It's well appriciated. Anyways, a real question - how do you feel about Paul and Jane's relationship? Because it confuses me on so many levels. I find it very hard to believe she didn't know about his many affairs while they were together, yet the public reason for their break up is his adultery with Francie who denied that (I mean who even reported that?). 1/3

The other thing that confuses me is the fact that he was writing basically break up songs (but I didn’t register a lot of love there tbh) back in 66 and they somehow managed to last until 68, even though they totally didn’t give the impression of a good match (her ambition and his desire for housewife/bachelor life) nor did they seem as if they loved each other very much (at least publically).

The last part of the question, are you aware of a love song he wrote for her? I know some people think Here There and Everywhere but her brother apparently disagrees. Anyways, these are just my feelings and idk if I am not under a wrong impression here or something. I also don’t want it to sound like I am theoretizing here about it being a cover up for mclennon - because I am not! I think of it more as a publicity stunt for publicity…

…(even though I think it evolved into that over the course of time and it began more like Paul showing off with this pretty actress he managed to woo). What do you think? Thank you for your answer and sorry for the lenght, haha! R. 😎

Hey there! Thank you so much for the ask and a million apologies for taking so long to answer! It’s just that I had no opinion to speak of, at the time.

I was just beginning to attempt getting a grasp on Paul– and to better comprehend my main interest of Lennon/McCartney– and hadn’t branched into the other people in his life yet. But to reach a true understanding, it is crucial to look at the full picture; and Jane was very much part of that picture, during a long and formative time!

Now, I must warn you that I’m nowhere near a Jane Asher connoisseur! This post comes with the disclaimer that I don’t feel adequately informed to answer it. But you asked, and it has been sitting in my inbox long enough, so… take my personal opinions for what they (always) are: honest (but probably flawed) attempts at understanding the emotional workings of human beings, based on the information available to me at the time.

But because I feel like there is more information out there that I just didn’t find in the targeted research for this post, I urge more knowledgeable fans to give their contributions and/or correct me if I make some factual mistake.

So, disclaimer given, here’s the actual answer:

I understand and empathize with your confusion regarding their relationship. I think it’s just a feeling that arises from the lack of information. After all, theirs was a relationship under intense public scrutiny from the very beginning, but whose actual inner workings were kept – through the effort of both parties – determinately private and personal. That’s always how Paul prefered it. And, effectively demonstrated by her resolute silence since, so has Jane.

The main feeling I get from Paul and Jane is that they were both incredibly similar people, who also had somewhat separate interests. And this seems to have been both what attracted them to one another, and what eventually made them grow apart.

Both of them were very socially adept; “good mixers”. Brian Sommerville (the Beatles’ publicity manager from 1963-1964) describes Jane as “a very sweet, extroverted girl […] bright, very conversational and full of fun”. This kind of sounds like Paul at his most gregarious.

They were incredibly intelligent. And if Jane was cultured and knowledgeable, Paul was intensely curious, and soon became cultured and knowledgeable himself. And Paul himself openly admits that he was always attracted to “intelligent and talented people”.

And we must acknowledge that the Asher’s lifestyle as a whole was something that captivated Paul (enough to have him literally move in with them as soon as he could). It had been instilled into him from early on, after all, this great appreciation for education and the drive to do better and rise out of his circumstances.

[My parents] aspired to a better life. That idea that we had to get out of here, we had to do better than this. This was okay for everyone else in the street but we could do better than this. She was always moving to what she saw as a better place to bring her kids up.

[…]

My parents aspired for us, very much indeed. That is one of the great things you can find in ordinary people. My mum wanted me to be a doctor. ‘My son the doctor’ - and her being a nurse, too. No problem there. And my dad, who left school at fourteen, would have loved me to be a great scientist, a great university graduate. I always feel grateful for that. I mean, God, I certainly fulfilled their aspirations, talk about overachieving! That was all bred into me, that.

— Paul McCartney, in Barry Miles’ Many Years From Now (1997).

People call Paul a “social climber” to demean him; and because the term is used to attack him, others defend him by saying his relationship with Jane had nothing to do with social climbing. But I don’t think this should be derogatory in the first place!

Paul was ambitious; he did want to gain a higher social status. Not because he felt that made him inherently better than others; he’d just been raised to feel a sense of responsibility for being the best that he could be, and not live in poverty anymore! And what’s wrong with that, I’d like to know?

All the Beatles wanted success, fame and status, so all of them were social climbers, in a sense.

So what if one of the things that attracted Paul to Jane was that she was educated and cultured? It seems like a perfectly valid reason to be genuinely into someone to me.

Of course, both of them were beautiful. As Tony Barrow (the Beatles’ press officer) put it: “There was something about seeing them together that was magical. With those two gorgeous faces and all that incredible charisma, they looked like a couple of Greek gods.” So the physical attraction was also obviously there.

And I don’t doubt that Paul was proud to have such a beautiful, talented and interesting person as a girlfriend, and might have felt like showing her off to friends. But I don’t think that lessens how enamoured they were with one another. If the whole relationship was being performed for outwards appreciation, I feel like there’d be a lot more performing going on. Instead, they never revealed more than they needed to, nor did they stop living to hide from the public eye.

If there publicity strategies to it, they never came from Brian Epstein himself, who actually thought that the Beatles having girlfriends was a marketing mistake:

There was a considerable difference of opinion over the Jane Asher situation. Brian made a terrible fuss about it, saying that it would offend the fans. But, in effect, Paul just told him to mind his own business. Brian was probably just being over-cautious, and Paul more far-sighted, knowing that that sort of thing didn’t matter. But at the time it was a textbook rule of publicity that the artist must appear single and available.

— Brian Sommerville, in Chris Salewicz’s McCartney (1986).

So the relationship wasn’t arranged as a publicity stunt. I feel like everything points to them just genuinely liking each other.

(And now just an honest question to those of you who’ve been longer in the fandom: is George’s relationship with Pattie Boyd also suspected to be a publicity stunt? Because I don’t know if this has just escaped my notice, or if this claim is something that afflicts only Paul and Jane specifically. And if so, why do you think that is?)

But going back to their similarities, both Jane and Paul were incredibly independent, self-assured and work-oriented. And I think it was the clash of their strong personalities that actually caused the bumps in the relationship.

Paul likes to be in control of himself and to some extent the environment around him. And he’d grown up in a society where it was acceptable for that to extend to his girlfriends.

John and I lusted after Brigitte Bardot in our teen yearsand tried to make our girlfriends look like her. […] I had a girlfriend called Dot, Dorothy Rohne, who was my steady girlfriend forquite a long time in Liverpool. She and John’s girlfriend, later wife, CynthiaPowell, came over to Hamburg and I remember buying her a leather skirt andencouraging her to grow her hair long so she’d look like Brigitte.

— Paul McCartney, in Barry Miles’ Many Years From Now (1997).

Jane, of course, wasn’t willing to be moulded so easily.

That’s typical Paul [wanting me to stay inside the George V Hotel with the band instead of going out by myself to see Paris]. It’s just so silly of me to stay at the hotel. It’s just that he’s so insecure. For instance, he keeps saying he’s not interested in the future, but he must be because he says it so often. The trouble is, he wants the fans’ adulation and mine too. He’s so selfish, it’s his biggest fault. He can’t see that my feelings for him are real and that the fans’ are fantasy. Of course, it’s the trouble with all boys.

—Jane Asher, c/o Michael Braun, Love Me Do!: The Beatles’ Progress. (1964)

This little passage shows us Jane’s insights into the “darker” sides of Paul’s character that other’s wouldn’t often see. His insecurities: fear that Jane would betray him, anxieties about the future and his need to be liked. And this level of understanding shows either an incredible perceptiveness and emotional intelligence on Jane’s part, or it is another sign of how close they were and how well they knew each other.

That Paul was understood like that by another person is extremely important! As he was reported saying after their breakup in 1968:

Jane wasn’t just my woman, she was my closest friend. I’ve told her everything inside me. She knows what makes me tick down to things that happened as a kid. I went right through all the stuff about my mother dying and how I dealt with that. With Jane, I could just relax completely and be myself and that seemed to be what she wanted. With the other women, I’m a fucking millionaire rock star who just happens to be about as shallow as a puddle.

—in Alistair Taylor’s With the Beatles (2003).

Or just before that, as observed during the extensive interviews for the Beatles’ authorized biography, in 1967:

[Paul’s] life is much quieter and more ordered now. Paul is very communicative about himself, unlike the others. He talks everything over with Jane. She knows what he’s thinking.

— in Hunter Davies’ The Beatles (1968).

And I can’t stress enough how significant it is that Paul was open in such a way! It just shows how much he respected and trusted Jane.

And I think she also trusted him. With this I don’t mean to say that she trusted him not to sleep around; I don’t believe for a minute she didn’t know about it. And because she doesn’t exactly seem like the kind of person who would endure it if she was actually betrayed and hurt by this, my personal opinion is that this was a given; something known and accepted between them. And probably not just one-way either. They spent long periods apart, after all, and I think both Paul and Jane had agreed between themselves that it was okay to have affairs. I don’t know exactly the specifics of it, or if this was revoked when they got engaged.

But I don’t think that was the (main) reason the engagement was called off either.

It is clear they enjoyed the other’s company, from the amount of time they spent on outings and holidays alone together. But both also seem rather uncompromising in respects to their personal careers, and that probably lead to clashes. During 1965 they spend a lot of time apart when Jane pursues her acting career in Bristol Old Vic company.

My whole existence for so long centred around a bachelor life. I didn’t treat women as most people do. I’ve always had a lot around, even when I’ve had a steady girl. My life generally has always been very lax, and not normal.

I knew it was selfish. It caused a few rows. Jane left me once and went off to Bristol to act. I said OK then, leave, I’ll find someone else. It was shattering to be without her.

— Paul McCartney, in Hunter Davies’ The Beatles (1968).

Paul’s frustrations were exercised through ‘We Can Work It Out’ and ‘I’m Looking Through You’:

I wrote quite a lot of stuff up in that room actually [in Jane Asher’s family home]. I’m Looking Through You I seem to remember after an argument with Jane. There were a few of those moments. […]

As is one’s wont in relationships, you will from time to time argue or not see eye to eye on things, and a couple of the songs around this period were that kind of thing. This one I remember particularly as me being disillusioned over her commitment. She went down to the Bristol Old Vic quite a lot around this time. Suffice to say that this one was probably related to that romantic episode and I was seeing through her façade. And realising that it wasn’t quite all that it seemed. I would write it out in a song and then I’ve got rid of the emotion. I don’t hold grudges so that gets rid of that little bit of emotional baggage. I remember specifically this one being about that, getting rid of some emotional baggage. ‘I’m looking through you, and you’re not there!’

— Paul McCartney, in Barry Miles’ Many Years From Now (1997).

You’re thinking of me the same old wayYou were above me, but not todayThe only difference is you’re down thereI’m looking through you and you’re nowhere

Why, tell me why, did you not treat me right? Love has a nasty habit of disappearing overnight

I’m looking through you, where did you go I thought I knew you, what did I know You don’t look different, but you have changedI’m looking through you, you’re not the same

Paul was especially shaken by this episode when it became apparent that she might actually leave him for her other boyfriend:

I remember more one time when she was working at the Bristol Old Vic and she’d got a boyfriend in Bristol and was going to leave me for him. That was wildly traumatic, that was ‘Uhhhh!’ Total rejection!

— Paul McCartney, in Barry Miles’ Many Years From Now (1997).

So to lead a better life, Paul needs his love to be here, but Jane was pursuing her own dreams:

Jane loved acting and Jane loved Paul, but she wasn’t about to give one up for the other. […] Of all the plum roles that had come her way, the Subservient Beatles Woman was the only one Jane Asher refused to play. […] She had too much going for her to take a backseat to anyone, much less her mate. From the beginning, Paul had a hard time keeping up with her. Jane’s diary, which she lived by, was a clutter of fascinating appointments and social commitments. “I was amazed by the diary,” Paul admitted. “I’ve never known people who stuffed so much into a day.” There were auditions, meetings with television and movie producers, vocal lessons, acting classes, fittings, gallery debuts, screenings, recitals, opening nights. […] “Paul was clearly in awe of her,” says Peter Brown.

— in Bob Spitz’s The Beatles: The Biography (2005).

And though they both loved culture and the swinging London scene, Jane wasn’t into all the drugs or the rock-n’-roll world. So when they moved together to Cavendish in March 1966, their slightly different social circles often didn’t mix well.

At Wimpole Street, he and Jane had kept their social lives mainly separate. At Cavendish, she naturally wanted to entertain her theatre friends, and the mix of luvvies and rockers could sometimes be awkward. One evening when she had some fellow actors to dinner, Paul arrived home with John, who–whether the result of drink or pot or just plain Lennonness–was at his most maliciously provocative. When one of the actresses at the table nervously requested an ashtray, he knelt beside her and facetiously offered one of his nostrils for the purpose. Jane, with her usual sangfroid, simply extended a foot and pushed him over.

— in Phillip Norman’s Paul McCartney: The Biography (2016).

On this same month, during a skiing holiday in Switzerland, Paul writes ‘For No One’.

It was very nice and I remember writing 'For No One’ there.I suspect it was about another argument. I don’t have easy relationships withwomen, I never have. I talk too much truth.

— Paul McCartney, in Barry Miles’ Many Years From Now (1997).

It’s interesting to me that Paul’s problem in his relationship with women is “talking too much truth”. But by the lyrics in the song, we see that once again Paul is struggling with Jane’s self-reliance and her perceived lack-of-interest for him (which I also find endlessly ironic):

She wakes up, she makes upShe takes her time and doesn’t feel she has to hurryShe no longer needs you

You want her, you need herAnd yet you don’t believe her when she says her love is deadYou think she needs you

You stay home, she goes outShe says that long ago she knew someone but now he’s goneShe doesn’t need him

Your day breaks, your mind achesThere will be times when all the things she said will fill your headYou won’t forget her

And in her eyes you see nothingNo sign of love behind the tearsCried for no oneA love that should have lasted years!

The next big separation comes in 1967, when Jane goes on a tour of the US for the first five months of the year. This was, of course, a time of tectonic changes within the Beatles and in Paul’s life.

When I came back after five months, Paul had changed so much. He was on LSD which I hadn’t shared. I was jealous of the spiritual experiences he’d had with John.

—Jane Asher, in Hunter Davies’ The Beatles (1968).

It must have been extremely disorientating to come back to the tripping, summer-of-love, looking-for-the-Meaning Paul. But to their credit, they did try to get to know one another again; reconnect:

On Jane’s return from America, she and Paul made a last-ditch stand to consolidate their relationship. Jane, unusually, even accompanied Paul to a recording session on 20 July 1967 […] Two days after the session, Jane accompanied Paul to Greece with the other Beatles. In August Jane was with him on the trip to Bangor to be initiated by the Maharishi, and during the difficult days following Brian’s death she was clearly a great source of strength and comfort to him; someone familiar and safe he could trust and confide in; someone with all the attributes of a wife. They spent the first three weeks of December alone together in Paul’s remote Scottish farmhouse and four days later, on Christmas Day, 1967, they announced to Paul’s family - perhaps slightly to their own surprise - their engagement.

— in Barry Miles’ Many Years From Now (1997).

Jane and Paul make a very loving and lovely couple. Everyone agrees on this. […] Paul and Jane have more time together, on their own, than probably the other Beatle couples. They do get away together, to places like their Scottish home, thanks to Jane. They were the first to want to move to the country for good, to a quieter smaller house, which John and George now also want to do.

—in Hunter Davies’ The Beatles (1968).

When they got engaged, on Christmas Day 1967, all these problems were in the past. Maharishi, for a long time, was the only little point of difference, although it was all amicable. Jane didn’t fall for him when the others did, although she understood the attraction. She would obviously have preferred to try to reach a spiritual state on their own. Paul wasn’t as committed as George and John when he went with Jane to India in 1968, but he felt there was something there that would help him, that might answer his questions. So Jane agreed to go with him.

— in Hunter Davies’ The Beatles (1968).

Suffice it to say, Paul didn’t get his answers. In fact, the reality he knew was about to crumble.

The summer of 1968 was a horrible storm of drugs, anxiety and heartbreak, where he had to take care of this budding enterprise while managing a band and losing both his partners. And I think Alistair Taylor’s descriptions of a completely wrecked Paul reflect all of that.

It’s curious then how Paul recalls his reaction to the calling off of the engagement later:

I don’t remember [his and Jane’s eventual] breakup as being traumatic, really. I remember more one time when she was working at the Bristol Old Vic and she’d got a boyfriend in Bristol and was going to leave me for him. That was wildly traumatic, that was ‘Uhhhh!’ Total rejection! We got back together again but I had already gone through that when we eventually split up. It seemed it had to happen. It felt right.

— Paul McCartney, in Barry Miles’ Many Years From Now (1997).

They were eventually both at peace with the decision. Paul has expressed that he had an intuitive unconscious reticence over actually marrying Jane. And Jane herself had felt that they’d grown too much and apart as people. She surmises:

“And I had four [wonderful years].

“No, it wasn’t love at first sight on my side. It was several months before I felt at all certain. And of course, I was young. Only seventeen. Inevitably, one changes. After all, Paul himself was only twenty when we met.

“I knew in my bones that the break must inevitably come a long time before it actually happened. Although we had this emotional thing for each other, we found it difficult to be really happy together.”

I remembered, then, the character in another play who had cried: “I am not offering you happiness, but love.” And I remembered, too, how that great J. L. Garvin had once told me when I was Jane’s age: “Everything in life makes either for happiness or experience.”

“And sometimes the experience is more important,” I suggested now.

She nodded as she got up to go.

“I long to improve as an actress and I hope what’s happened to me will make me understand more fully the characters I am asked to play. Anyway, I promise you, I wouldn’t not have had it happen. I mean, I am very, very grateful for those four years. And I am not going to look back in bitterness or anger, but only forward.

“People are such bores who make a drama out of their lost loves. In every case someone has to fall out of love first.”

—Jane Asher, interview w/ Godfrey Winn for The Australian Women’s Weekly: Girl with a broken love affair. (April 23rd, 1969)

So here’s my overview of Paul and Jane.

I feel like their relationship was very genuine and organic, so much so that they eventually grew in different directions. But they were nevertheless very important and formative figures in each other’s lives.

And it was personally very interesting for me to see this side of Paul too, the one whose needs are left unmet by a driven, work-oriented, independent partner, and how he reacted to that.

Jane herself is an awesome woman in her own right, and I loved this chance to get to know her a little better.

As for love songs written from Paul to Jane, I would ask for the help of more well-informed fans! I’m sure many of the feelings expressed in his love songs were also inspired in part by his experiences with Jane. Is there one particular song out there which has been stated to be about her?

#asks me why #jane asher #paul mccartney #the beatles #John Lennon #there are two sides to me

108 notes · View notes

sonfaro · 7 years ago

Text

@you-me-and-the-force-between-us Thank you for your rebuttal. My response will be similarly long, and tumblr is being annoying so I’m switching to a new thread.

“Normal behavior isn’t always guaranteed by everyone. That’s life. Of course there are always going to be outliers of people who don’t think as they should. But they’re small compared to the number of people who CAN make these differences, so making comparisons like these are not only hurtful, but useless. It doesn’t matter WHAT language you use, somewhere out there–is going to fan over a serial killer or want to become one, because it’s not about language, it’s about personal experiences.” It DOES matter to those who are left behind. To those who’s people are routinely NOT treated in this way. Infantilizing dangerous white men at any level of media sets a tone. To see that kind of behavior follow into fiction and NOBODY have a problem with it is beyond bizarre to me. I’ve had friends locked up for far less who never got treated like the children they were, so forgive me if I’m a little sensitive to the subject. “People who sympathisize with these types of people are either going through some sort of fucked up, I’m edgy 100%, phase that they’ll grow out of or have some serious mental instabilities. It isn’t the media’s job to walk on egg shells with language,“ It’s the media’s job to present the truth with no spin. When they do things like this, it absolutely poisons the well. There’s no one to blame for his crimes but the monster, but there are people to blame for how that monster is viewed by the masses. “This other rhetoric about what’s being said and how it compares to fiction–it’s bullshit. And let’s be honest here for a second–just honestly speaking–looking through OP’s page you can very damn well tell this post isn’t done with good intentions in mind; it’s a clear attack on a group of people under the facet of being a good citizen who truly cares. Which also pisses me off.“ In what way? I’ve literally seen someone claim that Kylo is ‘young’ and ‘doesn’t know any better’. That sort of language does exist amongst the fandom. “(I’ve seen people call others abelist for using the word crazy on this hellsite, but idc either way) “ You’re sympathizing with the villain is all. Which is fine, “ Clearly it isn’t??? Because that’s OP’s point. That’s what OP has a problem with, saying that we’re like criminal sympathizers because we sympathize with a villain–so YES I agree, I’m JUST sympathizing with a villain IS ALL, nothing more. That’s the point.“ OP’s point is about the language being used: the infantilizing and woobifying. I can sympathize with Erik Killmonger, but know he’s a grown man and his end in Black Panther is justified. I’m not going to say “He’s basically a teenager lashing out” or nonsense like that - which IS a thing that Kylo stans have said. “ALSO JUST SO EVERYONE’S AWARE. This ISN’T the media saying this.“ Matt O’Donnell, listed below the lawyer in OP’s post, is a reporter. He lists the killer’s status as an orphan (with no reason), his young age (with no reason), and suggests he had a ‘troubled’ background. These are softening social cues. And the media doesn’t have to make these quotes the headline. It is they who present these quotes as a worthy title for an article. “Darth Vader is one of THEE most popular villains of all time, and most people ADORE baby-fying him.” Not canon Darth Vader they don’t. If you want an Alt universe Kylo (like Emo Kylo Ren) it’s whatever. That's a separate idea. “He was Kylo BEFORE KYLO EXISTED–he’s WORSE than Kylo–so where’s all the hate there?“ I disagree. Vader was a tool for the Emperor. Kylo IS the Emperor now. And the hate is largely gone because in canon Vader died sacrificing himself for the hero. “Why isn’t the majority of the world turned into serial killer supporters by now? A. The majority of the world isn’t into star wars. We’re a big fandom, but the world is bigger B. and the majority of Vader’s fans don’t try to justify his actions. He’s liked because he makes a great foil for our heroes. Why isn’t OP making a comparison to Darth Vader and attacking his fans? Again, Vader’s fans generally don’t make excuses for his actions. Because OP has an agenda to attack Reylos and make them seem like horrible people, because that’s just the way the shit rolls on Tumblr nowadays. Agreed, he definitely does. “[...]Committing a crime due to violent media, is far less easy to prove, and there has been no direct connection thus far.“ Right, but your post flat said “It isn’t true”, and that has not yet been determined. Hence my post. “All of these still prove my point–media alone does NOT transform you into a violent person UNLESS you already have a predisposition to being violent (like a history of abuse or a mental illness etc). It ISN’T true until you have enough statistics that back up your claim, and this doesn’t. What’s unhelpful, is not being well researched in a matter and making blatant claims. “ But I didn’t make a blatant claim about video games. I literally said the jury was still out. In response to you flat saying it wasn’t true. -_- “The media compares Hux and FO to Nazism because there’s a legitimate comparison to make (I know some SW fans disagree with me, but there is blatant Nazism parallels imo), because that was done PURPOSEFULLY. They took one evil regime irl and were inspired by it to create a fictional one of it. Every writer and design EVER takes inspiration form real life things to create something, eve villains. But let’s give an example here of a rational comparison and a shitty one:- Hux is like a Nazi (this can be confirmed by the imagery in SW, and background information, etc) - Hux is like a Nazi and therefore if you like Hux you like the Nazi party and therefore you’re a Nazi apologist. Hux is a Nazi and you’re a Nazi apologist.“ This is a bit of a straw man. You’d only be a Nazi apologist if you thought Hux’s POV were correct. Once more, liking a villain is fine - liking them to the point where your sympathy leads you to defend their views and actions is another thing entirely. “Saying that someone who likes Hux or the FO is like someone who might have agreed/sympathized with the deaths of millions of people is a HORRIBLE, inaccurate comparison to make (also Hux is LIKE a Nazi and Hux IS a Nazi are two different things, “ Again, that’s not what’s happening here. OP is talking about a specific action (how shippers talk about Kylo). Not liking the character in general. “And if you’re going to make the point that forcing yourself into someone’s mind is akin to rape, and therefore Kylo’s a rapist (and therefore Reylos are rape apologists–no lie i hear this shit WAY TOO much) then guess what?Obi-Wan is a rapist.Vader is a rapist.LUKE is a rapist.” I mean Vader definitely attempted to force himself into his daughters mind in ANH. Dude was the villain. The jedi mindtrick is more deception than anything else - morally suspect but not a painful violation unless there are more than one person doing it at the same time. Which is the actual term Pablo Hidalgo prefers for what Kylo does to Rey in that scene - a violation. “She (or he idk and idc tbh) is basically insinuating that Kylo Ren sympathizers cause school shooters sympathizers.“ Or vice versa, that the media and how damaged white monsters are portrayed is the reason Reylo’s see Kylo as sympathetic. Which was what OP’s excuse was IIRC. Personally I think the fault for both lies more with societies internal preference for white dudes, but that’s my take. “//Also–just for future notice–I don’t suggest ever using a Buzzfeed article to support your claim because your credibility will go right out the window. Buzzfeed is a pandering shitfest that is really written more by biased bloggers than actual reporters. I suggest using articles without bias and an actual good writing team and reputation.//“ I mean at this point that’s every news organization ever - least in America as far as I can tell. You can barely open a paper or watch the news without someone's opinion’s being clear. And it’s hardly the only article: https://www.salon.com/2016/01/12/we_need_to_talk_about_ben_kylo_ren_star_wars_and_the_media_narrative_of_the_mentally_ill_school_shooter/ https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/1/10698090/emo-kylo-ren-star-wars-parody-twitter http://www.forcematerial.com/home/2017/11/5/we-need-to-talk-about-kylo https://geekmom.com/2016/01/trying-not-to-raise-kylo-ren/ Kylo being compared to real world evil isn’t new. Shoot, there’s a bunch that link Kylo to the alt-right as well. Double shoot, Adam Driver himself straight compared him to terrorists. Kylo gets compared to lots of real world evil people. It’s going to happen. “Yup that’s definitely what happened. It wasn’t like he literally saw Luke about to kill him in his sleep“ No, he LITERALLY saw Luke post realization that he was in the wrong but still holding his lightsaber (like an idiot) and jumped to the conclusion his uncle was going to attack him. Luke’s behavior (which is a character assassination if I’ve ever seen one, but that’s an argument for another time) also happens only after peering into Ben’s mind and seeing nothing but evil. Ben then definitely attacks his uncle after that - from his point of view in self defence, sure - but from the overhead view an unnecessarily. “Oh no–wait, I was wrong:“ ...the article LITERALLY lists him murdering the kids. -_- “Oh so I guess it’s like I said before–people PICK AND CHOOSE their biases!! There is a UNMISTAKABLE comparison between Vader and Kylo FOR A REASON–the two ARE very much alike. But Kylo is a shooter and Vader’s tragic and grand?? GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE WITH THIS BULLSHIT.“ Uh, yeah. Vaders complete arc requires six movies at two hours at least each to tell. It’s pretty grand (lofty, big, etc). His heel turn alone is a culmination of three whole films. Also, the article presents Kylo as tragic as well, with Drivers portrayal being described as: “a mixture of pain and hurt so raw it threatens to rend the fabric of the series every time he's on screen“. Did you actually read it? “really made me want to pluck my eyes out. Holy hell my dude, why did you use this as a reference when it’s so clearly just—bad?? I think I lost five years of my life.“ Because it’s another example of Kylo being compared to the evil that is a school shooter. Again, it’s not the only time, and it’s not the only horrible evil he’s compared to. OP was insensitive about it though, given recent events. “And I want to make this clear–I don’t give a single FUCK if you don’t like Kylo Ren. That your opinion.“ I like his character a lot actually. I think he makes an excellent, compelling villain based on Adam Driver’s work. My issue is people attempting to pretend he isn’t one, or that his past trauma absolves him of ANYTHING he’s chosen to do, or that anyone owes him anything at this point, or pretending that this 30 year old man’s childishness can be justified at all. My bigger concern is that sort of thing happens in the real world for folks just like Kylo and that the two often sound exactly the same. “ I CARE when you bring real people into stupid fictional shit and say “You’re the reason why this is happening. It’s YOUR fault things are this way” I don’t think that was OP’s point at all. Least as far as he’s said. “ESPECIALLY when fiction is used right after a real tragedy like this. “ THAT I can agree with. Dude was insensitive. “ It’s disgusting to be compared on ANY level with someone who might do something like this–and again–it isn’t true. “ No one compared you guys to the shooter. How you TALK about the villain was compared. “ Read up on mental illness, debate gun control, read up on what actually causes school shooters to occur, look up psychological studies of BOTH sides, not just what Buzzfeed says–they aren’t accredited to make those calls in any way.“ The article I listed didn’t list the causes of school shooting at all. Did you just skim it? “STOP accepting this shit behavior my dude. It ISN’T OK or educated AT ALL. It’s downright stupid.“ The behavior I don’t accept. The point - that dangerous young white men are coddled both in and out of fiction - is all too true though.

1 note · View note