#it Does Not want to get into the fact the thesis is actually ‘I will do monstrous things to what I love to save it
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
carriesthewind · 22 hours ago
Text
I'm coming back to this b/c I've been thinking about it all day. In no particular order:
The witch hunt of it all. Yes, it sucks that so much stuff is getting deluged in ai bs. Yes, I don't want to consume or promote or share anything produced with or by so-called ai. But, for a certain small but loud & impactful section of people, instead of focusing on the actual problem (the huge volume of bs and the companies/powerful actors producing and promoting it), or even just pointing out specific examples of the failures or harm, it has become the new Tool of Entertaining Witchhunts. Let's find the Bad Person producing the Bad Content, and attack them.
Part of the alleged proof is snippets of writing that are similar. This is an inherently flawed test. The plagiarism bot produces chunks of text that are very similar, but slightly different, than writing it has consumed. It is very good at this, especially if producing discreet chunks - *especially* if it is something that is something for which their is an existing large amount of texts that are very similar, but slightly different, like, say, an extremely common topey moment in an extremely common tropey story. (Also the "writing pattern" isn't identical. Just. Learn how to read. Sorry, that's mean, but I have little patience.)
Maybe you think these metaphors are bad - that's fine! The author of that post certainly does! Real authors use bad metaphors all the time! One of my current most-read fandom authors writes metaphors that are so bad they loop back around to charming. I love this author's work and wait for it eagerly. In fact, this accusation cuts against the claim that it is ai - the bot works by putting words next to each other that are likely to be next to each other - it doesn't know that its "generating descriptions". If having the works "embers" and "pool" near each other in its training data is statistically unlikely, that's an argument against your thesis, not for it, you nitwit. (Doesn't mean it means that it's "proof" that the writer of the fic didn't use a llm! Just that the author of post didn't prove it!)
Trust in the reporter. "Aren't all these coincidences odd? It proves AI." "Well, isn't it odd that you never show the prompt in your screenshots, just the alleged result of your alleged prompt? It proves you are faking it!" <- I do not believe that last sentence. I would need actual proof to believe it. (I also don't believe whether or not their screenshots are actually real results from a prompt to a chatbot - I think they very likely are! - has any effect on whether or not I believe they have evidenced their conclusion - see above.) But the point I want to make is that everyone reblogging that post is trusting that the poster is being honest that they used a chatbot to produce the results, with no proof. Doesn't that seem strange? Shouldn't that be strange?
Also the repeated unevidenced assertions that a certain writing characteristic is a "tell" for ai - where are they getting this from? Like, maybe that's true - but it's not something I've seen shown before, so maybe provide me something other than "trust me bro"???
Maybe I'm just a bit oversensitive to this now, but how is a writer - or an artist - supposed to unprove an accusation once it has been made? I scrolled down just a bit on the author of that posts feed to see that the original fic writer had been unpersoned, and the reasons are not more convincing proof, but that by questioning the author of the post, you are siding with a bot which has "stolen from real authors." I've said it before and I'll say it again - I have no idea if the fic in question was produced by ai or not. Maybe it was. But what about the next fic to be accused like this, because of shoddy "proof" like this? What avenues to authors have to argue their personhood? Why should they *have* to prove their personhood - should that not be the default assumption? Yes, "real authors" have had their work stolen - and a fuck ton of "real authors" have been harassed out of fandom too. Accusations of being "ai" are just the latest in a long history. I'm being really careful here about not knowing whether or not the original fic author used an LLM, because it doesn't matter to my points, and hey, baseless accusations sometimes turn out to accidentally match some element of reality all the time, but it really grosses me out that I have to leave that space when this is literally baseless accusations.
There's a post going around about a specific alleged AI fanfic. The author of the post lists a lot of reasons why they believe the fic is AI. Not linking to the post and not commenting on its conclusion, but.
But.
People.
These???? Are all ABSOLUTELY VALID analogies/expressions???
"her nimble fingers worked with quiet precision"
"his grip firm but tender"
"her gown pooling around her like embers"
But the post says that:
fingers don't make sound, so what does quiet precision mean? as opposed to what? her joints cracking with every movement? how is a grip firm but tender? what does that mean? since when do embers pool? the entire fic is littered with these adjectives that contradict each other or just straight up do not make sense, because all an ai does is generate descriptive language with no understanding of what the words it's spitting out actually mean
Come on, man. These are perfectly serviceable! Quiet precision and firm but tender are bog standard fictional expressions. Granted, I've never seen the simile of a dress pooling like embers, but I like it! It evokes!
They are absolutely something that an actual living breathing person would write! (In fact they're so serviceable that if the fic is AI they're probably plagiarised) (although firm but tender is SO common I'm not sure it can be plagiarised? It's like 'toeing off his shoes').
Like, yeah, AI sucks. I agree it sucks.
But analogies or expressions that aren't a one to one match for truth (reality? observable fact? whatever, you get what I mean) are not bad?? They don't mean a fic was written with AI?? They're what makes writing GOOD. Makes it interesting.
Sure, 'her nimble fingers moved like bones and tendons covered by skin because they were bones and tendons covered in skin, but her movements were so expertly precise that no one noticed just how super precise they were' might be entertaining. briefly.
But the whole POINT of metaphor and simile is to evoke a reaction. An emotion.
There's a post by silentwalrus that I cannot find (thanks tumblr search), and it's pissing me off, because they perfectly talked about this! About metaphor and how to write original and effective ones (something they're VERY good at). The example was something like 'he did a thing like a scorpion hidden under a bush' and pointing out that if you looked at it too close it didn't make sense, but it evoked a reaction.*
A clever or strange or evocative analogy or expression does not mean it was written by AI.
____________________________
*I may be misremembering the details, and if so I apologise; it was a long time ago, but I'm positive it involved a scorpion.
373 notes · View notes
tortademaracuya · 1 year ago
Text
It feels undeserving 👍
#once again thinking if i should like. not tell anyone#not tell anyone when the festival will be held nor my thesis defense#dont tell anyone absolutely anyone so no one can come see me#whyshould i make people waste time on seeing probably one of the worst things i have worked on#i feel. judged everyday. nothing is as good as it should be#this does not feel like a feat but rather a terrible shame#who cares about my degree i always feel like im being shamed when someone broughts up the fact im working on my thesis#i like what i study. dont get me wrong. and i dont think this in general. this is a me only issue and iknow that#and i know everyone would get upset with me#not like my mind cares haha the thoughts wont stop even if i try to be rational#i feel like such a terrible burden just asking for help. i feel like everyones thinking what a disappointment i am#i shouldnt need help. i should be doing this alone. and it should be way better than the garbage im making#last class the professors asked me 'why did u rate yourself so low? your work is fine'#i didnt even pick the low option i wanted. i picked a higher one to be generous with myself. i wish i had picked a 1. thats what i deserved#even if they say it looks good or that they r excited to see what i make. it all sounds like lies in my head#no one showing up is what i deserve. i shouldnt ask for help. i shouldnt celebrate anything#i wish people would yell at me and tell me what a fuck up i am#'the people that love you would be excited to help you if you would actually let them'#it all feels like a set up for showing what an idiot i am#haunted.txt
4 notes · View notes
stylishanachronism · 11 months ago
Text
Anyway now that I’ve finished Alan wake 2 and sat on it for about a week, I suspect the reason I came out of it distinctly :/ (and why that seems to be the prevailing theme with reviewers) is twofold:
First (and less importantly) there wasn’t enough music
Second (and more seriously), for a game explicitly about the specific brand of horror that encapsulates haunted houses and Scheherazade’s telling stories until she told the story of how she escaped her own death, it really didn’t want to acknowledge that the heart of that fear is love.
0 notes
novelconcepts · 5 months ago
Text
A thing I find really important about the way Kevin Can Fuck Himself goes about its job: Allison is kind of a mess. She’s self-centered, she doesn’t put other people’s needs first, she makes reckless choices that endanger herself and others. And the show says: yes. Right. She’s flawed as fuck. And she still does not deserve any of what’s happening to her. It could be argued that she is, in fact, this flawed as a direct product of her trauma. Her self-absorption, unlike Kevin’s, is actually self-preservation. It puts Patty in danger. It tunes out Diane’s pain. It capitalizes on Sam’s relationship problems. And still, the show says: yes. Right. She’s going about this in fumbling, worrying ways. And she still does not deserve any of what’s happening to her.
Know how we know this? How we really know this, outside of our own objectivity, our own awareness of the abuse she’s enduring even to the soundtrack of laughter?
Because Tammy is the one to find her. Because Tammy is the one holding the cards at the end of the game. Tammy, who does not like Allison. Who sees so clearly the complicated, messy, dangerous person Allison can be. The mistakes she is prone to making in the name of desperation. How imperfect she is at every level. And Tammy, who is the character most explicitly set to call Allison on all of her shit, to drag her before a court of law, to lean on that hot-button of whether or not she’s a “good person” until it breaks—lets her go. Folds the cards up, puts them in her pocket, and leaves.
Because Tammy, like the show, like the thesis statement of abuse is never earned, never deserved, never warranted, understands. This is a world that so often sanitizes women after it’s too late to save them. A world that insists she should have done more to get out. A world that insists you should be kind and moral and perfect, or maybe you got what was coming to you. This is a world that sees fighting back as an equally heinous crime. As punishable, if not more so, than the actions of the instigator.
But this show doesn’t want to play that game. This show doesn’t want to fuck with it at all. Allison doesn’t have to be perfect and moral and above reproach. Allison has blood on her hands, and a DUI neatly ignored, and knowingly has an affair with her married boss. Allison hurts her friends sometimes, and she makes awful decisions out of desperation, and she doesn’t always pay attention to other people’s plotlines. And the show says: yes. Right. She’s making choices you probably should not agree with.
And she still does not deserve any of what is happening to her.
780 notes · View notes
biromanticwritergal · 2 years ago
Text
Okay I did not touch my school assignments today ( :() but I did do 2 hours on the wii fit and managed to finish my journal ( :) ). I started a "new one"- it has an unfinished nanowrimo draft from 2016 in it but I didn't want to waste the notebook because the paper was QUALITY. And the lines are like the perfect size for my hand writing. So reclaiming a half used notebook for my next journal because I can.
0 notes
tardis--dreams · 2 years ago
Text
"Borderline plagiarism" is the scariest thing anyone's ever said about one of my papers but turns out you can still get a B for something like that so idek anymore
0 notes
p0orbaby · 1 month ago
Note
I have an idea for Leah. Maybe Leah preparing to propose to reader? Like picking out the ring, arranging the plans to do it & what to say. Being super stressed that it goes well.
-
The engagement ring is currently sitting in the drawer of Leah’s bedside table. It’s been there for three days. That’s seventy-two hours of her life spent mentally cycling through increasingly absurd ways to ask you to marry her—none of which feel remotely good enough. Yesterday, she briefly considered hiring a flash mob but abandoned the idea when she realised she couldn’t name a single person in her life who would willingly agree to dance in public.
The ring itself is a masterpiece—or, at least, Leah tells herself it is, because the thought of you hating it makes her chest constrict like a bad asthma attack. It’s a gold band, delicate but not fragile, and the diamond is small but impossibly bright, practically nuclear under artificial light. It reminds her of you. Elegant, unassuming, but blindingly brilliant. She spent hours debating between gold and platinum, flipping through online forums and texting Beth for advice, only to be told: Mate, just get what she’ll actually like. Helpful.
She chose gold, naturally, because you once mentioned in passing that platinum felt too cold. You probably don’t even remember saying it, but Leah does. She remembers everything. Like the fact you can’t stand carnations (“soulless flowers”) and that you always eat the crusts off your toast first because it’s more “structurally satisfying.” She’s built this proposal on a foundation of your quirks and preferences. It’s practically a thesis at this point.
Her plan is a dinner reservation at that restaurant—the one with the hand-written menus and waiters who always remember you like your wine dry. She’s already called them to arrange for a quieter table in the corner, away from the clatter of silverware and the prying eyes of other diners. She’s even considered what to wear: a crisp, white shirt with the sleeves rolled to the perfect midpoint of her forearms (which you once confessed makes her look “obnoxiously fit”) and tailored trousers she had altered just last week.
But even with all this planning, Leah feels like she’s holding a ticking bomb. She’s stressed in a way she hasn’t been since that penalty shootout against Brazil. She’s pacing the flat now, her steps echoing faintly on the hardwood floor. “This is ridiculous,” she mutters under her breath. “It’s just a question. Four words. Five if I add a ‘please.’ Six if I say her full name.”
“You alright there?” Beth’s voice crackles through the speakerphone, equal parts curious and entertained. Leah forgot she left her phone on the kitchen counter, still connected to the ongoing call.
“I’m fine,” Leah says, glaring at her phone like it’s personally betrayed her.
“No, you’re not. You’re spiralling”
“I’m not spiralling”
“You’re literally pacing like a dad waiting for news in a hospital drama”
Leah stops pacing. “I just… I want it to be perfect”
“It will be perfect. She loves you, doesn’t she?”
“Yeah, but what if she hates the ring?”
“She won’t”
“What if she says no?”
“She won’t”
“What if I say something stupid like, ‘I can’t wait to do your taxes together’?”
There’s a beat of silence, and then Beth’s laughter bursts through the speaker like an explosion. “Honestly, that’s probably exactly what she’d expect from you”
Leah groans, rubbing her hands over her face. “This isn’t funny”
“It’s a little funny”
She ends the call before Beth can continue her unsolicited pep talk and sits down on the sofa, staring at the box in her hand. It’s absurdly light, considering the weight it carries. She snaps it open, then shut. Open, shut. Like the world’s most expensive stress toy.
You walk into the flat a few hours later, shrugging off your coat with a small sigh. Leah, who’s been pretending to read the same page of a book for the past twenty minutes, immediately tenses. The ring box is hidden in her pocket now, a phantom weight pressing against her thigh.
“Hey,” you say, dropping onto the sofa beside her. “You alright? You look… weird”
She blinks at you, heart pounding. “Weird?”
“Yeah. Like you’ve seen a ghost or just remembered you left the oven on”
She laughs nervously, her hand twitching towards her pocket. The words are there—Will you marry me?—but they stick to her throat, stubborn and immovable.
“Leah?” you prompt, looking at her curiously.
And just like that, she panics.
“Do you want takeaway tonight?” she blurts, the words spilling out in a rush. “I’m thinking Thai”
You raise an eyebrow but nod. “Sure. Thai sounds good”
The proposal will have to wait. Again.
338 notes · View notes
graysoncritic · 9 months ago
Text
A (Negative) Analysis of Tom Taylor's Nightwing Run - Introduction
Introduction Who is Dick Grayson? What Went Wrong? Dick's Characterization What Went Wrong? Barbara Gordon What Went Wrong? Bludhaven (Part 1, Part 2) What Went Wrong? Melinda Lin Grayson What Went Wrong? Bea Bennett What Went Wrong? Villains Conclusion Bibliography
I want to start this essay by admitting I’m actually embarrassed by its length. Why did I spend so much time on something I dislike? The truth is, I did not begin this with the intention of creating such an extensive, formal study of the Tom Taylor and Bruno Redondo’s Nightwing run and how it reflects the wider problems with DC’s handling of one of their most iconic characters. I was just trying to organize the thoughts that came up during discussions with other Dick Grayson fans. Before I knew it, I had enough material, enough desire to challenge myself, and enough frustrations to vent to properly create this monstrosity.
I did not begin this Nightwing run determined to hate it. In fact, I was ready to love it. As Taylor promoted the run before the first issue was officially released, I was so excited for it. As I read short interviews where he discussed Heartless, I could not wait to have a new, incredible villain. Foolishly, I believed Taylor when he said he loved Dick Grayson. 
Needless to say, I was disappointed. Then frustrated. Then angry. The beginning of any story is a period where writer and reader form an indirect bond, and as the story progresses, so do the highs and the lows of said relationship. As such, a reader’s tolerance for negative factors will either increase or decrease depending on their experience up until that point.
In other words, if the writer fails to earn the reader’s trust and instead takes their attention for granted, even seemingly insignificant details become irritating in a way they would not be if presented in a better story. In such scenarios, the reader can no longer overlook those minor moments because there’s little good to balance them out with. It is a death by a thousand cuts. 
In the case of Taylor and Redondo’s run, along with those thousand cuts are also broken bones, internal bleeding, head trauma, and severed limbs. A weak plot, simplistic morality that undermines the story’s stated themes, and, most importantly, a careless disregard for Dick Grayson and everything he stands for utterly destroyed my enjoyment of this series. 
It is still too early to tell what sort of impact Taylor’s (as of time of writing, still unfinished) run will have on Dick Grayson’s future portrayals. But just because we cannot predict its long term significance, it does not mean we cannot critique it. Currently, we simply lack the benefit of hindsight. 
If this essay were to have a thesis, then it is this: Tom Taylor and Bruno Redondo’s Nightwing not only fails to tell a compelling Nightwing story, but it also exemplifies a cynical, self-serving, and shallow approach to storytelling that prioritizes creating hollow viral moments to boost the creators’ own online popularity over crafting a good story, honoring the character in their care, and respecting his fans – fans who have, historically, often been women, queer folk, and other individuals who felt othered by a cisheteronormative patriarchal society. Taylor and Redondo’s thoughtless and superficial narrative not only undermine the socially progressive ideals they supposedly care for by propagating a cisheteronormative patriarchal worldview, but they also demonstrate a lack of love and understanding for the character in their care. At best, Taylor and Redondo have no interest in getting to know Dick Grayson, nor any respect for their predecessor and their contributions to this character. At worst, they despise Dick so much that they wish to reinvent him into something completely different, tossing away everything that was special to his fans in order to appeal to a readership that never cared about Dick Grayson. 
I structured this essay so that, hopefully, each part will build on the ones that came prior. Naturally, because all aspects of a story are interlaced, there will be overlaps between each of the sections. As it may have become obvious from this introduction, I’ll be focusing primarily on the writing of this run. That is not to say that I will not address the art, but writing is the field I know most about, and so it feels only fair to focus my critique on that. 
I hope that by the end of this essay, I will have successfully proved that this run’s mishandling of different narrative elements betray a cynical appropriation of progressive ideology and a disregard and disinterest in what makes Dick Grayson so special to so many people. This is an attitude that is present within DC Comics’ current ethos as a whole.
Now, who is this essay for? Honestly, it’s probably not for Tom Taylor fans. I do not believe I’ll be persuading anyone with my writing, and, to be quite honest, neither would I say I wish to do so. Taylor and Redondo’s run has won numerous awards and has many dedicated fans who adore it for what it is. If that is you, then I’m glad. I wish I could be among your numbers. I wish more than anything that I could love this story. But I do not, and I know many others agree with me, and it is to them, I think, that I’m speaking to. As Taylor’s run is praised to heaven and back, I needed a safe space to voice my thoughts. This essay became this safe space. And to others who also feel unseen by the constant praise this run is getting, I think this could speak to you, as well. To be cliche and cringe, this will hopefully let you know that you are not alone. 
Finally, I want to acknowledge some people whose thoughts greatly contributed to the creation of this essay. For around three years now I’ve been having wonderful interactions with other Dick Grayson’s fans, and those discussions were not only incredibly fun and cathartic, but also provided great insight into what needed to be included in this essay. My best friend especially gave me a space to vent when I got frustrated, and my original outline borrowed a lot from the messages I sent her, as well as notes I took for our discussions.  
I’ll also be directly quoting four different Dick Grayson fans (identified as Dick Grayson Fans A, B, and C in order to allow them to keep their anonymity). Their analyses were so critical to the formation of my thesis and for a lot of what will be addressed in this essay that I actually feel like they deserve co-credit in this essay. Dick Grayson Fan B especially deserves a shoutout in helping me track down a couple of pages used as supporting evidence, as I knew what pages I was looking for but was having a hard time remembering in which issue they were located. I’m quoting them with permission, and crediting their ideas and contributions whenever relevant. 
Now, without any further ado, let’s get started. 
736 notes · View notes
blueraith · 6 days ago
Text
People get way too caught up in "this character is a fighter" trope.
Okay. But why is the character fighting? What cause, person, or thing are they putting their body and life on the line for? It's gonna be something if the character is well written.
Which Vi is.
What happens if they lose that something they've been fighting for over and over and over again? When no matter what they seem to do, their efforts to fight back always end in failure?
Particularly in a story with a theme about the cycle of violence and how it only creates more? When her literal father/narrative mentor figure physically grasps her fist, shakes it and tells her they're only going to cause her more problems?
What do you think the story is trying to say here and throughout the work? It happens early enough to not only be foreshadowing, but a thesis statement for Vi's character.
A thesis statement isn't always just confined to a work overall, they can be applied to characters too. That entire talk with Vander right after the heist is Vi's.
"If people look up to you, you don't get to be selfish."
"This?" Grasps Vi's fist and gently shakes it* "They’re not gonna solve your problems. Just make more of them."
Those two quotes set Vi up as a character for the entire series. Vi is set on a path in which she must learn how to live for herself and she must learn how to live outside of fighting and violence.
Those are the only two directions Vi's character can possibly grow narratively. If there were other options, Vander's talk with her would have been about whatever the fuck her haters wanted. I don't know, maybe, "Well, Vi, you blew up a building, but those Piltie oppressors deserved it. Keep fighting and free Zaun from tyranny."
Obviously Vander didn't say any of that bullshit. My point is that the narrative never, ever sets Vi up as a freedom fighter doomed to always give her life and body for a revolutionary cause. In fact, it does the exact opposite as seen by the conversation above and the later talk Vander has with her about war on the bridge.
If you did not see a rock bottom moment for Vi followed by a drastic change to her character for S2 coming, I question your ability for literally analysis severely. Because Vi surely does not learn the lessons Vander tried to teach her in S1. She actually only ever fights harder and harder and her situation continously deteriorates. Make more problems.
Vi attacks Sevika > Sevika warns Silco she's back
Vi threatens Silco when he finds her > Silco worsens Jinx's mental state with his own trauma with Vander
Vi challenges Silco's relationship with Jinx to Jinx > Jinx feels she has to choose between them in the most violent way possible due to her own trauma
Vi convinces Jayce to attack Silco's operation directly > Furthers tensions between PnZ that culminate into the memorial attack in S2
This is not to say that Vi is solely responsible for the way these events spiraled out of control, but those are her contributions to the cycle of violence. At no point in this story have her confrontational, aggressive, or violent decisions have made anything better.
It gets worse in S2.
Vi joins Cait's taskforce to kill or capture Jinx > Finds out she can't truly harm her sister but not before Jinx turns their strategy with the Grey into yet another terrorist attack on Piltover. (She also loses Caitlyn to Cait's own zeal for violence during her grief.)
Vi succumbs to pit fighting to try and punch away her pain > Hits her lowest point of all, her fighting is now aimless and entirely self-destructive
It's not until she lowers her fists while fighting Warwick that her outlook changes. She finally learns that to make peace, one has to be willing to finally stop fighting.
She does this again at the commune when she takes the gauntlets off without much fight when requested.
This is the story Arcane was always going to tell with Vi. Her's is an introspective and internalized conflict. It was never with Piltover, never as a revolutionary, but always regarding her place as someone grappling with how to escape the cycle of violence and create a life of peace on her own terms.
She wasn’t forgotten, didn't become spineless, and didn't have "nothing" to do in S2.
I think people simply missed this setup with her character. They wrote their own fanwork in their heads in the three year gap between seasons, and have become upset that the version of Vi in their heads was never the Vi Arcane was actually portraying.
I thought Vi's story was poignant, and it's a shame some viewers out there not only completely missed the mark, they're too set in their ways to actually see Vi from this perspective.
106 notes · View notes
chongoblog · 3 months ago
Text
SCREW IT IM GONNA TOOT MY OWN HORN FOR A BIT
So it's been like a month since I put up my last big mashup, and the response has been awesome. I wanted to talk about all the little bits I put in there, because frankly, I put a lot of love into it, and I want to share it! Here's the video of the mashup with the music video (which is a big part of it.)
youtube
First of all, shoutouts to Shoocharu for the incredible animation for the original MV. I've found him to always have the best Game Grumps animations, and his abilities work perfectly for this music video.
Okay, now just to talk about all the Silly Jokes and Bits and Stuff. A lot of these were noticed by comments (and shoutouts to them! I love seeing people get these)
-Ska Cha Cha is used as a reference to the name of the actual song "Transcendental Cha Cha Cha". Close enough.
-A couple samples are used multiple times at different points in the song. For "Tik Tok", "Ska Cha Cha" and "Down" it makes sense since it's the chorus of the song. However, I also bring back "I'm Blue" and "Toxic" because in the original song, those samples are played over the lyrics "The universe is getting colder, colder. Still every universe somehow got Zumba". Those lyrics are repeated at the end of the song, showing how what was once madness is now being embraced. I thought playing those samples again with the full mix was appropriate.
-And yes, in the two appearances of The Void in the music video, MEGALOVANIA plays because he looks kinda like Sans.
-"words, words, words" was a super interesting inclusion. At first I added it because of the lyric "Just relax..." which is a lyric during that portion of Transcendental Cha Cha Cha. Also, not only did "here's two facts" thematically work well (since the song was about to discuss two separate universes) but it also perfectly aligned rhythmically. Also, that "words, words, words" line might be one of my favorite pre-choruses ever.
-I included Cruel Angel's Thesis at someone else's suggestion, but I'm really glad they suggested it. I actually start it with a somewhat heavy low pass filter before slowly fading off it because I thought it sounded cooler.
-I included "Harder Better Faster Stronger" during that portion because Tom's vocal effects sound similar.
-Cha Cha Slide matches perfectly since the lyrics of Transcendental Cha Cha Cha are also "Slide to the left....slide to the right". Incredibly proud of the little breakdown I included during the mix-up portion.
-"Sometimes this song, it sounds like" segment is referencing myself, since over the years I have developed my own patterns. Sometimes the song does indeed sound like Crawling (plus funny commercial next to it. Again...patterns) and sometimes it does sound like All Star (shoutouts to Star Shop)
-The Mighty B! Theme slaps actually.
-I felt like I had to include the Peanut Butter Jelly snippet, since "it's everything and nothing, it's a baseball bat" sounded almost like it was a direct reference to it. I wanted to include the original Tom Cardy lyric on top of that one both to hammer home the joke and also because I thought the harmonic vocals layered perfectly onto Peanut Butter Jelly Time would make for a nice touch.
-Every time I saw someone notice that I put the "God Dammit" directly after Never Gonna Give You Up to imply that he was mad about getting rick rolled, I gained a year of my life.
-Keeping the "Blink!" from the original song I felt was useful to help kinda punctuate the wildly different samples I was using.
-"Money Game" and "Money Money Money" being played over the French Revolution. Completely unrelated, but have you noticed how much wealth inequality we're facing here in America? That's interesting.
-"Closer" and "Closer" is such an easy joke. In fact it's so easy I've done it before. Did it anyway lmao
-During the big buildup, "Larger Than Life" was used mostly because I hadn't used that song before and I thought it was time. "Dare" was put in because I think that the vocals work really well to naturally create a sense of buildup (unless it's the Live version). "Brain Power" was put in to replicate the noise gate that Tom put on his extended note.
-Monkey Watch and Mr Brightside. Again! Patterns!
-toes
So yeah that's Transcendental Fever Dream. I'm sure if I had more time and excuses to talk about all the nitty gritty details and choices made I'd do it, but I think this is a pretty big breakdown. Something's always felt kinda Big about this one. I think that save for Super Smashup, this is the best mashup I've ever made, and I think it acts as a sort of a culmination of these last 7 years or so of mashups. No idea what the future holds, but if it comes from love, then it's gonna be great.
Thanks for reading.
174 notes · View notes
thatscarletflycatcher · 5 months ago
Text
The problem with discussions about Henry Crawford is that there are two different questions being asked at the same time: 1) Can Fanny reform Henry? and 2) Can Henry reform?
Austen answers negatively to the first one, but I'd argue she's very ambivalent in her answer to the second.
Austen is not in the habit of "punishing" her villains; none of them are struck by accidents of fortune or anything the like, but we commonly perceive the downgrade between what they could have had and what they end up having. Edward Ferrars is an infinitely preferrable husband to Robert Ferrars, but Lucy Steele never seems to become aware of that fact. Isabella tries to get Captain Tilney over James Morland. Mr. Elliot is not crying by the corners over the fact that he lost Anne Elliot. Even Willoughby's regret is not about Marianne's actual goodness, but his personal convenience. Austen's "villains" as a rule are morally stupid people.
When Aristotle says that no one can be good who is stupid, he doesn't have in mind things like being good at Math or being well read or quick-witted; he's thinking of a certain intuition, clear-sightedness about what is good, what contributes to human flourishing, and this seems to be a strong component of what Austen calls sense. Sense is almost convertible (if not completely) with prudence, and prudence is a rather intuitive virtue, as it regulates the when, the how, the how much, etc of the other moral virtues. (and there goes my first thesis topic that I never did!).
In that way it is interesting that only 4 characters are said to possess sense in Mansfield Park: Edmund, Fanny, Henry, and Tom (and Tom doesn't even fully count, because his is expressed negatively: instead of having sense, he doesn't lack it). Here are the Henry instances:
"He did not want them to die of love; but with sense and temper which ought to have made him judge and feel better, he allowed himself great latitude on such points." "Henry Crawford had too much sense not to feel the worth of good principles in a wife, though he was too little accustomed to serious reflection to know them by their proper name; but when he talked of her having such a steadiness and regularity of conduct, such a high notion of honour, and such an observance of decorum as might warrant any man in the fullest dependence on her faith and integrity, he expressed what was inspired by the knowledge of her being well principled and religious." "That punishment, the public punishment of disgrace, should in a just measure attend his share of the offence is, we know, not one of the barriers which society gives to virtue. In this world the penalty is less equal than could be wished; but without presuming to look forward to a juster appointment hereafter, we may fairly consider a man of sense, like Henry Crawford, to be providing for himself no small portion of vexation and regret: vexation that must rise sometimes to self-reproach, and regret to wretchedness, in having so requited hospitality, so injured family peace, so forfeited his best, most estimable, and endeared acquaintance, and so lost the woman whom he had rationally as well as passionately loved."
(I'm not counting the one time Edmund calls him a man of sense, and the one time Sir Thomas does the same, for obvious contextual reasons).
It's not only interesting that he is the only rake to be called a man of sense by the narrator (Mrs. Smith calling Mr. Elliot a man of sense in Persuasion is clearly not meant to be taken straight), but that it is always specifically tied to moral perceptiveness; he was morally perceptive enough to know he shouldn't have played the way he did, and he chose to ignore it. He perceives Fanny's moral worth, and it is the core reason why he wants to marry her.* He also perceives William's moral worth as something both good and desirable:
"To Henry Crawford they gave a different feeling. He longed to have been at sea, and seen and done and suffered as much. His heart was warmed, his fancy fired, and he felt the highest respect for a lad who, before he was twenty, had gone through such bodily hardships and given such proofs of mind. The glory of heroism, of usefulness, of exertion, of endurance, made his own habits of selfish indulgence appear in shameful contrast; and he wished he had been a William Price, distinguishing himself and working his way to fortune and consequence with so much self-respect and happy ardour, instead of what he was!"
Both here and at the end of the novel, Henry's moral perceptiveness leads to remorse for his own moral wrongdoings. Compare this to Willoughby's regret over Marianne:
"Willoughby could not hear of her marriage without a pang; and his punishment was soon afterwards complete in the voluntary forgiveness of Mrs. Smith, who, by stating his marriage with a woman of character, as the source of her clemency, gave him reason for believing that had he behaved with honour towards Marianne, he might at once have been happy and rich. That his repentance of misconduct, which thus brought its own punishment, was sincere, need not be doubted;—nor that he long thought of Colonel Brandon with envy, and of Marianne with regret. But that he was for ever inconsolable, that he fled from society, or contracted an habitual gloom of temper, or died of a broken heart, must not be depended on—for he did neither. He lived to exert, and frequently to enjoy himself. His wife was not always out of humour, nor his home always uncomfortable; and in his breed of horses and dogs, and in sporting of every kind, he found no inconsiderable degree of domestic felicity."
This sense/moral perceptiveness of Henry Crawford, and his experiencing remorse for his own wrongdoings sets him apart from the other Austen rakes. He's also not a drinker or a gambler; he does take at least minimal care of Everingham ("Everingham could not do without him in the beginning of September. He went for a fortnight") and did some modifications to it as soon as he got it. The same way Darcy's character is revealed as we see Pemberley, so the inflexion point of Henry's redemption attempt is his trying to become a better master of his estate:
For her approbation, the particular reason of his going into Norfolk at all, at this unusual time of year, was given. It had been real business, relative to the renewal of a lease in which the welfare of a large and—he believed—industrious family was at stake. He had suspected his agent of some underhand dealing; of meaning to bias him against the deserving; and he had determined to go himself, and thoroughly investigate the merits of the case. He had gone, had done even more good than he had foreseen, had been useful to more than his first plan had comprehended, and was now able to congratulate himself upon it, and to feel that in performing a duty, he had secured agreeable recollections for his own mind. He had introduced himself to some tenants whom he had never seen before; he had begun making acquaintance with cottages whose very existence, though on his own estate, had been hitherto unknown to him. This was aimed, and well aimed, at Fanny. It was pleasing to hear him speak so properly; here he had been acting as he ought to do. To be the friend of the poor and the oppressed! Nothing could be more grateful to her; and she was on the point of giving him an approving look, when it was all frightened off by his adding a something too pointed of his hoping soon to have an assistant, a friend, a guide in every plan of utility or charity for Everingham: a somebody that would make Everingham and all about it a dearer object than it had ever been yet. She turned away, and wished he would not say such things. She was willing to allow he might have more good qualities than she had been wont to suppose. She began to feel the possibility of his turning out well at last; but he was and must ever be completely unsuited to her, and ought not to think of her.
I have half an idea of going into Norfolk again soon. I am not satisfied about Maddison. I am sure he still means to impose on me if possible, and get a cousin of his own into a certain mill, which I design for somebody else. I must come to an understanding with him. I must make him know that I will not be tricked on the south side of Everingham, any more than on the north: that I will be master of my own property. I was not explicit enough with him before. The mischief such a man does on an estate, both as to the credit of his employer and the welfare of the poor, is inconceivable. I have a great mind to go back into Norfolk directly, and put everything at once on such a footing as cannot be afterwards swerved from. Maddison is a clever fellow; I do not wish to displace him, provided he does not try to displace me; but it would be simple to be duped by a man who has no right of creditor to dupe me, and worse than simple to let him give me a hard-hearted, griping fellow for a tenant, instead of an honest man, to whom I have given half a promise already. Would it not be worse than simple? Shall I go? Do you advise it?” “I advise! You know very well what is right.” “Yes. When you give me your opinion, I always know what is right. Your judgment is my rule of right.” “Oh, no! do not say so. We have all a better guide in ourselves, if we would attend to it, than any other person can be.
This is even more hammered in by the narrator: "Had he done as he intended, and as he knew he ought, by going down to Everingham after his return from Portsmouth, he might have been deciding his own happy destiny."
All these elements seem to point towards his being redeemable; he almost managed it! If only he'd gone to Everingham instead of London, catastrophic failure would have been averted! And yet at the same time we are told this:
Henry Crawford, ruined by early independence and bad domestic example, indulged in the freaks of a cold-blooded vanity a little too long. Once it had, by an opening undesigned and unmerited, led him into the way of happiness. Could he have been satisfied with the conquest of one amiable woman’s affections, could he have found sufficient exultation in overcoming the reluctance, in working himself into the esteem and tenderness of Fanny Price, there would have been every probability of success and felicity for him. His affection had already done something. Her influence over him had already given him some influence over her. Would he have deserved more, there can be no doubt that more would have been obtained, especially when that marriage had taken place, which would have given him the assistance of her conscience in subduing her first inclination, and brought them very often together. Would he have persevered, and uprightly, Fanny must have been his reward, and a reward very voluntarily bestowed, within a reasonable period from Edmund’s marrying Mary.
Ruined by early independence and bad domestic example. Mansfield Park is in a way a rather pessimist novel: it is a novel about education, and once your education has "set", your character is fixed, and your fate determined. Much of Maria and Julia's disgrace was also directly caused by their upbringing in a household where all importance was given to superficial qualities, and very little effective affection was shared; one can compare the restrained calm of Mansfield as a reflection of Sir Thomas' own unwillingness to see reality and give himself some discomfort in making others comfortable, with the bustle of the Musgrove household, and connect the dots to what makes the relationship between sisters Maria and Julia so different from the one between Louisa and Henrietta in similar situations.
In the end, it's a bit of a Schröedinger's cat situation. Can Henry reform? Yes, says Austen, he has the qualities needed for moral improvement, but no, his upbringing ruined him, and his character is fixed.
While this idea is the strongest in MP, it is present one way or another in all Austen's novels. Characters reforming is usually more about one specific quality or moral tone not being fine tuned than proper metanoia. Darcy was taught to do right, and did right; what he needed was to add proper humility and kindness to his practice. There is an exception, though, the one thing Charlotte Brontë and Jane Austen agree upon: a close brush with death is the best recipe for moral cure in the otherwise incurable.
Maybe the key is to wish Henry a good pneumonia, or a strong horsefall-induced concussion.
_____________
*On a side note, it's interesting that before he proposes, he considers how attached Fanny is to Mansfield, as undeserving as he thinks the Bertrams to be of her affection, and even draws a plan that contemplates giving her pleasure that way too: "I will not take her from Northamptonshire. I shall let Everingham, and rent a place in this neighbourhood; perhaps Stanwix Lodge."
209 notes · View notes
aprillikesthings · 27 days ago
Text
So this is somewhat of a continuation of my "you could headcanon Catra as demisexual based on canon" post, but I wanted to write a new post for this.
So there’s a fascinating conversation to be had about why, in fics where Catra and Adora aren't together (yet), so many of us have written Adora as…not a prude per se, but far less likely to hook up with other people—and have written Catra doing that, instead. (I mean, I have an unpublished WIP that includes that; I'm not throwing stones at glass houses here.)
And I do think some of it is that Adora is awkward in that way that’s so often some combo of a sheltered upbringing/ADHD/autism; whereas Catra is in fact more openly flirtatious.
(Disclaimer: In this post I'm using "slutty" in a neutral-to-positive sense.)
But the irony is that One, plenty of people who share those qualities with Adora are in fact hella slutty*; and Two, Catra clearly doesn’t intend to follow through on all that flirting.
ANYWAY time for my actual thesis of this post:
The real reasons, IMHO, that it's easier to see Adora as less slutty than Catra:
Adora is so visibly uncomfortable in her skin, and Catra is not
Adora doesn't even realize when she's attracted to other people
Catra however is aware of when people find her attractive (and changes how she interacts with them based on that)
Tumblr media Tumblr media
The tweets aren't connected; they weren't part of the same thread. But ND's made no secret of the fact that he gave Adora a bunch of his own traits**, and it was after s5 that he started coming out as trans--which isn't to say Adora is intended to be read as dysphoric. But the way Adora never thinks of herself or what she wants carried over into not thinking about her physical body as anything other than a tool, and not feeling comfortable in her body, and not feeling like she owned it. (Which....is probably related to ND's religious trauma, considering how many conservative/fundie Christians straight-up tell women and girls their body doesn't belong to them. In those words. Literally.)
And I think that's part of why Adora reads as so awkward. The idea of someone wanting her and finding her attractive is just bizarre to her to the point that she doesn't even see it.
She does clearly find other people attractive! But I don't think she realizes she's doing it--she reminds me a bit of when I was 15 and stared at women in bikinis on the beach and tripped over my own feet because I was looking at them and not where I was going lol, and had literally zero idea I was doing it until my best friend told me about it later.
Adora didn't even know she wanted to kiss Catra until just before it happened--if Glimmer had pulled Adora aside in the Crimson Waste and said "lol you want Huntara so bad," Adora would've been genuinely confused!
And that's all before you get into the whole She-Ra thing, and you could write a long-ass essay about Adora's sense of identity and the degree to which she sees She-Ra as herself or not. But the fact is that She-Ra has a different body than Adora! Taller, stronger, a lot more hair lol. And the people around her clearly value She-Ra differently than they do Adora. So that's a whole. Thing.
Meanwhile: Catra just feels comfier in her body. She does try to tamp down her cat-like qualities to some degree, especially in s4, but a lot of it was just that her ears and tail tended to give away her emotions, and she was trying to hide them. She stops suppressing that at some point after Save the Cat. (And then the Universe gave her a mood ring alien cat, lol.) Catra's got her own pile of Issues, but her body is just not one of them.
There’s a scene at the end of The Coronation (s4ep1) where Catra is in her s4 outfit for the first time, and she basically does the “I’m in charge now” thing at Hordak, and I’m sorry but it’s...not NOT sexually charged, even leaving aside that her new outfit has thigh slits and a boob window. She’s sitting in his throne and purring (loudly!) and then purrs out a "Hey, Hordak."
Tumblr media
She basically forces him to his knees, taunts him, and then we see from his POV as she sits back in that throne and crosses her legs. If she’d done that in a scene with literally any non-male character it would be seen as ship-bait!
Is she intentionally flirting with Hordak? Lol no.
But you'll notice: She doesn't do it with Scorpia, when she's mean to Scorpia. With Scorpia she's just...biting and cruel. So she clearly has some idea what she's doing when she taunts people, enough that she knows Scorpia would take it differently. She knows Scorpia finds her attractive and is trying to push Scorpia away.
Catra also doesn't do it with Double Trouble! Double Trouble flirts with Catra, but Catra gives none of it back, and as noted in my previous post, is even visibly uncomfortable with it at times.
Which isn't to say Adora never does the "flirtatious taunting" thing:
Tumblr media
But like, where. Where do you think she learned it from.
Tumblr media
(this post is once again relevant)
EDIT: another example of Adora learning it from Catra, taken from a "She-Ra Crack" video:
Tumblr media
(*Me. In my 20’s. Just remember kids, lots of neurodivergent nerds are hella slutty.) (**iirc that's how he got diagnosed with ADHD. Everyone just like "hey is Adora intentional ADHD rep" and he was like "no, I wrote her like me?? ...oh. shit.")
(Lastly: anyone reblogging this to shame people for writing/hc'ing/shipping whatever they want will get blocked. I'm not even sure I hc Catra as demi and I wrote a whole post about it lol.)
85 notes · View notes
dawnfelagund · 1 month ago
Text
Tumblr media
I expect the outcome of these data will surprise no one. Women speak less, and women speak less. This isn't a typo: It means that they have fewer instances of dialogue in The Silmarillion by a substantial margin, and when they do speak, they speak nine fewer words than men, on average.
Instances of women speaking is much nearer to speakers of unknown gender than to men speaking. (And before we get excited and think that the "unknown gender" speakers are rejecting the gender binary, this category represents mostly dialogue attributed to a group, plus two unnamed individuals who are given dialogue and one sword.)
This matters because dialogue signifies several important things in The Silmarillion. First, in a pseudohistorical text like The Silmarillion, direct quotes mean that someone said something important enough to preserve in the historical record. Men, based on the data, are saying far more important things than women, at least in the various narrators' estimation. Next, dialogue is often a proxy to action: Characters debate, give directives, and make speeches. Dialogue also humanizes, and even though Tolkien rejects many modern literary techniques in The Silmarillion, he does use dialogue as a characterization technique. As I will show in future analyses, some characters are distinguishable based on how they speak.
Of course, the reduced dialogue of women in The Silmarllion is a direct effect of there being significantly fewer women than men: Women constitute only 19% of the named characters in The Silmarillion. Even given this, however, women speak less than we would expect.
When we look at character groups, there are notable differences, namely that women of the Ainur speak more than Mortal Human and Elven women do. (Only four Elven women and five Mortal Human women speak in The Silmarillion! Excuse me while I scream!) This was the thesis of the long-ago Inequality Prototype that spurred this data collection endeavor: The Valar, being prototypical, show an equal penchant for entering into the world based on gender: It is a 50/50 split. So we can't say that women have less desire to influence the world than men in the legendarium. When we see less action and fewer instances of dialogue among women, then, we have to ask why.
Complicating the data for the Ainur (overall, not just this set) is the fact that a big chunk of their dialogue occurs in the "Of Aulë and Yavanna" chapter that Christopher Tolkien wrote. I don't want to treat these data differently until I have the opportunity to collect more data on where dialogue outside this chapter comes from; for all I know, Christopher wrote most of it! (Actually, I know he didn't, but this chapter does illustrate how his additions can skew data for a particular group, in this case the Ainur.)
Another future area of inquiry will be the type or purpose of the dialogue and whether/how this varies based on gender. Characters speak for many reasons. Do women speak for different purposes than men?
If these data illustrate anything to me, it is the importance of fanworks in amplifying the voices of women characters who we know existed and know said and did things that mattered. We are being given a historical record much like our own Modern-earth historical record: biased toward the contributions of some over others. Only we can fix that.
---
This is part of my ongoing project The Silmarillion: Who Speaks? The data is available under a CC license for others who wish to play with it: View the data | Copy the data
135 notes · View notes
tabithatwo · 8 months ago
Note
What do you think about the scene in ep1 where Shauna masturbates on her daughters bed while looking at pictures of her boyfriend? Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I found it disturbingly similar to younger Shauna sleeping with Jackie's boyfriend
Oh hey, so this response is like perhaps over a year late but someone else asked me about this and I remembered I had 3/4 of this response drafted so hi I’m here now lmao
Anon, I do NOT think you’re overthinking this scene. I actually think there is so much room to think about this scene that a thesis could be written on it. It’s so layered and an incredibly bold choice on the show’s part to include it. It is our introduction to adult Shauna, and I think that the creators of the show clearly felt that it was very important.
This scene made me so uncomfortable as a first time casual viewer that I actually tried to rationalize it away. I remember saying aloud to the person I was watching with “No, that has to be her own childhood bedroom, right? She must be, like, visiting her aging parents?” Clearly I was ignoring the very ridiculous set design of Callie’s room entirely lol, but my mind wanted to find a different explanation. And it took me a while to come around to really loving Shauna as a first time viewer of the show, in part due to how much that scene shocked me.
All that to say, it is absolutely reasonable to find yourself very uncomfortable when thinking about that scene, as many people say that they do when they’re proclaiming that they wish it didn’t exist in the show. But I don’t think that means the scene should be ignored by any means. That discomfort is the point of the scene. Shauna is such a fascinating character, because she swings back and forth from shockingly depraved and cruel, to heartbreakingly kind and loving. She draws both the audience AND the other characters into this unpredictable back and forth with her, and it is easy for us AND them to forget what she is truly capable of when she is in one of her sweeter moments. That is what makes her one of the most fascinating characters of all time to me.
Okay, now we can get into my personal interpretation of this scene. I have always felt it was about Jackie. I think that was clear early on, but, after s2 aired, having more information about Shauna’s relationship with Callie did impact my interpretation of the scene and solidify some suspicions I had.
Shauna clearly does not see Callie as her daughter in any traditional sense. She tells Lottie as much, that she never could fully believe Callie was real and hers. And we see, with increasing clarity as the show goes on, that Shauna views Callie as a peer more than anything. Shauna has both stunted development and difficulty expressing affection. We see her tell Callie that it would’ve been easier if she HAD just had sex with the cop. That’s a very strong indicator of their dynamic. Shauna just doesn’t have the capacity to mother Callie.
That is important context because, with the scene in Callie’s bedroom, Shauna is recreating the thing she used to do when she was young and Jackie was alive. I don’t think she is even thinking about the fact that it’s her daughter’s boyfriend or bedroom, because she doesn’t even really think of Callie as her daughter much of the time. It’s so complex and muddled and, you guessed it, uncomfortable!
In my opinion, people are NOT ready for the intricacies of the ways Callie is a Jackie proxy for Shauna to be developed further. Like the show is establishing it pretty heavily, and I think in a very compelling way, but if it goes down that road more explicitly I have a feeling that people are not going to be able to separate the WAYS in which Shauna sees Jackie in her, if that makes sense.
I think s2 did have some compelling threads of this. Shauna caring for the Jackie corpse doll and getting frustrated and “hurting” her with the ear coming off scene. Shauna not being able to protect her, initiating and endorsing the consumption of her, then hinting at having fears that she’d hurt the baby when she was pregnant, losing the baby, worrying that they’d do to the baby what they did to Jackie, twisting it so much that she can’t help but believe they ate the baby too.
She associated the baby with Jackie very heavily. And in doing so, I think she parentified herself to Jackie in a really fascinating way, like Jackie was her first failure.
If she couldn’t care properly for Jackie, who loved her so much (and became an actual martyr and saint to her), and she couldn’t care for her children who were absolute innocents, then she must be the epitome of horrible and she should squash those caring instincts bc clearly they aren’t actually Good, type shit. That’s how I feel like Shauna spirals into her destructive behavior.
So what happens here, imo, is that Shauna doesn’t really see any of her relationships clearly. I don’t think she consciously thinks of Jackie as The Girl She Was In Love With, and I don’t think she consciously thinks of Callie as her daughter most of the time. Shauna just thinks of them both as people she has loved and failed, as well as people who piss her the fuck off and make her feel trapped in a life she doesn’t want.
She sees a lot of Jackie in Callie, and she acts out in really horrifying ways throughout the entire show to try and gain control, and this scene is one of them. Shauna has always used sex as a way to reclaim control, even when it is absolutely insanely inappropriate, and often when it isn’t at all about actual pleasure. We see more of this in s2, when she BRINGS JEFF TO THE ART STUDIO OF THE MAN SHE KILLED AND FUCKS HIM THERE (that was fucking INSANELY risky and destructive). With masturbating on Callie’s bed, looking at a pic of her bf, Shauna is acting from the same place she was when taking Jeff from Jackie in a way, and I get why that’s uncomfortable to watch. It makes me incredibly uncomfortable, it is SUPPOSED to!
But I think that we are viewing it with so much more logic and thought than Shauna is capable of applying. We draw conclusions from it that are based on a sane person, and Shauna is far from that. I think Shauna is briefly recreating multiple feelings and motivations that drove her to sleep with Jeff as a teenager. The sexual side of things is so wholly Jackie driven, she is constantly seeking ways to feel the way she felt when she was creating that proxy sexual connection with Jackie that she verbatim discusses with Jeff (which is so crazy btw not over that scene). But the side that relates to Callie is driven purely by the frustration and anger. Again, I don’t think Shauna has consciously thought about ANY of it, but if I had to interpret the driving emotions, then I think those would be the most likely.
And I think what it says about Shauna is that she is not living in reality in the slightest. You can not overstate the lack of conscious thought that goes into her actions when she does these things. She is acting on pure impulse, and without any certainty that anything is actually real.
She breaks my heart and this convo about the masturbation scene is so interesting to me because YEAH, that was a ROUGH introduction! and it took me rewatches to allow myself to dig into her character and that’s the point tbh.
On instinct, people either see the actions clearly and hate her, or obscure them to the point of forgetting they happened and love her. But it’s much harder to reckon with them and dig in and come out still loving her.
(I truly can’t believe I have to say this, but I was recently introduced to the fact that yj incest shippers exist, so disclaimer: this is NOT meant to be taken as a romantic or sexual interpretation of Shauna and Callie’s relationship at all. In fact, when I say that I don’t think people are ready for detangling the WAYS in which Shauna sees Jackie in Callie this is exactly what I mean. I just assumed people would wrongly assume it was That and be horrified. I didn’t consider the opposite, and I would like to continue not considering the opposite, so I will prob block anyone who engages with this in that way simply bc I do not want to see it and this is my social media lol)
215 notes · View notes
ropebunnykant · 22 days ago
Note
Hi!! What are your thoughts on the confrontations at the empty pool vs the ocean? Obviously the ocean is relevant to kant's past but the juxtaposition of the two is so interesting to me but I can't really figure out if that was just an aesthetic choice or if there's actually something to it.
Looking forward to your thesis about the boat scene!!
omg thank you for asking and i will absolutely be writing an in depth post about the boat scene probably later on cause it was sooo chock full of things and first kanaphan deserves every fucking award possible for that scene
i will say, i think when it comes to analyzing media, there are so few things that are done and chosen "just for aesthetic." i've had other people comment on that when i've talked about the religious imagery, and while yes, aesthetic is important in media and often times can be reason enough for directors and designers to choose them, i would say more often than not there is also meaning behind big choices like set. they put fadel and style in an empty pool for a reason, just as they put kant and bison on the boat for a reason.
now, the boat was likely a very obvious choice for bison because like you said, it's relevant to kant's past and kant told him on their first date that he was scared of the ocean. so, of course tying him up and putting him on a boat surrounded by water to confront him would be the exact sort of psychological torture bison would want to inflict on kant.
but when you compare it to fadel and style, i think it's also a way of representing openness, and in a way it's a representation of each couple.
because fadel confronts style in an empty pool, and he's stripped style almost completely naked. style is laid almost totally bare, and that's true in a literal sense as well as a metaphorical sense, because fadel knows he's a "snitch." and the thing about fadel and style is that while yes, there's been lies and deception there, style has also been very earnest in every way he can be. it was only more recently that he had to start lying for real, and even then he still sneaks in as much truth and openness with fadel as he possibly can. and it's exactly what he does here - even with a gun to his head and fadel telling him not to say he loves him, style still says it because it's true and style doesn't know how to be anything but open and honest with fadel.
and then when it comes to the bison and kant of it all, there's a lot more lies and deception. kant is not laid bare in the same way - bison even has him in essentially a costume by putting him in the patient scrubs. but at the center of it all is the fact that even with all the lies, even with the murky waters, kant has been honest with bison. he's been vulnerable with him. and that's how bison knows putting kant on a boat and telling him to jump overboard is the cruelest thing he could do to him. it's fair game to bison because of what kant did to him, but it also shows that even if bison thinks everything was a lie, there was always some amount of truth to it. because kant never had to give an assassin his biggest fear, but he did it anyways.
i also think the empty pool vs the ocean says a lot about bison and fadel's intentions in the scene, even on a subconscious level. i don't think fadel at any point planned to actually hurt style. maybe he told himself he would, but i think deep down he knew he would never be able to go through with it. so, he puts him in an empty pool where yeah, he can get hurt if he pushes style into it and he hits the floor of the pool, but those injuries likely won't be serious enough to kill him - and he won't drown.
whereas bison, despite likely also knowing he can't actually hurt kant himself, took him somewhere he could make kant do it for him. and even then, it's clear he regrets it as soon as kant hits the water, because he's calling out to him as soon as he jumps off, as if he didn't expect him to actually do it. bison wants to hurt kant but he knows he can't, whereas fadel wants to want to hurt style and knows he can't. and those are two very different things.
78 notes · View notes
david-talks-sw · 1 year ago
Text
So that whole interaction between Ahsoka and Huyang, where they talk about Sabine's choice to help the enemy find Thrawn (in hopes that she can then find Ezra) is clearly meant to be subtext for what happened with Anakin.
I mean change the pronoun from "she/her" to "he/him", tweak some of the names and...
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
... it's just blatant.
The parallels were already clear in the previous episode, as pointed out in this post here, and it still holds true:
Sabine's struggle with attachment mirrors Anakin's.
We know Filoni's whole stance on why Anakin fell to the Dark Side: he'll usually acknowledge that Anakin was ruled by his attachments, got possessive of Padmé, but then adds:
"HOWEVER is loving that way really that bad?"
"HOWEVER he never stood a chance because Qui-Gon wasn't there to teach him properly and be the father Anakin needed."
I've already gone into why both these statements don't track with Lucas' intended narrative here and here... but I wanna touch on this notion that "Anakin wasn't trained enough to make a better choice."
He was.
You know how we know? Because we saw him overcome his attachments before.
Tumblr media
We saw him explain the theory of the non-attachment rule, before.
Tumblr media
In fact, wee saw him pass down a lot of the Jedi lessons, in The Clone Wars, including being disciplined, following orders and not acting impulsively.
Tumblr media Tumblr media
The issue is that - while Anakin knows the theory, even has a few minor successes applying it - he never builds the self-discipline needed to master it because... deep down... he doesn't want to.
This is partially because you got Palpatine telling him he doesn't need to, molding him into an arrogant, power-craving person... but the fact remains that Anakin made the choice himself.
Which Filoni acknowledges, sure... but not quite. The difference between his thesis and George Lucas' is that the latter picks a stance and defends it.
Tumblr media Tumblr media
"He started out as a very loving and compassionate person. And as he progressed, it was his inability to control his temper, his inability to let go of things, and his quest for power that were his undoing." - George Lucas, E! Behind the Scenes - ROTS, 2005
Anakin fell because he was greedy, just like any one of us can be.
Cool. Filoni, on the other hand, doesn't seem to land anywhere.
He dances around the issue (as can be seen by the debate between Ahsoka and Huyang, with no clear winner) and merely questions whether it's as simple as that.
Clearly he wants to justify Anakin's actions to some degree... but y'know, the narrative considers those actions so reprehensible that Anakin gets friggin' burned alive for it.
Tumblr media
"I felt it was important that we actually see that happen so that we could see the consequences of these bad things that he did. […] He forces his friends to turn against him. Which is heartbreaking." - George Lucas, “The Chosen One” Featurette, 2005
Because Anakin's actions are not meant to be justified.
It's easy to see why Filoni likes Anakin. One of the earliest tasks he had when writing The Clone Wars was humanizing a character whose sole functional purpose was to carry out a narrative about how:
"Without self-discipline, greed [can] force a character off the path to freedom." - Micael Hearn, The Cinema of George Lucas, 2005
And Anakin is a very sympathetic character.
His flaws are flaws that we all carry.
Q: Is it fair to assess Anakin is kind of cursed by his own goodness/good qualities? "I wouldn't say that’s true. He’s cursed by the same flaws, and issues that he has to overcome, that all humans are cursed with. There's a lot going on there. [...] The whole point is—and the reason I started the story where I did—is that Anakin is a normal, good kid. And how does somebody who is normal and good turn bad? What are the qualities, what is it that we all have within us that will turn us bad?" - George Lucas, Star Wars Insider #52, 2000
But narratively, Anakin is selfish.
He doesn't want to save Padmé's life, he wants to save himself from the pain of losing Padmé.
Tumblr media
And while you're supposed to sympathize with him, you're not meant to agree with him. He's Darth Vader, the space nazi. He messes up and consequentially "leaves the Force in darkness" for 20 years, instead of ushering it towards the light in the chancellor's office, when he has the chance.
So to shift the blame and say that...
HOWEVER, Anakin didn't have the proper support system or training to make a better choice.
... when the whole point of the narrative is about taking personal responsibility and being selfless instead of selfish... well, it is missing that point.
He did know better. He just didn't want to choose better, so he convinced himself he wasn't able to.
1K notes · View notes