#lateral violence exists it's literally on wikipedia

[coulsonlives]

ALL OF THIS. Say it with me:

👏Your identity doesn't make you immune from being a bad person with a shit personality 👏

Many lgbt teenagers and young adults growing up on the internet today have socially conservative beliefs that they voice at all times that they got from their conservative parents which they’ve never challenged because they think the life experience of being gay or trans makes them politically progressive

[transmutationisms]

so i read the hp lovecraft short stories that the film ‘re-animator’ was based on (internet archive link) and the answer is yes, the source material is openly and deliberately racist, and it is not coincidental or accidental that the film so clearly recalls the history of american medical schools obtaining human cadavers through various deeply unethical means, esp the bodies of enslaved black people in the south. the lovecraft stories were serialised in the magazine ‘home brew’ in 1921–22 and are neither very long nor very good, but a few points of interest stood out to me:

both wikipedia and the encyclopedia britannica attribute the ‘modern’ zombie largely to george romero’s 1960s films; in ‘the undead eighteenth century’, linda troost suggested only that zombies appeared in literature as early as 1967 and were described as spirits or ghosts, not cannibalistic monsters. however, although lovecraft never uses the word “zombie” in “herbert west—reanimator”, i think it is fair to draw a clear connection from the haitian mythology to his story of reanimated, violent, cannibalistic bodies. because lovecraft was simultaneously satirising and paying tribute to “frankenstein”, the anxieties in the stories centre around the narrator’s discomfort with west’s materialist view of life, his fanatical devotion to scientific experiment, and the idea that living matter is only distinguished by accidents of matter and function, rather than by the operation of a divinely given soul. thus, when the narrator describes the outcomes of his and west’s experiments as “unthinkable automata” (30) we ought to understand this as a relatively early (again, these stories ran between 1921 and 22) example of american literature invoking the haitian zombie to work out a strikingly different set of social anxieties than enslaved africans in haiti did. in lovecraft’s stories, then, the medical students’ literal reanimations of stolen (sometimes murdered) bodies are almost themselves symbolic of lovecraft’s own deployment of the zombie myth, transposed into the context of debates about materialism, vitalism, and the nature of life and consciousness.

speaking of the cannibalism, yes, it is racialised. although the re-animated bodies exist largely out of view of either the narrator or west, and thus we cannot say for sure what they are or aren’t eating, the confirmed act of cannibalism is specifically attributed to a black re-animated man described as “gorilla-like ... [with] a face that conjured up thoughts of unspeakable congo secrets and tom-tom poundings under an eerie moon” (14) and later “a glassy-eyed, ink-black apparition nearly on all fours, covered with bits of mould, leaves, and vines, foul with caked blood” (16–17). this is the scene in which he is discovered eating a white infant: “a snow-white, terrible, cylindrical object terminating in a tiny hand” (17). he is consistently referred to as “cannibalistic” throughout the rest of the story, emphasised to be violent and dangerous. he, along with the other re-animated people, eventually joins a kind of re-animated army led by west’s own former army (wwi) commander, who is now headless (also re-animated); this ‘army’ eventually kills west. thus, west’s body-snatching and literal possession of the stolen bodies are flipped around, as the bodies develop allegiance to one another and then invert west’s violence against them: where he forced them to live again, they directly cause him to die. because this is lovecraft, though, the re-animated bodies existing and developing agency is the central horror of the story, even despite the unflattering portrayal of west; this is actually translated pretty accurately into the film sequel ‘bride of re-animator’ as a scene in which their version of the undead ‘army’ rampages through west’s backyard/cemetery, and we are treated to extensive shots of the bodies writhing, spasming, and seizing, in ways that simultaneously telegraph disability and (what is framed as) terrifying strength.

there are at least flashes throughout the stories of racialisation of the re-animated bodies occurring precisely on the grounds of having been re-animated: for example, of an early (white) re-animation experiment, the narrator reports that it was “like a malformed ape”, and lovecraft writes:  “For it had been a man. This much was clear despite the nauseous eyes, the voiceless simianism, and the daemoniac savagery” (11). thus, the fact of having been re-animated is itself what gives this white body its simian / ape-like qualities—descriptions which are of course racialised in american literature in general, and specifically in this series (see above).

in connection with lovecraft’s racism, the stories frequently engage in generalised physiognomical efforts to read a person’s moral character and personality from their physical appearance. this includes overtly racialised traits (west is described as blond and blue-eyed numerous times, an appearance that hides his "diabolical” machinations and “fanaticism” [7, 18], and contrasts to both his morbid fascinations [3] and to a “brawny young workman” with brown hair whom he re-animates [5]). there is also a link raised multiple times between nervous sensitivity and physical strength: one specimen is “a man at once physically powerful and of such high mentality that a sensitive nervous system was assured”, and west seeks out specifically “men of especially sensitive brain and especially vigorous physique” (25, 27).

although lovecraft’s stories are hardly making any manner of radical critique, they also contain flashes of tacit admission that west’s experiments, although cosmetically off-putting to the medical establishment, are not in fact diverging in deeper ways from ‘normal’ functioning of these institutions. for example, in the first installment, as the narrator and west attempt to secure a supply of fresh corpses from christchurch cemetery, the narrator notes that “we found that the college had first choice in every case” (4), a remark that for the modern reader alludes to the true and extensive history of american medical schools and anthropology departments purchasing or simply snatching cadavers and anatomical specimens (in recent years there have been a few high-profile cases of attempts at repatriation of skull and other collections). later, when re-animating buck robinson, the aforementioned black man, the narrator notes that “our prize ... was wholly unresponsive to every solution we injected in its black arm; solutions prepared from experience with white specimens only” (15). this remark has two major implications: one, lovecraft’s narrator is endorsing a view of physiology that assumes black and white bodies function essentially differently, ie that the white and black ‘races’ are intrinsically and undeniably biologically different to one another (this viewpoint is never challenged or questioned throughout the text); two, that lovecraft specifically portrayed medical students who experimented on white bodies, an echo of the medical schools’ focus on white patients and white health, with black bodies treated as more disposable, black patients as less valuable, and the entire medical endeavour aimed toward the preservation of wealthy white people and plantation owners (nb: west worked out of boston).

although the films and the stories both take a somewhat whimsical tone toward their subject matter, i found it hard to engage with the films on a genuinely comedic level largely because these elements of the lovecraft stories are still present. i do think the concept here (white medical students body-stealing, and forcing a partial and torturous version of ‘life’ upon those bodies) has quite a bit of potential as a horror premise; unfortunately, both lovecraft and the filmmakers approach this subject matter in ways that attempt to mine comedy and horror from it without thinking through the larger historical context they are clearly and explicitly invoking, and as a result the whole thing falls flat for me. 

[read-alert]

Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West by Gregory Maguire

Ever since watching the play, I've heard a dozen times over how shockingly sexual the book is, and it is oddly sexual, but honestly not significantly moreso than your average genre fiction written by a white man- so many of them are so weird about sex that this one doesn't strike me as a particularly egregious example, but that is undoubtedly because I had the forewarning about it. Because I was genuinely shocked by the level of violence in this book; I did not expect that based off of the play. But the violence at least contributes to the themes examining fascism, terrorism, and racialization.

Unfortunately, I don't think that those themes were particularly well recognized, nor do I care for the themes we spent far more time on, such as the nature of evil or predestination. I think the racialization theme is inherently harmed by the fact that Elphaba is the only one in her family who is green, whereas in real life, racial and ethnic groups who experience discrimination do not only have to deal with their own personal experiences, but are also impacted by the history of oppression that has burdened families for generations. The Thropps certainly have some horrible cycles going on, but the shared nature of Melena, Elphaba, and Nessarose's traumas seem more rooted in sexism and ableism than they do in fantasy racism/antisemitism. Which is particularly baffling given that the question of Nessarose's parentage means that she is quite possibly literally a woman of color, but that's never taken into account by the narrative in any meaningful way. Though, I'm not a person of color or Jewish, so perhaps I'm wrong and those themes have resonated better for Jewish readers and readers of color. But I honestly don't think I would have even noticed the antisemitism metaphor if I didn't already know about it.

Speaking of the antisemitism metaphor, having the entire last section and Elphaba's downfall be rooted in her own paranoia and conspiratorial thinking, with her destroying her own life by seeing enemies everywhere even when Dorthy and probably Glinda mean her no harm is not great. Like yeah, the Wizard was genuinely out to get her, but Elphaba's rapidly deteriorating mental state at the end of the book kinda felt like it was saying it was her own fault for being so paranoid. I honestly would have DNFed it at this point if it wasn't already the end.

Also, man. I appreciate that one of your main themes is "racism is bad." But that does not excuse how constantly weird and racist you are to your own Native American metaphor throughout the book. Genuinely, what was that.

And as I said earlier, we spent So. Much. Time on "what is the root of evil?" and "what is life's purpose?" and "do souls exist?" None of which interests me personally. I think the answers are either unknowable or not particularly important, so it was such a drag to spend so much time on them. And because the antisemitism metaphor felt so off, I did google whether Maguire is Jewish, and he is Catholic, which I really should have guessed from the way these questions are handled throughout the book. Not that books can't spend time on these questions, or even examine them through the lense of Catholicism, but the experience was certainly not for me.

I think the book detailing the violence inherent to the political themes it questions is more effective than the play's sanitized version of events, but the play is overall far more coherent, both in the execution of the themes that it tackles and in the actual plot. I am mildly curious what happens later in the series, especially since there were a lot of unresolved threads in this book, but I really think I'm gonna read the Wikipedia pages rather than the rest of the series. 2⭐️

[kari-a-la-tari]

The (Unneccessary) Lore of the WG Spanish Dubs

Aka me being like this meme for an entire post

OKAY so a couple of weeks ago I had just learned that there existed a Spanish version of Wordgirl called “La Chica Supersabia” which is honestly super cool cause who doesn’t wanna hear their show in a different language?

But alas, this ended up taking me into a much deeper rabbit hole than I was expecting and it’s honestly pretty interesting so I thought I’d share it with y’all!

DISCLAIMER: I am not an expert by any means nor do I intend to come off as one, this is simply an elaborate essay of what I’ve found through my informal research. I will also be translating anything in Spanish to the best of my extent, so I apologize if I mess up a bit with the wording since it’s not my native language.

So then *places a baseball cap with glued lightbulb on my head* let’s get started shall we?

Okay so first things first, there are a couple of select episodes of La Chica Supersabia (I’ll use LCS from here on) available on the internet. The most reliable source that I’ve found is on an old Facebook account here where a fan would upload LCS episodes based on when they aired. However, the only episodes available are a select few from season one.

Now this got my mind thinking “Hey, what if there’s more episodes?” So naturally, I started scoundering on Google (like the rat I am) to see if there was indeed more. And according to this one site there are only two seasons of LCS that were dubbed.

Translation: In Latin America, the first season premiered on Discovery Kids August 3, 2009, while the second season premiered on the same channel January 11, 2010, being the only two seasons issued. (Source)

However, later on I discovered that there was some mislead in that info because someone else found a Spanish episode that was from season 3, which doesn’t make sense because why would there be another season available when it clearly says that they technically shouldn’t exist? (Btw I tried finding it myself cause I did see that episode before but for some reason now I can’t find it dhdvvdbdvd 😭)

At first I thought maybe this is just some info added from a fan. After all, that statement was posted on a Spanish Wikipedia page so it is possible. So I began looking for other articles that talked about the Spanish dubs, but they all said the same thing. Well, until I came up with this site that said two very intriguing things:

Translation: The series actually had 3 seasons and is dubbed in Caracas, Venezuela. On May 2012 the series stopped running on daytime hours and was removed from the programming one year later, on June 17, 2012. It is unknowns if it will be aired by another channel or come back to the Discovery Kids programming, besides only the two first seasons were dubbed in Spanish. (Source)

I was a little bit confused here with the wording because it still didn’t confirm my original questions; if anything it left me with more. But then I read the next section below which got me completely off track.

Translation: The series received negative critics and complains on behalf of parents of families in Latin America that claimed that it wasn’t appropriate for the objective public of Discovery Kids. Without doubt in the U.S. the series had been well received and even won an Emmy award for Jack D. Ferraiola, writer and coproductor of the series together with the creator of the same show, Dorothea Gillim, who declared the following in respective to the series: (Source)

Now this one took me by a whirlwind: WTH why was this version hated by people in Latin America while it’s adored by everyone in the U.S.?? And I watched some episodes of LCS and while the dubbing is pretty funny (lol) there wasn’t anything inappropriate about it. For the most part they stuck on script with the original episode they had to dub.

So I dove even deeper...

And o h m y g o d there is an answer to this.

Translation: The program premiered in Latin America on August 2009 on the Discover Kids channel, aiming at pre schoolers. Although the channel gave a lot of promotion for the show during the final months of 2009 and the majority of 2010, at the end of the year they decided to change the programming to nighttime hours because the show received a lot of critics from parents saying that the show was too “violent” and that it encouraged kids to lie to their parents (due to the obvious fact that Becky had to give an excuse everytime she had to leave to turn into WordGirl and save the day), and they complained constantly on the message boards now deleted of the channel. The program was eliminated completely on June 2012, without doubt, PBS maintained the Spanish dubs so that they would use for SAP (Second Audio Program) in the U.S. in a different studio (Dubbing House in Mexico and later Lorry Post in Miami, FL), but the program no longer returned to Discovery Kids until August 2014. (Source)

And DUDE no y’all this was just a complete hilarious yet ridiculous slap to the face. I mean..what the, why was that the reasoning as to why it was hated so much? Just cause of some literal PG kid friendly cartoon violence? And what do parents mean when they say it teaches them to lie to their parents?? I mean with all due respect, who was Discovery Kids target audience they had in mind vs. what it actually was? Because if there actual audience was very very young kids, they okay sure I can understand the need to point fingers at them in that sense. But if it was for slightly older kids (8-10 years old), then I think that parents can probably show kids at that age the reasoning behind why Becky lied in the show (not to mention that most kids at that age can understand what’s going on for the most part).

“Now is this actually true?” some of you may ask, which is understandable since this is coming from a wiki page. Well, I think it’s about time I put another disclaimer: sadly for the most part, the majority of these sources that I’ve attached have broken links when it comes to their references. And the ones that aren’t broken don’t mention anything about the topics that have been discussed here. But there are some smaller sources I’ve found here (look at the last three comments) and here that do indeed confirm that the show was canceled due to the force of parents.

However, the current grey area I’m in still is on the Spanish dubbing listing. See, I originally thought that there were three different dubbings according to this one post below (M&M Studios, Dubbing House and Lorry Post). I even thought I cracked it since according to this chart below the rest of the seasons were under the Dubbing House studios! However, it turns out that one of the studios Lorry Post doesn’t actually exist. Like nothing related to dubbing came up at all when I searched it up.

Translation: Dubbing Studio 1 - M&M Studios (Seasons 1-2). Dubbing Studio 2 - Dubbing House (Seasons 3-8). Dubbing Studio 3 - Lorry Post (Season 8 - final episodes). (Source)

And then that’s when I took a harder look at this website and realized that it’s part of a Spanish Wiki page called “Propuestas de Fans de Doblaje” (Fan Proposals for Dubs). *insert facepalm emoji* And just...I honestly feel so dumb that I didn’t notice that detail when I did my initial research cause that would’ve saved me a lot of time 😤. Anywho so that explains the Lorry Post mystery, but then lies the other question: do the other dubs exist?

Well, this is where I draw the line. See, on that same wikipage, it mentions that LCS had completely different voice actors for each of the dubbings. The first dub (M&M) is from Venezuela and after looking at the VA’s, they can be traced back to LCS. But after looking at the VA’s for the second dub (Dubbing House) in Mexico, there is nothing related to them and LCS or WG. Not even on movie databases.

“Now are you gonna give up on this idea?” you may ask. And the answer is......

No.

Why? Well, it’s mainly because there is a compellingly set of evidence that proves that the first two dubs do actually exist, which is...

THIS VIDEO, which shows that there were not one, but two variations of the LCS Spanish theme song. The first one is the Spanish version, and the second one that plays is the Venezuela version. And if you can remember, there were 2 dubbings of LCS; one located in Mexico (Dubbing House) and another In Venezuela (M&M Studios)!

Anywhosole, that is where I conclude this elaborate essay of mine. There are still a couple of loose strings here and there that I wanna check out myself but I’ve already tired myself out with this essay. I hoped you liked seeing me lose my mind speculate on the LCS episodes! This was honestly pretty fun ngl, maybe I’ll try doing this again in the future if something else interesting pops up! If you have anything you wanna add or maybe point out something that I may have forgotten, please by all means bring it up!

[a-teardrop-of-the-sun]

.....okay look. my anthropology master's thesis is basically finished up now and the surprise racism screed on OP's goofy post is driving me crazy so here.

i don't even know where to start with this but at the bare minimum:

1) "Are you willing to kill? Because that's what you're going to have to do to rise in respect and power in Native American tribes, among other things. The tribes may pursue peace, but they're still human." the idea that being "willing to kill" makes you "rise in respect and power in Native American tribes" is a really shitty and also utterly nonsensical thing to say. this is just...not how it worked anywhere. the thousands of Indigenous nations in north & south america were & are extraordinarily diverse with countless different kinds of power structures, social arrangements, experiences/outlooks on violence, etc. same with your "the tribes may pursue peace" thing. this is at best a nonsensical & super reductionist thing to say about two continents worth of diverse people groups and their thousands of years of history. at worst (and frankly, most likely going by the rest of your paragraph and your misinformation about Central/South America), it's not just uninformed but parroting a LOT of old racist stereotypes about Indigenous people as being in some kind of unspoiled "Eden" ripe for the colonisation, or being in a childlike peaceful harmony with nature and thus incapable of resisting the overpowering evil of colonisers, when in fact Indigenous people resisted & fought back against their colonisation with full agency from the start and continue to do so to this day -recommended reading: anything but whatever jared diamond ass american high school history ass shit you've been reading. Ideally David Graeber & David Wengrow's The Dawn of Everything or perhaps Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz's Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States or in fact any of the good free history books & primary sources at historyisaweapon.com. work your way up to Custer Died for Your Sins by Vine Deloria, Jr.

(1a: the Olmecs are one of the earliest major Mesoamerican civilisations as identified by archaeologists. The Inca Empire was nearly a thousand years later. These major ancient civilisations didn't overlap just because they're some of the only names of Central/South American Indigenous groups that you know. -recommended reading: literally just fucking wikipedia)

2) "refugees will be scared and would be prone to kill anyone they think might take their place in line to get into the cities nearby" no. just stop.

3) "You can go ahead and try to survive living in Asia, but empires in Asia rose quickly, and fell just as fast." hey so the Shang dynasty of China kicked off in 1600 BCE (and it's not even the first Chinese dynasty but the first that has a universally-accepted historical record). not to mention: Zhou Empire (1046 - 256 BCE); ~ 790 years. Khmer Empire (802 - 1431 C.E.); ~ 629 years. Parthian Empire (247 B.C.E. - 224 C.E.) - 471 years. etc, etc. -recommended reading: Stewart Gordon's When Asia Was the World (free borrow on archive.org) or literally anything about the fucking countless centuries-old empires, kingdoms, caliphates, and other massive societies across Asia from the literal Neolithic Revolution to the present

4 (and perhaps most relevant if not the most important):

please explain to me how a survivor of mt vesuvius in 79 CE is going to go try their luck on continents that they don't know exist

5) you fucking dipshit, this is a blatant smooth shark scenario and you decided to go spill a bunch of ignorant racism everywhere? fuck off with your "um actually" bullshit when all you're doing is telling on your own ignorance like goddamn ben shapiro while OP is goofin. In your own fucking words: "When you have the capacity for learning, use it. Don't waste it on bad opinions and even worse, misinformation."

why didn't they just leave pompeii when the volcano erupted? were they stupid?

[borksmemes]

Here's how the generation raised by Gen X slackers are doing:

The observer effect in physics is pretty simple in theory. You change the outcome of an experiment by measuring it.

Apply that to people and the Gen Z kids meme-ing billion dollar companies to death make a lot more sense. Allow me to put it in a different way: if you were born before 1998 you probably remember when Google started. If you were born in 1998 or later Google remembers when YOU started.

Their baby photos were uploaded to the internet in real time and now they show up on background checks for jobs. Their most embarrassing memories and their deepest conversations exist simultaneously on the internet, owned by a company their grandparents are too out of touch to regulate.

So what does this generation have in store for us? Well let's see: the first trickle of Gen Z kids entered the workforce in 2016, and as of 2021 many are now graduating college. In case you're wondering, no they're not big fans of the unforgivable loans that they were tricked into when they were 17.

The society these kids were born into is brand new. Google turned on in the 90's and so did international stock exchange. The past 20 years have been spent with foreign investors ruling local economies and buying whatever laws they want. Companies became legally people and bribery became legal and got renamed to lobbying.

If any of this starts to feel weird please take a moment to remember an American 23 year old Gen Z kid born in 1998 has seen not one but TWO elections go against popular vote.

These kids have been armed since birth with a love for Rage Against Machine, The Magic Schoolbus, and Dungeons and Dragons. Have I mentioned that they know how to throw a protest? If you're looking to start a rally you'd better not have the tickets online because a few million Gen Z kids might just end the whole thing.

Oh did I forget to mention that yet? Okay yeah Gen Z kids HATE to be bystanders. If you wanna go toe to toe with the literal hive mind these folks have made, then be careful. They know just how desperate the world currently is and they're not afraid to upend an essential system just to watch it crumble. Why? Because the whole thing looks fun to knock over.

Udemy. Wikipedia. Kahn Academy. YouTube. Skill Share. Curiosity Stream. Google Scholar. Audible. They have access to education orders of magnitude more accurate and voluminous than their parents or grandparents can even comprehend let alone properly regulate. Go listen to Welcome To The Internet by Bo Burnham if you really need a summary.

Yeah yeah "the college experience" must have been worth it at one point, but not while lecture halls are still literal biohazards. Professors refused to stay competent with the advent of the internet (which was literally invented to make their jobs easier). Now THOUSANDS of dollars of non-refundable lessons got watered down to a self-study on YouTube.

So now we find ourselves looking at a dispassionate, educated youth that seized the means of education. They know their currency is backed only by trust in a consistent system of violence if you don't play ball. They don't that the violence only trickles down.

They're ready to end this needless, silly game that their grandparents started. That classic game where me and my friends make everyone play a game, but only me and my friends win. They're done with it. They've had a taste of sandbox mode and they're ready to make it the default.

In conclusion:

Gen Z kids know that the world you've created for yourself comes at the expense of their future. They're young, scrappy, and hungry enough to challenge you for it, but also tech savvy enough to trick you into just handing it over. They beat the printing press, and are now set to overcome the need for human labor.

[hsiao-kang]

Fiona Shaw by David Yeo for The Telegraph, ‘Killing Eve's secret weapon Fiona Shaw on finding new fame, and falling in love at almost 60’ by Jessamy Calkin (full article under the cut)

Fiona Shaw has found a new audience thanks to her scene-stealing turns in Killing Eve  and Fleabag. The Shakespearean actor turned small-screen sensation talks spies, celebrity, tragedy, and getting married later in life.

You look great, I tell Fiona Shaw. Must be the pig’s placenta. Shaw, 60, pretty and angular in a soft grey shirt, smiles enigmatically from the sofa of her north London home. Pig’s placenta is her MI6 officer Carolyn Martens’ beauty secret in the second series of Killing Eve, Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s dark, wildly successful thriller about a psychopathic female assassin called Villanelle and Eve Polastri, the agent hunting her down.

But pig’s placenta aside, Shaw puts her youthful appearance down to ‘not being in the theatre every single night’. Which is where she’s been for pretty much the past 30 years. Formerly known for a huge body of iconic stage roles, including Hedda Gabler, Medea, Electra and Richard II, as well as for playing Aunt Petunia in the Harry Potter films, Shaw’s fame is now more attributable to her transition to television.

In Killing Eve, Waller-Bridge has taken a genre that’s a little worn out – the international-assassin thriller – and given it a completely different slant. The show won five awards at the Baftas earlier this month – including Outstanding Drama Series and Best Supporting Actress for Shaw, who in her acceptance speech referred to the ‘glass-shattering genius’ of Waller-Bridge.

Carolyn Martens, head of Russia at MI6, is a perfect example of Waller-Bridge’s wayward approach. Carolyn is very still. Arch, deadpan, erudite, severe. But she has a tipsy flirtatious side, and a hidden messy streak. She’s oblique – and the viewer doesn’t know how much she knows, or whether or not to trust her. Nor does Eve (played superbly by Sandra Oh). ‘I once saw a rat drink from a can of Coke there,’ Carolyn says earnestly to a bemused Eve when they’re in a rubbish-strewn alley. ‘Both hands. Extraordinary…’

‘Carolyn’s a joy to write,’ says Emerald Fennell – best known as an actor for Call the Midwife, and The Crown’s new Camilla – who took over from Waller-Bridge as lead writer on the second series (Waller-Bridge remains an executive producer). ‘Her blood runs very cool. She’s like a freediver who has trained herself to hold her breath and slow down her heartbeat – she’s done it for so long it’s now a permanent state. Her ability to steer an awkward conversation into blithely surreal territory is unparalleled and somehow seems very British.’

The character is entirely dependent on Shaw, adds Fennell. ‘She is unbelievably brilliant, funny, and scarily clever. In one of the episodes, another character mentions [11th-century saint] Anselm’s ontological argument [for the existence of God], and during the read-through it transpired that Fiona had written a literal thesis on it. Quite embarrassing for those of us who only had the most passing Wikipedia acquaintance with Anselm (me). Fiona’s cleverness and wit are built into the fabric of who Carolyn is.’

Shaw compares playing the part to keeping a secret at the same time as delivering a line. ‘It’s not easy to do. I have to say I do lose sleep over it – I’m playing somebody very different to what I normally play. Normally I have to expose the truth. When I’m in the theatre, where I would be swimming with the tide, it’s my job to lasso the audience and to make sure they understand the moral dilemma of the piece – that’s what leading players do. You are sort of the MC for the night…

In Killing Eve, most of my work is about knowing more than everybody else in the scene and hiding it. And it’s a terribly lonely thing to do. It feels all wrong – like rubbing my tummy and patting my head at the same time. I want to smile, I want to make jokes – but you are left with an ambiguity. You don’t know whether I know I’ve made a joke or not. It’s very good exercise for me.’

Even though they are friends, stepping into Waller-Bridge’s shoes must have been tricky for Fennell. ‘I think of Killing Eve as a beautiful, haunted doll’s house that Phoebe built,’ she says. ‘She’s already made this incredible world full of insanely compelling people, so the pleasure of writing it is to get to play in there, to put in a few of your own trapdoors and secret passageways, to move those characters around and occasionally push some of them down the stairs.’

Earlier this year, Shaw appeared in the second series of Waller-Bridge’s other seminal television show, Fleabag. Initially she had to turn it down because she was directing Cendrillon at Glyndebourne (directing opera is another of her talents). Then Fleabag overran, and she was able to join in after all.

Waller-Bridge is the definitive young auteur of our times, and it seems she can do no wrong. The stage production of Fleabag – coming to the West End in August – sold out in an hour. ‘I feel she’s nearest to Oscar Wilde,’ says Shaw now, ‘which is to say she’s greater than the sum of her parts.’ Comedy, in some ways, is quite a conservative thing, Shaw thinks, although it may not seem that way. ‘But it always has a frame; it stays within that frame but it kicks against it, like a child in a playpen.

‘Phoebe develops people so they turn into bigger people, and bigger people, and I think that’s 
a confidence that’s come with her previous work. She’s mastered one form, and she’s been able to take the gate off and let the characters run out into the field – and yet they’re still intact, and the audience follow them. It’s superb.’

For actors, she says, that approach couldn’t be better, which is why so many of them, including herself, Andrew Scott and Kristin Scott Thomas, are desperate to work with Waller-Bridge.

‘I could have played the boss of MI6 and pretty well come up with the same “ker-chings” every week,’ says Shaw, who also played an MI6 officer in BBC One’s recent Mrs Wilson, ‘but that isn’t what happens in Killing Eve.’

Waller-Bridge was always on set during the making of the first series, constructing and reconstructing her work like a Rubik’s Cube. When Sandra Oh pointed out that the actor Sean Delaney, who plays Kenny Stowton (a young ex-hacker recruited by MI6), looked like Shaw, Waller-Bridge decided to make his character her son in the story, and wrote it in, just like that.

Killing Eve, though it seems so British, is a BBC America production, having been initially overlooked here, according to executive producer Sally Woodward Gentle (this was before Fleabag became a TV hit). Woodward Gentle had read the Codename Villanelle novellas by Luke Jennings, on which Killing Eve is based, and approached Waller-Bridge. She had seen her one-woman play in Edinburgh, and thought she would bring a different energy to the show.

Shaw is taken aback by its popularity, and 
particularly by the wide demographic to which 
it appeals. ‘Fathers and sons watch it, mothers 
 and daughters, husbands and wives. I don’t think it bears much analysis. I suppose it has no politics, it’s fantasy really and that’s why I think the violence is nearly allowable – it’s cartoonish.’

It’s also stylish – the music is great; the costumes are superb; the graphics are slick – and clearly a high-budget project, shot in London, Berlin, Paris, Amsterdam. Shaw is often recognised for playing Carolyn. She was amazed when, on a New York street recently, someone reacted so wildly on seeing her that she appeared to be having a fit.

Fiona Shaw grew up in Montenotte, Cork, with three brothers. Her father was an ophthalmic surgeon and her mother was a physicist. She always wanted to be a tennis player, she says, but instead studied philosophy at University College Cork and then went to Rada in London. She still remembers the audition: the teacher told her later that she smelled of libraries.

That’s because it was as if she was born into the 19th century, she says now, compared to the other applicants. She was not cool. Everyone was instructed to wear a black dress. Shaw had made her own and it was a bit wonky. She was terrified. ‘I remember some American guys at the audition were doing press-ups, and people were talking about the Royal Shakespeare Company – and I thought, I haven’t a hope in hell.’

Hearing she’d got in was, she says, ‘one of the nicest moments in my life’. She is still an advisor at Rada. She worked hard and went straight into the cast of Richard Brinsley Sheridan’s play The Rivals at the National Theatre, alongside Michael Hordern and Tim Curry (‘I couldn’t have been in better company’). Her father had his reservations, ‘but I think he thought I would come to my senses’. A year later she joined the RSC. Her parents would come and watch her, and her obvious success calmed her father’s fears. ‘He got much more interested when he could read about me in the paper – in the end he was incredibly supportive but I had to go through the firewall of his disapproval for a while.’

Then her brother Peter was killed in a car crash. Shaw was 28 at the time. ‘That was such a blow to my family. Neither of my parents could really function for about a year after that. It was very hard for them.’

Two years after her brother died, she was offered the role of Electra (for which she won the first of two Olivier Awards), and in some strange way found herself channelling her grief. ‘I loved comedy – but then I was asked to do Electra. Deborah Warner was directing and I thought, oh well, I’ll give it a go. But I didn’t see the point of a tragedy and I couldn’t do it at all. And slowly I realised that it’s much more about yourself. And I discovered a new world through tragedy.

‘Electra has a brother who she thinks is dead – and I knew something about having a brother who was dead. I wouldn’t say in any way that I was mainlining my brother, but I suddenly realised that plays are about life, and domestic tragedies are heightened in the theatre – but they are the same as all our tragedies – and that is what the theatre is for. I don’t know why I hadn’t worked that out before.’

It was the first of many collaborations with Warner (with whom Shaw also had a relationship), which went on to include Hedda Gabler, a controversial Richard II at the National in 1995, and Brecht’s Mother Courage and Her Children.

Shaw’s first major film role was in My Left Foot with Daniel Day-Lewis (1989). Soon after came Three Men and a Little Lady (1990), and later the Harry Potter series. It is the former, she says, for which she is most recognised by the public. She has just finished filming Ammonite, an historical drama directed by Francis Lee, in which she plays Elizabeth Philpot, a palaeontologist, opposite Saoirse Ronan, and Kate Winslet as fossil hunter Mary Anning.

Was there a moment when she felt she had made it on her own terms? ‘I think I was very lucky. I didn’t do film on my own terms – you’re either a film star or you are not – because I was so obsessed with the theatre when I was young. Probably I would have had to go and sit in Hollywood – but I wouldn’t do that.

‘But I have done a lot of things on my terms, just being allowed to do those shows: Electra, Hedda Gabler – and Richard II, which seemed quite nerve-racking at the time, but that was part of the thrill of it. So I’ve always tried to do things which are hard to do – maybe even to a fault.’ She has never, she says, been trapped in a long run of a West End show she didn’t want to do. ‘There always had to be an element of experiment.’

And she loves taking theatrical risks. Like her rendition of The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, which premiered at Epidaurus in Greece in 2012, then went to the Old Vic Tunnels in London in 2013, and on to the Brooklyn Academy of Music. Or (with Warner) the dramatisation of TS Eliot’s The Waste Land she performed in locations including an old disco in Brussels and a former munitions factory in Dublin. Last month she revisited it in New York, reciting it against the backdrop of a sculpture exhibition in Madison Square Park – it wasn’t advertised but word spread and people came in their hundreds. ‘It was a huge pleasure, it happened almost by accident – “Will you turn this water into wine?” And I did. It was lovely.’

Shaw’s father, Denis, died in 2011, but her mother, Mary, is 93 and still lives in the house that Shaw grew up in. She drives, plays tennis. When Shaw goes back home she sleeps in her old bedroom. ‘Well, I try not to – it’s awful to sleep in the bedroom you had when you were 14. Some things are still exactly the same, the wardrobe and the poster of Narcissus – do you remember those terrible posters?’

Shaw lives between the house in north London and New York, where her wife Sonali Deraniyagala, a Sri Lankan economist, teaches at Columbia University. In 2004, Deraniyagala was on holiday in Sri Lanka with her family when they were caught in the tsunami. Her husband, parents and two young sons died. For years, Deraniyagala lived in a haze of madness and grief. In 2013, she wrote an extraordinary memoir, Wave, which won several awards and had some remarkable reviews.

Shaw was in New York performing in Colm Tóibín’s The Testament of Mary when somebody gave her Deraniyagala’s book. She read it in her dressing room. ‘I thought it was the best thing I’d read for a long time, on any level.’ She mentioned this in an interview. Then things came together in a felicitous way: Shaw was supposed to return home straight after the play closed, but she had a serious ear infection (due to having to disappear for several minutes in a plunge pool every night on stage), and was unable to fly. She stayed in New York and went to a Laurie Anderson concert, where she was invited to Anderson’s book club – they were reading Wave – to meet the writer.

‘I was so surprised that she was that person – not the person in the book. We spent half an hour chatting. When I left I thought, I have just met life.’

She pauses. ‘The play had been exhausting and so much about death, and I was feeling so miserable, and I thought, that person is life – even though she has had more death than you would wish on your worst enemy, there’s a force in her that is just life.’

When Deraniyagala came to London they met up again. ‘Very quickly I thought, I just want to live with this person, and it’s been one of the most marvellous things to happen – but it was also highly unlikely. But in my profound self, at my core, I thought, I want to live with this person. It was deeper than anything. And thankfully, she thought the same – it’s been a beautiful thing to happen at this stage of my life.’

They got married in Islington town hall in January of last year, and then had their wedding party on the day of the royal wedding. ‘It was fantastic. Half of Sri Lanka came and it was a very beautiful wedding – everyone was wearing saris and looking gorgeous. My mother played the piano and sang, which was quite hilarious, and we had a band and dancing, a very late party.’

Her mother sounds very enlightened, being 93 and coming from a small town in Ireland. Were there no raised eyebrows at the fact that Shaw was marrying a woman? (As well as Warner, she previously had a relationship with the actor Saffron Burrows.)

‘More than raised. But it’s fine – the world is changing fast. My mother was very good about it and also very impressed by who Sonali is.’

So she’s not religious? ‘Oh she is, but she’s also terribly funny about it. And she’s a sort of nouveau old person. I think being old is quite a shock for her – and a lot of friends are dead, and some of them have lost their minds. But she’s very well – and very happy for me.’

Deraniyagala and Shaw have been to Sri Lanka several times to visit Deraniyagala’s aunt, and love it there. Given what happened to Deraniyagala, recent events – the bombings at Easter – must have been completely destabilising. ‘Sri Lanka has been very much at peace for the last 10 years since the war, but the scale of what happened with those 250 people dead – it’s as big as 9/11 for them, because it’s such a small island. They were innocent people, and it’s the most depressing thing – and terribly hard for Sonali – because the mass funerals are very near to the mass funerals of her family; it’s terribly hard for her to revisit that time. It feels a bit like a natural disaster because it has no rhyme or reason. It’s a black hole of destruction.’

Shaw is about to start work on a film called Corvidae, a thriller co-written and directed by young film-maker Joe Marcantonio. Then Killing Eve series three is on the cards for next year. If she had to choose only one discipline to work in for the rest of her life – theatre, film, opera or television – which would she choose?

‘That’s a cruel question. I would find it very difficult, but I would probably say television because I’ve done 30 years of the theatre. I’ve worked morning, noon and night, sometimes rehearsing all day and performing every night for decades. That’s a lot. I don’t have any great need to do that again.

‘And I’m very interested in television now because one of the new pleasures it’s given me is the scope of the audience. We used to be thrilled when we had 500 people, or 1,000. Now we have millions and you think, oh God, this is so obvious. Especially when the material is of such great quality and so uncynical. A few years ago they were just churning television out, but they aren’t now – it has some of the best minds working in it. So I feel in a way like I’m in the same profession, it’s just the shape of the stage which has changed.’

In the end, she says, in any medium, it all comes down to the same things she has always aspired to, and which she is so excited about – that sense of infinite possibility in a role, and the thrill of making the heartbeat of the audience quicken.

Killing Eve returns to BBC One and iPlayer in June

[takaraphoenix]

percy jackson for the ask game

Thanks for playing! ^^

Top 5 favourite characters: Percy Jackson, Nico di Angelo, Clarisse la Rue, Reyna Avila Ramírez-Arellano, Silena Beauregard

Other characters you like: Rachel Elizabeth Dare, Thalia Grace, Leo Valdez, Charles Beckendorf, Tyson

Least favourite characters: Hera, uuuhm I mean Drew I guess and Nancy?? I don’t know, I’ve gone through so many cycles with PJO, I’ve come around on most characters

Otps: again, let’s make that a Top Five? Nico/Percy, Jason/Percy, Octavian/Percy, Triton/Percy, Will/Pery

Notps: Percy/Annabeth, Leo/Calypso, Grover/Percy, Tyson/Percy, book Luke/Percy

Favourite friendships: Canon? Grover & Percy, Clarisse & Percy, Nico & Reyna

Favourite family: I meeean technically they are ALL family since all of the gods are siblings/cousins! ;D Okay, okay. Paul, Sally, Percy and Tyson! A very obvious pick

Favourite episodes: doesn’t have a TV show adaptation yet? xD

Favourite season/book/movie: The Battle of the Labyrinth

Favourite quotes: not really a quote-kinda-gal

Best musical moment: haven’t gotten to see the musical yet!

Moment that made you fangirl/boy the hardest: I mean obviously when black on white it was confirmed that Nico was in love with Percy? Like? You can imagine, yes? :D

When it really disappointed you: …so often *whispers softly, voice breaking* but to sum it up basically from The Mark of Athena through to the end. The above mentioned confession was honestly like the only highlight out of those three books...

Saddest moment: WHEN THEY KILLED OFF BECKENDORF AND THEN KILLED OFF SELINA. I CRIED THE WHOLE FUCKING DAY

Most well done character death: Luke’s death was shit, Ethan’s death was frustrating because it was a cheap cop out of an actual redemption arc I really hate the “chose the wrong side and now immediately dies in a Heroic Sacrifice”-trope (which plays into why Luke’s death was shit), Bianca’s death was ridiculous - the fact that out of ALL of the Huntresses they picked the one who had been a huntress for 0.2 DAYS was just pathetic and literally projectd “this 12 year old child with zero combat training is totally gonna die” all along and it pisses me off so much, while Silena and Beckendorf made me cry they were also frustrating because they were avoidable had people used their brains, Octavian’s death genuinely made me furious because it was played for cheap laughs... I guess Bob and Damansen by default then...?

Favourite guest star: uuuuuuuh I got nothing

Favourite cast member: Leven Rambin as Clarisse la Rue?? Holy shit blessed casting thank you

Character you wish was still alive: ...one? I only get one? *distressed Phoe-noises* Silena? Charles? Ethan? Urgh. How dare you make me pick only one...

One thing you hope really happens: ...I know there are people out there still reading the new books and I wouldn’t wish this for them because they clearly still enjoy it, but good gods do I wish Riordan would just finally stop and give Percy a rest. Like, not even stop writing - he could write new things. but stop dragging Percy Jackson personally into everything, be that visiting the Norse because hey it’s his gf’s cousin, or getting dragged into Apollo’s weird shit, seriously just... move on, please

Most shocking twist: quite truthfully that Ares was the traitorous god in The Lightning Thief and not Hades. I am so used to Hades being painted as The Bad Guy and the Evil Mastermind bullshit that it was genuinely so refreshing that no actually he’s just wronged because he wants his property back too and he’s not actually the bad guy??

When did you start watching/reading?: 2010, I guess, right after I saw the movie for the first time

Best animal/creature: BLACKJACK BLACKJACK BLACKJACK. No wait Mrs. O’Leary is also there! :O Both? Both!

Favourite location: THE UNDERWORLD

Trope you wish they would stop using: Everyone Needs To Be Paired Up! Seriously, obsessive shipping in canon is cringey but if you have a literal ship with seven crewmates and it turns out to be three couples and the seventh is first in a Love Triangle with one of the couples and THEN gets his own girlfriend, that’s... that’s genuinely pathetic, like I would raise a judgemental eyebrow at a fanfiction that ships everyone off this perfectly paired up, but a published actual work that is not the author’s very first publication? That’s embarrassing, man

One thing this show/book/film does better than others: portrayal of Greek gods and myths

Funniest moments: snarky Percy sassing gods :D

Couple you would like to see: This implies a non-canon couple I’d like to see become canon and just honestly, genuinely, none, good gods there is already too much romance as it is, dial it back

Actor/Actress you want to join the cast: honestly, the second movie took the two only fancasts that were dear to me and actually cast them. Anthony Head as Chiron and Nathan Fillion as Hermes. That was such perfect casting and were my only casting wishes, so like... I got nothing

Favourite outfit: Clarisse’s movie outfit?? It’s? So? Good??

Favourite item: I mean, Riptide is really practical?

Do you own anything related to this show/book/film?: A very dear friend of mine gave me the movie poster for the second movie and it is hanging on my ceiling :D But other than that, sadly enough this franchise is not exactly heavy on merch - which is ridiculous to me... the opportunities. Please make this into a cartoon and start producing ALL of the figures and toys. All of them. Seriously, the toy opportunity on this franchise is so huge??

What house/team/group/friendship group/family/race etc would you be in?: uuuuuuh honestly no god really fits me so I don’t know

Most boring plotline: Annabeth’s third book side-quest really bore me

Most laughably bad moment: When they had a prophecy about an “angel’s breath” and Annabeth Chase, daughter of ATHENA, stood right there, not figuring it out - but Piper did. That... That did Annabeth such a freaking disservice, seriously the disrespect from Riordan there. Why did you even make her a daughter of wisdom if you aren’t going to use her to be clever? That actively made me bang my head against the nearest wall because it was such an obvious part of the riddle like seeeriously

Best flashback/flashfoward if any: I loved learning more about Annabeth, Luke and Thalia’s past together

Most layered character: I mean Percy, but that’s also due to getting five books exclusively from his POV

Most one dimensional character: lol like the dozen or so characters who only exist as First Name Only? And yeah, I get it, you can’t flesh them all out more. But Jason Grace had a whole-ass life before he came to CHB and we got name-drops of his closest friends in The Lost Hero, but most of them remained a name only and Jason not only didn’t get to team up with them later on, to try and convince them to join his cause, he also never actively thought about them. I don’t know, but if I’d spend months away from all my friends, I would definitely spend some of my POV thinking about them...

Scariest moment: thiiis was not a scary series

Grossest moment: When Riordan tried to sell domestic violence as cute, aka Annabeth judo-flipping her boyfriend in punishment for getting abducted by a goddess :D”““ what the fuq

Best looking male: if we go by actors, I guess Chris Rodriguez? xD

Best looking female: oooh definitely Clarisse when we go with the movie faces *^*

Who you’re crushing on (if any): mmmh yeah no

Favourite cast moment: I do not know any xD”

Favourite transportation: shadow-travel! It’s so cool

Most beautiful scene (scenery/shot wise): them entering the underworld was pretty damn cool??

Unanswered question/continuity issue/plot error that bugs you: NICO’S AGE. CONSISTENCY. Stop posting things that contradict each other like just stop tweeting canons out if you don’t have a fixed list of what is canon. ALSO SALLY’S MOTHER IS NAMED LAURA, SHE WAS NAMED LAURA FOR YEARS BEFORE YOU FORGOT THAT YOU NAMED THAT CHARACTER LAURA AND NOW SALLY NAMED HER CANON DAUGHTER FUCKING ESTELLE AFTER HER MOTHER’S NEW NAME. Good gods. How do professional authors not have lists to crosscheck about vital information of their own characters, like their birthdates and their parents’ names.

Best promo: I don’t watch promos

At what point did you fall in love with this show/book: Honestly before I watched the movie already, when I read on wikipedia that a son of Hades was not just A Good Guy in this bookseries but also a main character :D

IN DEPTH FANDOM QUESTIONS

[banjodanger]

X-Men Origins: Wolverine(2009)

I’ve got a lot to talk about, so I’m going to jump right in with a very unpopular opinion. This may SHOCK and OFFEND certain readers, but I’m not one to shy away from speaking my mind. More sensitive readers should beware, however, because I’m not going to shy away from rattling cages and saying what NEEDS to be said!

So, ready yourselves, because...

Origins is not the worst X-Men movie.

There. I said it. PBBBBBBTTTT!

I’m not arguing that this was a good movie, hell, there’s a good argument that this isn’t even a competently made movie. But this movie is also responsible for some of the absolute best movies to come from Fox’s X-Men. First Class and Days of Future Past are two of the absolute best movies of this series, and it’s doubtful the other two Wolverine solo movies would have aimed as high as they did if this movie hadn’t been so widely mocked. If you go back to watch this movie, try to keep in mind eight years later this series would get nominated for a screenwriting Oscar. Whatever your opinion of awards, that’s a hell of a turnaround, considering the story this movie tells is like three separate stories stapled together. Finally, however much this movie misunderstands Deadpool, it was right on in casting Ryan Reynolds and eventually gave us better Deadpool movies than we could have hoped for. It shouldn’t go unnoticed that both of those movies use Origins as a solid foundation for jokes. I’m not going to talk too much about Deadpool in this movie, because I plan to cover it in more detail when I get to the first movie.

But I’m not discussing those movies, I’m discussing Origins, and Origins is not very good. The CGI looks cheap and outdated, not just by the standards of the time it was released but by the standards of five years previous. And the movie makes said terrible CGI hard to ignore because, to quote the philosopher Michelle Branch, it is EVERYWHERE. Most people are quick to bring up Wolverine’s claws effects, and they should because they somehow look worse than any of the three previous movies and it’s the most easily noticeable. I’m not expecting them to have Hugh Jackman actually fighting and jumping around on top of a nuclear vent but it looks like they’re doing it in front of computer wallpaper. That hill outside the Hudson’s farmhouse literally looks like the default Windows XP desktop. I’m surprised Agent Zero isn’t hiding behind the recycle bin. This isn’t to say I don’t expect lots of CGI in my comic book movies,but I expect better when someone is dropping over one hundred million for a guy with metal claws to fight a mute with impossibly long sword fists.

I could ignore all the bargain basement effects if there was a good story, but there isn’t one. There’s about two or three stories and they’re all bad. Gavin Hood wanted to make a throwback sevnties-style revenge movie, completely self-contained and R-rated(Hey, does that sound familiar?), but the producers wanted extra characters they could spin off into their own films. And as much as I want to excoriate them for that, I can only get but so mad. This was a big franchise that was approaching ten years since its first film. They were looking towards the future and that’s what their job was. The problem is that failure to find a common ground comes through on the screen. Some of the strongest scenes are between Logan and Victor, to the detriment that most of the other characters who come off as unnecessary cameos. That boxing scene between Logan and Fred Dukes could be a thirty second phone call without really losing anything.

It’s disappointing, too, because a lot of the performances in this movie aren’t bad. Believe me, I wanted to hate Will.I.Am. I was going to drag him and talk about all the terrible music he made but...he’s not bad in this movie. I’m not going to say he missed his calling by not becoming an actor full-time, but I enjoyed his performance and wish the movie had used him a little bit more.

My humps is still one of the worst goddamned songs ever.

Gambit was great in this movie too. Taylor Kitsch had this bizarre run of putting in good performances in hated movies. After this, he did John Carter then the second season of True Detective. That’s a shocking run of bad luck, and too bad to, because he’s good in all three. We missed out not getting at least one more movie with his take on Gambit, because he gets maybe fifteen minutes of screentime but he manages to be memorable, charismatic and charming.

Helicoptering with a bo staff still isn’t part of his goddamn power set though.

And I’m not going to forget Liev Schrieber, who makes an absolutely compelling villain. The only problem with his character at all is that he puts such a great performance that it stretches belief to imagine this is the guy that becomes a silent henchman in the first movie. There’s simply nothing in his performance to suggest they’re the same person. It would be like if the twist of Phantom Menace was that Darth Vader was originally Jar Jar Binks, or if they hired Nora Ephron to write a Hellraiser prequel. 

Even the Scott Summers we get in this movie is pretty good despite looking like a guy that steals copper wiring out of abandoned gas stations. Although I really question why Gambit watches them run off and I guess just assumes they’re being abducted by a good guy.

That leads me into the whole problem with prequels. Things happen in this movie and characters seem to live simply because earlier movies dictate that we have to see them again. It simply does not make sense for Kayla to leave Stryker alive. She has every reason to kill him, but she doesn’t, because he needs to be the villain in X2. Gambit doesn’t chase after the kids because they didn’t want to have him interact with Professor X. Sabretooth survives because he has to fight Wolverine on top of the Staute of Liberty while making no reference to their apparent relationship as siblings, or any words of any kind. This movie is awkwardly shoehorning itself into the lore established by the previous movies and it results in characters saying and doing things that go against what this movie seems to lead up to. The ending of most of those seventies revenge flicks was a bloody murder. Here, Stryker hurts his feet a little. It’s just not the same thing.

Ok, are you ready for the problematic parts?

Let’s start with Native American representation, because it ends up being a pretty big part of this movie. Lynn Collins’ Wikipedia says she claims Cherokee ancestry, so I’ll give the movie credit on that, but as near as I’ve been able to suss out, the myth she tells does not exist outside of this movie. First off, Wolverines do not howl. At all. They’re not wolves, they’re related to weasels. They’re small, vicious bastards. That information was readily available in 2009, by the way. Furthermore, the information I can find says that the moon in Native American mythology is predominantly gendered as male. Now, that’s not a blanket statement. This was the research I was able to conduct, and mythology, as with a lot of oral traditions, are a pretty mutable thing. Given that I was unable to find any mention of this myth that didn’t quote it from the movie, I feel pretty comfortable calling this myth nonsense.

Hey, what’s your tolerance for fatphobia? Because that’s going to impact how you feel about Blob’s character. Look, from his very first appearance he’s been a fat joke. That’s it. He’s a rude fat guy whose mutant power is being fat, hell, part of his power set is described as a “personal gravity field.” So while I can’t blame the movie entirely for this character being problematic, you’ve got to ask why they chose this character as the one that had to stay true to the comic book. He was in poor taste when he was created, when this movie was made, and now. And I absolutely can blame the movie for making him a fat joke.

At least they didn’t go the Ultimate comics route and straight up show him eating another character. Small blessings.

On a more final note, there’s that very strange character choice in the beginning credits. I know that they want to illustrate early that Wolverine doesn’t view violence the same way Sabretooth does, but why would they choose nazis as the villain in that moment? Even if they weren’t the most enjoyably killable villains in history, the last three movies have made the atrocities of the Holocaust a huge emotional linchpin of a major character. So it comes off as a genuine shock that this movie would use, in its introduction, a moment of sympathy for these very same villains. So you needed to show Wolverine with sympathy? Have a bar fight in France after liberating the country. Have them fight in the Korean war. Maybe Wolverine mourns a kid shot on the front lines. There’s a hundred choices that don’t involve Wolverine getting sad over a bunch of nazis.

So, why don’t I think this is the worst X-Men movie? I’m clearly not calling it a forgotten classic, and I’m not recommending you watch it unless you’re a weird completionist blogging about your arrested development on Tumblr. Sure, there’s some forgotten performances in here that deserve some consideration, but the movie is mostly a mess, a result of too many cooks with diverging visions. There’s a good revenge flick here, but it gets buried and muddled by a desire and knowledge that this movie has to simultaneously explain the past that led to the first movie and set up future installments. It tries to do too much and ends up not doing much of anything. I followed up on some of the people involved in this movie. Obviously Ryan Reynolds had the last laugh, but it still took seven years and a leaked teaser. Hugh Jackman learned from the mistakes in this movie and the rest of the Wolverine movies are pretty great. Gavin Hood, who got this job after being nominated for a foreign language Oscar, directed another big-budget flop with Ender’s Game. However, earlier in 2020 he apparently bought a four million dollar house so I don’t feel bad for him. Also, the flop of Ender’s Game could possibly involve Orson Scott Card being a vocal and unapologetic homophobe. Seriously, what is it with beloved fantasy authors and hate towards LGBT groups? You can conceive of wild, uncharted space and magical realms but the idea that two guys love each other is too far out?

Next in the series, from failure comes success, as we meet Xavier and Erik as frenemies and launch a million slash fictions.

[nebris]

Hating Valerie Solanas (And Loving Violent Men)

by Chavisa Woods 

My fourth book, and first full-length work of nonfiction will be released by Seven Stories Press in June. 100 Times (A Memoir of Sexism) is a 240-page memoir, written as in-scene vignettes, telling the stories of one hundred experiences of sexist discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual violence I have personally experienced and witnessed, beginning at age five, through the present day.

I recently shared an excerpt of this book on social media, and immediately an old friend who I’d long ago lost touch with, a man from the Midwest, began arguing with me, and compared me to Valerie Solanas. I could tell from the tone of his comment, he expected me to recoil at the mention of that name — Valerie Solanas — the direst of insults; queer female hysterical violent “femi-nazi” insanity personified. This name was meant to summon shame in me, like invoking some Goetic demon to bate and restrain my crazed feminism.

He’s not the only one who sees her that way. When so many people think Valerie Solanas, they think, “bat-shit crazy, violent, murderous, ridiculous, woman.”

In a recent season of the popular television show, American Horror Story, for instance, Solanas was depicted by Lena Dunham as a demented serial killer who led a cult of murderous feminists to kill heterosexual couples — kids hooking up in cars, happy newlyweds and such — in a bloody, nationwide feminist murder spree. This, of course, is a completely fictional narrative, and for the purposes of this show, Solanas’s epitomal work, The Scum Manifesto, was interpreted as a literal, earnest text. Dunham portrayed Solanas as a frumpy, grumpy, clownish homicidal lesbian.

In the mainstream media and collective consciousness, Solonas has been written off as a worthless artist, and remembered only for her violent act against Andy Warhol.

All of this got me thinking about unconscious bias, and what it takes for us to denounce a female artist’s historical worth, versus what it does for a man.

William Burroughs shot and killed his wife while drunk and high, playing a game they called “William Tell,” wherein his wife placed an apple on her head, and he shot it off. He missed, killed her, and later wrote about it, implying it was possible he subconsciously wanted to kill her, because he was gay and resented having a wife. He served only two weeks in jail for this slaughter. Because the homicide occurred in Mexico, and through a combination of bribery and fleeing the country, he avoided serving any prison sentence.

Burroughs, of course, is still widely celebrated as a great author. I, in fact, had a poem published in a literary magazine a few years ago, the cover adorned with a photograph of him holding a rifle. This image was considered darkly humorous.

Almost every other author I’ve spoken with about the ethics of celebrating Burroughs and his art points me in the direction of compassion; he had a drug problem, he and his wife were “in it together.”

After the murder of his wife, he served as a member of the prestigious American Academy of Arts and Letters. His body of work still remains relevant, is widely taught in English and Writing curriculum in colleges, and is written about reverently in current scholarly articles and in major media outlets worldwide. He is generally thought of as good man. In his bio on Wikipedia, the slaughter of his wife doesn’t even come in until the sixth paragraph. (I am citing Wikipedia, because it represents the most current, popular, collective opinions of the general public, not as a scholarly reference.)

Valerie Solanas, on the other hand, shot Andy Warhol, not killing him, but severely injuring him. He died twenty years later from health complications possibly exacerbated by the injury, as well as a speed addiction.

Solanas and Warhol had a documented horrible working/personal relationship, rife with insult. She saw Warhol as constantly demeaning her privately and publicly, even after featuring her in one of his films.

Warhol agreed to look at a play she’d written, possibly to produce it. She gave him the only manuscript to read, and he (claimed he) lost it, though she believed he threw it away to spite her. This was the catalyst for the shooting.

Pablo Neruda raped a servant while he was visiting her country as a diplomat. He wrote about it quite matter-of-factly and unapologetically in his memoirs (I Confess that I have Lived, first published in 1974, in English in 1977):

One morning, I woke earlier than is my custom. I hid in the shadows to watch who passed by. From the back of the house, like a dark statue that walked, the most beautiful woman that I had ever seen in Ceylon entered, Tamil race, Pariah caste. She wore a red and gold sari of the cheapest cloth. On her unshod feet were heavy anklets. On each side of her nose shone two tiny red points. They were probably glass, but on her they looked like rubies.

She solemnly approached the toilet without giving me the slightest look, without acknowledging my existence, and disappeared with the sordid receptacle on her head, retreating with her goddess steps. She was so beautiful that despite her humble job, she left me disturbed. As if a wild animal had come out from the jungle, belonging to another existence, a separate world. I called to her with no result.

I then would leave some gift on her path, some silk or fruit. She would pass by without hearing or looking. Her dark beauty turned that miserable trip into the obligatory ceremony of an indifferent queen.

One morning, I decided to go for all, and grabbed her by the wrist and looked her in the face. There was no language I could speak to her. She allowed herself to be led by me smilelessly and soon was naked upon my bed. Her extremely slender waist, full hips, the overflowing cups of her breasts, made her exactly like the thousands year old sculptures in the south of India. The encounter was like that of a man and a statue. She kept her eyes open throughout, unmoved. She was right to regard me with contempt. The experience was not repeated.

No one remembers him for this.

Charles Bukowski is on video kicking and punching his girlfriend during an interview about his writing, and was said to have been physically abusive to multiple female partners. He is still celebrated worldwide as a great poet.

Louis Althusser strangled his wife to death in an act of cold-blooded murder. In his Wikipedia bio, he’s described as, “A French Marxist philosopher, whose arguments and theses were set against the threats that he saw attacking the theoretical foundations of Marxism.”

As I write this, the murder of his wife doesn’t receive mention until the last paragraph, and then it simply says, “Althusser’s life was marked by periods of intense mental illness. In 1980, he killed his wife, the sociologist Hélène Rytmann, by strangling her.”

He is widely celebrated. The murder of his wife is mentioned only in the context of his mental illness.

Valerie Solanas suffered from Schizophrenia. She was also a victim of childhood incest. Her father repeatedly raped her, and then she was sent to live with her grandparents as a teenager, and then her grandfather raped her, and then she ran away from home and became a sex worker.

The shooting of Andy Warhol is currently the first sentence of her Wikipedia bio. She is widely regarded and repeatedly portrayed as a worthless, angry, bat-shit crazy piece of human garbage. Where is this compassion that we are asked to have for male artists, for her?

She was a brilliant artist. The SCUM Manifesto is a masterwork of literary protest art, which is often completely misread. Much of it is actually a point-by-point re-write of multiple of Freud’s writings. It is a parody.

In his essay The Psychogenesis Of A Case Of Homosexuality In A Woman, Freud suggests that a good treatment for lesbians would be having their (most likely already hermaphroditic) ovaries, and genitals removed and replaced with grafted “real” female genitals.

Freud’s exact words:

The cases of male homosexuality which (have) been successful fulfilled the condition, which is not always present, of a very patent physical ‘hermaphroditism’. Any analogous treatment of female homosexuality is at present quite obscure. If it were to consist in removing what are probably hermaphroditic ovaries, and in grafting others, which are hoped to be of a single sex, there would be little prospect of its being applied in practice. A woman who has felt herself to be a man, and has loved in masculine fashion, will hardly let herself be forced into playing the part of a woman…

In The SCUM Manifesto, Solanas posits that a good “treatment” for straight men is to get their dicks chopped off: “When the male accepts his passivity, defines himself as a woman (males as well as females think men are women and women are men), and becomes a transvestite he loses his desire to screw (or to do anything else, for that matter; he fulfills himself as a drag queen) and gets his dick chopped off. He then achieves a continuous diffuse sexual feeling from ‘being a woman’. Screwing is, for a man, a defense against his desire to be female.”

Freud’s texts are rife with suggestions of female castration and hysterectomies as treatments for all sorts of psychological troubles suffered by women, and in response, The SCUM Manifesto is infamous for suggesting castration might improve the behavior of men.

Freud posited that heterosexual women are sexually passive, engaging in sex only because they want children. He invented the theory of “penis envy.” He claimed that because girls do not have  penises, girls come to believe they have lost their penises, and eventually, seek to have male children in an attempt “to gain a penis.” He believed women, on some deep, subconscious level, viewed themselves as castrated males. In his theory of psychosexual development he posited that for women, sex (with males) may also be a subconscious attempt to gain a penis.

In his essay, The Taboo of Virginity, Freud writes: “We have learnt from the analysis of many neurotic women that they go through an early age in which they envy their brothers, their sign of masculinity and feel at a disadvantage and humiliated because of the lack of it (actually because of its diminished size) in themselves. We include this ‘envy for the penis’ in the ‘castration complex’.”

Solanas, replaces the envy of the penis, not only with envy of the vagina, but most often, with women’s emotional openness, complexity and individuality as the focus of men’s envy. She writes of men: “The female’s individuality, which he is acutely aware of, but which he doesn’t comprehend, and isn’t capable of relating to or grasping emotionally, frightens and upsets him and fills him with envy. “

At the time of the writing of The SCUM Manifesto, Freud was a celebrated figure in psychology, and his theories were being widely touted in academic and popular spheres alike. Solanas took issue with this, and wrote The SCUM Manifesto as a parody, mocking the popular, sexist, and hetero-centric thinking on gender and sexuality at the time. But the text is a reversal. In The SCUM Manifesto, Solanas directs everything Freud said with an equal amount of vigor and confidence back at men. So, instead of “female motherhood” being a primary drive, she reverses this to attack/analyze the “male sex drive” through the same line of thinking as Freud.

In his essay, Leonardo Da-Vinci and a Memory of His Childhood, Freud hypothesizes that homosexuality in men stems from their relationship with their father and mother. He proposes that homosexuality (which he assumes is a bad thing) is caused by a relationship with a mother who is too tender to her son (as in all his texts, he repeatedly states that children are naturally sexually attracted to their parents of the opposite sex), and a mother who is, at the same time, too assertive and independent in relation to her own husband (the boy’s father.) This causes the boy to see his mother figure, who’s also an object of his  sexual desire in childhood, as a man, not a woman. And this makes the boy gay. He writes:

In all our male homosexual cases the subjects had had a very intense erotic attachment to a female person, as a rule their mother, during the first period of childhood, which is afterwards forgotten; this attachment was evoked or encouraged by too much tenderness on the part of the mother herself, and further reinforced by the small part played by the father during their childhood. Sadger emphasizes the fact that the mothers on his homosexual patients were frequently masculine women, women with energetic traits of character, who were able to push the father out of his proper place. I have occasionally seen the same thing, but I was more strongly impressed by cases in which the father was absent from the beginning or left the scene at an early date, so that the boy found himself left entirely under feminine influence. Indeed it almost seems as though the presence of a strong father would ensure that thee son made the correct decision in his choice of object, namely someone of the opposite sex.

In The SCUM Manifesto, Solanas takes this analysis and flips it on its head through an extreme feminist lens, where becoming a “real (straight) man” is already assumed to be a bad thing. She writes: “The effect of fatherhood on males, specifically is to make them, ‘Men,’ that is, highly defensive of all impulses to passivity, faggotry, and of desires to be female. Every boy wants to imitate his mother, be her, fuse with her. So he tells the boy, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, not to be a sissy, to act like a ‘Man.’ The boy, scared shitless of and respecting his father, complies, and becomes just like Daddy, that model of ‘Man’-hood, the all-American ideal — the well-behaved heterosexual dullard.”

While Freud accuses the mother of being to blame for the horrible fate of a boy becoming a homosexual, Solanas accuses the father of being to blame for the horrible fate of a boy becoming a straight man.

As you can see from the above, The SCUM Manifesto in many places is an almost line-by-line mockery of Freud’s writings on women and homosexuals, and was never meant to be read as a literal, earnest text throughout. This does not mean it is intended as a joke or to be taken lightly, though. As some may have noticed in the above text, it is not without serious, meaningful and resonant critiques of patriarchal institutions. There is a lot of truth in this parody. It is a political satire. It is simultaneously dead serious, yet written with a nod and a wink. In keeping with the protest art of the time, if you didn’t get it, she wasn’t going to explain it to you. She was happy to make cocky comments, like, “I mean every word of it,” knowing, and indeed, hoping that the “squares” who didn’t understand the sarcasm inherent to the foundation of the text, would be that much more shocked at her effrontery.

Valerie Solanas just said, in a modernized (now dated) vernacular, exactly what Freud had said about women, only about men, and everyone freaked out, because when we talk about men the same way men have talked about women for centuries, it reads as grotesque and insanely violent, un-compassionate, and shocking, which was exactly her point.

Her work is still misinterpreted as a literal text by many to this day.

After shooting Andy Warhol, Solanas turned herself in to the police. She was charged with attempted murder, assault, and illegal possession of a gun. She was diagnosed with schizophrenia, and pleaded guilty to “reckless assault with intent to harm,” serving a three-year prison sentence, including treatment in a psychiatric hospital. In a darkly ironic twist of fate she was subjected to a nonconsensual hysterectomy during her hospitalization. Shortly after her release from prison, she became homeless, and never published another work.

Michael Alig, known for being a famous party promoter and club kid in the 1980s (in the film about his life, Party Monster, he was played by Macaulay Culkin), brutally murdered his friend, Andre “Angel” Melendez, over an argument about a drug debt.

Alig cut his friend up into pieces and threw him in the Hudson River. He’s been released from prison and is currently working as a club promoter in New York City.

Since his release, he’s also appeared in an indie film with artists I know personally, called Vamp Bikers, in which Alig plays a homicidal sociopath who slowly, brutally murders his friend.

I accidentally watched this at a film screening I attended in Brooklyn years ago, having no idea what I was getting into. It made me want to throw up, seeing him happily take part in a campy fictional portrayal of a murder so similar to the one he actually committed, and being celebrated for this. Many people around me were excitedly saying they hoped that Alig might attend the screening.

His website, michaelalig.com describes him as an “artist, writer, curator.” You can hire him to produce your party, or buy one of his many pop art paintings for $500 a pop.

I think this is all abhorrent. I’ve had debates with friends over this, and have been asked, “Well, he served his time. Shouldn’t we have compassion? He was young and on a lot of drugs when he did that. Don’t you think he should get a second chance?”

Perhaps. Perhaps a chance at living as a free person again, yes, perhaps that, but definitely not a chance to be celebrated for being the famous club kid who murdered his friend. And it’s not lost on me that the person he murdered was a poor, lesser known gay man of color, and I wonder if he would have gotten out of prison so early if he’d been the one who murdered Michael.

Perhaps more shocking than this, is the life and reception of essayist and novelist Norman Mailer. When speaking about feminism and women’s liberation Norman Mailer said: “We must face the simple fact that maybe there’s a profound reservoir of cowardess in women that had them welcome this miserable, slavish life.”

In his book Advertisements for Myself, Mailer claims that a writer without “balls” is no writer at all:

I have a terrible confession to make — I have nothing to say about any of the talented women who write today. Out of what is no doubt a fault in me, I do not seem able to read them. Indeed, I doubt if there will be a really exciting woman writer until the first whore becomes a call girl and tells her tale. At the risk of making a dozen devoted enemies for life, I can only say that the sniffs I get from the ink of the women are always fey, old-hat, Quaintsy Goysy, tiny, too dykily psychotic, crippled, creepish, fashionable, frigid, outer-Baroque, maquillé in mannequin’s whimsy, or else bright and stillborn. Since I’ve never been able to read Virginia Woolf, and am sometimes willing to believe that it can conceivably be my fault, this verdict may be taken fairly as the twisted tongue of a soured taste, at least by those readers who do not share with me the ground of departure — that a good novelist can do without everything but the remnant of his balls.

I would argue that Norman Mailer spoke and wrote just as violently, grotesquely and shockingly about women as Valerie Solanas did about men. But he was not saying any of these things or writing his sexist texts as a parody or protest of his own subjugation.

Norman Mailer is still widely celebrated for both his fiction and essays, including numerous works that take a stand adamantly against feminism and women in general. In 1968 and 1980 he won the Pulitzer Prize. In 2005, he won the National Book Award for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters. In 1960, he attempted to murder his wife by stabbing her multiple times in the chest, barely missing her heart.

While his wife lay in the hospital in critical condition, a day after the stabbing, Mailer appeared in a scheduled interview on The Mike Wallace Show, where he spoke of the knife as a symbol of manhood. He was briefly arrested two days later, though his wife refused to press charges, saying that she feared for the safety of their children if she did so. She did, however divorce him once she recovered.

The parallels between Mailer and Solanas are as astonishing as their differences. The only reason I can find for the differences in how they are popularly viewed is that Mailer was a man, speaking and acting violently against women in a sexist society, and Solanas was a woman, doing the reverse in this same society.

I can’t help but conjure Solanas’s legacy when looking at the current questions that keep popping up on the subject of violence, art, and who we celebrate today. Do we forgive Louis C.K. for serially masturbating on countless women he worked with? What does forgiveness mean? Does it mean he continues to enjoy the same level of reverence and celebrity as before? Can we still enjoy Michael Jackson’s music knowing that he had ongoing sexual relationships with what seems to be an endless stream of young boys? Should we still be patronizing Woody Allen’s films? Is it alright to feel heartbroken over the loss of the Bill Cosby so many knew and loved? What of the beautiful works of so many beloved male authors I have spoken about above?

I do not have clear answers to these questions, nor do I think there is one rule of response that is correct for every situation, but I do know that the social hammer has come down hard on women who commit similar acts of violence, especially when those acts are directed at men. I do know that sexist bias has judged one of my artistic heroes much more harshly than her male counterparts.

I do not condone or celebrate Valerie Solanas’s shooting of Andy Warhol. But when people bring up Valerie Solanas as if she is a horrendous, murderous, bat-shit crazy, worthless, hysterical, violent criminal whose literary artwork is as valuable as the ramblings of a madwoman, suggesting that she should be written off as nothing more, I always think to myself, “Well, that’s exactly what she would have expected from this society.” Much less has changed since she first released the book in 1967, than I would have hoped. Those opening lines still remain eerily significant: “Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore, and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex.”

http://www.full-stop.net/2019/05/21/features/chavisa-woods/solanas/

[aridara]

Verifying a list of “hateful feminist quotes”. (From S to Z + groups and anonymous individuals)

Final part of my rebuttal at all those lists that are supposed to show how feminism is evil, but in practice shows how anti-feminists rely on an extremely inaccurate (and, in some parts, deliberately lying) list.

"Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated."

Margaret Sanger

False.

"The most merciful thing a family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Margaret Sanger, founder of planned parenthood

True, but extremely edited; not hateful. I’ve bolded the parts that anti-feminists didn't bother to include in the list:

"Thus we see that the second and third children have a very good chance to live through the first year. Children arriving later have less and less chance, until the twelfth has hardly any chance at all to live twelve months."

"This does not complete the case, however, for those who care to go farther into the subject will find that many of those who live for a year die before they reach the age of five."

"Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality of large families, but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. The same factors which create the terrible infant mortality rate, and which swell the death rate of children between the ages of one and five, operate even more extensively to lower the health rate of the surviving members."

(Yeah, anti-feminists cut out a LOT.)

Also: she was talking about using birth control to deal with unwanted pregnancies. Not about using infanticide to kill already-born children.

“I do want to be able to explain to a 9-year-old boy in terms he will understand why I think it’s OK for girls to wear shirts that revel in their superiority over boys.”

– Treena Shapiro

Unverifiable.

“In general, I support a girl’s right to offend any member of the opposite sex who happens to cross her path. In fact, I’d much rather see a little girl wearing a shirt that mocks boys than one that turns them on.”

– Treena Shapiro

Also unverifiable. In fact, I think it's not even hateful at all: it points out a double standard where there's a lot of men's shirts that mock women, while a lot of women's shirt are designed to look "seductive" to men - and the reverse doesn't happen.

(Small diversion: while I tried to look for this quote's source, I found this ebook. The 2-3 pages I read sound like a book version of these "List of hateful feminist quotes" lists.)

[insert literally any quote from the SCUM Manifesto]

Valerie Solanas

I won't give a different rating to each individual quote, given how these kinds of lists tend to have many, many, so fucking many quotes from Solanas. I'll only give a general rating.

Usually, in these "hateful feminist quotes" lists, all of the Solanas quotes are true and hateful, and come from the SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) manifesto she wrote in 1967. However, I’m doubtful that they count as “quote by a famous feminist”, considering that:

SCUM was never founded - it stopped at its manifesto;

Feminists’ opinion of SCUM at the time was divided between “What is wrong with you, Valerie?” and “This is satire in really bad taste”;

Feminists’ opinion of SCUM today is divided between “What is wrong with you, Valerie?” and “Who the hell is Valerie Solanas?”;

Absolutely nobody, feminist or not, condoned Solanas’ attack on Andy Warhol; and

Solanas's attack on Warhol wasn't motivated by her feminist beliefs.

“We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men.”

– Elizabeth Cady Stanton

True, possibly hateful. But I want to point out something: this quote is from 1890. This is what anti-feminists believe modern feminism to be? Really? Haven’t they heard of how feminism isn’t a monolith, how there have been various discussions, schisms and revolutions during feminism's history, how there’s a lot of positions and criticism - oh, right, I forgot, feminism is evil and has always been the same since the dawn of time, duh. (# sarcasm)

“The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men.”

- Sharon Stone; Actress

Almost 100% false. It also seems that Sharon either wasn’t a feminist during those years, or chose to not display her feminist beliefs back then. In either case, Sharon Stone cannot be considered a significantly important feminist by any stretch of the word.

"If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal--a large beginning class of 50 to 60 students, say, with few feminist students--I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment...of persuading students that women are oppressed,"

Professor Joyce Trebilcot of Washington University, as quoted in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women.

Hm, this is an interesting one.

It’s unverifiable. Yes, AGAIN. No, it doesn’t count that it’s (supposedly) in Christina Sommers’ book “Who Stole Feminism” - she still needs to source the quote. As far as I can tell, Sommers mught've just made that quote up and falsely attributed it to Trebilcot.

Not only that, but the quote  looks like it has been truncated. Considering the level of this list, I’m quite suspicious every time I see some ellypsis.

By the way: Sommers? Really?

“Men are animals. Don’t you think so?”

– Ireen von Wachenfeldt, radical feminist leader in Sweden

True and hateful, apparently (given that she quoted SOOOLAAANAAASS). Here's the link to the Wikipedia page on her - you'll have to run it on Google Translate or similar, though.

On another note: of all the quotes in anti-feminists' lists of "hateful feminist quotes" that are actually hateful quotes, it's noticeable how many of those come from Solanas alone. It’s almost as if anti-feminists focus excessively on her, and use her as the base that forms their opinion of all feminists.

I wondered if the woman married to a pig had read this ... Did that mean that all over the globe, in all innocence, women were marrying beasts? ... Why are so many men really beasts? "

Jeanette Winterson "Oranges are Not the Only Fruit" 1993, pp.71 -76

Fictional. The novel is about a lesbian girl growing up in a Pentecostal community. At one point, various religious people from that same community take the main character and her girlfriend, and subject them to exorcism.

In response to a question concerning China’s policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, “I consider the Chinese government’s policy among the most intelligent in the world”

(Gary Bauer, “Abetting Coercion in China,” The Washington Times, Oct. 10, 1989).

Unverifiable. There is no trace of the quote in the "Washington Times", but I think that I found the original source: the American Life League, an evidently anti-abortion group. You'll forgive me if I treat that source with all the respect it deserves.

...

We aren't done yet, though! Here's some more quotes from organizations or unknown individuals!

"We are taught, encouraged, moulded by and lulled into accepting a range of false notions about the family. As a source of some of our most profound experiences, it continues to be such an integral part of our emotional lives that it appears beyond criticism. Yet hiding from the truth of family life leaves women and children vulnerable."

Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women.

Unverifiable and not hateful. It sounds like they’re talking about how a lot of assumptions and myths about “proper” families have lead women to believe that abuse is a “normal” part of a relationship.

MALE: represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants...the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female.

MAN: an obsolete life form... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched...a contradictory baby-man...

TESTOSTERONE POISONING: ... ‘Until now it has been though that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from "testosterone poisoning."

From 'A Feminist Dictionary; ed. Kramarae & Triechler, Pandora Press, 1985

Unverifiable. The book DOES exist. What does NOT exist, is scans of it. Nor are there extensive citations of it - the only ones around are the same ones anti-feminists uses, same ellipsis and all. And, frankly, whoever first wrote this list has done such a sloppy job fact-checking this list that, by this point, I don’t trust them if they said that the sky is blue.

"Women have their faults- men have only two: everything they say and everything they do."

Popular Feminist Graffiti

Goddammit. Yet ANOTHER joke from a collection of jokes. No indication whatsoever this was from a feminist.

"Men, as a group, tend to be abusive, either verbally, sexually or emotionally. There are always the exceptions, but they are few and far between (I am married to one of them). There are different levels of violence and abuse and individual men buy into this system by varying degrees. But the male power structure always remains intact."

Message on FEMISA, responding to a request for arguments that men are unnecessary for a child to grow into mature adulthood.

Oh, now you’re just grasping at straws - misattributed. This quote is not from the FEMISA staff; it's from an e-mail sent to FEMISA. Come on - I thought this was a list of hateful quotes from *relevant* feminists - not from any random anon down the street!

"Clearly you are not yet a free-thinking feminist but rather one of those women who bounce off the male-dominated, male-controlled social structures. Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is, if you don't like it, bad luck - and if you get in my way I'll run you down."

Letter to the editor, signed: "Liberated Women", Boronia Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia - 9 February 1996

Unverifiable. Once again, the only places where this quote pops up are lists of “hateful feminist quotes”. And judging by the quality of this list, that isn’t nearly enough.

“The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist”

(National NOW Times, January, 1988).

Unverifiable (supposedly written in 1988). There’s a lot of citations for this particular quote (many from copies of this list), but no image of the original.

“We identify the agents of our oppression as men…….ALL MEN HAVE OPPRESSED WOMEN…..We do not need to change ourselves, but to change men……The most slanderous evasion of all is that women can oppress men.”

–The Redstockings Manifesto

True, but out of context. Once again, anti-feminists have deliberately cut out various parts of the original manifesto. Here's the full quote (the bolded parts are the ones anti-feminists cut out):

"III    We identify the agents of our oppression as men.  Male supremacy is the oldest, most basic form of domination.  All other forms of exploitation and oppression (racism, capitalism, imperialism, etc.) are extensions of male supremacy: men dominate women, a few men dominate the rest.  All power structures throughout history have been male-dominated and male-oriented.  Men have controlled all political, economic and cultural institutions and backed up this control with physical force.  They have used their power to keep women in an inferior position.  All men receive economic, sexual, and psychological benefits from male supremacy. All men have oppressed women."

"IV    Attempts have been made to shift the burden of responsibility from men to institutions or to women themselves.  We condemn these arguments as evasions.  Institutions alone do not oppress; they are merely tools of the oppressor.  To blame institutions implies that men and women are equally victimized, obscures the fact that men benefit from the subordination of women, and gives men the excuse that they are forced to be oppressors.  On the contrary, any man is free to renounce his superior position, provided that he is willing to be treated like a woman by other men."

"We also reject the idea that women consent to or are to blame for their own oppression. Women's submission is not the result of brain-washing, stupidity or mental illness but of continual, daily pressure from men.  We do not need to change ourselves, but to change men."

"The most slanderous evasion of all is that women can oppress men.  The basis for this illusion is the isolation of individual relationships from their political context and the tendency of men to see any legitimate challenge to their privileges as persecution."

So, to sum it up:

Systemic sexism is caused by men.

All men benefit from this oppressive system.

Various people have tried to shift the blame for systemic sexism on "the institutions", which wrongly implies that both men and women are equally affected by sexism, and that men have no choice but to act as oppressors.

Various people have also tried to shift the blame on women, falsely claiming that sexism exists because women deliberately "consent" to be subjected to sexism.

Various people fail to see sexism as a systemic problem; instead, they wrongly paint it as a collection of individual acts that have no relation with each other.

When an oppressive system is challenged, the privileged group does not see that as "the dismantling of an unjust system"; instead, it sees that as "unjust persecution, and an attempt to upturn equality".

This is pretty accurate, and isn't hateful.

“We regard our personal experience, and our FEELINGS about that experience, as the basis for an analysis of our common situation. We cannot rely on existing ideologies as they are all the products of male supremicist culture.”

– The Redstockings Manifesto

True, but not hateful. Oh, no, feminists dare to talk about all their personal experiences about sexism and how they feel about it; and they also dare to reject existing sexist explanations of why sexist gender roles are just "natural". How dare they.

Also, why is "feelings" in all-caps like that? Is this the usual jab that women are emotional and therefore "inferior" to the logical men? Because that jab is shit.

FMS stands for: Full of Mostly (Bull) shit; For More Sadism; Felons, Murdereres, Ssumballs; Frequent Molesters Society

From a February 1995 handout at the "Stone Angels" satanic ritual abuse conference in Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada. The conference was supported financially by the Ontario Government

Unverifiable. And frankly too ridiculous to be true.

"All men are good for is fucking, and running over with a truck".

Statement made by A University of Maine Feminist Administrator, quoted by Richard Dinsmore, who brought a successful civil suit against the University in the amount of a $600,000.1995 settlement Richard had protested the quote; was dismissed thereafter on the grounds of harassment; and responded by bringing suit against the University..

Unverifiable. It IS true that Dinsmore sued the university due to, in his own words, “man-hating feminists”; HOWEVER, there’s no mention of the quote itself.

"Masculine sexuality involves the oppression of women, competition among men, and fear of homosexuality." "Rape is the end logic of masculine sexuality." "Male sexuality is negative."

Introductory texts for Women's Studies Courses at UCLA including: "More Power than We Want: Masculine Sexuality and Violence" by

Bruce Kokopeli and George Lakey [Cited in TNV]

Unverifiable.

And that’s it. The VAST MAJORITY of quotes are either not-hateful once we actually see the context (and paste back all the parts that anti-feminists censored behind ellypsis); or, their origin cannot be verified (and therefore we can’t be sure whether they actually came from feminists). Some quotes came from works of fiction and were spoken by fictional characters; they aren’t statements that the author personally made and supported. Of the remaining quotes that are both verified and hateful, a GIANT chunk of them is comprised entirely of Valerie Solanas - which isn’t held in much regard by modern feminists. In fact, I’m pretty sure many don’t even know about her.

[lovewomanshate]

Emma Watson and her feminist movement is a complete joke, with a shitty punchline.

I found an article on the interwebs of which I will be referring to, I’ll link it for those who wish to read it themselves or to see that I didn’t make this crap up.

https://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/mar/15/emma-watson/emma-watson-more-lives-are-lost-due-gender-discrim/

Emma Watson opens with the claim that “more lives are lost due to gender discrimination than in all 20th century wars”, this is already lacking information, okay we understand that you are referring to the wars of the 20th century, but what’s the range of years for gender discrimination deaths?  None is given, is she referring to the last 10 years?  100?  If she’s referring to all time then hell yeah that’d be accurate, no contest, and it also wouldn’t be groundbreaking information.  We need an actual time range on both points of which she’ll be referencing here.

I’m going to skip over questioning why exactly an actress’s opinion in politics is exactly important or necessary, just fyi.

She later says

"There are now 101.3 men to every 100 women on the planet. So women are no longer half of humanity," “ More lives are lost from violence against women, sex-selective abortion, female infanticide, suicide, egregious maternal mortality, and other sex-linked causes than were lost during all of the wars and civil strife of 20th century.’ "

okay we’re running into more problems here, lets go through what exactly she’s counting to make this claim.  

“violence against women” believe it or not, isn’t always targeted or because of gender, sometimes it’s just “violence���, counting violence in it’s entirety when woman are affected by is far from accurate, just because a woman faces violence, it doesn’t make it violence against women.  Of course some of these are motivated by gender, but it’s incredibly outrageous to claim all are.  

Next we have sex-selective abortion, I’m going to admit that this is a fairly justified claim, it’s a shame that it is as ingrained into some cultures as it is, and I’m as against it as anyone else.

Female infanticide is nearly the same thing, but again it comes down to a cruel culture in some areas of the world.

Suicide? No, this isn’t a gender related issue, this is an issue.  Wanting to end your own life out of despair, self loathing, or whatever the reason may be, is far from a gender related issue.  If you want to make it a gender related issue, consider the fact that males die by suicide 3.53x more often than women (source: https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/ ) , so why is only female suicide the issue?  If you think the reason for female suicide is exclusively a gender related issue, or that suicide itself is a gender related issue, promptly go fuck yourself.

Next we have “egregious” maternal mortality.  Again, this is an issue, for those who don’t know, it’s women dying in the act of giving birth basically.  But is this by the fault of men?  Is this “discrimination”? No, this is nature, should we actively try to lower the mortality rate of giving birth?  Certainly, but again, not a case of “gender discrimination”, as Watson calls it.

The rest is referred to as “other sex-linked causes”, which concerns me, as several of the already stated examples are anything but “sex-linked causes”.  I would also like to bring back up the fact that Watson still hasn’t given a time frame of which she is counting the deaths of these sex-linked deaths, we still don’t know the starting point of which will determine these numbers.

"So from this perspective," she continued, "The greatest security dilemma then is systematic, social devaluation of female life. I’d never come across a statistic like this. I had not understood that we were literally affecting the balance of the population of the world."

Ahhh the good ol’ “social devaluation of female life”, ya know the saying, “if the ship is sinking, people with penises and children first”, wait, I think I have that wrong.  What about the fact that we exclusively have women in the war draft here in America?  Wait, it’s the opposite?  You mean only men can be drafted from their homes and families in times of war?  Oh darn, what about the occupational deaths of women working dangerously in the coal mines and heavy machinery?  What?! You’re telling me men die about 12x more in the workplace? ( https://www.statista.com/statistics/187127/number-of-occupational-injury-deaths-in-the-us-by-gender-since-2003/)   Damn, if only men would stop dying so much so I could back up this claim...

“Looking at the available data, Watson has a point that the devaluation of female life leads to a staggering amount of lost lives. However, it’s not clear that those lost lives are higher than the number of war and conflict deaths in the 20th century. The numbers are comparable, but some estimates find the number of war deaths as slightly higher. “ ( this comes from the article itself, not Watson)

Okay so we’re finding out halfway through the article that the main claim isn’t even proven or has passed through peer review? Well, shit.

“ She then compared that number to the number of "missing women." This concept, developed by Nobel-winning economist and philosopher Amartya Sen in 1990s, uses abnormal male-to-female ratios to determine how many women would be alive in a specific year or time period if they weren’t aborted, neglected or victims of inequality. “

Okay so the numbers she are using are from population differences?  Ever heard of deviation?  Believe it or not, if you roll a dice 100 times, it’s not always going to land on an even number 50 times, which would heavily effect these numbers.  Any place that lost that dice roll, which resulted in a higher male population, is now having the population difference being added to Watson’s number count, but the places where they break even or have a higher female population such as Bulgaria, Cambodia, The Bahamas, Armenia, Barbuda, Argentina, etc, are just swept under the rug and irrelevant in the data used.

“For example, in 2005, the sex ratio in India was 107.5 males per 100 females. The normal sex ratio for a stable population is about 98 to 100.3 males per 100 females. (Women tend to live longer under equal circumstances.)

This means that there was a 6.7 percent to 9 percent shortfall in India’s female population, equal to roughly 36 million to 49 million missing women.

Hudson used the UN Population Fund’s estimate of 163 million missing women in Asia in 2005 — 10 million more than lives lost to 20th century conflicts.”

Ahh good ol 2005 statistics, ( which that UN Population Fund’s estimate is using as well btw)  Though this is where I agree that there is a problem, a 7% deviation obviously isn’t normal, and again this comes down to a culture where women are unfortunately facing sex-selective abortion, this is an actual decent example of discrimination by gender within an area, but why not focus your efforts in places such as this where the numbers are at their most severe?  Why focus on first world countries where the problem is substantially lower, if there at all?  My personal theory is that it is because these areas don’t directly affect those of which are demanding change, I believe feminists are using these areas as examples to prove that there is a problem... but pretending these issues are present in other areas as well... such as where they live... which isn’t where they are citing their data from.

“‘There are more missing women today than died in the two World Wars of the 20th century,’ said Stephan Klasen, a professor of development economics at the University of Göttingen.”

Well no shit, women didn’t serve as much in these wars, or at least in combat, most of these deaths were likely women being caught in the crossfire such as Pearl Habor, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and starvation in the USSR, China, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines and India. According to Wikipedia ( which I try to avoid using as a source, but alas it is more difficult to find these numbers than I thought) there were only 543 American female war-related casualties despite there being 400,000 who served. ( remember, serving does NOT mean that they were put on the line of fire, or in combat, production and medical roles exist.)

Overall Emma Watson should stick to play Hermione, perhaps she can find a spell that gives her a decent argument.  Maybe one that would survive peer review?

-Mod Tree Shark

[friend-clarity]

Leftism: The Ideological Corruption of Science

In American laboratories and universities, the spirit of Marxist Trofim Lysenko has suddenly been woke. In 1940, Lysenko became director of the Institute of Genetics within the USSR's Academy of Sciences, and he used his political influence and power to suppress dissenting opinions and discredit, marginalize, and imprison his critics, elevating his anti-Mendelian theories to state-sanctioned doctrine. Soviet scientists who refused to renounce genetics were dismissed from their posts and left destitute. The People's Republic of China under Marxist Mao Tse-Tung adopted his methods starting in 1958, with calamitous results, culminating in the Great Chinese Famine of 1959 to 1962, in which some 30 million died of starvation [wikipedia].

We did not think it could happen in the hard sciences in the West. But, in June, the American Physical Society (APS), which represents 55,000 physicists world-wide, endorsed a “strike for black lives” to “shut down STEM” in academia. It closed its office—not to protest police violence or racism, but to “commit to eradicating systemic racism and discrimination, especially in academia, and science,” stating that “physics is not an exception” to the suffocating effects of racism in American life.

At Michigan State University, one group used the strike to organize and coordinate a protest campaign against the vice president for research, physicist Stephen Hsu, whose “crimes” included doing research on computational genomics to study how human genetics might be related to cognitive ability—something that to the protesters smacked of eugenics. He was also accused of supporting psychology research at MSU on the statistics of police shootings that didn’t clearly support claims of racial bias. Within a week, the university president forced Mr. Hsu to resign. .... 

By Lawrence KraussJuly 12, 2020 

In the 1980s, when I was a young professor of physics and astronomy at Yale, deconstructionism was in vogue in the English Department. We in the science departments would scoff at the lack of objective intellectual standards in the humanities, epitomized by a movement that argued against the existence of objective truth itself, arguing that all such claims to knowledge were tainted by ideological biases due to race, sex or economic dominance.

It could never happen in the hard sciences, except perhaps under dictatorships, such as the Nazi condemnation of “Jewish” science, or the Stalinist campaign against genetics led by Trofim Lysenko, in which literally thousands of mainstream geneticists were dismissed in the effort to suppress any opposition to the prevailing political view of the state.

Or so we thought. In recent years, and especially since the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, academic science leaders have adopted wholesale the language of dominance and oppression previously restricted to “cultural studies” journals to guide their disciplines, to censor dissenting views, to remove faculty from leadership positions if their research is claimed by opponents to support systemic oppression.

In June, the American Physical Society (APS), which represents 55,000 physicists world-wide, endorsed a “strike for black lives” to “shut down STEM” in academia. It closed its office—not to protest police violence or racism, but to “commit to eradicating systemic racism and discrimination, especially in academia, and science,” stating that “physics is not an exception” to the suffocating effects of racism in American life.

While racism in our society is real, no data were given to support this claim of systemic racism in science, and I have argued elsewhere that there are strong reasons to think that this claim is spurious. The APS wasn’t alone. National laboratories and university science departments joined the one-day strike. The pre-eminent science journal Nature, which disseminates what it views as the most important science stories in a daily newsletter, featured an article titled “Ten simple rules for building an anti-racist lab.”

At Michigan State University, one group used the strike to organize and coordinate a protest campaign against the vice president for research, physicist Stephen Hsu, whose crimes included doing research on computational genomics to study how human genetics might be related to cognitive ability—something that to the protesters smacked of eugenics. He was also accused of supporting psychology research at MSU on the statistics of police shootings that didn’t clearly support claims of racial bias. Within a week, the university president forced Mr. Hsu to resign.

At Princeton on July 4, more than 100 faculty members, including more than 40 in the sciences and engineering, wrote an open letter to the president with proposals to “disrupt the institutional hierarchies perpetuating inequity and harm.” This included the creation of a policing committee that would “oversee the investigation and discipline of racist behaviors, incidents, research, and publication on the part of faculty,” with “racism” to be defined by another faculty committee, and requiring every department, including math, physics, astronomy and other sciences, to establish a senior thesis prize for research that somehow “is actively anti-racist or expands our sense of how race is constructed in our society.”

When scientific and academic leaders give official imprimatur to unverified claims, or issue blanket condemnations of peer-reviewed research or whole fields that may be unpopular, it has ripple effects throughout the field. It can shut down discussion and result in self-censorship.

Shortly after Mr. Hsu resigned, the authors of the psychology study asked the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science to retract their paper—not because of flaws in their statistical analysis, but because of what they called the “misuse” of their article by journalists who argued that it countered the prevailing view that police forces are racist. They later amended the retraction request to claim, conveniently, that it “had nothing to do with political considerations, ‘mob’ pressure, threats to the authors, or distaste for the political views of people citing the work approvingly.” As a cosmologist, I can say that if we retracted all the papers in cosmology that we felt were misrepresented by journalists, there would hardly be any papers left.

Actual censorship is also occurring. A distinguished chemist in Canada argued in favor of merit-based science and against hiring practices that aim at equality of outcome if they result “in discrimination against the most meritorious candidates.” For that he was censured by his university provost, his published review article on research and education in organic synthesis was removed from the journal website, and two editors involved in accepting it were suspended.

An Italian scientist at the international laboratory CERN, home to the Large Hadron Collider, had his scheduled seminar on statistical imbalances between the sexes in physics canceled and his position at the laboratory revoked because he suggested that apparent inequities might not be directly due to sexism. A group of linguistics students initiated a public petition asking that the psychologist Steven Pinker be stripped of his position as a Linguistics Society of America Fellow for such offenses as tweeting a New York Times article they disapproved of.

As ideological encroachment corrupts scientific institutions, one might wonder why more scientists aren’t defending the hard sciences from this intrusion. The answer is that many academics are afraid, and for good reason. They are hesitant to disagree with scientific leadership groups, and they see what has happened to scientists who do. They see how researchers lose funding if they can’t justify how their research programs will explicitly combat claimed systemic racism or sexism, a requirement for scientific proposals now being applied by granting agencies.

Whenever science has been corrupted by falling prey to ideology, scientific progress suffers. This was the case in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union—and in the U.S. in the 19th century when racist views dominated biology, and during the McCarthy era, when prominent scientists like Robert Oppenheimer were ostracized for their political views. To stem the slide, scientific leaders, scientific societies and senior academic administrators must publicly stand up not only for free speech in science, but for quality, independent of political doctrine and divorced from the demands of political factions.

Mr. Krauss a theoretical physicist, is president of the Origins Project Foundation and author of “The Physics of Climate Change,” forthcoming in January.

[arcadeidea]

The Oregon Trail [1971]

(Content Warning: Cannibalism, Genocide.)

In these early days of gaming, it's hard to walk in a straight line without tripping over "firsts." Looking for the first this or the first that is a hook, it's exciting to uncover, you feel like something recognizable of our present-day condition is emerging from the strange, foreign world of the past. It's almost a lie, though. Most firsts are mere trivia that can stand in the way of actually seeing the work. Most firsts are not self-consciously experimental ideas that caught on, but humble clear outgrowths of a prior tendency almost anachronistic to think of as a first, or are purpose-built innovations to serve a specific need (and sometimes you can point at The First and say that it understood what it was doing better than its successors because it knew best why it existed and then was mindlessly copied... but only sometimes.) If you're looking for some kind of great rupture to hang your hat on, the closer you look the less you see.

The Oregon Trail isn't actually first at much, besides. It's predated in most respects by The Sumerian Game [1964], lost to time, in which You are immersed in a narrative role within an existing historical gameworld and asked to manage resources, for purposes of educating children. It's plausible that our 1971 developers were totally ignorant of it, and thus the "first" as far as they're concerned, and instead drawing on, say, Milton-Bradley's The Game Of Life [1960], seeing as the original design was as a board game. The Sumerian Game is probably even more influential and important than The Oregon Trail, as it inspired Hamurabi [1968] [sic], which was then widely distributed in "learn to code BASIC games" books from 1973 on and from there inspired the whole strategy game genre. We, in the 21st century, recognize The Oregon Trail more though, because of the American Gen X ubiquity of The Oregon Trail [1985], which is as Doom [2016] is to Doom [1993], bringing us 2-for-2 on Id references for the geeks and gamers in the crowd.

It tops Wikipedia's list of the longest-running game franchises, and it's gonna stay there. Hamurabi isn't recognized as The Sumerian Game 2, but a bootleg with its own identity, and similarly you taking the reins of a hypothetical Spacewar 2 or a do-over with spiffy graphics would be a fangame or port or its own thing, not a sequel or remake. They wouldn't carry the imprint of legitimacy that comes from the all-important ownership of the intellectual property. It's the way Oregon Trail's original designer, Don Rawitsch, could take his source code offline in 1971, and then port it from paper as the 1975 version I played with only minor tweaks (one of which we'll address later.) It's the way one of its programmers, Bill Heinemann, can deny even his own son from taking stewardship of the code. It's in the way the Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium can make the 1985 Oregon Trail with none of the original three creators, become a private entity with the money the property made them, then sell their legitimizing rights to The Learning Company, who can sell it to Mattel, who can sell it to Ubisoft, who can then bestow the power to make legitimate Oregon Trail successors to third parties. It's copyright, or even more broadly the conceptual scaffolding of ownership, that franchises can not live without, and it's not ridiculous at all.

The franchise all started with only the noblest of intentions, though, characteristic of that 20th Century digital optimism that necessarily colors early video games. They were going to use computers to educate children. A game is a spicy way to approach this, but not unprecedented; one could say most games are already educational, even if in a given instance all you learn is about the game. So what's its pedagogical approach to history, and how does it fare?

Well, it's unusually gamey for an "edutainment" title. There's no room for those "read some facts" sections divorced from the gameplay we're familiar with from later titles like the Carmen Sandiego series. Instead, like reportedly The Sumerian Game before it, it relies heavily on now-lost paratext (which ultimately functions much the same as the Carmen Sandiego model) for the delivery of historical fact: the 1971 Western Expansion unit curriculum The Oregon Trail game was originally only a small part of. It could have reasonably been implemented within the tight space constraints of a 1970s BASIC mainframe program as, say, a fact- and text-heavy quiz, but instead we got something very gameplay-heavy that was shortly thereafter shorn of that original contextualizing information. As-is, you can hardly poke at the game's factual inaccuracies, because what little is there is accurate. (For instance, the 1985 edition would make the prevalence of dysentery infamous, but on the real Trail, the #1 killer was cholera.) The game we have is a supplement... but if not hard facts, then what does it teach you? Reading, typing?

The game is turn-based, and at the top of every turn it displays your five resources: Food, Ammunition, Clothing, Cash, and Miscelaneous [sic] Supplies, which are things like axles and medicine. Your cash reserves (which always start at the same place) can be used at the nondescript forts you have the chance to stop at on some turns. Food, clothing, and supplies correspond not to any real values like pounds of food but one-to-one with the cash you spent on them. You just have "30 Clothes," which somehow depletes rapidly. It might be meant as the abstract monetary value, but since there's no selling, it's unclear. Run out of clothes or supplies, and you could die at any moment. Run out of food, and you die instantly. Like in The Sumerian Game, you're managing resources through the proxy of numerical abstraction, but unlike it, this is not a game meant to educate you on economics, this is the First Survival Game. In all this, we see the inverse of the priority motivation of Spacewar: managing finite, dwindling resource scarcity instead of pushing hard on the limits of the infinite.

Ammunition, on the other hand, is not directly vital but ridiculously cheap. Pun intended, it's the best bang for your buck. You're thus incentivized to play into the rugged outdoorsy individualist role (unlike later games, there's no indication that you are anything but alone) by hunting for your food, without the fiddly business of coding something like food that goes bad if you just let it sit. When you go to shoot something, be it animals on the hunt or hunting yourself, or hostile "riders," you are dropped from the methodical turn-based world into a real-time action-reflex one, which delivers a jolt of energy to the whole experience. In a stroke of ingenuity within the text-only limitations, you are tasked with typing the word "BANG" quickly and accurately. In the 1978 version, it also changes the word up on you (like it could be "POW") which makes the mechanic even more reminiscent of The Typing Of The Dead [1999]. The metaphor stands clear: your typing skill, quick and accurate, enacts corresponding quick and accurate violence on the computer. The computer will have its revenge, though.

No matter how skilled you are at hunting for your food and managing your resources, you are at the complete mercy of the gameworld. The random events at the end of every turn are perhaps the real star of the show here — definitely an evolution of Spacewar's star, anyway. The wrong random events can bring you from fine to dead in just one turn. It's not fair!

That's the point. The Oregon Trail is not about getting to Oregon. Sure, that's the goal that keeps you going both in and out of character, but really The Oregon Trail is about the losing. The death message is rendered with great ceremony, three separate command prompts on your funeral, just for flavor. Even when you make it to the promised land, you're haunted by the ghosts of your own failure, and the entire time you're on the journey is low-level tension and dread at the imagined fatality lurking under every rock. That's the pedagogical utility of the game that a book or a lecture just doesn't give you: by placing you in the middle of a world model and an unimportant role, it communicates an impression, a feeling of what it was like to live as an ordinary person in the time and place depicted, and that impression is one of a dangerous world, arbitrary enough that you can do everything right and still eat curb. There's a straight line from here to Cart Life [2011]. Why, Oregon Trail is the First Empathy Game! The terminology of the "Empathy Game," if you're unfamiliar or have forgotten, was a bit of a fad genre in mid-2010s among a handful of thinkpiece writers and social scientists, and notably not many actual game designers. It was a genre that post-hoc lumped together titles like the aforementioned Cart Life, Depression Quest [2013], That Dragon, Cancer [2016], and even Spec Ops: The Line [2012]! With the exception of the latter, the sales pitch of the genre was basically that in snubbing traditional concepts like "fun" and "violence" in favor of depicting a minimal-gameplay sad world drawn from the author's deeply personal (and often enough, marginalized) experience, these games would make you a better person; they were good for you, like eating your vegetables. Game designer Anna Anthropy was particularly enraged by cis allies patting themselves on the back in this way for playing her short title Dys4ia [2012], and in response to all this she exhibited The Road To Empathy [2015], which was a pair of her size 13 high heel boots with a pedometer attached, so that people could literally walk a mile in her shoes and try to get the high score. (A scathing Cinderella story.)

I myself am a cis white male living in Oregon's Willamette Valley, cause to worry that when I telnetted in to play the game it would instantly award me victory. I grew up here. I was born too late for Apple IIs preloaded with Oregon Trail in the classrom, but one year in elementary school the teacher put together her own longform, paper-based, team-play Oregon Trail game. My team died trapped by snow in the mountains, and then once I was checked-out and scorched about the loss, the whole class got to learn about the Donner Party, a group of settlers who went into the mountains, got snowed in, and ate each other. That's a harrowing, tragic situation about people at the furthest extremities of humanity, and we didn't get too deep into it, but it wasn't sanitized. Years later, don't know how many, I wondered: why? Not why did it happen, but why was I taught about that as history? Not even that it was gruesome, but it didn't square with my understanding of capital-h History at that time, that it was just such a small story that had immediate effect on nobody outside of the Donner Party themselves. It was just some fucked-up shit that happened once. Trivia. What was I meant to learn? Not to go through the mountains in a covered wagon during winter? No, no, it had to be one of those abstract moral Life Lessons... Was it solemn respect for the dead? The terror of nature, and the weakness of man and our society in the face of it? I've seen it used to make exactly the opposite point, that adversity builds morality and character, which is incredibly stupid but that doesn't mean that wasn't meant as the takeaway.

Writing this now, I think I have figured out that I was being taught about my heritage. It's odd to think of it that way, but it's not out of the ordinary in many cultures to pass down illustrative tales of suffering to the young so they and their example are not forgotten, though. I believe I was meant to associate myself in some continuity with The Donner Party, their inheritors as an Oregonian, as an American, as — to put it sharply — a white person, and truly, I am. The subtext is that the past of hardscrabble living and suffering we underwent to get here (in this case, a literal location, Oregon,) legitimizes our comfortable place now. Likewise, the intention of The Oregon Trail is to get us to identify and empathize with the settler. Both are virtual memory, simulated aggrievement.

Our second game has taken as its subject and theme perhaps one of the few darker and more harrowing subject matters than war: colonialism. Identifying colonialism in games is in vogue right now, but it's currently most commonly leveled as a criticism at let's-call-them-post-Minecraft games in which you are actively engaged in both extracting resources from and changing the environment to suit you, even where there is no colonization on the narrative end. The Oregon Trail is just the opposite, using its resource management purely to emphasize that we are at the whims of our environment, while its narrative framing is colonization. It flinches from the larger truth of what it is depicting in favor of an attempt at systematized monetary verisimilitude that absorbs us.

The Oregon Trail [c. 1847-1869] can be considered a mirror for its rough contemporary, The Trail Of Tears [c. 1830-1850]. Nobody wanted to be on The Trail Of Tears. People were being forcibly relocated from what prosperity they had managed to carve out for themselves into conditions of deliberate impovershment. The mass suffering and death they experienced on the way was, when not maliciously engineered, fully intended, and it did nothing to legitimize their claims to the land they now had. Conversely, the settlers moving far west were doing so entirely voluntarily.(The game starts you in St. Louis, 1847, coincidentally the exact time and place a legally-enforced Mormon exodus began, but this game isn't The Utah Trail.) There's a phrase for that hopeful dream that fundamentally motivated every last Oregonian settler to embark on their painful journey: Manifest Destiny. The land out west is already metaphysically yours, you just have to go out and take it in fact. In period records, what is done to the indigenous people across the continent is described in jarringly passive voice (such as "dying off",) as what are clearly active campaigns of hostility are waged with full intent to exterminate. The suffocating, violent racism of the 1800s United States can not be understated, and yet it is full-on swept under the rug, not just here, but almost everywhere you turn that's not the niche of a serious history for adults. This was an era when even some white slavery abolitionists were only that way because the thought of sharing a nation with any black people, even slaves, so offended their sensibilities.

The Oregon Trail game is, point blank and very straightforwardly, white nationalist propaganda. Now, it's not hate speech! It doesn't come out of the damp basement printing press of a Neo-Nazi, but the cleanliness of the omissions and assumptions and unwarranted romanticism of a standard grade school American History curriculum, and from the noblest of intentions. It's not Custer's Revenge [1982] or The Birth Of A Nation [1915]. In fact, the most major & germane difference (possibly) between the 1971 teletype version and the 1975 one I played is a modulation towards greater racial sensitivity: The random event of hostile "Indians" is scrubbed to "riders." This leaves only friendly Native Americans, which is actually, so I read, broadly historically accurate for what a trail-goer would encounter. The Cayuse War, for example, did start with an attack on a white civilian, but most of the engagement was between military forces. Not to form a bad habit of relying too heavily on author quotes, but here's what programmer Bill Heinemann had to say about it:

I heard from Paul [Dillenberger, fellow Oregon Trail coder] that we needed to eliminate any negative references to Native Americans. Since my generation had grown up on TV cowboy shows, my first reaction was that we were denying a piece of our own history.

Get a load of this honky. He instinctively thought the heritage he needed to pass on to Minnesota schoolchildren was the pulpy good-guy-bad-guy myth of the unrevised Western, masquerading as fact. The Oregon Trail is, in the end, just as much the flippant pop culture fantasia as Spacewar, despite the pretense of fact and education. Thankfully, Mr. Heinemann thoughtfully backtracked on that count, thinking of potential Native American children playing the game. In 2017, lead designer Don Rawitsch even said that he'd like to see a version of The Oregon Trail from the Native American perspective. In 2019, we got exactly that.

When Rivers Were Trails [2019] is the product of almost 50 more years in development in ludic story delivery and edutainment. It's marketed as the Native American response to The Oregon Trail, though it too takes place about 50 years later, in the 1890s. This places it after the end of most direct warfare, save with the Apaches, although Geronimo had already surrendered and you do not visit the American Southwest. Instead, when you are given the choice to resist, it takes the form not of, say, mass armed rebellion, but in community spiritualism and helping negotiate the crooked legal system.

In the story, you wander aimlessly west, away from the traditional lands in Minnesota you can now never return to. Along the way, you meet many Native Americans, who aren't typically so much characters as they are the medium by which facts about the land and history are summarized, ala the Carmen Sandiego model of edutainment referred to earlier. When Rivers Were Trails hews closer to something like a visual novel with minigames, and is nowhere near as interested in systematizing misery as The Oregon Trail. The worst things that directly happen to the player are rare harassment by the Indian Patrol, and there are resources as a nod to The Oregon Trail, here Willpower, Food, and Medicine, and, fittingly enough considering the direct equation of resource-to-cash in the 1970s game, they're used mostly as forms of currency for trading. Other than that, they don't "matter," in that they're super easy to come by living off the land and running out of food or medicine won't kill you. Only running out of spiritual Willpower will, which suggests to me that you're on some metaphoric level a ghost animated by your journey, bearing witness to vignettes of not so much the suffering itself, but the almost-post-apocalyptic aftershocks of great misfortunes and displacements and how various people are holding on or moving on. Don't mistake it for an Empathy Game — it's strictly educational.

[redvanillabee]

Musings on A Study in Pink (2)

Part 2: ’You can’t have serial suicides’ – media, chain suicides, and social problems

TRIGGER WARNING: long discussions of suicide; image of a gun

Literally the whole of Part 2 is about suicide. If that is not what you want to read, close this tab and go look at some kittens. Take care of yourselves.

So here at the start of ASiP we have John Watson: recently invalided out of the army, the one place where he feels useful and respected. He is burdened by residual self-esteem and trust issues from his childhood. He is struggling – financially, mentally, physically – in a city that does not feel like home anymore. He has probably quite recently watched Sholto – the one he cares for, the one who has allowed him to embrace his sexuality to a fuller extent – fall from grace. In the news, people are committing suicides, albeit under suspicious circumstances.

What could possibly go wrong?

We know that at the beginning of ASiP, John is suicidal.

(If the gun itself is not clue enough, the notebook next to it is damning too:

SHERLOCK: This phone call – it’s, er ... it’s my note. It’s what people do, don’t they – leave a note? [x])

John’s suicidal thoughts, however, does not come entirely from within himself. They are instilled by others. Just like how the Cabbie (homophobia/heteronormativity) hunts down John mirrors and force them to kill themselves, the residual impact of his childhood oppression and abruptly shortened military career are pushing John to the brink of taking his own life. And he very easily could have, if he had not met Sherlock. 

Media and chain suicides: the contagion effect

[x]

While it may sound like an oxymoron, you can technically have some form of serial suicide. One cause is, of course, when a social problem arises, and a particular demographic is systemically marginalised and oppressed. ‘Members of minority groups experiencing economic or cultural discrimination’, among other groups, are usually at high risk of cluster suicides [x]. 

Another cause is when the media spreads what is known as a suicide ‘contagion’.  According to studies launched by the Centre for Disease Control, a suicide ‘contagion’ is ‘a process by which exposure to the suicide or suicidal behaviour of one or more persons influences others to commit or attempt suicide’. This study lists out certain aspects of media coverage that can promote suicide contagion: 

Presenting simplistic explanations for suicide

Engaging in repetitive, ongoing, or excessive reporting of suicide in the news

(The headline reads: ‘Boy, 18, kills himself inside sports centre’ [x])

Providing sensational coverage of suicide

REPORTER 3: Is there any chance that these are murders, and if they are, is this the work of a serial killer?

LESTRADE: I ... I know that you like writing about these, but these do appear to be suicides. We know the difference. The, um, the poison was clearly self-administered. [x]

Reporting ‘how-to’ descriptions of suicide

Presenting suicide as a tool for accomplishing certain ends

Glorifying suicide or persons who commit suicide

Focusing on the suicide completer’s positive characteristics

MARGARET PATTERSON (tearfully as she reads from her statement): My husband was a happy man who lived life to the full. He loved his family and his work – and that he should have taken his own life in this way is a mystery and a shock to all who knew him. [x]

As seen above, some of the coverages done by the media at the beginning of ASiP is precisely what is named problematic in the CDC study. When this kind of underinformed/glorified/sensationalised coverage reach high risk groups, an imitation effect could easily occur, ending up with more suicides. And John Watson very easily could have been similarly affected.

John has been following the news of the serial suicides. Just the day before meeting Sherlock, he made a blog post about it:

[x]

John is in the high-risk group. He is suicidal to start with. He follows the coverage of the serial suicides enough to make a note of it on his blog, just ~48 hours before Sherlock invites him on a case. The media could very easily have had an unintentional but fatal influence on John.

Media’s blindness to social problems

When the media is obsessed with the sensational in serial suicides and oversimplify the reasons, they are also turning a blind eye to (the possibility of there being) a/the overarching cause. Or sometimes, they just do not think such a cause could exist:

LESTRADE: Well, they all took the same poison; um, they were all found in places they had no reason to be; none of them had shown any prior indication of ...

REPORTER 1 (interrupting): But you can’t have serial suicides.

LESTRADE: Well, apparently you can.

REPORTER 2: These three people: there’s nothing that links them?

LESTRADE: There’s no link been found yet, but we’re looking for it. There has to be one.

…

REPORTER 2: But if they’re suicides, what are you investigating?

LESTRADE: As I say, these ... these suicides are clearly linked. Um, it’s an ... it’s an unusual situation. We’ve got our best people investigating ... [x]

The reporters believe that these deaths are suicides, on the basis that they are not/cannot be linked. As I said in Part 1, the Cabbie’s victims do not die of suicide. They are technically murdered. When the reporters obsess over them being suicides and dismiss the possibility of linkages, they are turning away from the social problem that could be existing, the social problem that is pushing people to commit suicide one after the other. In the case of BBC Sherlock and A Study in Pink, we can read it as the media’s blindness to homophobic violence in the country, obsessing over only the visible effect—deaths by suicide, but ignorant of the causes. 

It also means a lot that Sherlock is the one who insists that these are not just linked suicides.

REPORTER 1 (interrupting): But you can’t have serial suicides.

LESTRADE: Well, apparently you can.

REPORTER 2: These three people: there’s nothing that links them?

LESTRADE: There’s no link been found yet, but we’re looking for it. There has to be one.

(Everybody’s mobile phone trills a text alert simultaneously. As they look at their phones, each message reads:

Wrong! [x]

Sherlock is gay, and he is aware when ‘people who are different’ are being targeted, marginalised, and attacked, and he hates these oppressors:

MYCROFT: I’m glad you’ve given up on the Magnussen business.

SHERLOCK: Are you?

MYCROFT (stopping): I’m still curious, though. He’s hardly your usual kind of puzzle. Why do you ... hate him?

SHERLOCK (turning back to face him): Because he attacks people who are different and preys on their secrets. Why don’t you? [x]

As a member of the oppressed group, Sherlock is aware of the problem at hand, the problem that the hegemonic public, including mainstream media, are unaware of.

(This also puts Lestrade in the position of a mildly clueless straight ally. He believes that these are suicides, but there is also definitely a connection. Lestrade senses there is a larger problem at hand, but unlike Sherlock, he is unable to pinpoint what exactly is the problem.)

How does the Daily Mail, of all new outlets, recognise it as murder?

Ah, the Daily Mail. I am no expert in British media, but as far as I know, the Daily Mail is notorious for being unreliable, homophobic, xenophobic, and fearmongering. Their credibility is so bad that even Wikipedia banned Daily Mail as a source for the website. 

Let’s take another look at what the Daily Mail reporter actually said during the press conference: 

DONOVAN (to the reporters): One more question.

REPORTER 3: Is there any chance that these are murders, and if they are, is this the work of a serial killer?

LESTRADE: I ... I know that you like writing about these, but these do appear to be suicides. We know the difference. The, um, the poison was clearly self-administered.

REPORTER 3: Yes, but if they are murders, how do people keep themselves safe?

LESTRADE: Well, don’t commit suicide.

(The reporter looks at him in shock. Donovan covers her mouth and murmurs a warning.)

DONOVAN: “Daily Mail.”

(Lestrade grimaces and looks at the reporters again.)

LESTRADE: Obviously this is a frightening time for people, but all anyone has to do is exercise reasonable precautions. We are all as safe as we want to be. [x]

Yes, the Daily Mail reporter may insist that these are murders, but pay attention to their words: ‘the work of a serial killer’, ‘how do people keep themselves safe?’ The reporter is attempting to generate panic among the readers, convincing them that no one is safe. They are also eager to identify a lone, anti-social, alien, threat—a serial killer—and pin the blame on them. Even if they call these murders, the Daily Mail reporter is not identifying the nature of the problem, but going off on a tangent, creating a whole new smearing campaign.

The representation of news outlets in ASiP are also very much in line with what the show has been saying about the media—they lie, they manipulate, and generally horrible towards LGBT people. Kitty Riley in TRF, for instance, sneaks into a space not meant for her and claims she will ‘set things straight’ for Sherlock: 

KITTY: You and John Watson – just platonic? Can I put you down for a “no” there, as well?

(She stops him from opening the door and gets in his way, stepping well into his personal space. He breathes loudly and angrily.)

KITTY: There’s all sorts of gossip in the press about you. Sooner or later you’re gonna need someone on your side ...

(Reaching into her pocket, she holds up her business card and then tucks it into his breast pocket.)

KITTY: ... someone to set the record straight. [x]

And as Sherlock finds out, not only does Magnussen ‘attack people who are different’, he also has no qualms about lying in his news outlets:

MAGNUSSEN: Proof? What would I need proof for? I’m in news, you moron. I don’t have to prove it – I just have to print it.

(Sherlock’s gaze is lowered and his expression suggests that he is fully aware of how badly he has miscalculated.)

MAGNUSSEN (standing up and buttoning his jacket): Speaking of news, you’ll both be heavily featured tomorrow – trying to sell state secrets to me. [x]

We would not be strangers to these news stories. Just think of all the fake news, and all the entertainment news that insist on calling the relationship between John and Sherlock an ‘epic bromance’ (urgh). 

Part 1: Shot in the left shoulder – the Cabbie as a John mirror

Part 3: ‘Who’d be a fan of Sherlock Holmes?’ – The biggest obstacle to Johnlock

Part 4: ‘I that am lost, oh who will find me?’ – John Watson’s Final Problem

[segadores-y-soldados]

Soldier: 76 Fact Sheet, References, and Some Analyses

Alright, so this is a list of facts, ideas, and analyses based on: 1) current issues or hypothesized trajectories for history, 2) confirmed Soldier: 76 lore and personal history, and 3) confirmed Overwatch timeline stuff. Note that all of these can change since Blizzard basically says “fuck it” and changes their lore every three months.  Some of these are analysis-based; stuff that is hypothesized/headcanon/food-for-thought status will be denoted as such.  Some NSFW language and swearing is included.  Also some political and social hypotheses and interpretations.

Main article: https://playoverwatch.com/en-us/blog/19809396/

Other resources:

Reaper Art Assets

Reaper References

Reaper and Soldier: American Cultural References

Here we go:

Indiana:

This is by no means an exhaustive list of stuff about Indiana, but these are basically quick soundbites for people who want a jumping off point.

Bloomington, Indiana currently has a population of about 90k in the city proper, and about 180k in the metropolitan area. It’s not a massive city by any means, but it’s not some small country town either.

Bloomington is a “college town”: it has the most populated public university in the state.

This means that just under half of the population is roughly young, college-educated adults and students.

“Bloomington is a regional economic center anchored by Indiana University and home to a diverse business community involved in pharmaceuticals, medical devices, technology, health care, and the arts. Bloomington's concentration of employment in the life sciences is six times greater than the U.S. average, and employment in the technology sector has grown by over 80 percent in recent years.” - Wikipedia

In heavy contrast to this, Indiana is currently the meth capital of the U.S. Indiana is also currently facing a massive heroin and HIV epidemic.

And I’m not talking that “glamorized Breaking Bad” shit.

Things could’ve stood a chance of improving before the U.S.’s new Vice President and former governor of Indiana, Mike Pence, royally fucked over many of the state’s social structures and services.

Read this: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/53c313/mike_pence_says_his_role_model_for_vice_president/d7rxk07/

Read this too: http://www.idsnews.com/article/2017/01/indiana-opiod-problem

Let me reiterate: Mike Pence fucked up Indiana so hard there’s a fucking HIV epidemic in parts of the state. He bullied a female elected official out of office. He cut funding for fucking preschools. He destroyed Indiana’s energy system.

Now imagine being Jack Morrison, born probably in the next year to 7 years, living in the aftermath of this.

Watching business cut positions, watching people pursue higher education in your home city, but knowing that every other person in your school has a family member who got ruined by meth or HIV or struggled to make ends’ meet. Roughly 40% of the people in your home city are young adult students attending the largest public university in your state. The city is predominantly politically liberal. Your state is struggling. Your country elected the man who helped devastate it into the White House. You grow up in the aftermath of a Pence governorship and a Trump presidency.  

“On the rare occasions when I cross paths with other living souls, they describe young Morrison in different ways. He was a rambunctious youth. A humble, salt-of-the-earth farmer's son. But these people all agree on one thing: Morrison was never destined to live out his days in the land of rolling plains and deep blue skies. At eighteen, Morrison packed his bags and joined the military. He had planned to serve a brief stint in the armed forces and then return home to the family farm, but his work ethic and courage caught the eye of the military brass.”

Military:

Canon: Jack Morrison joined the military at 18 years old and was eventually brought into the Supersoldier Enhancement Program.

There, he met Gabriel Reyes and the two became best friends.

Analysis: I have a hard time believing that Reyes would’ve been friends with Morrison if he’d been a huge jerk or ultra politically conservative.

Gabriel Reyes grew up in LA, which is by and large liberal within the metropolitan area.

This may be unknown to many people, but California is EXTREMELY CONSERVATIVE outside of the majority cities.  Even within the majority cities, you are likely to encounter people who are NOT liberal on a regular basis.  The odds of Gabriel having never met “a conservative individual” are literally less than zero.

However, the odds of Jack being “politically and/or social conservative” are also pretty damn low.  Naive possibly, but Jack “being shocked” over crime, drug problems, gang violence, cultural differences, or urban lifestyle stuff is less likely than I think many in the fandom realize.

So it’s not exactly an age-old tale of “young, naive, wide-eyed man from the Midwest meets a hardened, sarcastic, street-smart man from the urban jungle,” although that is what Overwatch lore wants to portray it as. When you dig a little deeper, things get more complex.

Omnic Crisis:

Jack was probably the only member of the First Strike team to double as a medic.  This is evidenced by him carrying Biotic Fields as both Soldier: 76 and Strike-Commander Morrison.

Ana’s Biotic Rifle was not invented until sometime later, after Angela Ziegler (Mercy) had joined Overwatch.  We know this because of the released blueprints of the Biotic Rifle with notes by both Torbjörn and Angela (the blueprints are addressed to “J. Morrison” and “G. Reyes”), in which Angela expresses concerns about the “weaponization” of her biotechnology.

We also know from concept art and the first “Ana” comic that Ana functioned primarily as a regular sniper before the development of the Biotic Rifle.

This means that Jack probably performed most of the healing in the field and during battles for the majority of the Omnic Crisis.

Analysis: this may be one of the reasons why the United Nations considered Morrison to be the “heart and soul” of the First Strike team: “Leadership of Overwatch fell to Reyes, but Morrison would have a greater impact on the group in the long term. He brought out the best in the people around him and helped mold Overwatch's diverse (and sometimes conflicting) agents into a cohesive fighting force. In unity, they found the strength to defeat the robots and end the Omnic Crisis.”

Hypothesis: this may provide a lore-based reason for why Solder: 76 always announces the deployment of his Biotic Fields to his teammates in-game.

Overwatch:

Hypothesis/Speculation: I find it INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE that Gabriel Reyes would continue to work for an organization - more specifically, to under Jack Morrison - for another twenty years if he truly hated it.  I take this bit of “canon lore” with a massive pinch of salt.

Timeline: It is very likely that the first major playable character hired by Jack after he became Strike-Commander is Mei-ling Zhou, probably for her breakthroughs in climatology.

Jack almost certainly approved of the “hiring” of other playable characters like Jesse McCree and Genji Shimada, even with all the problems and issues surrounding them.

Jack probably recruited Angela Ziegler (Mercy) to be the head of the medical sciences division at Overwatch.

Jack probably saved, rescued, or assisted Winston after his escape from the moon colony.

Jack almost certainly had a familial relationship with Fareeha Amari, given their in-game interactions and the Ana Origins video.

Jack and the other early members of Overwatch canonically participated in Halloween parties where they all dressed in costumes.

It is implied by the same Halloween comic that Gabriel Reyes designed the uniforms for Overwatch, probably including Jack’s Strike-Commander uniform.

Canon: Jack liked Old Western films.

Probable Canon: Jack has been to many different places around the globe - all the known Watchpoints, and likely all the U.N. Headquarters as well.  As Strike-Commander of Overwatch, he may have spent a considerable amount of time in New York City, which is where the main U.N. Headquarters are located.

“Strike Commander Morrison envisioned a bright new future for humanity. Under his leadership, Overwatch served as a global peacekeeping force and an engine for innovation, making advances in scientific fields as varied as space exploration and medical research. But even as Overwatch grew in power, Morrison stayed dedicated to the people around him. He trained new agents, instilling in them Overwatch's noble goals and ideals. At Morrison's memorial service, Reinhardt Wilhelm, one of the group's original members, said, "He devoted everything he was to Overwatch. He was our moral compass. Our inspiration. Our friend."”

Analysis: Jack Morrison was dedicated to helping develop the betterment and progress of humanity through medicine, technology, and the sciences.

Contrary to what Reaper says in the “Old Soldiers” comic, Jack did not actually deliberately leave Ana in the field.  In the “Ana” comic, Ana chooses to turn off her comms and chooses to continue pursuing the enemy sniper.  The last thing Jack says to her is “Everyone, move!  Ana, you too!  Evac’s on its way!  Wheels up in two!  Now beat feet!  Disengage, Ana!  That’s an order -” (emphasis from comic).

Given all the controversies around Reaper and how long he has “existed,” it is important to point out that Gabriel/Reaper blames Jack for a very specific event, probably the event where he became Reaper (although when specifically this event occurs is...well, debatable, I guess).  This is described in the Old Soldiers comic through direct dialogue from Reaper.  Ana removes Reaper’s mask and asks “what happened to you…?” (probably about whatever his current appearance is), and Reaper replies: “He did this to me, Ana.  They left me to become this thing.  They left you to die.  They left me to suffer… ...Never forget that.” (emphasis from comic itself).

Food for Thought: there is no mention of the promotion or anything related to it in the Old Soldiers comic, which implies that perhaps the decision was actually not as big an issue between Jack and Gabriel as stated (or as other people thought?).  In fact, there’s no mention of the promotion in any of Jack or Gabriel’s lines, dialogue, or character interactions.  At best, Gabriel throws some shade through lines like “Finally, some recognition.” but neither character actually mentions the issue directly, nor do any of the others.

Hypothesis: it is entirely possible that the “problems over the promotion” have been largely dropped from the “lore,” and Old Soldiers more closely represents “the new direction” Blizzard is moving towards with regards to the Jack-Gabriel rivalry, split, fall-out, fight, battle, whatever you want to call it.

Post-Fall/Soldier: 76:

Canon: Soldier considers “a part of himself” to have died in the Swiss Base explosion (Origin video).  It is not stated what “part of him” that is - take it as you will.

Canon: Soldier does not consider himself a “vigilante”: “Truth is...I’m just a soldier.”

Canon: Soldier: 76 is canonically anti-corporation.  This is evidenced by his personal investigation into LumériCo, as well as him breaking, entering, and vandalizing corporations and financial institutions in the U.S.: “A masked vigilante whom authorities have named "Soldier: 76" is considered the prime suspect in these incidents. In addition to bombing corporate offices and financial institutions in the United States, this individual has breached a number of former Overwatch bases. Soldier: 76 has stolen valuable technologies from these sites, including experimental weaponry, causing untold damages in the process.”

Analysis/Hypothesis: Given the current state of Indiana and U.S. national politics, the above bullet point is not particularly surprising.

Canon: Soldier: 76 is anti-gang or anti-crime-organization.  Just...watch Hero again or something.  But also consider that Soldier has the line “Reyes should’ve cleaned up the Deadlock Gang a long time ago,” said with mild frustration that the Deadlock Gang still exists.

Canon: Soldier: 76 does not want Overwatch restored.  This is demonstrated by his Gibraltar lines, and his new interaction with Winston.  He considers Winston’s actions “illegal” and “breaking the law” - “same as me.”

Canon: Soldier: 76 does have many memories of Gibraltar - “they weren’t all bad.”

Canon: Soldier: 76 feels “terrible” for all the scientists of Overwatch (Ecopoint Antarctica specifically).  He has a new interaction with Mei, where he says that the frontlines of the battlefield are no place for a scientist.  Mei teases him as a retort, saying, “I guess it’s a good thing I have you to watch my back.”

Analysis/Hypothesis: Mei recognizes who Soldier: 76 is and is referencing the fact that Jack hired her, and watched over her progress.

Canon: Soldier: 76 has numerous voicelines about activating a Biotic Field, all of which are directed at his teammates.  He never activates a Biotic Field for himself (although as a Soldier main I can tell you that I absolutely activate Biotic Field for myself 95% of the time.  The other 5% of the time is for the tank.  On extremely rare occasions, I have activated Biotic Fields for friendly DPS or Defense units who stay close to me or ask for healing from me).

Canon: the worst “insults” that Soldier has ever said about Reaper is that he’s a “bad guy” and “kind of a jerk” (on the flipside, Reaper’s sitting at a solid “boy scout” as his only insult for Soldier).

Canon: Reaper addresses Soldier by the name of “Jack” in Old Soldiers.  The only other character to do this is Ana (on the flipside, the only two characters to call Reaper by the name “Gabriel/Gabe” are Ana and Sombra).

Alternate (?) Canon - Junkenstein’s Revenge: Immortal: 76 “does not care for the nobility” but is siding with the lord of the castle to take down “a common foe - The Reaper.”  He tells Hanzo that The Reaper is “the worst kind” of monster there is - “a wicked man.”

Alternate (?) Canon - Junkenstein’s Revenge: Immortal: 76’s faith is in science and alchemy as “the things that keep him alive.”  In an interaction with McCree, McCree states that “pumping someone full of chemicals and electricity and whatnot” makes the individual “not a man, but a monster.”  This is a reference to Junkenstein’s Monster, but also to Jack and Gabriel “in the main canon,” who were “pumped full of chemicals” in SEP.

Alternate (?) Canon - Junkenstein’s Revenge: Ana describes that Immortal: 76 “attracts strange companions” - “just as it has always been.”  This is yet another reference to Jack assembling Overwatch’s diverse crew during its peacetime era.

Interpretation: While some of Soldier’s interactions can be seen as patronizing, I believe it’s more likely that he is strongly concerned for characters like D.Va, Tracer, and McCree.  As shown with the Mei interaction, he comes across as gruff or harsh, but well-meaning.  His other interactions with Ana and even Reaper to an extent show that Soldier is extremely tired, jaded, and possibly depressed from the wars he has waged - both physical and political/social - and that he likely does not want to see young people get drawn into similar situations.

Hopefully people keep finding these little essays and fact sheets useful.  I’m less familiar with the Midwest than the West Coast, but I figured it was useful to throw down some pointers for people who may not know where to start.  I also hope that condensing a lot of the “lore” around Jack Morrison/Soldier: 76 helps people get hone in on some key characteristics and ideas about him.