#it's good practice getting away from the same character archetypes I have among my own OCs

[wolfofartblock]

Art fight attacks (part 1?)

I'm trying to attack each person who followed me so hope you like! For those who haven't seen, I'm @ImmortalSword on Artfight. I do friendly fire too!

[maxwell-grant]

Would you consider Hugo Strange a pulp villain?

Yes. And I would argue that he didn't really stop being one even after his revival.

"Professor Hugo Strange, the most dangerous man in the world! Scientist, philosopher and a criminal genius - little is known of him, yet this man is undoubtly the greatest organizer of crime in the world! - Bruce Wayne, Detective Comics #36

Hugo Strange was created with the intention of being Batman's arch-enemy right from the start, introduced as such by Bruce when he figures out he's responsible for the G-man assassination, pretty explicitly intended to be Batman's Moriarty and with even an equivalent demise. He was big enough to tower over his henchmen and fistfight Batman, he had a uniquely deformed skull, he was both a charismatic but threatening crimelord as well as a mad scientist plotting to TAKE OVER THE WORLD, and I've heard before the argument that the Monster Men were taken from a Doc Savage novel released earlier the same year called The World's Fair Goblin that revolves around a giant mutated man doing crimes under command by the story's villain

That poor devil, Maximus, was a Fair visitor himself, once. He was given injections of thyroxine and adrenalin—and changed rapidly into a pituitary giant. But, in the experiment, his will power was destroyed. Now he only follows the directions of that masked devil who has him hypnotized

He said, "The Man of Tomorrow stuff was merely publicity to draw the Fair crowds—and a shield to cover your own experiments. But the masked surgeon cashed in on it. Obviously he is mad enough to really believe a superman can be created." - The World's Fair Goblin

(Considering Lester Dent had taken potshots at Superman explicitly in "Whisker of Hercules", it's not unlikely that this is an explicit reference)

Although there's really no overlap in the stories besides that, as The World's Fair Goblin only had one giant where as Hugo mutated a couple dozen mentally ill patients to create monsters and then used them to go on mass murdering rampages, because Batman has always been over-the-top. But, yeah, original form Hugo was a pretty cut and dry pulp villain, like most of Batman's villains who debuted prior to 1940. Which is part of why he only had about 3 appearences before they killed him off.

By this point, Batman was in the process of moving away from his pulp knock-off origins into more of his own character, with the introduction of Robin and Dick Tracy cartoon villains that would set the tone for the rest of Batman in the Golden Age, and with the debut of Joker and Catwoman in Batman #1, Hugo was already obsolete as an arch-enemy, and was killed off the following appearence.

Of course, if you know Hugo Strange, you likely already know this, and that he was then revived in the 70s by Marshall Rogers with a brilliant take that stuck to the character's origins as a brilliant crimelord and scientific genius, but also added to him a specifically twisted psychological bent of being obsessed with Batman and becoming Batman, a villain of unshakeable will and even a twisted sense of honor and ethics, refusing to divulge Batman's secret identity even while beaten to death.

And from that moment onwards Hugo would go on to have some of the most consistently brilliant appearences out of any Batman villain (at least until the 2010s) and would secure himself as a mainstay, albeit a very obscure one, figure of Batman, the kind of villain whose plots can range from Born Again-esque subtle destructions of a person's life to a rampage of mutant kaijus on downtown Gotham, and like many of the best Batman villains, it all comes back to a central obsession and psychological edge upon Batman, and the weaponizing and destruction of anything that stands in his way.

You could argue Hugo Strange used to be a cut and dry pulp villain who was eventually reimagined as a Batman Villain, and it would even be somewhat fitting of his in-universe trajectory as a man who started out a career as a figure of prestige and respect, effortlessly able to blend in society, until his repeated encounters with Batman and, most importantly, his gradually increasing obsession with becoming Batman, gradually destroyed him until he's no longer the one ruling the madhouse, but instead trapped in it.

But the reason why I'd argue Hugo Strange is still a Pulp Villain is because his reinventions didn't shed away what he used to be, they merely returned him to his true origins. Because Hugo, you see, is not just a Mad Scientist or Mad Psychologist, Batman's got those by the dozens. Hugo is of a particularly nasty kind of Pulp Villain, who came to existence around the same time as the Mad Scientist if not slightly earlier, an archetype Jess Nevins has named The Evil Surgeon

Medicine has arguably thrown up more serial killers than all the other professions put together, with nursing a close second - Herbert Kinnel, former chairman of the British Medical Association

The Evil Surgeon came to existence as a pop culture archetype in the late 19th century, as the result of serial killers like Jack the Ripper and H.H Holmes making the news, with Doctor Quartz from Nick Carter being first and foremost among these, as the main arch-enemy of the most published character worldwide at the time.

He would be followed years later by H.G Wells's Doctor Moreau, and the likes of Dr Caresco and Professor Tornada, the stars of novels created by André Couvreur, who was himself a medical doctor and used these novels to both condemn the characters as well as give serious consideration to the ideas they explored, and depicted Dr Caresco's over-the-top exploits harkening back to stories about Marquis de Sade (the origin of the term "sadist"). These would be followed by characters like Grigorii Trirodov, Dr Cornelius Kramm, Dr Gogol from Mad Love, currently the most famous example of this seems to be Hannibal Lecter. And Hugo has been operating much more along the lines of those characters in the last decades, than the typical mad scientists he was once designed in reference to.

Of course there's a massive overlap between the two and room to dispute whether they even constitute separate archetypes, they practically came to existence together following the footsteps of Victor Frankenstein, who really isn't a true example of a Mad Scientist in the original novel, and wasn't even a real doctor, but Frankenstein's reputation undeniably is the oldest cultural touchstone we can point to as an influence in the archetype, even if said archetype would only truly take form in pulp magazines and serials.

What I'd argue defines the Evil Surgeon as an archetype specifically, is that they are specifically centered around the violation and destruction of the human body and function more as murderers with budgets, than supervillains in labcoats. Mad Scientists are generally more centered around plots closer to sci-fi/fantasy inventions like sentient robots and immortality potions used for large scale global domination, where as Evil Surgeons are more preoccupied with wielding psychology and torture and criminal resources to get away with destroying minds on more individual scales, or turning cities into slaughterhouses for them to work in.

They aren't quite full blown slasher villains, like Zsasz or Professor Pyg, instead they usually tend to be quite good at passing off as respectable, mentally sound figures of moral standing, and usually possess a sense of purpose towards their work, a goal they are working for by piling corpses atop each other and moving resources to achieve, even if said goal is a purely selfish fulfillment of their own desires. It's quite common for these characters to acquire large bases for them to operate in, even islands specifically.

In Caresco Surhomme, Caresco has taken control of the Pacific island of Eucrasia. Caresco applies his surgical methods to the inhabitants of the island, altering them to better do their jobs. The captain of the plane which brings outsiders to Eucrasia is a limbless trunk with telescopic vision. Even the island itself is in the shape of a human body. The natives of Eucrasia are addicted to various sensual pleasures and generally submit to Caresco’s rule, for fear that he will castrate them or worse.

On Eucrasia, Caresco makes use of “omnium,” a mysterious and unexplained power source, to create: a machine capable of stripping the years from human bodies and reversing the aging process, a fast underground train system, food pills, omnium-powered diving suits, and so on. Caresco is given to such things as collecting the spleens of all those he operates on - Jess Nevins, The Encyclopedia of Pulp Heroes

So, yes, I absolutely would argue Hugo Strange is still a Pulp Villain. Pulp villains do come in many different forms other than the Fu Manchus and Fantomases that are most commonly imitated, pulp was the breeding ground of the supervillain as a concept after all, where they got to star in their own magazines time and time again. Hugo started off as a fairly generic one, and when he's written poorly, he tends to be brought onboard of a story purely because it calls for a mad scientist.

But Strange came back from death as something much, much worse than just a crimelord and mad scientist, a much more rare and much nastier type of villain that, much like Hugo himself, may lie dormant, but refuses to stay dead for long.

"Quincy. My servant. My friend," Hugo said. "We don't have much time."

Quincy was crying again, with joy. "How, master, how did you-?"

The therapy, Quincy realized. The hypnosis. The drugs.

"Stay with me master, please!" Quincy tried to grab hold a phantom hand.

"I cannot." Strange said, looking benevolently down at Quincy, stroking his hair with a touch the prisoner couldn't feel. "But there is one last service you can perform me."

"Anything, Hugo, please."

"First, remove the sheet from your bed, Quincy. And tie it to the light-fixture on the ceiling."

[al-norton]

thoughts on andrey stamatin ?

He’s one of my fave characters in the game and I don’t even know why… is it his ridiculous fashion sense? Is it the confidence with which he speaks utter nonsense (the town has the laws against cutting because holes do not like to be seen? Please…)? Is the fact that he’s good with a knife?

Here’s a thought: I think all the utopian characters take roots in romantic archetypes (as in romanticism, not romance). Out of those, Andrey firmly embodies the Knight: romantic hero, driven in equal measure by the desire to protect and to conquer. By his drive to break all the boundaries, he places himself squarely above the law, and he uses his skill in violence to legitimize that status. The interesting thing is, the narrative doesn’t show him as a hero. At best, he’s a charming bastard whose most redeeming qualities are ‘he cares about his brother and maybe women’ (I’m saying maybe because I’m sure I read somewhere that dancers in his bar are coming to him on his own volition to escape the Kin that well. Pretty much treat them like objects. But I’m not sure if that was a canon quote or someone’s fanon? I’d appreciate it if someone cleared it up). What is a heroic conquest to the knight is a violent invasion to those conquered. And the game doesn’t shy away from showing the fallout that Andrey causes among the Kin, how he’s profiting off selling pretty much sacred secrets of the steppe people, etc… he isn’t a good guy, you know?

There is another part of knighthood that is crucial to his character: servitude. You know, the way he literally places all of his talents as an architect, bootlegger, and a fighter into servicing Peters genius? Yeah! And this thing where he puts Peter on the pedestal as a genius and himself as just going his dirty work is very crucial to his character, I think that’s where the whole ‘breaking the boundaries’ shtick comes from. Kinda like, oh Peter has this amazing idea that is impossible? Well, I guess I’ll have to break the boundaries of what’s possible, then! The thing is, this relationship (whilst being arguably the most pleasant part of their lives) hurts both of them immensely. Peter has to constantly struggle with the fear of not living up to the hype, and Andrey is stuck with a deficient self-image… and a convenient ‘noble’ reason to do all the shit that he does. Yeah, without this codependency they wouldn’t do all the great things that they did. But… the desire to do Great Things can only grow from the belief that you are not good enough as you are, that you do not deserve to be loved in your mediocrity. That’s another theme that all utopians share, and it’s honestly heartbreaking to me.

Another thing that I think is done very well is how the ‘breaking boundaries’ thing is both his biggest asset and his biggest flaw.  First of all, it prevents him from actually taking care of the people he loves. Sure, he is all about protecting Peter and Eva from outward threats, but the problem is – their biggest problems are inside of their heads. It’s scarily poetic that both people that he cares about attempt suicide during the plague. It’s the problem he’s least equipped to deal with. Secondly, his drive to action renders him practically incapable of introspection. That’s why he comes off as pretty smart and incredibly dumb at the same time. That’s also why he is so full of bravado, while it’s obvious that he actually values himself much less than his brother. He HAS to see himself as a cool hero of progress and goodness; otherwise, he will have to confront being a villain. And if he goes that route he might just land in the same place as Peter and Eva. These bitches are fragile!!!

(also I think it’s fun how the willingness to confront their villainy is the main thing differentiating Andrey and Bad Grief, otherwise pretty much parallel characters. It’s a good illustration of the difference between utopian and humble worldviews: ‘humanity is capable of great things. I am an example of this’ versus ‘humanity is capable of horrible things. I am an example of this’)

Still, despite all of his shitty behavior… I really like him! I like how he treats Peter and Eva – not being overbearing in his protection, I think he actually has a lot of respect for things like personal space. He shows some genuine interest in the steppe culture. He seems to be egalitarian in his beliefs. I just, ya know, enjoy interacting with him a lot? He seems fun at parties, willing to drunk debate over the most ridiculous philosophical topics. that would be so fun! If he wasn’t so likely to get knives out for heated disagreements, that is

But you know what? I like knives too, actually :3c

Andrey if you’re reading this come debate me on the holes question

[court-queen]

Otome characters you might like according to your OM! favourite (Lucifer, Asmo and Belphie)

I'm going to include both paid and free otome games. I'm also going to mention some games that aren’t otomes but have dating sim stuff (i.e Fire Emblem). This post is only my opinion and based on the games I've played. I hope these work as recommendations for you!

Lucifer

Hijikata Toshizo (Hakuouki): Hijikata is the first commander of the Shinsengumi, a short-tempred, but intelligent man. He is the most mature character from the main cast. Hijikata is very strict with the other commanders, who are very chaotic just like the demon brothers, and the protagonist, whom he distrusts at first. He also has a close relationship (though without any implications) with the Shinsengumi leader, similar to Diavolo. He lacks some of the kinky stuff Luci has, but leaving that aside, Hijikata might be a good route to play.

Jumin Han (Mystic Messenger): Jumin is a CEO who likes cats a bit too much. He is cold and centered on his work. The only close relationship he has is with the leader of the charity organization he belongs to, who is his best friend, and lacks any romantic experience. I would say Jumin is much less developed than Lucifer regarding to social interactions. Also, one of the characters has a strong distaste (which seems to be one-sided) for him. When you enter into his route, he is possesive, but in a slightly different way than Lucifer, more...over-protective. However, in some instances, he can have the same style of possesiveness as Lucifer. If you don’t mind he is less assertive, Jumin could be a very decent alternative.

Xander (Fire Emblem Fates: Conquest): Xander isn’t from an otome, so he  doesn’t have as much romantic stuff, but he is the most similar character to Lucifer, story and character-wise imo. Xander is the crown prince of the country of Nohr, a stoic and wise man. He is the older brother of the royal family, so he has to assume all the responsabilities, taking questionable decisions and pushing away his own feelings in order to maintain peace and protect his family. The relationship with one of his siblings, Leo, is similar to the one Lucifer has with Satan (post Satan arc). Xander has also a very complicated relationship with his father: to keep it spoiler-free, let’s just say he is what would have happened if Lucifer hadn’t rebelled against God. 

Nobunaga Oda (Ikemen Sengoku): A charismatic and intelligent warlord who is trying to unify Japan.  Very bold with the MC. He basically wants to own her, winning Go matches and claiming a part of her body with each victory. It sounds somewhat fucked up at first, but tbf it wasn’t as bad as it could have been. Nobunaga isn’t as strict as Lucifer, but when the moment comes he can be very serious. 

I haven’t played it, but...I’ve been told that Victor from My Love’s Queen Choice, Jumin and Lucifer form the holy trinity of sugar daddies in mobile otomes. Chikage Kazama from Hakuouki isn't that similar to Luci, but he has some points his fans could enjoy a lot (he is one of my favourite LIs)

Asmodeus

None of these recommendations are as kinky as Asmo, sorry I don't play many +18 otomes. I still hope you like them Dx

Karma and Rumpel (Cinderella Phenomenon): I think both might work for someone who likes Asmo. First, Rumpel is quite a flirt. He has a curse that provokes him amnesia, but that doesn't stop him from trying to charm beautiful women. Then we have Karma, who has a curse that makes women fall in love with him, so he usually dresses as one to not attract them. He isn't that much of a flirt, but he is quite narcissistic. Put both in the same room, what could go wrong? Both characters end up having a decent depth and growth, so if you are one of those people who wants Asmo to be more than his quirks, you are probably going to enjoy them a lot.

Zen (Mystic Messenger): At first a narcissistic actor, then the most supportive and sweet character from all Mystic Messenger (and also the most stable). I would say he subverts the archetype of the flirt/narcissist in otomes. He has a past and context explaining why is he like that, and his route makes a twist with the rival in love with him. If you want a different focus of the archetype Zen is a really good option for you.

Ikki (Amnesia):  Ikki has a special charm that attracts women. This charm will cause the protagonist in Amnesia to get into lots of problems with people who are totally in love with him. He isn’t narcissistic nor a flirt, but if you are interested in a story about how might be dating Asmo with the consequences of his powers in other people, Ikki's route could interest you.

Yuri (Nameless): Yuri has also a charm that makes people being attracted to him. However, it isn't as exaggerated as Ikki or Asmo especially because all the main characters in Nameless attract a lot of people. He is a flirt and narcissist, practically at the same level as Asmo (I had a lot of fun with his moments). Imo, he is the most intelligent person in the game, and reads quite well the other characters. In his route we will learn more about his behavior, and he will be forced to grow and leave behind his attitude.

Sylvain from Fire Emblem Three Houses and Jiyeon from Dandelion  might also be good recommendations, it’s just that they are a bit more...controversial.

Belphie

These characters are very spoilery, I'll try my best to explain why you might like them.

Unknown (Mystic Messenger): A twin, just like Belphie. Both have violent episodes, even trying to hurt the protagonist. They direct their hate to certain characters, whom they consider responsibles of their miserable situation. At heart, they are really kind and sensitive, but have changed because of their circunstances. I would say Unknown's route doesn't portray him as well as the rest of the game, but regardless you might enjoy it if you like Belphie.

“Nameless” (Nameless): Okay, this one quite spoilery, I'll try to explain it without saying much. Belphie's situation? Imagine it but worse, with nobody knowing where you are and not being able to try anything to escape. Then combine his hate for humans and his love for Lilith, and you'll have the complicated feelings this character has towards the protagonist of Nameless. For me, he is literally Belphie, just much more dramatic and dark...

Monshiro (Psychedelica of the Black Butterfly): if the character before is a darker Belphie, this is a lighter Belphie. All the characters in Psychedelica are trapped in a mansion with monsters inside. This mysterious man appears to help the protagonist to fight them at certain times. Even if the rest of characters are very suspicious of him, he seems to be kind and calm, to the point he doesn't appear to know much about the situation the main characrers are involved in. When we continue advancing through the story, we will learn his real identity, and the sad truth about him. There is also another important similarity with Belph, but, spoilers.

Yeonho (Nameless): Like you can guess from the other character, Nameless is darker than other otomes. Yeonho is a sweet boy, very dependant on the protagonist. He is shy, and doesn't like to socialize with people, even if he is quite popular in his class. When you enter into his route, he becomes a little bit obssesive, and some of his endings are terrifying. If you are a masochist like me enjoy being alert with a sweet character that could break in any moment, Yeonho's route is for you.

I would want to recommend another character from Nameless, who I think has some points that could remind of Belphie, but given that this is not apparent at first, I'll let you discover by yourselves if you play the game.

I wouldn't consider them that similar, but Ukyo from Amnesia is quite the Belphie experience. If I had to pick an only route among otome games I would pick this one. Totally recommended. Kei Okazaki from Collar x Malice has also some quirks Belphie fans might enjoy.

[inkblotsandeggshells]

Sorcerers and Sorceresses

Hello again!

After talking with my friend about it, I decided I still had some more to say about sex addiction. Clearly, we’re being pushed to this way of being by our modern culture, but I also notice this coming from the holistic New Age community. The most obvious example, in this regard, would be holistic sex coach Kim Anami, who I talked about in my last post. In contrast to the standard, faster kind of sex that gets referenced in movies and music, Kim Anami wants to teach people to use slower, orgasmic sex as a means to harness energy, which can be utilized to help improve your life. However, Anami claims that this level of personal control through sex cannot be achieved until you become addicted to it. While I can see the appeal for this kind of education, I remained pretty indifferent until I looked deeper into what happens when we fall prey to addictions.

When I was younger, I had thought that things like alcohol and recreational drugs were the things that led to addictions, and as long as you stayed away from those things, you were in the clear. However, we often overlook things like electronics and artificial foods like candy, which can be just as addictive as the more typical harmful substances. In regards to sex, I think it sounds like an attractive thing to be addicted to because it doesn’t necessarily harm your body or cause your teeth to decay. Even so, by becoming addicted to any substance, including orgasmic sex, it can chip away at our identities little by little until we become, as Michael Knowles says, enslaved. We become dependent on it to cope with life and it ends up controlling how we respond to our human experience. Furthermore, an addiction of any kind leaves us vulnerable to be controlled by outside forces.

This is something I became more aware of last year, during a time when I learned how easily people can be used by unseen beings when they relinquish control of themselves. One content creator who gave me a new perspective on this is a young woman named Galatea Van Outersterp, who created the YouTube channel called the Authentic Observer. Even though she creates content about storytelling and fictional works, I think she offers a refreshing perspective on what it looks like when something or someone strives to control the collective. In this way, she also raises the question of how much power we have to resist. She does this through her videos, the primary examples being her two-part video series about the story archetypes of the Sorcerer and the Sorceress. She describes these archetypes as two sides of the same coin. They both aim for absolute power and control, but they work to achieve those goals through different realms of humanity. The sorcerer is the yang aspect of this archetype that focuses on the external realm: the physical plane, the conscious and will. The sorceress is the yin aspect that focuses on the internal realm: the emotional plane, and the subconscious.

We’ll start with the sorcerer archetype. In her opinion, Galatea states that if a character has most, if not all, of these traits, then they can be defined as an evil sorcerer. These traits are as follows: They can see all, or they have eyes everywhere. They manipulate the events of the protagonist and the people around him/her to get the hero to certain places or people. They are extremely arrogant and have massive egos (which can also be their downfall). As a result of this arrogance, they often have a title, because they’re a recognized authority; they also have many followers. They have often given up something essential to humanity to gain their power, whether it’s their soul or just their morality. They often have a non-human physical form, or some kind of deformity to show their loss of humanity. Most importantly, they only desire for power and control, “power above all.”

In regards to Kim Anami teaching students to utilize BDSM in the “Well-F*cked Woman” course, she would frequently use the book “50 Shades of Grey” as a reference for this method and its alleged importance. In some of her stories, she also talks about how some of the men she has been most drawn to in the past are “smarter versions of Christian Grey.” According to Galatea, the way the sorcerer archetype is used in modern day stories is by portraying those archetypal traits through characters like abusive partners. In other words, characters like Christian Grey are definitions of this very archetype.

For example, Galatea lists off the traits of the sorcerer that Mr. Grey exhibits in the books. She observed that “he has a beyond normal ability to know what Anastasia is doing all the time because he stalks her and hacks into her phone. He manipulates not only her, but he’s also a powerful enough to manipulate events and the people around her to get her where he wants her. He’s arrogant in the extreme and believes he’s superior and has the absolute right to exert dominance over the people around him. This is particularly the case for Anastasia, as he wants her to sign his contract against her will. He’s a figure of authority and has many followers (his employees). He has also given up something essential to his humanity to gain his power: the ability to be a good person, respect others, and have healthy relationships. Finally, above everything else, all he wants is total power and control, both of his own world and of Anastasia.”

In contrast, the sorceress archetype primarily rules the internal domain. While this archetype shares similar traits with the sorcerer, Galatea describes the sorceress as primarily wanting to be adored. They use emotions and temptations rather than blatant orders and force. They are also represented by “complete and unbalanced chaos, hysteria, unpredictability and insanity.” They understand people’s deepest desires and control them by dangling these things in front of their faces. This point also gets highlighted in Galatea’s video, where she would describe sorceresses “to generally work more through an understanding of people, through intuition, really understanding people’s deepest desires.”

So the big question is how does the holistic sex practice of Kim Anami relate to the topic of being vulnerable to someone else’s control? How does this topic of orgasmic sex addictions, or addictions of any kind, relate to the archetypes of sorcerers and sorceresses? The purpose of the sorcerer and the sorceress is to show that “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Whether addictions play a role in our lives or not, when we lose the ability to think for ourselves and take control of our response to life, we become susceptible to being controlled by beings such as these. If being “well-f*cked” means becoming attracted to men like this, or even, God forbid, marrying someone like this, than I would rather not reach such a standard at all.

During my conversations about the “Well-F*cked Woman” course with Lee Yun, I often wondered if Kim Anami herself was a sorceress in some ways. In my opinion, it seems that Kim does exhibit a few of the traits: she has hundreds, if not thousands of followers (her clients and coaches-in-training), and you could argue that she gave up part of her humanity through the use of neural therapy injections to change how her body responds to trauma. She sometimes demonstrates arrogant behavior in how she disrespects her partner’s boundaries and openly insults people who are unlike her or think differently from her. In my opinion, she also works within the emotional plane through her marketing strategies to get people to take her courses, buy her tools and practice her methods. Her philosophy in becoming “well-f*cked” feels very confusing, with some conflicting teachings, which you could argue is a reflection of the sorceress’ inclination for chaos. In my previous blog, I explained how this is further demonstrated in her marketing tactics, especially during 2020 when people felt lonelier and desperate for contact during lockdown. In her podcasts, Kim states that the point of her courses isn’t necessarily to use sexual energy to get whatever you want. However, this statement feels very contradictory when you observe how she teaches and how she speaks of her relationships with her partners.

In a different way than the sorcerer archetype, Galatea observes that the sorceress is almost the scarier of the two. Galatea explains that “the truest kind of freedom is freedom over your heart and mind. No one can truly own you if you at least have that, if you’re at least free in your own heart, mind, body and soul. The sorceress wants to take that freedom away. If you aren’t sovereign over yourself, then you don’t have freedom at all, because the sorceress is a jealous mistress, and you can be damn sure she will not allow any room in your heart or mind for anyone but her.”

To conclude, I want to share some quotes from the book “The 21 Lessons of Merlyn” by Douglas Monroe. Since the system of Celtic magic seems to be what I’m naturally inclined to, this is one of first the books Lee Yun recommended for my studies as a witch. Even though the teachings in the book sound outdated for our time, some passages intrigued me in regards to how the Druidic community viewed sex. Specifically, Monroe explains, through his characters, how using sex for gaining power isn’t admired at all among the druids. He states that “the world is full of those who pretend to use sexual union as an instrument of spiritual gain under the guises of ‘soul-love, true fulfillment, destiny’, and many other romanticized notions. But such could never be the case outside of their own minds, as this purely animal behavior belongs to another world altogether, a world that minds such as these cannot pretend to change by wishing it were so.” He goes on to add that “against truth, these people will continue to say that lust elevates them into the world of Magic along with their pleasure; that sex generates a force which may be turned to loftier things. They will continue to confuse the spiritual with the physical, for the sake of convenience.”

By encouraging us to become addicted to orgasmic sex, it seems very likely that the kind of freedom and “healing” Kim Anami offers comes with a serious price. Do I think she herself is a sorceress? I don’t know. She may be one, but I don’t know. Because they work in the subconscious and in the unseen realms, sorceresses can be much more difficult to spot than their male counterparts. However, in my opinion, if she won’t step in to control the collective through addictions—even holistic, orgasmic sex addictions—then someone will. So I encourage you to not give up that inner freedom so easily, because that’s where our real power lies.

[hello-robin-goodfellow]

My Sugestions of Seven Feel Good Movies

1º The Castle of Cagliostro.

The first animated long feature film of Hayao Miyazaki. Combining exciting action, energetical phisical comedy and bittersweet fairy tale romance with a likable and charismatic cast of characters, it shows how promising Miyazaki and his team were to the world of animation, and tells a story that combines several genres of fiction i really, really envyyyyy not have writen!

2º O Auto da Compadecida (2001).

O Auto da Compadecida (also known, among English viewers, as A Dog's Will) is a 1999 brazilian movie, based on a play of the same name by Ariano Suassuna. The story takes place the in impoverished, dry deserted region of Northeast Brazil and follows two friends trying to get by using their wits and silver tongue: the lively Jack (played by Matheus Nachtergaele) and the cowardly Chicó (played by Selton Mello). The two men work as assistants to the local baker and get wrapped up in several misadventures, including: tricking a priest to deliver the last rites to a dog as part of its will, trying to marry a landowner's daughter or risk loosing a lump of flesh as the price and an fatal encounter with a bloodthirsty bandit. That last misadventure lands Jack on a trial ministered by the Devil, Jesus and the Virgin Mary. The movie is ostensibly a comedy, and it was also released as a 4-part minisseries for TV.

I was born in Pernambuco, the state in wich the play that served as a base for the filme was first performed, and were it was the concentration of the artistic and literary Armorial Movement, of wich this story is one of the representants. It is one of the movies i watch and rewatch the most, i laugh of the same jokes over and over, and quote a lot of the lines. It was one of the first examples of archetypical character writing and social denounce comedy, tackling dark subject matters like death, that i came contact with, influencing the kind of writing i want to make. And i personally saw the original author of the play, Ariano Suassuna, do public speaking, when i was fifteen years old :)!

3º The Incredible Army of Brancaleone (1966).

L'Armata Brancaleone, known to the english-speakers as The Incredible Army of Brancaleone and For Love and Gold is an Italian comedy movie released in 1966, written by the  duo Age & Scarpelli and directed by Mario Monicelli, featuring Vittorio Gassman in the main role. It was entered into the 1966 Cannes Film Festival. The film is set in the tragically realistic Italy during the Middle Ages. After mugging a valiant but wounded German Knight, some raiders find out that he was going to inherit the fief of Aurocastro. The bandits manage to persuade the fallen knight Brancaleone of Norcia to go to the fief in lieu of the German Knight and take possession of it, sharing the goods with the others, of course. So the Ragtag Bunch of Misfits (or Armata Brancaleone) start its long journey towards the fief, meeting up with various characters on their way, including a princess, a fanatical priest who want to force them to join the crusade, a fallen byzantine prince and many others.

This and Roberto Benigni’s Life is Beautyfull were my first contact with Italian Cinema. At first, The Incredible Army of Brancaleone scared me away as a child, because, as part of presenting a image of the Middle Ages more distant of fairy tales, it opened with a very gory scene of pillage, where a man have his arm cutted. But then, a few years later (when i was eight to nine years old), i gave it a second chance, watching it from beggining to end. And, oh my stars, is just so colorful (so much so that Brancaleone’s horse, Aquilante, is somehow yellow), and funny. Brancaleone (who aparently was inspired on Don Quixote) and his man are some of the most likable morans ever putted on screen. For me, this movie is proof that you still can present a grimm dark world balanced with an idealist, tough not very competent, group of likable characters, thus avoiding coming out as cynical and/or gratuitous darkness induced apathy, making a more profound point about society and human contradictions.

4º Amélie (2005).

This movie follows the story of Amélie Poulain, a lonely young parisian waitress with simple pleasures, as she decides to become a sort of guardian angel to those around her: reuniting a stranger with a box of his childhood treasures, gently prompting her retired father to follow his dreams of world travel, matchmaking café regulars, playing practical jokes on a greengrocer who's being cruel to his assistant, writing love letters to a woman whose husband left her, etc. During her adventures, she meets an odd young man called Nino, who we quickly realize is her soulmate — but she is too shy to make direct contact. She must find the courage to fix her own life as she's been fixing those of others.

How to start guching about this movie? The work with the green and red colors are a wonder to the eyes, we want to hear over and over again the memorable soundtrack, the inteligent script managed to make everyday life into a great adventure, the theme of sex receives a funny, yet natural, treatment, and i came to consider Audrey Tautou one of my favorite actressess for her performance as Amélie Poulain, a character whose curiosity, imagination, shiness, loneliness and buried sadness is very relatable.

5º Chicken Run (2000).

A ginger chicken named "Ginger" is the ringleader in the attempts of the chickens to escape from Mr. and Mrs. Tweedy's Chicken Farm, a prison where any chicken who fails to lay eggs risks being beheaded and cooked for dinner. Ginger is at her wits' end trying to talk the others into any new escape attempts, (all of which fail and earn her a trip to solitary confinement in a coal bunker). Then a rooster named Rocky, who can apparently fly, falls from the sky and agrees to teach the chickens how to fly like him, in return for Ginger keeping mum on his presence. However Mrs. Tweedy, tiring of the low profits selling eggs brings her, decides to convert her business into chicken pot pies. Needless to say, things get drastic in a hurry and Ginger must get the whole coop into the air before they all become mincemeat. 

This movie was my first contact with british animation, and one of my first memories of stop motion animation. And, ho boy, that animation still aged so well. My favorite scene is of the first flying trainging. Mrs. Tweedy is a very intimidating villain, Ginger is a brave and intelligent leader i would follow, the military style rooster Fowler is hilarious, Babs is adorkable with her needles and I AM MAC, THE NERDY CHICKEN! And plus: the soundtrack, oh, the soundtrack. Just, amazing.

6º The Ray Harryhausen Sinbad Movie Trilogy (1958, 1974, 1977).

Speaking of stop-motion animation, i decided to honour with a spot here the three movies staring the legendary Arabian Nights sailor Sinbad, The SEventh Voyage of Sinbad (1958), The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1974) and Sinbad and The Eye of The Tiger (1977), with storyboards and monster animation made by the team of master of stop-motion himself, Ray Harrihausen. Taking the viewer into aventures to save a princess and a prince from malefic and spels and searching for the pieces of a map to the fountain of youth, this movies present us with a rich fantasy world influenced by the Arabian Nights and the Greek Mithology, two of my personal favorites pantheons of fantastic mithologies. The second one of the trilogie, 1974′s The Golden Voyage of Sinbad, is probably the best crafted, specially with his variety of animated creatures and the writing of his main villain, the wizard Koura, played by Tom Baker. But i highly recomend all three for a great ride into the evolution of Harryhausen’s stop motion animation and storytelling.

7º The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie (2004).

One world: nostalgia.

This movie is the best episode, and the finally of the series. Period.

I wannabe best friends with Princess Mindy. And i want a Goofy Goober Icecream.

‘I’m a Goofy Goober. Yeah! You are a Goofy Goober. Yeah! We are Goofy Goober. Yeah! Goofy, Goofy, Goofy Goober, yeah’!

I TAG: @giuliettaluce​, @princesssarisa, @anne-white-star​, @thedyingtimelady​, @witches-ofcolor​, @jasminesa73, @tipsywench​

[kokkuri3]

Hello! Which books/arcticles/etc can you recommend If I am interested in writing character`s analyses as good as you?

This was SUCH a flattering ask to receive and I'm glad you respect me enough to ask it!! I thought about this question for a while and my answer is this:

There are a few books and articles I can recommend. The Hero With a Thousand Faces and The Writer's Journey are both important works among literary analysis circles and their deconstructions of fundamental character archetypes are, in my opinion, very helpful to know. Articles on character analysis specifically are in my experience a little hard to come by, and most focus more on the writing of the essay more than the analysis itself. WriteAnyPapers has a not bad article on it.

The books and articles I linked all explain fundamental character archetypes, and how they fit into a larger work. Having an understanding of these groundworks is important to being able to interpret characters and literature as a whole, at least in my opinion. What you're actually looking for, however, probably isn't what's in those books. What you want to know is probably more along the lines of "how do you come to interpret characters like this." In which case, I think it's better if I just give some advice myself.

1. Consider the greater whole.

This is the most important advice I have. When I say "consider the greater whole," I mean that one must always put any event, line, or character into the context of the story or character as a whole. Everything a character does, says, or narrates is part of their larger characterization. To take it a step further, characters exist as part of a greater narrative, and are part of a larger context. It's important to understand these as a network of interacting elements, and not as singular, independent episodes.

How does this character behave differently from other characters? In what way do they behave the same? Who is important to them, and to who are they important to? Why do they matter to the story as a whole? For this last question, consider not only plot, but themes and symbolism.

Essentially: everything is connected, so you have to consider what one thing has to do with another. (Note: sometimes, this also means taking the cultural context of a character or work into consideration. I don't think that's always necessary for character analysis, though.)

2. Consider more than just what's text.

By which I mean: take into account not only stated or directly shown characterization, but more subtle instances, as well. Not every event in a character's life will be shown, nor will their every thought. Learn to interpret subtext, identify symbolism, and recognize double meaning.

Subtext is a very important part of a narrative, despite being often overlooked or regarded as non-canon. For some purposes, I understand why subtext is held as lesser than canon (for example, I wouldn't call a character who is never explicitly stated or shown to experience same gender attraction 'canonically gay'), but for character analysis, your purpose is already to come to a conclusion that's not immediately obvious. By throwing away subtext, one erases a genuine part of a character's writing, making what they reach a bad faith interpretation (meaning, one made with an agenda).

Symbolism is often used to communicate characterization in a subtextual manner. This symbolism can be associated with particular events, or attached to a character design. If you see a specific symbol recurring throughout a work, try to see if there is any connection between its appearances. Some symbols aren't recurring within a specific work, but are associated with certain qualities across multiple works. I don't do symbol analysis as often as I do character analysis, but here's an analysis that's more the former (on scissors, specifically) and here's one that's more the latter (on white dresses as a symbol of purity.) By learning to recognize and interpret symbolism, one is able to see more aspects of a character than they would have otherwise.

Essentially: Not everything about a character will be explicitly stated, so it's alright to interpret a character based on guesses or assumptions, so long as these are backed by canon.

3. Do not conflate a character and their archetype.

One thing that happens often, and which bugs me to hell and back, is when assumptions are made about a character based on an archetype they appear to be, even when these assumptions blatantly conflict with canon. This rule is less "how to write a good character analysis" and more "how to not write a bad one," but I see this done so often I had to include it.

Is this character actually stupid, or did you just assume they were because they have traits associated with stupid characters? Is this character actually competent, or did you just assume they were because they have traits associated with competent characters? Is this character actually flirtatious, or did you just... You get my point.

In many ways this is also about combating stereotypes. You should always check your analysis for traits that are potentially racist/misogynist/homophobic/etc., and make sure canon actually supports these traits.

Character archetypes aren't bad-- they, like all tropes, are tools. Having a framework for a character can be helpful in writing them, and by creating a character that can be easily associated with other, similar ones, one can essentially shorthand to the reader what their position in the narrative will be. But well written characters are always greater than their archetypes. Identify which archetypes you associate with a character, and try to figure out if there are any ways in which they avert, subvert, or otherwise go against traits typical of their archetype.

Essentially: Make sure you're thinking about the character you're analyzing, and not other, similar characters.

4. Don't let personal biases cloud your judgement.

Fictional characters are not your friends. Nor are they your enemies. Developing a personal attachment or relationship to characters is natural, and I certainly do it. When analyzing a character, however, you shouldn't let any emotions you have warp your perception of the text.

Simply because you like a character does not mean you should look over their flaws. Sometimes, analysis can lead you to the conclusion a character you thought was good was actually pretty terrible. That's alright, and you're not betraying anyone by pointing out a character's dubious actions or flaws. Similarly, you can't make up reasons a character you hate is a terrible person. By framing actions not originally written as malicious as though they are a crime, one creates a bad faith interpretation.

And, by extent, just because you find a particular subject difficult does not mean you should ignore it. Bad faith interpretations go both ways, and interpretations made having erased all traces of taboo subject matter are as much made on false pretenses as interpretations made while fetishizing these.

Essentially: Fictional characters aren't real, and thus won't be hurt by your analysis. You shouldn't feel guilty or vengeful in creating a disparaging analysis, nor should you feel supportive or shameful in creating a supportive one. And it's OK to have mixed feelings on a character-- I take it as a sign of good writing.

Otherwise, my advice is a lot more broad. Simply familiarizing yourself with literature and its analysis should help you. Try to learn from other people. In my opinion, being a writer myself and learning to develop my own characters has positively influenced my interpretation. TVTropes as a website... Isn't great, but it is a pretty good way to learn to identify patterns across media to help with analysis and is also pretty fun to scroll through (actually looking at TVTropes character analyses isn't recommended though they tend to be pretty terrible). Wikipedia explains a lot of important analytical terminology (I reference foils a lot, for example). Have discussions with other people familiar with what you're analyzing, and don't be afraid of being wrong. Interpretation of art is subjective, so what's true to you is as true as anything. :)

Good luck !!! If you want any more advice, please let me know-- and keep in mind, a lot is just practice! I've been on Tumblr for 5+ years, and only recently have I begun making any... Decent analysis posts. As you further engross yourself, you'll be more able to identify important aspects of character and other devices such as subtext and symbolism. Even if your interpretation doesn't get much attention, keep going!!

Hope I could help!!

[miranema]

When you are still talking about a show you are too old for..

warning: it’s loooong (TL;DR section at the bottom)

Just to be clear I have no intention to look into and review any more Winx Club related content and it’s not just because the current environment is not conducive to this kind of endeavor. After I finished paying off my debts I considered getting back to this but eventually decided against it because some of my thoughts regarding this show have changed a little and I overall no longer see the point. One of the things I wanted to accomplish when I first started was to figure out why this show never appealed to me when it first came out on the FoxBox and well, the answer was very simple if not ridiculously obvious. This show was not made for me.

I was a few months short of 13 when the show premiered in the US and had just enough experience in the genre to have expectations, and this was the problem. When western magical girl series started to show up in the early 2000s, I expected shows that improved upon the standards and cliches left by the likes of Sailor Moon and its genre contemporaries, not just in terms of visuals but writing as well. Winx Club however, seemed more in line with the type of cartoons that (since the 80s) popped up every now and then as promotional material for emerging lines of fashion dolls generally targeting younger girls, with the only difference being that it had a progressive story-line. Even if you argue that Winx Club was not so merchandise-driven in its first seasons, contemporary fashion and aesthetics had always been the selling point. By then, shows that prioritized visual appeal over writing and seemed to exists primarily as toy commercials, were starting to lose my interest. I was also getting tired of certain staples like romantic relationships being bland but senselessly overemphasized and characters (specially protagonists) being archetypes with little to no complexity.  

As an adult, I since looked back at shows of similar quality/target audience and I have surprisingly been able to find joy within them leading me to another conclusion. It’s not that I am too old and weary to appreciate animated media aimed at young girls. It’s more likely that Winx Club is a sore spot for me because it is the show that made me realize (if subconsciously) that networks in charge of delivering animated media to mainstream television were no longer invested in appealing to me. As a non-white, lower-middle class girl who was never all that into relationship-melodrama I felt that most cartoons of my day didn’t really catered to my interest and I think I saw the rise of Winx Club as a bitter indication that even the animated genres that I liked or tolerated would eventually become completely inaccessible to me.

I had some trouble finding out what the target audience bracket was for the first season. From what I eventually gathered it is either 4-8 or 5-10, although apparently concept-wise the show was intended for a slightly older age group. I give more credence to the first bracket because honestly I think this show works best as baby’s first magical girl series. The less experience you have in the genre, the less fed-up with tropes and the less expectations you have going in, the better.

Lets just make a thing clear. There is no such thing as being too old to watch cartoons. An art medium is not inherently tied to an age group. Unfortunately, everything is at the mercy of capitalism, specially art produced for entertainment. There is a lot of stupidity and outdated ideas governing how mainstream shows are made and to whom they are made for. Industries don’t like to take chances and they are reluctant to change in accordance to society unless an increased in profits can be assured to some degree…

Look, look! I swear I was just going to post a simple paragraph-long note to whoever cared, stating I was not going to continue reviewing Winx Club even though I am no longer in debt. But, I made the HUGE mistake of looking at the Wikipedia page, specifically the part where they quoted show creator Iginio Straffi defending the controversial choices made for season 8, and here I am, annoyed and rambling. To paraphrase, he claims kids around 10 years and older just don’t watch cartoons as much as they used to (sure, Jan) and they just had to retooled their show for a younger demographic and that just means it cannot be as complex as it used to be. Yes, complex is a word he ascribed to the earlier Winx Club content (level of complexity to be clear). I rolled my eyes, I died a little inside and overall I also decided, among other things, to never read another Iginio Straffi interview ever again.

In an effort to wash away this BS and exorcise some demons let me throw here some of my still lingering unwarranted Winx Club thoughts in no particular sequence before this platform collapses any further:

Winx Club is one of if not the longest running western magical girl group series and its success is likely attributed to the fact that back when it premiered in the US, it was the only accessible and visually appealing series to come out of the genre since the beginning of the millennium. It practically had a monopoly of its intended audience. In my neck of the woods, it was available without the need of a cable/satellite subscription. In contrast, Dinsey-owned W.I.T.C.H. didn’t have that same accessibility and I don’t think I even need to bring up anime in general. The one other magical girl show from around the same time that I remembered coming across in syndicated broadcast was Trollz, and well you look that up and tell me how much staying power that looked like it had.

If the show has struggled in recent years is of course NOT because older kids don’t watch cartoons nowadays. Rather I think the show runners are not quite grasping how the circumstances surrounding their target audience have changed since the early 2000s. There are a lot more options out there in terms of entertainment even if you narrow things down to only western magical girl cartoons, not to mention that Winx club no longer has an edge on accessibility. I also think we consume media faster and that along with all the new options of entertainment means we have less head space to dedicate to one single show. Putting a new coat of paint to the newer seasons is simply not enough to remain relevant.

Adding to the above, It’s been well over ten years since the show first premiered. I don’t have data to prove this, but I am willing to bet that a sizable chunk of viewers were there from the beginning or joined at the start of the Nickelodeon era. It makes little sense for changes in writing to include hacking its continuity, rewriting established lore and deleting whatever meager character development they ever had. Maybe it’s not a good idea to turn your show with progressive storytelling including aging characters, into a cash cow you intend to milk for as long as you can and beyond. Maybe they should have given the early seasons a proper conclusion and laid the groundwork for new groups of characters to lead fresh series within the same universe...or you know, a full reboot.

I am not saying that the show should suddenly conform to my tastes (though that would be nice) after all it was not made for me. I just think that people that stuck with it deserve more than what they have been getting. I saw some positive feedback with regards to World of Winx but from what little I saw I don’t think it was good enough to be the series for older fans. Tone might be slightly different but writing-wise it feels more or less the same as the current series. The attempts at humor are still not landing for me at least. Also, how old does Straffi thinks the older fans are? 10? Who knows, maybe season 8 did its job in drawing-in the next gen, and maybe the planned live action series will be all that the older fans have been asking for. I do wish them the best.

Regarding things that I changed my mind about (though only a little bit)...In more than one occasion I referred to Bloom as a mary sue and this has been digging at me. Either the term has become toxic and too often unfairly assigned to any female character in a leading position, or it was always an improper way to discuss mediocre writing. There are main characters that are created in part to serve as vehicles of indulgence for its intended audience. I don’t think these these type of characters need to be complex to be successful or serviceable but I do think relatability and/or likability are indicators of whether or not a specific indulgent protagonist is effective. I didn’t find Bloom to be effective but she seems to be popular enough with the younger range of fans and that’s what matters. All I am saying is that Bloom could have easily been better and all it would have taken was for the writers to slightly lower the pedestal they put her on. Otherwise, they should have just stuck with the Magical Bloom title so no one would have delusions that the show would ever focus on anyone else.

I stand by most of my other major criticisms of the series. Though I admit that when I was looking at each episode I would spend an unreasonable amount of time on small things or personal pet peeves.I maintain however that to whom a show is intended for should not be a determinant of quality and there are things worth discussing even if one is not within the age-range of said audience. However, it’s not hard to tell what Winx Club is mostly about; it’s romance-centered. If you are not all that invested on that sort of stuff or you don’t like what the show is offering, then there is little point in sticking around because you are just going to get more and more caught-up on the flaws. The fantasy world elements while ambitious in scope are not well developed and consistency is an issue since the beginning that only gets worse as the series goes on. Unless you can subsist solely on the aesthetics and merch-friendly elements, I wouldn’t bother beyond the first movie.

If Winx Club had been the definitive blue print shaping the future of western magical girls shows, I would probably feel justified in making this much of a fuss. However, pretty much any other show I have seen after the fact has been a deviation and an improvement. I believe that’s because more content creators that grew up with the genre (and understood the many ways it could be improved) are finding opportunities to bring their appreciation for it into the mainstream. It’s pointless for me to still complain about the older stuff. Heck, I can even find good things to say about Angel’s Friends and this is definitely a cartoon that was shaped by the success of the fairy school show. 

Winx Club is fine, it has as much right to exist as any other piece of mindless entertainment aimed at any demographic.  And that’s that.

TL;DR

I am not reviewing Winx Club stuff anymore. I just had a lot of thoughts that were brought up by an annoying Iginio Straffi quote I saw on the Wiki page while I was working on that last post. Extended rambling is what I apparently do when I am mildly upset. I barfed all this out in the hopes that I won’t think about this show again anytime soon.

 If morbid curiosity gets the better of me, I might give future Winx Club content a watch. I just won’t post about it because it seems I am incapable of finding joy in it.

No, I don’t take criticisms of the bad spelling/grammar of my ramblings. Let this mess be. This is also not a place for debate, the only discourse I welcome here is whether or not relatability is a word. Online dictionaries say it’s fine but my word processor says it is not a thing. Discuss! (JK)

Stay safe,

[theliterateape]

I Like to Watch | The Walking Dead

by Don Hall

I have this great idea. At the end of Return of the King, following the battle to destroy Sauron, we follow Aragorn and Gandalf as they continue battle lesser evils in Middle Earth. You know, maybe like a Balrog with delusions of grandeur or an evil faction of dwarves. In the meantime, Sauron, instead of being destroyed, is held captive and we get to know him a little better. Maybe we extend the saga to show his backstory and exactly how he became evil?

Hell, we could milk the battles for years!

No?

How about this: a The Princess Bride follow-up wherein Count Rugen survives the sword fight between he and Inigo. Then, later, the two form a bond and travel the countryside looking wrongs to right.

NO?!

OK: After Luke Skywalker kills the Emperor and we spend three prequels on the backstories of both Vader (as a kid) and the Emperor (as a Senator), we jump forward in time. There is a new threat with a bad guy not quite as bad as Vader because he's so openly conflicted and kinda horny for the female Luke. Then, when things come to a head at the third sequel, we bring back the Emperor so we can kill him AGAIN!!

No. You're right. That is a shitty idea.

At the (long) tail-end of the pandemic, the rest of the 10th season of The Walking Dead resumed airing and I found myself undeniably un-inspired. I didn't really care much for The Whisperers and after they bumped Rick Grimes off and then carted him away on a helicopter, the show sort of fizzled. I couldn't figure out what was missing (besides Rick) so I decided to go back to the beginning and watch the whole thing again.

The zombie trope goes back a ways into horror history. The concept of the dead re-animating and going for our living throats has elements of the Golem, aspects of Frankenstein's Monster, and a historical basis in the slavery practices of the French in Haiti.

The zombie archetype, as it appeared in Haiti and mirrored the inhumanity that existed there from 1625 to around 1800, was a projection of the African slaves’ relentless misery and subjugation. Haitian slaves believed that dying would release them back to lan guinée, literally Guinea, or Africa in general, a kind of afterlife where they could be free. Though suicide was common among slaves, those who took their own lives wouldn’t be allowed to return to lan guinée. Instead, they’d be condemned to skulk the Hispaniola plantations for eternity, an undead slave at once denied their own bodies and yet trapped inside them—a soulless zombie.

In 1968, George Romero shot (on a budget of $114,000) what was originally entitled Night of the Flesh Eaters and later renamed Night of the Living Dead. He didn't refer to his walking dead as "zombies" but as "ghouls." 

The grainy black and white film was far more than a gruesome horror flick—it was an allegory for the protests of both the Vietnam War and the riots of those fighting for Civil Rights. Later, his sequel of sorts, Dawn of the Dead, is another social satire disguised as gore flick with the zombies (he now called them zombies) acting as stand-ins for the suburban consumerist ethos. 1985's Day of the Dead is an allegory about the mindless authoritarianism of the military. Land of the Dead was a satire of class division; Diary of the Dead spoofed the age of blogging and YouTube.

What were the zombies? How did they come to be? Romero gives us a comet. A cosmic incident with no more explanation. This gives the satirical representation the foreground.

Along came more zombie apocalypse movies: Re-animator, Dead Alive, 28 Days Later. Certainly a lot more including Night of the Creeps and Zombie. In 2004, we get Zach Snyder's brilliant re-make of Dawn of the Dead. This list of the undead had as much in common with the classic atomic monsters as they did the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park—these ghouls were created by man. These were the inevitable result of humankind's hubris and god-complex. We created the end of the world and now must make sense of our creation.

In 2003, Robert Kirkman and Tony Moore co-created a long-running comic series published by Image Comics: The Walking Dead. In 2010, AMC picked up the comic for a television series of the same name and what set these zombies apart from the previous strain is that one didn't have to be bitten in order to turn. These zombies represented a natural human-wide disease that re-animated anyone who died. Like a bizarre metaphor for Purgatory, becoming undead was inevitable for all living people. This created a completely different dynamic for those surviving.

Which brings us up to speed.

I was hooked to TWD for the first four seasons. The conclusion of the Governor arc was satisfying and everything about the prison was exceptional but I was exhausted by the time they arrived at Terminus. The thing became taxing to follow and I believe I'd hit my limit. I dropped away until I was talking to a friend who loved the show and she told me that Negan was the best villain she'd ever seen.

I rejoined the Grimes Gang with Season 5. Terminus cannibals. Again, I got sucked in. The tragic end of Bob. The back-and-forth conflict of Gabriel. The whole Beth in the hospital with the corrupt cops was weak but that may have been because I don't find Beth remotely interesting. Then we get to Alexandria and the dynamic between the people so blind to the world that they're having cocktail parties and the group who have endured almost comical loss and tragedy makes for some excellent storytelling.

Then came Season 6, episode 4 He's Not Here. 

Both loosely connected to the journey of our merry band yet set completely apart, this standalone episode finds us with Morgan (the extraordinary Lennie James) being brought back from the insanity he's afflicted with by Eastman (an equally wonderful John Carroll Lynch). Eastman slowly brings Morgan back from the edge.

A psychiatrist, Eastman tells the story of his prison practice. He explains that he has worked with over 800 incarcerated patients and only one was irredeemably evil. He tells him of that patient, Crighton Dallas Wilton. While a model prisoner in the eyes of the prison staff, Eastman saw Wilton for what he was, an evil, manipulative psychopath. When the time for Wilton's parole came up, Eastman was the one to interview him and it was here that Wilton realized that Eastman had seen through his facade and attempted to kill him. 

Later, we find out exactly how evil Wilton was and how Eastman came to be who he is in this apocalyptic world.

This episode is beautifully done and, upon re-watching the whole thing all over again, stands out for one important aspect. Eastman tells us that in this world of heroes and villains surrounded by the undead, there is only one truly evil person to watch out for.

The Governor isn't evil. He's an asshole. An authoritarian. He's also insane from grief which has driven him to become a villain. He's no more or less brutal in many ways than Rick. The Terminus cannibals are likewise justified in their choices as sickening and horrifying as they may be.

Eastman is warning us of true evil on the horizon.

That evil is Negan.

From the moment we see him (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) and his barbed wire bat, Lucille, he is the embodiment of gleeful malevolence. He is brutal and he fucking loves it. He kills both Abraham and Glenn with such casual smug pleasure that the fact that he just offed a beloved character who has been on the journey since the second episode of the entire franchise only hurts more.

Negan is the anti-Rick. No conflict within himself, convinced that he is righteous in his path with so little regard for even his own Saviors (his 'relationship' to Dwight is a thing of remarkable cruelty). It isn't even the body count (both the Governor and the Terminus gang kill more onscreen) but his enjoyment in brutalizing people, teasing them into submission, then gutting them on the street is Hannibal Lecter territory.

Negan is the one truly evil man Eastman warns us about.

In my marathon from the start, I realized sometime during Season 8—I had no interest in seeing any more following Negan's defeat. Having seen the episodes before, I didn't want to see the character redeemed. I didn't want him to be at all relatable. I wanted Rick to kill him and for a sense of closure.

Now take a peek at Season 8. The writers wrote the end of the series in this one. The alliance of Alexandria, The Hilltop, and The Kingdom against The Saviors. Eugene finds his safe place and Gabriel struggles to redeem himself. Fucking Carl dies! Rick beats Negan one-on-one in a field and cuts his throat with a piece of stained glass. FINIS. OVER. DONE, for chrissakes.

Carl's death means nothing if the ending isn't peace. I'll be honest, the first time I watched Carl die, I didn't much care. He wasn't a heavy weight character in my mind. The second time, I bawled like a baby because, in a few weeks, I watched him go from scared kid in the camp when Rick (presumed dead) strolls in to the young man sparring with Negan. Carl's vision of Rick's future is the end. Except for the Negan part. FUCK THAT. Negan doesn't get to survive.uck that

Rick cuts his throat. He doesn't instruct Sadiq to save him. Negan dies. Maggie gets her revenge. Rick makes his "a better world" speech. Cut to black.

HBO’s Six Feet Under, The Sopranos, The Leftovers. All could have continued following their obvious and arguably brilliant endings but they didn’t. Game of Thrones could’ve just stopped as soon as the Night King is defeated but they couldn’t help themselves and tarnished the legacy of one of the most watched television series in history. I loved Lost all the way up until they explained everything poorly.

I get it. AMC needs the cash cow. Lots of people employed so they just have to continue the tale but, man, when you get to an ending that good, walk away.

[sidwellxcen384-blog]

Grand Theft Auto PC Download gtadownload.org: What No One Is Talking About

Grand Theft Auto V Review Game

For me, GTA V ’s extraordinary range is summed winning inside two favourite moments. Individual becomes from the mid-game mission where I rushed a flat in a different plane, attacked the folks, hijacked the thing, and then parachuted ready and inspected it crash in the ocean to escape death for the supply of pay military fighter aircraft. One more occasion, whilst travel around in the off-road buggy, I got distracted in something looks like a means up among the San Andreas mountains. Turns out it was a avenue, after that I finished 15 minutes respect on the meeting, wherever I nearly ran over the faction of hikers. “Typical!” one of them yelled by everyone, as though he practically gets run over by a rogue ATV together with a mountain every time he goes on the hike.

I could go on this way for ages. GTA V has an plenty of like moments, deep with tiny, that make San Andreas – the location of Los Santos and surrounding areas – feel like a living earth in which anything can take place. It both gives you tremendous freedom to investigate an amazingly well-realised world and orders a story that’s gripping, exciting, and darkly comic. It is a step advance into narrative style for the lines, with there’s no physical component of the gameplay that hasn’t been strengthened over Grand Theft Auto IV. It’s immediately obvious the insurance routine is far more dependable and the auto-aim less touchy. The cars feel less like their tires are made of butter with shove better to the road, although the exaggerated handling still leaves plenty of place for spectacular wipeouts. Also on long past, Rockstar has completely killed among their most persistent demons, mission checkpointing, making sure that you never have to do a long, tedious take six when you repeatedly fail a mission ever again.

GTA V is also an intellectual, wickedly comic, and bitingly relevant commentary about contemporary, post-economic crisis America. All about it drips satire: it flies into the Millennial generation, celebrities, the much exactly, the widely effect, the core school, the media... Nothing is safe from Rockstar’s sharp tongue, including modern video games. One prominent supporting character spends mainly of the moment wearing their bedroom shouting sexual threats in public on the headset whilst showing a first-person shooter called Righteous Slaughter (“Rated PG – pretty much the same as the last game.”) It is not precisely subtle – he practically has the word “Entitled” tattooed in the throat, plus the in-game radio and Television outright piss-takes don’t put much for the imagination – but it is often extremely weird, and a bit provocative with it. Grand Theft Auto’s San Andreas is a fantasy, but the issues this satirises – greed, corruption, hypocrisy, the hurt of right – become many very real. If GTA IV happened a targeted killing of the American dream, GTA V takes point in the new American reality. The attention to factor that assumes making the world feel lively with believable is also what makes the satire so biting.

Grand Theft Auto V ’s plot happily works in the boundaries of plausibility, sending people away to drive dirt bikes along the highest of schools, hijack military plane, and engage in absurd shootouts with tally of policemen, yet it is three main figures become what keep it relatable level at it is many severe. The well-written and worked interplay between them provides the biggest laughs and most affecting times, with the way to their associations with just one another polished with my opinion of them changed throughout the history produced the plot their right. They think that people – albeit extraordinarily f***ed-up people.

Michael is a retired con work into his 40s, block out across the heart like he drinks beside the band now his Vinewood mansion with a layabout son, air-headed daughter, serially unfaithful wife, and very expensive therapist – most of who hate him. Franklin is a son from downtown Los Santos who laments the gang-banger stereotype even as he’s reluctantly seduced by the prospect of an better score. And then there’s Trevor, a hazardous career criminal that days from the wilderness selling drugs and murdering rednecks; a psychopath whose bloodthirsty lunacy is fuelled with a arrangement of methamphetamine along with a genuinely messed-up childhood.

The objective flit among their own original tale then a good overarching plotline which means all three, and a glory to GTA V’s versatility and universal quality that each person cover his bit of standout vision. When the arcs developed I sense very differently on both ones by different ages – they’re not exclusively the archetypes that they are.

This three-character structure causes for excellent rate and extreme form in the storyline, it also allows Rockstar to compartmentalise different aspects of Grand Theft Auto’s personality. In doing this, it sidesteps some of the troubling disconnect that appeared when Niko Bellic abruptly changed between anti-violent philosophising and sociopathic killing sprees in GTA IV. Here, many of Michael’s missions revolve covering their ancestors with the past, Franklin is usually on demand vehicular disorder, with severe murderous charges are permit to Trevor. Each state a unique ability matched to help their talents – Franklin could to help slow time while taking, for example – that ends them a unique touch. Narratively, it’s powerful – even off-mission I found myself playing with nature, acting like a mid-life-crisis gentleman with frustration issues because Jordan, a thrill-seeker as Franklin, and a maniac as Trevor. The first thing I did as Franklin finally do some good cash was believe him a great amazing car, since I touch like that’s exactly what he’d want.

Trevor considers a like a tiny get-out-of-jail-free license for Rockstar, presenting an outlet for all the preposterous actions and deadly behavior which otherwise might not fit in with GTA V’s narrative ambitions. I found his violent insanity a minute overblown and boring at first. Because get-out clauses go, even though, their pretty successful, with Trevor’s over-the-top missions are most of GTA V’s action-packed highlights. It’s a successful way of fixing a quandary that’s prevalent in open-world games: the tension between report the writers want to request, then the tale you develop yourself in their structure and its world. Grand Theft Auto V accommodates both, masterfully, allowing not to challenge the other.

The actual pretense of moving between them also provides a window in personal days with problems, fleshing off their personalities in a way that feels usual and story. Collect a atmosphere and the video camera moves out in the San Andreas map, closing back happening upon where they happen to be. Michael can occur at home watching TV when you release here on him, or race beside the motorway blasting ‘80s attacks, or using a cigarette on the golf club; Franklin can live moving away from a strip club, munching a case of snacks at home, or arguing with his ex-girlfriend; there’s a good prospect to Trevor could be tossed out half naked on the beach surrounded with over groups or, one memorable occasion, down in a stolen police helicopter.

It could be nearly everything, because there is a bewildering variety of details to do in the original San Andreas – tennis, yoga, hiking, people on sea then about ground, flying planes, golfing, cycling, diving, hunting, and more. The vision are a great intelligent leader to both San Andreas’ locations and its activities, visit people about the map and whetting the appetite for free exploration of it all. How that we’re established to San Andreas never feels artificial – the plan is fully open in the opening, for example – which says to the notion to the a real place, where you can get to know. If GTA IV’s Liberty City feels like a living city, San Andreas feels like a living world. I get people going their pet alongside the sand in the country so I jet-skied past, arguing for the street outside a cinema with Los Santos, and camped – with covering then anything – overnight in Support Chiliad, before packing positive with lasting a backpack in the morning. The astounding.

The ambience changes dramatically counting in where you are, also. Trevor’s dusty trailer out in the middle of nowhere in Blaine County feels like another earth through downtown Los Santos or Vespucci Beach. It wasn’t until the first time I take off a jet from the capital with on the mountains I became cycling around a few hours or that the total range of it became obvious. It shoves the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 more than it has any fine near, and it looks incredible. The biggest spring in property as Grand Theft Auto IV is the character animation, but the world can be much more expansive, detailed, and crowded. The price we buy of which is rare framerate drops and texture pop-in, that i found became more prominent the longer I played, but certainly not significantly taken away through my personal feel. For like a colossal and variable world it is also remarkably bug-free – I met just three minor problems from the 35 hours I spent on the primary playthrough, none that affected everyone to go down a quest.

San Andreas’s extraordinary intelligence of house is heightened by the fact that so much of it isn’t on GTA Full Game the place. There’s so much taking which it is simple find things organically, rather than waste your own lifestyle following a mission marker. I when take a passenger jet from the airport for the hell of it, then parachuted onto the top of the tallest building in Los Santos. (I then accidentally jumped off the highest and reduction toward my death, forgetting to I’d currently employed the parachute, however I normally put that piece off.) Out driving in the country, I fell across a man to a phone rod with womens’ underwear. I tracked down criminals who randomly swipe purses on the lane, with went off across gunbattles between police and other miscreants, incident to give a feel that world isn’t completely uneventful if I wasn’t below to interrupt normalcy. I believed an exclusive mountain cycle with cycled around in the hills, enjoying the sight. These small moments can be got about your own telephone camera – which, brilliantly, can also use selfies. I have some shouts of Trevor completing his unhinged account of a laugh within his underpants on top of a hill.

The rumor to GTA V tells during their missions takes full advantage of all this kind beyond getting with killing (while the maneuver with direct is supremely enjoyable). It’s cause a lot of good times. This included us racing Michael’s lazy blob of a boy across Vespucci Beach in one of many misguided attempts on father-son bonding, utilizing a thermal scope to look for someone from a helicopter before chasing them along the city on the ground, torching a meth lab, towing cars for Franklin’s crack-addict uncle to thwart him through shed the profession, getting into a facility on the beach in a wetsuit and flippers, piloting a marine, impersonating a structure worker, doing yoga, escaping on plane skis, failing multiple generations to earth a jet burdened with drugs at a hangar shown from the wilderness… it goes by with by. The days of a repetitive collections of “get now, find this gentleman, shoot that guy” stay after us. Still missions that would usually be set are filled with novelty with excitement by the capability to compete them by a few different views – in a shootout, Trevor can be exciting RPGs from a rooftop what Jordan and Franklin flank the rival on the ground.

It is the heists – multi-stage, huge-scale experience that help as the story’s climactic peaks – which demonstrate Grand Theft Auto V at their most dedicated and obtained. Usually there’s a choice between a more involved, stealthier option that will (hopefully) attract less boil, along with a great all-out option that will be less tense yet more explosively chaotic – with what exactly crew to take along with you on the job. All of GTA V’s missions are replayable at any time, allowing you relive favourite seconds before look at out a different method. They also have optional objectives in the vein of Assassin’s Creed’s synchronisation challenges, but crucially, these are invisible once people play a quest, therefore they don’t distract a person from performing things your way.

Sometimes your way won’t are the means that this designers require you to do something, with although GTA 5 is usually very good at bending close to people as you do, here were a few situation wherever that wasn’t train for our personal name of chaos. Overtake a car you’re not meant to overtake and it may close in pad of travel as if with secret. Despite the opening of different stealth mechanics, enemies will miraculously make sure you when the mission dictates they should. Kill someone or you’re supposed to, and that’s sometimes Mission Failed. Most of the time the drafting is suitable to be invisible, but as it is not, you really discover this – if only because most of the time it’s so seamless.

As always, some of the wittiest record shows through to the in-game radio to shows behind all of the search and confusion. “There’s nothing other effective, more masculine, new American than a big lump of coins,” blasts one of the in-game ads. “We learn times are tough, but they don’t have to be tough for you. Still cause several liquidity in your home? Are you insane?” The tune selection is also typically excellent, leading to most of those serendipitous moments where you’re driving combined with the right music happens by. During a heist, when the radio isn’t blaring the background, a vibrant soundtrack seriously builds tension.

The satire is improved with integration of advanced life in the game world. Every individual turns around their smartphone – it’s used to trade stocks, call up friends to meet in place then launch emails. There’s a great Facebook spoof, Life Invader, on the in-game Interne, with the slogan “Where Your own Personal Data Becomes A Marketplace Page (Which We Can Go)”. You’ll hear adverts for preposterous parodic TV shows that you can actually watch with your TELEVISION at home, optionally whilst enjoying a toke. It might not be realistic, but it certainly feels authentic.

It’s significance mentioning that when this extends to sexual, drugs, with assault, GTA V pushes boundaries much more than at any time or. If the morality authorities were concerned with Hot Chocolate, there’s a lot here that will provoke moral hysteria. It’s deliciously subversive, and safely tongue in cheek... but after before twice, this shoves the borders of experience, too. There’s one instance scene, a personal world in which you have no alternative bar to help actively participate, i gotten so troubling that we took problems playing this; yet couched in obvious assessment in the US government’s choice to torture post 9/11, it’s a surprising moment that will attract justified controversy. It brings to mind Label of Function: Modern Warfare 2’s No Russian mission, except worse, and without the selection to omit over this. Another stuff, like the ever-present prostitution with extensive strip-club minigames, feels like it’s present even if this may be rather than as it gives anything to say.

There is nothing in San Andreas, though, that doesn’t serve Rockstar’s resolution with creating a exaggerated projection of The usa that’s suffused with crime, assault and sleaze. There are no nice gentlemen in GTA V. All you know is a sociopath, narcissist, criminal, lunatic, sadist, cheat, liar, layabout, or about combination of these. A good guy which gives good funds to help shoot Los Santos’ worst examples of corporate greed is playing the stock exchange to help the help whilst he does it. In the world like this, it’s not tough to escort why violence is often the first option. All the pieces fit.

Verdict

Grand Theft Auto V is not only a preposterously enjoyable video game, but also an intellectual and sharp-tongued satire of contemporary America. It signifies a elegance of the lot to GTA IV gotten to the record five years ago. It’s technically more accomplished in every conceivable system, yet it’s also tremendously committed into a right. No extra earth into record games comes near that now magnitude or scope, and there is strong brains behind the logic of humour and surprise for mayhem. This shows a compelling, unpredictable, and provocative story without actually letting this get in the way of your self-directed journey through San Andreas. It is one of the very best movie games yet produced. Write: That journal exclusively involves the single-player section of GTA 5 , since it launched without any multiplayer mode.

[kynimdraws]

A little PSA: An explanation of Ovewatch Ana’s “Tal/탈” skin

I am getting tired of people hating on Ana’s Tal skin and while I have expressed my discontent over this unnecessary discourse on twitter I might as well crosspost on tumblr because of non-Koreans trying to spread misinformation about my home country’s culture.

(Ana voice): SHHHHHHHHHHHH calm down kids it’s grandma

Disclaimer: I am Korean. My mother is a Korean teacher who has taught me Korean history/culture. My uncle teaches in a University about Korean history. Chinese cultural appropriation topics will not be mentioned here, because I am not Chinese. Someone with better knowledge about that than make their own posts elsewhere (please).

A quick googling of “tal” or “탈” will give you the following definition (lifted from the all-accessible wikipedia page). I bolded the most relevant parts of this excerpt since I will go into more detail about it in the next paragraphs:

Korean masks have a long tradition with the use in a variety of contexts. Masks are called tal (Hangul: 탈) in Korean, but they are also known by many others names such as gamyeon, gwangdae, chorani, talbak and talbagaji. Korean Mask come with black cloth attached to the sides of the mask designed to cover the back of the head and also to simulate black hair.

They were used in war, on both soldiers and their horses; ceremonially, for burial rites in jade and bronze and for shamanistic ceremonies to drive away evil spirits; to remember the faces of great historical figures in death masks; and in the arts, particularly in ritual dances, courtly, and theatrical plays. The present uses are as miniature masks for tourist souvenirs, or on cell-phones where they hang as good-luck talismans.

The one Ana is specifically wearing is a type of 하회탈 (hahoetal), which describes a type of mask used during theatre (하회별신굿탈놀이) and dance (탈춤) since the 12th century. These performances consist of a cast of character archetypes, which are depicted by the masks. Many of the features in the masks are exaggerated for humorous and dramatic effect. Here are a general list of masks that commonly seen.

Fun fact, Ana’s mask is a hybrid of the Kaksi/각시 and Yangban/양반 mask. And maybe a little bit of the Halmo/할미 depending on the mask design.

These mask plays were performed in villages to ward off evil spirits and to convince the local gods to protect them and bring prosperity. A certain aspect of these performances are also comedic, and a chance for performers to poke fun of the ruling class and taboo subjects like sex. While this is not tied to the Lunar New Year specifically, such performances were done during special occasions like those holidays.

Now you may be asking “this is part of a religious thing! Isn’t that disrespectful??” And trust me, this depiction is FAR from being offensive to most Koreans.

Yes the tal was used for shamanistic rituals, specifically associated with “muism” (무교/신교). However, muism is not a popular Korean religion. While there has a recent uprise in people practicing it/being interested in it, Muism has always faced discrimination in Korean history. Confucianism, Christianity, and even Japanese colonialism has demonized this religion and it was nearly forgotten/eradicated. The most known incident of this is called the misin tapa undong (미신 타파 운동) describes a period from 19th century to the 1980s where various parties (both outside and inside Korea) tried to eradicate muism through various means, including burning down local shrines and villages that were known to practice them. People had to be in hiding so avoid persecution.

Fortunately the Korean government has indirectly protected Muism by making several aspects of their religious traditions as national Korean treasures, including the 탈 among other things. But it is important to note that whole 탈 culture is secularized now. It does not have the religious connotations that it was known for. Hell, the masks are one of the most recognizable features of Korean culture (and seen in many souvenirs). There are places in Korea that preserve this tradition and perform it to the public to spread awareness of its history (the 안동 village every September has an arts festival for all traditional Korean performing arts). FYI, Koreans who appreciate this are not muists themselves, and no one requires you to be one. Lunar New Year is largely a secular holiday, after all.

Now, do you want to see some of the reactions KOREAN FANS had about the Ana skin? Here are few I got off from twitter, with translations from yours truly:

BTW that Ana tal skin is my aesthetic - (x)

That Ana skin is really good ㅇㅁㅇ....tal is really making my heart flutter* - (x)

*간지뿅뿅 is not a really easy thing to translate since it’s a combo of a sound effect and an emotion??? It’s a positive response either way

Ana skin ㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠtal is so good ㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠ - (x)

OMG Ana’s skin is tal LOL that is exciting - (x)

Many of these really are happy their culture is seen! And it’s not depicted in a mocking manner and the overall design is quite lovely, with Korean-design motifs in her clothes. The few relatively negative tweets about her skin are how the cloth may be too bright/gaudy compared to the mask, which is sort of true. The mask is supposed to be seen clearly to show what character the performer is playing out. But the color scheme really looks like those worn for the Bongsan talchum (봉산탈춤), another variety of tal (they are all within the same province btw). And a lot of Korean traditional color schemes are pretty gaudy too.

Alright, so I have told you all I can about the tal culture. Now the you may be asking the following question, summarized well by this tweet:

I think Ana looks awesome in general but what was the concept behind her new skin ???? She’s Egyptian so why wear a Tal? - (x)

To be fair, I was also fairly surprised by the choice for having Ana have the Korean-style skin before I became super ecstatic to see my culture be represented. I do agree it is odd to see a Muslim/Egyptian/Arabic character (two groups that don’t really celebrate Lunar New Year from what I can gather) to be chosen for a Korean skin, but that matter sort of falls into the “Muslim/Egyptian/Arabic culture is underrepresented in Overwatch and gaming media in general” topic and I am not knowledgeable enough to discuss that in detail. A Muslim Overwatch fan has written about this matter here if you want to check it out.

But back on point, is this skin an example of YELLOW FACE or CULTURAL APPROPRIATION? No! When did being Muslim/Arabic/Egyptian =/= you can’t celebrate/appreciate other cultures and their traditions? Did you only want Koreans to get the skin? I am all for D.Va getting more skins (and MAYBE more KOREAN OVERWATCH HEROES) but why restrict the Korean theme onto just one character? Cultural appropriation is when people INAPPROPRIATELY disrespect a culture by mocking them and disregarding the traditions of said culture. Ana is not doing any of this. Besides, Korean tal culture is not closed off to non-Koreans, and there are Korean cultural socities that are willing to offer classes on this and will even teach you how to do the dance/plays (i.e. Sejong University has a site for it). 

FYI because I am Korean, I cannot say how Egyptian/Muslim/Arab fans feel about Ana wearing Korean attire for Lunar New Year. I have talked to a few Muslim OW fans/friends about this and given their differing opinions on the matter (including the OP of the muslim underrepresentation post I linked earlier), I cannot really make a confident assumption on how these people generally feel about the skin. On Korean fandom’s end though, we love the skin! It’s great Blizzard took the time to research Korean culture and make a skin that isn’t mocking Koreans. And Blizzard does have some ties with Korea itself due to its HUGE gaming culture/fanbase, so it is possible BlizzKorea has gotten input there for this event. Being between two BIG Asian countries (Japan and China), Korea is often left out and this event was a really nice breath of fresh air. We are represented!! We are not some invisible culture between the big two!!!

And if you are not part of this culture, just PLEASE let other people speak out about the matter before getting on your moral high horse to talk about appropriation. 

Now, does that mean the Korean fandom thinks Blizzard is a perfect company? NO! Honestly the entire event is MOSTLY about Chinese culture (with some Korean stuff squeezed in between). Other Asian countries that celebrate Lunar New Year have been ignored (i.e. Southeast Asian cultures and some Indian cultures celebrate Lunar New Year and they are not included despite Symmetra being Indian, etc). These discrepancies are good starting points to discuss underrepresentation in media that Blizzard can learn about and hopefully include in their future updates. From what I can see, the Overwatch developers have been receptive to this feedback so it would be good to have that convo in their official forums too.

FYI, I personally feel like there could have been more Korean stuff for this event period. In America at least, it really sucks that Lunar New Year is ALWAYS called Chinese New Year despite other countries also celebrating it...RIP. But I appreciate that this game has made Korean culture more visible. Here’s hope to more visible Korean stuff in gaming and elsewhere! Where is my “새해 복 많이 받으세요” voice line for D.Va? I demand answers Blizzard!!!

Anyway, hope that has taught you something new, and Happy Lunar New Year to everyone!

[10millionotters]

Is Souta Furuta Washuu what you'd call a Mary Sue?

I don’t know if this is a question you ask because of genuine curiosity or if you’re one of the people who go out of their way to play judgement day with people who like morally grey character. 

So I will give you a reply that will explain my short answer, no I don’t, in a more elaborate manner. 

First of all - what is a Mary Sue? Let’s take a look at the definition. 

A Mary Sue is an idealised and seemingly perfect fictional character, a young or low-rank person who saves the day through unrealistic abilities, sometimes with the intent to inspire young or marginalised people and show them that even they can have as great of a potential as leading characters. Often this character is recognised as an author insert or wish-fulfilment.[1] Sometimes the name is reserved only for women, and male Sues are called "Larry Stus," "Gary Stus," or "Marty Stus"; but more often the name is used for both sexes.[2][3]

Personally I’d say that sounds way less than Souta and more like... 

But of course this is oversimplifying the facts, so let’s start with a real Mary Sue. 

Theodore from The Castle of Otranto 

The Castle of Otranto is the first gothic novel in literary history and created something that you call the triadic character constellation, which consist of the archetypes of the hero, the damsel in distress and the villain. 

Since we’re not discussing the novel now, let’s just have a look at Theodore the Mary Sue. 

Why is Theodore a Mary Sue?

The definition of a Mary Sue describes the character as someone who is so close to perfection that it makes them bland. Perfection in a from the author intended positive sense

 Theodore is: 

A prince that was raised like a peasant but still talks and acts like royalty (though he has no prior knowledge to being a prince)

Incredibly handsome and witty

He has so much luck that he is practically untouchable to EVERYTHING that happens around him (supposed to starve to death under a gigantic Helmet, nah, ghost from the afterlife helped him)

He is so handsome that the 2 most beautiful girls in the novel (though all girls are beautiful and chaste and boring and Mary Sues) fall in love with him even though they don’t have a lot of interaction 

He helps everyone (especially women) for no selfish reason at all, but no, he just believes it is worth giving up his life for a complete stranger especially if it’s a woman 

Did I mention the help form his ancestors from the afterlife?

See where my point leads you? A Mary Sue is never NEVER morally grey character, what you mean would be a character that’s over powered and badly written. 

But then we also have to take a closer look at... 

Why would people assume Souta is a Mary Sue?

1.“He is part of every organisation that exists within the TG universe!”

Wrong. He is not part of every organisation. He wasn’t part of Anteiku, neither is he part of Aogiri, he is not part of the Tsukiyama clan’s now fallen empire, he is not a White Suit, he is not a Black Goat and I don’t think he ever heard of Tatara’s family, but he is a Washuu. 

The Washuu clan who has control over the CCG, the Washuu clan that is the reason why the Sunlit Garden exists and Souta is a Garden child that wasn’t deemed useful for breeding so they made him part of V. Thanks to his connection to Kanou (and Kanou works with the Clowns and prior worked with/for the CCG AND he knows of the Garden...) you can do the maths - tada, that’s how he also became part of their organisation, though it is important to acknowledge that Souta has his own agenda. 

All organisations that Souta is a part of are related or connected to Washuu Clan, which he is a part of. Arima was also member of the CCG and part of V, but also had his ties to Aogiri so hm... Seems like Souta isn’t the only Washuu kid that get off the right path. 

... and look at Eto, who happens to be an natural born one eyed ghoul, leader of Aogiri and Ken’s favourite best selling author... h m. 

2. “He is too handsome.” 

Which is also one of the key characteristics of a Mary Sue, but again... all Washuu children out of his generation (speaking of the siblings Souta, Rize, Kishou and Yoshitoki) are beautiful, as pointed out various times (by Ken and in case of Yoshitoki (Chika) by Marude) through out the manga. 

Also he’s not the only good looking character in the series who has a morally grey perspective look at Eto, Touka, Ken, Renji... the list is endless. 

3. “He suddenly took the lead of the CCG!” 

That was his initial plan from the start. He is a literal carbon copy of his older brother, from the hairstyle down his voice he is copying Yoshitoki and it works, even Yoshitoki’s own son mistook his uncle for his own father. It didn’t happen suddenly, it all happened because Souta planned it. 

Also it wasn’t too suddenly, he still had some negotiations with his Papa, hm? He also worked for the CCG and is no stranger to them. 

4. “He is over powered!”

He might be an artificial half ghoul, but he is not overpowered. He was seemingly exhausted after his fight with Eto, he was bruised and beaten up, even threw up due to psychological pressure (if it was an act or not is ofc debatable.) Meanwhile his brother Kishou often came out of fights unharmed, a ‘scratch’ was something unusual for him and in the end the only person that was able to kill him, was he himself. 

Now to move away from the Washuu, you also have other artificial half ghouls that would fit the ‘over powered’ category, look at Ken, Amon, Takizawa and the other half ghouls. 

Even full ghouls are somewhat ‘over powered’. Renji can kick off someone’s head without effort, he blocked Arima’s attack with his bare hands, survived getting his throat slit and blast from Angel Beat right to his abdomen AFTER barely surviving a fight prior to that ; Hinami has a chimera kagune, Donato can detach his kagune and create a perfect clone of himself with only losing a small part of his body in case of his clone being killed, what the fuck is Uta even? 

And even among humans we have character whom you could speak of as a Mary Sue, look at Marude who can shot a sniper riffle without adjusting it, hitting another sniper in a larger building complex without any problems, he also managed to jump of a ship and swim fully clothed through presumably ice cold water (and while you swim fully clothed it gets way harder to move and ice cold water slows you down too). 

Takeomi who can kill a ghoul with his bare hands while being a human. 

Hm.... 

5. “His backstory is unrealistic and overly dramatic.”

That literally applies to 90% of the entire Tokyo Ghoul cast when you’re honest. Plus his backstory is plausible looking at the long history of how the Washuu treat everything like life stock. Humans and ghouls alike. Only a few lucky ones who are born into the main branch get a somewhat ‘good’ life and even that point is debatable. 

You can of course always take the easy way out and say a character is a Mary Sue, but a Mary Sue is a perfect character without any flaws. Saying that the TG cast consists of Mary Sues is over simplification. You can’t just pick that one character you don’t like and call them a Mary Sue, then you have to say that most of them are Mary Sues. 

It’s the same as calling Touka a damsel in distress because Ken saved her one time. 

All of these character are complex and a product of the environment they were born and raised in, if you merely reduce them to a few traits or what you want them to be, you’re reading the story wrong. 

Sure it’s easy to hate Furuta and I’m not saying that everyone should love him, he is a horrible, terrible person but he is an incredibly well written and complex character and therefor nobody I would call a Mary Sue. 

[phynxrizng]

FACTS ON WICCA...

Source,

The Celtic Connection

Blog Training Course On Wicca Teachings of The Elect Magical Shops

The article below describes how Wicca draws from the Old Traditions of Witchcraft. While this is true, we would simply like to clarify that Witchcraft and Wicca, while simular in many respects, are not the same. One can be a Witch, without being a Wiccan, just as a person can be a Christian, without being a Baptist. Wicca is a recognized religion, while Witchcraft itself is not considered a religion. Thus, Wicca might best be described as a modern religion, based on ancient Witchcraft traditions. What Is Wicca

Contrary to what those who choose to persecute or lie about us wish to believe, Wicca is a very peaceful, harmonious and balanced way of life which promotes oneness with the divine and all which exists.

Wicca is a deep appreciation and awe in watching the sunrise or sunset, the forest in the light of a glowing moon, a meadow enchanted by the first light of day. It is the morning dew on the petals of a beautiful flower, the gentle caress of a warm summer breeze upon your skin, or the warmth of the summer sun on your face. Wicca is the fall of colorful autumn leaves, and the softness of winter snow. It is light, and shadow and all that lies in between. It is the song of the birds and other creatures of the wild. It is being in the presence of Mother Earths nature and being humbled in reverence. When we are in the temple of the Lord and Lady, we are not prone to the arrogance of human technology as they touch our souls. To be a Witch is to be a healer, a teacher, a seeker, a giver, and a protector of all things. If this path is yours, may you walk it with honor, light and integrity.

Wicca is a belief system and way of life based upon the reconstruction of pre-Christian traditions originating in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. While much of the information of how our ancestors lived, worshiped and believed has been lost due to the efforts of the medieval church to wipe our existence from history, we try to reconstruct those beliefs to the best of our ability with the information that is available.

Thanks to archaeological discoveries, we now have basis to believe that the origins of our belief system can be traced even further back to the Paleolithic peoples who worshipped a Hunter God and a Fertility Goddess. With the discovery of these cave paintings, estimated to be around 30,000 years old, depicting a man with the head of a stag, and a pregnant woman standing in a circle with eleven other people, it can reasonably be assumed that Witchcraft is one of the oldest belief systems known in the world toady. These archetypes are clearly recognized by Wiccan as our view of the Goddess and God aspect of the supreme creative force and predate Christianity by roughly 28,000 years making it a mere toddler in the spectrum of time as we know it.

Witchcraft in ancient history was known as "The Craft of the Wise" because most who followed the path were in tune with the forces of nature, had a knowledge of Herbs and medicines, gave council and were valuable parts of the village and community as Shamanic healers and leaders. They understood that mankind is not superior to nature, the earth and its creatures but instead we are simply one of the many parts, both seen and unseen that combine to make the whole. As Chief Seattle said; "We do not own the earth, we are part of it." These wise people understood that what we take or use, we must return in kind to maintain balance and equilibrium. Clearly, modern man with all his applied learning and technology has forgotten this. Subsequently, we currently face ecological disaster and eventual extinction because of our hunger for power and a few pieces of gold.

For the past several hundred years, the image of the Witch has been mistakenly associated with evil, heathenism, and unrighteousness. In my humble opinion, these misconceptions have their origin in a couple of different places.

To begin, the medieval church of the 15th through 18th centuries created these myths to convert the followers of the old nature based religions to the churches way of thinking. By making the Witch into a diabolical character and turning the old religious deities into devils and demons, the missionaries were able to attach fear to these beliefs which aided in the conversion process. Secondly, as medical science began to surface, the men who were engaged in these initial studies had a very poor understanding of female physiology, especially in the area of a women's monthly cycles. The unknowns in this area played very well with the early churches agenda lending credence to the Witch Hunters claims and authority. The fledgling medical professions also stood to benefit greatly from this because it took the power of the women healers away giving it to the male physicians transferring the respect and power to them.

Unfortunately these misinformed fears and superstitions have carried forward through the centuries and remain to this day. This is why many who follow these nature oriented beliefs have adopted the name of Wicca over its true name of Witchcraft to escape the persecution, harassment and misinformation associated with the name of Witchcraft and Witch not to mention the bad publicity the press and Hollywood has given us simply to generate a profit.

What Witchcraft is: Witchcraft is a spiritual system that fosters the free thought and will of the individual, encourages learning and an understanding of the earth and nature thereby affirming the divinity in all living things. Most importantly however, it teaches responsibility. We accept responsibility for our actions and deeds as clearly a result of the choices we make. We do not blame an exterior entity or being for our shortcomings, weaknesses or mistakes. If we mess up or do something that brings harm to another, we have no one but ourselves to blame and we must face the consequences resulting from those actions. No ifs, ands or buts and no whining...

We acknowledge the cycles of nature, the lunar phases and the seasons to celebrate our spirituality and to worship the divine. It is a belief system that allows the Witch to work with, not in supplication to deities with the intent of living in harmony and achieving balance with all things.

The spells that we do involve healing, love, harmony, wisdom and creativity. The potions that we stir might be a headache remedy, a cold tonic, or an herbal flea bath for our pets. We strive to gain knowledge of and use the natural remedies placed on this earth by the divine for our benefit instead of using synthetic drugs unless absolutely necessary.

Wiccan believe that the spirit of the One, Goddess and God exist in all things. In the trees, rain, flowers, the sea, in each other and all of natures creatures. This means that we must treat "all things" of the Earth as aspects of the divine. We attempt to honor and respect life in all its many manifestations both seen and unseen.

Wiccan learn from and revere the gift of nature from divine creation by celebrating the cycles of the sun, moon and seasons. We search within ourselves for the cycles that correspond to those of the natural world and try to live in harmony with the movement of this universal energy. Our teachers are the trees, rivers, lakes, meadows, mountains and animals as well as others who have walked this path before us. This belief creates a reverence and respect for the environment, and all life upon the Earth.

We also revere the spirits of the elements of Earth, Air, Fire and Water which combine to manifest all creation. From these four elements we obtain insight to the rhythms of nature and understand they are also the rhythms of our own lives.

Because Witches have been persecuted for so many centuries, we believe in religious freedom first! We do not look at our path as the only way to achieve spirituality, but as one path among many to the same end. We are not a missionary religion out to convert new members to think the same as we do. We are willing to share our experience and knowledge with those who seek our wisdom and perspective however. We believe that anyone who is meant for this path will find it through their own search as the Goddess speaks to each of us in her time and way. Wiccan practice tolerance and acceptance toward all other religions as long as those faiths do not persecute others or violate the tenant of "Harm None."

What Witchcraft is not: More information about Witchcraft is available in the Frequently Asked Questions section, but in the interim, here are the main points.

Witchcraft or Wicca is not a cult. We do not proclaim ourselves to be spokespersons for the divine or try to get others to follow us as their leaders.

We do not worship Satan or consort with Demons. Satan is a Christian creation and they can keep him. We do not need a paranoid creation of supreme evil and eternal damnation to scare us into doing the right thing and helping others. We choose to do the right thing and love our brothers and sisters because it IS the right thing and it feels good to do it. I suppose it is a maturity thing.

We do not sacrifice animals or humans because that would violate our basic tenant of "Harm None." Anyone who does and claims to be a Wiccan or a Witch is lying.

We have no need to steal or control the life force of another to achieve mystical or supernatural powers. We draw our energy from within, our personal relationship with the divine and nature.

We do not use the forces of nature or the universe to hex or cast spells on others. Again, "Harm None" is the whole of the law.

Witches have a very strict belief in the Law of Three which states that whatever we send out into our world shall return to us three fold either good or bane. With this in mind, a "True Witch" would hesitate in doing magick to harm or manipulate another because that boomerang we throw will eventually come back to us much larger and harder then when we threw it.

This is not to say that Witches are perfect, we are human too just like everyone else and make mistakes and errors in judgment. Just as there are parents who love and nurture their children, there are parents who abuse their children. As there are many who devote their lives to giving and helping mankind, likewise there are those who devote their lives to taking advantage of and using people for their own gain. Unfortunately the same flaws in human nature applies to witches too.

Most of us continually strive to consider all potential outcomes of our thoughts and actions pausing to seriously consider the consequences before undertaking a ritual, spell or rite that could go astray. It is when we follow the path with the love of the Goddess in our hearts and adhere to the basic tenant of the Reed that our works are beneficial and we achieve harmony and balance with all things.

The heart of Wicca is not something summed up into a few short words and can often take on different meaning to each since the Lord and Lady touch us in different ways. To gain a fuller understanding of the Craft, I urge you visit the other pages on this site as well as following the links to a select group of exceptional Wiccan and Witchcraft sites. Through the wisdom and words set down through the ages, you will find that you are able to understand the basis of our beliefs and how they may apply to you. Your inner voice will also quickly let you know if the intent of what you are reading is for superficial purposes to benefit self instead of working to benefit the whole. Remember to read with your heart, for it is when you see life and the world with your heart and spirit that you truly gain an understanding of what Wicca is.

Blessed Be!

Herne

Copyright © The Celtic Connection, wicca.com. All rights reserved

Next Wicca Index Main Index

Reposted by, PHYNXRIZNG

[mynameisdreartblog]

Devilish Deals 2

Leo: For the next big scoop. Ah, I know now! Is it a graph of how fish would drive if we gave them cars? «Uh, no? It’s a detailed chart explaining the fiscal consequences of the new legislation being passed today by the senators that we voted for!» Ugh, if you’re gonna be that political about it, then you’re gonna turn me off further, man. «Okay, deal with your sour attitude then; it’s not like this is gonna affect you immediately. Your QOL’s gonna lower subtly over time, and your baby-brother’s gonna keep whining about the fact that he can’t go to an after-hours clinic anymore because they’ve slashed all federal funding for them. And when shit really hits the fan, you’ll ask why these bank-workers who don’t look like bankers at all are coming to repossess your home. Just sit by and let that happen!» [,] Look, are you playing a character or something? You have a bad case of crazy eyes going on, and I wanna know if I’m being filmed or not: My privacy is very important to me. «Ms. Palmieri, I can assure you that I don’t record any of my encroachments, as that’d jeopardize the privacy of whoever’s door I land on. So, there’s my answer to your concerns about privacy.» <Oro starts to twitch, giving away that he’s afraid of something, thus letting his “crazy eye thing” become obvious.> «What do you think I take you for: Some kind of purse puppy? I’ve seen plenty of them in my life, and you’re not one of them; you’re just abstract, and you can find a way to embrace that.» I have no idea what a “purse puppy” is, whatever your name was. I was immersed earlier purely for the game of pictionary you were hosting earlier. «Well, I was immersed in detailing how newly proposed legislation will screw you over, and you’re not giving me reliable polling data!» <An armadillo appears to enter the open Ola Diara van, causing a noticeable ruckus.> «Do not focus on that creature! Instead, focus on the issues at hand.» Agh, you’re doing the crazy eyes thing again! I don’t like it; stop. «I can keep doing it! And I’ll keep doing it until you decide to contribute to stop this legislation!» [,] < After furious conversation between the two persists for three minutes, Ms. Palmieri stares at Oro with a deep, contemptuous look that implies something heinous was done. She walks back into her house, and closes her door with meaningful force, but not enough to shake the front of her house. All windows begin to suddenly close, and the ground under Oro’s feet begin to shake.> Wow, cool. That’s the second person who just magically spawned an earthquake underneath my feet because I said something they didn’t like. Unbelievable!

Taurus: In your usual shop. Status update for the restaurant: I couldn’t tell if it was the smoke signals coming off of weirdos who like to nomadically tour this place, but I think we’re losing customers because something’s scaring them off. I’ve noticed a sharp 20% decrease in usual customer attendance, and this clearly isn’t a result of the degrading quality of my cuisine: I always ensure that it’s top-notch no matter the cost. Therefore, the reason must be external, and it’s likely coming from something that’s been making the Gieger counter go off the fritz lately. <As Gresham lowers the marker from the whiteboard, he points his gaze at Natuk.> «Uh, if I’m following correctly, that likely means it’s the noise of the damn thing scaring people away. If I heard a Gieger ticks when I first enter a building, I’m gonna assume there’s nuclear fallout.» Uh, I also think you’re incorrect with that: Strange and somewhat concerning noises are part of the dining experience up here, and I would’ve lost more customers a longer time ago if the disturbance of such sounds was the culprit. <Natuk softly whispers to themselves> «Oh no, he’s doing this again: This happens every harvest season ‘cause he doesn’t understand that’s when people eat their own food.» Regardless, there’s something among us: A haunting presence that peeks out the corners of my eyes whenever I go up from this place to scout the weather for today. «Ugh, <Natuk’s eyes roll at being deliberately ignored> are you gonna tell me to go out and search for it again?» [,] Listen, I’m not one for superstition, — please just ignore my conspiratorial diagrams in the backroom — so I’m not gonna send you on a cleansing mission that I did years before. «Oh, that’s what I always get a glimpse of whenever you go back there. In that case, I’m slightly more relieved I don’t have to do this again!» …Which is why I’m leaving you in charge of managing this entire place while I’m embarking myself. «Wait, what?» You should’ve learned enough from the thirty months you’ve been around, so it’s yours while I confirm my suspicions. From my local knowledge, there’s always been an inkling that bad spirits gazed upon those soon to be met with misfortune high up on the cliff sides. [,] «Wait, wait! Where are you getting this staring figures idea from? Also, literally anyone can run this place.» You except the presence of conspiratorial diagrams and Gieger counters in a restaurant, but you draw the line at figures? Have you not been listening to me, Natuk? «No, no, I’ve been listening loud and clear. I’m just wondering why that’s your conclusion, and not any natural causes.» <Gresham stares down Natuk.> I’ve trusted the natural before, and it’s let me down too many times.

Aquarius: By offering a bit of blood. Gazing at the ever-expanding, formless ocean that takes up every corner of your vision gets you thinking about how small you are, as typical as that sounds. «You’re not doing a good job at trying to make me think outside myself; you’re not using enough showy language; you’re using active language.» Well, sometimes we don’t need to show anyone anything; did that thought ever cross your mind? «No, I always think about the bigger picture, the nuanced implications, and the encompassing meaning. That’s why I’m the navigator on this ship: You thought of me as the only person who could stare at barren oceans for hours on end and not become bored.» See, I don’t have to show you anything; that’s the job of the seas and the skies. Now, going back to what I was saying: Being out here for so long makes you complacent in the fact that you’re simultaneously small and large. We’re small in how our selves need to traverse something so vast in little units of ships, but we’re big in how we collectively impact these seascapes… Do you get that? [,] «I mean, it’s a fairly easy concept to grasp, Aukai. We’re small, I’m small, the ship’s small, you’re sorta small: I get it. But together, when our gross, salty bodies conglomerate to form an extremely complex, interlinking network of saltiness, we stink up the whole world.» It appears to be easy to grasp, but then you recognize that there’s an infinite layer of possibility below us that I’ll only ever observe a random instance of if I were to dive downward right now. What if I were to dive just three minutes later? I’d likely discover a whole underwater utopia instead of finding some small rocks and a school of krill. «I mean, you could also drown given how deep the sea goes down at this point.» Yeah, I’m really liking your nuanced thinking here: Thinking of hypotheticals that vanish in probability the moment a spare second passes. […] «With how much time you spend out here, you’re practically a sea creature of your own. Maybe some aspiring marine biologist will read about you in the newest issue of National Geographic: One that I’ll publish personally because nobody knows your behavior better than me.» There’s several people who know me better than you. And what you’re essentially saying is that every major epiphany in my life will be rewritten in allegories that children can easily read and interpret from a shark’s daily existence: Is that right? «Well, we’re thinking far ahead with this, and just to be sure we’re on the same page, you were talking about humans morphing into amphibian-like creatures in the future and how that can be triggered from this instance if we continue, correct?» <Aukai disappeared out of sight, leaving a ripple in the water from where she jumped off.> «Fuck.»

Pisces: Offered Satanist theory. Every coach spins their keys like they have nothing better do (they really don’t actually). I’m spinning my keys right now, but it’s clear that I’m not a coach: I’m neither bald nor frustrated enough to be one. Yet, Idrissa just left and told me to take care of her keys lest somebody else takes them. She trusts me out of all people, which is correlated with how well my performance has been doing. I’m now in the, uh, some type of BMI category: It was the one I was in two weeks ago but shifted below because of the excuse that our “weights are broken.” To tell you the truth, it’s more likely that nobody has ever made solid measurements of my body mass because it’s an amorphous structure. I mean, I consistently anger coaches because I never wear the skin-tight uniforms, and I get yelled at that I’m granting myself an “unfair advantage” because my baggy clothes are an inaccurate indicator of where I should be grabbed. I say I blame the people I’m up against for not understanding after multiple tries that the thighs are the best place to grab my flesh because that’s usually where it’s concentrated. […] Sorry, I went off on a tangent, who are you again? «There’s a persistent worry that the desire to create presentations numerously complex leads to an overall decline in digestibility and further blossoming. Therefore, it makes the coach in question attempt to sacrifice their deeply held complexities promised towards his students in favor of beating in the mundane until it becomes extraordinary.» Ah yes, thank you Maghazi: Thank you for your comments, proving my theory, and exemplifying how dimorphic my mind is. «I didn’t say that; what the hell are you talking about?» Unfortunately, I’m not the archetype who has voices in their head; that’ll be elaborated on sometime soon. «Maghazi, it’s Idrissa. I’m here to get my keys back because I need them to make sure we can leave the damn courtyard. I have no idea what you’re talking about, but it sounds like you’re messing with me, so cut it out.» <Various objects in the courtyard start to become laced in bright lines, detailing their physical geometry.> «But what does the spinning action accomplish? Is it one of those deliberate confusions — something that exists purely as a complicating agent? It’s based off real, tangible motion but becomes mystified by human interpretation, and thus made into something abstract. Abstraction is always the grounds for worship, as we know through the dreaded faithful.» <Idrissa shakes her head violently and recalls distinctly fake names.> «God, stop doing this! You do this every time you have one of your pretentious monologues, and it’s getting on my nerves!» Yes, I can very much feel the nerves, particularly those in your brain. <Idrissa yanks the keys out of Maghazi’s hand and the illusion stops.> What? You’re acting like I’m a nuisance.

[thenerdparty]

Star Wars: The Last Jedi - Review by Matthew Rushing

Two years ago Star Wars roared back into the collective consciousness of the world as The Force Awakens dawned a new era for the saga. The installment left many viewers speechless and eagerly anticipating this return to a galaxy far, far away. Luckily in this era of Disney’s rule, the wait was only 2 years (with a nice side of Rogue One in the middle) for Rian Johnson’s addition, The Last Jedi.

Context

First, let’s start historically. It is clear that the original “Rebel” generation was unsuccessful in passing on it’s values to the next, as the galaxy has quickly descended back into the universe of pre-prequel. A government that became ineffectual, split into populists and centrists, all the while allowing the First Order to rise, unchallenged because, they’re not really a threat. “Relax, the First Order is the JV squad”. The greed and corruption in the galaxy has returned to what we saw in the prequels, as people line their pockets with ill gotten gain, selling weapons to the highest bidder, on any side. It all boils down to this one truth not being clearly passed on, “freedom isn’t free”, and sadly there are too few in the galaxy who seem to understand that.

Where are you getting all of this, you might ask? Well, not from the movies. All of this has been cobbled together from the ancillary materials that have come out surrounding this new sequel trilogy and that’s only, vaguely been hinted at in the films themselves. The main issue here is that The Force Awakens did very little to set up the context of the galaxy and now The Last Jedi suffers even worse because of it.

Think back to the Original Trilogy, as you watch those movies, you have an instinctive understanding of who all the characters are as well as the overall context of the movies because Lucas based them on archetypes that we know. The heroes’ journey, an evil empire and a a small group of freedom fighters looking to rescue the galaxy. In the Prequels, it’s the fall of a Republic and the story of a man that cannot let go and will do anything to hold on to what he “loves”. Each of these previous trilogies gave us the context we needed to know about the universe as a whole and the characters so that we could understand the journey we were on.

And here’s where this all comes into play, not just with the world building but with the characters. Not only do we not truly understand the state of the galaxy, but we also don’t know the history of these characters and it’s clear the writers of the film don’t either. Say what you will about Lucas, he always knew the history and the future of his creation. Some details may change along the way, but the journey ended up much the same. The same can be said for Rowling with Harry Potter , she knew the end from the beginning, so she understood what each character needed to go through to get them to that end.

It’s been clear from The Force Awakens and now through to The Last Jedi that there is no knowledge of what the end game is for their characters. Writing 101, if you don’t know their past and future, you don’t know how to write their “present”. You can see this in the all of the characters. Take Snoke. We have absolutely no idea who or what he is. We don’t know how he came to power or seduced Ben Solo, he’s a vague phantom menace so that when he goes out like a punk in this movie… well lets just say fans may be arguing whose death was better, Snoke or Boba Fett. Oh and remember Phasma? Well don’t worry, you don’t really need to, turns out she wasn’t all that important any way.

Ben suffers from this same problem we saw with Snoke, he’s completely ill defined and so is his “fall”. As with The Force Awakens, there is still no context to his story other than him having darkness in himself and somehow, Snoke temps him to the dark side. It’s all so nebulous that when he turns on Snoke, I don’t know what to make of it. There is no weight to his decision because I don’t know enough of the history of the character to actually care.

As bad as this issue is for Ben, my first impression was it was worse for Rey. The ultimate mystery box seemed to still be very much an enigma. The answer we get about her family was vague and unconvincing, I still don’t believe she’s a nobody and while I am frustrated that they skirted the issue of her family, I can see why they sidestepped that to make the focus, who she chooses to be. Her struggle for identity is fascinating. The questions of who we are, is it a product of bloodline, upbringing or are we a sum of our choices and experiences is brilliant. I think the movie comes down on the side of choices and experiences and the idea that personal responsibility is the answer is outstanding. Rey shows us that even though we are personally responsible for ourselves, we are also responsible for those around us, to look after one another, teach each other, guide one another, pass on hope to one another and the chance of redemption.

The most damaged in all of this is Luke Skywalker. We know Luke’s past, how he saved his father, who’d effectively become space Hitler, because he believed there was still good in him. By the end of Return of the Jedi, Luke is the culmination of the collected wisdom of Anakin, Obi-Wan and Yoda but greater because he avoids the mistakes of the past and forges a true, new path for the Jedi. But then, we get nothing. Oh we know Luke started a new Jedi Order and thought he could help Ben, only to be scared by his raw power and darkness. Wait, really? This is the same guy who redeemed Vader but can’t find a way to help Ben? Luke was right, “This is not going to go the way you think.” It’s as if the history of Luke has been forgotten. Now, I get the idea that Luke, like Obi-Wan, feels the pain of taking too much on, but at least Obi-Wan didn’t try to murder his student in his sleep and gave him a chance to change before delivering the “killing” blow.

Now, all that said, the lesson Luke learns about failure being part of life and how to deal with it, is actually a timely one. In life, failure is the best teacher. Yet, again, Luke’s past should have prepared him for this, his knowledge about Anakin and the help of force ghosts like Yoda, Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon, should have been able to help shepherd him through this ordeal, instead of running away to an island to die, screaming, “get off my lawn” to anyone who comes calling.

It is interesting that Kylo and Luke are actual after the same thing, Kylo wants to burn it all down and so does Luke, but for different reasons. Kylo because of his anger at everyone and everything and Luke because of his own hubris. He sees the Jedi as a failure, as well as himself, yet he’s blaming the wrong thing. In the end, it’s people and their choices that lead them to the dark or to the light, not the teachings of the Jedi. The Jedi texts and code are only a guide, that applied properly, promote peace, prosperity and hope in the galaxy. Over a thousand generations is not a bad run. Even though Luke gives Rey a lesson in humility in relation to the Force, it seems much to learn, he still has.

All of the issues I do have, stem from there being no direction for this trilogy. With no clear plan or endgame, this is what is left, each installment trying to make sense of the last, leading to it not always having fullest depth or payoff. This is post modern story telling at it’s worst, characters and plot without history and context that could have been more cohesive with planning.

Pass on What You Have Learned

Just as the galaxy and the characters in the movie lack context, the original characters fail to pass on their wisdom to the next generation and Luke is the biggest offender here. He seem incapable of passing on what he has learned as Yoda told him to. He’s driven by fear to almost kill Ben, and then the same fear leads him to reject training Rey for most of the movie. When he finally does train her, there is no depth or true substance to what he offers. You’d think someone with access to the original Jedi texts and a few good force ghosts would be able to provide more guidance than what we see.

Just because one has talent at something, does not mean they don’t have to practice, be taught and hone their skills. Rey is never given any of this, in the end, she’s forced to intuit who she should be for herself and from who Luke was, in the Original Trilogy. This may fit into the post modern world of “make your own way and your own truth”, but it’s not Star Wars. Lucas himself said,

“Star Wars has always struck a cord with people. There are issues of loyalty, of friendship, of good and evil…I mean, there’s a reason this film is so popular. It’s not that I’m giving out propaganda nobody wants to hear…Knowing that the film was made for a younger audience, I was trying to say, in a simple way, that there is a God and that there is both a good and bad side. You have a choice between them, but the world works much better if you’re on the good side.”

Lucas is clear, wisdom is meant to be passed on, the wisdom of failures and of triumphs.  It’s what both Obi-Wan and Yoda both do for Luke. Yes, they were wrong about Anakin, but that does not mean they didn’t have wisdom to share. Proverbs reminds us, “Listen to advice and accept discipline, and at the end you will be counted among the wise.” And the place to find wisdom is through, as Job reminds us, “Is not wisdom found among the aged? Does not long life bring understanding?” Lucas was once asked how he felt about the human condition and he said,

“I am very cynical, as a result, I think the defense I have against it is to be optimistic and to think people are basically good, although I know in my heart they’re not.”

It is clear that he understands that wisdom and goodness must be passed on and taught because they are not something we are born with’. Sadly Rey is left to find her own path, alone. Hopefully the books she saved from the force temple will give her some guidance, now that she is the last Jedi.

Luckily Rey seems to instinctively understand what Luke did at the end of Return of the Jedi, the Jedi are the embodiment of hope and light in the galaxy. Rey allows people to be defined by their choices, not their bloodline or possible history. She does not lose hope in that person’s chance at redemption until they make the choice to turn away from it completely. At that point, she stands on the side of the light, in it’s defense and in the defense of others. I think this is what is frustrating, is that I still feel like Luke should have been the one to show her this and he does, it’s just the Luke from the past not the present.

The only one in the movie doing any actual mentoring is Leia. Her relationship with Poe is a good example of passing on what you have learned. She gives Poe responsibility and then takes the time to discipline him, instruct him and trust him all over again when needed. Sadly the story is muddled with the interjection of Admiral Holdo, but it’s still the best example of someone passing on what they have learned to the next generation and it actually changing the character being taught.

The Movie

The plot of the movie is all over the place. The most glaring issue is with the Resistance story line. They don’t seem to know what to do with them, in the least and it leads to the worst “chase” scenes since Speed 2. There is no logic to what is happening. In space, there is no weight, so it’s all about thrust. If the First Order ships can create enough thrust, they could catch up to the Resistance ships. Another possibility is having a ship jump into the system, in “front” of the Resistance (it’s three dimensional space so there really is no “front”) and take them out. Now here is where context comes in again. Because we have no idea how big the First Order is, are we to assume that all the ships chasing the Resistance are it? And even if they are, could they just not jump “ahead” of the Resistance fleet and be done with it?

Another massive plot issue is why Admiral Holdo refuses to tell Poe and the rest of the Resistance her plan. Does she suspect a saboteur or a spy and that’s why? Well, we’ll never know, because the movie gives us no indication what she is thinking. It just creates a bad plot reason for Poe, Finn and Rose to come up with their alternative plan, to give Finn something to do.

As mentioned above, in the previous section, context creates a maelstrom of issues revolving around the plot points between Luke, Snoke, Rey and Ben. This leaves us with not always feeling the fullest weight behind who they are, the choices they make and who they become as the movie ends.

I enjoy the music, the effects are wonderful except that Yoda puppet, not too keen on his look. The design work is not bad here. Canto Bight is cool, but why is it in the movie and why is that not the story for the Resistance? Going to Canto Bight to try and rustle up support for the cause seems like a much more intriguing idea than the universe’s slowest chase. And would it kill the sequel trilogy to have some aliens we know from the rest of the series? What’s it going to take to get a freaking twi’lek in this series?

Another point of contention in the movie is the humor. Lucasfilm seems to be taking a page from the Marvel playbook and has inserted humor everywhere. Humor in itself is not a bad thing and the Star Wars saga is replete with funny moments, but The Last Jedi pushes it too far. So much of the humor that works in Star Wars is the dry, sarcastic kind that is exemplified in The Empire Strikes Back. Here, it feels forced in many places such as the constant porg jokes, Poe’s ribbing of Hux or Finn waking up in a clear suit and leaking fluids everywhere as he walks down the hall. It just does not feel as organic as it needs to, to truly work. The Star Wars franchise has it’s own rules on how things work in it and as Gareth Edwards said, 

“There’s such a fine line in Star Wars, if you go just slightly to the left it’s not Star Wars, it’s another sci-fi movie that doesn’t feel right. And if you go slightly to the right, you’re just copying what George did. So trying to navigate this thing where it’s new but feels fresh was like the dance that was the process of making the film.”

Conclusion

The Last Jedi suffers under the burden left to it by The Force Awakens. With no clear trajectory or plan for this trilogy, Johnson works to forge his own path but it’s one fraught with plot holes and many times, muddied character motivations. The universe, as it stands, lacks cohesion, history or context and it’s hurting the story. I love that Johnson tired to be different and some of it really works now that I have seen it a second time, while other parts still fall very flat. I love some of the moments in the movie, especially Luke’s noble end and the strong work done with the Rey/Ben/Luke story but Abrams has his work cut out for him with Episode IX. I never thought I’d say this, but J.J. Abrams, you’re our only hope. The Last Jedi is rated 2.75 out of 5 stars.

Don’t miss Matt on Aggressive Negotiations: A Star Wars Podcast and Owl Post: A Harry Potter Podcast! 

[bonerhitler]

Words ‘bout Character Writing

So, lets talk characterization. For the sake of keeping this short and simple I'm going to completely ignore the physical aspect of character design right now, what a character looks like and how that changes could be an entirely separate word vomit for later, as it stands I've got a lot to say about how people write characters and their personalities or lack thereof. Now, before I get started let me say that I'm not the authority on character writing nor do I profess to be, and what I'm about to write aren't any kind of cohesive laws or regulations regarding character design that you have to adhere to or be forever branded a bad writer. I simply want to discuss a few common trends I see and hopefully someone out there might find some use out of it.

To kick things off lets talk about shallow characterization, it's something a lot of people are guilty of even famous authors use incredibly shallow surface-level character traits to convey exactly what the reader to know about a character. One example of this that springs to mind is Fenrir Greyback from the Harry Potter series. We, as readers, know nothing about this guy except that he's the worst. He's such an awful person even the bad guys don't want him around, he makes a habit of maiming children and eating human flesh. We don't learn any details about him, his personal life or his goals or anything that might make him the least by sympathetic or engaging. After all, it's incredibly hard to make “eats faces and intentionally savages children” into a redeemable character at all. But the author doesn't have to, he's a side character who exists solely to be an extremely awful person, to show the depths with which the antagonists sink themselves in to and contrast with the heroes who would never do something that horrible.

It's fine to cast narratively unimportant characters in a shallow light, going into every important detail about every minor henchman will only serve to dilute the story and overload the reader with needless information. We run into a problem when the main characters of a story, regardless of medium, don't receive any depth beyond the same shallow treatment the generic henchmen get. Why is ExDeath, the main antagonist from Final Fantasy V, evil? His entire backstory is that he was a magical tree, evil got sealed into it and he became super evil and one day just turned into a dude. Now, I love ExDeath, he has one of my favorite designs in the whole Final Fantasy franchise. But as a character, he's awful. He is evil because he's evil. His entire goal in the game is to destroy everything because he's evil. Characters who are so basic they're evil because they're evil, or good because they're good and that is the sum of their being generally shouldn't be the choice of your protagonist or antagonist. In Final Fantasy V we don't even really have much motivation for why we're fighting ExDeath other than because he wants to destroy everything (because he's evil).

So, why is it okay for side characters to get the shallow treatment but not main ones? Because whether the person consuming your work is a reader, viewer or player you want them to feel engaged and immersed in it. It's why people who watched Breaking Bad were so invested in the character of Walter White despite constantly finding lower lows to reach for, he was written so believably human that it was hard not to root for him, even when most of the dramatic opposition to him came from his family just wanting him to stop putting them in danger rather than some great cosmic evil force. Despite being a murderer, among other things, the show played up the sympathetic angle on Walter's life and character and put him in the full three dimensional view. You can't define him with a single word or phrase like “Evil for evil's sake” or “hired muscle that eats faces” because he has far too much character to him. He's a drug lord, but the motivations for why he's a drug lord factor in. Is it because he loves his family and knows he has limited time? Or is it because his death sentence has finally given him the confidence to cut loose? Is he a family man or a selfish monster? Is it possible for him to be both? There's an internal conflict running through the whole character that makes it so much more than either half could be alone and if he had simply been a meth making monster who laughed evilly while twirling his bowler hat every episode and planned the best way to murder kids, the show would surely have been a flop.

Of course with depth of character comes perceived depth of character. This, I find, is the biggest hurdle a lot of new writers hit when they try to make an interesting character. See, the biggest draw of a character is ultimately that they are the sum of their parts. Like something fantastic made out of lego, if you break it down and inspect the individual components some of them might not seem impressive or interesting on their own, and you could even reassemble the same parts in a different order and get something entirely different. But ultimately, what makes the final piece what it is, is how the parts come together to form the whole. It seems obvious, certainly, on reflection it always does. But a lot of new authors tend to jump the gun and instead of delivering characters with a solid base, they try to emulate a popular character and in doing so develop a tunnel view focus on one aspect of that character and forget everything else that makes them interesting.

The Joker of DC Comics fame is especially notable for spawning many copies, people who see The Joker's special brand of insanity and chaos and want to try it too. This leads to characters who are “Crazy” for the sake of being crazy. It's not entirely different from the Evil for the sake of Evil problem earlier, but without any kind of well defined mental illness and instead just an ill described and random “Crazy” the whole character tends to fall flat. It often finds more use as a poor justification for a character's complete lack of motivation or characterization. Why is this character a murderer? Why are they a monster? They're cuh-rayzee! Which is frustrating because it manages to miss the whole point of The Joker (and what few well done characters do exist using the crazy archetype, but lets focus on The Joker) who, like all of Batman's antagonists acts as a mirror to himself rather than just being a monster man for him to beat up.

The Joker is what Batman could have been, and could become, if he loses his grip. He, unlike the majority of the villains Batman faces, is someone who is physically very human but has otherwise thrown away everything human about themselves and has embraced the madness that comes with throwing away rules and justice. Every time Batman stops him and brings him back to Arkham he reasserts that he's not The Joker and never will be, and it's why there will never be a real and final resolution between the two. I could write more but this isn't about batman (this isn't even the only interpretation of the character!), it's about why dropping all that and just fixating on “well he's crazy!” loses every bit of interesting detail about the character in favor of the least subtle and interesting bit of it. Has The Joker always been an especially interesting or detailed character? Certainly not, writing quality in comics varies heavily but he is effectively, like Batman, the sum of what decades of  comics, TV shows and movies have built him into. One single comic arc won't completely ruin the character, it would take more than that to break down something so well established.

But newer characters who try to mimic the basic premise of “crazy guy who does things because he's crazy” have none of that established star power and it only weakens the character by forgoing the more long standing practice of actually building and creating a character in favor of giving them a single snappy personality trait or traumatic backstory and calling it a day.