#i think i could write an essay comparing these two pieces of media.

[sciderman]

You mentioned Hugh and Nicole and sex scene in movie and I am shameless so I RAN to look it up and about coughed up a lung

LET'S TAKE A REAL LONG LOOK AND GUESS WHICH ONE IT LIKELY IS EVERYONE

they fuck canonically in all these movies.

[physalian]

Character Types: Femme Fatales & Comic Relief

These two have nothing in common except the one thing I hate about them: By design, they exist to fulfil one shallow purpose, so I’m lumping them together.

—

Comic Relief

Characters that only serve one purpose in the cast stick out like a sore thumb. “Comic Relief” characters exist solely to be funny, as if the rest of the main cast is incapable of humor, and that this character is incapable of any serious moments. Instead of distributing different flavors of humor—sass, dry wit, jokers, pranksters, dark humor, dad jokes and puns—the writer comes up with their grumpy group of heroes, then I guess thinks “oh I need somebody funny to cut some of this seriousness”?

But on top of that, as this character exists just to be funny, there’s usually comparatively less development and rich character nuance for the comic relief over the other heroes. They get whatever crumbs are left over after every other more important character has eaten.

If they do have some tragic backstory or any serious moments, they are still the one desperately trying to cut the tension and either annoying other characters and the audience in the process, or being quite tone deaf in their endeavors.

The one everybody hates: Jar Jar Binks

The one some people hate: Olaf

The one that subverted himself right quick: Sokka

Prequel apologists, step aside. The writing is still terrible and Jar Jar even in Clone Wars features in episodes (“Bombad Jedi”) I routinely skip on rewatches. Maybe he’s funnier for little kids? I haven’t seen every piece of SW media out there but I can’t recall a single moment where Jar Jar has any moment of depth or seriousness and he’s frequently the most inconvenient element of any mission he winds up on.

Honorable mention for C-3PO, far less irritating but still largely a bumbling idiot (I love him, to be clear, he’s just always in the wrong place at the wrong time). The droid factory shenanigans on Geonosis comes to mind, as well as when he was so useless, he was riding around in a sack on Chewie’s back because he got disassembled in ESB.

Jar Jar is funny, but he’s only funny, and most often incompetently funny.

Olaf’s dark humor is what saves him for me personally. “I’ve been impaled” still makes me chuckle no matter how many times I see Frozen. Not only that, but he does have the big heart moment of the movie with Anna. He has zero tragic backstory, he was basically born yesterday, but he’s not a one-dimensional cardboard cutout.

Another honorable mention to, like, 8 out of 13 Dwarves, specifically Bombur, in the Hobbit trilogy. A combined 9 hours of movie and they chose to fill it with Mirkwood River Rapids™ instead of making up development for the heroes.

Sokka, on the other hand, looks like he’s going to be the sarcastic comedic relief, but he becomes so much more and wastes no time doing it. Compare him to the version of him written by the Ember Island Players. He’s been essayed about to death and there’s nothing more I can say about him that hasn’t been said before so I’ll leave it here: Sokka (and Toph) is comedic relief done right.

The whole cast is funny when they want to be, serious when they have to be. No one character gets designated “the funny one” or “the hopeful crying one” or “the buff one” no matter what Fire Nation propaganda wants you to think.

Final honorable mention to Leo Valdez. He has a ton of depth and nuance to him, but is very much "the funny one" of the Seven. Comparing Percy's trip to Ogygia with Leo's and one was a rather sullen "you could have this peaceful escape if you left your destiny behind, but you won't, noble hero" and the other was a bizzare romcom that, to me, wasn't funny, and just created a whole new set of issues surrounding Calypso's character.

—

Femme Fatales

Femme Fatales exist to look pretty, kick ass, pretend to be strong female characters, and be something for the male characters and male viewers to guiltlessly lust after because she’s asking for it. This is not a badass woman protagonist. The classic depiction of this trope is the shallow accessory to a male character, a seductress meant to either manipulate the hero into straying off his moral high ground, or to pit him against another man.

So.

Black Widow.

In Iron Man 2, you can argue that she’s supposed to be shallow. She plays it very close to the chest as a spy and has no reason to let any other characters, especially Tony, behind her mask. It’s not her movie.

In this movie specifically, though, she is this trope exactly. The bodysuit, the perfect hair, the whole changing in the back of the car, her provocative fighting style. She is eye candy that can kick ass, the only thing missing is an attempt at seducing Tony but you'll still catch him looking. That’s the femme fatale.

Extremely popular in 80s and 90s action movies as an accessory to the male protagonist but they've existed as long as film has. If he doesn’t have a damsel in distress to save, he has a sexy leg lamp to woo.

But Black Widow shows up in another decade’s worth of movies and dies to motivate the boys (and because her life matters less than Clint’s because he’s got a family while she can’t have kids), only getting a solo film after they killed her off, but in that time, they gave her plenty to do.

Natasha has many moments with depth, most of them in Age of Ultron and Winter Soldier, but she does have them. She laughs, she cries, she jokes, she’s smart and resourceful in moments where she doesn’t have a male character to impress, she has strengths beyond her physical attributes, and she has flaws. And, she and Steve Rogers miraculously weren’t written a romantic subplot in Winter Soldier.

On the one hand, Natasha knows exactly what she is and her fighting style fully leans into using the weapons she has as a woman… but on the other hand, in creating her character, the writers chose to lean into sexing her up.

I love her character, I just don’t love what they did with her.

—

Both of these character tropes tend to feature in scripts that aren’t the best to begin with. A strong, nuanced cast of heroes doesn’t usually have that one outlier that completely drops the ball.

All I’m asking for is to not designate any one character as the bearer of whatever you forget to give the rest of the cast. “Oops I forgot the funny, let me add in a comic relief, here’s Bob,” is a disservice to Bob. “Oops I forgot the women, let me add in this femme fatale, here’s Nyxandra,” is a disservice to Nyxandra.

Let every character have some funny moments.

You want a femme fatale? Go right ahead, honestly, but maybe don’t make her the only lady in the cast? If she’s a femme fatale because she wants to be, that’s great, but maybe have a woman who proves that you do, in fact, know how to write women?

[anthroparis]

People just dye their hair for fun. It's not symbolic babes.

okay let's start off with the fact that michela is a fictional character. she's not real.

and color symbolism in media is, in fact, important. and it exists everywhere.

when people see a color, there's often a feeling or thought attached to it- fast food companies use red more than any other color because red elicits hunger. people use blue to represent sadness, pink is youthful and romantic, yellow is happy, and so on. this is pretty standard color theory.

people have been using color in abstract ways to represent stories and emotion for thousands of years. just look at the contrast between this rococo era painting by jean-honore fragonard and this impressionist piece by claude monet

both of these pieces are very similar in subject matter: a woman in a long dress, a sunny day, a natural environment. if I described these on paper rather than showing them to you, you'd assume they're fairly similar paintings.

but you can look at these and feel a clear difference between the two. why?

because of the visual elements! the method, the chiaroscuro, the colors, the blocking.

ALL OF THESE THINGS HAVE SYMBOLISM IN THEM. THEIR POINT IS TO ELICIT A REACTION IN THE VIEWER.

lets look at another!

this is the arnolfini portrait by jan van eyck. it's one of the most famous and significant pieces in western art.

you can easily look at this and say "hey look it's two people in a room" but painters, AGAIN, FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS, have been using symbolism to depict real people. even the green of the dress represents hope, likely to have a child (indicated by the way she's holding her dress up and the dog, which by some arguments may represent lust between the two subjects)

THESE ARE REAL PEOPLE. BY THE WAY. ARTISTS MAKE DELIBERATE CHOICES TO INCLUDE SYMBOLISM IN ARTISTIC MEDIUMS.

anyway, even if it wasn't a deliberate choice on the creators part, there's this awesome thing called "death of the author" which was a french essay that argued that the original intent of the creator becomes null once the work is published, and the audience interpretation is ultimately more important.

so even if it did mean nothing in the writing process, to me it is significant. other people will have different interpretations but it'll be significant, too.

blue is a complicated color. dark blue is regal, calming, but also subdued and depressed. this could mean a lot of things, but looking at it compared to the green, just the fact that it's different, means there's some kind of change happening. even if it's purely physical.

I work in (indie, not big-budget) film and I've always felt the "the curtains are just fucking blue" argument completely defeats the point of analysis.

the reason why English class is core curriculum in schools over here isn't because it's fun silent reading hour, it's to help prepare kids to make choices and understand other perspectives and complicated situations through critical thinking.

when you limit yourself, when you say things like "that's just how it is, it doesn't mean anything" you're not only spitting on the work, you're creating a reality in which you can throw aside hard questions because "that's just how it is" is your answer to other people wanting to understand things. church v. galileo moment.

when you watch a movie, it's easy to just take it all at surface value and not give it a second thought. it's just entertainment, right? it's not supposed to make you feel anything other than pleasantly amused like a court jester!

I've worked on films. I do work on films. every single decision, from the angle of a certain shot to where the actors are standing, is deliberate. and it's so good that you don't even notice it!

in real life, my hair is blue right now. it means nothing except for me liking the color blue.

michela is not fucking real. she does not have the same agency I do to go "oh, I have some dark blue dye left in the bottle, I'll do that this month." because she is not real. she is a character.

for you, I recommend looking up some storyboards from movies, checking out some abstract art (pollock is a good place to start), and watching ralphthemoviemaker's minions review, where he talks about why character design is important.

And none of this even matters anyway because I was making a scott pilgrim joke.

the end

[sheepishmastectomy]

So it goes: Slaughterhouse-Five vs I was a Teenage Exocolonist

there is an excellent essay to be written comparing the way time travel works in Slaughterhouse-Five and I was a Teenage Exocolonist. Will I be the one to write it? Man, I dunno.

Some thoughts (extensive spoilers for both things):

Billy Pilgrim and Sol both become unmoored in their personal continuities to varying degrees. Billy is perpetually being catapulted through his personal timeline. He is incapable of controlling this and his knowledge of past and future events doesn't make him change them. While he might be aware that his wife will die or a fellow soldier will be executed, he seems incapable of changing anything (and, given his experience with the Tralfamadorians (these are the aliens who abduct him), seems genuinely unwilling to do so).

Sol, on the other hand, as they gain awareness of past and future and parallel events through each iteration, strives to change things. They experience so many variations of their life and continuity that they can see the branching paths each action might take.

While Slaughterhouse-Five takes place in one timeline, with continuity intact throughout, I was a Teenage Exocolonist instead takes place across many timelines at once.

Neither protagonist is truly capable of a final death. While they both die, the experience is not the end. Sol is sent back to the beginning each time, looping their lifetime ad infinitum across a variety of paths. Billy, on the other hand, bounces into death and back out, never experiencing an ending because everything is happening at the same time.

In both works, the aliens are the ones capable of providing context and explanation of the protagonist's experiences. The Tralfamadorians do not explain how this happened to Billy, while the Gardeners via Sym are more willing to provide some explanation (and the narrative does provide the inciting incident for the time travel as an option to experience).

Some characters are marked for death. While we learn by playing I was a Teenage Exocolonist how to prevent most deaths, the player's knowledge as they progress can make it so they think of various characters in terms of where they will die and how it could be prevented. In Slaughterhouse-Five there are only two characters that are marked from early on-- Billy's wife, Valencia, and the soldier, Edgar Derby. I think there might be a parallel to be drawn between Edgar especially and Kombucha. However, because this is just for fun and it's been a while since I played Teenage Exocolonist, I am not going into detail here.

Generally speaking, nobody believes either protagonist when they discuss their experiences (discounting the aliens, who are capable of/knowledgeable about experiencing the world in the same way). (There is a notable exception in the form of Dys in Teenage Exocolonist, who is desperate to escape his humanity, and Montana in Slaughterhouse, who has been abducted by aliens-- these characters also seem like they have a lot of parallels to me, though Montana is held at a much greater distance from the aliens-- but on the other hand, she has only the single timeline to exist in, which limits her).

I'd argue that both medias are intended as anti-war pieces to a greater or lesser degree. While you can absolutely choose violence in Teenage Exocolonist and the conflict is inevitable from the start, it is portrayed with nuance. The warmonger is portrayed as an oppressive, glory-seeking buffoon. This is also the case in Slaughterhouse-Five. The book revolves around the bombing of Dresden in a way that makes it an inescapable and constant presence in the narrative. Teenage Exocolonist instead has an attack every year, reminding the player that the conflict is happening and is going to continue to happen until a resolution is found. The resolution at the 'end' of the timeline also feels like an axis on which the story revolves.

Both stories also emphasize the fact that the protagonists are children. While Billy is only a child for some of his story, he never escapes it. The gameplay of Teenage Exocolonist stops as Sol and their friends are finishing their teens.

The biggest difference that I can think of is that Billy Pilgrim may in fact be imagining everything that happens to him, while Sol is fairly explicitly not doing so. I don't think this really changes Billy's experiences or invalidates them.

Wait, there's a second biggest difference: Agency. Billy has none or next to none. He chooses nothing and doesn't seem interested in doing so. He's aware of what he's going to do, but he never really seems to have a reason to do it. It's not quite fatalistic, but there's an aura of helpless indifference throughout. Sol, on the other hand, is constantly changing things and watching how those changes ripple across the timeline. I think this is because Billy's story is fundamentally meant to be a store about how war changes people and you can never really leave your past, while Sol's is a story about trying to do everything right but not knowing what right is.

Billy is propelled by forces outside of his control, while Sol is, ultimately, the force that is propelling Sol.

That is much longer than I planned. Oh well. If you have thoughts on this, please tell me about them!

[summer-of-fandom]

[This is part of a server-specific event explained here, that I am inviting non-server people to partake in if they'd think it'd be fun!]

Play with the video/screenshots. The world is your oyster.

Each box is worth 1x pt

For a Try-It: Earn at least 3 points

For a Badge: Earn at least 10 points

Gif

Gif your favorite moments between two characters. Like this one from the Dead Boy Detectives

Collect/Create gifs that highlight a 'thread' in two characters relationship- a recurring bit that they do, conversations that echo each other. Like this. 

Put a quote from the show over asynchronous clips (things that weren't happening at the time the character was speaking). Like this one from the Dead Boy Detectives. 

Use gifs to show off the differences between two (or more) characters. For instance, like this cat v dog energy post. You could also show the difference between how characters react to each other- like this post showing how one character responds to physical touch from two other characters. 

Combine gifs from the show with dialogue that didn't happen/gifs from different source materials- to make a scene that didn't happen. Like this Vegas/Pete one. 

Playing with Jpegs like they're Dolls

Use a popular meme format to compare things from multiple shows. It could be something like this, the 'amateurs' comic- or a venn diagram like this one. 

Edit a popular meme to be about the viewing experience of a show. Like this one using the 'is that a butterfly meme'. 

Use a popular meme format to make fun of something in the show. For instance: here's two different ones from the Dead Boy Detectives. One, Two. And one from Deep Night. 

Take a screenshot of a character/moment in the show and add a tumblr/twitter/etc text post on top. Like this one! Or this one from Bridgereton!

Create an alignment chart for the characters in the show. Here's one from The Dead Boy Detectives.

Highlight a reoccuring thing with screen shots from the show. For instance- every time a  'secret couple' forgot about the secret part.  Or here, every time Yak calls Dee 'Doc' in Wandee Goodday. 

Tropes! Love them, hate them- they're everywhere. Show off which ones are in a piece of media you love- like this bridgerton post. 

Make an inspiration post with a character you love. Whether it's Laois from Dungeon Meshi reminding us to take the ibuprofen , Phayu encouraging you to study, or a 'do it for her' Simpson style inspiration poster with your favorite characters. 

Fanmade Video/Audio

Make a FMV, combining clips of the show/movie with a song. Like in this Phayu/Rain one. 

Make a video essay, making your case for why someone should watch the show, explaining a theme, defending a character- whatever it might be that inspires you. Like this one on the recent Challengers Movie. 

Make a parody song like this Batman parody musical or these villain song parodies

Write a song that could be in-universe like this Outer World fan-made song.

Create a character-song, a song from the POV of a character. Like this one from Delores' POV in Encanto. 

Using Cosplay- redo a scene from the original medium, or even create your own storyline.

Or you could make a story using  'stand ins' whether it be legos, stick figures, or whatever you have on hand. 

Tell the story (or part of it) in another style. Like this man who takes Lord of the Rings and narrates the background story of it- as an older southern man- as if the story took place in the American South.   Or this one- which takes macbeth and makes it Appalchian.  

Use a fandom-related filter on tiktok- like this one about choosing a gmmtv boy

Make a short (tiktok/youtube/instagram) highlighting a repeating character interaction- like this one of Rain slapping Phayu's arm for teasing him. 

Combine video/art from the show with audio from another- like this one combining LITA with Hamilton. 

Combine video/art from the show with a song in a character-studying kind of way. Like this one about Vegas from Kinnporsche. 

[asachuu]

(3/10)

Part 2: what exactly is Rimlaine?

[List of all parts]

[Part 1]

I’m counting on the fact that some people reading this might not be too familiar with this ship, or perhaps they’re wondering why it gained some noteworthy popularity after Stormbringer’s release to a point I would find this an important essay to write, just in case. For this part, I will try to explain the very basic concept of it, where it seemed to originate and why I think it appeals to others. While detailed recollections of light novel events only come after this section, I must also give a fair warning that from this point onwards, I do expect people to have read both 15/SB novels, at least to understand the vague context of what I will be talking about, or to simply not mind spoilers.

Rimlaine, for those who aren’t that aware, is a ship between Arthur Rimbaud/Randou and Paul Verlaine from BSD. It had a fairly small, niche audience since the release of Fifteen, but has gained quite a fair share of liking compared to its early days since Stormbringer came out. Granted, it’s absolutely nowhere near the levels of ships such as Soukoku or Shin Soukoku, but it certainly is more noticeable nowadays due to SB practically introducing Paul to the story properly, especially if you enter spaces centered around these two light novels or the two characters involved.

Now, what makes this ship appealing to people? In a certain way, I don’t quite know myself. I have never even considered it might be taken this way by the fandom back when I read the first light novel and I wasn’t able to change my mind down the line, either. However, I am somewhat familiar with the “concepts” it seems to portray and have seen some similar, much more beloved equivalents to it in other pieces of media, and I’ve also heard it be discussed many times to a degree I believe I have gained some possible understanding of the community, and thus will try to assess it this way without looking at it through my own lens. A far more detailed assessment will only be in further parts, though.

From the beginning, at the time of Fifteen being the only novel featuring Arthur and a cameo of Paul at the very end in it, the main thing I noticed was that it being so close to an actual, canonical relationship made a handful of people simply accept it as such, which became quite a prevalent talking point in this topic back then. As is obvious from the start, Bungou Stray Dogs is a series with characters based on actual authors, and many noticeably take up more traits after their real-world counterparts than simply sharing a name or their abilities being referred to by titles of their books. In the case of Arthur and Paul, one of these traits could have been the real-life poets’ actual relationship, but this was never confirmed in the story itself, nor even truly mentioned to begin with besides the pair having been “partners” at one point in time. This, unsurprisingly, caught some people’s attention– a few of those simply took it as a fact regarding the BSD characters despite no actual evidence of it, all while another few have not done so explicitly, but still began thinking of it this way due to the implications it had, no matter what the story itself stated and how the characters referred to each other, even back then. Either way, from my personal experience, the vast majority of people interested in the ship at the time always brought this up in one way or another.

I should also mention that a much smaller number have unfortunately seemed to blur the lines of reality and fiction in this area to almost unsettling extents, which I will talk about in a part entirely dedicated to the pair’s real-life counterparts, as it comes hand-in-hand with this topic.

So then, if the real people were in a relationship, isn’t it only natural to assume their namesakes would be too? At least, that’s what I think some of you might be asking now. To that I say yes, but even this has its nuances. I will elaborate on it a bit further later, but the real relationship was nothing short of a toxic, abusive mess, and had the fandom at the time wanted to see something depicting precisely what it was, that would be mostly understandable and not something I would fight against, given what the BSD series is about and how it creates its characters, but I presume many people simply saw the words “were in a relationship” and thought no further of it, especially that it was a queer relationship— a thing I’ve seen a lot of folks wish for in their respective fandoms for a sense of comfort, happiness or visibility. Still, that changes absolutely nothing about how destructive it truly was, and there is nothing wrong with wishing to see the true time it was supposedly based off of, even just to some degree that would have also fit in with the actual plot of the media itself, yet it seemed to me that this was the opposite of the case. The instances I saw someone genuinely not sugarcoat anything or erase whatever information was available to everyone back then regarding both the real and fictional worlds were so rare, I could count them on one of my hands alone.

Now, our lack of canonical information changes vastly in Stormbringer, a novel following Fifteen, released three years afterwards. In it, we get an actual look into Arthur and Paul’s backstory, as well as their time spent together. Personally, this novel only furthered my own views even more, but there are now some points– or rather, fictional tropes– people are relating this ship to. In some way, they do serve as a fair summary of it. I’ve heard it be described as tropes related to a character hating the whole world, yet only loving a single person in it, or two characters who ran out of time and missed their opportunities, even a very skewed “enemies to lovers”, and so on. I suppose I can see some of them too, except only as a mere recollection of the events, nothing else. All these outlines and some more I haven’t mentioned can absolutely be done right, even in the context of romantic ships, this is not to imply something is inherently wrong with them– unfortunately, however, Rimlaine doesn’t strike me as an example of that whatsoever. For some of these, there really is a thin line to be walked between making a tragic, yet healthy friendship/romance/etc., and making something which should not be put on a pedestal in any way. I’m not quite sure where the intentions lay with this pairing as I am not the author of the BSD novels themselves, if there even were such intentions in the first place as I believe it was meant to follow its real-life inspirations, but I’d say they must have been far closer to the latter category, to which they ended up falling entirely either way.

I will add a minor side note here, one I’m continuing from the previous part, I am placing no fault on the creator of BSD nor on anyone else who happens to create this type of content, no matter what it is, as that is a thing I and many others have also done ourselves. Creating a story is one thing, and whether we like it or not, these stories do exist in real life as well and shouldn’t be a secret, taboo topic, but actively taking that story and romanticizing it yourself is another matter, that of which is the part I do not condone.

Nevertheless, following this novel, Rimlaine gained its fair share of popularity, no longer being the ship with fans so far underground one would have to actively dig to find a lot of them. Since we got their canonical interactions, at least to some degree, people could see the way they talked together, worked together and so on. For me, that’d be a major thing I’d closely assess even just thinking about it if this was a pairing that I was already uncertain about, but I don’t think that was the case for many others. I believe, or rather, wish to believe the actual point of interest from there on came from the used tropes themselves and the tragedy it all was destined to be from the very beginning, not so much from the true dynamic between the two. Now, I certainly am not opposed to reading, watching or playing things which are intended to cause nothing but sorrow and I can also see where this appeal comes from, too, but that still doesn’t quite clear everything up. It was intended to be a tragedy, and that’s about it— whether it’s “beautiful” or “lovely”, as some have called it, is solely up to the reader’s personal tastes and opinions, however I absolutely do not believe there’s anything about it to be romanticized, which is what seems to be happening instead of mere appreciation of the story or proper acknowledgement of what occurred to give inspiration to it.

With that said, all the context for my statements, if necessary for the reader, will be provided in the next section in detail. Now, let me begin talking about the novels themselves.

[Part 3, 3.1, 3.2]

[liopleurodean]

The Road So Far: Season Four

Well that was a ride.

Friendly reminder to check my tag #ashla chick flick moments to see my live commentary on every episode of Supernatural up through season 4 (so far), as well as the other 3 season recaps.

With that out of the way, let's talk about season 4.

Can I start with the poetry? If you gave me enough time, I could write a whole essay about the symmetry in this season. I mean, start with the obvious -- the titles of 4x01 Lazarus Rising and 4x22 Lucifer Rising (and don't get me started on comparing Dean to Lazarus, one of Jesus' closest friends. If you haven't read that story, please do. It adds so much). And I mean, all of the episode titles are on point this season. At least one Zeppelin song, a Peanuts reference, a Sesame Street reference (which I mentioned in my post about the episode, 4x18 The Monster at the End of This Book).

This season really highlighted how Sam and Dean have evolved in just four short years. Obviously there were extenuating circumstances to make them that way, but I feel like both characters were really stripped to their cores to see what makes them tick, and it's so fascinating to watch them react to what's happening around them. Dean is finally coming to see that his life actually has meaning, while Sam is falling apart from the life he never wanted. It's plain to see that neither of them wants to keep hunting, but season 4 has also provided plenty of evidence that hunting is undeniably in their blood.

It's also interesting to see how Azazel's plan fits into the greater storyline. I think I mentioned back in season 2 that his whole plot didn't make much sense on its own, and it's gratifying to see everything fall into place.

Once again, it feels like the writers are forcing Sam to be the main character, even though this season definitely has more Dean-centric episodes and Dean gets a lot more development and limelight. It's almost funny to think about.

Before I forget, I suppose I should pick my favorite episode. I do have to say, while this was my favorite season as a whole, none of the episodes really stand out to me as amazing. 4x06 Yellow Fever is a fan favorite, and I'm no exception, 4x17 It's A Terrible Life was incredibly light-hearted, which was much needed after On The Head of a Pin. 4x13 After School Special gets an honorable mention, but it's not on the same level as the other two. My all-time favorite episode remains to be 1x12 Faith, which surprises even me because I'm generally not a fan of overly emotional and heavy media. I tend to prefer more lighthearted stories, but Faith really hits. I've already said that 4 is my favorite season, even if the individual episodes were a bit lacking. I think I preferred the overarching plotline of this season over others; it had much higher stakes and I was much more invested in what was happening. I really felt more emotional about certain plot beats and the characters felt a lot more real. I sped through this season pretty quickly, at least in terms of how many watch-days it took (as opposed to total elapsed time since the last season). It helps that I was on a road trip, so I got a lot of time in the car, but I think I would have finished quickly anyways because the story was so riveting.

This season we got to meet Cas! I have to admit, he wasn't exactly what I was expecting. Then again, neither were Sam and Dean. I feel like I simultaneously know so much and so little about Cas compared to the two brothers, but that'll change as I get deeper into the show.

While I'm not a Destiel shipper (I know. But Dean is Ben's dad and I will fight you) I can definitely see where they're coming from. I'll probably keep making comments on it as I see it, because it really is an interesting take that could add to the show. As it is, it's exciting to see Cas evolve into a member of Team Free Will (and I'm honestly a little surprised that it's happening so quickly). Even though most angels are pieces of crap, it's still fun to see a new player on the field.

Speaking of, let's talk about Chuck. I've already had a lot of the show spoiled for me being on Tumblr, so a lot of the plot twists won't be as twisty to me. One of said plot twists is the fact that Chuck is God. Now, obviously I already know this, but what I don't know is why he's acting the way he is. Is he lying? Was his memory actually wiped? If so, by whom? Lots of fun questions, and I can't wait to see them answered.

And with that, I think it's time I wrap this up. I'll start season 5 hopefully sometime this week. Carry On!

[andradrawsstuff]

Oooo great question, this is gonna turn into a bit of a massive ramble eeeee

Honestly, the movie was decent enough and I absolutely love rewatching it, but I think that the action was a bit lacklustre compared to their show and the other movies imo. I think they also don’t feel as chaotic neutral-y as their other portrayals which makes them a little more bland (I mean, they did blow up the old lady’s house in the Christmas special and then purposely ran her over TWICE in Madagascar 2 💀 as well as having a disregard for humans in general). But the movie does have some good bits which I love:

Skipper’s character development is great and they turned him into a rlly sweet character by the end, which I kinda wish they did with the show. I mean, I could do a whole character analysis on the two versions of Skipper but for the sake of this not turning into an essay imma keep it short: in the show he starts off relatively calm but kinda starts losing it as the show goes on and kinda goes backwards, so I think the movie did a good thing with that

The story focuses on Private, who honestly doesn’t get enough attention so that’s a win for the lil guy :)

The animation is really pretty and well done, especially with the lighting and stuff. I love the art style too and how wonky it is. Also the concept art is SO GOODDDDD OMGGGG I highly recommend getting “the art of PoM”book bc it’s awesome and it’s been a massive inspo for me and my art

THE SOUNDTRACK OMG I can name each and every piece from memory 💀 But it fits them rlly well and captures their vibe perfectly. Also Pitbull at the end bc as a kid I’d always headcannon his songs as their theme so you can imagine how crazy I went when I heard him in the end credits

I think the main issue is that bc the movie came out when the show was still airing, it made ppl expect it to be connected, which wasn’t the case. I guess it was expected that Dr Blowhole would be the main villain and that recurring characters would reappear. Ik 11 year old me was so excited to see Marlene and throughout the whole movie I waited, only for her not to even be mentioned 🥲

Another thing is that a lot of that early 2000s humour that you see in the show isn’t present in the movie which also contributed to its blandness and is why the show feels more adult and funny (ignoring all the fart jokes lmao). I mean, the movie did release in 2014, which is when you start to see a pretty big shift in children’s media, with a lot less mature jokes and captivating stories and a big focus on simply keeping kids occupied - but that’s a topic for another day lmao this is already getting ridiculously long.

But I will say that after reading the art of PoM, they did put a lot of love and effort into the movie and Tom McGrath’s note at the beginning is so sweet omg 🥺 So I don’t think it deserves all the hate, but it would have been nice if it were connected to the show.

TLDR: I think the main problem ppl have with the movie is that there was zero connection to the show, the writing style was different, and that their personalities were so contrasting from what people were used to seeing on tv.

okay, i've seen people who don't like the TPoM movie, and i've read discussions about it on one or two servers before but i am genuinely curious, what made you dislike the film, or think it's not good enough? which part specifically? i never thought too deeply about but it's nice to hear what others think abt the movie!!

[whitetrashjj]

crying my eyes out at your MLA format essays cuz not every queer storyline in media has to be rooted in angst of coming out. i get some of the points you’re trying to make. i also don’t think the show is queerbaiting but jjpope had just as much “evidence” as jiara had. like please explain why jj was so keen on kiara liking john b just cuz she kissed him on the cheek and then went and kissed pope’s cheek?…. like in jj’s mind a cheek kiss means liking someone and he did that to pope. also there ARE shots of jj’s lingering gaze towards pope lets us not lie here lmao. i get that you’re sick of people calling u homophobic i dont think u are for not shipping jjpope i also dont think the show is queerbaiting at all but you go on about “storytelling povs” and “lack of critical thinking” when YOUR critical thinking is literally biased as hell 😭 u can ship jiara all u want but jj and kiara, ESPECIALLY KIARA, are both very much queer coded and if u gonna say they’re not bc of some cheesy sTorYtELLiNg bullshit that u probably learned from a youtube video then you’re just biased to your ship.

You know why I have to write those 'essays'? Cause I get asks like this that brush over a bunch of different topics and I want to make sure I not only address every part of it but also make sure I'm making my pov very clear so I don't have people misinterpreting what I say - even though they still do - or accuse me about random bitching without and reasons or justification. Anyway get ready to do some crying cause you are getting another essay.

I know not every queer storyline has to be rooted in the angst of coming out. I wish there were more that weren't. It's the reason I loved booksmart so much. It's one of the reasons I love Dare Me, because that show had sapphic leads and while their relationship was at the core of the show. It wasn't the fact that they were queer that was focused on. Oh god I could rant about Dare Me forever.

Now my point with JJ and Pope is that we don't get the impression that the boys are currently out as queer. JJ from the start was set up as a bit of a womaniser, a bit girl mad - it would have been very easy to make that gender neutral if he was bi, as I headcanon. With Pope it's the same, I personally view him as gay, but if he was bi/pan it would have been easy to show him like that as we see him attempting to flirt on two occasions. Now this isn't to say that in future seasons they can switch it up as if it was always canon, like they did with Clarke in the 100. My point however, isn't to say that JJ and Pope releasing their sexualities and feelings has to be filled with angst, the example I gave can very easily be played a bit cutely - even if they do address the internalised homophobia that I'm just sure would effect a character like JJ - but just that based on my experiences as a queer person and what I know to be experiences of others that it would realistically play out differently to how it would with a m/f couple. Even then when to comes to friends to lovers in general the removal of physical intimacy when that tension starts to build out of awkwardness is common, it doesn’t play out the same way that ships like JB and Sarah do in which they increase in physical intimacy. 

I didn't bring jiara into this. I didn't go out comparing jjpope and their interactions to jiara, I was simply speaking to how jjpope's relationship was portrayed. In terms of 'evidence' I am more than aware the jiara wasn't written to be a developing romance, anything there was created by what the fans saw and choices made by the editors. But it is also a canon fact that at the very least JJ is attracted to Kie, that all the pogues 'kinda have a thing for her' and that he has 'tried' something with her. Even if the intention of those things wasn't to build to a relationship - they did happen and that's not up for interpretation. I'm not gonna bring up the 'did you tell JJ?' thing cause it still confuses the hell out of me.

The thing with the cheek kisses is that it's not the action in itself that made it a romantic thing. A handshake can build romantic tension when framed that way but that doesn't make every hand shake in that piece of media suddenly romantic, make sense? If you compare the two scenes we have the build up of Kie walking up to John B, a close up of a lingering cheek kiss, the pull back with lingering looks and then the reactions of others who have observed it and picked up on something. It frames it as a significant moment with slow beats. That's how you build romantic tension. With the JJPope one it just flows past it, JJ pulls back from the hug, a quick peck on the check and a 'love you too man' with a smirk and pat on the check. We don't even have a second of Pope's reaction to it. Do you see what I mean?

You can love that moment as a shipper. I mean it's a great moment that really highlights their dynamic. To you it's a dynamic that you see and think oh this would play out so well romanticly, it's a dynamic I see and think oh I love their friendship. Each of those are valid reactions. But it isn't a moment that has been intentionally framed to build romantic tension and suggest a budding relationship.

Darl, I swear to god if I was coming to you with my shipping bias' this would be a very different conversation. I know I will always have them and I will lean into them when I'm on vc with shes, theys and gays and we are getting lost in headcanons but I do my best take a step back when I talk about these things here because I've been in fandoms when you have two extremes and no one relents and it's awful, I don't want to create that space. And once again, I did not bring jiara into this. My original post was not a comparison to jiara.

I am very curious about your perspective on queer coding here. Because yes, JJ has chaotic bi energy and I will die on this hill. But I do not see how he has been queer coded. Other than people seeing a man being physically affectionate with another men and insist that can't be platonic. As with Kie I can see it more, not for a second do I believe that what went on with Kie and Sarah was straight. And I desperately want to see Maddie play Kie as pan to rep her own very underrepresented sexuality! And in terms of how she's written, stuff like being an astrology bitch and environmentalist scream queer to us, I do think it is important to note that the writers of the show being who they are would necessarily have the same impression of what a queer womans traits would be. In regards to that scene in ep 1 where they have the hot touron girl and then JJ, JB and Kie all perking up and doing the nod thing? I don't think anyone has a straight explanation for that.

The 'sTorYtELLiNg bullshit that u probably learned from a youtube video' comment made me laugh cause it reminds me of this guy I had a fight with on the weekend over Remus and Sirius being queer and he decided to undermine my argument by saying 'just because you read it on reddit doesn't make it true' which... yike. Any way, maybe you do but I don't have the tolerance to sit down and watch a youtube video on someone analysing a show. All my interpretations come from years of writing actual essays analysing elements and themes in media. As well as having a keen interest in direction and editing, so I pay a lot of attention to those things and you start to notice patterns. In terms of credentials I don't have any but I do think these 'essays' do an alright job of me not only explaining my interpretation but why. Because I'm not someone to just say things and expect that to just be accepted or think that is makes it true.

[lcnelyinthesky]

admiration - tsukishima kei

a/n: okay hi?? im ellie?? heres this??? i worked on it for like four? days?on and off? and its longer than any oneshot ive written but yk shes cute ig. pls be nice pls enjoy... but also my last piece got 2 notes and im really hopin in not shadowbanned here lmao

genre: fluff, angst, rivals to lovers!!

pairing: bisexual!female!reader x tsukishima kei (yes bi reader its a vibe)

warnings: a break up with a beautiful woman i made up myself, swearing

word count: 3.7k (ahhhh!!)

enjoy!! :D

Elementary second year. Your newly-assigned seat was next to a much taller, blond kid. He was smart and bright, rivaling the sun in terms of unbridled joy. Now, none of that can be seen by eight year old eyes, but looking back and comparing, it's easy to spot that he changed. 

Tsukishima Kei was an excitable kid, just as everyone was, but he was still snarky; his arrogance seemed to be something that just festered within his soul, no matter the trauma that brought it out. 

Childlike wonder is still alive and well at eight. 

The teacher you had back then was quite rude. She was pushy and angry, and she assigned way too much homework. Everything she uttered made you huff in disappointment, crossing your arms and hoping for some sort of reaction from someone. The kid next to you was named Koji--or, at least, that's what you called him. He was your best friend, spending every moment with you like you were siblings. You'd be able to crack a joke with the smallest glance and you’d talk constantly. As soon as your handwriting was legible to people of your age group, you'd pass notes back and forth and cackle at their contents. Until, of course,

“Tsukishima, will you switch seats with Kojikata today?” Your teacher sounded exhausted, huffing her sentence out on a sigh before going back to the multiplication tables on the board. Suddenly, your little world was interrupted.

“Y/N, right?” He didn’t look at you, placing his folders down on the desk and pushing his glasses back up as he sat. His words were hushed and quiet, but the class had moved into individual work--he wasn’t interrupting anyone.

“Yeah. Can I call you Tsukki?” You were angry, gripping your pencil tighter in your little hand as you wrote numbers down on white paper. One times one is one. Two times two is four. This is easy.

“No,” he was long doing the same thing, but writing quicker than you. That’s how it is, huh?

Three times two is six. Four times five is twenty. Six times three is eighteen. Five times six is thirty. This is easy-

“Miss, I’m done.” His voice was always so dry. Uninterested. 

Four times three is twelve. “Me too!” Your hand shot up with the paper in it, sending a death glare at the boy next to you.

That's how it is, huh?

This pattern continued for weeks. Tsukishima didn’t move from his seat next to you, as your teacher had made the realization that you worked far harder without friends around. Tsukishima lit a competitive fire under you; everything was now a race.

It started with handing in assignments. Who would go up to the front desk first to have their work checked over? Who would finish this quiz faster? Then it transferred into everything. 

Who would get to class faster? Who finished their lunch quicker? Who could read faster? Who scored higher on spelling tests? Who could run faster in gym class?

And then it was middle school.

Middle school brought in Yamaguchi Tadashi. 

It'd be an understatement to say he warmed to Yamaguchi quickly, but the basis behind that was strange. Tsukishima was never one for friends, even though everyone wanted to be friends with him. He was cool in the eyes of a handful of eleven year olds; letting everything roll off your back seemed to be an admirable trait. Yamaguchi worshipped him, and Tsukishima took him under his wing to teach him the ropes of being a cool kid.

At heart, though, Yamaguchi was kind and attentive. He could tell when things were going wrong, and supposedly it was him that changed the rest of your life.

The rivalry continued just as it had in elementary, just with higher stakes. You'd fight for answering questions first, working ahead of everyone else to just beat him. He’d never bat an eye at it, and sometimes you thought it was all over, but then

“Y/N.” Tsukishima Kei stood three steps behind you, looming over you with the height he was seemingly born with. The hallway was emptying by now, kids walking into their classrooms once again. The white floors rung with the quiet sounds of soft-bottomed shoes and a light above your head flickered calmly.

“Yeah?” You spun around to meet his gaze.

“What’d you get on that lit essay?”

“A 96. Why?”

“No reason,” he smirked and tilted his head up, looking down at you, “I got a 100.”

A huff and a stomp away gave him the answer he needed as he followed you into the classroom, sitting down behind you and next to Yamaguchi just as he did every day. The little shit.

Tsukishima was never better than you, technically speaking. On average and on paper, you were always both roughly the same. You'd fight for being top of the class, the position switching between both of you every day. You excelled in creative things while he excelled at sports, but both of you dabbled in the other. When people in your year began dating, everyone came to assume you two were. It was embarrassing, really, because Tsukishima Kei was a little shit know-it-all who will never beat me at anything ever and people need to stop thinking he will because he won’t I’m better than hi-

“Hey?” Oh right. Friends.

“Koji!” He never left, at least not yet. His nimble fingers tapping on your shoulder brought you back to reality, making you jump and turn around to face him, wrapping your arms around his body for a split second.

“You looked zoned” his face was riddled with concern that was easy to write off.

“Oh, whoops” a small blush heated your cheek as your hand migrated to rub your neck. “Did you want something?”

As you walked into the classroom a bit further, Koji sat on your right; he seemed to buckle down more when you had moved away from each other way back in the day, so there were less mid-class comedy shows. He grew up just as you had, and with the closeness of the two of you people began to think you were dating. At twelve, it was incredibly necessary to date someone--anyone. Theories bounced from everywhere and anywhere and with you it was either your best friend or your biggest rival. Your lack of attraction to either of them became the center of many late night crises. 

“Not particularly,” his gaze switched from you to the board again, beginning to write something down when he turned his head. “Are you okay?”

“Yeah! Of course I am,” you smiled at him, the kind of smile that made your eyes crinkle at the corners, and suddenly it was high school.

-

“Tsukishima is really cute! And he's smart, I heard that Kageyama wasn’t too bright somewhere.”

“But Kageyama’s so much hotter! His being a little dumb sometimes is endearing.”

“Are we not going to talk about that third year setter, Sugawara?”

“No, he’d never go for a first year. Besides, that Hinata kid is more of an enigma.”

“Have you even seen them play?” A howl of angry “yes”s fell over the crowd, trying to prove something. None of them had ever seen them play.

That asshole Tsukishima getting popular felt like a stab in the soul. None of them knew him or how much he sucked, but the amount of girls fawning over him was horrific.

-

There's something consistently poetic about young love, no matter where it comes from. Something extra sweet about holding pinkies in school corridors when no one is looking and seeing them every day, smiling loudly as the sun broke over the horizon all bright and early. The raging hormones and dumb, fake social hierarchies of fifteen make emotions run wild, and only the deeply immature end up helplessly infatuated. Others are more cautious, but there's only so many precautions one can take at fifteen. Sometimes some of us just want to be loved, no matter the sincerity of it.

Cared for, and whatnot. No harm in that, in the long run at least. 

“Y/N, right?” Her name was Mei. She was in your class; 1-4, just like Tsukishima. She was pretty. Long, black hair was preceded by two green streaks at the front. She’d always have those down, making her features look like a photo in a perfect frame. She had a collection of hair clips with small shapes on them that she’d have somewhere on her person at all times. Her more mid-sized body was paler than most, and she was covered in freckles and moles. Her eyes were an unusual shade of blue that looked deep enough to swim in. Her cheeks were always stained with a peachy blush that moved up her collarbones and into her ears, making her look like she was always smiling no matter what her face was doing. Karasuno’s school uniform did wonders for her curves, the skirt swaying up on occasion and making her look so damn perfect.

“Yeah! You’re…” a second of dumbfounded pause felt like years in your mind, coming to the conclusion that she was the most beautiful girl you had ever met. “Ojiro Mei?”

“Yep! I just wanted to tell you you looked really pretty today!” Her voice always had an upward inflection, and was higher than most. It was cute. Incredibly cute.

“Oh.” A moment of confidence fell over you like you weren’t in control of your actions, “you’re beautiful.”

“Thank you very much,” she bounced back on her toes and then rolled back to her heels, hands intertwined behind her back, “You’re too kind, Y/N.” Her sentences were always punctuated with an eye-crinkling smile.

Later that day, you found her on every social media account you could; she messaged you first.

When you don’t know you’re interested in women, it’s hard to notice that they’re flirting with you, but after a handful of supposed gay panic, you asked her on a date.

She was two inches shorter than you, and somehow that persisted no matter what shoes she was wearing. Every small outing with her felt like cloud nine--watching the sunset, small conversation over tea at a nearby cafe, cuddling in your bedroom with only a string of Christmas lights on. She always looked so wonderful in soft lighting, the potential cold of winter disappeared with pale beiges that made her freckles look like stars. Every action Mei ever did was soft and full of care. She could send every single emotion through her fingertips on your jaw, deepening a kiss you started moments before. She was like magic, until she wasn't anymore.

You supposed, when thinking back, that things fell out around month thirteen. The rose colored lenses everything was viewed through faded a bit, and it's easy to notice her pulling away. There were less late night phone calls and less recommended music and less hands running through your hair. Everything has a natural progression to the end, right?

“Do you still feel it?” It was raining. Large drops of water fell down to the floor, smacking the pavement at speeds you couldn’t even try to measure. She was wearing a bright yellow raincoat that looked almost dull in the four pm light. 

“Feel what?”

“Anything, baby.” All of her words ended with a huffed out sigh, like she was tired of something. Lying, maybe. 

You pondered the question, and it seemed like your hesitation gave her all the answer she needed. 

“Ya know, Y/N.” She looked down and grabbed your hands with hers, rubbing her thumbs on your palms as you grabbed around them. “This was fun. We had a good run.”

A solemn tear fell down your cheek at the ending, but there was no use in self pity or anger now. She was so sweet and kind, and it's truly unthinkable how she continued that kindness in the end.

“Yeah. A good run.” The pink in your cheeks grew as you choked out a laugh, pulling her in for one final hug under the dim fluorescent lights on the front door overhang of the school.

Fifteen came and went with love, and when sixteen rolled around you wondered if you’d ever be loved like that again.

-

A spirit can't be broken overnight, and if you’ve spent the last eight years of your life having a strong, consistent rivalry with someone, it won’t leave any time soon. Tsukishima and you were on similar playing fields for most of your life, but you had one thing he didn’t: relationship experience. In that way, you always counted yourself one point higher, like a boy scout badge. 

For a spell, however, your intensity changed. There was nothing more driving you than spite, and there was nothing you wanted more than to beat him. You were well into your second year of high school at this point, and--volleyball notwithstanding--you had wins over Tsukishima. You had seen him play volleyball, every match in his second year, and you deemed he was simply okay. You refused to count his success onto the list of wins for both of you.

June fifteenth. Tournaments were coming up around the corner when it happened, which explained every reason why he was there. You weren’t exactly prepared for the rain, so the best bet seemed to be sitting at the front entrance of Karasuno High School and wallowing in a little bit more self pity before you went home. You were just dumped after all, the tears weren’t done falling. 

The feeling between sadness and shame overflowed you, shades of yellowish green painting the world around you and churning your gut into oblivion. And the tears fell. It felt like a scene in a movie; in a few seconds, a strong, capable man would show up to your rescue.

“Y/N?” what the fuck?

He was sweaty. His face was matte from a light film of saltwater. He had a grey umbrella over his head, keeping himself dry from the still-pelting rain. His six-foot-two frame was covered with a black tracksuit, and he still had his sports goggles on.

Those fucking sports goggles.

“Tsukishima.” you deadpanned, trying to get him away as fast as possible. His words were snarky, as always, but this time laced with concern. Like he actually cared.

“What are you still doing here? It’s almost six,” he stood under the overhang with you, crouching to take a few feet off of his incredible height. 

“Sulking?”

“Ah,” he huffed and sat down next to you, “it’s not great for your posture, ya know.”

“Oh shut up, Tsukishima.”

“Remember when we were eight,” he looked up, studying the moths as they flew around the lights on the ceiling, “and you asked if you could call me Tsukki?”

“Vaguely, but we were eight.”

“Yeah, true” his head dramatically fell to his lap, staring at his knees as he chuckled, “but you can. Call me Tsukki, that is.”

An uncomfortable laugh fell from your lips, and he spoke for you, “this one kid, Koganegawa, the setter on Date Tech, calls me that too. It's not a Tadashi-only nickname anymore.”

“You say Tadashi-only like I wasn’t there first.”

“He never asked.”

“Would you have said no?”

“Probably” he hasn’t actually looked at you yet. 

“Should I not have asked?”

“It doesn’t matter anymore.”

“Okay, Tsukki” you drew out the last letter, giggling at the situation before you had time to think about your emotions.

He noticed that you weren’t crying anymore and helped you stand, grabbing your hand and pulling you up. Tsukishima and you lived closer than you thought, walking the same direction and only splitting up seconds away from your home.

You walked in silence the whole time, but it was comfortable. While he was your rival, he was always a friend. There was nothing scary or intimidating about him, as is with most people when you’ve known them forever; it was almost like his facade just didn’t work on you. You were huddled close to him to stay out of the rain. 

The second you parted ways, you ran home. The rain was more of a drizzle now, but the temperature began a free fall--getting out of the cold as fast as possible was your first priority. Upon entering the front door and taking off your shoes and jacket, leaving everything to sit in the entryway, you took a shower. The rain didn’t do enough to wash away the pain of the day, and warm steam would let the rest evaporate. The expected unrelenting sadness wasn’t really present as much as was expected, though. Everything felt fine. Content. Okay.

-

And it continued that way. He sent you a snapchat asking if you had gotten home safely, which prompted a memory of you never giving each other your phone numbers. After a quick yes, tsukki. no need to worry ;), you sent him your number asking to play some game.

Whatever is meant to happen does, right? Any excuse for falling for him. You didn’t want to, of course, but things happen. Time changes. Thus, the excuses. Thus, the ignorance. Thus, the five stages of grief. 

It started with the denial, because no Y/N you can’t like Tsukishima Kei. He’s so competitive and mean and snarky and horrible and you hate him! Then, the anger, because Tsukishima sucks and he’s horrible and you’re going to punch him in his stupid cute face. Next, the bargaining, because please don’t let this be happening you’ll do anything to lose these feelings, even if it means letting him win at something. Going into the depression, because all you’ve ever wanted was to be free of this assclown and now you’re stuck thinking about him at three in the morning when you’re supposed to be dreaming about anything other than him. And finally, acceptance, when you scowl at him in the hallway because fuck, you like Tsukishima Kei.

The worst bit of acceptance is getting over it. Now you had to confront your feelings. Now you needed to tell him. 

It was roughly five months since he found you sulking on school grounds, and you regretted most days the way you let him text you every morning. It’d always be something stupid, like a joke about the novel you were reading in lit or sometimes he’d tell you, off hand, something dumb Hinata and Kageyama did at practice. Sometimes he’d text you, within the first twenty minutes of the school day, pointing out something little you did with your hair. They were never really compliments as much as comments; he’d say “your socks have a pink ring at the top” and give you nothing to work with from there. A simple yes would suffice, you always supposed, because “yes, tsukki. they do.”

He’d linger at his desk during the break between classes and would stay there if you didn’t leave, but would leave a few steps behind you if you did. He wouldn’t follow you, but he’d watch to know where you were going. Everything he did was concealed though--you'd only notice if you really wanted to know.

Yamaguchi was the only one to notice, even after a while of it. You’ll never know what he said to his friend, but the conversation you had with the aforementioned friend a day later gives some guesses.

“Y/N?” Tsukishima was never the shy type, and you knew him in the days where everyone was shy. He wasn’t loud, but he was bold. His words were always pointed and important. Everything he did always had purpose and intensity behind it.

“Tsukki?” You were sitting under a tree, enjoying the late spring weather of the beginning of your third year. Nothing became intense yet classwork wise, so there was ample time to chill on the school grounds. Overlooking the soccer field was a large oak tree. It was big enough to comfortably have multiple groups of people under its shade, but it was empty at the moment; save for you and the book you were reading.

“I was just wondering if you’d like to maybe go out sometime?” He somehow didn’t pause while talking, but his words came out more something akin to word vomit. You we’re more shocked than you should have been, if you had picked up on the signs. But you were feeling the same as he was, as far as you could tell.

“Sure, when?” You looked back down at your book for a second, placing the bookmark in it and folding the pages shut.

Tsukishima looked dumbfounded, standing there with his eyes bugged out and his mouth slightly agape. He started making unintelligible babbling noises, hoping to get something out that had any meaning at all. You took the reins instead, gaining confidence in his lack thereof.

“I was planning on getting coffee or something today after school. It gets really cold at night now, huh?”

“Yeah, I suppose.”

“Would you like to join me?”

“There's a break before practice today so” he hesitated, letting the pink in his cheeks finally catch up to the beating in his chest. “Sure.”

You wouldn’t have ever pegged Tsukishima Kei as the flustered type.

-

There was never a drop in conversation, as there never really was between you two. A whole life together and you still had things to talk about, mentioning everything from your individual childhoods to recent developments. Turns out he never knew what genre of books were your favorite. Or what kind of music you listened to. Or what any of your hobbies were. 

Turns out you both had more in common than you thought, competitive spirits notwithstanding. Tsukishima Kei was a strange man in every sense of the word. He was arrogant and snarky and disinterested and bright and passionate and smart. He was your rival, smug look plastered on his smug face making your chest bubble in anger just as it had a million times before--or was that admiration this time? The world may never know. 

All that was real right now was the deck of cards on the table, being separated out into a card game both of you learned as kids. The small, round, cafe table shook with every slap of your hands, but the basis of your relationship would always be competition. It's just that now the anger behind that competition was gone. All that was left was admiration. 

[quill-of-thoth]

So I briefly adopted dreamwidth in the days immediately following the collapse of livejournal, and if you were looking for Livejournal 2 with several extra features it worked well! But around the same time there was tumblr and the rise of fandom twitter, which was great specifically for artists because it lowered the barrier of entry for images. You see, anybody who knew where the real text editor was on dreamwidth could put out a well formatted essay or fic or even (Although that was less the style) a two line shitpost. But to embed images you had to make accounts with image sharing sites, upload images there, copy and paste their embed codes into the image adder in the blog (or in html into your comment) and then six months later when fucking photobucket decided that there were no free accounts anymore do it all over again or have nobody ever engage with that work again. (This was especially bad in the sims 2 and 3 fandoms because the stories were half screenshots. But if you've ever seen a fic on AO3 with a fancy photoshopped header? We all used to be nuts about those, and everyone who had ever pirated photoshop or one of it's clones, or gotten free picture editor software with their digital camera, could make average quality illuminations for their blog.) So most of fandom, and the more meta fandoms, and a decent amount of original fiction for fun and profit moved over to tumblr, with the idea that of course we'd all do our stupid puns and our art and our recommendations lists there, and when we advertised people would click through for the properly formatted essays and fic and lovingly captioned birthday present gifsets in Baskerville Old style. They'd leave the personal happy birthday messages and the debates (actual debates, like with two sides respectfully outlining their opinions) in the comments there. And then smartphones became the only phones you could get, every social media became an app that you had to download to even get into the site on your phone and nobody ever clicked through again, or at least, not enough compared to either the old days or the information firehose of social media. The conversations moved here until everyone realized that it took zero work compared to blogs and forums to have randos yelling at you in your own blog here and we all became strangers again. And you can't find an old post for shit, so the only reading lists that survive are fandom rec blogs that largely link to other sites (but fandom has enough people they can afford to have a tenth or less of the people seeing a post actually click through: people who want to talk about writing don't) Also, and I think this may be key: If you were a giant piece of shit in public in the days of blogs and forums you very easily lost access to fandom and writing content. Because people could block you, entire sites could ban you, and reblogging was not a big thing. It's not like that kind of moderation always happened, but it easily could. Nobody put up a TERFS DNI, not because we were not aware that they were shitheads, but because when some lady came screaming into your blog about how you were a disgrace to womanhood you didn't have to know there was a vast political history of her precise brand of shittiness, you (especially if you were a rec list or forum admin) could prevent her from getting to see the work you made basically ever again, and often the work of other people too. And it also took a lot more work to start an argument over whether or not you liked a book.

Do you think that an internet writing community of an old-fashioned sort might be better built up on Dreamwidth than social media these days? Your recent post made me wonder, as you brought up livejournal (and also because of how DW kinda forces a specific type of "interact or this site is useless" environment)

I've never used Dreamwidth, so I honestly have no idea. Someone with more experience with that would have to comment.

I know Critique Circle tries to require engagement, but I don't think it really works well in my experience. The old NaNo site and its forums were good, but they redesigned the site and the forums and lost a lot of it, and I don't like what they did with the place. There was an active writing community on AQC for a while that I was part of, but it's long since died. Absolute Write has one, but I'm fairly certain it's less active than it used to be; the same with the forums on Query Tracker.

Forums just seem less popular than they used to be, and a lot of community building and the kinds of communities it fostered have died with it.

There's some sites even today that have active comment communities--hell, even things like Ask a Manager do. I actually had old-school style comments enabled on my blog for the longest time, but you have to actually go to the blog post to actually access the comment threads, and...no one uses those on Tumblr? So I just stopped bothering and ended up removing it during a blog theme retooling.

I just wanna have a conversation with people, and it's getting so, so hard to find anywhere online that allows for it.

I think what would be good to help foster an older-style writing community would include the necessary requirements:

A place where people can post their own work or about their own work in a categorized way

A place to have public comments that are easily accessible from the work/post itself and easy to thread comment conversations.

A violation of the current temporalness of posts online: things need to sit around and not get locked and still be willing to comment on old things and threads.

DMs enabled

Encouraged posting of multiple topics and multiple formats, not just the works themselves

But I think the real problem is that the internet culture has just...changed. People get anxious talking about their writing and work these days. People get weird about being genuine about things. People get weird commenting on older things or letting things sit. People forget about older stuff. People get weird talking in depth about intellectual things. A lot of writing internet communities have taken a total fandom bent and fandom culture would have to be removed from it.

I don't know that internet culture has taken the steps in the direction to foster the kinds of thing I want. People use fanfic for all of their "silly" writing or practice writing or trying new things and all of their original writing is Serious and Important and Very Secret and quite possibly doesn't actually exist.

Forum culture enabled a way to have users talk about multiple things in an organized way that was neatly archived. It enabled conversations of more than one reply without drowning a "feed." It enabled a different kind of culture than most websites today do.

[armageddon-generation]

Articulating Why His Dark Materials is Badly Written

A long essay-thing with lots of specific examples and explanations of why I feel this way. Hopefully I’ve kept fanboy bitching to a minimum.

This isn’t an attack on fans of the show, nor a personal attack on Jack Thorne. I’m not looking to ruin anyone’s enjoyment of the show, I just needed to properly articulate, with examples, why I struggle with it. I read and love the books and that colours my view, but I believe that HDM isn’t just a clumsy, at-best-functional, sometimes incompetent adaptation, it’s a bad TV show separate from its source material. The show is the blandest, least interesting and least engaging version of itself it could be.

His Dark Materials has gorgeous production design and phenomenal visual effects. It's well-acted. The score is great. But my god is it badly written. Jack Thorne writing the entire first season damned the show. There was no-one to balance out his flaws and biases. Thorne is checking off a list of plot-points, so concerned with manoeuvring the audience through the story he forgets to invest us in it. The scripts are mechanical, empty, flat.

Watching HDM feels like an impassioned fan earnestly lecturing you on why the books are so good- (Look! It's got other worlds and religious allegory and this character Lyra is really, really important I swear. Isn't Mrs Coulter crazy? The Gyptians are my favourites.) rather than someone telling the story naturally.

My problems fall into 5 main categories:

Exposition- An unwillingness to meaningfully expand the source material for a visual medium means Thorne tells and doesn't show crucial plot-points. He then repeats the same thing multiple times because he doesn't trust his audience

Pacing- By stretching out the books and not trusting his audience Thorne dedicates entire scenes to one piece of information and repeats himself constantly (see: the Witches' repetition of the prophecy in S2).

Narrative priorities- Thorne prioritises human drama over fantasy. This makes sense budgetarily, but leads to barely-present Daemons, the Gyptians taking up too much screentime, rushed/badly written Witches (superpowers, exposition) and Bears (armourless bear fight), and a Lyra more focused on familial angst than the joy of discovery

Tension and Mystery- because HDM is in such a hurry to set up its endgame it gives you the answers to S1's biggest mysteries immediately- other worlds, Lyra's parents, what happens to the kids etc. This makes the show less engaging and feel like it's playing catch-up to the audience, not the other way around.

Tonal Inconsistency- HDM tries to be a slow-paced, grounded, adult drama, but its blunt, simplistic dialogue and storytelling methods treat the audience like children that need to be lectured.

MYSTERY, SUSPENSE AND INTRIGUE

The show undercuts all the books’ biggest mysteries. Mrs Coulter is set up as a villain before we meet her, other worlds are revealed in 1x2, Lyra's parents by 1x3, what the Magesterium do to kids is spelled out long before Lyra finds Billy (1x2). I understand not wanting to lose new viewers, but neutering every mystery kills momentum and makes the show much less engaging.

This extends to worldbuilding. The text before 1x1 explains both Daemons and Lyra's destiny before we meet her. Instead of encouraging us to engage with the world and ask questions, we're given all the answers up front and told to sit back and let ourselves be spoon-fed. The viewer is never an active participant, never encouraged to theorise or wonder

 Intrigue motivated you to engage with Pullman's philosophical themes and concepts. Without it, HDM feels like a lecture, a theme park ride and not a journey.

The only one of S1's mysteries left undiminished is 'what is Dust?', which won't be properly answered until S3, and that answer is super conceptual and therefore hard to make dramatically satisfying

TONAL INCONSISTENCY

HDM billed itself as a HBO-level drama, and was advertised as a GoT inheritor. It takes itself very seriously- the few attempts at humour are stilted and out of place

The production design is deliberately subdued, most notably choosing a mid-twentieth century aesthetic for Lyra’s world over the late-Victorian of the books or steampunk of the movie. The colour grading would be appropriate for a serious adult drama. 

Reviewers have said this stops the show feeling as fantastical as it should. It also makes Lyra’s world less distinct from our own. 

Most importantly, minimising the wondrous fantasy of S1 neuters its contrast with the escalating thematic darkness of the finale (from 1x5 onwards), and the impact of Roger’s death. Pullman's books are an adult story told through the eyes of a child. Lyra’s innocence and naivety in the first book is the most important journey of the trilogy. Instead, the show starts serious and thematically heavy (we’re told Lyra has world-saving importance before we even meet her) and stays that way.

Contrasting the serious tone, grounded design and poe-faced characters, the dialogue is written to cater to children. It’s horrendously blunt and pulls you out of scenes. Subtext is obliterated at every opportunity. Even in the most recent episode, 2x7, Pan asks Lyra ‘do you think you’re changing because of Will?’

I cannot understate how on the nose this line is, and how much it undercuts the themes of the final book. Instead of even a meaningful shot of Lyra looking at Will, the show treats the audience like complete idiots. 

So, HDM looks and advertises itself like an adult drama and is desperate to be taken seriously by wearing its big themes on its sleeve from the start instead of letting them evolve naturally out of subtext like the books, and dedicating lots of scenes to Mrs Coulter's self-abuse 

At the same time its dialogue and character writing is comparable to the Star Wars prequels, more childish than media aimed at a similar audience - Harry Potter, Doctor Who, Avatar the Last Airbender etc

DAEMONS

The show gives itself a safety net by explaining Daemons in an opening text-crawl, and so spends less time showing the mechanics of the Daemon-human bond. On the HDM subreddit, I’ve seen multiple people get to 1x5 or 6, and then come to reddit asking basic questions like ‘why do only some people have Daemons?’ or ‘Why are Daemons so important?’.

It’s not that the show didn’t answer these questions; it was in the opening text-crawl. It’s just the show thinks telling you is enough and never shows evidence to back that up. Watching a TV show you remember what you’re shown much easier than what you’re told 

The emotional core of Northern Lights is the relationship between Lyra and Pan. The emotional core of HDM S1 is the relationship between Lyra and Mrs Coulter. This wouldn't be bad- it's a fascinating dynamic Ruth plays wonderfully- if it didn't override the Daemons

Daemons are only onscreen when they serve a narrative purpose. Thorne justifies this because the books only describe Daemons when they tell us about their human. On the page your brain fills the Daemons in. This doesn't work on-screen; you cannot suspend your disbelief when their absence is staring you in the face

Thorne clarified the number of Daemons as not just budgetary, but a conscious creative choice to avoid onscreen clutter. This improved in S2 after vocal criticism.

Mrs Coulter/the Golden Monkey and Lee/Hester have well-drawn relationships in S1, but Pan and Lyra hug more in the 2-hour Golden Compass movie than they do in the 8-hour S1 of HDM. There's barely any physical contact with Daemons at all.

They even cut Pan and Lyra's hug after escaping the Cut in Bolvangar. In the book they can't let go of each other. The show skips it completely because Thorne wants to focus on Mrs Coulter and Lyra.

They cut Pan and Lyra testing how far apart they can be. They cut Lyra freeing the Cut Daemons in Bolvangar with the help of Kaisa. We spent extra time with both Roger and Billy Costa, but didn't develop their bonds with their Daemons- the perfect way to make the Cut more impactful

I don't need every single book scene in the show, but notice that all these cut scenes reinforced how important Daemons are. For how plodding the show is. you'd think they could spare time for these moments instead of inventing new conversations that tell us the information they show

Daemons are treated as separate beings and thus come across more like talking pets than part of a character

The show sets the rules of Daemons up poorly. In 1x2, Lyra is terrified by the Monkey being so far from Coulter, but the viewer has nothing to compare it to. We’re retroactively told in that this is unnatural when the show has yet to establish what ‘natural’ is.

The guillotine blueprint in 1x2 (‘Is that a human and his Daemon, Pan? It looks like it.’ / ‘A blade. To cut what?’) is idiotic. It deflates S1’s main mystery and makes the characters look stupid for not figuring out what they aren’t allowed to until they did in the source material, it also interferes with how the audience sees Daemons. In the book, Cutting isn’t revealed until two-thirds of the way in (1x5). By then we’ve spent a lot of time with Daemons, they’ve become a background part of the world, their ‘rules’ have been established, and we’re endeared to them.

By showing the Guillotine and putting Daemons under threat in the second episode, the show never lets us grow attached. This, combined with their selective presence in scenes, draws attention to Daemons as a plot gimmick and not a natural extension of characters. Like Lyra, the show tells us why Daemons are important before we understand them.

Billy Costa's fate falls flat. It's missing the dried fish/ fake Daemon Tony Markos clings to in the book. Thorne said this 'didn't work' on the day, but it worked in the film. Everyone yelling about Billy not having a Daemon is laughable when most of the background extras in the same scene don't have Daemons themselves

WITCHES

The Witches are the most common complaint about the show. Thorne changed Serafina Pekkala in clever, logical ways (her short hair, wrist-knives and cloud pine in the skin)

The problem is how Serafina is written. The Witches are purely exposition machines. We get no impression of their culture, their deep connection to nature, their understanding of the world. We are told it. It is never shown, never incorporated into the dramatic action of the show.

Thorne emphasises Serafina's warrior side, most obviously changing Kaisa from a goose into a gyrfalcon (apparently a goose didn't work on-screen)

Serafina single-handedly slaughtering the Tartars is bad in a few ways. It paints her as bloodthirsty and ruthless. Overpowering the Witches weakens the logic of the world (If they can do that, why do they let the Magesterium bomb them unchallenged in 2x2?). It strips the Witches of their subtlety and ambiguity for the sake of cinematic action.

A side-effect of Serafina not being with her clan at Bolvangar is limiting our exposure to the Witches. Serafina is the only one invested in the main plot, we only hear about them from what she tells us. This poor set-up weakens the Witch subplot in S2

Lyra doesn’t speak to Serafina until 2x6. She laid eyes on her once in S1.

The dialogue in the S2’s Witch subplot is comparable to the Courasant section of The Phantom Menace. 

Two named characters, neither with any depth (Serafina and Coram's dead son developed him far more than her). The costumes look ostentatious and hokey- the opposite of what the Witches should be. They do nothing but repeat the same exposition at each other, even in 2x7.

We feel nothing when the Witches are bombed because the show never invests us in what is being destroyed- with the amount of time wasted on long establishing shots, there’s not one when Lee Scoresby is talking to the Council.

BEARS

Like the Witches; Thorne misunderstands and rushes the fantasy elements of the story. The 2007 movie executed both Iofur's character and the Bear Fight much better than the show- bloodless jaw-swipe and all

Iofur's court was not the parody of human court in the books. He didn't have his fake-Daemon (hi, Billy)

An armourless bear fight is like not including Pan in the cutting scene. After equating Iorek's armour to a Daemon (Lee does this- we don’t even learn how important it is from Iorek himself, and the comparison meant less because of how badly the show set up Daemons) the show then cuts the plotpoint that makes the armour plot-relevant. This diminishes all of Bear society. Like Daemons, we're told Iorek's armour is important but it's never shown to be more than a cool accessory

GYPTIANS

Gyptians suffer from Hermoine syndrome. Harry Potter screenwriter Steve Kloves' favourite character was Hermione, and so Film!Hermoine lost most of Book!Hermoine's flaws and gained several of Book!Ron's best moments. The Gyptians are Jack Thorne's favourite group in HDM and so they got the extra screentime and development that the more complicated groups/concepts like Witches, Bears, and Daemons (which, unlike the Gyptians, carry over to other seasons amd are more important to the overall story) needed

At the same time, he changes them from a private people into an Isle of Misfit Toys. TV!Ma Costa promises they'll ‘make a Gyptian woman out of Lyra yet’, but in the book Ma specifically calls Lyra out for pretending to be Gyptian, and reminds her she never can be.

This small moment indicates how, while trying to make the show more grounded and 'adult', Thorne simultaneously made it more saccharine and sentimental. He neuters the tragedy of the Cut kids when Ma Costa says they’ll become Gyptians. Pullman's books feel like an adult story told through the eyes of a child. The TV show feels like a child's story masquerading as a serious drama.

LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA

Let me preface this by saying I genuinely really enjoy the performances in the show. It was shot in the foot by The Golden Compass' perfect casting.

The most contentious/'miscast' actor among readers is LMM. Thorne ditched the books' wise Texan for a budget Han Solo. LMM isn't a great dramatic actor (even in Hamilton he was the weak link performance-wise) but he makes up for it in marketability- lots of people tried the show because of him

Readers dislike that LMM's Lee is a thief and a scoundrel, when book-Lee is so moral he and Hester argue about stealing. Personally, I like the change in concept. Book!Lee's parental love for Lyra just appears. It's sweet, but not tied to a character arc. Done right, Lyra out-hustling Lee at his own game and giving him a noble cause to fight for (thus inspiring the moral compass of the books) is a more compelling arc.

DAFNE KEENE AND LYRA

I thought Dafne would be perfect casting. Her feral energy in Logan seemed a match made in heaven. Then Jack Thorne gave her little to do with it.

Compare how The Golden Compass introduced Lyra, playing Kids and Gobblers with a group of Gyptian kids, including Billy Costa. Lyra and Roger are chased to Jordan by the Gyptians and she makes up a lie about a curse to scare the Gyptians away.

In one scene the movie set up: 1) the Gobblers (the first we hear of them in the show is in retrospect, Roger worrying AFTER Billy is taken) 2) Lyra’s pre-existing relationship with the Gyptians (not in the show), 3) Friendship with Billy Costa (not in the book or show) 4) Lyra’s ability to befriend and lead groups of people, especially kids, and 5) Lyra’s ability to lie impressively

By comparison, it takes until midway through 1x2 for TV!Lyra to tell her first lie, and even then it’s a paper-thin attempt. 

The show made Roger Lyra’s only friend. This artificially heightens the impact of Roger's death, but strips Lyra of her leadership qualities and ability to befriend anyone. 

Harry Potter fans talk about how Book!Harry is funnier and smarter than Film!Harry. They cut his best lines ('There's no need to call me sir, Professor') and made him blander and more passive. The same happened to Lyra.

Most importantly, Lyra is not allowed to lie for fun. She can't do anything 'naughty' without being scolded. This colours the few times Lyra does lie (e.g. to Mrs Coulter in 1x2) negatively and thus makes Lyra out to be more of a brat than a hero.

This is a problem with telling Northern Lights from an outside, 'adult' perspective- to most adults Lyra is a brat. Because we’re introduced to her from inside her head, we think she's great. It's only when we meet her through Will's eyes in The Subtle Knife and she's filthy, rude and half-starved that we realise Lyra bluffs her way through life and is actually pretty non-functional

Thorne prioritises grounded human drama over fantasy, and so his Lyra has her love of bears and witches swapped for familial angst. (and, in S2. angst over Roger). By exposing Mrs Coulter as her mother early, Thorne distracts TV!Lyra from Book!Lyra’s love of the North. The contrast between wonder and reality made NL's ending a definitive threshold between innocence and knowledge. Thorne showed his hand too early.

Similarly, TV!Lyra doesn’t have anywhere near as strong an admiration for Lord Asriel. She calls him out in 1x8 (‘call yourself a Father’), which Book!Lyra never would because she’s proud to be his child. From her perspective, at this point Asriel is the good parent.

TV!Lyra’s critique of Asriel feels like Thorne using her as a mouthpiece to voice his own, adult perspective on the situation. Because Lyra is already disappointed in Asriel, his betrayal in the finale isn’t as effective. Pullman saves the ‘you’re a terrible Father’ call-out for the 3rd book for a reason; Lyra’s naive hero-worship of Asriel in Northern Lights makes the fall from Innocence into Knowledge that Roger’s death represents more effective.  

So, on TV Lyra is tamer, angstier, more introverted, less intelligent, less fun and more serious. We're just constantly told she's important, even before we meet her.

MRS COULTER (AND LORD ASRIEL)

Mrs Coulter is the main character of the show. Not Lyra. Mrs Coulter was cast first, and Lyra was cast based on a chemistry test with Ruth Wilson. Coulter’s character is given lots of extra development, where the show actively strips Lyra of her layers.

To be clear, I have no problem with developing Mrs Coulter. She is a great character Ruth Wilson plays phenomenally. I do have a problem with the show fixating on her at the expense of other characters.

Lyra's feral-ness is given to her parents. Wilson and McAvoy are more passionate than in the books. This is fun to watch, but strips them of subtlety- you never get Book!Coulter's hypnotic allure from Wilson, she's openly nasty, even to random strangers (in 2x3 her dismissal of the woman at the hotel desk felt like a Disney villain). 

Compare how The Golden Compass (2007) introduced Mrs Coulter through Lyra’s eyes, with light, twinkling music and a sparkling dress. By contrast, before the show introduces Coulter it tells us she’s associated with the evil Magisterium plotting Asriel’s death- “Not a word to any of our mutual friends. Including her.” Then she’s introduced striding down a corridor to imposing ‘Bad Guy’ strings.

Making Mrs Coulter’s villainy so obvious so early makes Lyra look dumber for falling for it. It also wastes an interesting phase of her character arc. Coulter is rushed into being a ’conflicted evil mother’ in 2 episodes, and stays in that phase for the rest of the show so far. Character progression is minimised because she circles the same place.

It makes her one-note. It's a good note (so much of the positive online chatter is saphiccs worshiping Ruth Wilson) but the show also worships her to the point of hindrance- e.g. take a shot every time Coulter walks slow-motion down a corridor in 2x2

The problem isn’t the performances, but how prematurely they give the game away. Just like the mysteries around Bolvangar and Lyra’s parentage. Neither Coulter or Asriel have much chance to use their 'public' faces. 

This is part of a bigger pacing problem- instead of rolling plot points out gradually, Thorne will stick the solution in front of you early and then stall for time until it becomes relevant. Instead of building tension this builds frustration and makes the show feel like it's catching up to the audience. This also makes the characters less engaging. You've already shown Mrs Coulter is evil/Boreal is in our world/Asriel wants Roger. Why are you taking so long getting to the point?

PACING AND EDITING

This show takes forever to make its point badly.

Scenes in HDM tend to operate on one level- either 'Character Building,' 'Exposition,' or 'Plot Progression'.

E.g. Mary's introduction in 2x2. Book!Mary only listens to Lyra because she’s sleep and caffeine-deprived and desperate because her funding is being cut. But the show stripped that subtext out and created an extra scene of a colleague talking to Mary about funding. They removed emotional subtext to focus on exposition, and so the scene felt empty and flat.

In later episodes characters Mary’s sister and colleagues do treat her like a sleep-deprived wreck. But, just like Lyra’s lying, the show doesn’t establish these characteristics in her debut episode. It waits until later to retroactively tell us they were there. Mary’s colleague saying ‘What we’re dealing with here is the fact that you haven’t slept in weeks’ is as flimsy as Pan joking not lying to Mary will be hard for Lyra.

Rarely does a scene work on multiple levels, and if it does it's clunky- see the exposition dump about Daemon Separation in the middle of 2x2's Witch Trial.

He also splits plot progression into tiny doses, which destroys pacing. It's more satisfying to focus on one subplot advancing multiple stages than all of them shuffling forward half a step each episode.

Subplots would be more effective if all the scenes played in sequence. As it is, plotlines can’t build momentum and literal minutes are wasted using the same establishing shots every time we switch location.

The best-structured episodes of S1 are 1x4, 1x6, and 1x8. This is because they have the fewest subplots (incidentally these episodes have least Boreal in them) and so the main plot isn’t diluted by constantly cutting away to Mrs Coulter sniffing Lyra’s coat or Will watching a man in a car through his window, before cutting back again. 

The best-written episode so far is 2x5. The Scholar. Tellingly, it’s the only episode Thorne doesn’t have even a co-writing credit on. 2x5 is well-paced, its dialogue is more naturalistic, it’s more focused, it even has time for moments of whimsy (Monkey with a seatbelt, Mrs Coulter with jeans, Lyra and Will whispering) that don’t detract from the story.

Structurally, 2x5  works because A) it benches Lee’s plotline. B) The Witches and Magisterium are relegated to a scene each. And C) the Coulter/Boreal and Lyra/Will subplots move towards the same goal. Not only that, but when we check in on Mary’s subplot it’s through Mrs Coulter’s eyes and directly dovetails into the  main action of the episode.

2x5 has a lovely sense of narrative cohesion because it has the confidence to sit with one set of characters for longer than two scenes at a time.

HDM also does this thing where it will have a scene with plot A where characters do or talk about something, cut away to plot B for a scene, then cut back to plot A where the characters talk about what happened in their last scene and painstakingly explain how they feel about it and why

Example: Pan talking to Will in 2x7 while Lyra pretends to be asleep. This scene is from the 3rd book, and is left to breathe for many chapters before Lyra brings it up. In the show after the Will/Pan scene they cut away to another scene, then cut back and Lyra instantly talks about it.

There’s the same problem in 2x5: After escaping Mrs Coulter, Lyra spells out how she feels about acting like her

The show never leaves room for implication, never lets us draw our own conclusions before explaining what it meant and how the characters feel about it immediately afterwards. The audience are made passive in their engagement with the characters as well as the world    

LORD BOREAL, JOHN PARRY AND DIMINISHING RETURNS

At first, Boreal’s subplot in S1 felt bold and inspired. The twist of his identity in The Subtle Knife would've been hard to pull off onscreen anyway. As a kid I struggled to get past Will's opening chapter of TSK and I have friends who were the same. Introducing Will in S1 and developing him alongside Lyra was a great idea.

I loved developing Elaine Parry and Boreal into present, active characters. But the subplot was introduced too early and moved too slowly, bogging down the season.

In 1x2 Boreal crosses. In 1x3 we learn who he's looking for. In 1x5 we meet Will. In 1x7 the burglary. 1 episode worth of plot is chopped up and fed to us piecemeal across many. Boreal literally stalls for two episodes before the burglary- there are random 30 second shots of him sitting in a car watching John Parry on YouTube (videos we’d already seen) completely isolated from any other scenes in the episode

By the time we get to S2 we've had 2 seasons of extended material building up Boreal, so when he just dies like in the books it's anticlimactic. The show frontloads his subplot with meaning without expanding on its payoff, so the whole thing fizzles out. 

Giving Boreal, the secondary villain in literally every episode, the same death as a background character in about 5 scenes in the novels feels cheap. It doesn’t help that, after 2x5 built the tension between Coulter and Boreal so well, as soon as Thorne is passed the baton in 2x6 he does little to maintain that momentum. Again, because the subplot is crosscut with everything else the characters hang in limbo until Coulter decides to kill him.

I’ve been watching non-book readers react to the show, and several were underwhelmed by Boreal’s quick, unceremonious end. 

Similarly, the show builds up John Parry from 1x3 instead of just the second book. Book!John’s death is an anticlimax but feels narratively justified. In the show, we’ve spent so much extra time talking about him and then being with him (without developing his character beyond what’s in the novels- Pullman even outlined John’s backstory in The Subtle Knife’s appendix. How hard would it be to add a flashback or two?) that when John does nothing in the show and then dies (he doesn’t even heal Will’s fingers like in the book- only tell him to find Asriel, which the angels Baruch and Balthamos do anyway) it doesn’t feel like a clever, tragic subversion of our expectations, it feels like a waste that actively cheapens the audience’s investment.

TL;DR giving supporting characters way more screentime than they need only, to give their deaths the same weight the books did after far less build up makes huge chunks of the show feel less important than they were presented to be. 

FRUSTRATINGLY LIMITED EXPANSION AND NOVELLISTIC STORYTELLING

Thorne is unwilling to meaningfully develop or expand characters and subplots to fit a visual medium. He introduces a plot-point, invents unnecessary padding around it, circles it for an hour, then moves on.

Pullman’s books are driven by internal monologue and big, complex theological concepts like Daemons and Dust. Instead of finding engaging, dynamic ways to dramatise these concepts through the actions of characters or additions to the plot, Thorne turns Pullman’s internal monologue into dialogue and has the characters explain them to the audience

The novels’ perspective on its characters is narrow, first because Northern Lights is told only from Lyra’s POV, and second because Pullman’s writing is plot-driven, not character-driven. Characters are vessels for the plot and themes he wants to explore.

This is a fine way of writing novels. When adapting the books into a longform drama, Thorne decentralised Lyra’s perspective from the start, and HDM S1 uses the same multi-perspective structure that The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass do, following not only Lyra but the Gyptians, Mrs Coulter, Boreal, Will and Elaine etc

However, these other perspectives are limited. We never get any impression of backstory or motivation beyond the present moment. Many times I’ve seen non-book readers confused or frustrated by vague or non-existent character motivations.

For example, S1 spends a lot of time focused on Ma Costa’s grief over Billy’s disappearance, but we never see why she’s sad, because we never saw her interact with Billy.

Compare this to another show about a frantic mother and older brother looking for a missing boy. Stranger Things uses only two flashbacks to show us Will Byers’ relationships with his family: 1) When Joyce Byers looks in his Fort she remembers visiting Will there. 2) The Clash playing on the radio reminds Jonathan Byers of introducing Will to the song.

In His Dark Materials we never see the Costas as a happy family- 1x1’s Gyptian ceremony focuses on Tony and Daemon-exposition. Billy never speaks to his mum or brother in the show 

Instead we have Ma Costa’s empty grief. The audience has to do the work (the bad kind) imagining what she’s lost. Instead of seeing Billy, it’s just repeated again and again that they will get the children back.

If we’re being derivative, HDM had the chance to segway into a Billy flashback when John Faa brings one of his belongings back from a Gobbler safehouse in 1x2. This is a perfect The Clash/Fort Byers-type trigger. It doesn’t have to be long- the Clash flashback lasted 1:27, the Fort Byers one 55 seconds. Just do something.

1x3 beats into us that Mrs Coulter is nuts without explaining why. Lots of build-up for a single plot-point. Then we're told Mrs Coulter's origin, not shown. This is a TV show. Swap Boreal's scenes for flashbacks of Coulter and Asriel's affair. Then, when Ma Costa tells Lyra the truth, show the fight between Edward Coulter and Asriel.

To be clear, Thorne's additions aren’t fundamentally bad. For example, Will boxing sets up his struggle with violence. But it's wasted. The burglary/murder in 1x7 fell flat because of bad editing, but the show never uses its visual medium to show Will's 'violent side'- no change in camera angle, focus, or sound design, nothing. It’s just a thing that’s there, unsupported by the visual language of the show

The Magisterium scenes in 2x2 were interesting. We just didn't need 5 of them; their point could be made far more succinctly.

In 2x6 there is a minute-long scene of Mary reading the I Ching. Later, there is another scene of Angelica watching Mary sitting somewhere different, doing the SAME THING, and she sees an Angel. Why split these up? It’s not like either the I Ching or the Angels are being introduced here. Give the scene multiple layers.

Thorne either takes good character moments from the books (Lyra/Will in 2x1) or uses heavy-handed exposition that reiterates the same point multiple times. This hobbles the Witches (their dialogue in 2x1, 2 and 3 literally rephrases the same sentiment about protecting Lyra without doing anything). Even character development- see Lee monologuing his and Mrs Coulter's childhood trauma in specific detail in 2x3

This is another example of Thorne adding something, but instead of integrating it into the dramatic action and showing us, it’s just talked about. What’s the point of adding big plot points if you don’t dramatise them in your dramatic, visual medium? In 2x8, Lee offhandedly mentions playing Alamo Gulch as a kid.

I’m literally screaming, Jack, why the flying fuck wasn’t there a flashback of young Lee and Hester playing Alamo Gulch and being stopped by his abusive dad? It’s not like you care about pacing with the amount of dead air in these episodes, even when S2’s run 10 minutes shorter than S1’s. Lee was even asleep at the beginning of 2x3, Jack! He could’ve woken from a nightmare about his childhood! It’s a little lazy, but better than nothing.

There’s a similar missed opportunity making Dr Lanselius a Witchling. If this idea had been introduced with the character in 1x4, it would’ve opened up so many storytelling possibilities. Linking to Fader Coram’s own dead witchling son. It could’ve given us that much-needed perspective on Witch culture. Imagine Lanselius’ bittersweet meeting with his ageless mother, who gave him up when he reached manhood. Then, when the Magisterium bombs the Witches in 2x2, Lanselius’ mother dies so it means something.

Instead it’s only used to facilitate an awkward exposition dump in the middle of a trial.

The point of this fanfic-y ramble is to illustrate my frustration with the additions; If Thorne had committed and meaningfully expanded and interwoven them with the source material, they could’ve strengthened its weakest aspect (the characters). But instead he stays committed to novelistic storytelling techniques of monologue and two people standing in a room talking at each other

(Seriously, count the number of scenes that are just two people standing in a room or corridor talking to each other. No interesting staging, the characters aren’t doing anything else while talking. They. Just. Stand.) 

SEASON 2 IMPROVEMENTS

S2 improved some things- Lyra's characterisation was more book-accurate, her dynamic with Will was wonderful. Citigazze looked incredible. LMM won lots of book fans over as Lee. Mary was brilliantly cast. Now there are less Daemons, they're better characterised- Pan gets way more to do now and Hester had some lovely moments. 

I genuinely believe 2x1, 2x3, 2x4 and 2x5 are the best HDM has been. 

But new problems arose. The Subtle Knife lost the central, easy to understand drive of Northern Lights (finding the missing kids) for lots of smaller quests. As a result, everyone spends the first two episodes of S2 waiting for the plot to arrive. The big inciting incident of Lyra’s plotline is the theft of the alethiometer, which doesn’t happen until 2x3. Similarly, Lee doesn’t search for John until 2x3. Mrs Coulter doesn’t go looking for Lyra until 2x3. 

On top of missing a unifying dramatic drive, the characters now being split across 3 worlds, instead of the 1+a bit of ours in S1, means the pacing/crosscutting problems (long establishing shots, repetition of information, undercutting momentum) are even worse. The narrative feels scattered and incohesive.   

These flaws are inherent to the source  material and are not the show’s fault, but neither does it do much to counterbalance or address them, and the flaws of the show combine with the difficulties of TSK as source material and make each other worse.

A lot of this has been entitled fanboy bitching, but you can't deny the show is in a bad place ratings-wise. It’s gone from the most watched new British show in 5 years to the S2 premiere having a smaller audience than the lowest-rated episode of Doctor Who Series 12. For comparison, DW's current cast and showrunner are the most unpopular since the 80s, some are actively boycotting it, it took a year-long break between series 11 and 12, had its second-worst average ratings since 2005, and costs a fifth of what HDM does to make. And it's still being watched by more people.

Critical consensus fluctuates wildly. Most laymen call the show slow and boring. The show is simultaneously too niche and self-absorbed to attract a wide audience and gets just enough wrong to aggravate lots of fans.

I’m honestly unsure if S3 will get the same budget. I want it to, if only because of my investment in the books. Considering S2 started filming immediately after S1 aired, I think they've had a lot more time to process and apply critique for S3. On the plus side, there's so much plot in The Amber Spyglass it would be hard to have the same pacing problems. But also so many new concepts that I dread the exposition dumps.

[meloncubedradpops]

Repo! the Corona Opera: Part Two Fascist Boogaloo

Greetings fellow Repo! fans,

Here is my second installment of a series of three essays where I compare our contemporary times with the movie Repo! the Genetic Opera. My first piece detailed the similarities between the two worlds, and turns out, I have an awful lot to talk about still. I ended my last article by posing the question, "What went wrong in this dystopia to normalize the concept of death due to nonpayment?" No doubt, this movie is incredibly outrageous on many fronts, particularly within the dynamics of the Largo family. As mentioned in the previous piece, I highlighted the pervasiveness of GeneCo's power and influence towards the citizens in the city (is it called city of GeneCo? GeneCo-land? GenCity? An actual city in Italy??). 

People who write stories often bend the rules to make their story compelling. Be it exaggerating social interactions, creating scientifically impossible scenarios, or even allowing the characters to use technology that does not exist yet. I admit the creators of Repo! applied all those tactics and more, which makes the parallels I draw that much more surreal. I want to acknowledge this before I dive deeper because yes, I truly think it would be impossible to have a company who can offer cheap and dirty surgeries with an absence of debilitating class action lawsuits resulting from botched procedures, infection, or their body rejecting the organ transplant. And while I admit Zydrate does not exist, yet, but we do have a long history with opioid abuse. If you asked me when I first watched the movie if I think the Largo family could be a mirror of an ultra wealthy family from real life, I would have politely disagreed with you. But times right now are freaking weird. A single day does not go by where something completely outlandish is blasted all over the news, particularly in the United States. 

In my last essay I pointed out examples where the citizens in GenCity live a life after experiencing a mass extinction event. Besides the technological anachronisms, society and GeneCo have an uncomfortably close relationship with each other. GeneCo is not merely a corporation that offers healthcare and surgeries, it has an unyielding power politically too. I argue that GenCity is ran by a fascist government that is controlled and operated by GeneCo. 

If you're not a person who is super familiar with fascism, basically it's an extremist right wing government philosophy. I find it interesting that in the song "21st Century Cure", Graverobber says: Industrialization has crippled the globe. Although plagues, war, and other hardships existed before industrialization, that paradigm of change accelerated the imbalances between man and nature. Fascism did not exist until after World War I, after all. Between the world war itself and the Spanish Flu of 1918, there was a lot of pain and suffering felt all over the world. Fascists took advantage of vulnerable populations and asserted that their political party is the only correct party, and those who oppose are considered an enemy. Historically fascist governments have blurred the lines between the spheres of what's considered "public" and "private", and often danced harmoniously with business allies in pursuit of profit. As an effect, fascist governments have required citizens to foot the bill of a private company's losses. With enough propaganda, fascist governments will have you believing that this is ultimately for the betterment of everyone. And if you give them enough time, they will normalize terrible acts against humanity that barely make a peep, if the truth even comes to light. 

For the rest of this essay, I will be highlighting examples in the Repo! movie that correspond with characteristics of fascism, using political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt's The 14 Characteristics Of Fascism, which was published in the spring 2003 issue of Free Inquiry magazine.

The 14 characteristics are:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. 

The world surrounding GeneCo occupies itself with the concept that this incorporated area derives a sense of nationalism, in the absence of much dissent. If you see below, there is an advertisement on the top right corner that says, "Your Birthplace for a new Heredity". GeneCo is not just a company that sells organs and surgeries. It is its own incorporated city. This ad, combined with GeneCo's relentless messaging that not only did this company save humanity, you must conform to the idea that only GeneCo can provide you the experience of feeling clean, safe, and perfect.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

Being able to legally repossess someone's organs because they didn't make their organ payments is about as disdainful as you can get. Nathan has a whole song called "Legal Assassin", and there doesn't appear to be many laws that would at least have the pretense that these repossessions are remotely humane. There are multiple instances in the movie where Nathan approaches a client who is already restrained, panicked, and powerless. From what I can gather from the media in Gencity, GeneCo proliferates the idea that the company would be dysfunctional if people could get financed surgeries and let those payments go to collections. When you're a mega corporation, they let you do it.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

While the career of a Graverobber is certainly creepy and macabre, the idea that they could be executed without a jury of their peers is especially strange. After I created my last essay, my friend Veronica pointed out, that per "A Needle Into A Bug", one of the deleted scenes from the movie, that street zydrate is not actually derived from the brains of dead people. He extracts zydrate from bugs that nest inside the craniums of dead people, which in my opinion is a huge distinction. So who is he really stealing from? Is it morally okay to dig up a corpse to get drug goo to sell to junkies? Absolutely not, and the idea is incredibly disrespectful for the dead. And while I am sure there are graverobbers in this world that likely steal things like jewelry from corpses, I still wouldn't justify being executed extrajudicially. 

Further, Graverobber's relationship with the Largo family has me believing even more that GeneCo needs them more than their media campaign can justify. Rotti has access to incredible surveillance of the city, so you would think he would eliminate anyone who enabled Amber Sweet's addiction. My theory is GeneCo knows that street zydrate may result in more surgery sales. However they want to continue making money selling the lab-grown stuff. So the end justifies the means, if we can associate graverobbers and those who use street zydrate as criminals, we can continue believing that "they" are the enemies setting everyone else back.

4. Supremacy of the Military: Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. AND 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment: Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

GeneCo employs a private police force to carry out law enforcement. They patrol around a graveyard, a quasi-public space carved out for those who mourn. And because there is pervasive video surveillance, Rotti can demand that they do his bidding at any time. An example is his order to murder the repo man. We aren't aware of any sort of involvement beyond the borders of GenCity, but even the concept of a graveyard being a warzone is a special kind of hell. 

5. Rampant Sexism- The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

Genterns! On the surface, it’s pretty cool that there is a large volume of female medical professionals who are skilled enough to carry out surgeries. However behind the sexy veneer is the reality that Genterns are not set up for success. They are not provided adequate PPE and work under non-sterile conditions. In the "Mark it Up" scene, one is killed by Luigi. Imagine going to medical school for years and years, only to be tasked with the job of organ warehouse worker. Then on one of your shifts you are stabbed to death because the CEO's son bumped into you while you were working. Not only that, but you are also expected to dress proactively for the purpose of selling the GeneCo product and experience.  

6. Controlled Mass Media: Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. GeneCo has a monopoly on the media of the city. Politics, entertainment, healthcare, you name it, they have a direct stake in, and control over, the media. We do see from time-to-time tabloid clippings of the Largo family. But generally speaking, GeneCo puts a lot of effort in upholding their image. The best evidence is Blind Mag's story. She is a singer who acquired the ability to see after a GeneCo cornea surgery. And while she clocked into work day in and day out, singing and advertising for GeneCo for 17+ years, her departure resulted in Rotti murdering her. But why? Was he afraid of the things she would say? Rotti knew he was terminally ill when she declared her resignation, and yet killing her on stage is somehow less of a scandal?

7. Obsession with National Security: Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. Fascist countries use fear as a tactic to keep the masses scared and compliant. The universe of Repo! is one filled with tragedy. Millions of people have died. I would imagine that the series of events that would lead to the creation and success of GeneCo was contingent upon people being scared for their lives. While dealing with the coronavirus, I find myself constantly checking my temperature, keeping my distance from people, and wearing a mask out in public. The human spirit is resilient, which is how we have survived so long. However sociopaths smell our fear and use it against us. The city of GeneCo is surrounded by plots upon plots of graveyards, signifying the carnage left after their public health crisis. I have a strong feeling that GeneCo was able to harness the threat of whatever caused the massive organ failure epidemic and as an effect created a power vacuum. 

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined: Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

This one is going to be a reach, particularly because there is an absence of religion in this story. I don't think religion would be on the creator's of Repo!'s purview, and honestly I don't blame them. If you look at the imagery of the story, however, it is very gothic. We have no idea if religion survives, and if it does, to what extent. I would imagine that people still have spiritual needs, and I argue that the GeneCo Opera is an example of how they get that fulfilled. 

"If you want it, baby, GeneCo's got it"

The GeneCo opera is not your typical opera experience. GeneCo specifically tells their customers to "testify". People are singing in unison, praising GeneCo. Clearly GeneCo has taken several human rituals and blended them together to create an over-the-top entertainment experience that seeks to advertise their company behind the testimonials of its patrons. The benefits of the opera for GeneCo, as a fascist entity, are two-fold: have people associate their most nirvana moments with an experience only GeneCo can offer (zydrate and surgery), and distract them with religious-like concerts so they won't question their neighbors being murdered on the streets by that very same company. 

9. Corporate Power is Protected: The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. AND 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption: Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

Throughout the entire movie, the Largo family is front and center. We know Rotti is terminally ill, and he utilizes his final moments to tie up loose ends in his life. His children feel entitled to his estate and the company of GeneCo. At no point do we see Rotti consult with a board of directors at GeneCo, a private fiduciary firm, or with any government entity. I would describe the company of GeneCo to be a weird combination of an aristocracy, government body, and corporation. His children commit crimes with no recourse or justice. Rotti kills the doctor who tells him he's dying. Luigi kills multiple people throughout the movie. In one of the opening scenes, we see a photograph showing Pavi is cutting off a woman's face. In the credits we see Amber's body guards lying dead on the floor during her press statement. What sort of corruption took place to make these occurrences so prevalent and normalized? 

10. Labor Power is Suppressed: Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

We aren't super privy to the machinations that make this city functional. But there is a clear stratification that has sustained itself long enough that healthcare is not a right in this city, and those who can't pay for necessary healthcare can finance it. In a just society, if we have the means to save humanity, we can figure out a way to pay for it. Be it taxes on the most wealthy or other cost-saving measures, if there is a will, there is a way. However if you give a company enough power and money, it will do everything it can to stay on top. The best examples I can think of would be Nathan and Blind Mag's tenuous career at GeneCo. Neither really wanted the job they were given, but they were forced into those positions by Rotti. Had Bling Mag belonged to a entertainment union, would she have had more protections? Would a proper investigation into the murder of Marni result in justice being served, and the opportunity for Nathan to live a better adjusted life? Rotti masterfully manipulates situations that create powerless outcomes for his employees.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals: Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts We don't see any particular evidence that GeneCo is currently hostile to higher education or academia. What we do know is the technologies of this world are akin to something we'd see out of the 20th century. However GeneCo is advanced enough to synthesize usable organs.  In my last essay, I drew parallels to today by highlighting that there may have been a "brain drain" of intellectualism as a result of academics dying from their public health crisis. Outside of the opera house, we don't see many examples of art in this world. Maybe this is what happens when a government stops funding programs it deems frivolous or challenges the status quo?

14. Fraudulent Elections: Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Based off context clues in the movie, we know that there is a group of voting citizens who help determine whether or not a company can repossess financed organs that are passed due on their payments. We don't know who makes these votes, the election process, or anything like that. So it is hard to say if GeneCo goes beyond their media campaign convincing voters to keep repossessions legal. Despite this lack of knowledge, I would argue that GeneCo wields incredible power regarding the course of elections for laws that apply to them. Okay, you want to pass a law to make organ repossession illegal? Fine, we don't have to offer products on a payment plan. The very threat of being able to take away healthcare is something right wing governments loveeee doing. 

Speaking of elections, the United States 2020 general election is approaching. Now that I argued the ways that GeneCo is fascist, I will tie together ideas from both of these essays into a final piece that I hope you will like. If you enjoyed this article, please send it to all your Repo! friends.

[theoriesontheory]

Can Your Heart Be on Your Sleeve while Your Tongue is In Your Cheek?

Irony, Sincerity and the Internet

In their video essay “David Foster Wallace – The Problem with Irony” Schoder breaks down David Foster Wallace’s views on the downfall of entertainment, namely tv due to a saturation of irony. (2016) After introducing the problem of an overly ironic, snake devouring itself, media landscape, the solution seems to be proposed, a tonal shift towards sincerity. (ibid) Shows like The Office and Community and Parks and Recreation in some cases maintain post-modern traits in order to subvert them but more and more, mainstream media is focusing less on the deconstruction of the meta narrative and more focused on the micro-relationships. (ibid.)

In August of 2017 Kirin J. Callinan uploaded the music video for his latest single “Big Enough” featuring Alex Cameron, Molly Lewis and Jimmy Barnes. In September of 2017 a tumblr page posted a clip from the video, which was later uploaded to youtube and went viral as “Screaming Cowboy” (knowyourmeme, 2018)

The remixes and overdubs spread like wildfire and to this day, through apps like tik tok and Instagram the song and meme is heard around the world by listeners who potentially could never have heard anything else the artists have done or anything beyond the 43 second clip. In interviews on the piece featured artist Alex Cameron explains that the piece came out of the idea that people would constantly compare himself and Callinan in the relatively small Sydney Pop scene and thinking about how the world is so often divided. They wanted to remind people that everything wasn’t all about conflict but there can be unity. (Fluffy, 2018) Callinan himself describes the song as “sincere.” (Gaca, 2017) Beyond being a song about unity, represented by the two artists coming together but it also represents a deconstruction of genre boundaries for the artist. When first experimenting with making EDM, a genre he did not care for Callinan describes making something “aesthetically displeasing and pretty unexciting as an idea,” with “a euphoria that’s just infectious.” (ibid.) He continues, detailing how after hearing Sweedish House Mafia’s ‘Don’t You Worry Child’ that he was able to get past his own preconceived and taught notions of genre and boundaries between high and low art and understand that the heart of the work was important. (ibid.) This is immediately shown in this piece, bringing together the unique blend of two underground pop artists from Sydney, a world famous whistler and an Australian Rock icon. This song is the perfect representation of the idea of synthesis, it feels like a creative artist having fun while telling a sincere and genuine story about unity, not only in the lyrics but in the production of the song and the incorporation of a diverse range of cultural touchstones, the work is an intellectual masterpiece!

… But it’s still a meme and I didn’t actually listen to the whole song until around two years after it came out when I finally heard it through a bad Bluetooth speaker in a backyard somewhere. The question then stands, does the fact that something is a meme make it any less valuable as art? Looking back at the Schoder video, the first wave thinking of post modern media, the thinking that spawned shows like Seinfeld and Always Sunny, (2016) would say that this song was brilliant and funny. It’s a deconstruction of the notions of pop and using all kinds of semiotic messages that are understood by the knowledgeable and reference soaked internet generation, it did exactly what it was meant to do clearly, it’s making fun of the entertainment industry. And while it is all of those things I don’t think that is all the song is. I think this song is an example of an Office type TV show as described by Schoder. (2016) this song and the video does all of those things but still feels very human and genuine. It doesn’t stop at the deconstruction but also works on focusing to the right thing, connection and community.

Despite this wholesome message at the song’s core, some argue that the last refrain takes the song into parody

Image: Screenshot of Lyrics to ‘Big Enough’ from Genius.com

But if you think about songs that have called for peace and unity before,

Image: Screenshot of Lyrics to ‘Imagine’ from Genius.com

 I think that ‘gen z’ who was raised in cynicism would see both sentiments as equally as realistic. Meaning the only differences between the two songs are the choice of instrumentation and who’s singing it. Toward the end of the Gaca interview Callinan says, “I’d like to write more songs that are emotional and real and not full of so much fucking bullshit. But at the same time, it’s the bullshit that makes it fun. No one’s interested in listening to an acoustic singer-songwriter.” And I think that this song is a move in that direction for him.

To insert some of my own romantic thinking, in a way the fact that this song is being shared to so many different people in so many different contexts as humour, shows that the message of unity is being spread through comedy.

While the internet took this song and video and gave them a life of their own, at their core still stands an artist with a message. While a majority of people might know the song as humour, Callinan was able to achieve his artistic goal and make a song that he enjoys, as well as collaborating with a friend in Alex Cameron, an interesting and unique person in Molly Lewis and a childhood hero in Jimmy Barnes. It was funny, it was serious, it was entertaining, it is art.  

References:

Gaca, A. (2017, November 8). What Exactly Is Going On With Kirin J. Callinan? Spin. https://www.spin.com/featured/kirin-j-callinan-bravado-interview/

Fluffy. (2018, January 18). Interview: Alex Cameron Talks Style and Substance. Under the Radar. https://www.undertheradar.co.nz/news/13758/Interview-Alex-Cameron-Talks-Style-And-Substance.utr

Knowyourmeme, (2018). Big Enough. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/big-enough

Schoder, W. [Will Schoder]. (2016 October 7). David Foster Wallace – The Problem With Irony [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2doZROwdte4

Other media in order:

Kirin J Callinan. (2017 August 17). Kirin J Callinan - Big Enough (Official Video) ft. Alex Cameron, Molly Lewis, Jimmy Barnes [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvrZJ5C_Nwg

CarrierBK (2017 September 9) AHHHHH [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBLdQ1a4-JI

Image: Screenshot of Lyrics to ‘Big Enough’ from Genius.com Captured 07/07/2021 https://genius.com/Kirin-j-callinan-big-enough-lyrics

Image: Screenshot of Lyrics to ‘Imagine’ from Genius.com Captured 07/07/21 https://genius.com/John-lennon-imagine-lyrics

Red Lama (2017 October 5) Dank Meme Compilation – Big Enough [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWc-7Q8NbVA

[halseyhazzard]

Scrolling Utopia: Internet Interaction Design and the Posthistorical Subject

Halsey Hazzard, fall 2018

for a class on German media theory

Writing just before the internet threatened to take over the world, philosopher and communicologist Vilem Flusser has often been called a prophet of the digital age, based on his concern with then-nascent internet technology and the applicability of his theories to the so-called digital age. Certainly he did dream of a utopian society in which communications technology would engender a more egalitarian global society, but his optimism was far from idealistic. Rather, Flusser’s work contains a demand that we understand the way technology shapes human consciousness so that we might develop and use it responsibly. A sense of urgency underlies Flusser’s calls for responsibility, and this call has grown only more crucial as the internet has grown more pervasive and social networks have ascended to global near-hegemony.

In many of his essays, Flusser argued that historical consciousness, engendered by linear writing, was giving way to a new, posthistorical consciousness as a result of changing technology. Now, nearly thirty years after his death, it would appear the new consciousness Flusser both dreamed and warned of has arrived, ushered in by the digital technology we call, not insignificantly, “social media.” In this paper I hope to deploy Flusser’s theory of humanization to understand one of social media’s most quietly pervasive design elements—infinite scrolling—and its relationship to the so-called posthistorical consciousness. Infinite scroll, I argue, is a key example of how technology shapes human consciousness and how its effects demand that we pay attention and take responsibility for the ways we are constructing ourselves as human subjects.

Throughout his work, Flusser articulates a definition of “human” that depends heavily on technology, and communication technology in particular. He is concerned with an apparent shift that took place with the appearance of apparatuses, which he defines in Toward a Philosophy of Photography as something that mimics a human capability and which merges with a human operator. The human is profoundly affected by its interaction with the apparatus, and because technology is constantly changing (being changed by humans), what is “human” is constantly in flux. What is constant, however, is communication. Humans distinguish ourselves from the “non-human” by our need to store and use “information,” defined as negative entropy. Flusser makes frequent reference to the second law of thermodynamics, arguing that humanization is thus the process of fighting against inevitable entropy through the creation of information technologies. He puts it succinctly in a 2003 interview with Patrik Tschudin: “a person becomes human to the extent to which he figures out which of one’s functions can be mechanized and then delegates those to machines. What remains, that which cannot be mechanized (for the moment, anyway), is that which becomes human” (“The Lens is to Blame”, 6). Taken together, these statements define humanity as a process of endless becoming, driven by the human drive to communicate and the responsibility to one another (and, as a result, agency) communication entails.

If humanization is a process of endless becoming, one should probably wonder what the human is becoming now. In “Humanizations,” Flusser illustrates the status of the human with reference to the “little brain man,” a model for how the brain perceives the body borrowed from neurology. In the linear era, the little brain man is a “tongue-thumb man,” but Flusser hypothesizes that in the telomatic future, “The fingertips, which will touch the keyboard, will doubtless be the most important organs, and it will become apparent that the purpose of the Brain Man’s entire body will be to support the fingertips” (“Humanizations” 190). While he is certainly right that technology has shifted the focus from the tongue, he was perhaps too quick to predict the shrinking of the thumbs.

In recent years, so-called “social media” has saturated Western culture, with Instagram in particular reaching one billion users worldwide (Carman). Much of this growth has occurred concurrently with the rise of smartphones, expected to be in 2.5 billion hands by 2019. While much attention has been given to the content on such platforms, this impending ubiquity demands an analysis of how the material apparati of apps like Instagram are shaping what it currently means to be human. In 2013, at the dawn of Vine, writer Chris Baraniuk situated the then-new (now defunct) video-sharing service in a long history of visual loops. Like the gif before it, the Vine video takes a moment—no more than six seconds long—and repeats it ad infinitum. Hypnotic and without a true beginning or end, digital loops are “uncanny” and “disturbing,” for, according to Baraniuk, ‘the complete absence of teleology and catharsis within the loop destroyers our sense of self, our idea of progress, our intention to accomplish anything.” (Baraniuk). The logic of the loop, he claims, is built into the very languages that make up the digital world. A similar “narrative dissonance” can be found in in “infinite scrolling,” a design element that, alongside the rise of digital visual loops, has quietly achieved near ubiquity as a feature of websites, in particular those considered to be “social media.” Infinite scrolling might at first appear to be the anti-loop. Where gifs only have one frozen moment to offer up for eternity, the infinite scroll seems to promise endless variety. Yet it shares with the visual loop a lack of teleology thanks to its lack of a clear beginning, middle, and end.

When one loads a page on a website that employs infinite scrolling, one is dropped into a seemingly-endless stream of modular pieces of content, known frequently as posts. These can be images, short texts, video clips, or a combination thereof. Scrolling is particularly popular in app design for smartphones which, with their small, vertical screens, replace the horizontal thrust of traditional text with a relentless vertical pull. The promise of new content just beyond the bottom of the screen draws the eyes down and the thumb up. Pagination, a holdover from the pre-internet days of bound paper books, presupposes a hierarchy of information, an order that requires a linear progression. Page one must come before page two, page four follows page three, and so on. Entries on sites like the search engine Google that still use this skeuomorphic setup, when not bound to a linear progression, are often algorithmically sorted by relevance. Posts on infinite scrolling sites, however, are typically arranged chronologically, which gives them all the same importance. Yet the constant updates endemic to social media mean the chronology of the infinite scroll is essentially an eternal present. It is impractical, if not impossible, to reach the end of the scroll, yet if even one were successful, one would have to find one’s way to the ever-extending beginning, and start the process all over again. The only way to read everything is in real-time. The infinite scroll thus begs to be constantly checked, foreclosing any possibility of action.

According to Baraniuk, this process--or, rather, lack of process--threatens our sense of self. He may be right, if what we mean by the self is the form of human consciousness that has for so long been constructed in and by linear writing: “historical consciousness”. In “The Future of Writing,” Flusser writes

“Writing is an important gesture, because it both articulates and produces that state of mind which is called “historical consciousness.” History began with the invention of writing, not for the banal reason often advanced that written texts permit us to reconstruct the past, but for the more pertinent reason that the world is not perceived as a process, “historically,” unless one signifies it by successive symbols, by writing” (Future 63)

For Flusser, writing is associated with logic and reason, with the sort of scientific thought that thinks of things in terms of cause and effect. History takes a narrative form, with a beginning, a middle, and an end. The consciousness created by this kind of thinking is historical. The posthistorical consciousness, on the other hand, begins with the photograph. In contrast to the linear, logical thinking of alphabetic writing, images encourage formal thinking, and make it impossible to understand the world as “becoming.” Linear reading “has the sense of going somewhere, whereas, while reading pictures, we need to go nowhere” (Line 23). Images contain denser messages than linear writing, and demand to be thought of structurally rather than linearly. Images preceded writing, yet in their current iteration as photographs serve to explain written text, hence their post-historicity. This begs the question: if “[n]arratives make history” (On the End of History 143), does the narrative-less infinite scroll and its attendant digital consciousness make posthistory?

The infinite scroll, lacking finitude, has no historical sense of causality. In the scroll, things simply occur. The infinite scroll, then, with its lack of teleology, would seem to be a departure from linear, historical thought. Yet Flusser explains in “The Future of Writing” that in a world dominated by lines, “everything...follows from something, time flows irreversibly from the past toward the future, each instant is lost forever, and there is no repetition” (64). This sounds awfully like the endless streams of content on social media, signalling that the shift between history and post-history is not so cut-and-dried. In fact, the infinite scroll could perhaps best be compared to films, which, according to Flusser, “incorporate the temporality of the written line into the picture, by lifting the linear historical time of written lines onto the level of the surface” (Line 26). We still fail to grasp the posthistorical surface quality of films and TV programs, reading them as we would written lines. But Flusser suggests that “for those who think in films, it will mean the possibility of acting upon history from without” (25). This will become key, particularly if we understand the infinite scroll as a technology that allows us to step outside the procession of history.

Shortly after making this claim, Flusser calls attention to the distinction between immediate experience and the necessarily mediatized fictions of images and concepts, and further, the distinction between conceptual fiction (“line thought”) and imaginal fiction (“surface thought”). The relationship between these two forms of thought is at stake for our understanding of how media shape thought and thus impact humanization. Surface fictions, he claims, are not only advancing due to technological developments, but becoming more and more indistinguishable from reality, which linear fictions are becoming more and more abstract. Ultimately Flusser claims that “[t]he synthesis of linear and surface media may result in a new civilization” (31). The infinite scroll, by extending surfaces indefinitely so that lines may be followed forever, might perhaps be the very technological development that ushers in this new civilization.

This new civilization could ostensibly take two forms. The first, in which imaginal thinking fails to incorporate conceptual thinking, would lead to “the totalitarianism of the mass media” (34). If imaginal thinking does succeed, however, leading “to new types of communication in which man consciously assumes the structural position,” “a new sense of reality would articulate itself, within the existential climate of a new religiosity” (34). Flusser concedes that neither outcome is inevitable, and that the shape of the posthistorical future depends on choices made in the present. The infinite scroll could be a harbinger of either outcome. It is easy to see how the mass distraction and loss of teleology engendered by the technique could lead to totalitarianism.

On the other hand, the destruction of hierarchies it seems to encourage gestures toward a much more egalitarian future. Flusser, who often wrote urgently of the need for dialogue, might see this as a welcome step toward a classless, networked society.

The society Flusser has in mind is one where “dialogue and discourse balance each other out. If, as we see today, a discursive form dominates, which prevents dialogues from taking place, then society is dangerously close to decomposing into an amorphous crowd” (Stroehl, xvii). Media that encourages discourse imparts information from the top down, such as mass broadcast media like television or radio, whereas media like telephones encourage “[d]ialogue as a noncoercive relationship of mutual respect” (xviii). According to Andreas Stroehl, Flusser “believes that dialogue is the purpose of existence. The sense of responsibility inherent in the dialogic relationship between speaker and addressee offers the speaker an opportunity to give his or her own life meaning in the face of entropy and death” (xviii). To be human is to act on this responsibility to the other by communicating, and the technologies humans design to communicate impact the ways in which we become human.

Digital interfaces are no exception. Social media, by virtue of its “social” nature, can perhaps be seen as a step toward this telomatic networked society of mutual responsibility. Still, infinite scrolling is a key example of how it is not free from being determined by the political and economic contexts in which it was developed, contexts which impact the very interaction design of the internet. According to Chadwick Smith, for Flusser, “since objects impact the lives of others...and are a projection of some designer’s decisions, they are thus situated in a relational field, encompassing not just aesthetic and political dimensions but, given their infinitely intimate scale, ethical ones as well” (“The Butterfly and the Potato” 48). The infinite scroll, though a feature more than an object, is a prime example of this dynamic. In 2006, software engineer Aza Raskin developed infinite scroll as a way to maximize the time users spend on websites, eliminating the natural stopping points at the end of pages that inspired users to navigate away. This habit-forming tendency was conceived in the service of websites and advertisers that depend on keeping eyes on screens, indicating a motivation behind the design choice other than intersubjective goodwill. Even Raskin is critical of the scroll’s anti-human tendencies: “It's as if they're taking behavioral cocaine and just sprinkling it all over your interface. And that's the thing that keeps you like coming back and back and back” (Hamilton). When we situate the scroll in the context of the rise of technocratic totalitarianism with which Flusser was concerned, it becomes part of the tradition whereby “The Enlightenment has overshot its mark,” causing extreme rationalism to turn irrational, thus barbaric.

If that is the case, what can we do to rescue humanity from this path? Flusser may give us, if not a plan, then at least a set of guiding principles. If being human is about communicating with each other to stave off impending entropy, and if humans have the agency to create technology to do so, then it is imperative that we take seriously our responsibility to each other in our efforts to design the future, especially considering the anti-human tendencies in what we’ve already built. As Smith writes, “Flusser’s concept of design is not about building a better world, but rather of eradicating from it everything that makes it worse” (“The Butterfly and the Potato” 53). That may not necessarily mean doing away with infinite scrolling, but taking seriously the dialogic potential within it when considering the effects it will have and is already having on collective human consciousness.

Luckily, if Flusser is to be believed, the posthistorical consciousness is giving humanity the means to step out of the stream of progress and look at structures, to critically assess our own history in order to fully take advantage of the opportunities the present presents. As long as technology like infinite scrolling threatens to pull us further into our future selves, we owe it to each other to know who those selves are, and who we will become.

Works Cited

Baraniuk, Chris. “‘The Wheel of the Devil’: On Vine, Gifs and the Power of the Loop.” The Machine Starts, www.themachinestarts.com/read/2013-01-the-wheel-of-the-devil-vine-gifs-idea-of-loop.

Carman, Ashley. “Instagram Now Has 1 Billion Users Worldwide.” The Verge, The Verge, 20 June 2018, www.theverge.com/2018/6/20/17484420/instagram-users-one-billion-count.

Flusser Vilém, and Ströhl Andreas. Vilém Flusser - Writings. University of Minnesota Press, 2005.

Hamilton, Isobel Asher. “Silicon Valley Insiders Say Facebook, Snapchat, and Twitter Are Using 'Behavioral Cocaine' to Turn People into Addicts.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 4 July 2018.

“Number of Smartphone Users Worldwide 2014-2020.” Statista, www.statista.com/statistics/330695/number-of-smartphone-users-worldwide/.

Smith, Chadwick T. ““The Butterfly and the Potato: Vilém Flusser and Design”. artUS. issue 26, 2009-1, 46-53.

Smith, Chadwick T. “The Lens is to Blame”: Three Remarks on Black Boxes, Digital Humanities, and The Necessities of Vilém Flusser’s “New Humanism” Flusser Studies, vol. 18, http://www.flusserstudies.net/sites/www.flusserstudies.net/files/media/attachments/smith-the-lens-is-to-blame.pdf . Accessed 18 December 2018

[tiefighter]

hi! do you have any tips on how to get A star essays? as I always get B's I don't know what I am doing wrong...

While I can’t give you targeted advice about your essays, what I can do is give you general advice! alright so (apologies, this is gonna get long) all essays follow a familiar format. You have your essay subject, which you need to turn into a thesis sentence. However, a thesis sentence doesn’t have to be in the very first line of the essay. Say you were talking about fictional world war two novels influencing the media. You could start with something like “As a subject for fictional depictions, be it in video games, movies or even novels, world war two is not only popular but a proven draw-card (you’ll need to prove this within a paragraph of your essay, probably citing numbers of downloads for battlefield games, box office scores for war movies, that sort of thing. Book sales). Movies like Dunkirk, video games like Battlefield and novels like the English Patient (references, blah blah blah) all depict, using fictional hooks, either real or fabricated events during a well-documented war that involved much of the globe. Discussing this, and by showing evidence, we can separate the fiction from reality, and in doing so come to an understanding of how the media is influenced, and in turn influences, our beliefs about our own history.”  So you break it down. You explain what you’re going to do, you make a thesis statement to hinge your essay on, and then you follow through.  A basic paragraph structure is like a mini-essay in itself, and the first paragraph sets the tone for your entire essay. Don’t include anything you’re not willing to include or can’t back up in your essay.  Structuring your paragraphs, and making sure you can back up EVERYTHING you say with references is going to mean your essay gets a better score. I know you’ll be tempted to include colloquialisms and heresay, but don’t. Don’t use phrases like “Everyone knows” or “as they say” because who the hell is they, and everyone don’t know jack shit. Back all of your shit up.  -- okay, so a paragraph. You need a topic sentence, supporting sentences, a conclusion and then, if you’re going to lead onto another paragraph, a linking sentence.  Your topic sentence starts at the beginning.  “The movie Dunkirk, which made $50, 513, 488 at 3720 theaters on its opening weekend (boxofficemojo.com, 2020), is both a demonstration of the sheer selling power of historical movies and the storytelling abilities of fictional accounts. Movies with a similar budget that were released on the same weekend blah blah blah blah blah” This is what you’re going to talk about during your paragraph. the underlined parts are your topics for this paragraph, You’re gonna want to take all your supporting factors for this, and slam them right in here like peanut butter and jelly between two soggy pieces of bread.  next, are supporting sentences. Go to reviews, or go to anything you can get that can support your essay thesis question: that these movies are often what people understand as the truth of world war 2, and the media is both an influencer and influenced by the same accounts. You need at least two, preferably three or four, supporting sentences, each of the sentences with references, each with evidence. This is true of all essays, not this one I just pulled out of my ass.  What your professor/teacher is looking for is your understanding of the topic, what you’ve gotten from the subject that you’ve been studying and how you apply it in a contextual manner. Don’t deviate from your topic. If your topic is “jesus christ is a fictional figure and has been used to brainwash the masses for decades via ever shifting goalposts and dictatorial leadership” then fucking stick to it. Find your sources, back your shit up.  An ideal essay isn’t documented by pages, but by sheer volume of your research, and your ability to apply it. By bringing in box office numbers, you’re supporting your previous statement about the movies being a drawcard. If you can, you could reference it against other movies that opened that same weekend that made less money, therefore attracting less people to see them. (or opening in less cinemas because, reasonably, cinema executives were willing to bank on a movie by a known director, etc etc) Your concluding statement is going to go over all the evidence you’ve gathered, and you slam it all into the ending of your essay that concludes something like “blah blah blah I’m right and this is why I’m right blah gimme an A” just back everything you have to say up with evidence. That’s all they’re looking for. They want to see how you apply your understandings you’ve learned in class, and the topic question will absolutely tell you what they want, if they don’t tell you directly.  There are several essay questions that use similar language Discuss: gather evidence to support your understanding of the topic, and apply it. compare/Contrast: gather evidence of both sides, and compare/pit them against each other in a bloody battle to the finish.  Explain: gather context, via evidence, and explain what your conclusion, after reading everything you have on the subject, is.  advocate: gather positive evidence, and apply it to your point of view/a particular stance.  Each of these has the same basis. Evidence. Back your shit up. Make sure you reference everything. This isn’t to say half your word count is made up by references (references aren’t included in the word count) but any conclusions you draw as a result of your essay must be researched, and thoroughly explained in your own words.  That said, if your professor/teacher isn’t being explicit about what they want out of an essay, you are absolutely allowed to ask clarifying questions. If you can, get together with classmates and break down what they want from you together. Examine the language, and make sure you do exactly what the question is asking. The marking rubric they have will definitely have columns regarding your understanding of what you’re writing, and how well you applied various principles.  That said, there’s such a thing as a grading curve, and sometimes what separates a B student from an A student is half a fucking point. Grading isn’t fair, I think homework is a waste of time and I’m fully willing to stand by that remark with data, lol.  Honestly, good luck. If you have any other questions, or want clarification for anything I’ve said/explained, please feel free to contact me again!