#is more important than avoiding problematic ones or even examining them critically

[linkspooky]

Yuji, Alone. 

I have been saying in my past few meta that Yuji has a really unhealthy way of viewing both himself, and his relationships with others. Yuji is excellent at reading the feelings of others and empathizing with them, and at the same time terrible at processing his own emotions, a trait he shares with Geto who he is once again paralleling this chapter by choosing to stew in isolation rather than reach out for support. 

Chapter 138 does an excellent job of showing how deep these issues run, which I will explain under the cut. 

1. Yuji and Geto

If I were to explain the unhealthy mindset Yuji has by simplifying it down to one sentenence, simply stated it would be “I want to help others, but I don’t want to accept help from other people.” 

Both Yuji and Geto are so motivated by empathy they feel like they are responsible for solving other people’s problems, and they often use other people rather than themselves as a reason to move. They’re actually selfless to a fault. In that, it’s a problem in their behavior. They do everything they do for other peope, so they have no idea what they themselves want. If Gojo is someone who has a strong self image, a strong set of beliefs, an idea of what he wants to do to the world, Geto and Yuji are people who try not to think about themselves at all. 

Not only does Yuji almost never critically exam his own motivations, but he also doesn’t think of his relationships with other people. 

This is something Yaga pointed out as a danger with Yuji’s way of going about things, all the way at the beginning of his arc. If you’re doing it because your grandpa told you so, then is it really something you want to do? When you die, is it going to be your grandpa’s fault too?

Yuji is someone who seems selfless on the surface, and to an extent he is, but just like Geto that’s not all there is to him. It’s something Gojo called out early on, Geto presented himself as someone selfless, motivated entirely by using his powers to protect others, but he was also doing so self righteously. 

To clarify what I mean by self righteous, Geto believed that he was doing something because it was the objective right thing to do, but actually it was just his own personal feelings. That’s why after Riko’s death forced him to critically examine himself, he realized he didn’t want to follow the rules of Jujutsu Society. 

Both Yuji and Geto pay attention to others, but also have the blinders on in regards to themselves, and that’s the parallel right there. Yuji says he is doing these things for other people, that his number one priority is to save them but that motivation is even deconstructed in the third chapter.

Yuji’s not actually doing this for purely altruistic reasons, but for selfish ones. He wanted to do something that nobody else could do. Yuji’s life was like a vaccuum before this point. He didn’t have any real friends, or anything he wanted to do. Suddenly he had a purpose basically gift wrapped and handed to him on his lap. 

Basically, Yuji and Geto both have this schewed way of seeing other people. They thing other people exist to validate their own existences. 

To put it simply. If Hidden Inventory Geto helps weak people than he’s valid. If Yuji helps people, then he’s valid. 

Not only is the way they view themselves built around how they help other people, but at the same time all of their relationships are built up on this as well. Relationships that are built upon shaky foundations will crumble apart easily when tested. 

Geto’s most important relationship was with Gojo, they had an intense chemistry and interaction with one another like they were made for each other. They were both good at naturally balancing each other out, Geto was the one who stood up to Gojo and acted like a tether, and Gojo ackonwledged Geto as his one and only. 

However, the relationship was also built on the idea that Gojo needed Geto. Geto was only able to view his relationships with other people in that way. Geto, wants to take care of people, wants to help people. However, eventually, he was left behind by Gojo who no longer needed him as a partner in combat. On top of that, Geto awoke to a higher purpose in ridding the world of cursed energy. Geto wants to be needed by somebody in the same sense that Yuji does, so for Geto at least being needed to save the whole world in his eyes, was just more important than maintaining his relationship with Gojo. 

Which is why both Geto and Yuji’s relationships fall apart. They are great at making relationshisps, but not at maintaining them. Attention is drawn to the fact that the trio has great chemistry with each other and get along well, but they’re also terrible at communicating with each other. 

"The seats... in my life... How should I put this? I don't want my heart to be affected by people who don't have a place there. Does that sound cold? Well, I guess there are also guys like you who brings their own chair and takes a seat." Translation by Miho.

Almost literally, I don’t want anyone who’s not a part of my life to try to talk to me or tell me what to do. Also the reference that Yuji is kind of different because Yuji just kind of walked into her life unannounced and invited himself there (this is how Yuji forms relationships with everyone.)

All three of them go behind each other’s backs and keep secrets from one another. All three of them avoid direct confrontation, Nobara even says she doesn’t really want anyone else even trying to tell her how to live her life. The Origin of Obedience arc shows that Nobara, Yuji and Megumi are all good at fighting together as a team, but also questioning if they have a healthy friendship outside of that?

Any relationship takes work, confrontation, arguments and even just plain old talking about things. However, someone who is primarily insecure in their relationships will not be able to do things.  Couples shouldn’t only argue, but couples who never argue is just as unhealthy. If you are so afraid that one argument is going to end a relationship, then your relationship was fragile to begin with. 

Yuji and Geto experience conditional relatinoships. In the sense that, they are only allowed to have friends, if they are helpful to those friends. They themselves are never allowed to ask for help. It’s true that Gojo was kind of blind to Geto’s faults, but also Geto would have never asked for help. Gojo could not see, and Geto deliberately hid things from them. 

Geto always makes his relationships on the condition that he is needed. When Gojo grew more independent, Geto took that as a sign that Gojo didn’t need him anymore and deliberately started to pull away.

Because, Geto isn’t ever allowed to be the one who needs someone else. 

2. Avoidant Attachment

This is just a personal theory of mine, but I think Yuji’s issues might even center around the psychological idea of attachment theory. Especially it’s since deliberately mentioned to Junpei, that Yuji never met his mother. 

Attachment theory is a complex idea, but basically it states that attachment to other people, that is the idea to form healthy relationships with family members, friends, romantic partners is learned instead of naturally present in us. It’s a skill people develop in their formative years. 

Those who show patterns of problematic attachment in childhood will continue the behavior into adulthood unless it’s corrected, because attachment is a skill that’s developed the same as anything else. Of the four categories, Yuji and Geto most resemble this one. 

Avoidant attachment: Children with an avoidant attachment tend to avoid parents or caregivers, showing no preference between a caregiver and a complete stranger. This attachment style might be a result of abusive or neglectful caregivers. Children who are punished for relying on a caregiver will learn to avoid seeking help in the future.

Which goes further to explain how they can be so empathic towards other people, and yet the same time completely unable to maintain close relationships with them. It’s because, they avoid people at the same time. They don’t seek out help when they need it, because, deep down they view themselves as unworthy of the help. 

Geto did not immediately break after the trauma of losing Riko, it was the year of isolation after that where he slowly was consumed by his regrets. Geto got worse and worse over a period of time because he couldn’t handle his trauma in any healthy way, until he just completely snapped. 

During that time he asked himself the same questions over and over again, but Geto wasn’t able to find any kind of healthy answer to his questions because, he didn’t reach out for anybody. It wasn’t just the trauma, it was the behavior after the trauma, the decision to isolate himself for over a year. No one does well in isolation. You need other people to grow or develop. If anything Geto stagnated. Geto’s central flaw was his self-righteousness. Rather than realizing he was wrong and trying to change this flaw of his, he just doubles down and becomes even more self righteous. He goes from believing he’s responsible for protecting all the weak people, to believing he’s a superior being tasked with eliminating all the weak people in the world. So, it’s not really that Geto changed, moreso that he stagnated because he cut off all his relationships with other people. 

And isn’t Yuji doing the exact same thing right now? Yaga even points out this similaritiy between Geto and Yuji, that they try to carry every regret and burden they have on their own. 

It’s not out of selflessness that they do this though, but rather insecurity. Geto didn’t come to Gojo with his problems, because he wanted to be the strongest alongside Gojo he didn’t want to be weak. He was deliberately avoiding Gojo. 

I think it’s important to establish that Yuji wasn’t abandoned by his friends this chapter. Yuji is alone, because he chose to be alone. He’s alone because he’s avoiding both of his friends, because he’s so, so afraid the friendship will end because it’s based entirely on the condition that he be a helpful, good person.

It’s true that Yuji is genuinely worried about his friends getting hurt because of him, but look at his choices. He’s not really tackling the problem in a healthy way. He’s doing everything he can to avoid the problem, isolating himself, and just trying not to think about things. He could try to talk with Megumi and find a solution, but he’s not doing that because he’s insecure in his attachment to others. 

I think his reaction to Choso pretty clearly illustrates this too. Yuji isn’t around his friends because he doesn’t want to be around them. Which is tragic, because Yuji is holding himself responsible for the mass murder which isn’t really his fault. However, Yuji saw his relationship with both Nobara and Megumi as conditional to begin with. He can only be friends with people he can help, and he can never receive help from them. It’s unhealthy to start with because relationships go both ways. Yuji is also, completely unresponsive to Choso.

Yes. Choso suddenly walking to him and delcaring them brothers is really weird.  I don’t expect Yuji to just suddenly start getting along with him right away.

At the same time, Choso explains what the unconditional love between family is between Yuji, and Yuji just doesn’t get it, because he either hasn’t experienced enough of it, or his grandpa the only person that ever unconditionally loved him is gone. Yuji can’t understand Megumi’s love for him is unconditional,. because from the beginning he sees all relationships as conditional. 

Yuji and Choso are facing opposite direcitons because they’re opposites. Choso is willing to hurt complete strangers too, but his love for his family is unconditional and he will do anything for them. Yuji will help complete strangers, but, he doesn’t really understand unconditional love, and even his love with his closest friends has a few conditions. 

Which is why someone who appears on the surface as such a friendly guy who makes friends everywhere he goes, can call himself “a loner” because in Yuji’s mind he is. He doesn’t have friends, he has people who need him. 

Which is just incredibly sad because Yuji doesn’t understand this. Yuji isolates himself thinking he’s doing it for the sake of his friends, but neither Megumi nor Nobara would want him to be alone. 

[dreamsmp-megaritz]

chill out with debating character morals?

I like Dream SMP character analysis. That’s a big part of why I'm here. But I have some problems with how a lot of it seems to go. Many people are being way too hard on each other, raising the stakes artificially high, moralizing the discussion needlessly. It’d be good to chill out a bit.

I’ll explain what I mean, and why. In writing this, I risk coming across like I’m doing the very thing I dislike-- morally scolding other people. I hope it is clear enough that my message is not meant to scold anyone, but is meant as more of a more lighthearted exhortation to examine the discourse and see whether you can help improve it so as to make things better for everyone. My term “chill out” is meant more as a suggestion (if applicable), not as a finger-wagging.

As always, everything I say here is open to criticism and revision. Think for yourself, think about your own observations, and see how fair or unfair my analysis seems to be in light of your own experience. Let me know if you have comments, objections, rebuttals, and so on!

Character morality debates aren’t everything For one thing, a disproportionately large amount of the character analysis takes the form of disputing questions like (1) who is bad and who is good, (2) which characters are worse than which other characters, (3) who had good excuses for their bad actions (and who didn’t), and so on.

This is all fine. It’s not my favorite kind of discourse, but it’s totally fair game to argue about the morality of the characters and their actions. However, it seems like it often drowns out other kinds of character analysis. It’s worth remembering that morality debate is only one kind of character analysis, among many others. Still, this is the least of my concerns.

Reasons to avoid overconfidence Some people are VERY confident in their views, and are kind of harsh to each other on that basis.

It’s worth remembering the sheer size of the lore (hours upon hours of material), and it’s worth remembering how loose the canon is in this block-game role-play story. This there’s often a lot of plausible evidence on both sides of a debate. And this means that many conflicting interpretations of a character are often equally defensible, or at least are approximately equally reasonable. So this is often worth considering.

First, consider DSMP’s size: Unless you’re a super-expert (or even if you are!), there’s a good chance you’re unfamiliar with-- or you’ve simply forgotten-- at least some of the evidence relevant to your own analysis. Just because there’s so much of it! Moreover, even if you’re a super-expert, remember that lots of other people are not, and so they’ll make more errors than you, and sometimes that’s just kind of okay.

Second, consider DSMP’s looseness of canon: There will often be contradictory or deeply ambiguous evidence that can be interpreted in multiple ways, and there might not always be a deep fact about which interpretation is more objectively correct.

Moral scolding? But why tho?? Most distressingly, the debates often take the form of these weird moral allegations, like insinuations of hypocrisy and slander.

Here’s what I mean by insinuations of hypocrisy: In response to someone saying “Character-A is bad,” a lot of other people will reply “You shouldn’t say Character-A is bad-- because Character-B did something just as bad, and you sure aren’t complaining about Character-B!”

And by insinuations of slander, I mean the way people take the argument seriously to the point of acting like it’s immoral to wrongly criticize a character, as if this were similar to wrongly criticizing a real person.

Each side tends to engage in moral scolding against the other side. As if having the wrong view about a DSMP character is some kind of serious character flaw, indicating a like of moral fiber.

If I might help myself to some psychoanalyzing (against my better judgment, and against my own advice-- the hypocrite I am): I suspect this could be a manifestation of an unhealthy sort of attachment to the characters, such that an insult of the character feels like an insult of one’s own friends or something. (To be clear, I think there are also healthy forms of attachment to the characters, although this isn’t one of them.)

Even if someone gets their interpretation of a DSMP character objectively and blatantly wrong (though I suspect this is relatively rare), or even if they really are being hypocritical & guilty of double standards between different characters, or even if they forget or misunderstand some crucial evidence and perpetuate factual misconceptions... it’s not as if they’re slandering a real person! These are generally quite innocent mistakes.

So please, chill out a bit.

I’m not sure how many people intend to “moralize” the character-analysis disagreements in these ways, but I think it’s worth trying harder to avoid.

(Side-note: I actually think people are too hard on each other in debating the content-creators’ actions as well. However, I will not insist on this here, because the CCs are real people, so the exact same arguments will not apply.)

Caveat: Criticizing analysis vs. criticizing false presuppositions about other issues A big caveat to my argument: I concede there are sometimes real justifications for treating the matter seriously-- such as when someone’s character analysis rests on a misconception about mental illness. Some people have criticized each other’s analyses of c!Wilbur on such grounds, for instance.

But even here, it’s important to avoid confidently attributing problematic assumptions to people when there isn’t strong evidence that they’re making such assumptions. Often a misconception can be addressed and refuted in many ways without accusing someone of actually believing it. Finally, even when such criticism is legitimate, it’s important to clearly separate the actual target of criticism (the misconception) from the character analysis, and avoid conflating them together. This is a little shaky, so I can try to pry apart the distinction in more detail if people are interested.

Conclusion As I said at the start, I hope this comes across as a call to examine and improve things, and not as yet another moral scolding (and a hypocritical one at that). I’m not entirely certain how accurate my assessment of the discourse is. I encourage you to see whether it fits patterns that you have seen, at least to some interesting degree.

If it does, then see if you can improve it.

If not, then let me know what aspects of my analysis you disagree with.

[bigskydreaming]

Thinking today about how often people point to criticism of fic or specific fics even for problematic content as being rude or unwelcome because of the effort the author put into making that work and because that merits respect.

Okay.

Sure.

Let’s go with the idea that effort merits respect and this should be weighed when examining criticism of content for its depiction and how those depictions make people feel about their own lives and intersections with the stuff being spotlighted in a story.

But problem is you know what else requires a lot of effort?

Living lives that are impacted by racism, transphobia, rape, pedophilia, abuse, etc.

So while people are busy holding up the singular efforts of fic writers in creating a work of fiction as sacrosanct and insisting their feelings and comfort should be centered and prioritized in all examinations of that work and the things they said.....

They’re simultaneously not giving a shit about the efforts of people living real lives impacted by all this stuff in actuality, which directly relates to.....how a fic’s depiction of these things made them feel and their comfort.

And why is that not centered? Why does that effort it takes to LIVE in spaces where these kinds of issues are not set pieces for a drama meant solely to entertain, why is that not being held up as being as important in terms of comfort and respect as the comfort and respect of the writer who made the choice to not only depict these things in this way, but to center this type of content at all, especially if done so in the name of entertainment specifically. 

Like no group is a monolith, there will always be intracommunity issues in terms of some people impacted by a work disagreeing with how the writer chose to approach things even when they’re all working off of their own respective lived experiences and have just as much right to their own take on things, like, no take is one size fits all and what’s right for one perspective can be wrong for another even while both perspectives have validity......but its disingenuous to pretend like this is even USUALLY the case in a lot of these discourses. 

The bigger issue has always been the lack of respect from people who want to play with certain depictions of reality as though they can be divorced from reality and just live on the TV sets in peoples’ brains while reading and writing fic with no other consequences whatsoever, towards people who can not ever be truly divorced from the consequences of the reality of these things as they play into their own lives, regardless of how they’re depicted in fic. With the additional issue of those fictional depictions often being extremely formative and influential in how people whose lives aren’t already directly impacted by various issues perceive and interact with these issues.

Less talk about the imaginary specter of censorship in this specific venue and what this has always actually been about.....the equally-frightening-to-some-people specter of creative responsibility. Where creative choices people make are weighed by a creator not just for their potential ENTERTAINMENT value for audiences, but equally for their potential harmful impact on audiences. As words, fiction, storytelling, MESSAGES....are nothing more than tools that can be utilized to more than one purpose, and as such can harm or help in equal measure. Like not to be a blunt instrument, but you can feed your family with a hoe and a yard, but you can also bash someone’s skull in with that hoe and bury them in that yard. *Shrugs* Just saying.

Like what if you viewed people criticizing your work not as an attack on you and your efforts, but simply an expression of “I dont like how your words made me feel.” What if it wasn’t about your ‘rights’ as an author to do whatever the hell you want, and more your impact as a person, and what actually is it you’re trying to do?

If someone says your story hurt, and not in a good, catharctic way but in an invalidating or exploited way, and your concern is less about your not-actually-in-question rights or ability to impact others however you want to, and more about what that impact actually IS....what happens then if you look at that criticism as a person sharing their vulnerability with you and saying “this is why what you said hurts”....and if your reason for writing is truly to ENTERTAIN, and they’re no less a person deserving of entertainment as any other reader, why not take advantage of that voluntary admittance or expression of vulnerability and harm to learn how NOT to do that with your next story.....and voila, by doing something differently next time due to having just listened to what didn’t work for someone, you’ve.....actively enhanced the entertainment you create for people overall?

And like I said, no group is a monolith, people don’t actually all need the same things or respond in the same ways to the same things, and you’re never going to be able to please everyone but the real question is are you even TRYING or are you happy to just rest on the comfort of like-minded individuals and circle the wagons at even the hint of someone challenging you to broaden your mind, your circle, open it up to more people, more feedback, more viewpoints, more PERSPECTIVE?

What if instead of people saying “this hurts” in response to something you write, you don’t take that as an attack, as someone saying you’re a terrible person for hurting me and you will never be anything but that so draw weapons and let’s engage in combat, its the only choice.....

What if instead you view it as a challenge, as someone saying “okay but is there a way you can tell your story and entertain not just the people you were already entertaining, but MORE people, by finding different story routes in the future that still include all the entertainment value you sought out initially but avoiding pitfalls of potential harm now that your eyes have been focused on where more of those pitfalls might be lurking, that you didn’t notice on your previous go-round”?

Like, one approach tells you to hunker down in your bunker, draw on already existing fortifications to bolster yourself, and not move from where you already are and now feel under siege. Just less, same, still.

The other approach encourages you to level up, step up your game, engage with people more, make your stories more accessible and more enjoyable to more people in general. Just more, more, more.

But I mean, hey, you pick.

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

President Trump’s firing of Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. attorney in charge of investigating major crimes in the influential Southern District of New York, which includes Manhattan, is another move by the Trump administration that, though likely legal and not totally unprecedented, appears to violate core democratic values.

The firing was dramatic, with Attorney General William Barr announcing late on Friday night Berman’s resignation and a replacement. Berman issued a statement roughly an hour later saying that he had not resigned and that Barr personally did not have the right to fire him due to the nature of his appointment.1 So on Saturday afternoon, Trump himself fired Berman, and Barr designated a different person to replace Berman than the one he had named on Friday. The firing was also somewhat surprising given that Berman is a longtime Republican who not only donated to Trump’s first presidential campaign but also served on his transition team.

Yet underlying all the drama is something we’ve gotten used to in the Trump era: the breaking of democratic norms and values, which are two distinct concepts. As we’ve written about before, values are fundamental principles (e.g., free speech), whereas norms are the unwritten rules we abide by (don’t cut in line) that sometimes reinforce those values (Supreme Court justices don’t endorse political candidates, thereby bolstering the independence of the judicial and executive branches) but also sometimes don’t. So let’s look at Trump’s firing of Berman in the context of some of those values.2

Equal justice under the law

Under Berman’s leadership, the Southern District was reportedly investigating Trump lawyer and ally Rudy Giuliani, including Giuliani’s dealings with Ukranian officials that were scrutinized as part of the impeachment inquiry against Trump. We don’t know the status of that investigation, whether Giuliani was likely to face criminal charges or even whether that investigation was a factor in the decision to oust Berman. There is some logic to the idea that Department of Justice prosecutors should avoid making decisions close to the election that might influence its outcome — indicting the president’s attorney is arguably such an example. In fact, Democrats in 2016 criticized then-FBI Director James Comey on these grounds, when he announced less than two weeks before Election Day that he was reviewing new evidence involving Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

That said, if Trump and Barr were trying to protect Giuliani (and therefore Trump), it fits a pattern of Barr’s Justice Department seeming to extend special treatment to Trump allies. In February, DOJ officials overruled career prosecutors and asked for a significantly lighter sentence for longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone, who was convicted of lying to Congress, witness tampering and obstruction of justice. All four prosecutors withdrew from the case — and one resigned — in protest of the decision. Even more unusual was the decision in May by a Barr-appointed U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., to drop charges against Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, even though Flynn had already pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. Not only did a career prosecutor quit that case as well, but federal appeals judges are considering not allowing the Justice Department to drop the charges.

The democratic value at play here is equal justice under the law — a person should not get unusually lenient treatment by the Justice Department if he or she is an ally of the president’s. Arguably, previous presidents have violated this value — for example, as he was leaving office, Bill Clinton pardoned the ex-husband of a major Democratic Party donor.

Independence of law enforcement

The most alarming potential explanation of what happened to Berman is that Barr tried to fire him specifically for investigating Giuliani. A milder version may be that the Southern District, under Berman’s leadership, demonstrated that it did not care about Trump’s preferences and would investigate whichever crimes it deemed important, no matter the potential ramifications for Trump. Two years ago, the Southern District persuaded onetime Trump lawyer Michael Cohen to plead guilty to a number of crimes, including violating campaign finance law, with Cohen suggesting his illegal behavior came at Trump’s behest. (It’s worth noting that Berman recused himself from that case.)

So Barr and Trump may consider Berman insufficiently loyal to their interests and fear he would bring charges that would reflect badly on Trump or Republicans, even if Berman didn’t bring forward a case clearly linked to the president.

Indeed, the Trump administration has a long record of demoting, reassigning, firing or otherwise sidelining law enforcement officials who show independence from the White House: Comey, former FBI general counsel James Baker, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Trump or his allies often hinted that Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller would be fired during their tenures as FBI deputy director and DOJ special counsel, respectively, in a manner seemingly designed to intimidate them. Trump has also recently complained about current FBI Director Christopher Wray and hinted that he could be fired.

And Barr has implied that the Justice Department will seek to bring charges against those involved with initiating the investigations of the Trump campaign’s connections to Russia — in effect, criminalizing efforts that bring scrutiny to the president.

Again, it is not unprecedented for presidents to replace law enforcement officials. Presidents in both parties traditionally replace with their own choices all the U.S. attorneys appointed by the previous administration, which often results in a wide partisan swap. As president, Clinton fired the FBI director, and most notably, in what came to be known as the “Saturday Night Massacre,” then-President Richard Nixon purged the senior leadership of the Justice Department for refusing to quash an investigation of him — he was impeached and forced to resign in part because of these moves.

The democratic value at stake here is the independence of law enforcement. That ideal, that their decisions should be divorced from politics, is hard to maintain if key law enforcement officials are constantly worried about being fired by the president, attorney general or anyone else for political reasons.

Accountability and oversight

It’s worth thinking about the initial bid to fire Berman on Friday night, because that is in part what made this move so problematic at first glance. It appeared to be an attempt by Barr and Trump to install at the top of an important law enforcement agency (the Southern District of New York) someone more likely to be friendly to their interests. Generally, when a political appointee like a U.S. attorney leaves, he or she is replaced by the No. 2 person in that office, usually a career civil service employee not formally aligned with either party. But on Friday Barr announced that Berman would be temporarily replaced by Craig Carpenito, a U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey, a close ally of former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, another Trump loyalist.

This is a pattern for Trump: removing the leaders of various government agencies or departments, ignoring normal succession procedures and passing over the people who would normally step in, and instead replacing them with Trump allies. The temporary replacement’s role is essentially to do Trump’s bidding in a way that the removed person would not. The most prominent example of this was when, after the 2018 midterm elections, Trump replaced Sessions with his chief of staff at the time, Matt Whitaker. Often, as in the case of Berman, Trump has removed someone appointed in a process he did not totally control (usually Senate confirmation — in Berman’s case, he was installed by the judges of the Southern District) with someone chosen solely by Trump for that particular role.

Trump’s controlling the executive branch in this way — minimizing the oversight of other branches — weakens checks on his executive power. In this instance, however, Berman’s own chief deputy, Audrey Strauss, stepped into the role.

That said, that Carpenito never actually made it into Berman’s former position doesn’t mean the move wasn’t still problematic in terms of oversight. In indicting one Trump lawyer (Cohen) and investigating another (Giuliani), the Southern District under Berman’s leadership was effectively conducting oversight of the president, since Giuliani in particular was basically executing Trump’s policy goals with Ukraine (pressuring Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden). Berman’s firing suggests Trump was unhappy with that oversight and wants to limit it.

Trump’s attempts to stop oversight of his policy moves is also part of a pattern. He has essentially refused to comply with any congressional investigations into his administration. And over the past few months, he has fired a number of the inspectors general at federal agencies, the people formally charged with scrutinizing the executive branch. The intelligence community inspector general played a key role in bringing forward the whistleblower’s complaints about the Trump administration’s dealings with Ukraine, leading to the president’s impeachment. Trump seems to now view all inspectors general as threats to his administration.

The democratic value at play here is oversight of the executive branch. The Senate’s role in confirming executive branch appointees and the presence of inspectors general are ways in which a president in theory is not able to do whatever he wants with the executive branch. Trump seems unwilling to abide by these constraints. Having his personal lawyer conduct foreign policy puts that person out of the purview of the Senate or inspectors general. Firing the U.S. attorney whose office was investigating the president’s lawyer signals that the president’s lawyer and the sphere of policy he is implementing is off limits.

Media and public scrutiny

The Berman firing, like the removals of several inspectors general, was done on a Friday night. This is not the most important of these violations of democratic values. Previous presidents — and plenty of other people outside of politics, for that matter — “dump” bad news on Friday nights, hoping it will get less media coverage as journalists take off for the weekend.

That said, these firings are important for the reasons I have laid out above. Trump’s seeming desire to obscure them suggests he wants to avoid careful examination of decisions that he no doubt is aware will be controversial.

Media and public scrutiny of presidential decisions is a core democratic value as well, even if other presidents have also neglected to maintain it.

And, again, this is a pattern for Trump. In the past few weeks, he and his aides have sought to get CNN to retract — and apologize for — a poll showing Trump trailing Biden and to block the publication of former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s book, which is critical of Trump. Presidents often complain about polls and dislike books critical of them but Trump’s actions go beyond those more traditional objections.

We recently wrote about how the administration’s decision to use chemical agents and rubber bullets on protesters outside the White House violated several democratic values. Key officials involved in that incident now seem to regret it. The firing of Berman may also backfire on Trump. It could embolden more people, including some Republicans, to start criticizing the president for politicizing law enforcement decisions.

Berman’s decision to resist his firing and administration officials’ distancing themselves from the White House protest incident suggest something else that should worry Trump: People in his administration may be reading and believing polls showing him trailing Biden, thinking Trump is likely to lose reelection in November and becoming more unwilling to do questionable things to stay in good standing with a man who may not be president come January.

[scarwasright]

Why Is She Called Lust [2.69 Final Mix 358/2 Definitive Game of the Year Edition]

Because reaches about how it's supposedly about a “lust” for knowledge, or bloodlust, or anything like that make my hair turn white.

Instead of twisting this character’s thoughts or intentions to clumsily fit her into a role that satisfies more than ‘durrhurr anime bahoobees,’ I would much rather examine Lust’s naming from an in-universe perspective. Sure, this can affect how the viewer perceives her, but some big, deep meaning to Lust’s role in the TV1 homunculi as one seventh of a “whole” doesn’t exist. It just doesn’t.

Lust as she exists in the 2003 series has a much more complicated relationship with her source material character than pretty much every other member of the cast. Lust as she appears in the manga is a static part of a greater whole. She is a fraction of her creator just like her siblings. She is, from her very creation, a personification of Lust. There is a lot of broader criticism to be made here that has already been examined by others, so I will just skim it:

It is immensely disconcerting and indicative of our society’s broad misconception that, unlike the other moral “failings” defined by the seven deadly sins, the sin of Lust is perpetuated by those who would “inspire” it. IE, Big Sexy Lady Tiddums Go Bahoingaboing. Lust isn’t Lust because she feels any excessive sexual desire. To the contrary, the character doesn’t show any direct sexual interest at all throughout any adaptation. Unlike, say, Envy who is jealous and Wrath who is angry, she is Lust because she has the NERVE to exist in the world while looking attractive. This creative choice, conscious or not, is misogynistic. It promotes rape culture. It’s all around Bad.

To avoid confronting this problematic trope, it’s tempting for us as fans to search for some deeper role or meaning in this character that we really like. But sometimes, we just have to face the music and accept that the media we enjoy is flawed. That’s fine. 

Since Lust is an adapted character, I think it’s important to lay all of that on the table before getting into her 03 portrayal. The manga is her origin as a character. This tempts us to apply a similar line of thinking to both iterations of the character. However, Lust as she appears in the TV1 adaptation is not a personification of the sin of Lust. Full stop. 

Dante would have her believe, at least subconsciously, that she is.

This separation is so, so critical. What was once the universal constant is now the lie this character has been fed since her transmutation. What was absolutely true in this character’s source material could not possibly be less true in TV1. TV1 takes this subversion a step further by even having us believe that this lie could be true! For a solid 80% of canon, we fill in the blanks with what we know from media we have consumed before: She is Lust because she is beautiful. She is conniving and dangerous, manipulative and icy by nature because of course she is. She’s Lust. This leads to another common analysis misstep: examining this character in this illusory, mysterious light under which she is first presented.

Nope. Actually, she was once a completely normal, happy person. At the very least, she remembers being one and is fully convinced that she was one. 

Scar’s brother made her a homunculus. Dante made her Lust.

Scar makes it clear that her personality is not the same as her human counterpart’s. Given the personality difference we see between Trisha and Sloth, we can believe Scar in spite of his heavy bias. Wrath was a blank slate, just a scared kid when he first appeared. From this, we can conclude Lust isn’t Like That because she’s a homunculus. Dante groomed her personality from the ground up. 

Dante is responsible for naming each homunculus. She finds them, seven completely unrelated people, and assigns them names based on her own whim and/or convenience. Her seven deadly sins naming scheme likely has several motivations. We could speculate that she finds it amusing, given her own name. On a more practical level, it conveniently 1. dehumanizes and 2. unites her servants. Her little platoon of superhumans is a unit, each with special skills and roles to fill. They are a team, and one could imply that they are family-like in spite of Dante’s insistence that they do not have earthly ties such as families, that they are incomplete and incapable of human attachment. They are the sins of humanity.

Like Dante’s broader naming scheme, one could also speculate her thoughts on naming this woman “Lust.” Regardless of the established physiological trait that homunculi are pale, there is deep, inherent violence in stripping this woman of her racial, ethnic, and religious identity, putting her in a tight leather dress, and naming her Lust. It’s vile and cruel in a way that is unique to this character, even among her homunculus peers. It speaks to the real-world exotification and fetishization of women of color. Dante weaponizes the trope of the desirable woman personifying the sin of Lust to her advantage, both in controlling and dehumanizing Lust and in accomplishing her larger goal of acquiring the Stone. When this is laid beside Dante’s predatory treatment of Rose, it makes our main villain, at least allegorically, a rare portrayal of a very real form of racism: The majority (read, white) woman’s fear, insecurity, and commodification of the woman of color. 

Lust’s name isn’t indicative of her longing for humanity, or of some contrived desire for violence. It’s just upsetting.

[alexandrasavior]

Alexandra Savior’s Kind of Feminism

Knowing what establishes art as feminist is a feeling more than anything. The line is very fine between exposing a trope and being that trope, just as it is between acknowledging gender and falling victim to it. With that in mind, there’s an honest feminism in Alexandra Savior’s music that is very refreshing. She does not sing as a woman who is marketing her gender or sexuality, though she does not pretend she is not a woman, either. She sings with a human vulnerability, addressing her longing and desires as a woman, as well as her insecurities as one. She does not fall in line with problematic gendered music because she acknowledges the trappings head-on.

While what I mean by “problematic” may be obvious, I would like to avoid sounding vague: Women should not sell sex for the pleasure of men. There has been a perversion in modern feminism that has allowed for this to take place, for female celebrities to sexualize themselves and call it empowering, even though it is both feeding a patriarchal society and hurting women who are not in that position of influence. It has once again become normal for a female singer to degrade herself using her sexuality through lyrics, clothing and actions, and it still remains profitable.

Savior’s music reminds me of Věra Chytilová’s film Daisies (1966), a film one can only describe as a nightmare for the patriarchy – a feminist apocalypse by way of pure female empowerment and a total structural breakdown of society. The film’s characters appear so feminine that they defy their gender by pushing it to the extreme; in a way, this is what Alexandra Savior’s music is doing too. Aesthetically speaking, her music videos also seem reminiscent of the film.

She only has two albums to date – 2017’s Belladonna of Sadness and 2020’s The Archer – which makes following the 24-year-old artist’s career all the more exciting. Her first album was done in collaboration with Alex Turner, and his musical influence is felt – this is even how I found out about her in the first place, through Turner. It may sound counter-productive to have to speak about Savior in relation to a man, though their collaboration is important to note because I would say they are male and female musical counterparts. Turner’s style, especially since The Last Shadow Puppets’ 2016 Everything You’ve Come to Expect, has matured to a level of extreme confidence, in both his music and performance, and this style seems directly linked to a self-conscious masculinity. Turner’s performance in the music video for his cover of Leonard Cohen’s “Is This What You Wanted?” is flamboyantly masculine, wearing a vest atop bare skin, paired with an ascot, sunglasses and tight, embroidered trousers; he embraces his gender nearly to the point of parody, which takes it to a level beyond simply being a joke. Savior does this with her femininity: she is so feminine that she becomes something beyond any expectations of gender (like the women from Daisies). The music video for “Howl” (off her latest album) is a great example of taking gender expectations to the extreme. If a woman is meant to be submissive to men – awaiting them with a languid disposition – then this video has flipped that notion on its head. Savior lays lifelessly on the floor, on a bed, on a couch (I am reminded of Ramón Casas' painting A Decadent Girl), on a table, on the stairs, on the dirt. She has stripped sex from these poses by making them uncomfortable to look at; it’s as if her message is a dare: I’m here for the taking, if you still want to take me like this.

“Mirage” is one of my favorite songs of hers. It features the singer deciding upon a stage name or alter-ego that will best suit her:

Violet was tickling my fancy Gives out just the right amount of soul I wonder if it makes me sound too old Decided that a Stella or a Candy Seems as if I’m spinning down a pole Swept them over to the stack of no’s

“Anna-Marie Mirage” becomes her new persona, and the change the singer experiences as a result can be seen in the change of the chorus throughout its repetitions: “I sing songs about/Whatever the fuck they want;” “We sing songs about/Whatever the fuck they want;” “We sing songs about/Whatever the fuck she wants.” By the end of the song, her persona has more freedom than she does, much like the freedom one feels behind a mask, though, since the two never merge into one, our singer does not feel that empowerment on her own.

I’ve also become a fan of her more recent song “The Archer.” It’s a reflective love song that exposes her awareness of her own emotional weakness and insecurity, though it addresses this with the distance one has when examining the past:

You ate me right up You spit me back out You bit my head right off with your tiny little mouth I licked the blood from your lips

Is her songwriting cliché? I’d argue that it dances right up to the line of becoming so, which is not at all a criticism – quite to the contrary; her music is rooted in clichés of femininity which is why she is able to critique and subvert it so well. Take “Crying All the Time,” for example. She sings: “He doesn't like it when I cry/And now he's gone, so I'm crying all the time.” The lyrics, and the title, are a joke with a subtle poignancy to them; she is acknowledging a female stereotype of sensitivity (“crying all the time”) and playing that role, while making an ironic protest by saying it is to spite her ex-lover – but at the end of the day, she is still crying. How does one reconcile feminist ideals with involuntary emotion? Savior seems to find that balance here playfully.

We need women like Alexandra Savior to become popular because women who pretend sexual self-exploitation is empowering harm the rest of us. You don’t need to be sexually conservative to be a feminist, just as feeling emotions that have been associated with femininity does not compromise your stance as a feminist. As 2020 has just begun, let’s hope that Savior offers us a pathway to a new type of sonic female empowerment. Her music, and the message carried within it, is definitely worth our attention.

[yuvilee]

22nd October 2019 Student-led seminar 1

Text: Lefèvre, P. 2008, The Congo drawn in Belgium. The Representation of Congo, Rwanda and Burundi in French-language Belgian Comics, in McKinney, M. (ed.) History and Politics in French-Language Comics and Graphic Novels, Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, pp.166-185.

Table of content:

Introduction: A Short Biography of the Author Main part:  Tintin - An unexpected Ambassador Belgium's ninth form of art - Lefèvre's antagonistic examples A Better Representation in Contemporary Narration My personal conclusion Notes: Books and articles Picture(s)

About the author: Pascal Lefèvre, born April 15, 1963 in Belgium is a renowned Belgian comics historian and theorist. His doctorate in 2003 was about 'Willy Vandersteens Suske en Wiske in de krant' (1945-1971) which made him the first to receive a doctor's degree in comics in Flandern. Not only does he publish analytical historical essays and books but he also creates comics himself. He was a researcher with the Belgian Comics Center in Brussels and thus contributed to diverse exhibitions and documentaries.

Tintin - An unexpected Ambassador

Sindika Dokolo(1), a collector of contemporary African art, recently held the exhibition 'InCarNations - African Art as Philosophy' in Brussels, Belgium until the beginning of October this year, with classical and modern pieces chosen from his personal collection. In doing so he is raising a number of questions that do not fade in relevance, such as who gets to portray African art and culture? On this basis for discussion, Belgium is working on its colonial past, of which there is a lot in Belgium and its former colonies, as Pascal Lefèvre delineates in his tract.

Even in the so-called 9th form of art, a similar discourse, tailored to the medium and the narrative, is continuously present.

A more recent example than the one from Great Britain cited by Lefèvre is the controversy that was rekindled in Sweden in 2012. For a long time it dominated (social) media and even spread to media abroad, like The Guardian(2). Its emerged from Hergé's comic ‘Tintin in the Congo’ that was to be removed from a YA (young adult) section in a library due to its naïve and openly racially portrayal of the indigenous people of Congo as they appear cliché and thus suggest an anti-African stance(3).

Hamelberg describes In an interview with The Guardian the problem as 

‘(...) there are several layers that are problematic, (...) there are the early books that are blatantly and openly racist, like ‘Tintin in the Congo’. (...) there were things that would have been considered racist today but that were quite normal in Hergé's time.’(4)

In my opinion, Hamelberg has certainly addressed an important point with this statement since the first comic publication of Tintin was in a different time and era. Nonetheless, it is important to process and learn from the past just like France tried semi-successfully with a law in 1949.

Should young readers be denied this critical argument in order to protect them, to present them with a perfect world and shielding them from reality? In my opinion, this discourse should rather be actively encouraged and supported by guardians.

Belgium's ninth form of art - Lefèvre's antagonistic examples

In my point of view, Belgium has produced a large number of fantastic comic artists and boasts openly with its long-established comic culture - yes, they call it culture. Some other more conservative nations, in my opinion, are still having a hard time accepting this, even in the 21st century. That's why I was very pleased to see The New York Times revive their bi-monthly best-seller list for graphic novels due to high demand by readers after taking a 2-year break(5).

The reason why a discourse seems to me more important than ever becomes clearer when Lefèvre compares Hergé's ‘Tintin in the Congo’ with, for example, ‘Blondin et Cirage’ created by Jijé. Here we have a boy and his adoptive brother as equal protagonists - but Cirage is depicted with clown lips that are strongly cliché-oriented and for me, at first glance, appear as a shockingly racist illustration.

There is a striking dissonance between the representation and the narrative, which portrays heroes that are needed nowadays.

But why is the imagery still so caricatural? 

A possible aesthetic and representational solution, in my opinion, can be to replace humans with animal shapes, which can be used as an indirect depiction of the problems of racism without resorting to real stereotypes and clichés.

To this point I would like to mention ‘Blacksad’(6) which is similar to ‘Maus’ by Art Spiegelman(7). This graphic novel takes place in an alternative universe similar to an exaggerated post-war period in the USA where Nazi-like propaganda and racial discrimination is omnipresent. The main character, a detective in the guise of a black cat, is confronted with the very same problems of our reality but avoids most of the stereotypes associated with the depiction of human characters.

Above: Blacksad: Arctic Nation, Page 5

A Better Representation in Contemporary Narration

As an illustrator, I am often faced with the question of how to create cliché-free and ethnically correct representation in my stories. Is there ‘the’ right way? I believe not. But there are approaches to different comics, graphic novels, children’s books, and other media such as movies that can be analysed for its reason for success.

Looking at more recent depictions of Afro-ethnic protagonists and their approaches, I would like to talk about Marvel's ‘Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse’(8) from 2018. 

The young protagonist Miles Morales is not the first black Marvel character but the first Spider-Man with an ethnic background, as you might imagine it to be a familiar representation of the typical New Yorker.

But has this raised negative headlines? On the contrary I believe. Many reviews of large-scaled and well-established newspapers spoke of this at most in a side note(9). The focus in media reviews was on the narrative, the humour, the ingenious and particularly refreshing animation, and especially the fact how effortlessly the very message comes across that everyone can be a Spider-Man(10).

In my opinion, all those awards(12) such as a Golden Globe were justified for this comic book adaptation. The humorous and encouraging portrayal of an (almost) everyday hero depicts effectively a positive role model, which just happens to be black-skinned, without that fact ever becoming a central topic.

As an artist of narrative stories it is important to always keep this message and task in mind. I always need to think about this as an illustrator while creating my stories, be it a graphic novel, a comic book, or a children’s book. At the same time, I need to be able to talk to my publisher about the best approach and their ethical stance. 

What emerged in France after 1949 to be negative self-censorship, I now have to see in reverse as a task to actively counter, to examine my art for equality, gender equality, diversity, and ethnic correctness.

But what are those rules exactly? Are they written down somewhere like the French law mentioned above? Unfortunately, I will never get ‘the’ ultimate correct answer to this question, while my art is at the mercy of many viewers and views.

My personal conclusion

I need to keep the above considerations in mind when creating a narrative to address children and young adults as my target audience. For myself, I see three options:

I do not have to get involved in the discourse and could avoid it altogether. As a responsible artist and adult, I could provide material for educational purposes along with my own work.

The clear opposite would be to create work that decidedly enters the discourse and actively participates in it, which requires a strong voice and a broad-based argumentative basis.

Or I could try the middle ground to go alternative routes such as animal representations to express an opinion but simultaneously avoid direct, confrontational depictions.

All of these options could work or backfire. Due to new media and especially social media, the audience is potentially larger and opinions (whether qualified or not) spread faster than in Hergé's time. See #TintinGate(13).

Although Hergé is put in a bad light here, I will remain a fan of his comics, because even this type of art must exist as part of our culture in order to encourage a discourse, like the one right here, and to serve as a cautionary tale and exemplification.

Notes:

Books and articles

Bozar, 2019, InCarNation - African Art as Philosophy, Bozar, viewed 19 October 2019, <https://www.bozar.be/en/activities/154489-incarnations>

Palme, J. 2012, Tintin racism row puts spotlight on children's literature, The Guardian, viewed 19 October 2019, <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/15/tintin-racism-sweden-row>

Chukri, R., 2012, Vad handlar Tintin-gate om?, Sydsvenskan, viewed 19 October 2019, <https://web.archive.org/web/20121010041224/http://www.sydsvenskan.se/kultur--nojen/vad-handlar-tintin-gate-om/>

cf. Palme, J., 2012, Tintin racism row puts spotlight on children's literature, The Guardian, viewed 19 October 2019, <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/15/tintin-racism-sweden-row>

The New York Times updates and expands its best-sellers lists 2019, The New York Times, viewed on 19 October 2019 <https://www.nytco.com/press/the-new-york-times-updates-and-expands-its-best-sellers-lists/>

Guarnido, J., Canales, J. D., 2004, Blacksad 2: Arctic Nation, Dargaud: Paris. Also available online in english: https://viewcomiconline.com/blacksad-vol-2-arctic-nation/ 

Spiegelman, A., 2003, Maus : a survivor’s tale. London: Penguin.

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse 2018, Blue-Ray, Sony Pictures, Hollywood, Los Angeles, directed by Ramsey, P., Persichetti, B., Rothman, R.

cf: Scott, A. O., 2018, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verseʼ Review: A Fresh Take on a Venerable Hero, The New York Times, viewed on 19 October 2019 <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/movies/spider-man-into-the-spider-verse-review.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Fa.o.-scott&action=click&contentCollection=undefined&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=94&pgtype=collection> Here the only reference to his ethnicity is: ‘But we haven’t seen a Spider-Man like Miles onscreen, which is to say a Spider-Man who isn’t white.”

cf: Loughrey, C., 2018, Spider-Man into the Spider-Verse review: It makes the case animation beats live-action for comic book movies, The Independent, viewed on 19 October 2019, <https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/spider-man-spider-verse-review-live-action-marvel-comic-book-movies-soundtrack-a8679761.html>

Bramesco, C., 2018, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse review – a dazzling animated caper, The Guardian, viewed on 19 October 2019 <https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/nov/28/spider-man-into-the-spider-verse-review-a-dazzling-animated-caper>

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse was awarded with (samples): Best Animated Feature at the 91st Academy Awards, 2019, Best Animation at the 76st Golden Globe Awards, 2019, Best animated Film at the Critics’ Choice Movie Award, 2019, Best Dramatic Presentation (Long Form), Hugo Award, 2019, 46th Annie Awards, won in 6 categories, BAFTA Award for Best animated Movie, 2019, Best animated movie, at the New York Film Critics Circle Awards, 2019, Best animation Movie at the Producers Guild of America Awards, 2019,

#TintinGate: cf. Palme, J.

Picture(s):

Guarnido, J., Canales, J. D., 2004, Blacksad 2: Arctic Nation, p. 5, Dargaud: Paris.

[breadclubrising]

Do you still like Kenny Omega?

😕I don’t know. I want to, I think? He was never really one of my faves to begin with, but I did like him. I kind of feel like if I want to keep loving NJPW (and Kota Ibushi), I can’t really avoid him. So at the very least I’m still rooting for him to be better, because I’m sorta stuck with him. Not to mention the fact that he’s maybe the best wrestler in the world and that I’m genuinely grateful to him for his part in the story that made me love wrestling. 

I got accused of a lot of things over the past several days, but I have engaged with all this bullshit because I want Kenny and NJPW to do well. My overall feeling is just very deflated and discouraged; it’s hard to care about NJPW or wrestling at all, right now. There’s more but I’ll put it under a cut, because even I’m tired of it at this point.

- I’m bummed that he’s acting like he’s being attacked instead of criticized. I have seen no one do anything other than say, basically, ‘hey could you be thoughtful about the things you say?’ A lot of white people don’t understand that “racist” isn’t an insult, it’s a critique. It’s usually not something said to wound, it’s said as a request to self-examine (or should be). Acting like it’s an insult or an attack conveniently absolves you of the need to look at what you’re saying/doing.

- His tone deafness on this is, however, just standard white people bullshit. His reaction is the default reaction. That doesn’t make it okay, it just makes it expected. While I can call it out, I can’t muster real anger for it, because it’s all around me in most white people I know. And I know why he doesn’t see what he said as potentially problematic, because I used to be like that, too, as shameful as that is. I’m not saying by any means that I’m now Enlightened or that I get it right all the time, ‘cause I don’t. But at least I know that about myself.

- I’m white/American, so I really don’t get to have much of an opinion on how this affects the Japanese people he’s talking about; I can’t speak for them. I have been speaking about and to my fellow whites/westerners, and what I’ve been reminded as a result of all of this is that the vast majority of us don’t give a fuck about whether the things we actually think and say are problematic, we just don’t want to be seen as problematic. Which, like, it’s not like I was optimistic about whites or humans for that matter, but man is it ever discouraging to be reminded again of just how far away we are from something approaching the desire to be better people.

- As storytelling, none of this makes any sense, and I think it’s in incredibly poor taste. It doesn’t matter if it’s a work, because fictional racism still has real-world implications. And it’s upsetting that we’ve clearly been supposed to be on his side, and by wrestling logic, see what he says as true. It’s a bad heel gimmick for a lot of reasons, but one of them is he isn’t seen as a heel, really, anymore. I wish he would just stop talking about it.

- On a very personal level, I have to wonder if he knows that replying to someone is going to bring the wrath of his fanfolks onto that person. I see him talking about a “witch hunt” when in reality, just by saying that, he, a celebrity, is sending hundreds of dickheads to the doorstep of one random internet fan who just cared a lot and wanted him to consider some things. That’s shitty, and it’s hard to believe that he’s unaware that will happen to people.

I don’t know. Like I said, never was my fave, but he’s really important to things I care a lot about. I guess we’ll see how stuff goes.

[thrivous]

B vitamins play an extremely important role in brain health. That's emphasized in a 2016 review of the scientific literature by Dr. David O. Kennedy of Northumbria University. And the importance applies not just to one or a few of them, but rather to all eight B vitamins:

thiamine (B1)

riboflavin (B2)

niacin (B3)

pantothenic acid (B5)

vitamin B6

biotin (B7)

folate (B9)

vitamin B12

According to Dr. Kennedy, many clinical studies of vitamin B supplements have focused on just three of the B vitamins. Those are folate, B12, and B6. But they've ignored the other five.

That's problematic. As we’re now just beginning to understand, the B vitamins’ effects on the body are all connected.

For instance, thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, pantothenic acid, and B12 are all essential to the generation of cellular energy. And a deficiency in just one of these vitamins could interrupt the whole process.

Similarly, folate, B6, B12, riboflavin, and niacin all play necessary roles in the folate and methionine cycles. And these cycles are critical to proper cellular function. Deficiency in any one of these vitamins is “rate-limiting” for the whole process.

B vitamins also play connected roles in metabolizing and synthesizing proteins. B6 is essential to 140 enzymes involved in these processes, and pantothenic acid is essential to 4% of all mammalian enzymes.

B vitamins are especially important for brain function. They exist in the brain in much higher concentrations than in the rest of the body. B vitamin deficiencies or dysfunctions have been implicated in many brain disorders, including schizophrenia, Parkinson’s, and neural tube birth defects. And here are some examples of how they function in the brain:

Thiamine and B6 are precursors to many neurotransmitters and also play a role in regulating them.

Riboflavin and pantothenic acid are involved in the metabolism of fatty acids in brain lipids.

Niacin and B6 modulate brain inflammation and play roles in DNA repair and gene transcription.

Folate and B12 are also involved in DNA repair and gene transcription, as well as in synthesizing neurotransmitters.

Biotin regulates brain glucose.

B Vitamins May Improve Mood and Heart Health

Because of the B vitamins’ role in brain health, a number of human trials have looked at the effect of supplements. However, most of these studies have supplemented with only one B vitamin at a time. And they’ve focused almost exclusively on folate, B12, and B6, to the exclusion of the other B vitamins. They’ve also focused almost exclusively on using vitamin B pills to reduce high blood levels of homocysteine.

It’s well established in the scientific literature that homocysteine increases the risk of dementia. And B vitamin supplements reduce levels of homocysteine. Studies have also established that deficiencies of folate and B12 in the elderly are somewhat predictive of dementia.

The logical conclusion is that, in order to stave off dementia, you should supplement with B vitamins. But surprisingly, studies of B vitamin supplements have found little evidence that they reduce dementia symptoms. These studies have been widely criticized on methodological grounds, so there’s more work to be done. But currently the evidence doesn’t favor B vitamin supplements for dementia prevention or treatment.

There's at least one possible reason for the equivocal results. Studies of just one B vitamin don’t take into account its interactions with the other B vitamins. For instance, a 2007 study found that folate acts as a neuroprotector in patients with adequate levels of B12. But the study also found that folate harms cognition in patients that are B12 deficient.

Likewise, a 2003 study found that folate supplements increase rates of riboflavin deficiency. In other words, folate may be limiting the uptake of other B vitamins. And that may be harmful unless you’re also getting plenty of those other vitamins.

One area where B vitamin supplements have shown more promise is in improving mood. Several studies have shown that B vitamin deficiencies predict elderly depression.

A different set of studies has experimented with B vitamin supplements for the elderly. They found it to have a protective effect on mood. And the best results came from studies in which folate, B12, and B6 were administered in combination rather than in isolation.

B6, in particular, has been shown to increase the brain’s production of serotonin and to increase the vividness of dreams. Only a single study has extended the mood research to thiamine (vitamin B1). It found that 50 mg/day of thiamine improved both mood and reaction time in young women.

B vitamin supplements may also help regulate cardiovascular health and glucose metabolism. In several studies, 1.6 mg/day of riboflavin increased the blood levels of hemoglobin and the concentration of red blood cells.

Mega-doses of biotin have been shown to increase glycemic control and insulin sensitivity in diabetics. They have also been shown to regulate lipid concentrations in blood plasma.

Niacin supplements have exhibited cardioprotective effects. And they appear to have reduced risk of heart disease in a number of human trials.

Unfortunately, no study has ever examined the effects of a B multivitamin. But of course many human trials have looked at broad-spectrum multivitamins that include the B Vitamin Complex.

For instance, some studies used spectroscopy and electroencephalography to measure brain activity during supplementation. And they found that a single dose of a multivitamin can increase attention, cerebral blood flow, and metabolism during cognitive tasks.

In studies of children, most studies have found a positive effect of multivitamins on IQ. In adults, multivitamin supplements appear to improve mood and performance on memory tasks.

Optimal Vitamin B Complex Dosage May Be Higher Than RDA

The human body does not synthesize the B vitamins, so they have to be obtained from food. They’re primarily made by plants. But they can also be obtained from higher up the food chain, in vitamin B foods like meat and eggs.

The exception is B12, which is synthesized by animals’ gut bacteria and is abundant in red meat. This makes supplements particularly important for persons on a vegetarian or vegan diet.

Our hunter-gatherer ancestors may have consumed a lot of B vitamins in their diet. That diet probably included many different kinds of plants. But we get fewer B vitamins from modern diets that are heavy on sugars and processed grains.

So what is the optimal B vitamin dosage?

The US government sets a “minimum daily intake” or “recommended dietary allowance” (RDA). But there’s not much science behind the recommendation. It’s just a rough estimate of the average daily intake of the US population.

The RDA also has changed little over the last 40 years. And it takes insufficient account of changes in scientific understanding or of individual differences between people.

Based on the RDA, US deficiency rates for the various B vitamins range from 10% to 30%. Deficiency rates are especially high among the obese and diabetic. In fact, deficiencies of thiamine and biotin, which help metabolize glucose, may be causal factors in obesity and diabetes.

Some scientific studies have looked for symptoms of vitamin deficiency. They found that the US government’s recommended allowances for B12 and riboflavin are too low.

They found that between 18% and 38% of the US population shows symptoms of vitamin B-12 deficiency. And they found that riboflavin deficiency may affect over 50% of the adult population. The US government itself has issued statements acknowledging that the RDAs may be “less than optimal.”

Studies from the early 2000s showed that vitamin B6 and folate improved endothelial function when taken at 12 times their RDAs. Studies from early 2010s showed that large doses of vitamin B6 reduce inflammation. And they showed that patients with high levels of inflammation need several times the RDA of B6 just to avoid deficiency. 

Studies of riboflavin supplements have recommended a dose of at least 4 mg/day, or 3 times the RDA. That’s unless you’re among the 10-15% of people with a genetic restriction on vitamin B2 absorption. Then a dosage of 26 mg/day has been recommended.

Studies have also found benefit from megadoses of biotin and niacin ranging from 30 to 500 times the RDA. But see the cautionary note on niacin below.

Increasing vitamin B dosage may be especially important for the elderly. They often suffer from vitamin malabsorption and thus higher levels of deficiency. One study suggests a daily B12 dose of 500 µg (200 times the RDA) to reduce deficiency in older people. And another recommends 1 mg/day of folic acid (2.5 times the RDA) to normalize older adults’ folate levels.

Because the B vitamins are water soluble, excess is generally excreted as urine. This makes most of them safe even at very high doses.

However, folic acid may not be safe at dosages above 1 mg/day. Higher doses may promote cancer.

Niacin can cause skin flushing at doses above 100 mg/day and vomiting and diarrhea at doses above 1 g/day. So it’s recommended you keep your daily Niacin dose under 35 mg.

And vitamin B6 can cause nerve damage at doses above 1 g/day. So the recommended daily upper limit is 100 mg.

Conclusion on B Vitamin Complex Dosage

There’s lots of research still to be done on B vitamins, especially to assess how they interact with each other. However, the current literature appears to support B vitamin doses well above the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs).

For most of the B vitamins, large doses should be safe. But, to avoid side effects, take care with three of them. Don't exceed 1 mg/day of folic acid, 35 mg/day of niacin, or 100 mg/day of vitamin B6.  And always remember to seek competent medical advice for your personal situation.

Among the likely vitamin B benefits are improved mood and improved cardiovascular health. There may also be benefits from vitamin B for energy, cognition, and metabolism.

Thrivous Clarity provides safe high doses of all 8 B Vitamins in high quality bioavailable forms. Clarity also includes clinical doses of Synapsa Bacopa Monnieri, Rhodiola Rosea, and Zinc Picolinate. These complement the brain health benefits of Vitamin B Complex.

Originally published at thrivous.com on November 26, 2019 at 11:59PM.

[lanadelreyfiles-blog]

Lana Del Rey is Complex’s Summer 2017 Cover Story. Lana Del Rey Talks "Lust for Life," Avoiding Cultural Appropriation, and Getting Political For six years now Lana Del Rey has attracted and foiled critics with pop music that does not sound like any of her peers. The mild, smoky voice, the judicious use of rap production, the juxtaposition of classic American images and sounds with hyper-contemporary, crass language, from these elements Lana makes music that feels at once familiar and strange. ‘Lust For Life’ is her most ambitious album yet, and as Lana explains in her third Complex cover appearance, it emerged from a period of self-examination that, when it ended, left her "looking at everything else" the world has to offer. Hopeful and questioning, the album engages with the tumultuous and oftentimes terrifying politics of 2017 on songs like ‘God Bless America—And All the Beautiful Women in It’ and ‘When the World Was at War We Kept Dancing.’ Elsewhere, this more expansive worldview means features from artists like Stevie Nicks, Playboi Carti, Sean Ono Lennon, and ASAP Rocky. "I was ready to have some of my friends jump on the record," she says,"[and] they were all naturally a little bit lighter than me." Lightness is, in some ways, the operating principle for Lana Del Rey right now. At 32, her career is no longer "guesswork," the way it was when she first began. The questions of authenticity and agency that greeted her upon arrival are irrelevant. There's only Lana Del Rey. This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

— You were living in New York when you put out ‘Born To Die’ and I know that you went from being like normal New Yorker who rides the subway to Lana del Rey who's on Page Six and is the subject of long thinkpieces in the Times. Lana Del Rey: That was fucked up. It just changed it. I remember I was working somewhere else and I was on my way back from there and I was getting on the 6 train, and TMZ was behind me the whole time. — On the train? LDR: Yeah, I had run into this camera-man. It was the first time I had seen a paparazzi, but he wasn’t taking pictures, he was just filming. I don’t even know if I had ever seen that before ‘cause it’s someone with a VHS following you around. — Was he trying to talk to you? LDR: Yeah, and I was answering and I sounded crazy. I went down and got my ticket, swiped it, waited for the train. I looked behind me, the guy had got a ticket too, and he was waiting too. I was like, Wait, is this real life? Honestly from then on one of those guys I had seen that day was just always there. I thought to myself, I think I gotta move somewhere. — Your first three covers are all fairly serious, sort of oscillating between kind of almost sad and maybe a little bit aloof on the ‘Honeymoon’ one. This is the first one where you’re smiling. LDR: Well, the ‘Honeymoon’ cover I thought was more just casual. I felt like I was in a more casual space. But this was definitely in an even more lighter space altogether. My sister, Chuck, shot it, but we shot it in the parking lot behind the scenes of my ‘Love’ video. We didn’t know if we were going to get the cover but we definitely knew I was gonna smile. We took a couple frames, and we developed it that week, and I felt like that was the one. — For being a fairly dark time to live in the world, it’s kind of interesting that this is actually your most optimistic work, at least in its titling and its imagery. What’s the genesis of that? LDR: Well there was a little bit of a shift in me naturally. I felt like I had kind of said a lot and done a lot through the records. I was ready to have some of my friends jump on the record [and] they were all naturally a little bit lighter than me, so that was kind of happening in my world. I felt like two years of recording really dark tunes would not be fun. — You do touch on problems of the world and politics in this work in a way that your previous albums did not. Was that a conscious decision? LDR: On the last records I needed to look inward to figure out why things had gone so far down one path, and then I kind of came to the end of my self-examination and I naturally was looking at everything else. But, of course, all my experiences and romantic relationships and stuff are still peppered in to some of the songs on this record. Also, with Obama as the president, me and everybody I know, I think we felt very safe and protected, felt like we were being viewed the way we wanted to be viewed, in terms of the world. So there wasn’t as much to say except, like, look how far we’ve come and it’s getting better, getting even better. I feel like there was quite a shift. — With this record you have infused more politics than ever before. I think it’s not necessarily a political record, but it is a record of the day. I don’t know this for a fact, but I would imagine that you have a decent number of sort of middle American fans for whom Trump’s inauguration and administration is not problematic. How do you negotiate expressing your own honest feelings about these things, and do you think about whether or not it’s going to piss them off, or is this something that has inspired ire from people who at one point were in you core? LDR: You don’t negotiate when it comes to your work or your art. You stand totally firm and take the consequences. In terms of losing fans I don’t care. Period. [Laughs.] — The last two albums, ‘Honeymoon’ and ‘Ultraviolence,’ it seemed like you concentrated on making stuff for yourself, and perhaps for your core audience. With this record, it at  appears that there is a more expansive ambition. LDR: I would consider it as a not turning away from the possible bigger-ness of it, compared to the other two. Before, I felt maybe I wanted to be more protective of my own space and stuff with the last two records. — Was that a reaction to the success of records like the remix to ‘Summertime Sadness’? LDR: I think it was a reaction to more people knowing who I was right away. So I was like, Let me just check myself and get myself into a place where I’m sure I like what I’m doing, and I know I like the production. With the ‘Summertime Sadness’ remix, I had told you before, I didn’t hear that song until it was on the radio and I came back from a show in Russia, and I heard it on the radio. I mean, obviously in general I like to have my hands all over the production. — Was that a weird feeling to like - LDR: It was a weird… — Is it weird also that it’s probably - LDR: That it’s a huge song? — ...your biggest hit? LDR: Really? You’re gonna say that? — I mean, radio numbers at least. LDR: No, you’re probably right. — Probably not your most important song, but… LDR: I think ‘Video Games’ is right up there. I was more sensitive about it then because when you’re new you’ve got so much to prove. You don’t have that many chances. That’s real. I’d consider it at the time just being careful. You know, in terms of collabs or sponsorships or whatever. — Is it freeing now to feel that you can do whatever feels good in the moment? LDR: Yeah. It is actually. — Do you feel like that played into the larger ambition of ‘Lust For Life’? LDR: Rocky’s on the record, and when he’s in town and I’m here, I’m just down at the studio anyway. Or the same with Abel, you know? I’ll just go down and listen to what he’s working on. I realized, Why do I not have my friends on my record? It was pretty natural but I guess with Abel, everything he does now is so big, so at another time maybe that would’ve felt like a little bit scarier or something, but now it just feels right. — What do you mean? LDR: Well, he’s super out there and he’s got a lot of radio stuff so I don’t know if I would’ve known what to do with a big radio song. I’m not saying I have one on this record… — But if you are to have one, you feel confident that it would be exciting? LDR: That I would be happy, yeah. — David Byrne from the Talking Heads wrote an amazing book about the history of music, and he goes into the significance of radio in how songs are formatted, and the idea that it’s like three minutes with three hooks and a bridge—there’s nothing in nature that says that that’s how music should be composed. It’s strictly about how radio programmers want to get three songs per commercial break, so that has sort of trained the artists to work within those confines. LDR: For sure. And they’re not terrible confines to work within. It’s kind of fun to make a short song with a cute chorus. But I think if you’re writing it yourself it’s important to have half the record at least where you’ve got a little bit of your life in there, or a little bit of an opinion. I think if you’re really good you can do both. I was thinking of Bob Dylan. — What is the measure of success for you? LDR: The one thing that stayed the same is, for me the measure of success with the record is just that it gets finished. [Laughs.] For real. — Did Sean Lennon make the record? LDR: He made it. — I saw that you took these pictures with a horse, but it was not a horse that was coming out of a pond on his estate, so I didn’t know if that was like a subliminal shot. LDR: It’s not, no. Horses have just been a random theme somehow. He ended up producing the track we made, ‘Tomorrow Never Came,’ and that’s the only track on the record that I wrote over the last two years that I didn’t feel like it was mine. I  felt like I had written it for someone else, which I… I’ve never really felt like that. Then I was looking at the lyrics and I had a lyric about John Lennon and Yoko, so I called Sean and asked him if he would do a duet with me. He said that he was his dad’s biggest fan, so it would be really natural. — The other thing I’ve noticed is that almost all the people that you work with are men. Is that something you ever think about, or that bothers you? LDR: Well, it’s weird because the people in my close production life are men. I guess I’m thinking of like Rick [Nowels] and my two engineers, Dean Reed and Kieran Menzies, who have changed my whole musical life and my sound and my records. But in my personal life, there’s just so many women. Well there’s not many female producers, for sure. There’s some great female songwriters though. That’ll probably change. — When you think about yourself as a songwriter, how do you think you’ve changed from ‘Born To Die’ days to what you’re writing now? LDR: Maybe just the ability to integrate my own experiences with what I’m observing. To be able to reflect back, like a good mix of inner world, outer world. — Toxic relationships were very much the fuel of a lot of the writing on those first albums, as you have moved to a sort of happier, more solid place, perhaps making better life decisions - LDR: Trying. — How do you think about your romantic life, and how do you think about it within the context of your songwriting? LDR: I feel like in this record there’s—with the songs that are “love songs,” or about relationships, I feel like I come off almost more annoyed about the way things are going rather than like, “Oh, poor me.” There’s like a moving that I get from my own stuff, because sometimes my own stuff is a little bit revealing to me, you know, about myself. — With a lot of artists who write very personal stuff, when they get to this point in their career it sometimes gets more difficult to unearth and reveal those things because of success and fame and the work. LDR: That’s so true. — Do you feel like it’s a greater challenge now? LDR: Yeah, but I’ve never been somebody who turned away from really hard work. I’m always looking to put the footwork in. Like with the mixing, if it takes eight months I will mix for eight months. If the master doesn’t come back right I’ll find someone else to do it. With the personal stuff I mean, if I feel like I’m just not getting it right I’ll just keep on trying different things until I feel like I’m hitting my stride in that department. I don’t know, finding your own path is not for the faint of heart. It’s the harder path. It’s easier to just keep doing the same shit over and over again and then be surprised when it’s still the same results. Somehow that’s easier than just doing something different. — A lot of what got written about you in the beginning, and in a somewhat real way, you had developed a character. I imagine a large part you, and then perhaps something that’s imagined. As you’ve gotten further and further into your career do you feel like the lines between those things have changed or blurred? LDR: I mean, that’s what most of the thinkpieces are about. You know, there’s a lot of stuff I could’ve not said in the songs and I said it anyway. It didn’t always serve me to talk about some of the men I was with and what that was like, and then not comment on it further. So that’s some of my experiences and where I lived and what it was like. It would’ve been easier to just not say that and then deflect all of the questions about it afterwards. — So do you think that was sort of overstated? LDR: I didn’t edit myself when I could have, because a lot of it’s just the way it was. I mean, because I’ve changed a lot and a lot of those songs, it’s not that I don’t relate but… A lot of it too is I was just kinda nervous. I came off sort of nervously, and there was just a lot of dualities, a lot of juxtapositions going on that maybe just felt like something was a little off. Maybe the thing that was off was that I needed a little more time or something, and also my path was just so windy just to get to having a first record. I feel like I had to figure it out all by myself. Every move was just guesswork. — It’s kind of funny because you were in your mid-twenties when you sort of came out and I do think if you look at artists that dropped their first albums between like 25 and 27, whether it’s an Eminem or Jay Z, it’s like, if you looked at their work at 22 - LDR: Yeah, exactly. It’s different. — It would’ve been very raw and unfocused. There was no Slim Shady for Eminem at 22, but at 26 he had the full 360 package. LDR: Jay Z talks about that too, like how he really, really lived by the time he was 26. There was a real perspective he was coming from. So, yeah, it’s a real age where... — You can put together a project that's more fully formed. LDR: Right. And my perspective was fully formed, it just wasn’t a great outlook. It’s not so much a persona question with me, it’s just more like what was going on with that girl, you know? Like, where was she coming from? — There’s been an inordinate amount of conversation around the idea of cultural appropriation, and Katy Perry kind of stepped right in it with her performance on SNL. You have moved fairly organically from the singer/songwriter world into hip-hop, and back out and back in without much commotion. Why do you think that is? LDR: I never feel like I’m not where I’m supposed to be, you know? No matter who I’m with, I’m always still doing my own thing. I can’t remember the last time I was in a club or somewhere and felt like, Man, I’m not supposed to be here. I’ve been kind of doing it for so long I feel like everybody I’m friends with, everyone I know just knows I’m all about the music. — Do you have any consideration for the critics and all of the sort of dissection for your art at this point? LDR: Yeah, sometimes. I have a song called ‘Get Free’ which closes my record, and it started by, it told my whole story, I guess, and my thoughts on where I want to go next; and then I realized, I actually don’t want to tell my whole story, I don’t want to talk about it.  — How do you negotiate what you keep for yourself and what you are ready to share? LDR: Sometimes I just can’t resist to just tell it like it really is for myself and the way that I feel.

[bluewatsons]

Oline Eaton, “We must be ready every day, all the time”: Mid-Twentieth-Century Nuclear Anxiety and Fear of Death in American Life, 40 J Amer Culture 66 (2017)

“I am scattered in times whose order I do not understand,” prayed Saint Augustine. “The storms of incoherent events tear to pieces my thoughts” (2008). He is not unlike the French street photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson, who observed in an interview twenty centuries later, “It develops a great anxiety… Cause you are always waiting, what's going to happen, what, what, what, what! It's what? … It's all the time” (“The Decisive Moment”). What they describe is the jumble of confusions—often exciting but equally often unnerving—that characterizes the experience of being alive.

Precisely what it means to “be alive” is a question that has sparked centuries of philosophical debate. A deliberately vague phrase, it is intended here to encompass a range of human experience, but most particularly the life of the mind. As Cartier-Bresson continues, “Life changes every minute. The world is being created every minute and the world is falling to pieces every minute. Death is present everywhere, as soon as we are born.” It is a dynamic, characterized by uncertainty about the future, that influences and shapes the stories we tell, the culture we produce, and the ways in which we respond to events within our lives and within our world. It is problematic, then, that uncertainty is so often drained out of historical accounts of lives, which are written with what the novelist and critic William H. Gass labeled a “stubborn externality” (263). The historian, Gass observed, “follows the course of human behavior as the eye might follow sliding rocks, and never feels the avalanche, never gains admission to events, in the belief… that they have no inner life.”

In his work, American Fear: The Causes and Consequences of High Anxiety, Peter N. Stearns offers a compelling historiography of the place of fear in twentieth-century American life. As Stearns acknowledges, the connections he illuminates are “possible, but they cannot be proved” (89); however, his work is provocative, particularly in regards to what Stearns identifies as the role “history has to play… in explaining ourselves to ourselves” (8–9). In American Fear, Stearns argues that fear is an “urgent American policy and personal issue” (9), and he advocates the important role that behavioral history and emotional history play in our understanding of “significant (and probably distinctive) national reactions” (8). Through the book as a whole, he explores how “national reactions to the dread emotion [of fear], both in personal and in public life, have exhibited crucial distinctive features” (3), which have made Americans more anxious and fearful than they were in the past. Within this broader argument, Stearns hypothesizes that Cold War fears and changes in responses to death heightened anxieties around mortality and grief, thus contributing to a national climate wherein fear emerged as the dominant emotion (75). The nuances of the cultural changes Stearns identifies are further illuminated when considered through a life-writing lens and they grow particularly evident when viewed across the narrative of a celebrity life.

As the most visible American life narrative of the mid-twentieth century, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis's life is an excellent source from which to draw out support for Stearns’ claims. Examining how her image was connected to nuclear fears in the early 1960s and exploring the ways in which her life narrative intersected with contemporary American attitudes toward death demonstrate how celebrity life narratives act as repositories of cultural anxiety, wherein emotional phenomena such as fear play out. As such, they offer compelling evidence of those phenomena and a rich means of contextualizing them within American life.

Life Writing and American Celebrity

Stearns attributes the rise in publicly expressed fear to changes in cultural attitudes toward the specialness of children, as well as attitudes toward grief and death, all of which had an impact at the level of everyday American life (82–87). He also cites the unprecedentedly long period of US military engagement from World War I as a factor at the national level, particularly the US government's repeated suggestions from 1945 on that Communists and Communism were foes to be feared (181). Collectively, Stearns argues that, over the course of the mid-twentieth century, these cultural trends led to “historical shifts in emotional signals” (8), contributing to an increase in American “emotional vulnerability” (xi) and an avoidance of fear through which “we may have become more fearful than necessary” (8).

Over the same period, celebrity assumed an increasingly significant place in American life. The proliferation of American celebrity life narratives from the mid-century onwards suggests there is more to celebrity than meets the eye and that, as readers and consumers, we use celebrity narratives to do important internal work. If, as Paul Ricœur argues, “we understand ourselves only by the long detour of the signs of humanity deposited in cultural works” (87), then the lives of celebrities have, for the last half century, been one of the dominant cultural forms through which we have sought understanding. The psychoanalyst Josh Cohen hypothesizes that our interest in the lives of other people may be “an unconscious protest against our ignorance of ourselves” (xii). For, just as John Ellis has argued with television, so too do celebrity stories provide “multiple stories and frameworks of explanation which enable understanding and, in the very multiplicity of those frameworks, it enables its viewers to work through the major public and private concerns of their society” (74).

This chimes with what historians have argued about Americans’ relationship to their national past. Roy Rosenzweig and David Thelen have contended that Americans make “the past part of their everyday routines and turn to it as a way of grappling with profound questions about how to live” (18). Rosenzweig and Thelen noted that, through the past, Americans “addressed questions about relationships, identity, immortality, and agency” (18). However, contemporaneity is a key factor in celebrity stories, which lends them their urgency and contributes to their appeal. It is also an element missing from accounts of the past. Typically, we see the past as settled and done; open to revision, of course, but, the lives over, the narrative arc is clear in a way that it never was while the people involved were living. In contrast, a living celebrity's life is an ongoing drama. Richard Dyer argues that famous people model “the way people live their relation to production in capitalist society” (5), but the lives of living celebrities also furnish examples of how individuals live in relation to the uncertainties inherent in being alive in a given moment. In particular, they highlight ways of navigating fear and anxiety.

The simple binary is that anxiety is anticipatory while fear is stimulated. A more nuanced view is one where fear centers around “an obvious (albeit not necessarily clearly perceived) danger located in space and time that must be dealt with” while, with anxiety, “the nature and location of the threat remain more obscure and thus are difficult to cope with by active defensive maneuvers” (Öhman 710). The definition can be inflected philosophically, so that “Anxiety manifests itself within a person in the course of daily living as various threats to one's being by nonbeing—ultimately death” (Ritter 52). In both cases, however, uncertainty and the unknown loom large. In fear, we have expectant worry—worry about what will come to be in the unknown future—while anxiety revolves around the ultimate unknown—one's own nonexistence. Cohen suggests that celebrity culture itself might even be “a kind of drama around the scope and limits of what can be known” (xiv), a reasonable hypothesis given how tightly celebrities become knitted into our own emotional lives. Reading stories of celebrities, one can work through personal, legitimate fears such as divorce or estrangement, and frightening, incomprehensible world events may feel more manageable when connected to the story of an individual, particularly when it is an individual one has been reading about for a long time.

Two anecdotes from the novelist Susie Boyt's memoir, My Judy Garland Life (2008), illustrate this connection. Boyt recalls a young girl who said that, if nuclear war occurred, her first thought would be “I hope Boy George is OK” (127). This quotation reveals how celebrities are tied to the ways we confront threat occurring on an intolerable scale, while Boyt's own experience illuminates how we use celebrities to cope with personal experience. Boyt recounts how, after a friend's death, when she was “twenty, bereaved, grieving, living alone, an owner-operated pain factory” (83), she watched a Judy Garland PBS television special every day for a period of six months. These repeated daily encounters with Garland provided “something that just wasn't available to me elsewhere,” and the eighty-five minutes of the program offered, she writes, “an arena in which it was possible for me to stay a person” (83).

In these anecdotes, the links between fear and anxiety, the national and the personal, and celebrity and life writing emerge, along with significant overlap. Within these intersections, broader cultural trends come into view.

American Fear and “the Force of the False”

The past was once the present. An obvious circumstance but one worth stating precisely because it is so often obscured by the way we write about the past—approaching it and everyone in it as though they had a certainty about their lives which we, the living, now lack. In reality, the experience of being alive, then as now, has always been characterized by uncertainty and improvisation, a circumstance that becomes evident when we shift our thinking of the past into thinking of it as that which was once present.

The “avalanche” Gass describes—which seems to encompass the uncertainty of being alive, the sensation of not knowing what will happen next or the ultimate effects of one's actions—is essential to any attempt at understanding why human beings within the past behaved as they did, as it establishes the haphazardness of life: the reality that, per Carr, “human beings do not always, or perhaps even habitually, act from motives of which they are fully conscious or which they are willing to avow” (48). The “avalanche” plays a crucial role in the life of any individual and its effects are particularly evident when we consider events of the past driven by what Umberto Eco calls the “force of the false” (2). “[T]hat our history was inspired by many tales we now regard as false should make us alert,” Eco writes, “ready to call constantly into question the very tales we believe true” (26, 22). And yet, because of how such stories are told, particularly if they are being espoused by trusted people in power, they are accepted as truth. Such was the case with the Cold War.

In hindsight, the threats from abroad during the period of the Cold War were never so certain as they were portrayed, and several generations of Americans spent decades being unnecessarily afraid. This is a circumstance in which John F. Kennedy was complicit, as his campaign for the presidency emphasized the threat of diminished American prestige and promised an intensification of the Cold War. As Garry Wills notes, “Kennedy, with his call for escape from the Eisenhower narcolepsy, had to reduce everything to a contest with Khrushchev” (427), who was portrayed as a madman in control of enormous military power—an image that held horrifying echoes of Hitler for many Americans (Stearns 175). Thus, as John Muellersummarizes, “Massively extrapolating from limited evidence, determining to err decidedly on the safe side, dismissing contrary interpretations, and striking a responsible chord with the public, decision makers became mesmerized by perceived threats that scarcely warranted the preoccupation and effort” (117), and “militarily pathetic countries” were seen to pose major risks (127).

“Here's Tony going to his Cub Scouts meeting,” intones the narrator of the 1951 civil defense propaganda film, Duck and Cover. “Tony knows the bomb can explode any time of the year. Day or night, he is ready for it… Sundays, holidays, vacation time, we must be ready every day, all the time, to do the right thing if the atomic bomb explodes.” The darkly comic documentary The Atomic Café (1982) poked ironic fun at such films, but they appear less ridiculous when we remember that the threat was felt to be real and that this particular film was directed at children. “Older people will help us, as they always do,” the narrator of Duck and Cover reminded young viewers, “but there might not be any grown-ups around when the bomb explodes. Then, you're on your own.”

Civil defense films encouraged a state of perpetual preparedness, a constant awareness of nuclear threat bound to result in an elevated state of fear and anxiety. The effects of such a state are visible in the literature subsequently produced by authors who experienced this emotional climate first hand. As a result of the atomic bomb drills she participated at school, Joan Didion later remembered, “it never occurred to me that I would not sooner or later—most probably certainly before I ever grew up or got married or went to college—endure the moment of its happening” (598): the dropping of the bomb and her own death. “The American people were now being systematically terrified by the country's ownership,” Gore Vidal wrote forty years after. “Did I see through all of this at the time? […] No. I believed the whole nonsense” (235, 237). Many people did. Opening his sixth Cambridge lecture in 1961, E.H. Carr observed, “We live in an epoch when—not for the first time in history—predictions of world catastrophe are in the air, and weigh heavily on all” (133).

With the creation of the atomic bomb and its unprecedentedly destructive power, the nature and potential scope of the world's catastrophes had dramatically altered. Accepting the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1950, William Faulkner declared, “Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only the question: When will I be blown up?” Fifteen years later, Susan Sontag observed that “from now on to the end of human history, every person would spend his individual life under the threat … of something almost insupportable psychologically—collective incineration and extinction which could come at any time, virtually without warning” (On Photography 224).

The emotional scars are impossible to prove but general deductions can be made. The Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 is popularly considered the peak of nuclear anxiety. According to a 1966 report on American fear of nuclear war, the crisis was “characterized by what were probably the most threatening signs of nuclear war which had occurred to that time” (Perry 102), and it was a moment of “high international tension” (101). However, even in moments of low international tension, Americans still reported experiencing fear—a situation, the report surmised, that had much to do with the threat of surprise attack, which was heavily emphasized in civil defense propaganda. (“Sometimes,” the narrator of Duck and Cover advises, “the bomb may explode without any warning.”) Among the study's Baton Rouge, Louisiana, cohort, 96% of respondents believed their city was in danger, 91% believed they were personally in danger, and 95% felt unprepared for nuclear attack (140). The twin fears of communism and nuclear annihilation were pervasive and frequently reiterated to the American public.

These fears surface, both intentionally and coincidentally, in Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis's story, suggesting her narrative's ongoing connection to the anxiety of nuclear annihilation. While her husband met with Nikita Khrushchev to discuss nuclear disarmament, Jackie toured Vienna, where, the AP noted, she was considered “a link between the New Frontier and the Old World… in a frightening nuclear age” (Lewine). “She stands for a sensitivity to art and beauty despite pragmatic politics, nuclear tests and the Cold War,” concluded a 1962 biography (Curtis 159).

Carole B. Schwalb has documented how Jackie's image, as First Lady, was used internationally as Cold War propaganda—particularly the White House tour documentary and documentaries of her 1962 trip to India and Pakistan—but her story acted in a similar capacity domestically (111–27). The connection was often one of adjacency in the newspapers, with charming images of Jackie bordering stories on nuclear annihilation. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, through the happenstance of editorial layout and, particularly in the newspapers in smaller markets, photographs of Jackie and her young son at a White House reception repeatedly neighbored stories on the unfolding emergency.1 This connection recurs, through a historical fluke, when her appearance at a memorial dedication in 1965 coincided with nuclear testing in China, so that photographs of her and her son are, once again, flanked by headlines like “Red China Explodes Second Atomic Bomb.”2

Historical coincidence, perhaps, but the connection lingers. In 1969, the writer Anita Loos gushed to the fashion magazine Women's Wear Daily, “God bless Jackie—the only thing that can make us forget the bomb” (“Jackie at 40” 5). Loos was being facetious, but the comment hints at how Jackie's story provided entertainment, but veiled harsher concerns. That Loos said this in 1969 suggests people were still thinking about the bomb that they wanted to forget, and that, on some level, Jackie helped. Sontag's arguments regarding the imagination of disaster are useful in thinking about Jackie's story in this regard. Sontag writes that a disaster narrative can “lift us out of the unbearably humdrum and to distract us from terrors—real or anticipated—by an escape into exotic, dangerous situations which have last-minute happy endings,” while it also “normalize[s] what is psychologically unbearable, thereby inuring us to it” (“The Imagination of Disaster” 225). Two decades later, the pop culture critic Wayne Koestenbaum drew the same connection as Loos, taking it far more seriously. He also illuminated the dualistic function Sontag identified when he suggested, “the explosions we have lived fifty years in mortal fear of (a fear we have repressed) find expression in a quiet icon like Jackie… [who] mimics our own denial” (231). She embodies, enacts, and softens. This dynamic emerges again, more explicitly, when we consider the theme of death in Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis's life narrative.

Jackie and American Death

“[W]e certainly fear because, ironically, we do not discuss fear enough,” Stearns argues, pointing to American “well-intentioned but misguided attempts to sanitize an unavoidable emotion” (19). As Stearns notes, by the mid-twentieth century, premature death had become a greater source of anxiety, as certain kinds of death (military death, for example) became less acceptable and most American adults encountered death less casually and less frequently (82). During this same period, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis was the most visible woman in America, and hers was a story characterized by an alarmingly high premature mortality rate. It is also, to this day, one of the country's most visible widowhood narratives. It is significant then that its contemporary cultural context was one wherein death and grief were increasingly unacceptable.

The most explicit, and also bizarre, example of this arises in May 1994, when Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis's death, in combination with that of former President Richard M. Nixon a few weeks earlier, played a major role in the contemporary conversation around the issue of advanced directives (a living will), which was, at the time, part of a broader discussion of euthanasia and a patient's right to die. The morning after her death, the New York Times reported, “Mrs. Onassis signed a living will in February that had clearly expressed her wish not to receive aggressive medical treatment” (Altman). The Philadelphia Inquirer's report included the detail that “aggressive treatment of her disease was suspended and she went home to die” (Enda), a transparent admission of what experts were then calling passive euthanasia—terminology that directly linked it to euthanasia and, more specifically, doctor-assisted suicide, which was much in the news at the time due to Dr. Jack Kevorkian's recent acquittal in a doctor-assisted suicide case. The former First Lady and the former President's exercise of choice in the manner of their own deaths modeled the choices available to the patient and illustrated how the issues of patient rights might play out in one's own life. By early June, the New York Times recorded that these two deaths “appear to be accelerating the sea change in Americans’ approach to death” (Scott). Significantly, it is a choice with which both are associated to this day. In texts on hospice care, advanced directives and estate administration, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and Richard M. Nixon are the only famous people mentioned.3

Taken in isolation, this is an odd episode. But it becomes more legible in light of the changing attitudes toward death in mid-twentieth-century America. Due to the biographical details of her life, death recurred in Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis's story in the newspapers throughout the 1960s and 1970s, but it was especially prominent in the contemporary movie magazines—midmarket celebrity magazines which targeted middle-class women and often featured Jackie on their covers. In these publications, readers were given access to Jackie's imagined thoughts after the death of John F. Kennedy and presented with stories specifically about the struggles of widowhood—questions about remarriage, the problems of moving on, the difficulties of single-motherhood, and the challenges of grief. These were struggles which, because of the marginalized societal position of widows and contemporary American attitudes toward death, were publicly discussed less and less. As the historian Philippe Ariès and the philosopher Bernard Murchland observed in 1974, “To talk about death, and thus admit it as a normal dimension of social discourse, is no longer acceptable; it is now something exceptional, excessive, and always dramatic” (7). Just to say the word death, they noted, “provoked an emotional tension that jars the routine of daily life” (7).

Ariès and Murchland cited this contemporary attitude as the “New Model of Death” (6), and what they identify here, in 1974, aligns with Stearns’ analysis. The American Civil War, as Drew Gilpin Faust has written, forced nineteenth-century Americans to “identify– find, invent, create– the means and mechanisms to manage more than half a million dead: their deaths, their bodies, their loss” (2). It was a process that, Faust argues, had transformative effects in the political and cultural spheres. Stearns makes a compelling case that these means and mechanisms underwent another profound albeit more gradual revision in the twentieth century, due to a decrease in child mortality, the migration of death from the home to the hospital, the promotion of “open but time-limited grief,” the resulting social unacceptability of prolonged grief and the abolition of grief support services (82, 83). Thus, the average American encountered death less frequently, in less intimate terms, and with less community and governmental support.

In August 1963, Jessica Mitford's exposé on the American funeral industry, The American Way of Death, revealed the extent to which Americans would go to euphemize death. The book was wildly popular and, according to one contemporary review, it shocked Americans “into contemplating a subject most prefer to avoid” (Krebs). The American Way of Death discussed an uncomfortable subject in detail and it did so in an engaging way. But it also, coincidentally, arrived just in advance of John F. Kennedy's death, an event that dramatically brought the subject of sudden, violent, premature death into American living rooms for a long weekend. Significantly, Mitford's narrative tone was one of emotional detachment and she considered death almost exclusively in terms of affordability—a comfortable approach for American consumers. Emotions, however, were neglected, as they were at the time of John F. Kennedy's death, when Jackie was praised for her stoicism.

Jackie's story already had an unusually high neonatal mortality rate. At a time when the national rate was at a historic low and, due to lower birthrates, children were increasingly regarded as precious (Infant Fetal and Maternal Mortality 12, 16), she had lost two children. The press treated the August 1963 death of her infant son, Patrick, primarily as a family matter and there was limited discussion in the newspapers. The UPI's account mentions her “deep sorrow” but notes that “she managed to walk out of the hospital smiling.” This media emphasis on etiquette reinforces the contemporary attitude Ariès and Murchland characterize as one where “discretion is the modern form of dignity”: an ethos in which displays of emotion were verboten and mourners “are permitted neither to weep for the departed nor to appear to mourn their passing” (8). Ariès and Murchland, like Stearns, argue that this restriction of mourning is a distinctly twentieth-century phenomenon, and it is one with which Jackie's mainstream narrative aligns but with which her movie magazine narrative is often at odds.

After John F. Kennedy's murder in November 1963, Life magazine reported how Jackie “drew strength from the events that had engulfed her” and “imparted strength to others,” losing “her steel nerve… just for a moment” (Hamblin 48, 49). The TV cameras caught her weeping during the playing of “Hail to the Chief” outside of the Capitol on Sunday and, on Monday, during the funeral service, though the cameras were kept off her, the papers reported she “went bravely through her… hours of public grief,” and “Only twice during the day did her tears appear” (Lewis). A few days later, the AP reported, it was “The stoic courage of Mrs. John F. Kennedy during the tragic ordeal” that “won the nation's heart” (Miller).

The contrast between these news reports and the movie magazine coverage is striking. The mainstream accounts emphasize stoicism, bravery, and emotional restraint. The movie magazines promote these traits as well, but they also feature extended, dramatic narratives portraying Jackie's imagined grief in intimate terms. In these narratives, feeling takes priority and the private emotions overcome to arrive at the publicly enacted stoicism move to the fore. In TV Radio Mirror's March 1964 report, for example, the family adage “Kennedys Don't Cry” is cited and then revised, so that it isn't that Kennedys do not cry but that, “if they do, they hide their tears” (46). Superficially, this aligns with social norms, but the extent of Jackie's emotions as portrayed here comes in stark contrast: “she broke down and sobbed openly;” “she herself was on the verge of tears;” “the future seemed so hopeless” (95, 96). Publicly courageous, in private, she is, as depicted, openly tearful and struggling: “helplessly, hopelessly, on the verge of tears” (96). For the contemporary reader, this article offered a sustained examination of grief, a taboo emotional experience, as well as a portrayal of the immediate aftermath of a spousal death.

The contemporary anthropologist Barbara Gallatin Anderson noted gender differences toward death that suggest such stories would appeal to female readers. While men perceived dying as the ordeal, Anderson observed that the female subjects in her research cohort focused upon the aftermath:

the women labor the consequences for them of the loss—the personal disadvantage, the physical toll, the social implications of a change in the esteemed roles of wife and homemaker… For the men, personal loss and emotional trauma were seldom compounded by the threat of economic privation. (187)

In contrast, for the women, “There was more immediately at stake for them and few cultural supports” (188). These themes are all prominent in the story of Jacqueline Kennedy after John F. Kennedy's death as the writers of the magazines imagined how John F. Kennedy's death affected her.4 Additionally, for months, the movie magazines ran stories about her situation that focused on her grief.5 This continued over a period beyond which it would have been socially acceptable to still be grieving the President's death in everyday life and long after the story had ceased to appear regularly in newspapers.

On the surface, the contemporary accounts of Jacqueline Kennedy's widowhood conformed to tradition—particularly through their emphasis on remarriage, which is one of the easiest means of neutralizing a widow's social ambiguity (Buitelaar 12). But, even after John F. Kennedy's death and his widow's remarriage, in the press and to many Americans, Jackie and John F. Kennedy remained connected. It was a connection reinforced not through mention of their marriage but, rather, through emphasis of her widowhood. Despite her remarriage, she was still identified as John F. Kennedy's widow, often referred to as “Mrs. Kennedy” and, though her second husband, Aristotle Onassis, was frequently photographed with her children, their upbringing was depicted as her responsibility alone. Hers was a story distinguished by its staggering visibility, which meant that, from 22 November 1963 until the late 1970s, the most visible life narrative in America was that of a woman who was portrayed primarily as a widow and single mother.

In his eulogy, Senator John Kerry observed, “Jackie Onassis lived almost every role among which women choose.” But it isn't always a matter of choice and, ultimately, things do happen over which we have no control. In the 1950s, the United States government told Americans to be prepared for nuclear annihilation at all times. The transmission of this message occurred in a historical moment wherein Americans were socially conditioned to fear grief and death as extraordinary and unfortunate circumstances rather than a natural part of life. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis's story coincides with these historical circumstances and contains echoes, which seem likely factors in its contemporary power and also its posthumous endurance. She lived every role from which a woman could choose but she did not choose to be a widow or a single mother, which is how her story, in America, was most often framed.

Conclusion

“It's so calming to be able to form a clear picture of things in one's mind,” Charles Swann tells his lover toward the end of Swann's Way. “What is really terrible is what one can't imagine” (439). Unfortunately, clarity is something life seldom allows. Celebrities matter because they are alive and, in their aliveness, they embody the uncertainties of being alive, which helps us cope with our own mortality, all of which also makes celebrity life narratives a valuable resource for analyzing American emotional phenomena and behavioral history, providing a ghost map of the contemporary culture's anxieties.

A popular gossip analysis blog recently hailed celebrities as a sign that “we've almost reached peak civilization” in America, where life “is ridiculously easy, we have no real problems, and a lot of free time”; and so celebrity gossip is a national pastime that fills “the void once occupied by ‘dying of dysentery on [the] way to [a] new home across [the] continent’ and ‘planting food to eat during winter’” (“Kristen Stewart”). This pronouncement is useful in that the anxiety is evident just beneath the surface: we have “no real problems” and too much free time, life is “ridiculously easy” and yet very little is in our control. Stearns suggests that the rise in American fear may be connected to anxieties about America's place in the world (81), a hypothesis made manifest here, albeit in miniature and in personal terms rather than national. A celebrity may do something, and we may not agree with it; though she may pursue a given course of action, it may have unintended consequences in her life; though we can read everything there is to read about her, still we do not know her; though we are no longer dying of dysentery, still we are not content.

Celebrities are a way of organizing personal experience at the level of daily life and of coping with its hazards. In the present, we endure uncertainty and, in their aliveness, celebrities reduce the sensation that we are alone in this. As Josh Cohen writes of watching the television show Big Brother, “what magnetized me… wasn't what might happen but the simple fact of its happening” (61), an observation that suggests celebrities offer a respite—an opportunity to stand still, to be present, and to, however briefly, forget the future and temporarily vacate our fear. Like us, in flux, the celebrity moves ever forward, clear-eyed about nothing, into whatever tomorrow might bring. But there is, in this, a valor; in the doggedness with which we, together, not content, not knowing, navigate the tumult of the times in which we find ourselves scattered, alive. “It's a way of saying, ‘Yes! Yes! Yes!,’” exclaimed Cartier-Bresson of being present. “It's yes, yes, yes. And there's no maybe” (“The Decisive Moment”).

Notes

The Abilene Reporter News, The Cumberland News, The Salt Lake Tribune, The San Bernardino County Sun, Eugene Register-Guard, Mt. Vernon Register-News, et al., 16 Oct. 1962, p.1.

The High Point Enterprise, 14 May 1965, p.1.

Nancy M.P. King, J.D. Making Sense of Advance Directives, Revised Edition (Georgetown University Press, 1996), xi; Dr. Lonny Shavelson, A Chosen Death: The Dying Confront Assisted Suicide (Simon & Schuster, 1995), p. 219; Dennis R. Hower and Peter Kahn, Wills, Trusts & Estates Administration, 7th ed., (Delmar Cengage Learning, 2012), p. 238; Kevin Yuill, Assisted Suicide: The Liberal, Humanist Case Against Legalization (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), p. 80.

Ella Ormandy, “Daddy is Gone…,” Photoplay, Feb. 1964; Leslie Valentine, “How Jackie and the Children Will Remember Jack's Birthday,” TV Radio Mirror, June 1964; Ed DeBlasio, “The Miracle that Made Jackie Laugh Again,” Photoplay, July 1964.

Leslie Valentine, “As I Still See Him…,” TV Radio Mirror, Dec. 1964; Jim Hoffman, “Why the Doctors Are Worried About Jackie,” Photoplay, Mar. 1965; Hillary May, “The Day Jack Cried in Jackie's Arms,” Photoplay, Oct. 1965; Leslie Valentine, “How Jackie Handles A Mother's Greatest Problem,” TV Radio Mirror, Oct. 1965.

Works Cited

Altman, Lawrence K. “Death of a First Lady; No More Could Be Done, Mrs. Onassis Was Told,” New York Times, 20 May 1994. Accessed 23 Jan. 2014.

Anderson, Barbara Gallatin. “Bereavement as a Subject of Cross-Cultural Inquiry: An American sample.” Anthropological Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 4, Oct. 1965, pp. 181–200. Accessed 15 Aug. 2015.

Ariès, Philippe, and Bernard Murchland. “Death inside out.” The Hastings Center Studies, vol. 2, no. 2, May 1974, pp. 3–18. Accessed 15 Aug. 2015.

Augustine of Hippo. The Confessions. Oxford UP, 2008.

Boorstin, Daniel J. The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. 1961. Vintage Books, 2012.

Boyt, Susie. My Judy Garland Life. Virago, 2008.

Carr, E. H. What Is History? 1961. Penguin Books, 1990.

Cartier-Bresson, Henri. Transcript. “The Decisive Moment” video. Accessed 12 Jan. 2016.

Cohen, Josh. The Private Life. Granta, 2013.

Curtis, Charlotte. First Lady. Pyramid Books, 1962.

Dyer, Richard. Heavenly Bodies: Film Stars and Society. Routledge, 2004.

Eco, Umberto. Serendipities: Language and Lunacy. Phoenix, 1998.

Ellis, John. Seeing Things: Television in the Age of Uncertainty. I.B. Tauris, 2000.

Didion, Joan. “Pacific Distances,” After Henry, in We Tell Ourselves Stories in Order to Live: Collected Nonfiction. Alfred A. Knopf, 2006.

Gass, William H. Fiction and the Figures of Life. 1958. Nonpareil Books, 1971.

Gilpin, Drew Faust. This Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War. Alfred A. Knopf, 2008.

Gopnik, Adam. “Two Ships,” The New Yorker, 6 Jan. 2014, pp. 17–18.

Hamblin, Dora Jane. “Mrs. Kennedy’s Decisions Shaped All The Solemn Pageantry,” Life, 6 Dec. 1963, pp. 48–49.

Hermes, Jokes. Reading Women's Magazines: An Analysis of Everyday Media Use. Polity Press, 1997.

Hoffman, Jim. “How A Mother Hides Her Tears,” TV Radio Mirror, Feb. 1964.

Infant Fetal and Maternal Mortality, United States-1963. US Government Printing Office, 1966. Accessed 13 Sept. 2015.

“Jackie At 40,” Women’s Wear Daily, 9 July 1969, pp. 4–7.

Koestenbaum, Wayne. Jackie Under My Skin: Interpreting an Icon. Plume, 1996.

“Kristen Stewart is proof that civilization is working,” LaineyGossip.com, 7 Apr. 2015. Accessed 15 Jan. 2016.

Lewis, Anthony. “Mrs. Kennedy Maintains Stoic Dignity,” The Decatur Herald, 26 Nov. 1963. Accessed 13 Sept. 2015.

McDonnell, Andrea. Reading Celebrity Gossip Magazines. Polity Press, 2014.

Miller, Joy. “Now a Fourth Widowed 1st Lady,” The Kane Republican, 30 Nov. 1963. Accessed 8 Aug. 2015.

Mitford, Jessica. The American Way of Death Revisited. 1963. Virago, 2013. Print.

Mueller, John. “Questing for Monsters to Destroy.” Uncertain Times: American Foreign Policy after the Berlin Wall and 9/11, edited by Melvyn P. Leffler and Jeffrey W. Legro. Cornell UP, 2011, pp. 117–30.

Öhman, Arne. “Fear and Anxiety: Overlaps and Dissociations.” Handbook of Emotions, 3rd ed., edited by Michael Lewis, Jeannette M. Haviland-Jones, and Lisa Feldman Barrett. Guilford Press, 2008, pp. 709–29.

Perry, Joseph B., Jr. “Fear in Response to the Threat of Nuclear War.” Kansas Journal of Sociology, vol. 2, no.3, Summer 1966, pp. 100–06. Accessed 8 Aug. 2015.

Ricœur, Paul. From Text To Action: Essays in Hermeneutics, II. Northwestern UP, 1991.

Ritter, Hal. “Anxiety.” Journal of Religion and Health, vol. 29, no. 1, Spring 1990, pp. 49–53. Accessed 1 Aug. 2015.

Rojek, Chris. Celebrity. Reaktion Books, 2001.

Rosenzweig, Roy, and David Thelen. The Presence of the Past: Popular Uses of History in American Life. Columbia UP, 1998.

Schwalbe, Carol B. “Jacqueline Kennedy and Cold War Propaganda.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media , vol. 49, no. 1, 2005, pp. 111–27. Accessed 12 Nov. 2015.

Sontag, Susan. “The Imagination of Disaster.” Against Interpretation and Other Essays. Picador, 1966, pp. 209–25.

Sontag, Susan On Photography. 1977. Penguin Books, 1982.

Stearns, Peter N. American Fear: The Causes and Consequences of High Anxiety. Routledge, 2006.

UPI, “Jackie Wants Another Baby,” The Times [CA], 16 Aug. 1963. Accessed 13 Sept. 2015.

Vidal, Gore. Palimpsest: A Memoir. 1995. Abacus, 2012.

“William Faulkner—Banquet Speech.” Nobelprize.org. Nobel Media AB, 2014. Accessed 11 Apr. 2016.

Wills, Garry. Nixon Agonistes: The Crisis of the Self-Made Man. 1969. Mariner Books, 2002.

[jmenfoot]

Translation of the article under the cut (tw sexual assault)

Things never quiet down around a footballer like Cristiano Ronaldo. The world speaks about his goals, his hairstyle, his tax return. Pictures of him in underwear or of his girlfriend in a bikini emerge on the internet and in newspapers.

It's a permanent background noise. That's why it's that much more disconcerting when a topic is completely silenced.

Eight years ago in Las Vegas Ronaldo met a woman, Susan K. She would later claim to have been raped by him. SPIEGEL wrote in April about the American's claims. The case made a few waves. Then Ronaldo scored five goals in the Champions League quarter final against FC Bayern and later three more in the semi-final against Atlético Madrid. The history of Susan K. was quickly forgotten.

Ronaldo stepped in front of the cameras and microphones of the reporters and spoke about his ambitions for Real Madrid. Nobody asked him about the Las Vegas case. His fans made posts and tweets in which rape emerged like a poisonous stylistic device.

"to watch how Ronaldo rapes the strongest teams in Europe is so Ronaldoesque. "

"Next he'll rape Juve."

Football is an emotionnal theater that can be hard to grasp. Forgiveness, hate, then forgiveness again happen faster than in normal life. A victory, a loss, a goal can change everything.

There is unconditional worship too. Diego Maradona is nut, but he is loved by his fans because he was a genius with the ball. Franz Beckenbauer had his lot of mischiefs in his career, but his supporters stood by him, because he brought the World Cup to Germany both as a player and as a coach.

Ronaldo too  is a fairytale character for his fans. A boy from a simple background. At 17 he debuted in the pro team of Sporting Lisbon. At 18 he moved to Manchester United. At 23 he crashed a Ferrari. Nowadays, Ronaldo is 32 and everything in him seems enormous. He earns almost 40 millions euros a year with Real Madrid and has 119 millions of  Facebook followers.

Ronaldo denies having raped the American in June 2009 in a Palms Place Hotel's suite in Las Vegas. What is sure however is that the two settled out of court. He paid 375.000 dollars, as a countermove to silence the woman for good.

After SPIEGEL reported on the case, the agency of Ronaldo's adviser Jorge Mendes released a statement. It was full of falsehoods. Among other things, it claimed there was no proof that Ronaldo had anything to do with the case. The statement was quoted world-wide. And it quickly seemed as if everything had been solved. See! they say it wasn't him!

SPIEGEL then published a second article and released excerpts of the out of court settlement between Susan K. and Ronaldo, bearing the signature of the footballer. This time there was no statement from Ronaldo's agency. It also wasn't necessary. Since the new facts did not get through to the public anymore, they bounced off of most medias as if there was there an invisible wall. To this day the big Madrid newspaper "El País" did not report on the rape accusations against Ronaldo.

"This silence is odd" says journalist and feminist Shireen Ahmed. For years the canadian activist has been criticaly covering the football business. The media's inertia toward Ronaldo and Susan K.'s case outrages her. "Some people probably think, well, he paid her, it's in the past. But that's not how it works", says Ahmed, "even if the case was settled in private, this doesn't mean that nothing happened or that it isn't relevant anymore".

The Champions League final in Cardiff on saturday will not decide how Cristiano Ronaldo will be rated as a footballer. Wether he wins or loses, he'll be for a long time one of this sport's greatest players. But is he also a big personality? Or is he a liar, a cheat?

Stars like Ronaldo live in a bubble. The Portuguese surrounds himself with an entourage which takes care of his wellbeing and of the dirt that sometimes comes with the business. Finance and marketing experts, lawyers, PR advisers compose the team. They all had work to do during these last months. Last december SPIEGEL published a cover story based on the Football Leaks documents, which made brought to light Ronaldo's tax schemes. Ronaldo's spokesperson reacted by saying that the player hadn't paid all the taxes he should have – but that he had not deliberately frauded. Between 2011 and 2014 he could have avoided 15 million euros of taxes, according to the public prosecutor's office. Should it end up in court, the superstar risks a prison sentence.

For years Ronaldo's defensive chief has been the portuguese jurist Carlos Osório de Castro, a cool headed man who doesn't quickly lose track. He was one of the firsts in july 2009 to hear about Susan K's claims - and he reacted promptly. He contacted experienced lawyers in the USA and set up a chain of legal defense. Ronaldo's troops sometimes acted like characters from a Grisham movie. A private detective was tasked to investigate Susan K. He collected details about her life story, about her parking tickets. The man kept Susan K.'s house under surveillance, sometimes for hours at a time.

Once the detective quoted in a protocol that SPIEGEL was able to read : "Ms K. has left the house yesterday evening shortly before 8 pm, went to the MGM hotel, parked her car and met a young man whom she embraced in the lift." Another day, he observed them in a restaurant : "Susan K. drank red wine. She had more than (3) three glasses of wine." For the detective the job was a lucrative one. Between august and november 2009, he charged sums of 4.881 dollars, 8.079 dollars, 11.152 dollars, 10.000 dollars and in december even 23.668 dollars. However, the results the man made did not seem to satisfy his clients. One of the US lawyers pushed in an email to hire a second detective and disprove the presumed victim's claims of suffering psychological damage following her rape : "hopefully we'll witness moments where she goes out and enjoys the nightlife and men of Las Vegas." Susan K. states that Ronaldo anally raped her in the morning hours of the 13th june 2009. She went home after the alleged act. Then she called the police and was brought by the officers to an hospital. There Susan K.'s "rape kit", a special examination undergone by victim of sexual violence to gather evidences, revealed anal injuries.

It was particularly important for Ronaldo's lawyers to dismiss these findings. SPIEGEL was able to read a legal document in which the jurists planned a mediation meeting in january 2010. In the document, a "medical expert" is quoted stating that K.'s injuries could have been caused by "different objects". Then follows the explanation of a retired investigator who states that K. had enough time to injure herself before the arrival of the police. The document also mentions a sum suggested by the lawyers of Susan K. : 40.000 dollars. "A very generous offer", the jurists thought. They ended up paying almost ten times as much. Why didn't Ronaldo sue the American if he was beyond reproach ? Why did it come to an arrangement out of court? Why did he pay a hush money ?

In the documents SPIEGEL was able to read – part of the Football Leaks data - was an email in which one of Ronaldo's lawyers presents the opinion of a criminal law expert from Las Vegas. The expert has "big concerns" about the case coming to trial. Ronaldo's chances would be "50/50" – with the risk of a prison sentence.

Two weeks after Real Madrid won the Spanish championship, Cristiano Ronaldo gave a short interview. He did not speak directly about the tax case, he did not speak about Susan K. He said there were people, with "stones in their hands" ready to throw them at him. Ronaldo likes to speak in allusions. He is a drama queen. "I am talked about as if I was a criminal", he says. In the end critics will have to be silent. "I'll make things right."

It is difficult to say whether the case of Susan K. even affects him. His entourage, his sponsors ignore the affair. Nike, the nutrition company Herbalife or the watch manufacturer TAG Heuer didn't answer inquiries from SPIEGEL. The media in Spain and Portugal would rather discuss Ronaldo's son talent with a ball or girlfriend's newest wardrobe. Things go on as if nothing had happened.

In the footballer's environment it is rumored that the rape accusations could be less problematic for him than the way Susan K's case was handled financially. At that time the lawyer's expenses amounted to a 6-figure amount. The bills went to the Irish firm MIM, which handles Ronaldo's advertising revenue. To pay the arrangement sum to the presumed victim, Ronaldo's lawyers chose the bank account of an offshore firm in the british Virgin Islands. An inquiry from SPIEGEL on the issue remained unanswered.

Ronaldo hasn't talked so far about the rape accusations. Susan K. also doesn't speak about what happened in the suite of the Palms Place hotel. She firmly respects the silence clause. Her story of what happened that night was written down months after the alleged act in a letter to Ronaldo. K.'s depictions are sharp, she is deeply hurt, her rage is immense. In the out of court arrangement between Susan K. and Ronaldo, it was set that his lawyer Carlos Osório de Castro had to read out the letter to his client. Whether it happened, however, is unclear. When the jurist was reminded of the agreement at the end of September 2010 by one of the US lawyers, Osório de Castro wrote back that he had given the letter to Ronaldo. If this is true, it wasn't an easy moment for Ronaldo. But he might not know to this day what the letter contains. When Osório de Castro confirmed to the US lawyers that he had read out the letter, he sent a copy of the email to a lawyer and colleague in Portugal. The latter responded to Osório de Castro with an email. In it was only a word: "Pinocchio".

[imaginaryelle]

dipsykoo replied to your post “There are days that I’m grateful that I started writing on paper, for...”

I don't entirely understand what happened based on this post. But I agree a lot on learning to know oneself or other people better. I believe it's important! However, I hope everything is okay for you. If you need someone to talk to and you're comfortable with it, I'm always here! Well at least when I'm awake!

It wasn’t really one thing, it’s a pattern of behavior I’ve been seeing played out over and over again these last few months. I know there’s a lot of fear and anger in the world today, and I absolutely believe that we should acknowledge problematic and harmful aspects of the media we consume, but I have seen a lot of attacks on both fandom and professional creators, always with the expectation that the creator should have known better and shouldn’t even try to do something unless they are able to execute it to someone else’s standards. 

It’s like we forget that it’s possible to be critical of something and still enjoy it. It’s possible to recognize problems and use them to educate yourself and others without a judgement of someone’s worth as a person. “Problematic” only means that something is complicated and prone to problems. That’s a very human thing. That is all of us. And I see it waved around as a banner of justice, a label that says another person or their work is wrongwrongwrong and implies that the person doing the waving is entirely in the right. And that’s just not how humans work. We are all flawed, complex beings. It’s possible to be disgusted by something and still recognize that there is a human being on the other end of it. And sometimes we have to acknowledge that problems for us are not problems for other people. That they have their own problems they’re working through.

An example would be the reaction to ME:A’s number of mlm romance option available in-game, or the trans npc deadnaming to a stranger, or Gil’s storyarc. Are there problems in these things? Yes. Absolutely. Bioware and EA are big established companies, and they have the resources to spend time on these things, and they have the ability to do better. They have done better in the past, at least a little bit. But there were attacks against individual programmers and writers. I’ve seen blanket statements that Bioware is trash because of one character, that Bioware hates mlm. And I understand people’s rage. It’s disheartening to see these misrepresentations and mistakes in something many of us have spent a decade loving. But I think it’s important to remember that media is not a punch-card machine. We can’t click buttons that say we want men loving men, we want it in space, we want it to be 100% healthy, we want it to reflect our personal lived experience, we want it to treat trauma seriously, we want sarcasm and banter, and oh, throw in a bit of on-screen sex for good measure, and just get a game or a story or a piece of art handed to us that meets all of these desires. Media is created by humans, and informed by the creator’s own perceptions. Someone, somewhere, will create that thing, but they will do it because it’s important to them, personally. Not because someone else demanded it. Consuming media responsibly means that we all have to practice both examining it critically and allowing that media to exist with flaws. And I say this because:

What I very rarely see is people acknowledging that we are in a period of change. That all of us, consumers and creators alike, are learning to redefine how we see the world, and what we deem is acceptable and what is not. We can only work with what each of us has seen, experienced and consumed, and especially on a mainstream level I think it’s important to acknowledge that none of us has a wealth of good representations of, for example, healthy, fully-fleshed-out gay and bi men, to draw from. We don’t have a wealth of fiction that treats heavy topics like rape and child abuse with a sensitive hand. We don’t have generations of books and music and videos that regularly allow women to be complex human characters and not markedly different from their male counterparts. We don’t have a decades-long stretch of Hollywood movies and mainstream western television shows that depict the stories of non-white people as important on their own merits, or that are told in their voices. Instead what we have is pretty much the opposite of these things. And we have all consumed it since infancy. Being a professional writer, artist or game dev does not automatically grant someone access to some new utopia of media and resources to draw from in creating new works. We all have things to unlearn, or to reframe in our minds. And that’s going to be a process. Everyone is going to be in a different place in that process, professional and fan alike. And as part of that process, we’re going to create things that are flawed. 

That’s okay. That’s literally how we learn. We have to try. Even rich old white men have to try in order to learn, no matter how much power they have. And if we spend all of our time yelling at creators for their attempts, we will never get the media we want. It won’t happen. We’ll just beat those creators down until they get resentful, and then they’ll stop trying.

Big companies can take that beating. They have the PR machines, they already have respected outlets for communication, they can respond and be heard. They can change their product and be respected for that change. Or, they can essentially press the mute button and keep creating things with exactly the same flaws, and because other people don’t see them yet, they’ll still make money. I don’t think it’s good to give them the beating (I think constructive criticism that lays out several options for improvement will always get us further than angry yelling), but what is most disheartening for me is when I see exactly the same behaviors--the yelling, the declaration that a creator must hate a certain group, etc, directed at fan creators. People who are not making any money, who are creating because they love a thing so much they want to share, and sharing is literally the only reward they get, and who are often very new to the entire process of creating.

There are a few reasons this upsets me. One is, as I said in the previous post, that it spreads fear and doesn’t allow people to learn, and turns new creators away from creating. Holding fans to the same or higher standards as professional media completely devalues them as a person who is in their own process, and it puts the power of deciding what is right and acceptable into the hands of the fan who has the biggest following. It’s not about the quality of their arguments, or the morality of their judgement, it’s about how many friends or hangers-on they have who are completely willing to jump in and bash at someone without even stopping for a moment to consider whether they should. And nowhere in all that gatekeeping do I see people allowed to grow, on either side. Nowhere do I see anyone acknowledge the hypocrisy inherent in hitting someone else for their inability to prepare for every possible audience expectation while never doing any self-examination to acknowledge that person’s point of view or context. Either the attacked party complies and acknowledges that they are the scum of the universe and apologizes, or they are deemed trash, and likely attacked further just to drive the point home. Most of the time no one even tries to just talk to the creator privately first, to resolve things quickly, calmly, and quietly, with mutual respect. Instead I see vagueblogging, or worse, named call-out posts, that villify someone for something they may not even realize is a problem, or that they may know is a probem but have no idea how to fix. I’ve seen it in a few different fandoms for rape and pain-porn stories in the past three weeks. And every time I want to say: “Yes, I get it. These are difficult topics. They affect real people. But. Do you know how long it took me to recognize the rape in Anne McCaffrey’s work? Do you know how long it took me to recognize the toxicity of some of the power dynamics in Tamora Pierce’s work? These are stories I read as a child and loved because they had dragons and magic and kickass women and just enough romance. I had to live more to realize that they had problems, too. Do you remember how long it took you to first recognize the flaws in something you loved? Do you remember how hard it was to look at your own mistakes in your own creations?” Because we can only ever work from what we’ve been exposed to, and if the majority of society and media we’ve been immersed in glorifies rape and devalues women, if it tells us pain is secondary to pleasure, if it tells us that the abused fall in love with their abusers and that makes it okay, that is what we are going to create. Is that a problem? Yes. But it’s a problem created by a culture, not an individual. An individual can change, and as enough of us do, we reshape culture. That’s how society works.  And yet, I almost never see anyone in fandom offering resources to help people change to create the culture we want. I don’t see posts that say “hey, if you’re writing about rape, here are some articles that can help you address the physical and psychological effects of it” or “I’ve noticed people writing abusive relationships lately, and I want to offer some notes on both short-term and long-term effects that those relationships can have on people” or “If you’re wanting to write about a POC character, here are some great blogs to check out so you can avoid making caricatures and be respectful of POC’s lived experience” or “here’s a resource list for writers who want to write mlm stories that aren’t based on stereotypes.” I know these things exist. I have seen them in original fiction communities. I’ve written some of them. But in fandom? I just see posts attacking people because they should know better, and telling them not to try until they fit the attacker’s idea of acceptable content. Has everyone just forgotten that they have the power to not engage with content they think is terrible? To cut it out of their experience without drama?

Another reason this whole pattern upsets me is that when I joined fandom, part of its generally acknowledged purpose was to address things that the canon did wrong, or poorly, and to create the content we wanted to see. For example: this is why I write Gil. Because there are many, many problems with his presentation in-game, but I want a story where he has more content, I want more interactions between him and Ryder and him and literally anyone. I want there to be a fun sci-fi story about a gay guy who wants bio-kids and gets to raise them. I want there to be a story about a gay man who has a best friend who’s a woman and to have that not be a potentially abusive and toxic relationship. So I’m writing it. Because I learned pretty early that I couldn’t just wait for the world to hand me the perfect story, and because I know that being shouted at only makes me want to ball up and ignore the whole world somewhere safe. And yet, most of what I see in any fandom these days has more to do with policing than content creation. I see people spending more time shouting at professional writers and each other than they do on making their own content or even supporting content that is what they want to see. Why aren’t we building each other up? Why aren’t we setting examples? Why don’t we offer help? Why aren’t we creating the space we want to live in, instead of expecting others to create it for us? This isn’t just limited to fandom, this is all forms of media. Instead of creating or celebrating good things, a lot of people seem to spend the majority of their time tearing others down. And I’m just left sad and confused, because I don’t understand how anyone thinks that destructive behaviors like fandom policing and gatekeeping and  hate-mail are going to result in more cool fun things to enjoy for anyone. Isn’t it exactly the sort of behavior we abhor with things like GamerGate? Why do we emulate this? Do people really think that screaming at someone they know nothing about for a piece of fiction is the best avenue to change things? I can’t imagine that anyone actually finds it fun, and aren’t we here in fandom to have fun? To enjoy ourselves?

Apologies for the wall of text. I thought I was done with this last night, but apparently not. I appreciate the offer, but I’m really okay. Also, @nalufaraday, thank you for your kind comments :) @retro-sci-fi-songbird, I’m sorry to hear that you’ve been so discouraged in your writing. If you ever want someone to look something over for you in private, you’re welcome to contact me. I’ve been there. I hope you do keep writing, because I really do believe that doing more and trying new things is the only way any of us can get better.

And because I know I’m writing this in this very climate, I will say again: I do think people should be notified of problematic behaviors, and why it’s a problem. I just think they should also be offered avenues of change, and granted basic, fallible humanity in the process, and I think that if someone feels the need to call someone else out, they should also be willing to engage in some self-examination of their own. Shaming a writer or artist on the internet about their fictional creation is not the same as punching a nazi who has literally advocated for the death of millions of people. The lone creator on the internet is not a threat unless you make them one, and their flaws do not make the person who attacks them an intrinsically better person. If you cannot be part of a process of learning and growing, in a positive way, the simplest and easiest way to deny power to people you disagree with is to deny them a platform. Block them, warn others that there might be something triggering in their work if you’re feeling especially strongly, and disengage. 

And then go make something that reflects the world you want to see.

[squidplzplz-blog]

Fish Oil Benefits Proven Beyond Medicine

The UK Scientific Advisory Committee reviewed the evidence on the health benefits of fish oil in 2004. They said that "large body of evidence" suggests that taking fish oil, particularly oily fish, reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease. This article was published on the NHS website the UK. This is why you should be eating a lot of fish or if you can't buy fresh fish then you can take it as a supplement form. There are a lot of buyers guide for the Omega 3 supplement that you can read to get the best quality supplement. in the UK

As indicated by a look into directed at Harvard University, omega-3 unsaturated fat inadequacy is authoritatively one of the main 10 reasons for death in America, killing up to 96,000 individuals every year. Out of the 12 dietary, way of life and metabolic hazard factors analysed in the investigation, omega-3 unsaturated fat lack positioned as the 6th most elevated enemy of Americans. (1) These passings are viewed as preventable since getting enough omega 3-unsaturated fats in your eating routine can avoid this now the regular reason for death, and fish oil benefits omega-3 allow as a powerful omega-3 source.

The fish oil benefits incorporate diminishing the danger of coronary illness and stroke while additionally decreasing manifestations of misery, hypertension, consideration shortage hyperactivity issue (ADHD), joint agony, joint inflammation and interminable skin infirmities like dermatitis. (2) Fish oil admission has additionally been related with supporting the body in weight reduction, richness, pregnancy and expanded vitality. Medicine fish oil has even been endorsed by the FDA to bring down unfortunate high triglyceride levels. (3)

The greater part of the fish oil benefits is on the grounds that it's one of the nature's wealthiest wellsprings of omega-3 unsaturated fats. While fish oil benefits are various, there are some false claims on the most proficient method to utilize this unbelievable supplement, however in this article, I go over the demonstrated logical proof to exhibit the genuine benefits of fish oil.

What Is Fish Oil?

Fish oil originates from the tissues of oily fish. The best sources are frosty water, greasy fish. With regards to human utilization of fish oil, you can get it from fish themselves or from a fish oil supplement.

Fish oil is a concentrated wellspring of omega-3 fats, which are likewise called ω-3 unsaturated fats or n-3 unsaturated fats. To get more logical, omega-3s are polyunsaturated unsaturated fats or PUFAs. Our bodies can make the majority of the fats we require, yet that is not valid for omega-3 unsaturated fats. With regards to these basic facts, we have to get them from Omega-3 nourishments or supplements.

Fish oil contains two essential omega-3 PUFAs. I'm discussing docosahexaenoic corrosive (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic corrosive (EPA). DHA and EPA are now and again called the marine omega-3s since they, for the most part, originate from fish. A portion of the best fish to eat to get fish oil from in your eating regimen incorporate wild-found salmon, herring, white fish, sardines and anchovies.

Top Fish Oil Benefits

There are such a large number of fish oil benefits. These are quite recently a portion of the best deductively demonstrated fish oil benefits I need to make you mindful of.

1. ADHD

Numerous individuals from the restorative group, similar to myself, trust that problematic levels of omega-3 unsaturated fats may add to side effects of ADHD and related formative issues and also numerous other emotional well-being issues over one's lifetime. (4)

A recent report included youngsters from 6 to 12 years old with ADHD who were being treated with methylphenidate and standard conduct treatment for over a half year. The guardians of these youngsters announced no change in conduct and scholastic picking up utilizing these standard medications. The analysts arbitrarily gave a portion of the kids an omega-3 and omega-6 supplement or a fake treatment. They discovered "measurable critical change" for the omega bunch in the accompanying classifications: anxiety, forcefulness, finishing work and scholarly execution. (5)

Another investigation found that expanding omega-3 consumption, particularly DHA, may enhance education and conduct in youngsters with ADHD. (6) Fish oil is accepted to work through its impacts on cerebrum work, which bodes well when you consider that 60 percent of the mind is made out of fats. (7)

2. Alzheimer's Disease

For quite a while now, the fish oil and Alzheimer's disease association has been examined with reliable outcomes. The basic unsaturated fats key for mind work that are found in fish oil can moderate intellectual decay, as well as can help anticipate cerebrum decay in more established grown-ups. An investigation distributed in the FASEB Journal took a gander at the well-being impacts of four-to 17-month supplementation with omega-3 unsaturated fats and cancer prevention agents. The discoveries at the end of the day affirm the potential for fish oil to be utilized as a weapon to fight off the beginning of intellectual decrease and Alzheimer's disease. (8)

Another examination led by scientists at Rhode Island Hospital inspected the connection between fish oil supplementation and pointers of psychological decrease. The subjects of the examination were more seasoned grown-ups: 229 subjectively typical people, 397 patients with gentle psychological weakness and 193 patients with Alzheimer's disease. They were surveyed with neuropsychological tests and cerebrum attractive reverberation imaging at regular intervals while taking fish oil supplements. The examination found that the grown-ups taking fish oil (who had not yet built up Alzheimer's and did not have hereditary hazard factor for building up Alzheimer's known as APOE ε4) experienced altogether less psychological decrease and cerebrum shrinkage than grown-ups not taking fish oil. (9)

3. Tension

The European Journal of Neuroscience distributed an investigation in 2013 demonstrating that fish oil turned around all tension like and dejection like conduct changes actuated in rats. This is an intriguing investigation since it focuses on the significance of supplementing with fish oil at "basic times of mental health." (10) This is precisely why I prescribe giving fish oil to our children from at an early stage to help them so they won't create uneasiness or wretchedness further down the road.

4. Joint inflammation

An 18-month ponder was distributed in 2014 that assessed how borage seed oil — rich in GLA — and fish oil rich fared against each other in treating patients with rheumatoid joint inflammation. It was found that each of the three gatherings (one taking fish oil, one taking borage oil and one taking a blend of the two) "showed huge decreases" in disease movement, and no treatment beat the others. For every one of the three, "important clinical reactions" were the same following nine months. (11)

This is awesome news for both fish and borage oil with regards to joint pain patients, however, it's basic to accentuate that the outcomes were the same since taking excessively numerous supplements is essentially a misuse of cash.

Another investigation likewise demonstrated that omega-3 fish oil supplements worked similarly and also NSAIDs in lessening joint agony and are a more secure other option to NSAIDs. (12)

5. Cancer

Logical examinations have discovered that fish oil can forestall and murder different cancers, including colon, prostate and bosom. (13) Not just has to examine demonstrated that it makes regular cancer sedates more successful, but on the other hand, it's a compelling stand-alone treatment in characteristic cancer treatment.

A logical survey distributed in 2013 took a gander at omega-3 polyunsaturated unsaturated fats and prostate cancer anticipation. Specialists reasoned that there's a lot of proof proposing that omega-3s have antiproliferative impacts – which implies they hinder cancer cell development – in cancer cell lines, creature models and people. What's more, the "immediate impacts on cancer cells" and circuitous calming consequences for the insusceptible framework battling cancer likely add to the capacity of omega-3 unsaturated fats to hinder tumour development. (14)

A gathering out of India directed an investigation distributed in Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology in view of the preface that "fish oil rich in n-3 polyunsaturated unsaturated fats has been wanted to chemosensitive tumour cells to hostile to cancer tranquillizes." The examination found that utilizing 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) to treat colorectal cancer alongside fish oil expanded the survival rate in cancer-causing agent treated creatures. Analysts likewise found that the fish oil improved hematologic sadness, alongside gastrointestinal, hepatic and renal poisonous quality caused by the 5-FU. (15)

A logical survey in 2014 assessed think about discoveries on omega-3 allow in connection to the avoidance and treatment of bosom cancer, the most predominant cancer among ladies. The audit found that EPA and DHA, and in addition ALA, can differentially repress bosom tumour improvement. As indicated by this survey, there is strong proof to help the utilization of omega-3s as "a wholesome intercession in the treatment of bosom cancer to upgrade traditional therapeutics, or conceivably bringing down compelling measurements." (16) Additionally, a recent report found that "high fish utilization in early adulthood to midlife might be related to the diminished danger of bosom cancer." (17)

Fish oil likewise appears to be useful for another kind of cancer experienced by ladies: endometrial cancer. A logical report as of late distributed in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition finds that "long chain omega-3 consumption related with diminished endometrial cancer hazard just in ordinary weight ladies." (18)

6. Cardiovascular Disease

As per the Cardiovascular Research Institute in Maastricht in Netherlands, "Epidemiological examinations demonstrate that supplanting fat with sugars may even be more awful [than the Western-sort high-fat diet] and that different polyunsaturated unsaturated fats (FA) have valuable as opposed to inconvenient impacts on CVD (cardiovascular disease) result." This incorporates fish-oil unsaturated fats with calming properties, which can help avoid and invert a plenty of cardiovascular diseases. (19)

Studies have likewise discovered that omega-3 unsaturated fats from fish oil are related to enhanced survival rates for heart assault casualties. An investigation distributed in the therapeutic diary Circulation found that individuals who took a high measurement of fish oil each for a half year following the event of a heart assault really enhanced their hearts' general working and furthermore lessened biomarkers of foundational aggravation. (20)

7. Sadness

We've just observed that fish oil can help with sadness like side effects in rats, yet shouldn't something be said about individuals? An examination distributed in the diary Nutritional Neuroscience assessed the impacts of fish oil supplementation on prefrontal metabolite fixations in youths with the real depressive issue. Scientists found that there was a 40 percent diminish in significant dejection issue side effects notwithstanding checked changes in amino corrosive and nourishment content in the cerebrum, particularly, the privilege dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. (21)

8. Diabetes

An examination distributed in Brain Research demonstrates how sweeping fish oil can be for individuals with diabetes. Looks into found that fish oil can help decrease the danger of diabetics from creating psychological shortage since it shields the hippocampus cells from being wrecked. The examination additionally demonstrated that fish oil could help lessen oxidative anxiety, which assumes a focal part in the improvement of diabetes complexities, both microvascular and cardiovascular. (22)

Another current examination demonstrates that greasy fish utilization can cut the danger of eye-diabetes intricacies. The looks into followed the fish utilization of around 3,600 diabetic men and ladies between the ages of 55 and 80 for almost five years. The scientists found that individuals who routinely extended 500 milligrams every day of omega-3 unsaturated fat in their eating methodologies (equivalent to two servings of greasy fish every week) were 48 percent less inclined to create diabetic retinopathy than the individuals who devoured less.

9. Eye Disorders

There's more uplifting news with regards to fish oil and eye well-being, and it's recently not only for diabetic this time. Fish oil has been appeared to invert age-related eye issue. In March 2014, French specialists assessed 290 patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD), and they found that dietary oil fish and fish admission were fundamentally lower in AMD patients. Because of the high EPA and DHA levels in fish oil, it was reasoned that this sort of dietary intercession could particularly profit those at high hazard for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. (24)

A higher admission of polyunsaturated fats like those found in fish and fish oils have likewise been connected to decreased levels of cortical waterfalls.

10. Insusceptible System Function

A creature considers uncovered that when the cancer prevention agent astaxanthin is consolidated with fish oil, the in susceptible boosting power is duplicated. The scientists trust that the aftereffects of this examination are certainly relevant to human well-being. They infer that the examination fortifies the well-being advancing impacts of continual fish utilization. (25)

Salmon is a fish that normally contains both fish oil and astaxanthin. I additionally prescribing purchasing a fish oil supplement that contains astaxanthin.

11. Skin and Hair

The medical advantages of fish oil can be unfathomable for the body's biggest organ, the skin. This wellspring of fundamental facts enhances the well-being and magnificence of human skin in a few ways. Fish oil benefits and sustains the skin with fats and contributes fat-dissolvable vitamins that assistance skin keeps up a smooth, versatile surface. There is additionally confirm that fish oil averts wrinkles and conflicts with the maturing procedure.

The lack of EPA and DHA in consuming fewer calories adds to skin conditions, for example, dandruff, diminishing hair, dermatitis and psoriasis, and also age spots and sun spots. Without the basic unsaturated fats, a lot of dampness leaves the skin. The fact of the matter is your inside well-being can show up on your skin, and taking fish oil inside as a supplement might be on a par with or superior to applying ordinary lotions.

In one examination, people taking fish oil identical to 1.8 grams of EPA had a huge diminishment in side effects of skin inflammation following 12 weeks. Scientists trust that these impacts might be because of fish oil's capacity to lessen leukotriene B4, an incendiary substance that assumes a part in skin inflammation. (26)

As per the National Psoriasis Foundation, fish oil can help in counteracting or abating coronary illness, which is particularly incredible for psoriasis and psoriatic joint inflammation sufferers who are at a higher danger of creating coronary illness. (27) When it comes to utilizing fish oil supplements for the mitigation of psoriasis manifestations, thinks about have been blended with some indicating change yet others demonstrating no impact. In the event that you experience the ill effects of psoriasis, you might need to attempt a fish oil supplement, or else I very prescribe that you make a point to have fish rich in omega-3s frequently.

One of the most compelling motivations fish oil prompts more advantageous skin is unquestionably the way that it can decrease irritation. Research has demonstrated that fish oil supplements can even diminish sun-actuated irritation and give sunburn alleviation. "The sunburn reaction is notably diminished by dietary fish oil rich in omega-3 polyunsaturated unsaturated fats." (28)

12. Ripeness and Pregnancy

Late investigations have demonstrated that the utilization of fish oil (or, all the more particularly, the omega-3 unsaturated fats found in fish oil) can enhance fruitfulness in the two men and ladies. DHA, which is a side-effect of omega-3 unsaturated fats, assumes a key part in the versatility of sperm and well-being of sperm in men. Low blood levels of DHA have been connected to diminished richness. Creature considers have discovered that the DHA in fish is key to changing broken round-headed sperm into solid swimmers with cone-molded heads pressed with egg-opening proteins. (29)

Fish oil has additionally been appeared to expand fruitfulness in ladies by decreasing irritation, adjusting hormones and managing their cycles. Additionally, fish oil has been discovered viable in treating conditions like polycystic ovarian disorder and endometriosis, which can cause barrenness.

Fish oil is added to a great degree advantageous for pregnant ladies and their kids. All through pregnancy and furthermore while breastfeeding, a lady's omega-3 needs are considerably higher than regular. As per the American Pregnancy Association, generally, U.S. ladies are insufficient in EPA and particularly DHA going into pregnancy and get much more drained amid pregnancy, as the placenta supplies the baby with DHA from the mother's tissue. Omega-3 DHA is a basic building piece of the fetal cerebrum, eyes and sensory system. Once the child is conceived, omega-3s keep on being indispensable to sound mental health and safe capacity. (30)

Omega-3 unsaturated fats additionally appear to decrease the shot of unexpected labour. (31) EPA and DHA admission can help bolster solid work and conveyance results. This omega-3 team additionally standardizes inclination and general prosperity in the mother subsequent to conceiving an offspring.

13. Weight reduction

Australian specialists distributed after effects of an investigation inspecting the impacts of fish oil on weight reduction in a blend with eating routine and exercise in the May 2007 issue of American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The outcomes demonstrate that a blend of fish oil supplements and standard exercise can lessen muscle to fat ratio ratios while additionally enhancing heart and metabolic well-being. The fish supplementation aggregate had brought down triglycerides, expanded HDL cholesterol and enhanced blood stream. In general, adding fish oil to a flow practice program (and a general sound way of life) seems as though it can diminish muscle to fat quotients and also cardiovascular disease hazard. (32)

Another little examination had all volunteers devour the same correct control eat fewer carbs and substituted fish oil for unmistakable fats (things like spread and cream). The volunteers expended six grams of fish oil every day for three weeks. They found that muscle to fat quotients masses diminished with the admission of fish oil. The analysts presume that dietary fish oil decreases muscle to fat quotients and fortifies the utilization of unsaturated fats for the creation of vitality in sound grown-ups. (33)

In the event that you've been pondering, "What fishes oil do?" ideally you now have a superior thought of the expansive cluster of conceivable fish oil benefits!

Fish Oil Nutritional Background

The fundamental nourishing estimation of fish oil is its high unsaturated fat substance. As I just said, fish oil benefits originate from the way that it's rich in the omega-3 unsaturated fats known as DHA and EPA.

Pondering about the specifics of fish oil nourishment? One teaspoon (four grams) of fish oil from sardines, for instance, contains roughly: (34)

40.6 calories

4.5 grams fat (1.5 grams soaked fat)

0 milligrams sodium

0 grams fibre

0 grams sugar

0 grams protein

14.9 universal units vitamin D (4 percent DV)

1,084 milligrams omega-3 unsaturated fats (DV differs by age and sexual orientation)

90.6 milligrams omega-6 unsaturated fats (DV differs by age and sexual orientation)

Healthful data differs by item and fish source. Check supplement marking for particular points of interest.

Omega-3 Deficiency Side Effects

A considerable lot of Americans' medical issues can be followed back to having an awkwardness of omega-3 and omega-6 fats. Omega-6 fats aren't really terrible for you, yet in the event that they're devoured in huge sums without omega-3s, they cause irritation, which prompts endless disease.

Today, the normal American has a 20:1 proportion of omega-6 to omega-3 fats, when a solid proportion is all the more preferably around 2:1. Put in other numerical terms, the regular American eating regime has a tendency to contain 14 to 25 times more omega-6 unsaturated fats than omega-3 unsaturated fats. (35) This shows exactly how inadequate the greater part of us are and why supplementing with fish oil is so helpful.

The greatest reason for Omega-3 insufficiency is the over consumption of sustenances high in omega-6 unsaturated fats. Omega-6 originates from things like fricasseed sustenances, quick nourishments and boxed sustenances that contain vegetable oils like soybean oil, canola oil, sunflower oil, cottonseed oil and corn oil. When you expand excessively omega-6, it can diminish your body's capacity to process sound omega-3 unsaturated fats. (36)

Research has demonstrated that having a lower proportion of omega-6/omega-3 unsaturated fats can diminish the danger of numerous basic interminable diseases. Getting enough omega-3, which implies having a legitimate adjust of omega-3 and omega-6, has been appeared in several investigations to conceivably give benefits to numerous incendiary diseases, including: (37)

ADHD

Asthma

Joint pain

Immune system diseases

Cancer

Discouragement

Coronary illness

It's additionally critical to realize that despite the fact that specific different sustenances like flaxseeds and grass-encouraged hamburger contain omega-3 fats, those omegas are ALA and not EPA/DHA like what's found in fish oil. As indicated by the restorative research, there are much more medical advantages in fish oil (EPA/DHA) than flax oil (ALA) for a great many people.

It's likewise vital to take note of that omega-6 unsaturated fats aren't awful for you. Truth be told, if your eating regimen contains an excessive number of omega-3 unsaturated fats, your insusceptible framework wouldn't work extremely well. It's about the adjust of these two basic unsaturated fats.

Instructions to Take Fish Oil Supplements

Your most ideal approach to accomplish a decent adjust of omega-3 and omega-6 is by getting your fish oil from wild-got fish like salmon. In any case, regardless I think it is advantageous for some to supplement with a brilliant omega 3 fish oil or cool liver oil. Besides, cool water fish are every now and again sullied with mercury and pesticide deposits, making it exceptionally hard to securely accomplish prescribed levels.

Along these lines, supplementing your eating regimen with immaculate hostile to oxidant rich fish oil can be a standout amongst other approaches to get your omega 3s. The sorts of fish which are most normally utilized as a part of fish oil supplements are salmon, cod liver, mackerel, sardines, halibut, pollock and herring.

Presently, there isn't a set standard proposal for what number of omega-3s we require every day, except recommendations run from a fish oil measurements of 500 to 1,000 milligrams day by day relying upon whom you inquire. How simple is it to get these suggested sums? To give you a thought, there are more than 500 milligrams of aggregate omega-3s of every one container of fish and one little serving of wild-got salmon.

When taking fish oil, more is not generally better. Keep in mind that you need it to remain in an adjusted proportion with omega-6 fats. For the vast majority, I prescribe 1,000-milligram measurements of fish oil day by day as a decent sum and the most experimentally examined dose. I exceedingly suggest not taking more than that unless coordinated to under the supervision of a specialist.

Likewise, not all fish oils are made the equivalent. Most fish oils are exceedingly handled and can oxidize effectively in light of the fact that omega-3 fats are polyunsaturated, have a low warmth limit and can without much of a stretch go smelly. Hence, you need to purchase a fish oil in triglyceride shape that additionally contains cancer prevention agents to protect them like astaxanthin or basic oils.

To enhance the wellbeing of your heart, cerebrum, skin, hair, body and a whole lot more, consider adding fish oil to your day by day supplement administration or expend wild-got fish every day. In case you're antagonistic to fish oil pills, make a point to get no less than two servings of greasy fish every week to satisfy your omega-3 needs and furnish your body with fish oil benefits. This is a proposal likewise supported by the American Heart Association. (38)

Does Fish Oil Cause Prostate Cancer?

In 2013, an investigation turned out that made many people worried about fish oil supplements and cancer. The examination, distributed in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, demonstrated that men who devour the biggest measure of fish oil had a 71 percent higher danger of high-review prostate cancer and a 43 percent expansion in a wide range of prostate cancer. The investigation was led by 2,227 men, of which 38 percent of the men as of now had prostate cancer. (39)

As per scientist Theodore Brasky from the Ohio State University Medical Center, "These fish oil supplements in which a few men getting mega, super measurements… as we would see it that is likely a smidgen hazardous." (40)

What is a "super dosage"? The American Heart Association considers taking up to three grams of fish oil every day "safe." It prompts that "patients taking more than 3 grams of omega-3 unsaturated fats from cases ought to do as such just under a doctor's care." (41) Most doctors would state that taking 2+ grams (or 2,000+ milligrams) day by day is a uber dosage.

So do I think you should quit taking your fish oil promptly due to this investigation? No. In any case, would it be advisable for you to investigate what amount of fish oil you take and what mark you take? Yes, certainly.

The motivation behind why fish oil could expand a man's danger of prostate cancer is IMBALANCE. Like I said before, omega-6 unsaturated fats aren't terrible for you. Truth be told, if your eating regimen contains an excessive number of omega-3 unsaturated fats, your invulnerable framework wouldn't work extremely well since omega-3 and omega-6 unsaturated fats are intended to work in an arrangement of balanced governance. Omega-3 unsaturated fats stifle aggravation, and omega-6 unsaturated fats advance irritation, which really underpins your body's common arrangement of resistance like enacting your white platelets.

Along these lines, in the event that you devour an excessive number of omega-3 fats (EPA/DHA), you can really debilitate your resistant framework, which would support as opposed to avert cancer. So I take this investigation to be a decent case of why more is not increased with regards to supplements, and you ought to be wary not to try too hard with fish oil or some other supplement.

Fish Oil Side Effects, Interactions and Precautions

In case you're not ready to get enough fish oil benefits through your eating routine, fish oil supplements can be a decent alternative. Fish oil symptoms can incorporate burping, awful breath, acid reflux, queasiness, free stools, rash and nosebleeds, yet I would say, taking a superb fish oil supplement can decrease the probability of any undesirable reactions. It's additionally a smart thought to bring fish oil with dinners to decrease reactions.

Before taking fish oil, you ought to talk with your specialist in the event that you presently take any pharmaceutical or have any progressing well-being concerns. You ought to likewise address your specialist before taking fish oil in the event that you have a known fish or shellfish hypersensitivity.

On the off chance that you have a draining issue, would effectively or take blood-diminishing pharmaceuticals, you should utilize fish oil supplements with additional alert since extensive measurements of omega-3 unsaturated fats can expand draining danger. This draining danger additionally applies to individuals with no history of draining issue or current drug use. On the off chance that you have sort 2 diabetes, you should just utilize fish oil supplements under your specialist's supervision. People with sort 2 diabetes can encounter increments in fasting glucose levels while taking fish oil supplements.

My gauge is that near 90 percent of fish oils available today may contain mercury and pesticide buildups in addition to hydrogenated oils. Obviously, this is my conclusion in view of my own examination of going to various assembling plants, talking with organizations, and concentrate the exploration and the recorded elements of regular fish oils. I would avoid ALL fish oils that don't have cell reinforcements like astaxanthin, which help balance out the oil from going foul. I generally search for astaxanthin as a major aspect of any astounding fish oil supplement.

To maintain a strategic distance from fish oil supplements containing mercury or other destructive contaminants, buy supplements from a legitimate source that obviously tests for these well-being unsafe contaminants in its items. These tests ought to be in a perfect world led by an outsider, and an endorsement of investigation ought to demonstrate the levels of virtue from ecological poisons.

Last Thoughts on Fish Oil Benefits

Omega-3 unsaturated fats are basic to our well-being, however, our bodies can't make them so we should get them from eating fewer carbs. On the off chance that eating regimen is insufficient to address our issues, at that point a fantastic fish oil supplement is the following best choice.

The best fish oil supplement constantly ones fabricated under strict measures with exhaustive testing for well-being unsafe contaminants like mercury.

Post-supplementation "fish burps" can be dodged by expanding fish oil with nourishment.

Fish oils can be utilized as anticipation to medical issues and a treatment.

Logical investigations have and keep on backing up the greater part of the unbelievable fish oil benefits running from skin inflammation and fruitfulness to coronary illness and many sorts of cancer.

[thescienceofbeingsherlocked-blog]

Moffat’s Irene Adler - A Sacrilege to canon or The Perfect Match?

To follow this discussion, it is good to know that I make a distinct difference in how I refer to the Sherlock Holmes character in 21th Century versus how I refer to the character in the 19th Century. The 21th Century character will be referred to as “Sherlock” and the 19th Century character as “Holmes”. The same is to be said for Irene Adler when not referring to her whole name.

When the second season of Sherlock aired in early 2012, the first episode was the memorable A Scandal in Belgravia. The episode received generally great criticism, by many thought of as the best episode of the series over all, including myself. On the other hand, there was a lot of criticism against writer Steven Moffat’s portrayal of one of the most famous characters from the original books and short stories, by far the most famous female character: Irene Adler. As I understand the discussion, the core in this criticism was that the portrayal was unfaithful against the source material, Arthur Conan Doyle’s canon. When studying the criticism, I have been able to find three subjects in the arguments that got my attention.

Sherlock Holmes saves Irene Adler after he has outwitted her, making her a damsel in distress. In the original story, Irene Adler outwitted Holmes and escaped after leaving a single letter to him. She managed to get herself out of the pressing situation.

The portrayal of Irene Adler’s personality was unfaithful to canon because she was not obsessed with deceiving Holmes in the original story. She just moved him out of her way and then continued with her life.

The portrayal was a stereotypical way of writing female characters, a sexist way of portraying one of the few characters, male or female, which ever deceived Holmes.

In this article I will examine these three subjects in the criticism in comparison with the portrayal of Irene Adler in Conan Doyle’s canon. I will use my understanding of the historical context and gender theoretical concepts to explain my thesis. How legitimate is the criticism?

Irene Adler in Conan Doyle’s Canon

To understand the criticism and the way Irene Adler is portrayed in Sherlock, it is important to actually go back to the original portrayal of her: the one in Conan Doyle’s canon. Adler did her only appearance in the short story A Scandal in Bohemia, the first story from the The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes to be published in “The Strand Magazine” in the year of 1891. Even though Adler just did one appearance in canon, no other female character ever reached her popularity and she has ever since been portrayed as a love interest to Holmes in many of the adaptions during the 20th Century. I think this has much to do with the way Conan Doyle chose to describe her in the first monologue in the short story, were he makes Watson describe her as the woman to Holmes:

“To Sherlock Holmes she is always the woman. I have seldom heard him mention her under any other name. In his eyes she eclipses and predominates the whole of her sex. It was not that he felt any emotion akin to love for Irene Adler. All emotions, and that one particularly, were abhorrent to his cold, precise but admirably balanced mind. He was, I take it, the most perfect reasoning and observing machine that the world has seen, but as a lover he would have placed himself in a false position. He never spoke of the softer passions, save with a gibe and a sneer. They were admirable things for the observer -- excellent for drawing the veil from men's motives and actions. But for the trained reasoner to admit such intrusions into his own delicate and finely adjusted temperament was to introduce a distracting factor which might throw a doubt upon all his mental results. Grit in a sensitive instrument, or a crack in one of his own high-power lenses, would not be more disturbing than a strong emotion in a nature such as his. And yet there was but one woman to him, and that woman was the late Irene Adler, of dubious and questionable memory.” (A Scandal in Bohemia, 1891)

Even though there are many other female clients involved in the books, and even a few that is described as of interest to Holmes (for example my favourite: Violet Hunter in The Adventure of the Copper Beeches (1892)), they are never described as so special to Holmes as Adler is, to the point that she is the one. And sure, it is not difficult to see why. She has “…the face of the most beautiful of women and the mind of the most resolute of men.” as is explained by the client in the story, the King of Bohemia.

In the story Irene Adler is an American opera singer who has had an affair with the King, resulting in an incriminating photography of the two of them together that now is in her possession. As the King is about to get married to a woman of higher birth, Adler threatens to send the photography to the family of his bride. Holmes is put on the case which ends with him deceiving her into showing were the photograph is hidden by disguising himself as an injured vicar. In the end, Adler realises her mistake and pays Holmes an unaware visit, herself now disguised as a man. When Holmes, Watson and the King enter her home the next morning they are met by the news that she has escaped with her newly wed husband. She leaves a letter to Holmes, saying that she does not intend to send the photograph to the King’s fiancée if he does not threaten her himself. She also leaves a photograph of herself which Holmes claims as his reward for the case, a momentum of the woman that beat him at his own game.

Adler as an emphasised femininity in the 19th Century

To understand this portrayal of Irene Adler we actually need to look at the context in which the story was written. In my college essay in gender studies from 2015 I argued that the portrayal of Irene Adler was a portrayal of the femininity that appeared emphasised by the 19th Century. Empathised femininity means the form of femininity that is thought of as the most valuable in society. In this way, it is the female version of Raewyn Connell’s theory of hegemonic masculinity. Connell argues that femininity never can be hegemonic because it is always seen as less valuable than the hegemonic masculinity, there by the concept of emphasised femininity. (For a deeper understanding of Connell’s two concepts, see Connell, Raewyn (1987), Gender and Power: Society, the Person, and Sexual Politics) In 19th Century England, the ideal of the middle class woman was the emphasised femininity and that is what Irene Adler embodies in numerous ways.

Let me present some examples. Through the whole story she is described as incredibly beautiful. She also appears to be kind hearted, the way she treats to Holmes, disguised as the injured vicar. On top of this, she also becomes married to a “gentleman” during the course of the story. She is essentially everything a middle class woman should be. In the essay I argued that this portrayal could be intended to actually weigh up for her intellectual abilities and the threat of a scandal that she places on the King. During the 19th Century, considerable intellectual abilities were a male coded practice. What is ought to remember is that this was a time were the gender differences between men and women were presented in a highly dualistic fashion. Women were thought of as naturally not as intellectual as men and would also stay in the private sphere while men were to be active in the public sphere of society. Women in the public sphere were in many cases perceived as immoral, even taken for being prostitutes. Because Irene Adler is just as clever as Holmes, she is intruding on male attributes, something that could have created controversy in the reality of the highly dualistic Victorian Britain. The way Adler is portrayed apart from her intellectual abilities is therefore basically the ideal of a lady in the 19th Century, in everything from her looks and her manner to her marriage, to avoid a scandal about her – both in the sense of the story and in reality.

Irene Adler and Sherlock Holmes in the 21th Century

Based on this background, I will now try to explain why the criticism against A Scandal in Belgravia is legitimate and why I think it is not. For memory’s sake, these were that Sherlock Holmes saves Irene Adler after he has outwitted her, making her a damsel in distress, that Irene Adler was not obsessed with deceiving Holmes in the original story and that the portrayal was stereotypical and sexist way of writing female characters.

In the case of the first criticism, I do not actually agree with the arguments. My argument is based on not so much the narrative of the original story but on the script of the episode itself.  In the original short story, Irene Adler escapes with the help of her own wit while in A Scandal in Belgravia she needs to be saved by Sherlock by the end of the episode. The “damsel in distress” version can be one interpretation of that final scene but I think that is a simple one where the viewer hasn’t paid attention to the events earlier on in the episode. During the scene where Irene has broken into the apartment on Baker Street, she explains to Sherlock and John:

“I make my way in the world; I misbehave. I like to know people will be on my side exactly when I need them to be.” (A Scandal in Belgravia, 2012)

When Sherlock decides to save Irene in Karachi, he basically confirms this quote. In this way, who is it really who lost the game when he did what she said she use to make people do? I do know that this is not new information. Steven Moffat has himself proclaimed that this is what he wanted the script to be understood as. Of course it can be perceived as problematic that she ends up looking like a damsel in distress but I still claim that the viewer hasn’t been paying full attention in that case. And to be fair, Irene Adler ran away with her husband in canon. I don’t know if that is any “better” from a feminist point of view?

In the case of the other two criticisms I will argue more freely and more deeply. My argument for example is that Irene is using her femininity and sexuality to throw Sherlock off his game because she knows that it is the only thing she has against him because he is just as good at playing the game as she is. Some might say that this is not according to canon. That there Irene Adler truly outwits him without her sexuality. Even though that might be true to some point, it's not completely true in my opinion. Irene Adler can be understood as that she actually does use, even if unintentional, her position as a woman to deceive Holmes in canon. You see, Holmes is a man of his time, meaning that he do underestimate Adler because of the fact that she is a woman, even though how clever she might be. It is interesting to speculate that maybe it wasn’t even unintentional? Because of Adler’s intellectual abilities it is most probable that she was very aware of this fact and used it to her advantage. As said before though, this is just a speculation.

Another point in the criticism was that Irene Adler in canon was not obsessed with playing Holmes. I do agree on that. Holmes and Adler weren’t the main players in canon. Holmes is coming in her way and she mauves him out of her way as painless as possible for all parts involved. That is true. So why does she play an intense game of wits with Sherlock in A Scandal in Belgravia? Is this actually very unfaithful to canon? No, I actually don’t think so either.

To understand this we need to let go of our focus on Irene Adler for a moment and look at her opponent: the one and only Sherlock Holmes.

Let’s look at it this way: Sherlock in the 21th Century is a man of his time, just like Holmes is a man of his, as I have already mentioned. Sherlock Holmes in the books embodies the spirit of the 19th Century and can even be understood as an example of hegemonic masculinity, if we want to take the analysis this far. He is his mind and he has no human weaknesses. On the other hand, he is also a gentleman which is displayed a number of times throughout the books and short stories. This is also clear when watching The Abominable Bride (2016)where the contrast between “Holmes” and “Sherlock” can be compared, almost literary side by side. The conclusion is not surprisingly that our 21th Century Sherlock can be a really mean asshole. Why he plays people the way he does is the same reason why he has chosen his profession – he does what he does because he enjoys it.

So here we have this hyperactive, quite uncaring person who has shown more than once that he doesn’t back down to play people if it favours his purpose. What kind of opponent will you create for him that can put him in his place? The answer: someone who will not back down from playing just as foul, that enjoys playing people just as much as he does. My argument is that if Moffat had written Irene Adler like she was portrayed in the books she would have appeared to be “wimpy” compared to Sherlock and then the portrayal would have gotten criticism for that. Sure, she is portrayed like a true “femme fatale” in every sense of the words and the portrayal can surely be criticised for being stereotypical of a female “villain”, quite like that of Catwoman in the comic books and movies about Batman. As Irene Adler in A Scandal in Bohemia can be understood as the emphasised femininity to Holmes hegemonic masculinity, Irene Adler in A Scandal in Belgravia can be understood as the fair match to 21th Century Sherlock. Just as Holmes and Adler were quite alike in A Scandal in Bohemia, Sherlock and Irene are quite alike in A Scandal in Belgravia too.

After this analysis I want to point out that, yes, I am not blind. I see the problem with the portrayal of Irene Adler as a femme fatale. I see the problem with her basically falling for Sherlock and thereby losing because of her feelings, a stereotypical way of portraying a female character. Yes, I do see that some people are angry at her being saved in the end by Sherlock. But… It is important to look at the portrayal in the light of the original story and realise that is it really that far away from canon, that actually was some of the main criticism against the episode? Well, that is a question that can be discussed further, a discussion that I hope I have given a contribution to.

Pictures:

1) The Detective and the Woman. Editing of Victorian picture of Sherlock Holmes and Irene Adler, portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch and Lara Pulver, by gwendy85.tumblr.com. Final editing by the writer herself. Source: Google.

2) 21th Century illustration of Conan Doyle’s portrayal of Irene Adler. Artist unknown. Source: Google.

[cookinguptales]

queenofthefaces said: i saw a post related to the one anon is talking abt lmao someone was saying junkrat (25) and roadhog (40smth) was PEDOPHILIA LMAO like tumblr has basically thrown away real terms to just use them as buzzwords for things it doesnt like

I MEAN I know exactly nothing about that fandom so I can’t really give a detailed reply but like. Yes, tumblr is well known for a lot of people (particularly young teens) taking an important idea and completely misunderstanding it and running it into the damn ground in their efforts to attain moral purity. On one hand, that’s kind of what your teenage years are for. Getting your head around unfamiliar ideas and working them into your burgeoning worldview. Lord knows I believed some stupid shit when I was 15. But at the same time, you end up getting a mob mentality around concepts that just...aren’t accurate or well-thought through at all... (and lbr not everyone fighting is a kid, either...)

And honestly, a lot of the adults in fandom have lived enough life to know what a ship war looks like no matter what new words you’re using to tear each other apart, and we’ve been through enough shit to know which battles are the important ones to fight. So they just stay out of it and let the younger ones cannibalize each other until they’re basically this bacchanal of gore and buzzwords that’s taking on all comers. Womp womp. Then it spreads.

(more under a cut... this got pretty long because it’s the middle of the night, aka my rambly time...)

Like. Here’s the thing. You’re allowed to not like whatever you want. You’re allowed to find things totally gross! You can avoid someone like no one’s business bc you just don’t like the look of them! You don’t actually need to do much navel gazing to justify that. You’re allowed to just not like things. And you’re allowed to just like things. Sure, people sometimes have deeper patterns they should probably examine, but seriously. Sometimes you just like shit and it’s no deeper than that. Brains are weird.

We’re in a culture now that’s really scrutinizing inequality in politics, media, culture, etc, and I think that’s a good thing. A really good thing. I encourage people to become engaged with these ideas and apply them to their own lives. But I also think sometimes people lash out at others in fandom because they’re low-hanging fruit, so to speak. They can’t do much about directors in Hollywood mostly being straight white men who write movies about straight white men -- so they attack a fangirl for squeeing over the straight white men she’s been given to work with. It’s displacement and it’s to some degree understandable, but it’s still misplaced anger. And jesus christ is it disproportionate to whatever harms are actually being enacted. Like doxxing and death threats are thrown around astoundingly casually nowadays. Like please don’t spam someone with gore just because you don’t like their ship. Just. Please.

Anyway, because people are increasingly criticizing media because of its faults, and that form of media review is being increasingly accepted, there’s become a real problematic=terrible and no one should like it kind of vibe. Truthfully speaking, everything’s gonna have something to improve. And those necessary improvements could be a deal breaker for you, and that’s fine. But nothing is perfect. That’s okay. It can be good while still having necessary criticisms. And for some people (who aren’t you), those positives could be enough to make up for the rough areas. Looking at these things in black and white isn’t helpful. Because of this problematic=bad, pure=good dichotomy, I think people are applying those concepts to...well, everything else, too. They need to have a reason to dislike a person or a show or a ship. One related to Important Things -- which will make their opinion Important (and therefore Legit and Right) as well. They’re associating the rightness of their media preferences with the rightness of a cause. So they come up with a reason. Sometimes it’s legit, sometimes it’s something that doesn’t really make sense, like calling a 25/40 ship “pedophilia”. (Guys, words mean things. I’m not the kind to get precious over the difference between pedophilia and ephebophilia or something, but 25 is very solidly neither.) Either way, they end up fitting these quibbles of theirs into conversations about shit that is way, way more serious than which video game characters you want to see fucking. And y’know, sometimes people have a point, and media can be a reflection of reality. (STILL PLEASE NO DEATH THREATS.) And sometimes people are just hammering away at a puzzle piece that does not fit.

idk man, it’s 3 am. maybe I’m not super coherent anymore. I don’t necessarily want to go back to the total free-for-all that fandom used to be, especially because fandom could be a pretty rank place for marginalized people back then. But this thought process now like “this is something I don’t like” “we’re supposed to dislike things because they’re Evil” “this thing MUST be evil” “anyone who likes it is evil” “we must eradicate the evil” is...guys, it ain’t good.

Pedophilia has really become a rallying cry recently, which isn’t entirely shocking considering how young a lot of people on tumblr are, and I definitely understand the squick from sexualizing characters that actually are kids. But... Look, and I’m coming at this from someone who was literally supplied with underage ship squee as a form of grooming before things went... south... -- a lot of these conversations seem to have basic misunderstandings of the concept. It’s like, because a lot of these people are either kids or 100% wrapped up in mothering kids, they associate pedophilia with taking advantage of vulnerability. Because THEY feel vulnerable, or they worry about kids because they can see their vulnerability. And that’s definitely a large part of it! But it’s sort of like how every square is a rectangle but not every rectangle is a square. All pedophiles take advantage of vulnerability, but not everyone who takes advantage of vulnerability (and for that matter, not every relationship that just contains vulnerability) is a pedophile. So I think that’s sometimes why you see the concept of pedophilia overapplied... Not all predatory (or even just unhealthy) behavior is pedophilia. That word means something specific.

I had a lot more written here, especially about the way that years and years of media have trained people to see fictional children as totally divorced from actual IRL children, but I’m gonna be totally real with you, I can feel the uneasiness creeping up on me and I gotta say, this is a topic I generally avoid for a reason. Please forgive me for bowing out of this one. I need some hot cocoa or something. : /