#i mean i guess that's the POINT they were a deeply DEEPLY flawed institution in canon LOL

[essenceofarda]

I'm attempting to satisfy 10-year-old-me's deepest desire in life:

Lord of the rings, but like, star wars au

no! wait! Don't go! I know, i KNOW, I'm a grown woman I should be well past the years of silly crossovers but I am in mighty NEED of drawing my fave tolkien characters swinging lightsabers about 😔

i need feedback on something tho: Thinking of maybe modifying a VERy important aspect of one of the star wars' universal laws,,, mainly bc this au takes place in what would be pre-order 66 days, aka with an intact Republic, and with so many of the lotr characters being related to each other i'm like 'either NO one is a jedi or I get rid of the requirement for complete emotional detachment'

also bc i really REALLY want Faramir to be a jedi but like, still kinda part of his family?? the way i'm kinda thinking of compromising is he's not officially (like, legally or whatever) part of his family as a Jedi but damn try to tell Boromir that he can't be besties with his little bro anymore lol

Anyway i'm doodling some art for the au lmk if y'all would like to see any art for this au ?

[astralleywright]

just want to say im glad for another person on this hellsite who is able to see the nuance of the godhood situation. it's VERY interesting how no one really sees ashtons anger at the pantheon as an issue, beyond some of tumblr, at this point. and while im glad it's secluded to here, it's deeply annoying at this point to act like their belief at this point is ashton' biggest problem. and it's honestly actively harmful to analysis at this point for anyone (many big accounts, especially) to suggest that there arent valid reasons for folk giving their *entire lives* to an anti predathos cause to be cautious when they've often been burned or slighted by the pantheon or its institutions (still reeling from folk calling frida evil for their measured disdain at the gods as if they werent from AEOR.)

oh god the takes on deanna and frida that first week. their perspectives were SO fascinating and complex and layered and a little confused in a very very real way, and so much of the posting about it was just begging for a PC that loved the gods uncritically or assuming they must be secret ruby vanguard spies because they didn't. aabria iyengar's incredible brain is wasted on some of you!!!

and yeah there's this very persistent idea that the, "what have the gods done for me" question, or similarly personal reasons for ambivalence or antipathy towards them, is selfish and wrong. which, given that these things are being said in response to "something is trying to kill the gods and we are risking literally everything to save them", is insane, but i also think it's not really fair under normal circumstances either? given how deeply individualized a relationship with one of the gods can be in exandria, and the fact that they clearly play favorites with mortals, and pick and choose whose calls to answer, and can literally grant whoever they want the power not just to bring people back to life but also murder them a bunch, it actually feels extremely reasonable to think they suck. they're unaccountable (to you) arbiters of an unfair system!!

but somehow the fact that the gods are flawed gets used to shield them from criticism; it's a reminder that they're just like people, which means that they should be forgiven and understood like people, and saved like people. they can't do everything, they're just trying their best, they have their own feelings. and because they're like people, they deserve to maintain the massive amounts of power they hold over all other people and should be revered and respected and not have their actions questioned, i guess?

it really is a shame, because it feels like there is so much fascinating discussion and meta that could be had on this topic if people weren't so intent on defending the gods no matter what, often twisting the narrative being presented to do so, and casting characters as objective and reasonable or selfish and irrational based on where their opinions lie (see liam repeatedly saying orym's opinion on the gods debate is deeply biased on 4sd, only for fans to continue to treat him as the measured voice of reason.) instead we're stuck with, "laudna shouldn't hate the gods because of her previous treatment by clerics (it was her fault anyways for being scary and dead), but she should support the gods because a cleric brought her back to unlife." sad!

[amphibious-entity]

TMBS Book 1 Brain Dump

~An Embarrassingly Long Post~

I don’t know why I’m writing this or why I’m so determined to do it. Maybe to finally assume my true form and become a mega dork on main, or maybe just for fun!

This is basically a compilation of all the main points running through my head after reading The Mysterious Benedict Society (2007) for the first time. Rather than posting a ton and spamming the tag, everything’s here in one neat package! (hopefully this gets it all out of my system rip)

Contents:

The Book Itself

The Book Itself, for real this time

The Characters

A Funny Parallel

The S.Q. Section

Lines & Scenes I Liked

Spoilers abound!

The Book Itself

Upon acquiring the first three books (don’t judge me pls), I was surprised at just how long they are. Like, they’re still pretty light being paperbacks and all, but these books are hefty lads.

The first book has this Disney+ Original Series circle thing printed on it, which is kind of unfortunate. Regardless, I love the cover illustration and yellow is actually my favorite color :D It made me weirdly quite happy whenever I saw the book lying around in my room

Also, it’s really cute how there’s a letter from Mr. Benedict at the end! (It only reveals that you can find out his first name if you “know the code”, meaning the bit of Morse printed below the summary on the back.) Shock and horror, though, as I realized I’m starting to recognize some of the letters

The Book Itself, for real this time

It’s wonderful how the tone of the book really shone through to the show adaptation. Something about the deliberateness of the aesthetic, from the set designs to the fashion to scene compositions, that really sells that particular style— like it’s very clear that this story is being told to us, rather than one we’re seeing unfold, if that makes sense.

Where that narration style stood out to me the most was the first chapter. We are told (rather than shown) how Reynie gets himself to the point of the second test, and there’s this whole twisty time maneuver for that whole sequence of events that’s really interesting

A super secret fun fact about me is that I wanted to be a writer when I was younger! So this particular balance of show vs. tell is really neat, since it runs counter to my own tendencies. The sheer amount of commas in every sentence is also kind of comforting, since Ahah, I Do That in those few serious-ish attempts at writing lol

Overall this book’s style reminds me a lot of Roald Dahl’s books, which are very nostalgic for me :D The whole “kids are more competent than adults” angle helps a lot too haha

The Characters

Oh boy here’s where I get a little bit critical! Overall I did really like this book!! it’s just that that expresses itself in all this weird “”analysis”” lol

Reynie - much better in the books than in the show

It’s sort of a lukewarm take but I feel like show!Reynie is kind of boring? He doesn’t have a lot going on flaw-wise, and obviously since he’s the protagonist he can’t have too many weird traits or else the kids watching can’t project themselves onto him as easily

(I call it the difference between an aspirational protagonist and a vessel protagonist. Going off of the Roald Dahl vibes, think Matilda vs Charlie. show!Reynie is more of a Charlie)

Thus when we get to see him really struggle with the Whisperer and doubt himself it gives him a lot more dimension, at least in my opinion

It is a federal crime that the white knight scenes were not adapted into the show

Sticky - my son

I’ve long held to no one besides myself and my long suffering sister that Sticky is The Best Member of the Society

He happened to hit a lot of the Bingo squares of Stuff I Like In Characters: glasses, anxious, nice :), kind of a coward but ultimately is there for his friends, etc

For some reason I don’t talk about him nearly as much as you-know-who, but I love him just as dearly

Kate & Constance - I don’t have much to say

Kate is really interesting in this book! I like how we get to see more of her depths, in particular that one passage about her belief that she is invincible being the only thing that keeps her from falling apart? :c

Also her constant fidgeting is relatable lol

Constance is somehow a lot more tolerable in the book. I think I’m just one of those people with no patience for small children, unfortunately lol

(Some of) The Adults

It’s interesting that they had such an offscreen presence for most of the book. Giving them more time was probably one of the stronger changes of the show

However if that decision was made at the expense of the white knight scenes I think the choice should have been clear

I like the way Rhonda and Number Two are written

Milligan always on sad boy hours 😔✊

The “mill again” passage is touching but kind of messes up the pacing of the getaway, at least for me. Maybe I should read it again to make sure I didn’t miss something

Miss Perumal is much better in the show. We see so little of her in the book she doesn’t function well as an emotional anchor for Reynie, imo

The Institute Gang

Jackson and Jillson serve their purpose well, and Martina was surprising to say the least. I like the direction they took her in the show! I can’t imagine how funny it must have been to watch the tetherball subplot come out of nowhere lolol

These sections were written out of sequence, so random tidbit I couldn’t fit in The S.Q. Section: I like how he stumbles over his words. relatable

Mr. Curtain

While I think I know why they decided to not give Curtain the wheelchair in the show, we were totally robbed of Actor Tony Hale’s performance for the reveal during the final confrontation

Speaking of the wheelchair, it’s such a powerful symbol of his need for control or rather, his fear of losing it

The Contrast between him and Mr. Benedict. This point is expanded on in A Funny Parallel

Mr. Benedict

Oh boy, Mr. Benedict… How do I say this

I find it hard to trust Mr. Benedict, unfortunately

I mean to say, I do in the sense that I know he would never hurt the kids, thanks to knowing that a) this is a children’s book series and b) the meta (tumblr) states that he is really nice and lovable and stuff, but seriously. Why do the kids trust him at first?? I probably missed something somewhere

I like to think I’m an optimistic person, but unfortunately I’m also super paranoid. The premise of “a bunch of vulnerable orphans team up with a strange old man” is just so odd to me I don’t know how to explain it

I don’t know!!! I really want to trust Mr. Benedict

One of the strengths of the show is that we get to see him more often, and thus he gets to acknowledge more often that the plan is weird and that he feels really badly for putting the kids in danger and that he’s trustworthy and genuine

But his lack of presence for most of the book just makes him into something of a specter, invisible and unknowable, speaking only in riddles from across the bay

Which is why the white knight scene is so important!! I loved that scene ;-;

Because here’s an actual emotional connection! We can actually see it happening, rather than only being told that it exists

Reynie asking for advice and receiving encouragement, in words that demonstrate that Mr. Benedict actually cares about him and worries about him and agghh

It is a federal crime that the white knight scenes were not adapted into the show

But overall this whole issue didn’t ruin my enjoyment of the book at all! It’s just ->

A Funny Parallel

Okay, ready for my biggest brain, hottest take ever??

Mr. Benedict and Mr. Curtain…. are… the same

I mean obviously not entirely, given that one is benevolent and kind and the other is… Mr. Curtain

But seriously. Genius old man seeks out children (mainly orphans) to enact a plan. Said children often end up incredibly devoted to his cause and deeply admire him this is a little flimsy

Undoubtedly that’s intentional and is supposed to show the difference between them, like some kind of cautionary tale? “Let yourself be vulnerable and let others help you, lest you turn eeeeviiillll”

I guess that’s where the aforementioned epic contrast comes in. You get Mr. Curtain, strapped into his wheelchair and hiding behind those mirrored sunglasses, terrified (but unwilling to admit it) of ever showing the tiniest hint of vulnerability, vs. Mr. Benedict, who can let himself fall knowing that someone will catch him :’)

Anyhow I have nothing against the parallels, I just think it’s funny

The S.Q. Section

The S.Q. Quarantine Thread so it doesn’t leak out everywhere else <3

I’d like to meet the emo angstlord genius who read this book and decided to make SQ into Dr. Curtain’s son. What in the world

Okay I should probably preface this by saying that I absolutely adore both book!S.Q. and show!SQ with all my heart. Somehow, despite being a completely different character in both mediums, he has managed to be one of the best characters in either and certainly one of my favorites (besides Sticky of course) in the entire franchise, despite the fact that I’ve only read the first book/watched the show so far. I am confident in this statement.

But seriously! How?? Why?? I could probably write a whole other essay about why show!SQ is such an interesting character, and the change works so incredibly well. I’m just. Baffled

Okay, focus. book!S.Q. is such a sweetheart, oh my goodness. Like, 100% one of the most endearing characters in the book. Poor guy. I don’t even know where to start!!

He just seems to be a genuinely good guy at heart, despite being technically one of the bad guys. He’s genuinely happy for Reynie and Sticky when they became Messengers and helped Kate when she “fell” and was concerned about Constance when she looked sick and how he was in that meeting with Mr. Curtain and Martina?!!? aaahhhhghgh ;-; he just wants people to be happy TT-TT

Comparing him against literally every character at the Institute is probably what makes him so endearing tbh. When everyone else is so awful to the kids, it really makes him stand out. Like a cheerful little nightlight in the worst, most humid and rank bathroom you’ve ever been in

It’s kind of pointless to theorize about a book series that’s already concluded (I think?) but. Is the implication of S.Q.’s forgetfulness supposed to be that Mr. Curtain used him in brainsweeping experiments somehow? The timeline probably definitely absolutely doesn’t line up but like. How did he get to being a Messenger being the way he is now, given how cutthroat the process is? And then of course Mr. Curtain keeps him around as an Executive because he’s fun to mess with and presumably his loyalty. I’m very curious as to how their relationship develops in the other books, if at all. Those are probably where the seeds of the “let’s make them family” logic were planted

But wouldn’t it be hilarious if the reason we don’t know what “S.Q.” stands for in the books is that he just. Forgot

Another thing that occurred to me. Given that he and the other Executives were Messengers at some point, what were their worst fears? What is S.Q.’s worst fear?? Inquiring minds need to know

One last horrible little anecdote: I was thinking about book!S.Q. while eating breakfast, as one does, and suddenly it hit me.

I want to believe The Author Trenton Lee Stewart had the name for a character, S.Q. Pedalian, and was like, “Hm! What sort of quirky trait should this young fellow have?” Because, of course, in this style of fiction every character has to have at least one cartoonish or otherwise distinguishing trait to stand out in the minds of children. (For instance, Kate has her bucket, Sticky has his glasses, Constance is angry, and Reynie is Emmett from the Lego Movie)

Anyhow, he looks around the room, searching for inspiration. Suddenly he comes across a jumbo box of plastic wrap. Completely innocuous in design, save for one line of text. 300 SQ FT.

“…large… S.Q. …feet? THAT’S IT!” i’m sorry

Lines & Scenes I Liked

In no particular order!

Sticky quotes Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Evil combination aerobics/square dancing in the gym with the Executives

Everyone being happy at the end :’)

Everyone partying after Sticky reunites with his parents, and later finding Mr. Benedict asleep at his desk from the moment they shook hands :’’)

Literally any scene with Sticky in it

Any time Kate says “you boys” or “gosh”

[“Um, sir?” S.Q. said timidly, raising his hand. “A thought just occurred to me.” / Mr. Curtain raised his eyebrows. “That’s remarkable, S.Q. What is it?”] clown prince of my heart </3

S.Q.’s determined monologue about searching for clues after he bungled up the first time

Literally any scene with S.Q. in it (please refer to The S.Q. Section)

Reynie trying to resist the Whisperer.

[Let us begin. / First let me polish my spectacles, Reynie thought. / Let us begin. / Not without my bucket, Reynie insisted. He heard Mr. Curtain muttering behind him. / Let us begin, let us begin, let us begin. / Rules and schools are tools for fools, Reynie thought.]

NO MORE HURTIN’ WITH CURTAIN

Milligan showing up on the island!!

Remember the white knight hhhhhh

“controle”

A Super Secret Bonus Section

I would be extremely surprised if anyone read through all the way down here lol. Regardless, here’s a little acknowledgements section :D not tagging anyone since I don’t want to bother all of these people

Special shoutout to tumblr blog stonetowns for unknowingly yet singlehandedly demolishing my reluctance to read the books by posting a ton of cute quotes. Thank you for your service o7

Thanks to the two OGs that liked the post I made right before this one, for being my unwitting enablers and for sticking around despite being a) technically an internet stranger (hello!) and b) someone I haven’t spoken to irl in literal years (hey!!)

Last but not least thankz 2 my sister for putting up with me ranting about the book when I first got it and for asking about “CQ” sometimes lol. (i desperately hope you’re not reading this orz)

[padawanlost]

Sigh... Sorry for bothering you, but how should one deal with Yoda apologists who maintain that the Prequel-era Jedi Order wasn't corrupt at all and that Luke fully embraced its lessons in the end? And how can one achieve such a high incapability to comprehend a text? Sorry again for the vent, but I feel lost right now.

I think the secret is in understanding WHY the fallibility of (some) fictional characters is so inconceivable to some fans. Why the notion of human characters having human flaws so offensive? Why do they take it so personally? Why saying Obi-wan or Yoda made mistakes is now considered an act of war? Why are we ‘ruining the fandom’ by stating facts?

I could give a hundred different theories going from politics to culture to psychology but in the end it comes down to one very simple issue: immaturity. And I’m not talking about age here. I’m talking about that very special brand of immunity that prevents someone from holding two opposed ideas at the same time, that prevents people from acknowledging that someone/something can be, at the same time, good AND bad. That good people can bad decisions and that bad decisions don’t necessarily make you a bad person.

Tbh, I worry about people. in this age of pseudo-purity, the rejection of such basic, human truth even in such innocuous, fictional environment is worrisome. As I’ve said before, I get that not everyone want to dig deep into political or ethical issues, but the violent reaction I’ve seen from people at the mere suggestion that a (good) fictional character has done something wrong is complicated.

Look, we all have our own interpretations and, tbh, it’d be very boring we if we all agreed on everything and, you know, debates are fun. but when you feel you have to attack people just for sharing facts stated by the creators of media you’re consuming because it makes you feel threatened, it’s time to take a step back.

I’m from a time when forums and debates were what kept a fandom going but I get the feeling these days people just want to have their opinions validated. It’s no longer about discussions, it’s about validating your point (even if it means rejecting everything that might contradict it).

I mean, DUDE, the prequels were based on a very corrupt period of american politics so I really don’t get why the idea of institutions and people being corrupt in a story about corruption is so controversial. I guess, deep down there’s also the issue of people misunderstanding what corruption is. I think most people associate corruption with vile politicians and organizations, which is a mistake. A dangerous one. Corruption is part of our daily lives, it’s in our own attitudes, our choices, our words, etc. It’s not just for the powerful, it’s not just for politicians. And, I guess, because of that misunderstanding, people react badly to the idea of something/someone they like being corrupted, because they don’t understand how it can be systemic. How simply being part of a deeply corrupted society can make you corrupt.

That being said, I don’t think you should ‘deal’ with them at all. people are free to believe whatever they want. if they don’t want to believe the Jedi are corrupt or that George and Filoni knew what they were doing, that’s their choices. Speaking from experience, logic won’t work because that’s not the issue. So my suggestion is to find a part of the fandom who’s willing to engage in debate, with people capable of disagreeing with you without calling you a HATER or ANTI or accusing of ruining the fandom for *everyone*. trust me, you’ll be happier for it.

[amethystroselily]

(This was originally written on Twitter and that’s why it’s so bad. (Now with unnecessary censoring!!!) I don’t go on tumblr enough to know the general consensus on Geto here. This might only apply to Twitter. I don’t know)

I don’t know why everyone on Twitter thinks none of Geto’s actions were his fault or even immoral. He was a deeply flawed person who made terrible decisions and that’s what makes him such a good character.

EVERYONE at jujutsu high was in similar traumatic situations as him, he’s the only one who decided to lead a r*cist m*rder c*lt. And while I understand why he did it, it definitely wasn’t a GOOD or honorable decision.

And his daughters. He loved them, but he also literally raised them in a c*lt. I’ve heard ppl say he wouldn’t have cared if they didn’t end up following his ideology, but, like, he did attack an institution full of ppl he was once very close with for that reason, so while I Don’t think he would have killed them or anything, I do think he would have been p*ssed. So I think he tried very hard to instill his ideology into them. We know he was doing that to other people, bc y’know, c*lt leader, so why wouldn’t he be willing to teach that to his kids? Even ppl who are usually against forcing their beliefs on people, instill their beliefs In their kids. So why wouldn’t a guy who thinks he’s SO right that he thinks EVERYONE should follow his beliefs also instill those beliefs in people he raised? He would have thought it right and moral thing to do, and that’s the problem. I think ppl tend to think he’s a “good person” bc he can explain his thought process in a way most people can empathize with, but that doesn’t mean he’s a good person it just means he’s a good character.

Him being right isn’t about whether his emotions were valid or not, it’s about how he handled those feelings and whether he helped more than he hurt. And he definitely did more of the latter. While he did tend to rationalize things as a way to help humanity, he was more driven by anger, bitterness, and self righteousness than his desire to help people. I think that’s why he never actually accomplished anything. He seemed fixated on revenge and ki/ling people, and a lot of his plans were about kil/ling non-sorcerers, rather than saving sorcerers from them. I think he let his hatred get in the way of his original goal of saving people. I don’t even think it was about saving sorcerers by the end there. He was completely willing to kil/l sorcerers just so he could kil/l non-sorcerers, and I think that takes away a lot of the validity of the reasoning he pretends he has. By then he’d spent a decade in his little echo chamber of hate, so at that point maybe even he would acknowledge it was no longer about saving people.

Also can we talk about how stupid his plan in vol 0 was? It’s kind of unrelated, but he is not the genius some of you think he is. (Affectionate, this time) The man was running on pure self-righteousness at that point (probably the result of only surrounding himself with ppl Who worship him for the last ten years) Maybe Kenjaku’s kind of blurring ppl’s perception of Geto? He does seem to be using Geto’s cursed technique much more efficiently than Geto was. But that’s probably bc he’s ancient and knows a lot of information Geto didn’t.

Anyway, back to my original point, his ideology was blatantly flawed, he’s just charismatic and really good at deflecting, so it seems like it makes more sense than it does. Bc it does make sense to him, and ppl like him, they want to agree with him bc he’s charming, and likable, And Tragic tm, so they do (both his cu/lt and readers) , but like, his ideas are pretty flawed (and borderline eug/enics-y?) and the narrative doesn’t want you to agree with him, it just wants you to understand why he’s the way he is. I guess Gege did really well at writing a cu/lt leader at least. Bc I swear some of you genuinely agree with him.

Like how happy did he think everyone was going to be when the vast majority of the population was de-ad??? Including a bunch of their loved ones? What was he going to when someone had a baby who was a non-sorcerer? Ki1l it? What was he going to do if ppl revolted bc he murd/ered all their loved ones? Kil1 them too? There’s only going to be like ten people left on the planet. I refuse to believe this b1tch thought that through.

I actually think KENJAKU’S plan may actually be more ethical. At least their end goal isn’t literally to k1ll people, and allows far more people to survive than Geto’s. Ppl dy/ing just happens to be part of the process rather than the actual goal. And oh my god, that’s such a LOW bar. Kenjaku may actually be helping ppl more than Geto, which isn’t much, but like I said low bar. He’s just less motivated by emotion and doesn’t have a tragic backstory (YET) so he comes of as more ~EVIL~. But it’s actually hilarious that people see Kenjaku as so much worse than Geto when they’re about on the same level. Kenjaku is considerably less outspokenly m*rderous and Geto is a better friend, so it evens out I guess? I would say it’s bc Kenjaku’s trying to ki1l the mcs and Geto wasn’t, but that’s not even true. Geto literally tried to kil1 all of the second years, and Kenjaku couldn’t care less about whether anyone lives or di*s, he’s just just trying to “evolve” ppl. He took Tsumiki h*stage But as far as he knows or cares she could win the culling game, Geto would have literally kil1ed her for being a non-sorcerer. (He attacked a elementary school, he wouldn’t care that she’s a kid, don’t lie to yourself)

And, yes, a lot of Geto’s traits could make him a good person, but those same traits are the ones that make him such a bad person. (Passion, charisma, even empathy at times, bc he empathizes so much with select ppl that when non-sorcerers (who he no longer deems ppl) hurt them He feels wronged and lashes out at the things he deems not worthy of sympathy)

Anyway it’s ok to acknowledge his flaws, or even feel neutral on him, he doesn’t have to be perfect for you to like him. (This isn’t a Kenjaku defense post, btw, it’s just funny that that’s true) I’ve seen way too many posts claiming the only bad thing Geto’s ever done is hurting Maki, and like, that’s nearly objectively false. And like half of them were completely unironic. A sympathetic villain isn’t the same thing as a hero.

This isn’t even Geto hate, I LIKE him, but the widespread perception of him being completely justified just feels so wrong. Why do so many people feel SO protective of him? Is his c-ult leader charisma just that effective?

I actually think pretending none of his flaws exist takes away SO much from his character. It strips away his agency and turns him into this tragic can-do-no-wrong figure that he just isn’t. He’s someone who couldn’t handle their own tr*uma and decided to take it out on the world. The way he decided to handle that is no one’s fault but his own.

[honhonluigi]

I'm curious. You've said you dislike religion (which is valid as fuck and I have the same opinion), but if that's the case then why is Angie one of your favorite characters?

(I don't mean anything offensive or anything by this, by the way! If it makes you uncomfortable feel free to delete it.)

No, no, man, I totally get it. I’m sure it looks confusing from the outside. I can explain myself no problem. 

I guess it’s probably important to give a little explanation of why I hate religion so much, because it’ll make more sense then. I don’t hate religion because I’m an atheist. I am an atheist because of evidence and facts. Because I want to draw my conclusions based on fact and evidence. If I saw what I thought was undeniable proof of any god’s existence, I’d change my mind. Nah, I hate religion because I was raised in a cult. Not like a “my parents were heavily evangelical/strict” way. My parents were actual official members in an actual cult, listed as a cult by government officials (though they’re considering removing it from the list which would be a supremely bad idea.) You look up all the fucked up things that cults do? Those lists of “How To Tell If You’re In A Cult?” You’re describing this religion to a tee. It gets an A+ in every aspect of cultism. It wasn’t a cape-and-fire-chanting-in-the-woods cult. Those aren’t real. This was a Christian-based cult. (Most real-life cults are. Aside from like...Scientology maybe?) But they weren’t just Christians who took it seriously, like I said. It was a separate cult religion and the entire religion is officially cited as a cult. It was just Christianity-based. See if you can guess what it is. Based on the clues I gave I’d say there’s like...two choices. 

Anyway, that’s why I hate religion. Because I’ve seen and suffered first-hand all the damage that religion can cause innocent people. Not just in religious wars and acts of prejudice, but just in individual thought and life control aspects and so much fucking trauma. In torment and guilt and wasted years. In passed opportunities and ended relationships and sexual repression. Religion sucks. (In my opinion, all religions are fundamentally cults at their core. Or they would be, if the worshippers actually adhered strictly to the rules that they made. Which they usually don’t, hence why most mainstream religions aren’t thought of as cults.) I hate religion for the core principles of ‘sinning’, hell/heaven/paradise, good vs evil, thought-crime, religion-over-family, faith, not thinking for yourself, and believing whatever you’re told. That’s so damaging. But I don’t hate religion just because “lol it’s so stupid, I can’t believe people believe that shit!” or “religion is just too mainstream for me!” I can see why people would believe that in the old days, when things couldn’t be explained by science. I hate all religions, even the non-mainstream ones like wicca and shit. And I actually think studying ancient religions is really interesting. It’s an aspect of culture, and I can respect that. 

What does this have to do with my opinion of Angie? A lot, actually. I didn’t just go off on a religion rant for no reason. 

So, for starter’s, I don’t hate religion because I think it’s “too stupid to be believable” or that being religious is “too mainstream”, like I said. I don’t look down on religious people for being stupid, gullible, or trend-followers (more on that later.) That means that I can still respect Angie as a person, even if she’s religious. That’s important to know going forward. 

But the main reason is, I hate religion, not religious people. I hate the institution of religion, any religion. I hate the ideas that it carries and the practices it puts into play. But Angie is not any of those things. She’s just a person. She’s not responsible for any of the things that any religion, including hers, will do. She just believes in it. She, as a person, is not the thing that is doing all the damage I hate so much. Maybe her religion is, but she as an individual is not. 

Religious people are victims. I know. I was there. 10 years ago, I was an indoctrinated, god-obsessed homophobe, shivering in anticipation of a doomsday when god slaughtered billions of sinners. I won’t say I was different, and I always knew something was wrong about religion. No, I believed like everyone else. I was indoctrinated as much anybody. Religious people can’t help what they believe. They are the victims of peer pressure, cultural expectations, propaganda, lack of information/education, deliberate thought control, family pressures, and many other factors. Trust me when I say: they really can’t control what they believe. That’s why it’s pointless to argue with them. Their beliefs don’t come from logic. They are all victims. And I see everyone in my former cult as a victim, not an enemy. They really can’t help it. I can’t express that enough. 

So it’s not Angie’s fault that she’s so deeply ingrained in a religion. It’s not a character flaw for her, and it doesn’t make her evil or bad. In fact, it makes me like her more. I feel sorry for her. I sympathize with her. I was exactly where she was when I was 13. I know to everyone else, Angie’s religion is just a caricature or a joke. But to me, it makes her character deeper, more interesting, and sadder. 

Also, Angie’s not a cultist. Oh, this one makes me so mad. Everyone who says “Angie is in a cult!” or “Angie became a cult leader!” has absolutely no idea what an actual cult is like. The DR writers don’t know. The fans don’t know. It’s nothing like what Angie does. She never becomes a cult leader. Trust me. I would fucking know. 

When she becomes Student Council President or w/e, the Student Council has nothing to do with her religion. She’s doing that because she believes she knows what’s best to stop people from killing each other. She’s not doing it because “my religion is right and you all need to convert!” Otherwise, she’d have done that at the start. The rules she makes, like the night time curfew, have nothing to do with religion. (Also, her rules about flashback lights and night time curfews were completely correct and were good ideas, but go off I guess.) Yeah, she might say “Atua told me to do this!” But all hyper-religious people credit their creativity, ideas, or achievements to god. Whether or not those had anything to do with religion. She’s doing it because she has ideas that she thinks can help, not because she wants to push her religion. 

Case in point: in order to join her Student Council, you don’t have to believe in Atua. You don’t have to convert. K1-B0 and Himiko make that choice, but Tsumugi and Tenko don’t. And Angie doesn’t care. You’re allowed to be one of their group without sharing Angie’s religion. And once Angie’s Student Council is in power, then what? Fucking nothing. She doesn’t force anyone else to convert to her religion either. Even the people who didn’t join the student council. They’re allowed to not believe. She never approaches them being like “you have to join my religion now that I’m in power.” And she still treats Shuichi and Kaito as politely and friendly as always. (Not Maki and Kokichi, but for obvious reasons. She was right not to trust Maki, after what they learned about her.) Angie not once ever uses her power to push or pressure or threaten or force anyone to worship Atua with her. It doesn’t happen. She’s not a cult leader. If she was, it wouldn’t be optional. There would be grotesque amounts of threats, social isolation, pressure, etc even to those in her own student council if they didn’t believe. I won’t go into detail here, but trust me, it would be so fucking different if her little group actually followed the criteria for being a cult. Even when Tenko goes behind Angie’s back and escorts Shuichi into the school after dark, Angie doesn’t threaten her or oust her. She forgives her. She doesn’t say “no one is ever allowed to talk to you again” or “you have to do a horrible punishment” or “you have to die”. She just...forgives her. Yeah, she insults her a little, but she has a right to be angry after being lied to, betrayed, and used by Tenko. Still, she forgives her. Also: Tenko being in the school after dark and Angie being upset at that has nothing to do with Angie’s religion at all. The rule of not being out after dark doesn’t either. 

Also, her actions before her rise to power weren’t culty either. Angie never pushed her religion on anyone. I hate people like that. People who want to force others to believe the way they do. They’re the fucking worst and the scum of the earth. Some of the worst, most evil people alive, in my opinion. Angie’s not like that. She only talked to people about her religion if they asked her. As she explained to Tenko “I wasn’t brainwashing anyone. I was just answering questions.” Himiko, Gonta, and K1-B0 asked her questions because they were curious about her religion. She answered them. When they showed interest, she kept talking to them about it. They were the ones who said they wanted to convert. She never even asked them. And then when they wanted to, she welcomed them with open arms. They approached her. All she did was speak openly and honestly with them. She never forced anyone to convert to her religion. She never even forced anyone to listen to her talk about her religion. When Kaede and Shuichi got uncomfortable about it and changed the subject, she let it fucking go. She stopped talking about it. She never made the first move when talking to someone about Atua. They always approached her first. That’s definitely not culty. That’s just a religious person being honest when they’re asked questions, or getting excited when someone shows genuine interest in their beliefs. Of course she would be excited. These are her friends, and she truly believes that her religion is correct. She would be happy to see them safely in it. In her eyes, it’s the only place where they’re safe. Also, if she was truly a bad religious person, she would think that everyone who didn’t convert to her religion deserved to die. Mark of cults. But she doesn’t. She loves all her classmates, tries to keep them safe, and prays for them when they do die. Also, she believes that they get into Atua’s kingdom simply for being good people, even when they don’t believe in him. That’s definitely not culty. A cult is like “everyone who doesn’t worship like you is always evil, and they always deserve to die, and if they don’t convert then they are not worth saving. If you don’t believe in our religion you will definitely be killed at judgement day no matter what.”

But, most importantly: Angie’s religion is not the only aspect of her character. Angie’s religion actually has nothing to do with my opinion of her. I like her because she’s cute, bright, hopeful, happy, and persistent. She’s kind and selfless and she tries her best to keep everyone happy. She’s confident in herself, even if other people ridicule her. She’s got an interesting twisted side to her, with her composure in the face of death and her desire for blood sacrifices. But that doesn’t stop her from being kind and friendly to everyone. And she’s surprisingly smart, in her own ways. And appropriately ruthless when going after her goals, which is always something I admire. (I loved that she was willing to turn on Himiko when it seemed obvious that Himiko was the culprit, instead of obnoxiously ignoring facts like Tenko. Um, hello? If Himiko is the culprit, you all die? And if she’s the culprit, she’s trying to kill everyone, which kind of gives Angie the right to revoke her friendship from Himiko, yeah?) Angie’s character goes so much deeper than her religion. As far as her religion influencing my opinion of her, it...doesn’t. I pretty much just ignore it. I love her for who she is, not what she believes. 

[bellatrixobsessed1]

Speak No Evil (Part 12)

Seal hunting, penguin sledding, building snowbenders--it is all such a delight!

The cold is still harsh on her cheeks and nippy on her nose but it is a small price to pay for the frigidly enchanting, mystifying world around her. For the small fluttery flakes that sparkle on her lashes and on the fur of her parka.

And the lights! The lights in the sky that lick at the stars--more of them than she has ever seen!--she feels like she is home. Home and yet the Tribes are nothing at all like the Fire Nation by any means. And maybe that is why she is able to feel as well as she does. That same frosty breeze that bites at her face, is the breeze that freezes all of her stresses and woes to a stand still. Everything is so fresh and so new and like nothing she has ever seen before. And in the open expanse of the rolling, glittering tundra is free! Truly free. And free to be anything she wants.

Today, she wants to be a snowflake on the breeze or a fold in those glowing sky curtains. Perhaps she can’t be either in the literal sense, but she can certainly feel like one. All she has to do is run. Run, light and weightless until her exhilaration reaches a peak. And she does, she takes off into the fastest run, only caring for the world around her insofar as to not get lost. But on a night like this she can’t imagine that she would get lost. She can’t imagine that anything bad could happen because she is so, so far from the places where bad things happen. Away from the people who cause those things.

She might not be lost in the tundra but she is lost in life. And lost in life she may be but she thinks that it might be fun to just wander for a while. Wander with no direction and no goal at all. At first she thought to seek out a daring romance in the cold, cuddling up by a fire and swathed in heavy blankets. Yet the longer she flounces about in the snow, the less compelling that fantasy becomes.

No, she needs a real escapade. One that isn’t bogged down by romance and obligation. She reaches the village and turns to look back. Her footprints in the snow, a map of excitement and hope. She flights herself down and flails her arms and legs, just as she’d seen a few of the village children do. She laughs like them too. Carefree and optimistic.

She laughs like herself.

And she thinks that she knows where she wants to go from here.

.oOo.

For a while, a very mercifully long while, Seicho has kept to her word. She hasn’t asked a single question. Hasn’t uttered a single word. They trek in silence, not that she has any other choice, she ruefully reminds herself. And then she reminds herself that she won’t have to worry about that soon anyhow.

Such have been the nature of her thoughts for the past three days. And the opportunity has presented itself more than once; a particularly high ledge, a poisonous berry or flower, a lethally venomous snake within arms reach…

But they are not for her. Not befitting of her. Not grand enough. She doesn’t want to die spasming in the mud in some Agni forsaken jungle and cliffs and ledges aren’t sure enough. Not like the volcano.

The hike isn’t doing her mood any favors, she is dirty and smells of mud and musk. She is uncomfortably hot and sweat-slicked. Every time she goes to wipe some grime from her face she smears more upon it. She is dirty and loathsome as she feels within. And now, she doesn’t even have Seicho’s incessant chatter to distract her from it.

If TyLee could see her now, the woman would probably wonder what she had ever seen in the her. She isn’t sure what anyone had seen in her. Can’t see why Zuko has bothered to bring her to Ember Island at all, it would serve him much better to personally accompany her to the volcano and push her over the edge. Perhaps she should go back and pose the offer…

“We’re about a day or two away.”

Azula nods. Good.

“Can I ask you something?” She is almost relieved to hear Seicho speak again. So much so that she doesn’t point out that she has already asked her something. Her relief, like much else she enjoys, is cut brief. She supposes that she should have seen it coming, Seicho was bound to inquire eventually.  “Are you going to tell me how you lost your voice?”

Azula pauses to find her parchment. ‘Why would I?’

Seicho shrugs. “I don’t know. I guess…” She frowns. “Sorry, that was a personal question, I should have started with something easier.”

But that’s just it; there is a part of her that is itching to tell her. Perhaps to get it off of her chest. More likely, to show Seicho the kind of person she is. ‘I’ll tell you tonight, after we make camp.’

Seicho grins. “Great! I was also wondering if you’d like to stop at that stream for a bath. I don’t know about you, but I’m getting all sticky and gross.”

In way of a response she makes a brisk break for the river. She thinks that she hears Seicho chuckle and wonders if the woman had made the suggestion more for her than for herself. It doesn’t matter, the only thing that matters is washing the filth from her skin, nevermind the details. So gross does she feel that she doesn’t hesitate to strip her clothes away. If the peasant has any problem with it, she can turn the other way.

“I have some soap, if you need it.”

Azula nods vigorously and holds her hand out.

With a smile, Seicho hands her the bar and leaves her to her undignified backwater bath. She emerges from it smelling less like sweat and mud and more like seaweed. But Agni is it better than being covered head to toe in grime.

“I washed our clothes.” Seicho mentions. “They aren’t dry yet so…”

Azula shrugs, her inhibitions and social graces are well and gone. They’d vacated on her last visit to the institution, whether she was aware or not. She holds her arm out, it is a bumpy mural of bugbites and scratches and a descent bruise from when Seicho had run into her with an armful of firewood.

“Those aren’t painful, are they?”

‘No’.

“You should really take better care of them, so that they don’t get infected.” She holds up some slave and bandages. “Can I?”  

Azula inhales and holds her arm out. Seicho is surprisingly careful. She purses her lips in concentration as she dabs each cut and scrape with with salve. It is overdoing it, but Azula allows her to wrap her entire arm with bandages. She lightly pats Azula’s hand, “there that should do it. We can change the bandages tomorrow.”

‘Sure.’

“Are you feeling better now that you’re all clean?”

‘I wouldn’t say all.’

“Are you feeling better now that you’re cleaner than before?”

She feels no different, really.

.oOo.

The woman keeps her distance, gazing intensely into the campfire, likely because she still doesn’t want to share her story and Seicho can’t bring herself to ask a second time. Evidently she is surprised that the woman hasn’t tried to char her to a crisp yet.

“You hungry?” She asks instead.

Her eyes don’t leave the fire, she isn’t even sure that the woman has heard her.

“I was able to catch some fish, I could cook those.”

The fire gives a loud snap.

“Alright. I’ll cook both fish and if you want one you can have one. But you should eat something.”

The woman averts her gaze at last and feels around for her brush and parchment. Seicho watches the brush bob back and forth for longer than she had expected. The fish are mostly cooked by the time she finishes. She holds out the parchment and grabs the fish. She finishes cooking them as Seicho reads through her note.

“You…” Seicho beings “You wanted the spirit to take your voice?”

The woman takes the first fish from the fire and offers it to her. She nods and takes her own fish.

“But you want it back now?”

The woman nods again.

“Well that was one wild impulse decision.”

She gestures for the parchment. Seicho hands it back and the woman scrawls something else. She holds up the parchment. ‘There’s something wrong with me.’  Seicho takes her hand. “You’re hurt.”

The woman shakes her head. ‘It’s more than that…’

“Then what is it?”

The woman tosses the parchment into the fire.

“Alright, time for a subject change. What’s your name anyways?”

She doesn’t pull out another piece of parchment. But at least she had made some progress. At least she had opened up even a little. “Can we talk about the spirit? That creature sounded terrifying. Terrifying and lovely all at once.” The woman simply nods in agreement. She tries to picture it in her head; thin ribbons of iridescence, curling endlessly and evershifting. Tries to hear it in her head, a voice that is a chorus, that is divine and horrifying in synchrony. “I don’t think that you needed to do that. Whatever you said that made you think that you had too…”

.oOo.

If only it were just one thing, one angry sentence. That could be brushed off, taken as a heat of the moment lashing. Maybe in a sense that’s what it was. But after a certain point, rage driven insults are spoken often enough to become a rather defining trait. An ingrained and deeply innate flaw of character. And to call it a flaw so drastically understands what it is. It is more like a glaring smear on her personality. It is her personality.

“I don’t think that you’re a bad person.”

But she will inevitably, should she be given the chance. Frankly she is surprised that the woman hasn’t found a reason to think  so. At the very least, she must think her rude and unpleasant. Bad company that she is stuck with.

Seicho probably regrets the trip as much as she does. She looks at her arm, at how tenderly it had been tended to. Her stomach flutters, a cross between sadness and discomfort. Perhaps a little fear. She looks up from the fire to see the woman smiling softly at her. “I can tell you a story.” She offers. “It’s a folktale but I haven’t told a campfire story in a while. Maybe you’re more of the listening sort. I’m definitely a talker. I think that you can tell though because I go on and on and...do you want to hear the story?”

Azula’s tummy flutters again and she nods. She isn’t sure why but she nods. She can’t remember the last time anyone has told her a story just to tell one. She isn’t sure that anyone ever has. Seicho’s face lights up nearly brighter than the fire. “Okay so there’s a boy who finds a polished stone on the beach, mom always called it the hope stone. The boy was terribly said, he lost his family to a hurricane. It destroyed his home and his ship too. He was so hurt and so angry that it came out in everything he did. Eventually his friends couldn’t stand to be around him anymore because he was bringing them down. And when his friends went away he had nothing left at all. So he went down to the beach in the middle of the night.”

Azula stares at her palms, shifts in her spot.

“He was so furious. He just started picking up rocks and throwing them. And then he found a really smooth and shiny rock. It looked almost like a mirror so when he pointed it towards the sky it was like seeing a galaxy on the stone. And in that galaxy,  it showed him things. It showed him how to mend his friendships and how to be happy again. It showed him is parents and they smiled up at him. He knew that they wanted him to be happy…”

She doesn’t mean to but she finds herself nodding off. She doesn’t think that Seicho has noticed because the girl is still talking. She must have nodded off in full because she wakes up in the tent, Seicho snoring on the other side of it.

She swallows hard, she can’t place exactly what they are born from, but there are tears in her eyes. She wipes them away.

“You’re awake again?” Seicho mumbles. “You should go back to sleep.” Azula isn’t sure that the woman is fully awake. She is certain that she isn’t when she clumsily swats at her muttering, “lay down, it’s night time, that means lay down and eye shut time.” And yet she finds the coordination to tuck her in when she finally does lay back down.

She hasn’t been tucked in, in ages either. Not by someone other than herself. And her mind wanders. Wanders to a new place. It is just an itch. A small thing in the back of her mind. A small thing that magnifies itself in her dreams.

Tonight she doesn’t dream of volcanoes and blackening skin. She dreams of a galaxy, of a reaching hand.

[vanessakirbyfans]

There’s a singular vision that director Kornél Mundruczó had in constructing “Pieces of a Woman,” and he had the full trust of his actors, particularly Vanessa Kirby and Ellen Burstyn. The film had its world premiere at the Venice International Film Festival where Kirby won the Volpi Cup for best actress. Just ahead of its Venice bow, Oscar-winner Martin Scorsese joined the film as an executive producer.

The phrase “it’s difficult to watch” is often spoken in various cinephile circles when referring to dour, less-than-pleasant movie experiences. I can recall having those same conversations around films like “Requiem for a Dream” and “Son of Saul.” Similar words have been uttered about Mundruczó’s portrait of loss and grief.

The role of Martha, a woman whose home birth ends in an unfathomable tragedy, demanded a lot of the 32-year-old Kirby. She’s received rave reviews for her performance, planting herself near the forefront of this year’s best actress race.

Burstyn has been a staple of the cinematic industry for more than five decades. She’s managed six Oscar nominations over her career, winning best actress for Scorsese’s “Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore” from 1974. Her passion and vigor for her craft is as clear as any thespian working today. When discussing her character Elizabeth, and her daughter Martha, who is a third-generation Holocaust survivor, drawn from screenwriter Kata Wéber’s own family experience, she becomes visibly emotional.

“Pieces of a Woman” marks the English-language debut for Mundruczó, who gained a passionate following with his breakout film “White God.”

On Thursday evening, in collaboration with the American Film Institute, Netflix will be hosting a screening with industry professionals, critics, journalists and Academy members.

Variety sat down with both Kirby and Burstyn prior to the screening.

You have had an incredible career, and are still working consistently. Do you have a method to choosing roles at this point in your profession?

Ellen Burstyn: Whenever I’m asked a question like that, I have the impression that people feel I get a million offers and I pick my favorite and that’s not quite true. I don’t have to turn down many films. If I like the director, writers and the actors, I’m prone to take it because in fact, there aren’t many roles written for a woman of my age. So when I get one, I’m usually very happy to get it.

In this case, I saw “White God,” Kornel’s film, and I adored that film. And I have seen Vanessa [Kirby] play Princess Margaret [on “The Crown”] and I don’t watch television very much. When I saw Vanessa, I went “who’s that?” I could see right away she was a special, really accomplished, talented actress. Unusually talented. I was very impressed with her. So when I have a filmmaker I like, a script I like, and an actress like Vanessa where I get to play her mother. It’s a win-win-win situation. That doesn’t happen very often. The roles that are written for a woman my age aren’t plentiful.

This role demands a lot of you, not just as an actress, but as a human. Can you talk about your experience filming?

Vanessa Kirby: Well, firstly, Ellen is one of my heroes. I was so excited that she agreed to do it. She’s always had this trailblazing fire in all of her performances. I so looked up to that, like Gena Rowlands, the same kind of dynamism. I’m so happy to have her in my life now and she’s someone I love very deeply.

How demanding it was on paper, and the idea of knowing that I would need to understand, and go into the psychology of that level of grief, while trying to honor all of the women that I spoke to, and that went through similar things, it felt like a responsibility. I’m always looking for something that scares me and that is seemingly insurmountable, and that alone was the birth because I haven’t given birth myself. I knew I owed to women to try to portray as true-to-life as possible. I was very lucky to watch someone do it for real, which helped me incomparably and I wouldn’t have known how to do it without her giving me the gift of allowing me to be there with her.

The 23-minute one-shot sequence of you giving birth is incredible. How many takes did you do and can you talk about that experience?

Kirby: The actual filming of it was just exhilarating. It was the best film experience of my life. We did four takes the first day and two the second day. I think Kornel used the fourth one. It was like doing a play. Shia is also a real theater animal, so is Ellen, and we all understood what it would require. It was exciting setting up, preparing and then launching into it freefall. And then at the end, to slowly missing word? Out of it – taking a long time to come out of it – and then reset everything. We would blast music around the house and dance around the house just to clear what had happened. By the end of it, your psyche does know any different and you feel like you actually went through this.

Your character is deeply flawed but with a lot of love for her daughter. Did you draw on anything from your own life as screenwriter Kata Weber did?

Burstyn: I always draw from personal experiences. It’s just part of what we do. I don’t know how to not do that. She’s a funny type of character [Elizabeth]. The story Kata wrote about how she was born, with the Holocaust aspect of the film, is from Kata’s family. The idea of being held upside down by your feet and the doctor saying that if she picks up her head, she’ll survive. That’s such a…deeply moving concept how one comes into the world. With the will to live, despite the frail condition of the body. It’s so moving to me. It explains so much about her character and her drive forward. That wonderful introduction of the character that Kata wrote. It’s kind of a pathetic version of whatever it is, make it better, go for it, do it. Don’t be satisfied with blandness. I think she’s a very strong character despite her limitations. She’s not in tune with her daughter but sometimes mothers aren’t.

Talk about Kornel’s vision of the film and how it compares to other directors you have worked with in the past.

Kirby: I knew that the film would be special. I always feel like his movies have a lot of soul and I love movies that have lots of soul. I knew that this was a personal story for Kornel and Kata. He had such a clear vision, and it’s so relaxing when someone has it. He had such a burning vision of Martha and needing that story to be told. It’s not about the loss of a baby, it’s more of a character study of someone that this happens to. How someone reacts to trauma and how individual grief is and he allowed me to really shape that. I felt a lot of respect and trust because of that. It was really profound collaboration.

Burstyn: I just feel his sense of sensitivity and is such a dear human being. Kind and a visionary. I felt like he allowed me to give what I had to give. I never felt interfered with. Sometimes directors come up with an idea and they say “maybe she does xyz” and you say “what?” I deeply fond of him.

If nominated, Ellen Burstyn you will set a record as the oldest acting nominee ever at 88 years and 98 days old on nomination day. How does that feel?

Burstyn: That’s a wonderful thing. I actually have a strong desire to be the oldest person ever nominated. That’s an encouraging thing for me to say to the women of the world, keep on trucking, as long as you can. Don’t give up, don’t retire, don’t sit back and say “well I guess it’s over,” it’s not over, until you declare it’s over. I pray that I get to be that example.

Ann Roth, the costume designer for “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom,” also a Netflix feature, who if she’s nominated, she will be oldest nominee, of any category, at 90.

Burstyn: I’m jealous.

How do you feel about the reviews you are receiving and the possibility of being in the awards conversation?

Kirby: The film felt so much bigger than any of us. This is a subject about neonatal death. The women I spoke that had stillbirths and multiple miscarriages and it’s still a subject that’s really hard to talk about. The fact that you’re saying this conversation is happening around this [film], that means so much to me. If that means that a few more people watch it or more conversations start happening, and that was everyone’s intention with it. The best moments of my working life was doing that birth. It’s hard to articulate. I’m unbelievably grateful and touched that it’s for this film. It’s my first lead role too and I knew I that was ready. I waited a long time. I watched other people do it and I absorbed everything and felt really ready.

Burstyn: Honey, you’re a glowing example of what a fine actress is. You studied well and you came up the right way on the stage, which as far as I’m concerned, everybody who ever wants to be an actress should learn what is on the stage. You’re an absolute glory as an actress, and as a person I might add.

I wish you were my mother.

Burstyn: I can’t tell you how many people say that to me. After “Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore,” I became some type of archetypal mother that people never had and wish they did.

“Pieces of a Woman” will stream on Netflix on Jan. 7.

[gemsofgreece]

Hellinikon: thoughts

Hellinikon is a vast area in the southern suburbs of Athens where the old airport used to be. After the international airport was relocated, the area was used for sports venues during the Olympic Games in 2004 and then as a refugee camp. The area  was eventually abandoned which essentially turned Hellinikon into an expanded dead land. There have been a lot of discussions for investments in the area throughout the years, which were delated because privatization has traditionally not been well received in Greece (I both agree and disagree with this negative sentiment) but recently the land‘s been bought by LAMDA Development which belongs to Greek multi-billionaire Latsis family. LAMDA Development has publishized all the plans for the urban regeneration and the environmental upgrade of the area for quite a while. Despite not being familiar with the region, I was always interested in the developments of the Hellinikon issue and I thought it would be fun to just lightly rate the benefits and flaws of the huge project. And it is huge indeed, I recently found out the whole region is three times as big as Monaco and twice as big as Central Park in New York. Or, maybe, Monaco is that small. Well. Nevermind.

The Marina

Features: 

A marina that accomodates 337 moorings up to 80 meters.

A 6-star hotel in front of the marina.

Retail shops and entertainment venues. 

Thoughts:  Okay, a marina is not a big deal, especially amongst the (how-many?) marinas that Attica has. To my understanding, this one is going to be a large and particularly upscale one. Entertainment venues are to be expected but I am a bit sceptical about the retail shops. However,  YES to the 6-star hotel. I don’t mean Greece should be flooded with 6-star hotels - not at all - but the country relies on tourism so much that having at least one self-acclaimed 6-star hotel is probably good for the... prestiggggge XD  

Rate: 4 / 5

The Integrated Resort

Features: 

high-rise hotel 

state-of-the-art Gaming and MICE facilities

Thoughts: A luxe hotel just behind the 6-star hotel? Is there a crying need for it? I’m not that against it being high-rise and a Casino though. The Casino in Loutraki is somewhat far and the Casino in Mt Parnetha doesn’t cater to sea lovers. And this one will surely be a brand new posh thing so if you want to lose your money by the sea, this will be your new dream place I guess lol

Rate: 4 / 5 

The Marina Residential Tower

Features: a high-rise tall building with 200 apartments

Thoughts: It sounds stupid and unimportant but I actually like this one. If non-Europeans read that, well long story short Greece (and most of Europe) does not have skyscrapers for reasons that are associated with the region’s historical monuments. But if this building is not visible in the horizon from the Acropolis (most likely, it’s quite far), then I like it and I am all for it. 

Rate: 4,5 / 5

The Beach

Features: free-access 1km long beach with 50 m average width

Thoughts: A beach in Greece, a drop of water in the ocean. However, it will be free-access (who would save them from the wrath of the nation if it wasn’t? XD) and it’s surely a long beach (I still prefer our trademark coved bays though.) I can’t think of negatives, it’s what you’d expect. 

Rate: 5 / 5 

The Aquarium

Features: the new “world class” Aquarium, some sources say it will be the largest in Europe and part of it will be underwater

Thoughts: The only decent aquarium Greece has is in Crete island and still it cannot compete with the good aquariums around the world. Should Greece, a country so deeply associated and dependent on the sea, lack a proper eligible aquarium? Okay, it depends on what someone thinks of aquariums. If it’s more like what you’d call a wildlife sanctuary, I support it. Let’s take for granted that it will fit all criteria for health care, endangered species preservation (when needed) and ideal conditions for the hosted sealife as well as have primarily an educational purpose. The site says that the Aquarium will complement the existing Ocean Centre of Research & Technology. It sounds hopeful and sensitive.  If these are the actual designs, I freaking love them.

Rate: 5 / 5 just don’t disappoint me make it good and eligible 

The Seafront Area

Features: 

Beach villas

Luxury hotel

Marina for small boats

Thoughts: ...What...more luxury hotels?!  I assume the large marina will be suitable only for big boats (for super rich dudes) but somewhat rich dudes have rights too. This corner is kept for somewhat rich dudes. 

Rate: 2 / 5 it would be 1 for pointlessness but we stan somewhat rich dudes

The Exhibition Precinct

Features: 

transformation of the old airport into an Aviation Museum

renovating the Eero Saarinen building of the old airport to an Exhibition Center

Thoughts: The renovation is definitely needed but I don’t know what good a vague exhibition center will do for Athens with its already existing exhibition centers. Maybe I am wrong though, this whole area aims to be upscale so they ‘ll probably have plenty exclusive exhibitions. The Aviation Museum is a HUGE thumbs up, I love that they respect the history of the place and they incorporate it to the new project.  BTW this sculpture in the design is from another country and I hope they WON’T bring something like this here too, no offense

Rate: 4 / 5  

The Metropolitan Park

Features: supposedly the biggest park in Europe and one of the biggest coastal parks in the world and will include lakes, arable land (?!), thematic regions and interconnection with all other areas. 

Thoughts: This is of course necessary at the least. Athens needs some greenery badly. Urban areas lack large parks. I hope it will indeed be as expanded as they claim. I also hope Latsis will have a guard in every corner though. Urban green places sadly don’t have a lot of luck in Greece and I am already pessimistic. 

Rate: 4,5 / 5 because of my pessimism

The Sports Facilities Complex

Features: what the title says

Thoughts:  I don’t know, I technically can’t be against sports facilities but what Athenian will get out of their way to reach Hellinikon to play sports... IDK I may be thinking with my provincial mind. Obviously, they target wealthy tourists more than Greeks anyway which is what irritates me.  It says they will host professional teams and international events though. They will also restore the Olympic facilities that are located there which was absolutely necessary. Hmmm I don’t know, I am as indifferent for this as I am for sports in general, so maybe don’t listen to me.

Rate: 3,5 / 5

The New Urban Innovation and Business Centre

Features: 

educational facilities and research institutions

student campus and housing

model business park

residential developments

hypermarkets, biggest shopping center in Athens

hotels

Thoughts: Yes, yes, ok, meh, no, no. The thing with the hotels starts becoming a joke. Does Athens need a bigger shopping center? I would replace the shops and hotels with simply more park. The campus and research institutions save this. 

Rate: 3 / 5

The Mall at Vouliagmenis Avenue

Features: Another Mall

Thoughts: The site calls it “Shopping Center” so I just hope it is the aforementioned one, simply in a detailed description because I don’t dare imagine two massive shopping centers next to each other. Again, it’s a no, even if things work a little differently in Athens, overall I would say that Greek people and “hypermarkets” and malls don’t get along very well. Greeks always prefer their local shops downtown or even the posh shopping streets but hardly ever the Malls. (Or, at least, a curse seems to have fallen on nearly all these shopping complexes in Thessaly.) Thus, this shopping center that is quite far from Athens downtown and also has Glyfada’s upscale shops right next to it (and the future retail shops in the new Marina) will have a lot of competition to face from the locals. Too much ado about nothing.

Rate: 1 / 5 one point if they make it pretty 

Let’s see if they pull that off...

[touchmycoat]

book reflections: Confessions by Minato Kanae

Confessions

The heart of this book deals with revenge. It's a familiar theme: when a heinous crime has been committed, are criminal justice procedures ever enough? To what degree is revenge, personally exacted, justified?

Confessions complicates this question by throwing the spikes of tension between children and adults.

Children are such a fascinating subject of study—not to go too far into it, but “childhood” is very much a socially constructed phenomenon (my formative understanding of this is Kathryn Bond Stockton's The Queer Child, which narrates a history of adults-depicting-children, and the values and anxieties that reveals). Confessions asks the question, “what happens when children commit heinous crimes?”

The book begins with a monologue by middle school teacher Moriguchi on the last day of the semester. What first seems like philosophical rambling lays out a multi-layered social phenomenon.

Layer one: social inclination to believe that children are always the victim, never the perpetrator. This is outlined in the story about the teacher who was called out by a female middle school student seemingly in need of help one night, then accused of sexual assault. The student later confessed it was because she wanted revenge—the teacher had scolded her for chatting during class. The teacher was forced to reveal, under these circumstances, that she's trans, and that she had no designs on the student in question (which is certainly a narrative choice to think further about—the quickness of the anecdote and the inherent logic it's meant to convey, that simply by proving herself a woman, the teacher convinced her coworkers that she's exonerated of all suspicion. At least trans identity isn't being inherently linked with deviance?). The teacher was still fired, and the school instituted a new policy that should students ever call teachers for help after school, only male teachers can go to male students, female teachers to female students, etc.

(The narrative, in its determination to gesture to the incapability of institutions to fulfill human needs, uses this as the ignition point for Naoki's unhappiness with Moriguchi.)

Layer two: children receive public anonymity in the court of law, meaning punishment is dealt in secret, and presumably, they can return to society afterwards carrying none of their criminal history. This is outlined in the “Lunacy” case, where a young girl kills her own family with cyanide, after conducting a series of experiments on what poison was most effective. The case got plenty of sensationalist press coverage, but where is the girl now, Moriguchi asks. Has she gotten her punishment? Was justice ever exacted?

Layer three: sensationalist press coverages without embedded moral value only teach children the outliers. At worst, it teaches children that this is the way to get attention (which is precisely what Shuya and Mizuki took from the Lunacy case). Moral outrage loses ground to morbid fascination, becoming worse than an empty gesture; like the teacher who replaces Moriguchi, posturing as some beacon of moral justice is merely for self-satisfaction.

Maybe, more accurately, the book wants to know, “how do you punish a child?” Some, like Moriguchi's not-husband, like Moriguchi insinuates the juvenile criminal justice system to be, answer, “you don't.” Children are products of their environment, so the ones who should be punished are the teachers (as posited by the “Lunacy” case and the chemistry teacher who got all the public blame for giving the child access to cyanide). Alternatively, children are still learning and growing. Moriguchi's not-husband was quite the problem child himself, but he turned things around and became the most truly moral figure of this entire book. He believes in the capacity for change in children.

But Moriguchi doesn't care much about that. Shuya and Naoki plotted to and killed her four-year-old daughter. She wants revenge.

What makes her fascinating as the central figure of this book is her clarity of mind. She isn't someone who's lost herself to vengeance; she systematically identifies the flaws (or what she thinks of as flaws) in the juvenile criminal justice system and then chooses her own revenge. On one hand we have the empathetic response to a mother losing her child, and the willingness to let a fictional character play out, for emotional catharsis, something we might not necessarily endorse in real life. On the other hand we have the unease of her turning this calculatedness toward children: Boy A and Boy B, middle school students.

(Cue comparative cinema studies of the 2010 Confessions film and 2007's Boy A. Oh, apparently Boy A is based off of a novel as well?)

Oh, and then she does take her revenge. She says she's laced Boy A and Boy B's milk cartons with HIV-infected blood.

And now, in what is the true brilliance of the book, Confessions starts to give us other perspectives. We get Mizuki the perfect student, who is first victimized by the hoard of angry classmates (and it's such a consistent literary and real life theme I guess, the cruelty of a mass of children). We get a peak into her questionability in a somewhat tender moment though: why does she just have a poison-testing kit lying around? In this section, we also get a protagonistic portrayal of Shuya; it's not that we doubt Moriguchi's version of the psychopathic-child-inventor Shuya, but now he's the martyr (as per the title of the section). He quietly suffers the bullying of the class, tells Mizuki his negative blood test, and becomes “genuinely” happy at Mizuki's compliments, saying all he's ever wanted was that acknowledgement.

Mizuki also bares her teeth against the new teacher, accusing him of being the cause of Naoki's mother's murder. At this point, it was almost narratively heroic, after we've suffered the annoyance (through her perspective) of the self-important teacher. But afterwards, in Shuya's section, we hear her confess to wanting to poison that teacher for “ruining Naoki's life.” She's killed by Shuya before we hear more, but might that have played out? How much do we fear the mental criminality of children?

We also get Naoki's sister and mother's perspective. We get a doting mother insistent on the innocence of her child, making excuse after excuse for Naoki, even when Naoki's fully confessed to throwing Moriguchi's daughter into the pool. How much responsibility does a parent have toward her child? Does she hold ultimate faith in him, stand staunchly at his side in support of him? Does she do right by the society (and in theory by her kid) by turning in her own child? We were meant to be annoyed by her cruel insistence to blame everyone but her son, but we see in Naoki's section right after that his sanity relied so much on this idea that his mother unconditionally loves him. He believes that, once he's gone to jail for his crimes, he can do his time, reform and return to society as long as his mother is there to love and support him.

Of course, that's when his mother decides to kill both him and herself—a murder-suicide for her failure as a mother.

(It really does haunt me, thinking about Naoki and his stymied possibilities. He killed Moriguchi's daughter in a moment of callous spite, motivated by a desire for revenge against Shuya's dismissal of his overtures of friendship. He lived in such a tortured state for a long time, a child grappling with the terror of impending death by himself, terrified of infecting those who love him. His instincts, when he emerged into the real world again, was to weaponize his “infected” blood. Yet he ended up on such a hopeful incline—mother's love with save me. All this happens as his mother spirals downwards, coming to terms with her own child's monstrosity. The book seeds Naoki's redemption, but takes the sprout away before we can see whether or not it carries infection.)

Finally, we get Shuya's story. I fully bought into it, as I was expected to. The book gestures multiple times at his ability to pen a convincing narrative of innocence. Or at least, a narrative of the anti-hero. He walks us through his absolute love for his mother, the engineering genius. She gave up her career for him, but then turned that dissatisfaction into abuse. Abuse turned back to gestures of love when she was found out, divorced, and forced to move away, and Shuya held deeply on to his faith that he will be reunited with her again. The desire of a child for his mother's love motivated the murder of Moriguchi's daughter, the planting of a bomb at the school festival. It ended up killing Mizuki as well.

Moriguchi bookends this tale, tying up loose threads. Yes she absolutely put the blood in their milk, but it was her not-husband that swapped out the infected cartons. Yes, she wanted to destroy Shuya and Naoki's lives; it won't bring her joy and it won't bring her daughter back, but nonetheless she wants her vengeance on the two boys. The possibility that she was only scaring Naoki and Shuya, that she threatened to but never did anything actually immoral, is completely swept away. She tells Shuya she visited his mother and told her all of his crimes. Baiting Shuya with what his mother said, she instead tells him that the bomb he planted had been deconstructed at the school and reconstructed in his mother's lab instead. Making the bomb and detonating it had both been Shuya's choice.

Shuya had killed her daughter. Now she's killed his mother.

(But did she? I have no doubt she did, but this book doesn't deal in absolutes.)

So—what are we left with? A psychopathic child inventor-slash-murderer motivated by a desire for maternal love? A girl who admired another murderous young murderess and wanted a turn of her own with poisons, murdered before she could prove herself either way? A cruel and reactionary accomplice who came to the conclusion that he had done something wrong but that he could repent? A mother who refused her son's criminality until the very last moment, and believed they were both beyond salvation?   Another mother who took justice into her own hands by ruining the lives of two young boys who killed her daughter in cold blood?

...Is there such a thing as cold blood in this novel? Every “cold” act was done with passionate motive: Shuya wanted to prove himself to his mother, Naoki wanted to prove himself better than Shuya, Moriguchi wanted to give her daughter proper vengeance. HIV is the symbol here of criminality, first given, then saved from, then weaponized by both boys. There's so much, with the blood! Naoki coming to terms with the infection he didn't have made it possible for him to confess the truth, to start himself on the path toward salvation (even if it only lasted a few pages). Shuya embracing the infection right away because if he were dying his mother would surely come back; losing that possibility of death led to him befriending, then of course in the end murdering Mizuki.

Shuya plotted the murder of Moriguchi's daughter, but wasn't actually responsible for the cause of death. Naoki was the accomplice, but at the last moment, made the choice to actually extinguish her daughter's life. This murky twist of motion and motive (Kathryn Bond Stockton!) would prevent them from getting the full punishment of homicide in a juvenile criminal justice court, as Moriguchi explained. Now, because of the blood, they've both committed an inarguable murder with their own hands. Naoki loses his mother and his entire world order that revolved around her unconditional love for him. Shuya's murderous inventions are never allowed to succeed, and he never gets to “prove” his genius, until it was used to kill his own mother, the one person he wanted acknowledge from and to live with. The punishments are incredibly cruel—but are they justified?

[hexenmeisterer]

Comparing “The Ladies’ Man” to “A Likely Story”

Some collaborative due South meta 

Here’s what happens when two friends separated by lots of geography watch due South together over Skype, read ALL of truepenny’s meta, and then start jamming in a google doc about two episodes-- which differ drastically in tone but share a bunch of themes! (crossposted here on DW, which is a better place to comment if you wanna have an actual back-and-forth discussion.)

H is me and T is the inimitable @touchmycoat.

H: In “A Likely Story,” Ray is trapped in his ideas about his love interest (what’s her name again?). He cannot for the life of him tell when she’s lying, he can’t see her true motivations, he can’t know her. He’s just using her as a blank screen to project his internal conflicts onto. This is, as truepenny points out, a theme that due South returns to almost every single time it explores romance. How many episodes philosophize on the possibility of “love at first sight?” Off the top of my head, I’ve got “You Must Remember This,” “Victoria’s Secret,” “An Invitation To Romance,” and “Say Amen”…

As Huey and Dewey say in “Say Amen,”

“Well, you know the thing is, you can't really love someone until you know them.”  “Sure you can. The hard thing is to love them after you know them.”

T: The love interest’s name is Luann— Frannie’s actually the first person to name her, well into the episode. Luann’s not introduced to us, to Ray, to Fraser by name, relation, or even profession. We’re just left to assume she has a caretaking role for Mrs. Tucci based on her age and actions. The dialogue even (intentionally?) suffers from this unknowing; Ray says, “Look Fraser, I am very sorry for Mrs. Tucci’s loss, and I will make every effort to find the killer of her husband, but the fact remains she is a very beautiful woman.” The pronoun confusion just further highlights how much it doesn’t matter who Luann is, just that she is “a beautiful woman.” This issue goes from highlight to glaring headlights when the cut from EXT. CAR, EVENING to IN. STATION, DAY is done by their conversation just rolling over, and guess what they’re talking about? Well, Ray’s talking about sex, and how little of it they’re both getting.

H: The Lou Skagnetti story and Sword of Desire, which both show up multiple times throughout the episode, explore the (gendered) stories people build around romance. The ending scene specifically juxtaposes these two stories about love by putting their endings right next to each other. Ray and Luann have retreated from each other after a failed attempt at connection, and they both soothe their disappointment by turning to fantastical love stories.

This one, told between two men, out in the “wilderness” by a campfire:

“Lou Skagnetti looked at the princess who sat across the stone table in the stone cabin high atop Sulfur Mountain, and the princess smiled at him. And for a brief second, Lou Skagnetti could hear his own inner bell ring as though it were rung by a thousand angels. And he took his hand and he placed it over his heart, and Lou Skagnetti vowed that never again would he kill and eat another princess as long as he lived. . . unless, of course, she were covered in choke cherries and brown lichen and a sprinkling of dust -”

vs. this one, read in a comfortable bedroom (with the most floral bedspread ever invented), a story that one woman read aloud to another to help her sleep:

“Gabriella's chest heaved at the sight of him. His boldness made her feel like a true princess. As he came near her, she could feel the trembling of the deep inside her most secret place…”

Notice how they could almost be the same story told from different perspectives.

Fraser’s story, though, does not offer the same easy comfort Luann’s does. His story is a funny distraction, but it's also a dark mirror held up to romance. Fraser's status as an outsider means he knows different stories than Ray and Luann. This story shows the blood and guts of love. In the context of the episode, it gestures at how the theater of "love" often leads people to act in deeply un-loving ways towards each other; how it can get in the way of people even knowing each other. (“That's one dark story.” “Yes. It is.”)

Fraser has seen Ray use his position as a police officer to stalk his ex and now he’s seen him try to date a suspect. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that he’s telling Ray a story where the protagonist has been “eating princesses.” The story’s not just an accusation, though; it’s a hopeful story, a humorous story; it’s told playfully and as an act of care, and it points to the possibility of true love in the future that is not based on violence.

T: I almost wish the show had the continuity to also let this moment comment explicitly on what Fraser couldn't get from Victoria. His love for her is so mired in guilt that he thinks himself deserving of all the violences she visits on his person. It's like, Ray is pre-Lou Skagnetti and Fraser is post-Lou Skagnetti; Ray needs to stop his violence and Fraser needs to pay for his violence. The same problem of failed recognition occurs on both sides of the story.

H: I love your point about Fraser being like Ray but somewhere further along in the accountability process.

In the "love-at-first-sight vs. true knowledge of a person" saga that is this show, there is one unexpected pair of people who know and love each other deeply after very little time spent together: Beth Botrelle and Ray Kowalski. They can see right through each other. They understand each other’s motivations— so not only can they tell when the other’s lying, but they can tell you exactly why. They are bound together through shared experience. And while their story is obviously not romantic, it is shockingly loving. Beth is willing to falsely confess to a murder she is unjustly accused of just to make Ray feel better, just to give him a real shot at moving on with his life after she dies. Ray is obviously willing to risk his job and his life to exonerate her, but he is also uniquely willing to admit his mistakes to her; he tells the truth exactly as it happened, and therefore sacrifices the easy self-justifications that have kept him functioning as a cop and as a person all these years.

(and, side note— how interesting is it that Beth of all people calls Ray “queer,” and his response is to laugh and nod?)

Beth does need to be saved from a death sentence, but she is emphatically not a damsel in distress (or a "princess"). She needs to save Ray as much as he needs to save her. Both of them know that their freedom is bound up in the other's.

T: So maybe in some ways this is Ray's post-Lou Skagnetti (I'm laughing as I write these words but bear with me). This is his Victoria, but antithetically; this is where he pays for the violence. Victoria was guilty and Fraser arrested her, Beth was innocent and Ray arrested her—but they both know, to some extent, that the arrests seemed immoral (Fraser in particular, where if they did actually sleep together, he’s fully abused his power as an officer of the law). Where Victoria wanted to destroy Fraser for it, Beth wanted to save Ray from it (she sought to alleviate his conscience by telling him she was guilty). But both Fraser and Ray had to be willing to destroy themselves and the roles they occupied for Victoria and Beth. The Fraser who is whole and the Victoria who seeks his destruction cannot coexist. And, to continue your reading of "Ladies' Man" as the keystone episode where Ray just really should not be a cop anymore, the Ray who is a cop and the Beth who is innocent/alive cannot coexist. There's something very interesting about these relationships between men and women that fail due to one or both of their placement in some kind of institution, because of one or both of their duties/supposed loyalties. Fraser's commitment to duty catalyzes the break between him and Victoria. Ray's abuse of his authority is no fucking good for Stella or Luann, and even when he succumbs to the ease of police authority he fucks over Beth.

Tying Ray and Fraser and Victoria back to “A Likely Story,” everybody, particularly Ray, speaks in projections; throughout the episode, Fraser is the mirror while Ray is the puppy, as in Ray doesn’t know the other puppy isn’t real, so he’s snarling and barking at the mirror, who is merely the medium through which the reflection is transposed.

H: “FRASER IS THE MIRROR AND RAY IS THE PUPPY” WHAT THE FUCK I LOVE THIS IMAGE. IT IS ABSURD AND TRUE. YOU ARE BRILLIANT. Please, expand upon this point.

T: This one particular projection:

Ray: “Let me see if I got this right, Fraser. Luann is a beautiful woman, therefore she must be bad. And since she's a really beautiful woman, that means she's got to be really bad. Is that how it goes inside your brain?”

Of all the projections, Fraser most clearly calls this one out for what it is: “Are you sure it is my brain we are talking about?” Funny, since this is the one projection that fully echoes Fraser’s hangups about Victoria. Vecchio’s line from “Letting Go” seems resonant: “Not every woman with long dark hair tries to kill their lover.” But this is clearly about Ray: his low sense of self-worth makes him look for flaws in women he believes are “beautiful” and out of his league.

H: Yes!! They're both backed into these low-self-esteem corners with regards to romantic relationships: they’re both thinking, "there's something wrong with me." Ray projects that outwards (“what’s wrong with this woman?”), but Fraser does a slightly different thing with it: “if she's into me, she must be operating on an incomplete set of data.” Fraser knows that people think he's attractive, but also thinks that they can't see/know him enough to love him in a real way. I think that's why he was so INTO Victoria-- she knew he did bad things and wanted him anyways! And she, to his mind at the time, was clear-headed about what kind of punishment he deserved for his wrongdoing. There's something more comforting about that than waiting for the other shoe to drop.

T: Both “A Likely Story” and “Ladies’ Man” are about women that Ray Kowalski has wronged, and both end with Ray apologizing—very sincerely—to the women. Fundamentally, I love that as a narrative choice.

H: Yes. Apologize, man. (Apologize and quit your job. I think these two episodes lay out a really compelling case for exactly why Ray does not go back to being a cop post-COTW.)

To summarize:

Ray is a human-shaped projector. He can’t readily name his feelings, but they do warp his perceptions of reality and he does act them out. "I don't know what I want till I see what I do." -Ray Kowalski in The Teeth of the Hydra by Resonant.

This is terrible news for everyone involved when you're a cop!

These episodes both deal with the nature of love-- its relationship to truth and to police work. “A Likely Story” shows the burdensome trappings of heterosexual, romantic love, which in this case serve to obfuscate the truth; “The Ladies’ Man” shows an intense kind of "true love" between a man and a woman that has nothing to do with romance or sex and everything to do with solidarity and truth-telling.

T: And 4, we can absolutely implicate Fraser, at least thematically, in something every step of the way, el oh el.

[apex-aureate]

'Lo fellow Howler! Welcome! Can you tell us something about your faves? Btw, if u feel like talking about the RR trilogy you can find me at darrowsrising (like Darrow's Rising).💖

Heya! Always happy to talk about these sad, sad children, but it’s so hard to choose definite faves when they’re all so g o o d

So, in no particular order, here’s my top few:

1. Darrow of Lykos 

Like I said in my introduction post, I know he’s a bit of a basic pick, but still. First impression while reading RR was that Darrow is a more mature and realistic take on a typical YA protagonist. He wasn’t some spunky kid- he was a man, with responsibilities and a life. It was honestly refreshing to read about a person who had a good head on their shoulders and who didn’t immediately take to the lofty ideals of revolution. Right off the bat, his arrogance and recklessness were on full display, giving him relatable, humanizing flaws that didn’t stem from a tragic backstory and couldn’t be cured with a rousing speech or two. In fact, they aren’t really cured at all- the bravery and showmanship of his actions is often exactly what the SoA need at any given point, and it’s been really awesome to watch him recognize that about himself, harness the more negative and harmful aspects of his personality, and eventually put them to good use. He’s got so much more depth to him than a ‘tough guy with a heart of gold’ type too- Like he’s just out for blood at one point, but them his worldview is tossed around about a hundred times and he doesn’t know what to believe about the world anymore because he’s overwhelmed by the sheer size and complexity of it all. It’s such a real feeling that isn’t usually the focus of fiction like this agh

Oh, and I love that he makes mistakes ALL THE TIME. His plans don’t always work out. He kills some people he really shouldn’t have, spares some people who didn’t deserve it. He learns a lot over the course of the Institute, the Agustus-Bellona war, and the Rising through lessons that don’t feel cheap or unearned. He’s simple yet smart, deeply flawed yet totally badass, and he grows into a man worth respecting. Love ‘im.

2. Sevro Au Barca 

Another popular boyo but hey, what can you do? At first I didn’t like good ‘ol Goblin. Vulgar characters aren’t usually very high on my list and I was pretty enthralled with what a cinnamon bun Julian (RIP) was to pay attention to that weirdo upon initial meeting. I was convinced he would fill the minor antagonist role for a while (though that role went to Titus pretty early on).

Then, he saved Darrow and Cassius from the lake and we got a better look at him. Gotta say, once the Howlers got started properly, I really began to get attached to the guy. He wasn’t pretty, but the sheer earnestness and trueness of his character and his loyalty to Darrow was unseen amongst the Golds met within the Institute or in the days after. Unlike Cassius or some of the other members of House Mars, Sevro was never after power, wasn’t full of himself or deluded into believing the superiority or honorableness of his color. He was just him- gross and vulgar and crazy for all the world to see. He didn’t really become one of my favorites until Golden Son though, when Darrow realized that Sevro had figured out who he really was, and had still accepted him wholeheartedly and without judgment. I mean, damn. I cried real tears there. 10/10 best friend anyone could ever ask for.

(And he got more of an independent part in MS so that’s a win)

3. The Jackal 

 Oooohhhh man, the Jackal. I’ve already said he terrifies me.

The build up to him in the first book was so well done I-

And the scene where he cuts his hand off-

Oh and the small acts of ruthlessness and cruelty littered throughout Golden Son-

I mean I’ve seen a fair share of INTJ villains before but he’s just so brilliantly done like wow. I can’t figure out exactly what to say about him but he’s definitely one of my favorite literary villains of all time.

4. Roque Au Fabii  (Forgive me)

 Okay hear me out on this one. Of course I was angry with him in the end. He killed thousands of people in the name of pride (personal, cultural, and racial) and betrayed the friends he had fought side by side with for years on largely irrational and emotional grounds. Unlike Tactus, he didn’t show in inch of shame for any of it when the end came.

But I was completely in love with him in the first two books. He would have easily been my #1 pick if I’d been asked this about a week ago. I guess it’s the archetype he falls into as a poet, or the genuine friendship and wise, heartfelt advice he offers to counter Darrow’s driven, tunnel-vision attitude. Heck, he was even really sympathetic through most of Golden Son- from his perspective, it actually did look like Darrow was being a terrible, negligent person who took others for granted and was completely willing to sacrifice his friends in an arbitrary quest for power.

And, like Darrow, I did feel for him as he died even after he had betrayed them all for despicable cause. I know I should, but I just can’t muster up the hate a lot of other people seem to have for him. It’s not just the misunderstood artsy type that’s getting me here either- I just felt like he could’ve been better. He was a good man- among the best of the golds. And yet just like you’d expect of a Gold, he fell prey to the inevitable flaws of those at the top. Pride, entitlement, and a resistance to change all lead to his bittersweet demise. I have more thoughts on him, but I think i’ll sit on it a while longer before I really go off so don’t judge these half baked rambles as a real opinion on the matter lol

5. Eo of Lykos 

 Underrated af. I think a lot of people write her off as exactly what Darrow described her as in RR. More of a motivation, or some lost dream that was to be worshiped and held on a pedestal for the rest of the series than a standalone character. But she was as much a character as anyone else- she had real flaws and made irresponsible, selfish choices to stay true to what she believed in. She wasn’t an angel, and she didn’t end up coming back from the Vale or whatever to tell Darrow how proud she was or to stay faithful to her for life. Like Sevro, she was just a person living authentically and fearlessly for what felt inside, regardless of consequence. I can appreciate that sort of thing, especially in a female character. It’s also really interesting to have gone back and reread her chapters as Darrow’s view of his late wife develops throughout the series. You start to see past his unreliable narration of Eo’s perfection and recognize the girl behind the song.

Ye. That’s probably too many characters to count as Faves, and I haven’t even talked about Cassius yet, but I just had to say a piece about each because I have zero self control. Thanks for asking, by the way!!

[marinschoolssuper]

Let’s Check Our Thought Process

MAKING A COMMITMENT TO CRITICAL THINKING

“When we are not given reasons, you must understand the natural human response is to form our own conclusions. And I feel that is what we have done.”

                                        -Comment recorded at a school board meeting

Recently, as part of a group exercise, I was asked to reflect on my “greatest professional learning” during the pandemic. We were given a few weeks to think and then were asked to share our responses when we met.    

A cynical answer popped into my mind: People don’t practice critical thinking very well and are either unconscious of that or are willing to flaunt it without shame.

The quotation at the top of the page is verbatim;  It was spoken during a well-attended public meeting. It was not taken out of context; it was offered plainly in an effort to explain peoples’ actions by framing the thought process that guided them.

More outrageous than the statement itself (which argues openly in favor of prejudice and justifies acting without understanding relevant facts) was the lack of response from others in the on-line meeting.  No one pushed back. No one questioned the premise, a premise that would be flatly rejected by any competent scientist, logician, academic publication or court of law.  It hardly needs dissecting; its potential consequences are so obvious. And yet, 40 people remained silent.  In a governance meeting of an institution dedicated to learning, dedicated to teaching children how to think rationally and independently, someone was able to say something so irrational and receive no response other than some nodding agreement from the audience.

To be fair, emotions were running high and arguing a logical counterpoint (even an argument that nearly makes itself simply by repeating what was said slowly) would probably come across as aggressive and partisan.  But later on, when the emotional tenor of the meeting had subsided, shouldn’t the entire group, including the person who said it, have taken a moment to reflect and consider the foolishness of such thinking?  Are we so concerned with the fragility of others’ egos that we don’t have the collective will to set and reinforce norms for rational thinking like we do for other elements of public discourse?

Unfortunately, I believe we do not. The year of the pandemic has provided many examples of our cultural tendency to avoid being critical of others’ reasoning in favor of avoiding hurt feelings or of “just moving on”.  In board meetings, task force gatherings and during the every-day interactions in our schools, I have observed the abject failure of critical thinking coupled with the social failure to respond.  (In some cases people have even applauded fundamentally flawed thinking.)

Maybe, like a man with a hammer to whom the world appears to be a nail, I am seeing the failure of critical thinking everywhere I look.  However, it may not be that the pandemic has diminished peoples’ capacity to think critically; perhaps this widely-shared social deficit was just as bad before COVID-19 and the crisis has simply made it more plain.

COMMON POPULAR LAPSES IN CRITICAL THINKING

Your Truth, Best Practices, Trauma, Words are Violence and Speaking from the Heart.

“Thank you for telling your truth.” I heard someone say recently when another person shared a perspective and a set of supporting facts that could have brought about reasonable disagreement.  I had to check my own thinking because I happened to agree with the person’s perspective. But that doesn’t mean she was sharing the truth. If my “truth” were different from hers and mutually exclusive, would that mean that there are two contradictory truths?  If that is the case, doesn’t that mean that truth and perspective have become synonymous? Doesn’t that  give Kellyanne Conway license to develop “alternative facts” when the actual facts don’t support her perspective or opinion?   Doesn’t that mean Donald Trump is still the President or that at least has reasonable claim to the office?

I have running joke with a colleague: During a discussion or debate, whomever declares “best practice” first, wins.  We’ve even begun team meetings by entering the room and shouting “best practice!” before anyone else can talk.  It actually gets funny when you start listening for it at work.  By beginning your proposition thus: “Best practice says….” one automatically ties a potentially controversial statement (fairly easy to debate) to one’s own professional judgement and reputation, which others are usually more hesitant to question.  An idea is somewhat independent of the person but a judgement is not, and people in polite company generally prefer to debate ideas rather than question others’ judgement.  

For example, if I were to say that giving 3rd graders timed multiplication fact tests in large groups is “best practice” anyone who argues with me not only objects to the tests but also insults me by questioning my judgement.

On the other hand if I were to make the proposition without judgement: “I’m thinking of giving my 3rd grade class a timed whole group multiplication test on Friday.” It is more socially acceptable for my colleagues to give me candid feedback. I’m not hitching my wagon to the practice but expressing an idea.  The obvious advantage to that is it gives one better access to the wisdom of one’s colleagues, helps one clarify his or her thinking and act in a more effective and humane manner.

I’ve heard the word “trauma” abused to the point that feel traumatized when I hear it.  I’m exactly half kidding.  Hearing the word trauma does not cause me trauma but the term trauma has been weakened substantially by overuse.  Last week I was in a meeting and the host said, “I understand all of our kids have suffered trauma over the last year.” Being polite, and not wanting to disrupt her flow as the meeting began, I resisted the temptation to speak up and say, “No, they have not. Some kids are happier and more resilient now than they were before the pandemic and we should not expect them to suffer long term psychological harm. Others have had a hard time but have not suffered trauma. Maybe some (I would guess a small number) have gone through trauma but certainly not all of them. 

Trauma indicates the need for a serious response either medically or psychologically. To claim that all children have suffered trauma when common sense and probability would argue otherwise is doubly problematic.  First, diagnosing all children with trauma might lead us to implement an uneven distribution of resources, reducing timely access for legitimately traumatized children. Secondly, declaring universal trauma weakens the term itself.  For example, if my child is presumed to have had trauma (absent a serious medical or psychological event that can be reasonably predicted to cause long-term problems) he is put on the same footing as another child who actually did suffer a serious medical or psychological event. Should he not then be treated with the same urgency? After a while because everyone is traumatized, no one is traumatized.

“There are different kinds of violence, words are violence!” An audience member asserted during the public comment period in a recent school board meeting. Others nodded. Words can be violent metaphorically but in and of themselves words are never violent. Similar to trauma, the entire concept of violence (and its attendant appropriate responses) are weakened by misuse. Words can certainly be powerful. They can encourage, perhaps even cause violence, but alone, they do not constitute violence.  

It is important to make that distinction.  For example, if someone were to say to me, I am going to say some really horrible words to you or if you prefer, I am going to do something physically violent to you, which would you choose?  I’m pretty sure, I’d opt for the words even if I didn’t have the details about the kind of violence being planned.  If a guy in the next car yells a nasty name at me, I would certainly prefer that to him punching me in the mouth.  We can ignore words. We can tune them out. We can consider them and respond.  Lumping words together with real violence lessens the outrage we should feel about violence and increases the outrage we should be able to control about words.

Okay, I am going to speak from the heart: I have learned that when I speak from the heart it is acceptable to say anything no matter how irrational, absurd or self-serving without fear that others will question it.  Speaking from the heart gets my audience to pause and understand that my forthcoming statement is deeply attached to my emotional composition and that challenging it will go beyond questioning my logic and into the realm of hurting my feelings. I know that questioning my logic is socially appropriate and professionally desirable but hurting my feelings goes too far! If I speak from the heart well enough, I might even choke up a little letting everyone know a line has been drawn that should not be crossed.  Real speaking from the heart also signals my virtue because it shows I have the courage to be vulnerable in public. What brute would argue with someone who has the courage to be vulnerable, to speak from the heart?

I actually spoke from the heart accidentally a few weeks ago. I was in a meeting and was accused of something I thought was particularly unfair.  When I responded, I choked up a little,  something I try to avoid in my professional life, but it happens from time to time.  Anyway, the people who had said the thing I didn’t appreciate changed their tone and were suddenly very polite to me and even thanked me for being vulnerable.  They assured me that they understood my perspective and knew my intentions were positive. So I know speaking from the heart works but I’ll still try to avoid it.  (I know when it comes up naturally it works better than when you just declare it in advacne.)

Kidding aside, wrapping one’s opinion or perspective in emotional language or gestures is problematic.  It squelches honest inquiry and may discourage others from sharing important information that will help everyone concerned. Emotions are important and worth our attention but they should not be used as a tool to override reason.  Emotions arise in all of us and deserve consideration but they also deserve time to settle so that we can think straight. We need to allow others that courtesy as well. When someone speaks “from the heart”, including oneself, it’s worth listening, maybe even acting. But the words that come from that kind of speaking need time to cool off and be tempered by dispassionate critical thinking.

We Can Work on This... and we should!

A cultural tendency to avoid critical thinking was not, it turns out, my greatest learning from the pandemic. A deeper recognition of our ability to consider any situation, let emotions arise and eventually choose our response was. This isn’t a new lesson but a deepening of an old one. It gives me the optimism to get back to the work of advocating for critical thinking for ourselves and for our children. It isn’t easy. It can make people angry. I think its what got Socrates killed. But it is, I believe, the core of our work: Critical thinking is the foundation for all the subjects kids learn in school. And it’s time to re-commit to making it a central feature of our work and discourse.

To that end I propose a community-wide, long term study of the topic.  I’d like to start by recommending the adoption of a definition of critical thinking, the one offered by The Foundation for Critical Thinking: The art of analyzing and evaluating thought processes with a view to improving them. Critical Thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored and self-corrective thinking. (Linda Elder, 2020)

From here, I hope we can make it fun and interesting. We need to get comfortable with being wrong about things and re-thinking our positions.  It’s not about winning individually but improving as a community of learners. That’s an important part of our mission.

[gleeksfreaksandwannabes]

Re. Matt’s latest interview

So if you guys haven’t seen/read it Matt and Kat gave an interview recently where Matt talked about Alec’s character development this season, and he said that Alec will move from hurting himself to hurting other people, and I just wanted to put in my two cents about it.

First of all, knowing Matt and his cryptic weirdness, he could mean anything by that, but I know people are concerned by the “hurting people” part. So when I read it my first instinct - like a few other people - was concern; correct me if I’m wrong, but I feel like Matt has said before that Alec will be more selfish this season, so I was worried about that too. But when I thought about it some more, I can see it from another angle.

So Alec’s whole thing since season 1, up until recently, has been putting other people’s needs - and the good of the Shadow World - above his own, to the point where it’s dangerous to his mental health, so I think there’s definitely been the beginnings of change recently. I think Matt’s choice of the word ‘selfish’ is a little misleading, I think Alec remembering that he’s important and making himself a priority is something he is/should be doing more in this new season. Now don’t get me wrong, Alec is not a selfish man, he will always care very deeply about those around him, I’m not saying he won’t, but he needs to start taking care of himself too. And yes, he is the head of the Institute and he has the Shadow World to think about, but he’s smart, and I believe that he’ll be able to make decisions that benefit his people without sacrificing his own happiness and wellbeing (see Branwell, Lydia!).

In terms of the “hurting other people” from Matt’s interview, I don’t believe in taking this at face value. So we - and Matt - know Alec by this point in the show, we know he’s a strong, independent leader, but we also know that he’s a sweetheart and that he wouldn’t do anything to hurt someone unless he had no other choice - he’s smart enough and diplomatic enough to negotiate decisions in this position. I don’t think he’d ever intentionally hurt someone - and if he did, he’d have a solid reason or he’d be under orders (which, knowing our new and improved Alec, I’m sure he’d be questioning if they were dodgy), I don’t think he’d intentionally cause pain or hardship for someone if he could help it.

What I do see him doing though, is making mistakes. He’s human, everyone on this show is, and we’ve seen in s1 and 2 that the mistakes he makes can have some pretty serious consequences, and can result in people getting hurt. Alec does make mistakes, we know this, but we also know he always has the best intentions (keeping in mind I guess that he is a shadowhunter through and through and may be biased without realizing it!), so when I heard Matt saying Alec would hurt people, this is what I imagined, and I’m OK with that.

I’m OK with it because it’s part of growing as a leader and a person, it’s part of being in a world with such high stakes as the Shadow World, and it’s part of what makes the drama happen on this show. Alec is sweet and good, but he’s flawed and he’s human, it’s part of what grounds this show and makes it real despite it being fantasy.

I’m also VERY OK with Alec’s shift this season being away from hurting himself (even if it does mean others get hurt), because unlike mistakes and accidents that might hurt someone, Alec was intentionally hurting himself. I’m not going to pretend I know what’s going on inside Alec’s head when he was in the closet, or the racism he and Magnus face, or what he felt on Magnus’ rooftop, but he’s been displaying some pretty self-hating behaviors so far, and we can only assume those are magnified in his thoughts. I don’t want to see Alec harming himself or thinking badly about himself again, even if that means in the grand scheme of things a couple of mistakes get made. At the end of the day, I think this shift from hurting and disregarding himself to prioritizing his own wellbeing and possibly making mistakes is the healthiest thing we can get for him right now.

[rosqles]

I hate ty. He clearly only ever cared about livvy and would never help around the institute. You hear about everyone helping but never ty and he clearly has never loved dru and has probably never helped out with tavvy before in his life. In city of heavenly fire during the scen where Alicante is getting attacked dru (8 at the time) tried to hold Ty's hand because she was scared- and he snatched his hand away from her and scowled at her till she cried. WTF and there are many more examples I have

Hi anon, I just wanted to start off by saying that I respect your opinion (though I strongly disagree with it) and I am glad to see you backed it up with some ‘proof’. The problem is that most of it is severely exaggerated or included poorly drawn conclusions.

“He clearly only cared about livvy.” That is clearly wrong, because you can see how upset Ty was when Julian and the others’ lives were at risk, as well as how determined he was to protect his siblings. Though he may not show it as plainly as others, he loves and cares for them deeply. In fact, he is probably one of the most caring people in the book demonstrated with his love for animals and how determined he was to save the faeries trapped in the cage in LOS.

“Would never help out around the institute.” ??? Ty eagerly jumps at any chance to help Emma and Julian on whatever mission they’re up to to the point where he snuck in the car and met Kit. 

“Never loved Dru.” How would you know that? Just because he snatched his hand away from her once when he was ten doesn’t mean he never loved her. He’s autistic, he doesn’t understand why and how people are supposed to act in certain occasions and their emotions were amplified during the time of war.

I’m not saying he’s perfect - obviously, he has his flaws (especially in coohf) but he’s grown so much as a character since tda so that it’s simply not right to accuse Ty of any of the things you’ve listed. 

(p.s. i can’t believe someone could hate ty. guess i’ve just joined the ty blackthorn protection squad)

[simptasia]

for the fandom thing: either lost or x-men (new movies)?? :)

i’ll do both! thank you!

LOST

the character i least understand: nah i understand them all weirdly well. altho i find that ben is so chaotic (he’s the wildcard) that he makes some decisions that leave me (and most people) like ????. i don’t consider it bad writing either, it’s obvious that ben is severely unstable. oh and also i had a little trouble understanding jack’s motivations& decision making processes, etc, until i realised that fucker ain’t neurotypical

interactions i enjoyed the most: oh wow there’s like forty bagillion characters in this show, i could never pick… hurley with anyone, miles with anyone, dan + char (they were their best around each other), kate and claire, dan + des, charlie + des, jack + kate for the most part, sayid with anyone, ben and locke

just to name a few

the character who scares me the most: no Fear but i’ll list some characters who gave me Distressed Feelings with their behaviour: ben, roger linus, anthony cooper, keamy, jack got scary during that dynamite scene. oh and jacob, his mother and his brother all have this odd coldness in their eyes. it’s wrong

the character who is mostly like me: hurley and jack, equally (i consider hurley to be my good aspects, jack to be my less-good aspects)

hottest looks characters: charlie and desmond in very different ways. i feel it wrong to not mention any ladies so charlotte & ana lucia too

….i’m not the best at choosing between people for things

one thing i dislike about my fave character:

ben: besides being the most immoral main character? with the murders? his possessiveness. espech with juliet but it affected his relationships with alex and locke too

charlie: his jealousy. it was the worst!!

daniel: he has One Flaw and it’s a really bad one: his recklessness. boy has little to no regard for his own safety and it’s fucked up

hurley: N/A. there’s nothing wrong with his personality/morals (hurley’s issues are more because of mentall illness and circumstances)

miles: be nice to your friends you little shit, they’re gonna die :(((

one thing i like about my hated character: 

keamy: uhm, he makes ben look better by comparison? (no joke, this is why they created keamy) also i like the idea of somebody so shitty to be on that boat with my science team because the dude is a conflict opportunity. ya know, for miles to be snarky. for char to be protective/defensive. for naomi to put him in his place. for frank to be on his sci-kids sides. to make dan more of a woobie. thats what keamy is for

jacob: he’s very important to the mythology of the show

eloise: her side of the story is sympathetic and tragic too. as a writer and audience member, i respect that. i also find that she is the most interesting of the LOST Abusive Parents Squad

christian: …[petulantly] okay… he loved his son… (just really shittily)

roger: same as above >:/

a quote or scene that haunts me

jack and richard dynamite scene (it’s a Bad Feel Scoob)

charlie and the baby and the ocean. just. everything about that scene

you all… oh lord… you all every… butties

ben talking to the empty chair (i was so distressed the first time i saw it)

ethan and drugged up claire giggling together. ethan you sick fuck

“kinda hard to celebrate on the day you killed your mom” YOU ASSHOLE YOU ASSHOLE YO UFUCKING CUNT AAAAAHHHHHHH!!! im fine :)))

these are all very cursed scenes

a death that left me indifferent: no no no no no. oh wait ilana (i’ve had little to no feelings about ilana, but i did warm up to her a bit during my last rewatch)

a character i wish died but didn’t: eloise. 

but i reckon her living with what she’s done is her punishment, so it’s all good (the post-finale peeps are NOT gonna give her a warm welcome during the grand opening of the Faraday Institute of Science)

my ship that never sailed: kate/claire, charlie/desmond, dan/char/miles. oh like, miles with anyone cuz that dude didn’t get a love interest at all

The X-Men movieverse

the character i least understand: i can’t think of a main character so, uh, any rando who gets grossed or freaked out when they see hank, mystique or kurt

interactions i enjoyed the most: kurt & ororo, charles & hank, charles & erik, charles & logan, logan & rogue, bobby & rogue, erik & mystique

also a lot of interactions mystique has with charles or hank are like, painful or damaging. however they’re enjoyable for the character depth/flaws. plus… i love when charles and mystique get to be brother and sisterly!! awwh

the character who scares me the most: scary no. but apocalypse was pretty intense. like, super intense. (also that whole rape metaphor thing with charles)

oh wait omg i forgot stryker!! that dude is genuinely unnerving

the character who is mostly like me: CHARLES XAVIER, particular the mcavoy version (i’m young and emotional) so much. like, painfully so

in short: hopeful/idealistic, supportive, emotionally/mentally unstable, empathetic/compassionate to the point of severe pain, cries a lot, has an eye for babes and smarts. and if i could adopt all the outcasts in the world, i would

also sometimes it is so tempting to shut it all out with drugs

so basically dofp on a bad day, first class/apoc on a good day

hottest looks character: kurt wagner is breathtakingly gorgeous

one thing i dislike about my fave character: that’d be kurt

uhm, his lack of screentime so far? (dark phoenix is gonna give us more, so yay)

hey, so confession time: ya know those times when i’ve said “hey i know kurt isn’t perfect but [proceeds to gush about kurt]”? yeah, i have no idea what i’m referring to when i’ve said kurt isn’t perfect. it depends on the kurt, i guess

but movieverse kurt is legit perfect (as far as we know)

i mean, he cuts himself but i don’t consider that a character flaw

one thing i like about my hated character: only characters i hate are the villains. so uh, entertainment value

a quote or scene that haunts me:

when senator kelley turns to water (those effects are too fucking good for the year 2000, what the fuck)

the coin going thru charles head and he SCREAMS SO LONG

charles fucking everybody up in X2 is a helluva thing

the premise behind the movie logan deeply upsets me (but specifically charles remembering what he did. this movie destroyed the movieverse)

“you look beautiful now” shut your twinkie hole fucko!!!

the iconic opening of X1/first class… he just wanted his mama :(((

a death that left me indifferent: nah. nah!!! i care too much

a character i wish died but didn’t: nnn… no

my ship that never sailed: charles/hank and kurt/ororo. but again, i’ll see what they do with dark phoenix. but there’s apparently no happily ever after hahaha!!! (logan 2017 was a great movie but oh my gosh fuck logan 2017)