#i think you can tell a meaningful and positive story about disability without giving her physical form on earth too

[commsroom]

to me, the question of whether hera would want a body is first and foremost a question of autonomy and ability. she has an internal self-image, i think it's meaningful that the most pivotal moments in her character arc take place in spaces where she can be perceived the way she perceives herself and interact with others in a (relatively) equal and physical capacity, and that's worth considering. but i don't think it's about how she looks, or even who she is - and i think she's the same person either way; she's equally human without a body, and having a body wouldn't make her lived experience as an AI magically disappear - so much as it's about how she would want to live.

like most things with hera, i'm looking at this through a dual lens of disability and transness, both perspectives from which the body - and particularly disconnect from the body - is a concern. the body as the mechanism by which she's able to interact with the world; understanding her physical isolation as a product of her disability, the body as a disability aid. the body as it relates to disability, in constant negotiation. the body as an expression of medical transition, of self-determination, of choice. as a statement of how she wants to be seen, how she wants to navigate the world, and at the same time reckoning with the inevitable gap between an idealized self-image and a lived reality, especially after a long time spent believing that self-image could never be visible to anyone else.

it's critical to me that it should never imply hera's disability is 'fixed' by having a body, only that it enables her to interact with the world in ways she otherwise couldn't. her fears about returning to earth are about safety and ability; the form she exists in dictates the life she's allowed to lead and has allowed people to invade her privacy and make choices for her. dysphoria and disability both contribute to disembodiment - in an increasingly digitized world, the type of alienation that feels like your life can only exist in a virtual space... maybe there's something about the concept of AI embodiment, in particular as it relates to hera, that appeals to me because of what it challenges about what makes a 'real woman.' when it's about perception, about how others see her and how she might observe / be impacted by how she's treated differently, even subconsciously. it's about feeling more present in her life and interfacing with the world. but it's not in itself a becoming; it doesn't change how she's been shaped by her history or who she is as a person.

i think it comes back to the 'big picture' as a central antagonistic force in wolf 359, and how - in that context, in this story - it adds a weight to this hypothetical choice. hera is everywhere, and she's never really anywhere. she's got access to more knowledge than most people could imagine, but it's all theoretical or highly situational; she doesn't have the same life experiences as her peers. she has the capacity to understand that 'big picture' better than most people, but whatever greater portion of the universe she understands is nothing next to infinity and meaningless without connection and context. it's interesting to me that hera is one of the most self-focused and introspective people on the show. her loyalties and decisions are absolute, personal, emotionally driven. she's lonely; she always feels physically away from the others. she misremembers herself sitting at the table with the rest of the crew. she imagines what the ocean is like. there's nothing to say that hera having a body is the only solution for that, but i like what it represents, and i honestly believe it'd make her happier than the alternatives. if there's something to a symbolically narrowed focus that allows for a more solid sense of self... that maybe the way to make something of such a big, big universe is to find a tiny portion of it that's yours and hold onto it tight.

[ailuronymy]

do you think every disabled character in wc is handled poorly? i understand theres def some cases of ableism but at the same time when i hear ppl say that its usually bc the disabled cat wasnt able to become a warrior due to their disability. and i feel like ppl forget, that not everyone irl CAN do what they want after they become disabled. ex. someone wants to be an athlete, but their legs have to be amputated. a cat like briarlight esp i feel is p realistic and could be a source of comfort

Hello there, thank you for writing in. I’m going to reply to this question with a series of questions I think are a bit more useful, given what you’re trying to ask me. I hope that’ll clarify what is a deeply complex, multilayered issue. 

Do I think Erin Hunter handles anything in the series “well”? Not really. I don’t have a high opinion of the work of the collective and, broadly speaking, I think every right note they play, metaphorically speaking, is an instance of chance rather than effort, skill, or intention. Stopped clocks are right twice a day, mediocre writers will sometimes do something cool by accident, similar principle. That’s not to say Erin Hunter hasn’t ever done anything on purpose--just that overall the underlying drive of the series isn’t so much quality as it is quantity, and speed of production, and it shows. 

Do I think Erin Hunter puts any significant research into how they portray disability? No. I do not think it is a priority for this series. They’re not trying to make a meaningful work of literature, or capture a realistic experience of disability, or tell especially impactful or thoughtful stories, or even make a particularly good or coherent fantasy world. Warriors is a specifically commercial product that was commissioned by HarperCollins to appeal to a particular demographic of drama-loving, cat-loving kids. It’s not really trying to do anything but sell books, because it’s a business, so the text in many ways reflects that. They’re not going for disability representation, in my opinion. They’re including disability in many cases as a plot-point or an obstacle. 

Do I think this means that people can’t connect to these characters and narratives in meaningful ways? No. Often I say that a work is completed only when it is read. Before that point, it doesn’t have a meaning: a reader finishes the work through the act of reading, and interpretation, and filling in the spaces and resonance of the story with their own values and experiences. When people talk about subjectivity, this is what they are talking about. What this means in the context of disabled characters in Warriors is that these characters and their stories can be multiple, conflicting, even mutually exclusive things at the same time, to different people, for different reasons. 

Do I think characters have to be “good” to be significant to someone? No. I think genuinely “bad” (i.e., not researched or poorly researched, cliche, thoughtlessly written, problematic, etc. etc.) characters can be deeply meaningful, and often are. Ditto above: for many people, and especially marginalised or stigmatised people, reading is almost always an act of translation, wherein the person is reading against the creative work of the dominant culture in a way that the author likely didn’t intend or didn’t even imagine. There’s a long documented history of this in queer culture, but it’s true for just about everyone who is rarely (or unfairly) represented in media. Disabled people often have to read deeply imperfect works of fiction featuring disability and reinterpret them in the process--whether to relate to a kind of disability they don’t experience themselves but which is the closest they’re offered to something familiar, or to turn positive and meaningful what is intended as narrative punishment, or simply to create what’s commonly called headcanon about “non-disabled” characters who echo their personal experiences. 

Do I think everyone has to agree? Extremely no. As I said before, people will actually always disagree, because all people have different needs and different experiences. What can be interpreted as empowering to one person might be very othering and painful for another. There is no “right” answer, because, again, that is how subjectivity works. This is especially true because marginalised communities are often many different kinds of people with different lives and needs brought together over a trait or traits they share due to the need for solidarity as protection and power--but only in a broad sense. It’s why there is often intracommunity fighting over representation: there isn’t enough, there’s only scraps, and so each person’s personal interpretation can feel threatening to people whose needs are different. You can see examples of this especially when it comes to arguments over character sexuality: a queer female character might be interpreted as bisexual by bisexual people who relate to her and want her to be, while being interpreted as lesbian by lesbians who also relate to her and want her to be like them. Who is correct? Often these different interpretations based on different needs are presented as if one interpretation is theft from the other, when in fact the situation is indicative of the huge dearth of options for queer people. It becomes increasingly more intense when it comes to “canon” representations, because of the long history of having to read against the grain I mentioned above: there’s novelty and, for some people, validation in “canon” certainty. And again, all of this is also true for disabled people and other stigmatised groups. 

Do I think this is a problem? Not exactly. It is what it is. It is the expected effect of the circumstances. Enforced scarcity creates both the need for community organising and solidarity and the oppressive pressure to prioritise one’s self first and leave everyone else in the dust (or else it might happen to you). The system will always pit suppressed people against each other constantly, because it actively benefits from intracommunity fighting. Who needs enemies when you have friends like these, and so on. A solution is absolutely for everyone in community to hold space for these different needs and values, and to uplift and support despite these differences, but it’s not anyone’s fault for feeling threatened or upset when you don’t have much and feel like the thing that you do have is being taken away. It’s a normal, if not really helpful, human response. But until people learn and internalised that the media is multifaceted and able to be many things at once, without any of those things being untrue or impacting your truth of the text, then there will be fighting. 

Do I think my opinion on disability on Warriors is all that important? No, not really. I can relate to some characters in some moment through that translation, but my opinion on, say, Jayfeather is nowhere near as worthy of consideration than that of someone who is blind. I don’t have that experience and it’s not something I can bring meaningful thinking about, really. That’s true for all these characters. If you want to learn about disability, prioritise reading work about disabled rights and activism that is done by disabled people, and literary criticism from disabled people. And as I mentioned above, remember that community isn’t a monolith: it’s a survival tactic, that brings together many different people with disparate experiences of the world. So research widely. 

Finally--do I think there’s only one kind of disabled narrative worth telling? No. For some people, a disabled character achieving a specific, ability-focused dream is a good story. For other people, a story that acknowledges and deals with the realities, and limitations, of disability is a good story. The same person might want both of those stories at different times, depending on their mood. That’s okay. Sometimes there’s power and delight in a fantasy of overcoming seemingly impossible obstacles and defying all expectations. Sometimes there’s value and catharsis in a narrative that delves into the challenges and grief and oppression experienced because of disability. There’s no one truth. 

To round all this off, I’m going to give my favourite example of this, which is Cinderella. I think it’s a great and useful tool, since for many it’s familiar and it’s very simple. Not much happens. In the story, she is bullied and tormented, until a fairy godmother gifts her over several nights with the opportunity to go to a royal ball, where she dances with a prince. The prince eventually is able to find Cinderella, due to a shoe left behind, and they are married. In some versions, the family that mistreated her are killed. In others, they’re forgiven. 

Some people hate the story of Cinderella, because she is seen as passive. She tolerates the bullying and never fights back. She does every chore she’s told. She is given an opportunity by a fairy godmother, and she doesn’t help herself go to the ball. She runs from the prince and he does the work to find her again. Eventually, she’s married and the prince, presumably, keeps her in happiness and comfort for the rest of her life. 

For some, this story is infuriating, because Cinderella doesn’t “save herself”: she is largely saved by external forces. She is seen as a quintessential damsel-in-distress, and especially for people who have been bullied, infantalised, or made to feel less capable or weak, that can be a real point of personal pain and discomfort. 

However, for some others, Cinderella is a figure of strength, because she is able to endure such hostile environments and terrible people and never gives up her gentle nature or her hope. She never becomes cruel, or bitter. She is brave in daring to go outside her tiny, trapped world, and she is brave to let the prince find her. She doesn’t have to fight or struggle to earn her reward of happiness and prove her worth, because she was always deserving of love and kindness. The prince recognises at once, narratively speaking, her goodness and virtue, and stops at nothing to deliver her a better life. 

Depending on the version, the wicked family disfigure themselves for their own greed--or are punished, which for some is a revenge fantasy; or Cinderella forgives them and once again shows her tenacious kindness, which for others is a different revenge fantasy. 

The point? Cinderella is the same character in the same story, but these are almost unrecognisable readings when you put them side-by-side. Which one is right? Which one is better? In my opinion, those are the wrong questions. I hope this (long, sorry) reply is a set of more useful ones. 

[earthingoddity]

so you know how y’all are constantly like: “what’s there to like about season five???”. i decided to make a list *-*

1. the discussion of disability in a teenage show. how many teenage shows can you name featuring disabled characters? and how many of those feature a character becoming disabled in the course of the show and having to adapt to that? i was very surprised when i realized this was the route they were going to take this season and i think it was very well done.

so let’s break that down:

1.1 they actually made sure to talk about other disabilities. i know some people will say they were just doing the bare minimum, but i disagree. that is such a complex theme, they could’ve easily said representing other disabilities respectfully would be a lot of work for only ten episodes, but they did their best with the limited amount of time they had.

1.2 the representation of the deaf community wasn’t limited to their disability. it actually pisses me off hearing people say “wow, for a while there, i even forgot arthur was deaf!” as if he *has* to let you know everytime he’s on screen. disabled people are more than their disabilities, thank you very much.

1.3 overall, it was a positive representation. they could’ve spent so much time going through all the things that would be too hard for arthur, but they actually had an entire episode where arthur was completely deaf - he took his hearing aids off - and it was a very happy and positive episode. he was having fun, clubbing, dancing, laughing with others, and i think we took a lot of that for granted in the midst of everything that was going on, but that was a really positive representation that didn’t limit itself to stereotypes around deaf/disabled people. i actually expected that they’d drag a lot longer the feeling of loneliness and discomfort of the first couple of episodes, but they quickly changed that rhythm, so that instead of focusing on what arthur was “losing”, they focused on everything that arthur was gaining - new friends, a new love interest and a new way to see the world. also, in relation to the whole implants thing, they delivered very in depth opposite perspectives on the matter and never felt like they were shaming one group or the other.

2. SyMbOLisM! skam france is very good at it and they nailed this aspect in season three. but there was a lot of it in season five as well. like the 7am clips in episode 2, that were used to show the lack of progression in arthur’s hearing and his growing frustration and how those clips were incredibly dark, to match his mood. episode 7 also had such an interesting meaning. with arthur taking the chance to explore the world without his hearing aids, he got to explore a whole *new* world, and not a lacking one, which ties very well with what i just said about being a positive rep, but also shows that the entire episode wasn’t about arthur finding a new layer of himself, but rather him just uncovering one that was already there.

3. use of music/sound effects. it can be hard to represent deafness in a media like a tv show, but skam france did it so well. the use of music is always very conscious in this remake; while others really go hard in the soundtrack, skam france hardly ever has background music, unless it means something. another small thing but that i loved was whenever arthur was taking off/putting on his hearing aids, if he was to put the left one first for example, the sound on the left side of your headphone would start first. it was such a small thing but made the experience a lot more immersive imo, as well as the use of muffled sounds, pitching, etc.

4. Arthur. i am always surprised whenever i hear people say that they liked arthur better when they were not in his pov. i completely disagree, but then again, i feel like this fandom has very unhealthy expectations on their mains, as if they haven’t watched already 4 seasons of the main making mistakes over and over again, lol. i loved getting to know more of arthur - he’s loyal AF and protective of the people he loves. he struggles in letting people in, though, and never wants to be a burden or worry others. he’s perceptive and quick to notice when his friends need help. he is also short-tempered and when he gets mad, it is explosive, but he doesn’t hold grudges for long. he was a much more complexed character than i imagined and he totally made this season for me.

5. le gang. this boysquad is the best, sorry. they’ve always been the funniest and warmest, but it was really nice how s5 explored all the sides of that relationship, including the not so pretty ones. they were the relationship i wanted the most angst from, and i am so happy i got it. i loved seeing how chaotic, but supportive they were of arthur though and they brought so many laughs this season.

5.1 the lack of toxic masculinity. i think this ties well with arthur, because it is amazing to me that even though we were following a straight white boy as a main this season, we had no moments of unhealthy masculine competition; le gang could actually talk about other things rather than just porn stars and jerking off (other boysquads Wish!); and arthur would literally flirt with anyone without a care in the world, because he’s certain of his sexuality like that. it was *refreshing* for once not to be confronted with these tropes that have become so common in teenage shows.

7. alexia. i have to talk about alexia separately here, because that’s the most we’ve ever seen from a chris character (not counting eskam cris, ofc), and i loved her so much. she wants to be a videogame designer and she’s creative and adorable. she always knew how to make arthur laugh, but also knew when he needed words of affirmation and she was never shy in telling him how much she loved him. it was also amazing seeing her open up about some of her insecurities, and that her confidence is something she had to work on as well. she was such a great friend & girlfriend and just ugh the best.

7.1 the female characters are badass and unapologetic. i am aware that the love triangle was unnecessary and a mess. but i am not mad about the way both characters were represented, because they were both great characters. i liked alexia more simply because i was already attached to her from previous seasons, but noée was badass as well and teaches arthur so much, and not only about her experience as a deaf person, but about life/love in general.

8. arthur’s relationship with his mom. we LOVE and STAN parents in the skamverse. arthur and his mom had the best relationship ever; i loved how they truly became a team by the end of the season. but since the moment she showed up, it meant so much that arthur could have at least one supportive and loving parent, no matter how much he screwed up or felt lost. his mom was really trying her best and i adored her.

9. *actual* adult advice. i understand why all the adults in the skamverse are a bit cringey and weird, but i feel like this results in these characters relying on each other’s poor advice throughout an entire season before they realize what they actually should do. and the talk with the school’s nurse and his doctor by the end of the season was meaningful AF and i wish something the remakes would explore more often, because it could resolve so many of their issues just talking to someone who knows better, lol.

10. the relationships with the girlsquad. i know this is actually very intentional of skam france - to build a specific kind of dynamic between the main and all the side characters. we saw that in season 3, and i think it’s a lot more evident here, but it still made a lot of sense and warmed my heart so much. arthur and imane were the purest - she was the first one to notice that something was wrong with him and also reached out to give him advice on how medical school could still be a possibility even with his disability when she absolutely didn’t have to, but she’s just a sweetheart like that. arthur and daphné had a lot more tension, which is understandable, because both are protective of their own best friends (bas and alexia) and would defend them to the ends of the earth. i think they honestly have a lot more in common than they think. but my favorite dynamic was arthur and emma. i totally did not expect for emma to have such a part in this season, but every single one of their interactions was Gold. emma could see a lot of herself in arthur and i think that’s why she was so quick to notice that he wasn’t interested in becoming a surgeon at all. that scene when she says it would’ve been nice to have arthur as a brother was the sweetest thing Ever.

11. i’ll finish with the acting. y’all, the guy who plays arthur literally CARRIED this season and i hope his back is doing fine. he was So powerful - he made me cry, and laugh, and feel frustrated. he delivered every single emotion perfectly. i also think that the fact these actors are friends irl (i assume? lol but i think i’ve seen them in each other’s personal IG stories) really helps their chemistry on camera. le gang feels like a group of brothers/best friends and they were always so natural and effortless in their interactions. the new actors also Rocked and delivered so much emotion even if they were using a completely different language and it was awesome.

(also, this just literally applies to *me*, a lucas lallemant HOE, but it was so nice seeing lucas up close from a different perspective. the fact we could still see so many layers of him: his emotional self, his bratty self, his supportive self, even a touch on his abandonment issues and everything made me so happy. i think sometimes i forget the lucas character was real and not something i made up because he feels too good to be true, and it was really interesting seeing him from arthur’s POV).

i’m not here defending the mistakes they made in s5, i don’t think it’s a perfect season either, but tbh i have yet to find what i consider to be a perfect season in the skamverse, so here’s just some things i liked about this season that i feel like y’all should take into consideration as well. thx

[againstshame]

A small interview with autistic author Sarah Kurchak

She’s celebrating the release of her memoir, I Overcame My Autism and All I Got Was This Lousy Anxiety Disorder, this week (actually a while ago but has anything this year happened on schedule? Better late than never, right?) I offered to interview her for this blog, and she agreed!

I wanted to talk about her book on this blog because one of the big topics this book deals with is the self-annihilating impulse that we talked about in this post, the shame-related desire to remake yourself into a fundamentally different (non-disabled) person. Kurchak describes her book as a cautionary tale about how harmful putting on an act like that can be.

[ID: cover of the book, a photo of Sarah Kurchak, with pink-dyed hair and a black shirt.]

Please give a brief summary of the book.

I Overcame My Autism And All I Got Was This Lousy Anxiety Disorder is a collection of moderately connected essays that use moments from my life as a minimally successful late diagnosed autistic person to highlight bigger issues that face many autistic people. Basically, I didn’t want to write my own story and leave it at that. Nor did I think my life was interesting enough to merit an entire book. But I seem to have a facility for writing about autism in a way that intrigues non-autistic people, so I wanted to see if I could use that talent for the greater good in book form.

My basic and slightly muddied thesis is that my life is decent enough, but it hasn’t been without hardships, and that some of those hardships could have been remedied with better services for autistic people, and greater acceptance and understanding. And if someone like me, who has had a number of advantages in life, is struggling as much as I am, how much harder is it for so many other autistic people? And how much more are we currently failing them?

What's this book's origin story? How did you end up writing this memoir rather than some other book, and how did you find your publisher?

“It’s in the book!” feels like such a dick answer to me. But if anyone is interested in a longer (or, arguably, too long) explanation for how I wound up getting an agent, writing this book, and finding a publisher for it, you can find it in the introduction. Along with references to Cronenberg’s The Brood and Balloon Okada.

The short version is that an agent liked a story that I’d published in a literary outlet, and asked if I wanted to write a book. I tried to talk her into repping a novella about slash fiction and pro wrestling that I wrote in my early twenties. Somehow that did not put her off and she gently guided me toward non-fiction ideas. I’d had the title in mind for years at that point, so I threw that out. Then I started to flesh out what kind of book I’d put under it. I still don’t think it’s a proper memoir, but that word’s on the cover, so I guess it is?

(I realize how lucky I am to have found myself in this unlikely situation. But I always feel the need to point out that it took me 18 years of professional writing to find this “overnight” “success.”)

What's one thing you wish you had known about or had access to when you were younger and undiagnosed?

I wish that I could have grown up with a more wholistic idea of myself. When I excelled in school but struggled on the playground, a lot of well-meaning adults who were just trying to help a suffering child get through the day started to tell me that the other kids were jealous of me because I was smart, and that’s why I was being bullied and couldn’t make friends. And that’s a very easy narrative to cling to when you’re a scared and lonely child who is desperate for any sense of self-worth.

It helped me survive school, but I don’t think it benefitted me at all in the long run. It took me a long time to come to terms with how ableist and racist the very concept of intelligence is. I’d grown up thinking it was the only thing I had going for me! I didn’t want to give it up! I wish I could have figured out how harmful the concept was much earlier in life and established a sense of self that was more aware of — and cool with — my strengths and weakness. And more rooted in the idea that my worth came from the fact that I was a human being, and not because I was ostensibly “special” in some way.

A while ago I did an event on this blog where people sent in examples of fiction that helped them feel better about being neurodivergent or disabled, stories that showed them what their future could look like or made them feel less alone. Was there a story that did that for you?

Community premiered a few months after I was diagnosed and I can’t even begin to put into words how much Abed helped me during those early years. And how meaningful Abed and Troy’s friendship was.

Strangely, even though there is nothing at all autistic coded about her, and not a lot I’d consider neurodivergent about her, George in Dead Like Me really spoke to me, too. I think I was just really into the idea of someone getting a late start in life where they could make up for what they hadn’t done before, even if they could never really go back to what their original life was. (This is the only way in which I’d ever view my diagnosis as analogous to death, by the way. It was really quite a positive and helpful experience!)

And a bonus special interest question: Was there a specific match, storyline, or wrestler that made you into a wrestling fan instead of a casual viewer? What was it that caught your attention?

It was Chris Jericho.

In late 2000, I decided to try watching wrestling. I had always hated it, but my new boyfriend (now my husband) was really into it. And he seemed to have good taste otherwise, so I figured I should at least try to understand what the hell had gone wrong with him on this one thing. So I tuned into Raw, and there was this little lippy Canadian causing all sorts of shit. And that was it! All I wanted to do was watch this bratty asshole with a sharp tongue and a hair trigger crying reflex antagonize his opponents and then get flustered if and when things didn’t work out properly. And that’s exactly what I did for about 18 years. Even when I lost interest in wrestling in general, I still loved Jericho.

But it ended as suddenly as it began. Jericho attacked Tetsuya Naito in New Japan in 2018. Other members of LIJ jumped in to protect him. There was a split second where I thought Jericho was going to hit Hiromu Takahashi. And I involuntarily squealed “DON’T YOU TOUCH HIM” at my laptop screen. Friendship ended with Jericho. Hiromu Takahashi is my best wrestler now. (Well, one of the best, at least. Tetsuya Endo forever.)

[pinkbelugacollective]

Damn there’s a lot to cover so it’ll be in a few parts I’m anon bc I think ur cool and I want us to be on good terms but I’m not sure yet if we can disagree politely ;(

I got to disagree with you on some parts like Julius callously just straight up collecting ppl like Pokémon. He simply selected people who he thought had cool magic and a potential to be good warriors. He is both childish and ambitious. Simple as that.

He knew he had to create a strong squad so he could be WK one day and he did it in the nicest way possible. He helped Yami become more acquainted with the language and culture and made him a strong knight. He did the same thing for William. He showed kindness and respect when William had none and helped with his insecurities. William knew that realistically speaking, not everyone is going to accept his visage as graciously as Julius so he was content with at least one person(whom he regarded highly) knowing and accepting him. Giving someone a purpose and the will to live not a bad thing yk?

But at the same time, he achieved his goal to be Wizard King without stepping on anyone.

Though I have to agree that he flopped as WK to achieve what he wanted.

So I will preface this with four things:

Really, I am just a Siberian sheep farmer, and thus you are welcome to post a dissenting opinion at any time. I do not bite!! The rest of your asks are under the cut. :D

I have never read the light novels.

My knowledge is 75% anime, 25% manga. I started the anime and watched all the way to the beginning of the Heart mini-arc. Then I stopped and read the manga from where the anime stopped. Therefore, I only have knowledge of the story through the anime up to volume 23. Volumes 23 onwards, I’ve been manga-exclusive until recently, now that the anime is adapting from the manga.

I am a crackhead.

So for the Pokemon part, I was referring to Yami, but like... How you describe Julius is exactly how I’d imagine a Pokemon trainer. He’s a forty-year-old man and his passion in life is to look at shiny magic things, and that’s OK! Julius is an eccentric man, and there’s never anything wrong about being passionate about the things you love.

But at the same time, Julius’ passion is also one of his primary weapons because he did recruit William and Yami specifically because they had interesting/rare magic, and despite how passionate he is about magic, they were recruited for the military. They were also, arguably, at their most vulnerable when Julius came along. Yami was poor, illiterate in the Clover language, and not ashamed to walk off with a stranger for a simple meal, whereas William was basically the Clover equivalent of weird lil forest boy. Now, do I think Julius recruited them because he planned to take over the world? Absolutely not! But he did manage to recruit them into a system he would, eventually, go on to oversee, so it’s very difficult for me to view Julius as some flighty old man just asking cool magic people to join him when he’s shown to be one of the sharpest and coldest people in the room, and intelligent enough to forecast what power he needs to be able to leverage in order to maintain control.

And I agree - he’s ineffective as a leader, and incompetent at his job in general. However, I don’t think his incompetency is just because his head is in the clouds about magic. I think it’s also because of his privileged birth, his aimlessness in life before Zara came along, etc. In any other world, Julius would probably be your favorite archeologist living off daddy’s trust fund, but he’s not that. He’s the head of a military force and the face of a nation, and I truly believe he’s failed both.

As for toxic loyalty.... I would have to disagree. I think superficially Yami is just a dude going about his day, squatting in Mr. Legolant’s house with his Pokemon, but I don’t think Yami is so dumb that he doesn’t recognize how much he’s despised for being a migrant. You’re right, he doesn’t have to be a beacon of change for any other immigrants, but I think it depoliticizes his character and does an overall disservice to his narrative when race/species conflict, class conflict, and genocide are all key themes in the story. You’re right, Yami doesn’t give a fuck most of the time because he’s just not interested in social justice or bringing any meaningful impact to Clover politics, but it’s because he doesn’t give a fuck is the problem. Yami’s complacent in upholding Julius’ institution, just like William is complacent in Patolli’s acts of terror, because regardless of how Yami feels, he’s part of a larger military complex seeking to uphold the Crown, a crown Julius controls as leader of the military.

And I heavily disagree that William wasn’t focused on equality, discrimination, and all that jazz. William’s grimore was not dedicated to Julius pre-elf reincarnation. If it was, William’s struggle in deciding between Patolli and Julius would never have existed because Patolli would have either been contained and or exorcised before it got to the point that it did. More than that, William’s betrayal runs far deeper than the moment he receded to let Patolli chop off Fuegoleon’s arm and put him in a coma. No - William’s betrayal was a decade’s worth of actively building a squadron of bodies that would be fit to hold the souls of the elves once the reincarnation began. I’d argue that William implicitly chose Patolli from the start, even if he explicitly made the case that he didn’t really have a choice. In addition, William was aiding and abetting a terrorist whose entire motivation hinges on the genocide of his people. Sorry to say, but I can’t agree that William didn’t have these things in mind when he was making his choices.

For Fuegoleon and Nozel, I won’t argue they’re seeking to fulfill political ambitions. It’s true! They want the Crown because they want the power and can strive for it due to their position on the hierarchy.

As for overthinking Yami’s behavior... I like to overthink. Lemme tell you why. Yami being aware of Charlotte’s feelings aint the problem, and neither is his him getting into fights with Jack. No, the issue is Yami has a habit of collecting people like Pokemon when people shouldn’t be treated as such!

I make jokes that Yami never got management training, but lemme expand - he hired an ex-con, a mage whose true visage he didn’t learn about until the Underwater Sea Temple arc, an alcoholic with mommy issues, an anxiety-ridden taxi with daddy and brother issues, etc., basically all of the members have some kind of issue that stems from trauma/violence/etc and Yami just invites them to his squad like, literally, it’s a halfway house. Now, the people he recruits are grateful and all, but they’re all fucked up! Every one of them, except Asta.

And that’s why I say Asta was the wake-up call Yami needed, and the character that will drive Yami’s development, because Asta has something Yami doesn’t have - and that’s clarity. Asta’s history, his rise to power, his ambition, all of that hinges on a childhood raised with love and warmth even if he was born with what the kingdom could view as a disability (ie. no magic). Asta knows what he wants because his goals benefit more than just him. Asta wants it for Hage, for his adoptive father, and for his foster family. Asta has his eyes on the prize because his circumstances allowed for him to keep his eyes on the prize.

Yami does not have that level clarity in his life. You said it yourself - Yami isn’t the type to sweat the political stuff, he’s living because he can, and he surpasses his limits because he wants to and not because he has to. He leaves his squad to his business, and he expects them to get their shit together when necessary, but besides that, it’s hands-off.

And that’s where the issue is! Yami is detached from his own squad emotionally. Part of the reason why it’s easy to parentify Yami as the team dad because it’s assumed his detachment is a regular shounen-dad trait, not present but he loves you anyway. I don’t think that’s the case with Yami. I think it runs deeper than that, and part of the reason why Yami can’t bond with his own teammates and actually lead the squad is because he’s overcompensating for his own insecurities and inability to have a clear and necessary vision for his future.

The few times Yami has had to surpass his limits is when he’s had to protect his squad, people who are mentally ill and generally incompetent themselves, and it’s because Yami knows he’s the only one capable of doing it. And that’s a problem! Yami doesn’t offer them the tools to get better mentally and physically. It’s not even a joke anymore because Henry has tried murder-suicide twice in order to win a battle, and it’s for Yami. Before Asta, the Black Bulls were a fractured mess of people with Yami holding them together for dear life, but with Asta, they were able to see life beyond the comforts of the Black Bulls den. Vanessa and Finral faced their traumatic pasts. Grey finally found the courage to enhance her magic. Henry finally came out of the attic. In a way, the Black Bulls are also toxically loyal to Yami because Yami? He’s not a good leader either! Now, is that Yami’s fault? No, but he is responsible for the health and wellbeing of his squad, and his kidnapping by Zenon was testament that he’d ultimately failed in the only real responsibility he’s ever had. Maybe that’s overthinking Yami’s character and motivations, but I think that’s fine.

As for the civil war, that’s just something I would love to see because Bleach never did a Rukongai civil war when we were ripe for it. It’s pure self-indulgence! Of course I know neither Fuegoleon nor Nozel will start a civil war, but I like to think something will, and sometimes I think it will be Asta’s trial... and sometimes I think it will be something completely outta left field, but the concept fascinates me because much of the story is predicated on the ongoing issues of social and political injustice, race/species conflict, even if it’s all fluffed up with cool character designs. Now, a lot of why I want to see Black Clover attempt a civil war is because I hold Tabata to a standard simply because he claims his work is Berserk but for babies. Now, I never thought such a concept would come to light, but as a Berserk stan... I just wanna see if he’s worth his mettle! I think there’s a lot in the story that’s ripe for inter-Clover conflict, but I also understand his limitations. Yes, because it’s shounen, he can’t expand on certain themes, but like, he teases it well enough that it makes it, quite frankly, annoying as heck when he doesn’t pull through. Perhaps it’s my own fault for holding him to the standard, but like, if you gon say you gon write bootleg Berserk, then write bootleg Berserk!!!

I digress. Now, if a civil war were to begin, I honestly think it would be one mainly driven by what happens to Asta post-Spade. If Damnatio turns around and paints him as a hero for having saved the kingdom, then there won’t be any need for a civil war because uwu Asta will become Wizard King and do policy change from the top-down (trickle-down social and poltical justice).

But if Asta were to be charged and jailed anyway, just so he could take the fall for the amount of destruction that’s about to go down, then it doesn’t make sense for there not to be a civil war. Because once Asta goes down, who’s gonna become Wizard King? Yuno? The guy whose birthright is the Spade throne? Even if Yuno remains a Clover citizen, the chances of him becoming Wizard King are next to null because his parentage would be viewed as a conflict of interest.

So really, it’s not a question of who starts the war, but what propels the issue. We already know that in the context of the story, kin punishment exists, so if Asta has to take the fall, who’s to say his family won’t take it too? That the family in Hage and Yuno won’t have to bear the brunt of the blame in order to bring “peace” to the nation.

I’d like Tabata to go the route of a civil war because then he’d be forced to show that the issues in Clover run way deeper than just Augustus and the nobility. It’s their caste-like social structure, lack of infrastructure and resources for the people living in the “outer” areas, their discriminatory practices towards those of lower birth, racism, etc.

But again, that entirely depends on if Tabata wants to tell such a tale, or if he prefers Asta take the assimilationist route, save the day, and become the uwu hero. He can! It’s an easy way to frame things, and mirrors Lumiere’s Big Battle well enough, but I think a war would also be great so that it can really put Asta in a position to exercise his brain in the face of absolute loss, and spark hope from nothing. Asta is my favorite of the new generation of Shounen Jump protags because he has a level of potential I just don’t see in others. He has a drive, but he also has critical thinking skills, and he has a support system when shit gets real. I want to see Asta feel the weight of decisions beyond his control, so that he can experience decision-making from a place of true helplessness, which I honestly think will help him see that there’s more to the dream of being Wizard King than just climbing the ranks. It’s advocating for real change. It’s not only knowing how to empower the people, but also being able to actively challenge injustice in every form. It’s not full-on anarchy like Liebe, but it’s not just assimilationist politicking he was doing earlier. I think with a civil war, Asta will understand that there’s more to his world than just magic, and that he, as a non-magic person, can make change that doesn’t hinge on him following the rule of the law, because the laws have to change, and they can’t change when Asta’s forty and finally Wizard King, they have to happen now. A civil war will expose a lot of the underpinning issues and offer the cast a change to work through them! Also, it makes for good conflict uwu.

But that’s entirely my opinion!!! I’m a HUGE fan of historical political thrillers. Absolutely LOVE that shit. I wanna see it in Black Clover because selfishly, it would make me happy!!

[mediaevalmusereads]

Master of Crows. By Grace Draven. Self Published (?), 2009.

Rating: 2/5 stars

Genre: fantasy romance

Part of a Series? Yes, Master of Crows #1

Summary: What would you do to win your freedom? This is the question that sets bondwoman, Martise of Asher, on a dangerous path. In exchange for her freedom, she bargains with her masters, the mage-priests of Conclave, to spy on the renegade sorcerer, Silhara of Neith. The priests want Martise to expose the sorcerer's treachery and turn him over to Conclave justice. A risky endeavor, but one she accepts without hesitation--until she falls in love with her intended target. Silhara of Neith, Master of Crows, is a desperate man. The god called Corruption invades his mind, seducing him with promises of limitless power if he will help it gain dominion over the world. Silhara struggles against Corruption's influence and searches for ways to destroy the god. When Conclave sends Martise as an apprentice to help him, he knows she's a spy. Now he fights a war on two fronts -against the god who would possess him and the apprentice who would betray him. Mage and spy search together for a ritual that will annihilate Corruption, but in doing so, they discover secrets about each other that may damn them both. Silhara must decide if his fate, and the fate of nations, is worth the soul of the woman he has come to love, and Martise must choose continued enslavement or freedom at the cost of a man's life. And love.

***Full review under the cut.***

Content Warnings: sexual content, blood, magical violence

Overview: After being a little lukewarm on Radiance, I decided to give Grace Draven one more try, mostly because her books seem to be popular on tumblr. I picked up Master of Crows on a whim, and though I think it has more plot than Radiance, the main characters were really not to my taste. For me, Martise was too passive and Silhara was too much of a jerk to be likeable, and the massive power imbalance between the two meant that I didn’t really root for their relationship to succeed. Thus, this book only gets 2 stars from me.

Writing: Draven’s prose is fairly straight-forward. It’s easy to get through and it flows well, giving the reader just enough to know what’s going on. I don’t really have any criticisms for its simplicity because Draven is writing within romance, and the point isn’t to be poetic. Rather, it gets the job done, and I think most readers will appreciate that.

Where I do think I can criticize this book is in the repetition of phrases. More than twice, I saw the term “half mast” used to convey when a character’s eyes were half open, and I think I saw “tattoo” used multiple times to describe a rapid rhythm or tapping. It’s not the biggest deal, but I was definitely pulled out of the story when I noticed these things.

I also think I can criticize Draven for telling us some things that should have been shown. We’re told, for instance, that Silhara isn’t a noble man, that he’s selfish and ambitious, etc. but we’re never really shown scenes of him acting out of ambition or being actually tempted to give in to Corruption’s influence. I would have liked to see Silhara be put in positions where he is making choices or doing things that make the reader think he was susceptible to Corruptions influence. Maybe we see him researching spells for making himself more powerful. Maybe something happens on page with Conclave that is so bad, he starts seriously considering Corruption’s offer to give him revenge. It could be argued that we do get some of that, but it felt like everything was told to us, or happened in the past, and we were expected to absorb it.

Plot: Most of the non-romance plot of this book revolves around Silhara trying to figure out how to destroy the god Corruption while Martise acts as a spy, trying to get some dirt on him so the Conclave (a collection of priests/mages) will have an excuse to kill him. To be honest, I thought the initial premise was a good one; I liked the idea of conflicting loyalties and the eventual shift from enemies (of a sort) to lovers.

However, I do not think this plot was handled well, mainly because Corruption seemed to be a background threat. Multiple times throughout the book, we see Silhara be more or less tormented by the god, whether through dreams that keep him up at night, through disrupting Silhara’s magic abilities, through manifestations, and through temporary possession. While scary, I don’t think these scenes had much lasting impact, which didn’t make Corruption feel like a real threat. If Silhara is being kept awake at night, for example, I want to see scenes where his sleep deprivation gets him in trouble. If his magic is out of control, I want to see scenes where he has to decide whether he wants to risk using it or if he should go through his life without his powers. Something other than Corruption just being a lurking boogeyman that occasionally pops up and becomes a nuisance rather than a real, omnipresent force.

I also think Martise’s plot was a bit weak, mainly because we’re never really shown her having conflicting feelings or arguing with herself about whether or not to give Silhara to the Conclave. Martise is a slave, and her master promises to free her if she can get dirt on Silhara. While fine, the desire for freedom never seemed like a driving force for Martise; we never see her digging through Silhara’s study for potential dirt, of trying to eavesdrop or do other things that would show her actively trying to achieve her goal. Instead, Martise is rather passive, waiting for information to come to her, and she never really wrestles with her life as a slave, not the decision of whether or not to report Silhara once she falls in love with him. I would have liked to see more angst or at least more of an evolution where it felt like Martise had an arc independent of her service or usefulness to Silhara.

Characters: Martise, our heroine, is rather passive and seems to exist mainly to be used. I really didn’t like that she seemed to have no ambition or agency; she mostly waited for things to happen to her, and only shows agency towards the end, when the big showdown happens. Even her “gift” - the magic ability which lays dormant in her until Silhara awakens it - seems to be built around her being a tool to be used, and I was extremely disappointed that her arc didn’t seem to be about empowering her as a woman or as an ex-slave.

Silhara, our hero, is the type of love interest I absolutely hate. He’s extremely powerful, but is a complete jerk to the heroine and commits random violence towards other people out of jealousy. While we’re told over and over again that Martise loves him because he’s a good person at heart, I really didn’t see it. He not only beats up someone who speaks poorly of Martise, but he also seems comfortable ordering her around and treating her as a servant until the very end. The only redeeming qualities he had seemed to be that he doesn’t like people treating women poorly (which, ok, I guess) and he’s kind to his servant, Gurn. Other than that, he’s not an alluring figure.

Side characters were fun, if under utilized. Gurn is Silhara’s mute servant who uses a kind of sign language to communicate. I really liked this character because it inserts some disability representation, and I liked his relationship with Martise. The two seemed to bond over their shared status as servants, and I honestly wish there had been more of an arc or exploration about class with these two. Other characters served their purposes. Cumbria, Martise’s owner, is largely absent, but manages to look bad in every way. He’s not a super compelling antagonist just because he’s not on the page too often, but when he is, I think Draven did a good job not making him over-the-top evil. He’s mostly just greedy and petty, and I wish he had been used more deliberately in conjunction with Silhara’s exile as a commentary on corruption within religious orders. Corruption, the god, is a different story. As I explained in the plot section above, Corruption isn’t much more than a boogeyman, and I got really tired of him really fast.

I’m not sure how to feel, however, about the Kurman people in this book. The Kurmans are a nation/ethnic group/tribe/society with some rather odd gender dynamics. Women can apparently own property and vote, and they are supposedly respected, but they are kept separate from men much of the time, wait on men at feasts, can’t meet men’s eyes unless they want to communicate sexual availability, and so on. It was rather bizarre to me, and I seemed to be getting conflicting ideas about whether or not this society was feminist or not. I also wasn’t sure if they were supposed to be modeled on any real-life ethnic groups or societies; they are described as wearing pointy shoes, having swarthy/dark skin, having multiple wives, etc. so I got the impression that they might have been like Arabs, Mongols, or Ethiopians (due to the food they eat, etc), but if so, I didn’t quite like how Silhara refers to them as “barbarian,” even if it was in jest.

Romance: I couldn’t get on board with this romance. At all. Martise was already too subservient as a character, and while I get that some of this could be a survival technique, it didn’t make sense that Silhara would fall for her based on the ways in which she surprised or challenged him. Because she barely did. She never called Silhara out in any meaningful way and seemed to go along with whatever he wanted until the end.

Most of my discomfort, however, comes from two main issues: 1.) Silhara never seems to put Martise’s well-being first, and 2.) there is a huge power imbalance between the two that isn’t corrected until the very end, and Silhara never seems to be interested in leveling the playing field. First, Martise’s well-being: Silhara constantly offered comments that seemed to tear Martise down or, at the very least, be a back-handed compliment. He never seems to want to find ways of making her happy, and he centers his own desire and well-being even after big things happen. For instance, in a scene where Silhara is temporarily possessed by Corruption, he hurts Martise so badly that she cannot speak (as in, he chokes her almost to blackout). When he is freed from possession, he never seems to care about what he did to Martise or how she might be in pain. Instead, the first thing he does is order Martise to get away from him, then he orders Gurn to look after Martise to make sure she’s ok. All the while, he focuses on his own pain and jokes about his balls (which Martise kicked in order to free herself from his grasp). I was flabbergasted - why wouldn’t you want to make sure for yourself your lover is ok after something like that?

Second, the power imbalance. Even though Silhara doesn’t know Martise is a slave for the majority of the book, he does take her into his household as a servant, and has no qualms about ordering her about or taking advantage of her gentle nature. You’d think that if someone fell in love with a servant, much of the romance would be about overcoming class barriers or finding some way to put the two characters on equal footing. Sometimes, this is done by the lower class person having a sharper wit or calling out the upper class person on things that make them change for the better. Martise and Silhara never seem to have that arc. Martise calls Silhara “Master” throughout the whole book, and Silhara didn’t seem uncomfortable with it except when they were having sex. He never stops presuming to give Martise orders and expecting she obey them, not even at the very end when the question of her freedom gets resolved. And there are books out there where this class barrier is done well (Jane Eyre comes to mind), so I think Draven could have put more work into exploring the dynamics and how Martise is a match for Silhara, even given her status and lack of magic (at least, for a while).

TL;DR: Master of Crows has a good premise, but ultimately suffers from unlikeable or passive protagonists, a weak plot, and a romance with uneven power dynamics.

[ladyloveandjustice]

Shadow of the Batgirl: A review type thing

I just read the graphic novel Shadow of the Batgirl by Sarah Kuhn and Nicole Goux, which reimagines the superhero origin of Cassandra Cain.

It was overall good and EXTREMELY cute! If you want an awesome story about a teenage assassin running away from her shitty dad and finding a neat library, a community of cool ladies and the hero within herself, AND WHY WOULDN’T YOU WANT THAT, definitely get this! 

It’s a standalone Batgirl story completely accessible to all and with none of the weird baggage and the complicated continuity of the regular Batman universe! it’s appropriate for younger teens but still a good read for adults, the art’s colorful and great, it’s packed to the brim with joy and hope.

And on top of all that, it gives a great character who’s been traditionally horribly neglected by mainstream comics for some reason (*cough its because she’s not white cough*) a spotlight and a chance to shine (and get written by an Asian American author for once!)! This also features one of my other faves, who had her disability and adult identity erased in the main universe, but not in this comic, hurray!

SO YEAH, if you like superheroes at all, highly recommend this!

NOW for a more detailed review, calling on all my expertise as a Cassandra Cain superfan and going into pros and cons. This’ll be long, but I’ll do it as a list to break it down.

Let’s start with the good stuff, there’s a lot of it:

- This story takes place in world where Barbara Gordon as Oracle (and former Batgirl) and Cassandra Cain as Batgirl exist, but Batman and The Killing Joke do not appear to. That is honestly transcendentally great to finally see this as an officially realized concept, Batgirl allowed to stand on its own as a legacy of powerful women, with all history of these characters being victimized for the sake of manpain erased. I am elated.

-The art was adorable, the designs were great, the clothes and Cass’s costumes were super cute, the setting was vibrant.

-Jackie was a really fun character and mentor figure for Cass. Loved her snark and how she and Babs basically become Cass’s two Moms and an awesome team in their own right. The relationships in this were just heartwarming. Loved the range of characters in general.

-Cass basically lived in a library aka my life dream. I mean, she did it because she was homeless and on the run from her assassin father, but like.

-Cassandra FINALLY knows her own race, (she’s half-Chinese) and gets to have a goddamn connection and basic feelings about it (Jackie bringing up what the bat means to Chinese culture), etc, god it should not have taken this long for this to happen.

(And it’s really important to have a version of Cass’s story where, y’know, the positive inspirational figures in her life include other Asian people, they aren’t just white people. it wasn’t until I read this it fully dawned on me how screwed up it is she never had that before.)

-For the first time in her entire existence, Cassandra Cain got to be in a canon romance that wasn’t fucking awful, can you believe it. Her love interest Erik was adorable, and him being a budding romance writer was an especially sweet touch- and I think there’s an implication/hint his dad’s the Bronze Tiger? Which is really cute Easter Egg for Cass fans, considering she had a strong friendship with the dude in her original series!

-The idea of Cass liking to draw and expressing herself through art is really fun and fitting. Her being visually focused, it makes a lot of sense.

-Cass extending her body language ability to sort of being able to guess at people’s underlying emotional problems from how they carry themselves is a really neat idea- it could have been implemented a little more smoothly but I like the concept.

-Cass going after the “evil-doers” in the library after becoming a hero was one of the best things I’ve ever seen. Deserves to be framed. I love what a huge nerd Cass got to be in this.

-The comic understood that core of Cass’s character is compassion and empathy, that how she reaches out for people, refuses to harm, and really believes in people and embodies change, rebirth, hope. THAT’S IT, THAT’S MY GIRL, THAT’S MY HERO..

-I’ve read a ton of comics with Barbara Gordon and this is the first one I’ve come across where she discussed her relationship with her mother having any sort of influence on her interests and personality, she isn’t even the main character of this and her mother matters more in it than every other comic I’ve read with her combined how sad is that

-I liked Babs just casually making gadgets and stuff all the time, and loved that she expressed she honestly preferred doing this and that was why she was giving Batgirl to Cass. MADE ME WANT TO SCREAM FUCK YOU DC ALL OVER AGAIN.

-Compared to the original Cass Batgirl comics, this story is obviously more accessible as a standalone, but it’s also just overall more appropriate for a wider range of ages since the darker elements of Cass’s story are way toned down. I was a young teenager when I read Cass’s series and was fine, but there are young teenagers that DON’T want like, graphic onscreen deaths in their comics, so it’s good there’s a lighter Cass story for them. It was just a really sweet, affirming story.

Now for some cons, none of them damning:

The romance was cute, but wish it’d had room to breathe. Ideally, it didn’t need to be happening alongside Cass’s origin, I think it would have been better if it was just hinted at and then was allowed to fully play out as an after-she-became-Batgirl thing, but I can get that Kuhn didn’t know if this would get a sequel and there were probably a lot of good reasons she wanted to include it.

-I think this came from Kuhn being used to writing as a YA author rather than doing comics, but it was weird to read a Cass comic with so much narration and the way it was used really detracted from the potential power of the story. We’re told through Cass’s super chatty narration she’s not a normal teen, she TELLS US that she barely knows how to read and speak and TELLS US she’s better at reading body language-but we never get a sense of this, not even at the beginning, because the story doesn’t trust the reader to take in the visuals without narration, and then she’s able to talk like a normal teen pretty much right off the bat.

 I’m okay with Cass becoming a chatty girl, and her voice in this comic was fun- I know “silent Asian” has a lot baggage and Cass’s original character leaned into some stereotypes- but the first chapter/part would been far more powerful if it had her world be a little more silent and fully emphasized the visual, for her interactions with people and words be garbled and confusing, and if it gave us more of a sense of the world she comes from and how her perception of things differs from the average person. Cass’s original debut and the beginning of her original series did a really good job giving us a sense of this, and took great advantage of comics as a visual medium, and I missed that.

-Cass learns to read and talk SUPER EASILY and it just comes off as unbelievable. I do like the idea of her camping at a library, eavesdropping, and teaching herself, but I would have liked to see her actually struggle like a person would. Moreover, while I know the presentation of it was very flawed, Cass basically had a learning/language disability in the original series. I was kind of hoping this comic would lean into that, and actually give a more realistic and nuanced representation of that kind of disability (it could have been presented as something she always had that was exacerbated by how she was raised, not caused by it!).

 Honestly, I think her romance with Erik would have been far more interesting and meaningful and tied in better if she’d actually struggled to read, maybe even discovered she was dyslexic and couldn’t quite read the same way he could. That could have been a source of development between them.

-David Cain’s a super flat as a character in this comic, he doesn’t have much presence, menacing or otherwise, and Cass’s complicated feelings and relationship with him is not nearly as painful as they were in her original series.This is partly because there wasn’t a lot of a space for it though, and that’s fine.

-Overall, the main thing that hurts the story is that we don’t see all that much of what Cass’s life was like as an assassin, and her life with David Cain was like. It’s harder to invest in Cass’s transformation into a hero when we don’t really have a sense of who she was before,it’s hard to appreciate her breaking free when we can’t get a sense of what kind of cage she was even in. How much language DID she know? How much of the world was she exposed to? What was she really deprived of? I hope if there’s a sequel we can see more of this.

-Babs isn’t the main character of course, so this isn’t a real complaint, but I did miss her cynical and angry edge. She’s pretty much just a chipper nerd with no sign of her own baggage in this, and it makes her relationship with Cass less interesting. It’s implied that her “accident” did affect her and she just managed to work through a lot of it before she met Cass, but I missed the element of their relationship where they both were hurting from losing  “the world they knew” and working through it together, sometimes clashing, etc.

-I read one of Sarah Kuhn’s YA novels in anticipation of this, and while I’m relieved this is better about it than her first book was (I expected it to be, writers improve, I definitely know how messy a first book is) there’s still some cringe-y ideas of how “average” teens talk creeping in, occasional clunky pacing etc.

But all in all? It was a really nice little story that did a lot of cool things, and I really want a sequel and want more of this version of Cass and her universe. As someone who was driven away from DC comics in part because of how badly they treated Cass, Oracle and the Batgirl legacy. it’s really like a salve on old wounds.

[vaguely-concerned]

I played Death of the Outsider finally and I have some Feelings about it

and most of them not very positive. nice stuff first tho!

THINGS I LIKED:

- billie is such a good character. still new to her old self and slightly tender from coming out of the protective shell of lies that was meagan foster, full of old scars and doubts and bitterness but trying for something better, something kinder even though she still doesn’t quite understand what she’s walking towards -- the genuine care and tenderness in her voice when she talks to daud or thinks about deidre. I love her.

all that and she effortlessly IS also the queer disabled woc the gamer bros refuse to believe could possibly exist. exquisite. 

- the idea of ‘killing’ the outsider is compelling, but it’s the sort of idea that needs a full length game to support it and its implications. cool idea, completely wrong execution.

- saying that: I love that the injustice of the outsider’s creation being righted is only made possible by a long unbroken line of mercy and kindness. daud saved billie from the streets, corvo spared daud, daud saved emily and spared billie after her betrayal, billie tried to save aramis stilton and became entangled in the void, emily spared billie, billie took this job in the first place partly because she loves her dad daud and wants him to find peace. that idea is so beautiful that I wish the rest of the narrative was strong enough to hold it up lol.

there’s also something going on here with other people holding on to the important pieces of you -- that billie is ‘all that is left’ of daud after he’s dead. once he saved a child from true loneliness and gave her a purpose, made her feel seen again, gave her the closest thing she had to a home, and when he’s completely lost himself in the void... that kindness is still alive in billie, and she helps him find his way. again that is really touching and thoughtful and plays wonderfully into the chaos system in these games thematically! too bad about all the stilted dialogue and characterization messes and uh. everything else. 

- most of all I love how clear it is that billie and daud love each other. it’s a quiet love that has nothing to prove anymore, it’s survived all the blood and the ugliness and everything they’ve done to each other and to the world, a love with no demands left. it’s not the sort of love you usually see, in all its unsentimentality, but it’s real. when daud tells her he’s proud of her and trusts her no matter what she chooses to do, you feel how much he means it. (making his insistence on trying to make her choice for her all the weirder -- see my long rant of lamentation about his characterization in doto below lol)

there’s something about daud’s undramatic yet complete acceptance of and respect for billie that... I didn’t know I needed this, but it was a nice gift nonetheless haha, thank you. (it’s similar to how good it feels in D2 when you realize corvo just likes emily a lot as a person, even aside from her being his daughter. a good series for father & daughter stories)

- this carries over from D2, but I think the journal/log entries are better written and more insightful than the stuff out in the world.  

- it cannot be overstated how much the gameplay loop of these games is just... pure crack cocaine for my brain haha, very few things give me this specific kind of brain tingle. I love the sound of looting and I love the art style and ambiance and I love planning out a strategy after finding all the options and I love never being spotted or killing anyone and I love the puzzle elements they put into exploration sections and I love the feeling of how you move through the environment. it’s one of the few games where I routinely get so into it I end up with a crick in the neck because I’ve been so focused for so long and never noticed I’ve been sitting in a way that makes my entire spine hate me. I needed something to get me through the last few days and it did deliver that, at least. karnaca is pretty enough that I didn’t even mind that most of the levels were recycled from D2 either. 

- I’m not quite sure whether I understood this right but there’s a woman standing behind daud in the void -- I wonder if that is actually his mother and he’s been so close this whole time? at first I thought maybe it was jessamine but god no I hope she’s finally at peace after All That Nonsense, she shouldn’t have to hang around there anymore. there’s also a figure near him I could swear was corvo with his mask on, but he’s not dead canonically so that would make very little sense. oh well I’ll take my feels where I can get them even if I have to make them up wholesale  

- the bankheist was cool as fuuuuuck, that and the emotional impact of daud dying was sadly the height of this game for me, after that it all went mediocre real quick     

- paul nakauchi as shan yun was, as I have said before, a blast. ‘ugh I cannot continue my throat is as raw as a plucked pheasant’ fsdkfhlsadjkhfas

- daud’s funeral is genuinely touching. she gave him the entirety of her old life for a sendoff, battered and worn and dear as they both were. someone hold me 

THINGS I  H A T E D:

- the stuff they did with daud’s characterization. I am so unreasonably angry over this haha, the more I think about it the more I hate it. I think there are paths you could go with his ACTUAL character to make this work, but this was not it. I’ve said this before, but his most iconic, most defining scene is him surrendering himself to corvo’s judgement without justifying himself or deflecting the blame for any of what he’s done. this isn’t even regression in his character, it’s just.. a different character altogether. they could have gone for the angle that delilah almost managed to end the world b/c daud showed mercy and that’s the reason he’s moved to action, I think that might be a more compelling motivation for him at least. OR have him be more conflicted about how to do things -- violence is still the only tool he knows how to use but it’s not what he wants to or even can be anymore and the conflict troubles him, ‘His hands do violence, but there is a different dream in his heart’. or even use a different character for the ‘kill kill kill’ angle, he didn’t need to be here for this dlc at all.   

also, just on a purely practical level... for all his flaws and longstanding moral shortsightedness daud is not a stupid man. why the FCK would he be so sure that killing the outsider will fix anything? if I, dumbass extraordinaire, could within half a minute wonder if maybe something even worse would take the outsider’s place if you removed him... why does that never occur to the Knife of Dunwall tm, a man about Void for like half a century or whatever?? ugh fuck this, I’m having a hard time explaining exactly why it all feels weird and wrong to me, but know that it does and that I Do Not Like It lol. I feel cheated out of something important I thought I had.  

- again, this should have been a full game. (I think it is sold as one already, but it just hm isn’t) there’s way too much shit of literal cosmic importance for the game’s universe being picked up here for something this short to cover. save this HUGE idea for a rainy day should you ever want to do another game in the series and do something else with the dlc, honestly. 

- god but the outsider is insufferable in this. I don’t know what happened, but by the end I was like ‘*thoughtfully strokes chin* maybe daud has a point billie keep that knife handy’. he’s annoying and boring, which is wild to me because he was always a lot of fun in the other games.

for real tho I don’t know if this is just my atheist-but-still-angry-at-god-somehow??? talking, but daud HAS a point. people are responsible for their own actions, but the outsider didn’t have to do any of what he did either. he could have chosen to be bored through the centuries instead of seeing what people would do if you gave them such ~*morally neutral*~ abilities as y’know summoning a bunch of rats to eat other people. the game wants me to buy the ‘but really this black eyed boy is woobie tho uwu’ so badly and no I’m not buying that give me my refund I want my chaotic neutral bastard back pls. I’d probably be more inclined to want to help him like that. where’s his salt gone, arkane. if you didn’t want him to be edgy why did you make him look like that.  

- this is the lamest possible version of the outsider’s backstory lol, it feels like the pearl clutching panic about satanic cults back in the day all over. listen if it’s this easy to make a god the thrill is sort of taken out of it, if these randos did it anyone could. also how the fuck are they just normal-ish people anyway? why do they follow modern fashions? haven’t they been hanging around for thousands of years, haven’t their culture changed in any meaningful way? (I realize these aren’t the same guys as back in the day but it’s just weird) why do they speak a language billie and the player can understand? why did anyone think ‘idk some cultists no one’s ever heard of before with no thematic significance whatsoever’ was the way to go world building wise? they’ve taken all the unknowable eldritchness out of the eldritch horror and we’re all poorer for it now haha 

relatedly the last level is... just not very good. you come down from the awesome bank heist and then there’s... whatever the fuck this was.

- while I do like billie finding daud in the void and him remembering her I hate that he goes out still full of self loathing and rage when you talk him into the nonlethal option, that he can’t forgive himself or find any sliver of hope or peace. I wish there had been a few more moments for the two of them to come to peace with themselves before he gave the outsider back his name, some real catharsis. as it is I was annoyed when the outsider ‘woke up’ or whatever b/c it felt like he was stealing attention from what I was actually emotionally invested in and not done with.    

they had  n o t  built up billie’s or my sympathy for the outsider well enough either. again this is something I think they could have done if they’d structured things differently, if they’d been more deliberate in making you understand he was basically a child and letting you dwell on it. because there is a parallell there between him and billie, and billie and daud, but I, how do I put this, did not give a fuck  

in short this was really similar to my experience with D2 in that there’s enough good there that it’s all the more painful when it fails to deliver on it again and again, and it ruined things I already liked about this story from the first game (daud’s arc and everything to do with the outsider, mostly). give me some months of denial and hard core headcanon work and I’ll probably be able to live with it

[mst3kproject]

607: Bloodlust

Guys.  For the sake of yourselves and everything you love, never look for material related to this movie by searching the tumblr tags for bloodlust.  Just don’t.  While you will find the odd bit that’s actually relevant, you will also find… look, I’m sure your imaginations are equal to the task.  Some of the bonus material this week will be stuff from the episode, but there will also be a few things I found in the tag that just made me go whaaaaaat?.  None of them are gross, I promise, they’re just… odd.

A couple of blond dumbasses, who I think are named Johnny and Betty, and a couple of brunet dumbasses, possibly Jeannie and Peter, decide to have a picnic on a tropical island.  Unsurprisingly this turns out to be the home of a transparently evil Vincent-Price-looking asshole, whose hobby is murdering his guests and taxidermizing their corpses (apparently ‘taxidermize’ is a real word – my spellcheck doesn’t underline it).  Vincent-at-half-the-Price’s drunk flunky and cheating wife have an escape plan, but once that’s been foiled it’s just these idiots against the world’s self-proclaimed greatest hunter.

I am apparently in a minority, but I think this episode’s host sketches are brilliant.  Pearl’s first appearance is classic and Crow ruining Mystery Dinner Theatre is great, but my favourite part is when the SOL’s hoedown descends into anarchy.  I can watch that over and over.  If I ever witness a riot I’m going to be very tempted to just shout, “and now promenade!” and see what happens.

Anyway, The Most Dangerous Game is one of those things they make you read in English class, and like many things I had to read in English class it left me mildly traumatized.  It’s a deeply distasteful story about man’s bloodthirsty nature and how the only way to overcome evil is to sink to its level, and every so often I’ll remember it, or Harrison Bergeron, or The Lottery, and it makes my day seem a little more dismal.  I’m pretty sure nobody ever reads it except high school students and the Zodiac Killer.

So if you were wondering why it took me so long to get around to reviewing this one… well, I felt like I had to revisit the story in order to do justice to a review of this movie, and I really really really didn’t want to do that.  Just thinking about it gives me flashbacks to things like Sonnet 116 and that horrible story in which the floor was both lava and snakes.  But I said every episode and so here I fucking am.

Anyway, my return to The Most Dangerous Game, or at least to its Cole’s Notes, proved very educational – it taught me that not only is Bloodlust a lousy movie, it’s also one of those adaptations that completely misses the point of the work it’s attempting to adapt.  The main theme of The Most Dangerous Game is how the only difference between the hunter and the hunted is which one is in a position of power. Rainsford is himself a big game hunter, and discusses this with his friend Whitney.  Upon finding himself on Zaroff’s island, he becomes the prey, because Zaroff is the one with all the power.  At the end, Zaroff had believed Rainsford is dead, which gives Rainsford the advantage of surprise and turns the tables again.

Bloodlust completely discards this theme.  There’s never any real discussion of the power imbalance. Worse, while Rainsford was an experienced hunter and fighter himself, somebody Zaroff considered a worthy adversary, these four clowns are just young people who blundered into this situation and aren’t even Vincent-at-half-the-Price’s preferred prey.  He doesn’t hunt them like he does his escaped criminals, because he thinks it’ll be a challenge, he does it because the only other alternatives are to straight-up murder them or to let them go, neither of which are acceptable to him.

Rainsford was an expert on traps and tracking, which meant he could offer Zaroff a meaningful  challenge. Of the four young people in Bloodlust, only one of them is kind of barely competent, that being Betty the judo expert.  She’s smart enough to figure out how to get away with breaking the window, and manages to keep her head and chuck the lackey into the vat of acid.  When confronted with the John the Baptist dude, however, she freezes and screams along with Jeannie.  The group survives through nothing but sheer luck.

It was luck that allowed them to get out of the house and then back into it without getting seen.  It was lucky that Vincent-at-half-the-Price chose to go after the drunken sea captain first and the boys later.  It was just good luck that Jondor survived the quicksand and showed up in the nick of time to take revenge on his master.  The supposed heroes are barely involved in their own salvation.  At the end of The Most Dangerous Game, Rainsford had to sink to Zaroff’s level and become a murderer.  The four idiots in Bloodlust just stand and watch.

The one kind of interesting spin the movie tries to put on things is when it takes some time to explore why Vincent-at-half-the-Price is the way he is.  He describes how war inured him to killing until he came to consider it a pleasure. This invites us to think about people who become murderers – prevailing opinion seems to be that people like the aforementioned Zodiac Killer are born without compassion, that their killing sprees are inevitable.  Some killers, like BTK or the Green River Killer, have stated themselves that they need to kill and couldn’t put it off forever, even when they managed to take long breaks.  It’s true that many of these murderers come from terrible backgrounds – but other people are abused as children and don’t grow up to kill people.

Vincent-at-half-the-Price’s killing spree is not inevitable.  He claims to have found it distasteful at first but it later became a pleasure as repeated kills eroded the value of human lives in his eyes.  This is actually a bit more thoughtful than Zaroff, who started out killing animals and moved up when it no longer offered him enough of a challenge.  He kills people because he thinks if they can’t escape him then they don’t deserve to live.  Once again, however, this change loses one of the points The Most Dangerous Game was trying to make, which is that killing animals for sport is brutal and pointless.  At the beginning of the story Rainsford and Whitney were on their way to the Amazon to hunt jaguars – not for food, or because the jaguar offers any threat to them, but simply because they can.

So while the source material may have left stains on my young psyche, it at least had something to say.  I will also say that it’s pretty suspenseful, and leaves you honestly worried for Rainsford as Zaroff evades his traps and closes in on him.  Bloodlust, on the other hand, is mostly just boring. You know they’re not going to kill off any of the four protagonists, because the movie just doesn’t have the guts to do it.  It can’t kill the girls because they’re girls, and it can’t kill the boys because then the girls would be sad.  Sandra and the two drunks are nothing but sacrificial victims, because the writers think you can’t have a horror movie without a body count.

Even aside of that, though, this movie would still be boring.  Sandra and Drunk #2 come to the girls’ room (not the boys’ room, because they couldn’t afford another set) to tell them a bunch of things we’ve already figured out for ourselves.  Vincent-at-half-the-Price monologues endlessly as if one of his tactics is boring his guests to death.  We never actually believe that Sandra and Drunk #2 mean to come back for the protagonists, so it doesn’t really matter to us when they’re killed.

I keep wanting to refer to the main characters as ‘the kids’ but I refuse to do so.  They’re at least not as annoying as the cast of your average 80’s slasher film, but they accomplish that mainly by being very bland.  Johnny is Brave, Peter is Nerdy, Betty is Tough, and Jeannie is Scared, and that’s it.  It’s really hard to care about any of them except Betty, who earns a modicum of sympathy by being the only really proactive one (and from my longstanding crush on June Kenney).  Once we realize the movie isn’t going to kill any of them we just stop caring.

I’m not sure what to make of Vincent-at-half-the-Price’s cheating. This seems like they’re trying to make some kind of point with it – he takes a crossbow with three bolts, one for each intended victim, and gives them a gun with one bullet.  This is supposed to be sporting.  But the gun has been disabled, and when he uses the bolts he pulls them out of the corpses, cleans them off, and recycles them.  Since the ending has him just pulling out a gun to shoot his cornered victims at point blank range, I guess the point is that for all he justifies it as a form of sport, really he just likes killing people.  The story managed to say that about Zaroff in other ways.

So yeah, this one really sucks.  Even Mike and the bots couldn’t save it.  There’s a few odd lines that are really funny but most of them are so-so, and there’s stretches when the movie just doesn’t offer them anything to riff.  Watching it without the intermittent relief offered by the host sketches was a chore, and it forced me to re-visit a bad experience from my childhood.  Fuck this movie.

[davidcoopermoore]

Survival Literacy

I'm not sure what I think students "need" at a minimum level of competency to be considered to be "done" with school -- and my use of scare quotes here should give you a sense of the turmoil that I've been feeling around some very foundational beliefs I've long held about school itself, its fundamental purpose and role in students' lives. I've been teaching in an alternative high school for four years, a daily teacher with a full course load, but in an environment that is about as "loose" within the traditional strucutral confines of a public school as you can get. Sometimes this looseness is good -- the students like it here; we don't have any fights; we love our kids and help them on their first postsecondary steps. Sometimes it's not so good -- things are very messy, and there are lots of little fires to put out, many of our own making, trying to do things a little differently and creating new problems as a result. But I've come to realize how insufficient the professional norms of reading instruction (these norms are different from research-based best practices; by professional norms I only mean "what do districts and administrators and classroom teachers expect to happen in the classroom") are for the majority of our students, all of whom have become disconnected with their previous high school. Some students come to us with high standardized scores in literacy and numeracy and seem to gain little from the direct instruction we might provide in reading and math, say. Some students come to us with borderline learning disabilities that have gone undiagnosed. Most come to us with severe gaps in their knowledge and skills according to the general scope and sequence of what they should have learned between fourth and ninth grade. You can see these gaps in their diagnostic scores, and in math these gaps even tell a story of educational turbulence and, sometimes, trauma -- students who have poor grasp of numbers and operations but can do passably well at certain types of algebraic thinking, say, usually because they had a terrible elementary experience but a few good math teachers in middle or early high school. Part of my job has been to take in all of this information in consultation with students and teachers and work with them on an individualized plan for making progress in their classes -- an ad hoc academic support position that is not technically special education but tries to implement some just-in-time learning needed to be successful in a class. So I've become more and more interested in how you actually teach people how to read, and how you might translate what seems to work for young learners to adult literacy. (I've been reading a lot of Tim Shanahan lately.) There is much less liteature on teaching adult literacy than I expected; much of it essentially takes strategies for younger learners and applies them to adults more or less unmodified, or expands the concept of literacy to areas that may or may not improve reading ability. Research on adult literacy seems to have a good sense of how many adults can't read, who they are, and some of the reasons why, but from what I've found so far there is a lot less convincing information on what the best practices are for intervention. I've started thinking about rudimentary literacy a little differently from how I imagined it when I took a media literacy approach -- i.e., a holistic sense of what literacy is, including multiple symbolic forms. Although I still love media literacy, I think there is something categorically different about print literacy, both in how it works -- at a basic cognitive level -- and in how we are expected to actually use it in the world. (Maybe I'll write my post about reading as photosynthesis later.) The metaphor I'm circling right now is survival skills. I had a conversation the other day with my wife about swimming. Our oldest son not only can't swim but has a water phobia. In other cultures, swimming is part of the environment, a survival skill that children can learn at very young ages. I've read that babies naturally know how to hold their breath if put into the water in a particular way. Even my own sister, who insisted her sons learn to swim early, had them in the pool at age 2, fairly regularly. (I've also read that actually swimming is probably more like reading developmentally, and that you should probably start formal swimming instruction closer to six years old. Hang with me; it's just a metaphor.) The extent to which reading is a skill for survival depends on more complex social context than swimming does. "If you're near water a lot you should know how to swim" doesn't quite translate. Instead what I'm thinking about is the purpose for teaching survival skills versus the purpose for teaching for enrichment and enlightenment. We focus so much on a love of reading in school, and also subsequently conflate love with motivation (a topic for another post that I won't go into now), that I think we miss defining which aspects of reading are actually necessary for one's life as a "survival skill," and which develop more naturally after those basic skills have been mastered. The problem with reading is twofold: (1) many but certainly not most children become expert readers before they've had a lot of instruction in reading, let alone targeted literacy intervention, so it seems like their love and their ability are linked and (2) the students who don't "take" to reading are then often engaged at the level of motivation and ease -- trying to make reading a pleasurable experience, by "leveling down" reading to where they're comfortable -- while also getting certain reading interventions that are uncomfortable and involve a lot of practice. A lot of literacy instruction focuses on instilling motivation and appreciation in students, for understandable reasons -- it seems like master readers should want to read, and we also know that master readers are motivated to read independently. We had a long and unproductive program at our school trying to implement sustained silent reading at our school, which failed for both site-specific reasons (we didn't do it with much fidelity, too many distractions, etc.) but also, I think, failed to take into account the fact that our students struggled to do more basic reading than we really liked to admit, even when in guided instruction they showed that they could read. They didn't like reading, and we didn't really have the school culture to instill that basic affection and motivation. But they also didn't have some of the precursory skills you would need to enjoy reading. But I'm not sure that the primary job of literacy instruction should actually be to instill an affection for reading any more than I think that the primary job of swimming instruction should be to instill affection in swimming. Without basic skills -- in swimming or reading -- it is literally impossible to develop affection in any meaningful way. You can't be motivated to read independently if you can't read any more than you can be motivated to "swim for pleasure" if you can't swim. Add to this what I see in my students -- they have specific blocks to reading that resemble my son's water phobia. So on top of whatever technical instruction they need to get to the basic level of literacy motivation, they also need a different sort of motivation, a motivation to overcome what I would call something like a fear of reading -- more accurately, a combination of distrust, deflation, and past negative experience. They are discouraged about reading. The logic that we tend to use in school is that if you get kids encouraged about reading, they will read more. But we also underestimate the level of reading mastery it requires to actually feel a basic level of encouragement, and then, crucially, for this encouragement to translate into actually reading well. My son feels encouraged when he puts his face in the water. But he can't swim. He needs to be able to put his face in the water for his comfort, but it may not be a skill that he needs to practice and focus on intently to learn how to swim. It may be a way of filibustering, a way of avoiding the thing he actually needs to be able to do. In fact, it is possible that part of him learning to swim will be to be put in an environment where that kind of incremental thinking based on his own comfort vanishes altogether. Survival literacy cuts both ways. We also don't need to expect our students to love to read, maybe ever. This is a profound and destabilizing idea in English education in two ways. First, it shifts a lot of the kind of content we teach in English classes. Fewer books and novels; more short and non-fiction pieces. This was a controversial component of the Common Core standards that I happen to think is on the mark when you are considering students who already are far behind in their literacy ability. That is, for my students, exploration of a novel might have some value, but lots of practice with short, relevant pieces -- journalism articles, reports, etc. -- will be more likely to help them with specific goals they have for reading. But the most destabilizing thing about a survival literacy mindset is that I'm not sure that the classroom is the best place for it to happen at all, and I'm also not sure that "classroom" is the right space to imagine successful literacy acquisition. I'm starting to think of literacy, as a functional process of decoding and low-level comprehension, as something that one has to acquire by hook or by crook, often alone and with deliberative practice. That it can happen in a classroom doesn't mean that it should. All of this goes away when you reach a baseline competency, but I think that we have the bar too low for what that baseline is and how much rigorous literacy instruction you need to be able to read independently and contribute within a culture of print literacy (i.e., read independently and then talk about it). Again, these are baseline competencies. I'm not suggesting that I believe that there is no role for reading in a classroom! But that for interventions and the basic development of that baseline competency, the classroom environment that fosters a love of literacy isn't the right way to think about what learners really need. This has been hard for me to digest, and I'm not anywhere near done in my thinking -- in fact I'm returning to grad school soon, I think, to devote myself more fully to literacy -- print literacy -- as a component of understanding the world.

[brooke-the-poet]

A serious important post..

Pathological Abusers within Fan Groups.

(This is an excerpt from a much longer essay adressing the topic of predators within disability and fan group communities)

Early fan groups were formed by extroverted Autistic women and men in order to share their special interests, overtime these groups and this aspect of autistic culture was hijacked/assimilated by non-autistics in their effort to socialise. In consequence many aspects have become unfriendly to Autistics, commercialization, conventions, and focus on monetary consumption and socialization, rather than person to person information sharing and connection.

Autistics connect to people in a very direct way, imprinting ourselves onto each other at times. We take connections personally and seriously. The idea of an “acquaintance” is a foreign concept. As this aspect of fan culture has gotten lost, leaving many connection seekers adrift, human predators have merged in to take advantage.

We are all now familiar with internet trolls, those who aim shots in order to cause fighting, but within fan groups a more sinister kind exist. Pathological Manipulators who develop vindictive behaviour and choose to take this out on others. This type of troll will find those in groups who are the most vulnerable for whatever reason, and attach themselves to them.

psychological manipulation: one person is used for the benefit of another. The manipulator deliberately creates an imbalance of power, and exploits the victim to serve his or her agenda.

Often saying they want help, connection, a friend, they weave a tale of need that the victim empathises with and then feels obligated to help.

For Autistic people the call for help triggers a powerful sense of personal obligation and responsibility. Physical pain and anxiety at the idea of not helping is often a consequence, so those who wish to use this to their own personal gain do not have to do much to convince the victim. Once accepted the abuser will then exert what seems like simple influence on the victim.

It is important to note that manipulation is not the same as influence. Everyone influences or is influenced in the course of life in order to achieve our goals.

But influencers recognize the boundaries of other people. They use direct and honest communication. Emotional manipulators disregard others feelings.

This difference is hard to tell for a lot of people, and even harder for Autistics whose neurology makes us more trusting of others and unable to process in real time, the meaning behind others words and behaviour. In hindsight it may become clear but not without much reflection and emotional guilt and turmoil.

Meanwhile without intervention abusers will persist, gaining inside information to use against their victim, controlling them, emotionally and psychologically manipulating them through verbal abuse, death threats and much more. Suicide can also be the goal of this kind of abuser.

Once the victim is further isolated they begin to take on guilt and feed the troll more of what it wants. Getting out of this situation is only possible if an outside person intervenes.

Almost everyone is a potential victim and while there are many guides suggesting strategies and so on for spotting them, trying to use them in real time, is almost impossible. One clear sign though especially in fan groups is, asking yourself:

Does this person claim to know a lot of personal information about the subject, yet provide contradictory information from un-satisfactory sources?

Do they exhibit un-fan like behaviour? Praising people or their interest one day yet disparaging them the next?

(Fans tend to be fairly consistent in their love and praise, often wanting to spread positivity surrounding their interests.)

Do they talk behind others back? Do they bait other people?

Are they inconsistent with their stories? ex: claim to be a teacher or some other profession, yet show no signs of it in their language, frame of reference, skills.

To people who have never been bullied or emotionally abused before, these things, even someone directly telling you to kill yourself, are obvious indicators of abuse but not to the ones who are used to such abuse.

They have rationalized this behaviour over time and attributed it to something being very wrong within themselves rather than accept that someone could possibly abuse them. This way any pain is deflected. And even when the abuse has stopped and the victim is out of the situation, self blame continues.

What fans can do:

Be aware of who is joining your group and who you interact with. Just as you would offline, get to know a bit about each person and if something doesn’t seem right, address it. You’re not being paranoid.

Don’t think you are not in a group, you are. The people you interact with are your group. Don’t expect everyone to be capable of watching out for themselves. Individualism will tell you that everyone is only responsible for themselves, in real life that is not the case. Someone else always knows something one does not, sharing that info never hurts.

Keep in mind that you are interacting with people of all neurotypes, abilities, disabilities, races, genders and so on. We all have different experiences that contribute to human understanding.

Checking up on each other is a must as fan groups often involve people needing to reach out to others for connection, issues around depression and other health crisis. Fandom is cheap therapy in most cases for those who can not afford it. It can be a distraction from pain of all kinds.

For example in my many years of fandom I have been a lay spiritual advisor, a suicide/relationship/ crisis counselor, a confidante, researcher and a therapist. It comes with the territory.

So if someone appears to be using this to manipulate and control people, speak out. Address it privately offline.

Fan groups needs to address this, to create protocol around it. Because often victims will not address it due to shame. Being a fan of something can bring it’s own particular shame, outsiders will say you shouldn’t be online or you should not join groups etc…this is victim blaming. It is not helpful. Online life is real life. People need to have an online presence, within the disability community being able to interact online is the only human interaction many have with the outside world.

Unfortunately we can't live our lives and enjoy things without someone coming along to exploit it. So online protection is a must. Especially by those who want to be allies. For the abled, being aware doesn’t take much effort, pausing your online consumption to check up on people, check to see if conflict or anything weird is going on, is well within the boundaries of a group.

Don't give in to factions. Sometimes one person in a group may garner popularity due to connections to the item of interest. They will likely be surrounded by hangers on who are more likely than not potential manipulators, trying to control the flow of information and that particular person, wanting to keep them isolated.

These groupies may prevent the person in question from making friends from outside the group established by the manipulators. Resist the formations of factions by encouraging engagement with everyone.

Oversharing/info dumping is natural to many Autistics. Not sharing can be a very confusing and curious matter and to us a possible red flag that something is wrong.

But there are also people who are not serious or true about their emotions and will make grand statements in order to gain sympathy yet will them use it to abuse the sympathisers.

Be aware of the difference.

If an autistic person says they do not identify with or has no interest in something, it does not mean dislike or ignorance of that thing, we simply have no connection or feelings toward it whatsoever. Non-autistics should not take this personally.

On a side note the term “Stan” used by non-autistics to describe their form of pathological interests, was coined by rapper Eminem who is Autistic. For the sake of cultural respect, non-autistics should be aware of the many, many cultural aspects created by Autistics from anime to the internet we all use, that they currently enjoy.

Overall interactions should be respectful, fun and meaningful. Autistic or not everyone knows the joy that comes with being interested in something. Special interests have helped me make friends, sent me down winding rabbit holes to locate people who are stuck, who I needed and who needed me. I’ve found inspiration and joy and countless ideas that have helped expand my world. People have the right to explore and enjoy these interests in safety.

[mythlokisuggestion-blog]

What do you think of Tom Hiddleston and mcu!Loki?

I’m technically not allowed to watch any marvel movies according to one main-clause (followed by a very vulgar relative clause) in Idris Elba’s restraining order against me so obviously I watched them and while I obviously missed some of the major plot-details because Idris Elba wouldn’t let my eyes go I will say this:

Tom Hiddleston is clearly a great actor with a really great range and the entire journey of him losing his eyebrow-pencil but finding that Jeff Goldblum loves him nevertheless is very dramatic and gripping, but even for someone whose spectrum does indeed cover the range his does, it’s still visibly difficult for him to keep up with the inconsistencies of the movies and this is something that really affects the character of Loki strongly. Personally, I’d go so far as to say that there are only two movies out of the five that give Loki actually inherent development (as in: force them to make a decision of their own instead of just being thrown at the plot like a forgotten towel into the wind) and those are Thor I and Thor: Ragnarok. Obviously, I can see you argue that Thor: Dark World is about Loki re-joining forces with Thor to avenge their mother, but that’s just man-pain. Loki never makes their own decision to work with Thor but there is no doubt that even at their deepest, darkest moments they would have gone after the murderer of their mother. That’s not development. It’s just putting the character in a position where there’s only one obvious solution anyway. Character development puts a character in a position where we don’t know how they’d act and we either see them make a decision and learn it was the wrong one or we see previous character development come to fruition with them choosing something one wouldn’t have initially expected like I did when I first heard about Dirty Chai which immediately meant I wanted to drink Dirty Chai except I noticed I don’t like it so now when people offer to offer me “A Beverage Mixed Out Of Two Beverages That Clearly Shouldn’t Be Mixed?” I say no which is not what I would have said three hours ago. That’s growth. Asking me if I’d murder a giant who wants to eat children on the other hand. I would always have given the same answer at any point in my life.

The other protest you’ll make is Infinity War. But that has no development either, it’s just a solution to the development we’ve seen in Ragnarok and I almost feel like the script was written before Waititi had written his or maybe they hadn’t bothered to read it or maybe they simply didn’t care or they weren’t sure their audience would have seen that and just wanted to make sure that we’re all caught up and I found it really cringy for some reason? I dunno, I feel it could have been handled more delicately than just ticking off every aspect of Loki’s struggle that a series of inconsistent movies had thrown at them. Especially, and I know it’s an unpopular opinion, the whole: “We have a Hulk line.” Like. That’s the last relationship I cared about.

Things that would have interested me:

Loki and Thor talking about Jötunheim

Valkyrie and Loki fixing things up after their intrusion of her mind in Ragnarök

Bruce and Loki talking about the invasion of Earth and maybe resolving what had happened between them and Thanos to make them do that.

Loki reconciling their love for fruit-y cocktails with the overreliance on artificial sweetener on the Grandmaster’s ship

Maybe it’s especially the ‘of Jötunheim’ line that bothered me. Obviously, me being of Jötunheim the first Thor movie wasn’t a mere warning about the consequences of climate change (you thought Day After Tomorrow scared you lol?) but as you know there’s a not-so-ancient law of your people to abandon the children you do not wish to keep. (usually children with disabilities) and this actually ancient Loki has an actual ancient law that says Finder’s Keepers and Finder’s Raisers and Finder’s Cherishers of Babies Forever so obviously the whole storyline about Loki being abandoned by their parents did resonate with me deeply and that’s why it bothered me that it was the most poorly handed in the five movies. It’s not that I mind that I see the subject addressed although I wished they had gone out of their way to show that this was an actual practice of the ancient Norse cultures (and many others) instead of just making it a plot-point because I feel like it would have given their movie more relevance, considering that there were actual terms and practices surrounding it. Also, with Odin being a very unreliable narrator, it would have given the viewers a better context for what is true and what isn’t because many aspects of the adoption remain really obscure. It’s never really dealt with. I mean, the first movie explicitly makes the adoption the stepping stone of Loki’s story-arc with Odin handling multi-racial adoption so poorly that they grow up groomed to detest their own race to the point where even for little children the idea of genocide is acceptable and glorified. And obviously, the first movie ends with them throwing themself to their death off the Bifröst so in a storyline encompassing five movies that would make a good cliffhanger or maybe bridge-over-black-hole-hanger in which the next logical step of the narrative would be the confrontation with Thor about Loki being of the race they’ve been raised to detest.

And that’s where we get to the inconsistencies of the movies and how the affect Loki’s characterisation so much. We never see Thor actually learn about this. We take his word – nay, Loki’s assumption for it that Odin, a proven unreliable narrator, has told Thor. We don’t know how that went, we don’t know how Thor coped with that knowledge, whether he questioned his own behaviour, how it affected his view of their sibling etc.  We don’t even know for sure Frigga knows where Loki is from and who their parent is – in fact, her relationship to that secret is one of the poorest handled plot-points in the entire series but you didn’t ask about that so back on topic. I will later say something on the subject of between movies vs. in movies but what matters is: We never have that confrontation. We never see Loki deal with their Jötun form in the Avengers and you’re like: ok cut them some slack, they had to force a lot of plot between Tony Stark’s one-liners so actual characterisation of one of the like four interesting villains that give the MCU such a giant head start over the DCU (two of which they don’t even really own). And you say to yourself: Ok they’re going to pick it up in the Dark World. And I’m not going to go into the misogynist implications of killing Frigga, but just say we get a lot of narrative nonsense that is a) Fridging her to further Loki’s man-pain and b) leaving the main-motivator of Loki’s as a villain (the struggle with their adoption) at that dungeon shouting match, unresolved. It absolutely robs avenging Frigga as Loki’s supposed main-motivation for redemption of any and all meaning or at least makes it so obscure that we can’t tell its exact meaning. Especially because their sacrifice (and I will not get into the annoying idea that a villain must die to be redeemed bc I’m a villain and find it offensive) was also spontaneously changed long after the filming had actually ended.

And there again, next inconsistency. We don’t know whether they faked their death on purpose (and if they did how long they had been planning it and whether it was all a big escape-and-take-over-Asgard-attempt) or whether they thought they were dying which means that their sacrifice was meaningful after all but it’s once again not resolved. And I mean, I’d prefer to think it was, but still. Remember when I said I was going to get back to the idea of between the movies vs. in the movies? I get back to that now because I’m not a Marvel writer: The most interesting things happen to Loki between movies and not in them. I’m bolding this because I’m a bold person but it’s also the main-issue I have with the Thor-movies despite me generally standing on the side that they’re actually among the better Marvel movies, no matter what edgy Youtubers say on the subject, but just fall flat on the perceived intended audience (male fanboys who feel they could do and say anything if only they had the power to force people to put up with it which is technically true without consequences which is not true) because Thor’s main-character arc is about him overcoming the issues and character-traits as flaws that make many other MCU-characters so ‘cool’ and ‘funny’.

We get the same with Loki dealing with their heritage-issues. At the beginning of Ragnarök they’ve magically resolved them. Or have they? Or are they just weaponizing Odin ‘outing’ them at their fucking trial (which was also filmed after the movie was made) I mean, in a way I like that Taika Waititi focussed Thor’s and Loki’s reconciliation on them overcoming their main-problem of all movies – trust – and not the initial problem that had set them apart - Loki’s jealousy when they realised that they never had a place in their own world - that had been abandoned for so long now. Especially considering that what sparked even the revelation of Loki’s true heritage was their distrust for Thor whom they didn’t trust to be a good king – and were justified. All that is, for once, resolved with Thor becoming a good king and Loki trusting them.

So personally. If you had just ended their storyline there it would have been fine. Maybe give us the damn hug and some talk about the Jötun issue and leave it at that. But then Infinity War rolled around and I’m not going to get into the can of political worms that is killing of half a ship of refugees in the current social climate because it was a movie about killing off people at random for others to survive and that’s an entire swimming pool of worms that the can is just swimming in slowly drifting into the distance, but it was just. Frigga’s death x10. We didn’t need it, it addressed a new thing about Loki’s storyline that will never be developed – their relationship with Thanos and the actual factors motivated by it – and as always left it unresolved. Thor, being the supposed centrum of these movies – will never know about it, most likely. I mean, we’ll apparently get some flashback and time-travel in Avengers 4 but I don’t have high hopes that something will be resolved then and I hope we at least get a good moping scene from Thor. It’s almost ironically that while Thor doesn’t know about the exact background of Loki working with Thanos and just maybe knows we-don’t-know-how-much about his sibling’s actual heritage, he seems to know exactly how dead they are. Because these movies are so inconsistent that he got to straight-up tell the audience that Loki is dead when it makes no sense because obviously choking on a grape kills them and not being stabbed through the heart. Which brings me to the next topic:

Their powers. Me being an avid magic-user who can do everything but turn into birds I’m very interested in that. Of course, we’ve got this big difference between comics-Loki and movies-Loki with MCU-Loki being significantly weaker and significantly more knife-focussed. And that’s fine. But their powers are also so fucking inconsistent. As a baby they can pull off a full-conversion into an Aesir but as a grown-up they can’t even make a solid copy of themselves? Sometimes illusions dissolve at mere contact but when they cover themself with it they can hold for four years are you telling me that no one ever brushed against them for four years? What about their clothes are they solid? Also, Loki when he’s visiting Thor when he’s under arrest by SHIELD seems to shift between visible and invisible and solid and not-solid which is something that would have come in handy at various other places in the movies but wasn’t used. We know that Loki can turn themself and others into animals but again we only hear that talked about but never actually see it employed when it would be useful. Also being Jötun can they employ ice-magic because that shit looks useful or only with the Casket and why didn’t they take the Casket is it because they resolved the issue and don’t want to revisit it or because the wound is still open or any of the other thousands of things you didn’t resolve??? The aspect about this handwave-y magic stuff isn’t so much that it bothers me, particularly because we know that Frigga, the most relevant relationship they have aside from Thor, is the one who taught them magic so it’s not like there isn’t an interesting basis for this subject to build upon.

I mean this all sounds like a lot of complaining but it’s also because I really liked the character that I can actually be bothered to get upset about these things. And the thing is, sometimes I feel like the things that annoy me are the things the writers do on purpose and the aspects I like are purely circumstantial. Like that scene about them standing on a street yelling stuff about submission all-dressed in leather in a reputed to be rather homophobic part of a country? Iconic stuff. The fact that they wear as many layers at all times and cover up as much as they can? Obviously a common villain trope and a common decision but for a character feeling so at odds with their own body (a storyline you couldn’t be bothered with for four movies in case you remember MCU) just fuel for headcanons. That fancy leather get-up clearly hand-crafted with golden pieces added paired…with THAT wig? Iconic. Tbh reason for concern too. Like I see that Loki like 3 times a day when they go to that Lush right beside my favourite spot for arguing with pigeons and my hair still looks better than theirs even with the pigeons nesting in it. I’m not 90% sure that the whole sweaty Christmas Tree look Loki had in Avengers was all to make them seem more villainous or at least to be attributed to how ‘manic’ and ‘insane’ they are but actually gave people material to be super-detailed in their ideas about how they were tortured by Thanos which would actually be interesting. There are also a lot of characters that it would be interesting to see Loki interact with that they don’t ever share a scene with in the Bravest Crossover Event Of All Times.

That’s not to say that I don’t like their interpretation, I do, but I just feel like if they had focussed on fewer subjects and stuck with them through the movies instead of throwing new pain at them (and at Thor) with every installation the whole thing would have been more interesting and satisfying in the end. This way they just forced the fans to figure out stuff for themselves. I notice that I only spoke of Tom Hiddleston as an actor and not as a person and I want to assure you his restraining order is very effective too.

[cryptovalid]

Star Wars Episode VIII: the Last Jedi...

...is not going to go the way you think. Ended better than it started. I honestly can’t tell anyone if they’re going to love or hate the movie. I understand why it’s so divisive, and I’m not even sure how much I do like it, all told. But I appreciate its ability to surprise me, at least. My only concern in this analysis is the story, and making up my mind about it is harder than I want to admit. SPOILERS under the cut.

Ok, here’s a quick synopsis of the plot:

After the events of the last film, the first order have discovered and attacked the last rebel alliance stronghold, prompting Leia, Poe, Finn and all the other survivors to flee in a small number of ships. Their problem is that the first order has technology that can track their fleet even when they jump to hyperspeed. During the chase, the Rebel leadership dies, with the exception of Leia, who uses the Force to FLY UNAIDED IN THE VACUUM OF SPACE, barely surviving.

This causes a rivalry between the new leader (Laura Dern as Admiral Holdo), and Poe Dameron. Holdo insists that the fleet keep moving forward, while Poe begs her to do something more, as their fuel is running out. Ultimately, this leads Poe to conscript Finn and Rose to recruit a codebreaker so they can disable the First Order’s tracking tech. He even stages a mutiny against Holdo to make sure this plan succeeds (it doesn’t. This entire subplot ends in disaster for the Rebellion).

Meanwhile, Rey meets up with Luke Skywalker, who doesn’t want to join the rebellion, stating he can’t save them. Luke refuses to train Rey at first, fearing she will turn out like Kylo Ren. He implies that there is an inevitable hubris in the Jedi, and it must end. We later discover that Luke, suspecting Ben Solo had already turned to the dark side, had to suppress the urge to kill Ben. Seeing his mentor standing over his bed, lightsaber drawn, is apparently what drove Kylo Ren to join the Sith. 

Rey discovers that she has an involuntary psychic link with Kylo Ren, through which she feels that he is conflicted about his evil deeds. Failing to convince Luke to join her, Rey seeks out Kylo Ren and allows herself to be captured by him. Supreme Leader Snoke then orders him to execute Rey after interrogating her, but Kylo tricks Snoke and kills him instead. 

Rey then attempts to persuade Kylo to return to the light, but he chooses to take Snoke’s place, Rey and Kylo fight to a draw. Rey escapes and Kylo chases the Rebel Fleet to their destination. It is then that we see Admiral Holdo’s plan: to take small, undetectable craft down to a remote rebel base, while their remaining cruiser lures the first order away. And it would have worked if the codebreaker Finn and Rose recruited had not betrayed them. In order to save the Rebel ships, Holdo stays on the cruiser and rams it into the First Order flagship at lightspeed, sacrificing herself.

This only buys them a little time, as the few survivors of the rebellion are now trapped on a planet, assaulted by ground forces. Rey arrives, but is unable to stop their bunkerbusting canon. Finn is ready to sacrifice himself to save the rebellion, but is stopped by Rose. Luke shows up and confronts Kylo, buying Rey enough time to sneak the rebels out of the back of the bunker. In the end, Luke dies. The Rebellion is still on the run, and Kylo Ren is leading the First Order.

First, let’s start with some things I liked, since they are less complicated than the things I disliked.

I like the idea that Luke is disillusioned with the Jedi Order and doesn’t want it to continue. Honestly the movie could have done more to dive in to his criticisms, as I feel they could have made the movie a great deconstruction of the Jedi’s commitment to authority and violence, or their messages about healthy relationships and emotions. It even has the potential to comment on political attitudes toward violence in the real world. As it stands, it seems like the only reason Luke is initially hesitant to join Rey is his fear of her power, fear that she will betray him like Kylo Ren did. Which is not a criticism of the Jedi, but a criticism of his own mistrust of Kylo. It’s not a bad arc, but I would have liked to see a more strident critique of Jedi teachings. 

i like that the movie has an egalitarian message at its core: The Jedi aren’t really special, and Rey’s parents are not tied into the history of Star wars at all. I think the idea that the Force is a power passed down through a couple of bloodlines really undercuts the message that it connects all living things. It’s good to change it up and imply that anyone could tap into the Force, that it belongs to everyone. 

Leia, Finn, Rose and Poe all survive the movie, even though their deaths seemed almost certain at times. The stakes are up for the entire movie, and anything seemed possible. Deaths are numerous but meaningful.

The climactic battle with Snoke is a nice subversion of the expected ‘Lightsaber duel’, and I really like how it did not redeem Kylo Ren, underscoring his emotional immaturity, alienation and deep need for control instead.I also enjoy how this movie shits all over the First Order’s dignity, without trying to make them look cool.   

I really enjoyed the actual plot twists in this movie. Sadly, I spent most of my first viewing frustrated by my own expectations. At times I was convinced that Finn and Leia would die, and that Reylo would become canon. This mercifully did not come to pass. 

The plot elements I did not like are a bit more complicated. I was particularly frustrated with the power struggle between admiral Holdo and Poe. It was very convenient from a plot standpoint. From the beginning, it was obvious that Holdo had a plan she was not sharing with Poe. He doesn’t trust her, so he even goes so far as to stage a mutiny against her. Because of the framing, I spent most of the movie frustrated with both characters. Either one could have communicated a little bit better to prevent most of the movie’s drama. The subplot about finding the codebreaker felt useless anyway.

The movie also isolates Finn and Rey from each other completely. Considering how fun their dynamic was in TFA, this is not an improvement. The whole subplot with Finn and Rose meandered around, and didn’t really reflect the urgency and tone of a high stakes death march through space. Ultimately, nothing Finn and Rose did actually had a positive impact on the Rebellion. This isn’t necessarily an objective flaw in the story, I just dislike that Finn has become a secondary character. Also the Kiss from Rose at the end was completely unexpected. Unlike Rey, Rose doesn’t really get a chance to form a bond with Finn, since their subplot doesn’t involve any real choices to define their characters in contrast with each other. Given how much I like the actors and characters, this is a waste. I was sure, given the context, that Finn and/or Rose would die. Small mercies, I guess. 

Comparatively, the movie spends a lot of time trying to make Kylo more sympathetic, which really rubs me the wrong way, especially because of the way his character parallels real life bigots and spree killers. He fits into a growing real life trend of white men who become desillusioned with basic decency when they don’t get what they want, and lash out violently in retribution. Episode VII made it crystal clear that Kyle Ron has spent his entire adult life murdering and torturing unarmed people, participating in a explicitly fascist regime that enslaves children and commits genocide. All the while, several people give him ample opportunity  to opt out, and he threatens to murder them every time. The only time his supposed ‘conflicted’ nature actually stops him from murdering is when he’s emotionally invested in his victim already. Redeeming a nazi-analog is not impossible, but it is also not cheap. Making minor exceptions to your violent outbursts is not a sign that you’re a good person at heart. It’s typical abuser behavior. How much slack are we supposed cut this asshole? Did he really turn to the dark side simply because Luke thought he already turned, contemplating killing him? Sure, this is traumatic as fuck. Is Rian Johnson aware of what this means for the nazi analogy? Will this be dealt with in more detail in the next movie?

It is no secret that there are many Kylo Ren apologists out there. People downplaying his own agency and the severity of his crimes. Shipping him with Rey, a woman he has kidnapped, threatened, assaulted and violated. It’s hard not to see this movie as vindicating or at least baiting them. It matters, in the end, how Kylo’s arc wraps up. And honestly, I can’t think of a way to redeem Kylo Ren that wouldn’t be gross. How could Kyle realize that murdering people was wrong all along, given the chances he’s been given? What message does that send to victims of abuse? That no matter how many times he’s shown you that he feels entitled to hurting you, you have to keep being compassionate because he will eventually, when things look really bad for you, make a sacrifice to save you, redeeming himself? Is it even possible for a murderer as wilfull and committed as Kylo to make a heel turn, given that he’s already tried to kill everyone he cares about?

I’m also a bit confused about this movie’s message about the Jedi. Luke hems and haws about continuing their traditions, but there’s no actual attempt to get into a discussion about it. Yoda tells Luke to teach Rey, but destroys the texts when Luke hesitates to. And then Luke dies without speaking to Rey. Maybe I shouldn’t expect a thesis statement here, but I think strong opposing arguments would make it clearer what the movie is trying to say.

So it should be clear why The Last Jedi is so polarizing. It doesn’t go the way anyone expected it to, and it deliberately steps away from anything that came before it. Whatever you think Jedi used to be is now obsolete. Anyone can tap into the Force, and it doesn’t come down to special blood. That’s bound to alienate long term fans who are really invested in canon. I actually like this, and the way it sets up future stories to have their own meaning.  

On the other side, the movie really focuses on building expectations for Kyle Ron’s redemption and makes Finn, Poe and Rose partially responsible for the death of the rebellion, sidelining them in the process. Again, this isn’t an objective mistake, but I do not like it at all. I really like Finn and in particular, his relationship with Rey, which is absent in the movie.

Kyle Ron is a good villain, but trying to build empathy for him actually backfires. Yeah, discovering your mentor uncle thinks you’re evil and wants to kill you is fucked up. Feeling seperated from your parents sucks. But it doesn’t excuse Kyle’s many crimes. Trying to redeem pseudo-nazis is a bad idea both in-universe and as a story to tell in 2017. It should have something more substantive to say if it wants to go that route.

All in all, this movie was a mixed bag for me. I think it will be for a lot of people, depending on what they’re looking for. If you aren’t really invested in Finnrey, Poe, the Jedi Order and the Skywalker Dynasty, or Kylo Ren being recognized as entitled and awful, you’ll probably enjoy this movie more. 

[khalix-hyetology]

Slices of Writing (4)

Emotions and Logic really do govern the three dimensional space you create in stories. They add dimensions that readers and explore and question. Yes, question. Questioning is a good quality. Even if they feel you lacked something that meant they diligently read your pieces. If they have nothing to say that means your work brought indifference to them. You don’t want indifference there unless that is what you aimed for in some segments. Positive questions could be a synchronicity to their own ideas and feelings. That is also rewarding. You wrote something that understood them. Being understood is an important thing. More on that later.  Well, now that you understand the weight of emotions and logic you are going to wonder where to place them. They usually are placed in characters and the plot. And, without those a story would just be, in computer terms, free-flowing data and not information. Information that they can relate to, or enjoy or even find meaningful paths in. Knowledge can also course through your writing because we all have a knowledge to offer. Even in someone’s work if someone find something oppositional in is providing factors/knowledge to be antithetical to. I use knowledge here as a subjective idea and experience. It does not necessarily have to be fact. If you get facts wrong then you can obviously correct them. Your readers will point them out to you. Don’t be antagonistic to it. If you are writing something contextual then readers may have different opinions. That is good. It means you retained some form of originality.  This is different than say trying to offend or sensationalise for the sake of sensationalism and scandal. That is not being original. That is pretty much being a cliche. You are arousing resentment and bitterness because you want publicity. That is not knowledge. That is a cheap trick. Do not reduce yourself and your writing to that. You can do better than that and testing your inner and outer wealth of life and mind is a productive way.  Onwards to the final points. 

Building your Original Characters — Original Characters may seem difficult to write. Initially, they seem to hard to come by. For many online writers the original characters they can first write are characters for role playing and fanfiction. There is nothing wrong with that. That is still making original characters. Sometimes, we find it easier looking at a pre-existing story and putting into characters there. That is not being lazy, unoriginal or tacky. Professionals do it too. That is why Disney makes a lot of money out of fairytales and we have blockbusters and we have genres. Do not let anyone tell you your writing an original character in fanfiction is not serious and is unimaginative. They are being unimaginative and trying to shame you because they don’t have your courage. At least you are trying and also succeeding.  Also, @fandomsandfeminism once reblogged a post that is VERY IMPORTANT. We have all been told that writing Mary Sues are stupid and that it means nothing but laziness. If that is true then so many professional writers are guilty of this. Mary Sues are hated because people critique mostly women/girls/females who write them. It is another form of misogyny to an extent. Don’t believe me? Think about James Bond. James Bond is a Mary Sue/Gary Stu in many ways. Yes, he is a professional agent but there is no reason for him to always get women and be victorious as much as he has. Still James Bond is a big franchise. There are many characters like Bond including Batman, Tony Stark, Captain America and Superman who have so many moments go well for them and their franchise has only recently given them flaws. Mary Sues are a female’s way to appropriate some of the REALLY HARSH cultural demands on them. So the criticism is pretty gendered if you think about it. If Original Characters (OCs) are also a bit like you there is nothing WRONG with that. Even if they are based a lot on you there is nothing completely wrong with that either. The classic Les Miserables protagonists Jean Valjean and Javert are actually based a lot on the author, Victor Hugo. Still, that book has themes and plot that is now a classic.  One of my favourite animes is Psycho Pass and I can say right now that both Shogo Makishima, the villain, and Shinya Kougami, the “hero,” are both Mary Sues. In real life both of them would have the dunce cap on their head they have in those old cartoons. In real life, people would be annoyed and rightly so by both of them. One is a gross idealist and the other tries to act like a gloomy ass man. Still people loves the show and love them. I am guilty of loving Shogo Makishima a lot too. I know he is flawed by being a Sue so I love that flaw.  Mary Sues are usually liked and even treated as paragons when they are male characters. They are not usually liked when they are female characters. That is just unfortunately the sexism of mainstream cultures. A very good example of a Mary Sue is either an exaggeration of abilities or the lack of them. Female Mary Sues usually occupy the latter space and that can be a negative representation of females yet still a Mary Sue. One example, is Bella Swan from the Twilight series. I don’t think there is anything wrong that Stephenie Meyer and Bella Swan look similar. I think it is wrong that Bella doesn’t do much in the series aside loving Edward. Even her love for Edward is a bit erratic but people love this story more because Bella is interested in love. If Bella Swan was Brendan Swan and he was interested in Edward or Ellie Cullen the story would be different. Of course, people would have a hard time believing a male would be this invested in love. They may even make a homophobic comment or two if this was Brendan and Edward. However, no one would be very hostile towards Brendan. They would attempt to understand him alongside criticising him. I am guilty of this too. You know there is a slight similar male Bella Swan too in literature. Classical literature and it is considered one of the best stories by a South Asian author named Saratchandra Bhattacharya. The novel was named Devdas. Dev is a complete love obsessed young man like Bella. He also does destructive things like Bella when he is separated from his love. Instead, of criticising him for his weird behaviour readers lauded his devotion to his loved one (I was guilty of this too). Oh there was a Jacob in that story too. Her name was Chandramukhi. And like Jacob she was also really pushed to the side of the story.    Why I am telling you this is that you can always refine your original characters. And, they can similar to you. Nothing wrong with that. There is no one else like you so rather your original character have some of your original qualities. If your original character is trans or gender fluid or nonbinary remember to treat them with respect. Do not make your romances heteronormative or inescapably sweet regardless of orientation. Try to write real interactions. If possible try to balance angst with sarcasm and humour. Angst is also important. Teengers can question their life and existences. Don’t let anyone shame you into thinking that is wrong to do. Make OCs like yourself, like your friends and like anyone you know. Give them emotions and logic. Give them purpose. Even the simple one of getting out of bed and going to school. For someone with depression, that is a huge feat. And, that is something important. Give your characters ideas and actions you wanted to explore but couldn’t. Or, something you have experienced and faced. You can make them choose the opposite of what you did and what happened to you. Characters can be larger than life in the sense that you are larger than life. You occupy spaces, real not imaginary, and your actions have effects on yourself and others. Thus your characters can get this energy from you and that can be shown when you are writing. You can experiment with characters too. Have them make mistakes, make them fail exams, make them be a loser until their mid-30s and then change and become winners.  Think about them having dyslexia or a reading disability, think of them having synaesthesia , think of them having interaction problems and many more things. The problems in your character’s life need not be only romance. It could be things aside romance, sex and even epic battles.  Your characters have possibilities because you have possibilities. Never forget that. 

Only You Can Write Your Plot — Despite what people say about Twilight, and I don’t really like it, I truly believe only Meyer could write that story. Only Suzanne Collins could have written The Hunger Games and only J. K Rowling could have written Harry Potter. Yes, we may have similar ideas but we will never have identical ideas. This preserves our originality and theirs. We can strive for their merits but ultimately we have to practice our own fortes and crafts. Stephen King is not trying to copy Rowling and neither is Neil Gaiman trying to copy King and Rowling. Yet, we all know and enjoy these authors and their works. We enjoy them because they have their own signature style.  You have your own signature style. You just have to develop it. Only you can write your plot. Your plot comes from you and can come from no one else. You should take that as your confidence. Your style could be that you write very detailed friendships. Think about the author Courtney Summers. I like Summers’ work because she talks very detailed experiences of childhood abuse especially on female circles. Yes, Margaret Atwood also wrote one book on it — Cat’s Eye. But Summers wrote things that people actually didn’t want to believe but I am happy she wrote them. She wrote about female on female violence and the hierarchy on female childhood “gangs.” People could not fathom how there seemed to be like a pecking order like that as in males but there are. Summers was good in exploring how people get vengeance and how petty people can be when they feel they have been slighted. The way she writes petty anger is also well highlighted. We need authors who can do that.  So, think about what you know about specially. It could be that you also have betrayed friendships or a very intimate one. Perhaps your character is figuring out their sexuality. Perhaps they are finding out they are gay or even bisexual. Perhaps they even don’t understand their straightness and how to operate in a straight world because it puts too much demands on sex and dating. You can do a lot with your plot and you can talk a lot about various topics in plot.  Going back to Twilight and Harry Potter. The story of Twilight may be annoying to some but it has a good quality in trying to show about love and finding yourself a community. In Harry Potter there are aspects of goods versys evils but also understanding community and coexisting with different types of people. The Hunger Games is also about how strong love can be very enduring. Overall, it is also about perseverance, endurance and the spirit’s need for justice.  Can you write a story like The  Hunger Games? Why not? Think about a story where your character is up against something. What if your character is in high school and they have to endure trying to get out of a toxic friendship? What if your character has to deal with homophobia? What if your character is a POC female and deals with misogyny and racism on a daily basis? Those are also stories of perseverance. endurance and spirit’s need for justice. See, the stories don’t need to be identical. They can have similar themes and speak volumes with your originality intact.  There are many other plotlines you can write within the main story (as in different logics and emotions). This also seems realistic and drives out monotony. But, if you really wanna focus on one thing that is no problem either. Anything can be made engaging. Good writers practice even to make the events of a day seem magical and impactful as they can be. Look at the novels Ulysses, Mrs Dalloway and The Hours for that. You can customise your story any way you want because after all it is your story. Now, I am going back to the part of understanding. Perhaps, your story makes your readers feel understood. Then you must also develop empathy not only in your writing but yourself. I know in social media there are many posts about being nice to people, nice to your followers on blogs and also mutuals but many people don’t practice it. I know they don’t. Many people personally confide to me on how people use them, betray them or even after knowing all their sadnesses think it is okay to abandon them.  You should have the originality to know how you can handle your stories and your readers with as much empathy as possible. Do not slight anyone if you feel they are not like you or have different views than you. Do not actively act rude with someone who was overenthusiastic with you. If they say your writing gave them peace at a time of utter misery then please be proper and treat them nicely. If you feel they act “overbearing” do not tell them to get lost easily. You are not being a reliable writer if you cannot handle some of the critiques, success or even questions to your writing. Be understanding. After all the person who connected with your writing also did you the service of understanding you.  Your plot can only be written by you.  As you are an original and have originality your writing can be developed to reflect that aspect of you. Don’t give up. Practice and intuitively keep at it.

That concludes my Slices of Writing posts. Thank You to everyone who have read this series. And, remember customise the rules in which way you see fit. I am happy if I was able to help you in any way. Good day and Goodnight to everyone. And, KEEP WRITING!

[toldnews-blog]

New Post has been published on https://toldnews.com/world/can-you-murder-a-robot/

Can you murder a robot?

Image copyright Ryserson University

Image caption The road can be a lonely place when you are a little robot

Back in 2015, a hitchhiker was murdered on the streets of Philadelphia.

It was no ordinary crime. The hitchhiker in question was a little robot called Hitchbot. The “death” raised an interesting question about human-robot relationship – not so much whether we can trust robots but whether the robots can trust us.

The answer, it seems, was no.

Hitchbot has now been rebuilt, at Ryerson University, in Toronto, where it was conceived.

Its story is perhaps the ultimate tale of robot destruction, made all the more poignant by the fact that it was designed to be childlike and entirely non-threatening.

With pool noodles for arms and legs, a transparent cake container for a head, a white bucket as a body, and resting on a child’s car seat to allow anyone picking it up to be able to transport it safely, it was cartoon-like. If a child designed a robot, it would probably look like Hitchbot.

The team deliberately made it on the cheap – describing its look as “yard-sale chic”. They were aware that it may come to harm.

In order to qualify as a robot, it had to have some basic electronics – including a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver to track its journey, movements in its arms, and software to allow it to communicate when asked questions. It could also smile and wink.

And, of course, it could move its thumb into a hitch position.

“It was extremely important that people would trust it and want to help it out which is why we made it the size of a child,” said Dr Frauke Zeller, who led the team with her husband, Prof David Smith.

The adventure started well, with Hitchbot being picked up by an elderly couple and taken on a camping trip in Halifax, Nova Scotia, followed by a sightseeing tour with a group of young men. Next, it was a guest of honour at a First Nation powwow, where it was given a name that translates to “Iron Woman”, assigning it a gender.

The robot picked up thousands of fans along the way, many travelling miles to be the next person to give it a lift.

Sometimes, the robot’s GPS location had to be disabled so that those who took it home wouldn’t be mobbed outside their houses.

Image copyright Hitchbot

Image caption Hitchbot was given a First Nation name, which translates to Iron Woman, assigning it a gender for the first time

The robot certainly appealed and the team behind it were swamped with international press enquiries from the outset.

Hitchbot was given its own social media accounts on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram and became an instant hit, gaining thousands of followers.

“People began to decorate Hitchbot with bracelets and other jewellery. This little robot with its simple design triggered so much creativity in people. And that was one of the biggest takeaways of the experiment, that we should stop telling people what to do with technology,” Dr Zeller said.

But Hitchbot’s adventure was about to come to an abrupt end.

“One day we received images of Hitchbot lying in the street with its arms and legs ripped off and its head missing,” Dr Zeller said.

“It effected thousands of people worldwide. Hitchbot had become an important symbol of trust. It was very sad and it hit us and the whole team more than I would have expected.”

Image caption The reborn Hitchbot shares a biscuit

Now, the team have rebuilt Hitchbot, even though its head was never found. They missed having it around and had been inundated with requests for Hitchbot 2.0, although they have no plans for another road trip.

BBC News joined Prof Smith and Dr Zeller to take Hitchbot 2.0 on one of its first outings, to the safety of a cafe next to the university. The robot was instantly recognised by passers-by, many of whom stopped to chat and take a Hitchbot selfie. All of them seemed overjoyed to see the robot back in one piece.

The Ryerson team is also working with Softbank’s Pepper, an archetypal big-eyed childlike robot, on another test of the trust relationship with humans. Pepper will be used to talk with patients about cancer care. The theory is that patients will communicate more openly with Pepper than they would to a human carer.

Beating up bots

Image copyright Innvo Labs

Image caption Could you harm a dinosaur robot?

Hitchbot is not the first robot to meet a violent end.

Prof Kate Darling, of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), encouraged people to hit dinosaur robots with a mallet, in an experiment designed to test just how nasty we could be to a machine.

Most people struggled to hurt the bots, found Prof Darling.

“There was a correlation between how empathetic people were and how long it took to persuade them to hit a robot,” she told BBC News, at her lab in Boston.

“What does it say about you as a person if you are willing to be cruel to a robot. Is it morally disturbing to beat up something that reacts in a very lifelike way?” she asked.

The reaction of most people was to protect and care for the robots.

“One woman was so distressed that she removed the robot’s batteries so that it couldn’t feel pain,” Prof Darling said.

Prof Rosalind Picaurd, who heads up the Affective Computing Lab, also based at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, thinks it comes down to human nature.

Image copyright Ryerson University

Image caption Perhaps the most revealing image of Hitchbot’s travels was this one, where its temporary “owner” decided it would need dinner and assumed batteries would be a good robot treat. The dog is not so sure

“We are made for relationships, even us engineers, and that is such a powerful thing that we fit machines into that,” she said.

But while it is important that robots understand human emotions because it will be their job to serve us, it might not be a good idea to anthropomorphise the machines.

“We are at a pivotal point where we can choose as a society that we are not going to mislead people into thinking these machines are more human than they are,” Prof Picaurd told BBC News, at her lab.

“We know that these machines are nowhere near the capabilities of humans. They can fake it for the moment of an interview and they can look lifelike and say the right thing in particular situations.”

“A robot can be shown a picture of a face that is smiling but it doesn’t know what it feels like to be happy.

“It can be given examples of situations that make people smile but it doesn’t understand that it might be a smile of pain.”

Image copyright MIT

Image caption Prof Picaurd admits even engineers become attached to the machines they work with

But Prof Picaurd admitted it was hard not to develop feelings for the machines we surrounded ourselves with and confessed that even she had fallen into that trap, treating her first car “as if it had a personality”.

“I blinked back a tear when I sold it, which was ridiculous,” she said.

At her lab, engineers design robots that can help humans but do not necessarily look human.

One project is looking at robots that could work in hospitals as a companion to children when their parents or a nurse is not available. And they are working on a robot that will be able to teach children but also show them how to cope with not knowing things.

We may have to limit our emotional response to robots but it is important that the robots understand ours, according to Prof Picaurd.

“If the robot does something that annoys you, then the machine should see that you are irritated and – like your dog – do the equivalent of putting down its tail, put its ears back and look like it made a mistake,” she said.

Killer robots

Image copyright Getty Images

Image caption War robots are unlikely to be actual robots and instead will look like conventional weapons but with autonomy

Roboticist Prof Noel Sharkey also thinks that we need to get over our obsession with treating machines as if they were human.

“People perceive robots as something between an animate and an inanimate object and it has to do with our in-built anthropomorphism,” he told BBC News.

“If objects move in a certain way, we think that they are thinking.

“What I try and do is stop people using these dumb analogies and human words for everything.

“It is about time we developed our own scientific language.”

To prove his point, at one conference he attended recently he picked up an extremely cute robotic seal, designed for elderly care, and started banging its head against a table.

“People were calling me a monster,” he said.

Actually, Prof Sharkey is much more of a pacifist – and leads the campaign to ban killer robots, something he thinks is a far more pressing ethical issue in modern-day robotics.

“These are not human-looking robots,” he said.

“I’m not talking about Terminators with a machine gun.

“These weapons look like conventional weapons but are designed so that the machine selects its own target, which to me is against human dignity.”

Prof Sharkey listed some of the current projects he thought were crossing the line into unethical territory:

Harpy – an Israeli weapons system designed to attack radar signals, with a high-explosive warhead. If the signal is not Israeli, then it dive-bombs

an autonomous super-tank, being developed by the Russian army

an autonomous gun designed by Kalashnikov

And he has been working at the UN for the past five years to get a new international treaty signed that either bans the use of them or states that they can never be used without “meaningful human control” – 26 nations are currently signed up, including China.

Listen to more on this story: Can you murder a robot? The Documentary, BBC World Service, airing 17 March

[leadlovelearn]

What Does it Mean to Be a Friend?

I went to undergrad for Child Development and was blessed with many experiences to go into classrooms and learn from educators in early childhood, different learning environments, and a variety of children. I saw everything from expensive, 5-star programs to grant-funded/subsidized programs to programs developed for young children with emotional/behavioral disabilities to programs that focused on the Autism population. What a wide variety!

In my experience, our “standard,” high-quality learning environments had an underlying focus on kindness and getting along – and that’s what we want, right? For our children to learn to be kind and get along, to go with what is expected without ruffling any feathers along the way. But at what cost? We refer to each member of the classroom as a “friend” incessantly – “sit with your friends” and “one of the friends in our classroom has a birthday today,” and so on. But in these attempts to create a culture of friendships in our classroom, what it actually means to be a friend has sort of slipped through the cracks, don’t you think?

Story Time.

One of my practicum placements in undergrad was in a preschool for young children with emotional/behavioral disorders. This means that sometime in early childhood, they likely experienced some sort of trauma; for some it was neglect and abandonment, for others it was the death of a parent, and many other factors that contributed to their early experiences. Overall, as their brains were developing (prior to age 4) there were emotional needs that were not met which actually changed the architecture of their brain, resulting in behaviors that needed more attention in order to work towards a successful, mainstreamed public school experience - attention that our “standard,” high-quality programs could not - and would not - necessarily provide.

In my previous cookie cutter, friendship-focused placements, I had adopted this idea that children will somehow automatically learn how to be a friend by just referring to children as “friends,” but this program and my supervisor there shook things up and completely changed the way I view this now.

Literally. My supervisor called me out, asking why I would refer to each child as a “friend.” She explained to me that the children we were working with were not wired to give the benefit of the doubt or to trust as the result of their early emotional experiences. They had feelings that were hurt, manipulated, jumbled up, and confused. So being a “friend” was something hard to understand and navigate, and not a “given,” the way that we assume that it is in our more “standard” programs. She went on to say that if I am talking to a child and referring to a classmate as a “friend,” but that this child does not have “friend feelings” toward the other classmate, not only does it cause confusion and mislabel the idea of being a friend to this child, there is an added layer of emotional disconnect that stems from “oh, I’m supposed to have ‘friend feelings’ toward this classmate but I don’t, so I’m ‘falling short’ and people will be disappointed in/mad at/upset with me” - and a cycle of shame and unhealthy relationships goes on.

What an eye opener!

I think about this all the time. Does this only apply to our EBD population? I don’t think so. What are we actually accomplishing when we overuse “friend” in our other settings? Does it actually teach kids to respect one another? Are we teaching them what to look for in another person that would make them a good friend? Are we showing them what they need to do for someone else to choose them as a friend? I’m all for creating a culture of respect and kindness, but I do not believe in creating an expectation of false friendships.

Teach our kids to be respectful. Teach our kids to identify and explain their personal boundaries. Teach our kids to talk about their interests, and to ask others what they are interested in too. Teach our kids to know their value. Teach our children social-emotional problem-solving skills. Seek out opportunities to explain why someone is your friend to demonstrate how you choose your friends. Greet and interact with each child using his or her name.

There are so many ways we can teach our kids to pursue healthy, positive, and meaningful relationships and to set them up for success in the future, but I feel like just telling them “we’re all friends” is taking the easy way out and doesn’t actually do us any good in the future.

If you are someone who interacts with children regularly, check in with yourself. Catch yourself speaking – are you overusing/misusing “friend”? What could you say differently?