#in fact of course i will defend to the death the fundamental importance of doing all kinds of How About These Cell Shapes things

[unopenablebox]

and i'm not in it to cure any diseases or resolve any health problems at all! i just really love biology, the academic field of study, but specifically things that are tissue-size and smaller and not the ones that would involve even a genetic disease that we could pretend to think was curable if everything about gene editing was different. it's just fun to look at because of the shapes, and it's exciting to understand how the shapes work. i'm not going to solve anyone's health problems and i'm not going to document any special animals for anyone! i'm going to develop a series of practical tools for getting a better handle on a fundamental conceptual problem that has for the last 30 years bedeviled the Why Do Cells Arrange Themselves In Shapes community and i have no interest in anyone else!

[sunshine-jesse]

In defense of Andrew Graves: A character arc in one sentence

HEY! I rewrote this essay and fleshed it out a lot. I'm keeping the original here for posterity, but the new version renders this one completely obsolete. Find it here!

I've focused a lot on Ashley in my past writings. She's my favorite character in the story (and depending on how episode 3 pans out, maybe ever) and I'm pretty mortified by how some parts of the fandom have reacted towards her, so I pretty much made it my life's mission to push back against that. From highlighting the ways Andrew mistreats her, to coming up with justifications for her behavior that aren't just being a manipulative bitch, I really wanted to prove that a more favorable picture of her could be painted than most were willing to.

But in doing so, I've left Andrew in the dust.

In highlighting his flaws and the ways he mistreats Ashley, I think I've implied a level of intentionality to his actions that I don't believe he has. Most of his worst actions are spur of the moment, or caused by a fundamental conflict that exists between his desires and his idea of the way things should be. That doesn't excuse them, obviously! But they do reveal interesting things about his character and how it develops over the course of the game. He starts out as a doormat, but eventually settles on either his bitterness or a sense of calmness and acceptance, both over Ashley.

But what exactly causes this change?

There's plenty of reason to believe that he was slowly evolving before the story took place, but within the context of the work itself, I believe there are two points where he can no longer ignore the changes that have happened to this point, both of which are in the first chapter: The killing of the warden and the 302 lady. In the first case, he was forced to do it to protect Ashley in a way he hadn't done before, or depending on how you look at it, since the death of Nina. But the intentionality was the key point here. After this point, he calls Ashley Leyley, which may or may not seem important at this point, but it's something I'll draw attention to later, so keep that in mind.

Next is the killing of the 302 lady, which is the much, much bigger point. We don't learn much about it until later on- as at first he just gives an excuse about the nail gun that doesn't line up with what we see on the map- but during the dream, it's revealed it was a calculated, intentional killing that he did to make sure there was no evidence left behind, and because Ashley (supposedly) would've wanted him to do it anyway. I say supposedly because Ashley herself doesn't seem to ever want Andrew to kill for her past Nina's death, because he only ever kills for her to defend one or both of them. If you want more evidence that violence for violence's sake isn't something she wants, look at this part in the final dream:

A knife isn't what opens the door, despite it being placed on the ground in that very map. While it seems obvious that the knife (violence) would be the key to solving the puzzle, it's put there explicitly to show you that it isn't. It's not what she wants; what she wants is a flower.

So, why is this important? Why am I centering Ashley- again- when this essay is supposed to be about Andrew?

Because I think it's important to point out the discrepancy between what he thinks Ashley wants, and what she really wants. When Ashley starts to grill Andrew over the killing of the 302 lady, he gets mad. Very mad. Ashley sees it as pointless, as him covering his own ass, but he genuinely did it for her sake, because he thought that's what she wanted, and that it'd make her happy. But what makes her happy isn't violence- or any similarly extreme action for that matter- it's attention and validation. Something he's always reluctant to give her, despite the fact that he always chose her over the alternatives. But despite making that choice, it's always empty and meaningless, because in Ashley's mind, he never did it for her sake.

And hoo boy, does he not like it being framed like this.

But is she wrong, though? He WAS the one who chopped up the Warden, and he WAS the one who chose to kill the 302 lady. Violence is his job, it's all he knows. He has to do it to take care of Leyley, right? To protect her? To keep her happy? Then why doesn't he ever acknowledge it? Why does he never admit that he did it for her sake, to keep her happy?

Because he doesn't know what he sees her as.

In his unique dream sequence, he sees two versions of Ashley; the child version of her- Leyley- and the adult version of her- Ashley. And the differences in the ways he interacts with the two of them are stunning. Leyley is an obstinate, annoying child. She's the one he NEEDS to take care of, and he hates that. He hates Leyley for what she did for his childhood. He hates that he needs to provide for her. He has the option of trying to kill her, even, over something as small as a candle!

But in the room with all the murders, the gilded cage, he sees Ashley as an adult. This version of Ashley is stuck in a closet that he himself has to open- and to choose to see. Their interactions are calm and friendly. She teases him a bit, sure, but she's still helpful, and they have fun together. He doesn't need her, and she doesn't need him. He needed Leyley- needed the candle- but here, there are other limbs strewn about for him to take. And, crucially, he doesn't even have the option to kill this Ashley for one of the limbs.

And during the choking scene, he lets her go the moment she acknowledges that he doesn't need her anymore.

What he really wants is Ashley for Ashley's sake. Not for what she can provide him. He doesn't even need her for sleep, he just wants her. But Ashley has trouble acknowledging this, because he's never before shown that WANT. Only a NEED. She keeps trying to find ways to make him need her, because she's never seen what his desire for her is really like. She's only ever seen him desiring someone else, someone other than her. She's only ever seen him as Andy, because she's never truly seen Andrew, only the violence he can inflict on others. Andrew, meanwhile is arguably further along in the realization of their relationship, because he can see and acknowledge both sides of Ashley.

He can see Leyley, the needy, bratty child who always needs his attention, that he needs to provide for. The one he hates and wants to get rid of. The one he kills for to protect. And he can see Ashley, the one who engages in friendly and cute banter with him. Who comforts and shows him physical affection. The one he loves. The one he kills for to make happy.

He just can't choose which one he wants to see. Every outside influence- from his parents, to Julia, to Nina- makes him see her as Leyley. Ashley herself makes him see her as Leyley too, whenever she brings up all the things he did for her, and calls him Andy, his child self, instead of Andrew, his current self. And as long as he sees that child, he feels like one too, and can never give Ashley anything that comes from the heart.

But he really, really wants to see Ashley as an adult. He wants to take pride in her, how much she's grown, and how driven and competent she really is.

But god damn, does that bitch ever make it hard.

But in the end, it's him who has to make the choice how to see her. Ashley can only see what she's shown, but Andrew can choose.

And in the basement scene, he makes that choice.

If Ashley refuses to leave him alone with their parents, that's it. In one of the most critical and important moments of his life, she couldn't give him the space needed to make up his own mind. She couldn't treat him as an adult. She couldn't see him as Andrew. If she does give him that choice, she chooses to acknowledge that Andrew is an adult who can be trusted to make his own decisions, even though she (perhaps foolishly) believes that this choice lines up with her own interests. And frankly it does either way, but in accepting their mom's offer, her chooses to see her as Leyley once and for all. He chooses not to reciprocate what Ashley showed him. He does it because he needs to, not because he wants to. Because it's his duty, not his desire.

But if he WANTS to?

That respect becomes mutual.

In choosing to treat each other like adults, to treat their relationship as one of desire rather than need, Andy starts to die. From that point on, their relationship becomes a lot more friendly, lighthearted, and playful. They ironically start acting more like children, but to quote CS Lewis:

"Critics who treat adult as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence."

He's not ashamed of being playful with Ashley, or showing affection towards her. He's grown up. He finally sees her, and himself, as an adult- although he still doesn't show that in full until much later on (more or that later). But in Decay, he still sees her as a child, and to an extent, probably himself. Let's compare the ways in which he reacts to being called Andy. In Decay, he lashes out at Ashley and gets angry, even threatening her. But in Questionable Burial, he calmly says that Andy is dead and doesn't need Ashley's comfort, but still tries to reassure her that she's still needed. He's not ashamed of or hostile towards their prior dynamic, because he's grown past it. He still recognizes Ashley's need to feel needed, but he still RECOGNIZES it, where he was hostile towards it before.

It's a display of respect towards her feelings.

This interaction doesn't happen in the Sane ending, however. He doesn't play games with her and is just a lot less fun to be around all together. Why is that? Because he still hasn't yet shaken viewing Ashley as Leyley there. He still views her as a burden, as someone who needs taking care of. He's calmly accepted that, too, mind you, but he lacks respect for her because she's still a child, in his mind. But in Questionable?

The vision did more than just make him extremely embarrassed and lay his deepest desires bare. It forced him to recognize Ashley as an adult. When choosing between "Never" and "Never say never," if Never is chosen, the burden of thought is lifted off of him. But if Ashley chooses "Never say never!", he has to reckon with the fact that Ashley is an adult, someone who can consent to those kinds of things. Someone who MIGHT. Someone who has agency, and can make her own decisions. And more importantly… someone who can trust him to make his own.

Whether he desires sex or not is secondary; he's always had those feelings and has always been ashamed of it. But now that the part of him where that shame came from is dead and buried, there's no childish impulse to grow up. There's no attachment to the hate and bitterness he had before. Look at what he worries about when he picks up that she's uncertain or confused about who he is now:

This is the one sentence I was referring to in the title.

It's her feelings.

He wants to be fun to be around. He wants to make Ashley happy. He loves her, and not as a romantic interest or even as a sibling. He loves her independent of all that baggage.

He loves her as a person.

In learning to respect Ashley, our boy has finally grown up. But there's a certain intimacy to being hurt by someone else that Ashley isn't getting in this ending, and now she has to reckon with that. And that's really, really hard to do when you're so used to being hurt.

Especially when you're no longer around someone who wants to kill the part of you that needs nurturing the most.

[cyberbenb]

Valerii Zaluzhnyi: The Ukrainian people are the phenomenon that allows us to fight to this day

On May 12, 2023, Ukrainian TV presenter Dmytro Komarov released a special video interview titled “A Year. Off-screen” with the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valerii Zaluzhnyi. Broadcast in Ukrainian, the interview struck a chord with many Ukrainians not only for its sincerity, but also for the important messages conveyed by Ukraine’s most famous Ukrainian military leader. To make it accessible for our English-speaking audience and share the sentiments felt by Commander in Chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi with the world, we have translated some excerpts taken from the interview.

In the conversation with Komarov, General Zaluzhnyi admitted that the Russian Federation is a country with a highly developed military science. He was the most touched by the topic of Ukrainian children caught up in the hostilities, for it is the worst that happens in war and said that victory must be achieved for them. He voiced his concerns about the impact of war on the Ukrainian children caught up in the hostilities, noting that is why it is important to win. Zaluzhnyi shared the messages children write to him in their letters: “I will definitely come back home,” or “I will surely help to rebuild my school.” 

General Zaluzhnyi accented the ways in which eight years of Russian aggression since 2014 had, unexpectedly for Russia, hardened and prepared Ukrainians for the potential of a full-scale invasion. 

About the human losses 

“The heart feels it [editor’s note: loss] very, very painfully. […] I always look back to the contact list, where I see many names of those who passed away, and the strength leaves me. […] And I will never be able to delete this from my memory. As the commander in chief, I don’t want to show any weaknesses. But first of all, I repeat, I am a human being. I once cried when a mother was looking for her son. He was a helicopter pilot and was flying to Mariupol. When I communicated with her, I hoped he was alive, and everything would be fine. Unfortunately, he perished. And I had to tell his mother about it. She forwarded me his text message before the final flight [where he said] that he was a patriot and that even in case of his death, he wanted others to know that he was a regular person. When I somehow tried to discuss it with his mom, I was not strong enough for that.”

About Russia 

“The strategic goal of the Russian Federation is to destroy Ukrainian statehood as such. Apparently, they hoped they would come in organized convoys […], and that would be the end of Ukrainian statehood. But when Ukrainians began to resist, when Ukrainians started to defend themselves, now they are deliberately coming from Russia to deliberately kill Ukrainians. The essence of this war  [for us] is that if we do not destroy this enemy now, then it will be us who  will be destroyed.”

“We count every shell, every mine, and every human life. And they [the Russians] act like a horde. Even based on the number of their losses. These are the losses that would stop any country from further action. […] And now the numbers of human lives lost are much higher […] this does not stop them. There is only one conclusion: perhaps the cheapest thing in that country is a human life. In our country, on the contrary, human life is the most expensive.”

About the Armed Forces of Ukraine

“All I have tried and continue trying to do in the Armed Forces of Ukraine is to change the culture — to listen to the opinions of my subordinates, to treat my subordinates as humans, and to build normal relationships in the Armed Forces. It is our fundamental difference from the Soviet army. Of course, we need time for this. But the fact that we no longer resemble the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation is already a huge advantage for us. [And] it is this culture [of difference] that we attempted to launch in the Armed Forces that helps unite us around one goal to defeat a strong enemy.”

About Ukrainians 

“What is happening and what we are holding on to is the Ukrainian people — Ukrainian soldiers, Ukrainian sergeants, and Ukrainian officers. They are dying and getting injured every day but holding their ground. Today, they are making this victory possible. That is the only phenomenon that keeps us fighting until now — our Ukrainian people.” 

“One of the main mistakes of the Russian leadership […] is that they thought that Ukrainians would welcome them […]. They forgot the history that Ukrainians are a people who have always been fighting for their freedom, for their land, for their families, for their children, and for their homes. Ukrainians will fight, and they do. This is our main phenomenon. It is the people of Ukraine who are the real heroes.”

“I would like to thank the millions of Ukrainians that the Armed Forces of Ukraine are filled with these people, the Ukrainians. They are different in nationality and character, but these people have united around our common aim and are doing exactly the things we see today. They are wonderful people who deserve respect. I am simply thankful to them.”

  About the World  

“Every war has its scale, it takes place in a certain section of the front. The scale that exists now corresponds to both World War I and World War II. As of today [editor’s note: the interview was published in May 2023], the front line for the Ukrainian Armed Forces is 3,759 kilometers long. The amount of ammunition used by us and the enemy is completely the same. [And] what is most incomprehensible is that I was personally convinced that a war of this scale was impossible in the 21st century. Even our Western colleagues were sure that a war of this scale was probably impossible. But we began to resist, we began to fight for our country. That’s why the war has this scale.”

“It [global support] helps us maintain the balance and gives us the strength to defend ourselves. Any conversation [editor’s note: with Western partners] begins with them saying that they admire the courage and heroism of our soldiers. Every conversation ends with the words: “Glory to Ukraine, Glory to the Heroes!”

About Victory 

“I know for sure that there is still a long and difficult road to victory. I hope that God will be on our side and victory will definitely be ours.”

“Our victory is, of course, the liberation of the entire occupied territory of Ukraine. But our victory is also Ukraine, which, as a state, must do everything to ensure that everything that began and happened on Feb. 24, 2022, never happens again. We must rebuild a military institution that will never allow the Russians to do this again. For us, victory means liberated territory and a powerful, ultra-modern, large, combat-ready Armed Forces that will not let Russia repeat what happened and is happening now.”

[girl4music]

I’ve read your original post and your responses to other people and I admire how far down the rabbit hole you’ve gone with this subject. I certainly have done so too. It’s kinda hard not to as an Analytic.

“Of course they are people. Often very unpleasant people -- people who go around murdering other people and drinking their blood, for example -- but still, ultimately, people.” So they’re cannibals to you then? Perhaps it would help if you tried to ask and analyze the question of what makes a “person” - not just philosophically, but also how it pertains to the Buffyverse and the way it writes a person. Any person.

Is a person merely just human? Or are animals people too? Is a sentient species in general a person? Is sentience a characteristic of what makes a person?

Try to answer this question. Then see where you go.

For me, there are 3 major things that define what a “person” is. Qualities or traits you could say.

1. Consciousness

2. Sentience

3. Memory (or recollection might be a better term)

Consider Dawn. Is Dawn a person even though she was made via not being born? Yes, she is because she has recollection, consciousness and sentience. If doesn’t matter that she wasn’t born. She does exist as a living human being. Even if she was made with robotic parts instead of biological ones, she would still be a person, even if she’s not a human biologically.

Consider Anya - who is a human then demon then human again, then demon again. Still a person. Why? ‘Cause she always possesses the 3 traits I mentioned.

So do vampires? Soulless or ensouled? Yes.

So then they’re also people.

Does the fact they’re evil mean they’re not people?

No.

Does this mean Buffy is justified in killing them?

No.

See the problem here is really that the Buffyverse writers (mainly Whedon) refused to fully tackle the possibility that maybe Buffy was a murderer for this.

But she was still most certainly a hero for protecting and defending the world - especially her loved ones - from evil regardless whether she killed people or not.

And I think - for the ones that are really bothered - this is something we really need to reconcile ourselves with if we’re going to continue to hold her up so high in regards to her being the Slayer. You know, maybe thoroughly undertaking a narrative like this seriously is exactly what Buffy needed in her arc. See, they did this with Wynonna Earp and no one thought of her any less for it. In fact it’s what made her character better.

War veterans will be the first to tell you that there is heroism in killing the enemy - whether people or not.

But does this mean that they’re not killers? No.

And that’s just it. That’s just how it is.

You can be a hero and the killer at the same time.

And many are. Is it right? This is a question I’ve asked with watching Xena all my life. And I’ve come to the conclusion - for now at least - that no, it isn’t right…

But it may be the only thing you can do to prevent or avoid the death of yourself or other people. It may be the only option you can resort to. And it’s not always a choice. Sometimes it’s just instinct. That’s humanity.

Do I personally believe Buffy is a killer? A murderer?

I do. And I’m okay with it because it makes her a far more compelling character to watch and learn from.

And I understand why they didn’t want to go with that narrative arc for her. Have her fully address this the way they did with Wynonna Earp. I understand it.

Do I agree with it? No. I don’t. I think they should have. As fundamentally philosophically profound as this show is sometimes, at the end of the day, it’s targeted towards teenagers. Addressing these things just isn’t important in the overall purpose of Buffy’s existence.

But they’re a load of fun to debate about, I must say.

Hell… one of my TV favourite characters of all-time is a mass-murderer. She’s still very much a hero in my eyes. Addressing this shouldn’t be so taboo because you can really learn a lot through addressing it.

It's true that the Buffy writers' answers to the closely related questions "is there a meaningful distinction between a vampire and the human being who was sired to create them?" and "when you get down to it, are vampires basically people?" clearly undergo something of a shift in the second half of the show.

This is a transformation that starts with Buffy's reluctance to stake Willow's vampire alter ego in Season 3's Doppelgangland and continues at pace with the gang's collective reaction to finding out that Harmony has "become" a vampire in Season 4. It's a process that continues as long as Harmony remains a recurring character on the show, until, by mid-Season 5, Buffy (and Buffy) has essentially undergone a complete switch in its view of vampirism. The later seasons handling of vampires are very hard to square with the speeches made by Buffy in Lie To Me ("you die, and a demon sets up a shop in your old house [...] but it's not you") or Giles to Xander [about the late and largely unlamented Jesse] in The Harvest ("you're not looking at your friend: you're looking at the thing that killed him"). Whether this is a change for the better or not is a matter for debate, but that it is a real change that happens is pretty hard to dispute.

It's also true that the writers are obviously increasingly reluctant to show their show's protagonist, the titular vampire slayer, actually going around killing vampires. At least any vampires who've had a chance to establish some sort of personality. How many of the dozen or so named, recurring vampire characters does Buffy actually kill over the course of the show? Not very many.

I make it two in Season 1 (if you're generous and count Luke as a recurring character), one in Season 2 (if you're similarly generous and count Buffy sending Angel to hell for almost three whole episodes as killing him) and ... that's it, right? Somebody other than Buffy kills Darla [=Angel], and Colin the Anointed One [=Spike], and Dalton [=the Judge], and Mr Trick [=Faith], and vamp!Willow [=wishverse!Oz, twice] and Sunday's only-named-in-the script henchvamp Tom [=the Initiative], and Sandy [=Riley], and Spike[=... well, Spike, ultimately, I guess]. Nobody ever kills Drusilla or Lyle Gorch or Harmony, all of whom make multiple appearances on the show and (un)live to the end of the series. And Angel and Spike (and even Darla, eventually and temporarily) all come back after apparently being killed.

Buffy might have a sacred calling to slay vampires, but the show is very uncomfortable about her killing non-human characters who've had a chance to establish themselves as people. Perhaps that's why the show stops having vampiric Big Bads completely after Season 2, and why Season 7 tries to introduce a whole new category of personality-free, definitely-not-people monsters to replace its existing vampires. (Perhaps not entirely succesfully, if we're being diplomatic.)

It's certainly true that the show does not have a consistent take to offer on vampire lore. Like everything supernatural in Buffy, vampires are essentially walking metaphors: and the things that they exist to represent and comment on change and evolve throughout the show's run. Buffy's worldbuilding is not very deep or rigorous.

But what's not true at all, and what I wish people would stop claiming, is the idea that Angel's awkward "well, actually..." when Buffy assures Willow in Doppelgangland that "a vampire's personality has nothing to do with the person it was" represents some sort of big departure from the show's established or implied lore up to that point. It does not. At all.

In fact, it's Buffy's claim that is at odds with everything that the show has been saying up this point. A vampire's personality has always, always been something that the show wants us to believe is informed by the personality of the person who died to create them, This goes all the way back to Season 1.

In Angel, Giles does tell Buffy flat out that "a vampire isn't a person at all", but he also says that a vampire may have "the memories, even the personality of the person that it took over". In the part of her speech from Lie To Me that I elided earlier, Buffy admits that if you're turned the resulting vampire "walks, and it talks, and it remembers your life" [and the clear implication here is that the vampire walks and talks like the original person did, otherwise what is this supposed to be saying?].

If the show's original position was that a vampire's personality had nothing to do with who they were in life, why would Giles have felt the need to tell Buffy (in Season 1's Never Kill A Boy On The First Date) that Andrew Borba had been on the run for a suspected double murder the night he died and rose as a vampire? Why would he have told her in Season 2's Bad Eggs that the Gorch brothers "massacred a village" before they were vampires? Why would he warn her in Season 3's Helpess that Zachary Kralik was a "criminally insane" serial killer even before being sired as a vampire? If the show -- or even just Giles himself -- really did have the position that a vampire's personality has nothing to do with the person they were before death, as Buffy claims in Doppelgangland (and some fans apparently believe), how would any of this make sense?

If we weren't supposed to think vampires inherited at least some part of their personality from their host then why, in The Harvest, would vampire!Jesse still be obsessed with pursuing Cordelia Chase? Why would Drusilla still be driven mad as a vampire as a result of the pyschological tortures that Angel inflicted on "her" when she was a mortal? In Halloween, why would Buffy be trying to find out more about the sort of person Angel was as a human? Why would Willow and Xander still be together in the world of The Wish?

The idea that a vampire inherits the personality of the person whose body they take over [or who they were before "becoming" a vampire, in the later seasons' parlance] isn't any kind of retcon. It's one of the few consistent takes on vampires the show had from beginning to end. Continuity of self; moral standing as a person; capacity for self-reflection and personal growth, whether or not vampires can breathe ... these are the things about vampires the show changes its stance on. But a vampire's personality was always informed by who they were in life, right from the very first pair of episodes.

(Spike and Drusilla being capable of at least some kind of romantic love and mutual jealousy in Season 2 is also not a retcon, incidentally. We saw that with Darla and Angel in Season 1 as well. And even the Master clearly felt emotions and had some sort of affection for his favorites among the vampires that worked for him. Spike and Dru do represent a significant -- and welcome! --change in the tone of the show, but they aren't somehow a walking refutation of what Giles has been telling Buffy (and through her, us) about vampires for the past year.)

I mean, I don't really have a big point to work to here, it's just that I keep seeing takes on my dash about how this particular scene represents a big change in the show's lore about vampires. And that .. just isn't true?