#legitimately becoming my most loathed project

[imalayla]

House meat progress

[unlikelyjapan]

s2e6 rewatch notes - part 1

I'm breaking this up over two days (for length, clarity, and my own mental health) - I pause and scribble my way through scenes as I go, so there may be a few repeats here and there.

Natalie's bereft face in the opening, attempting to disassociate but failing miserably because that's not her coping style. She obviously doesn't even smoke by the way she's holding the cigarette, she just does it because - much like working inside a commercial kitchen - it's the only legitimate excuse for a break from the chaos. Both she and Mikey act like they've just exited the fog of war (because they have) and - unlike Carmy - they've never had the emotional or material means to escape it.

Sugar's "No one can make anyone else act a certain way" comment to Mikey - it's very clear that they perceive mental illness from very different angles. Mikey admonishes Natalie for her check-ins as an attempt to blunt/control Donna's outbursts, and Sugar's skepticism of Mikey's strategy of just riding the lightning/ignoring the outburst (while acknowledging that he and Carmy have more success, but she attributes most of that to being the female middle child of a grievously ill female narcissist).

Carmy coming out = a hot mess of family dynamics. He asks Mikey (innocently enough) to come in and handle the crowd by being "fun cool guy" and Mikey assures him that he will, but with a vacant look in his eye (no wonder this man was on drugs, what other choices was he afforded?). Fak is literally yelling indistinctly inside, upping the chaos, as Richie bursts outdoors amidst the three siblings to ask if "there's any family shit going on that he should know about".

Along with just trying to be ok themselves, these three adult Berzattos are a magnet for every other wayward adult-child who needs a home to reckon with their own trauma, and their inclusion becomes their problem as well and only ups the frequency of the despair. Mikey literally makes space for the three of them by dismissing Richie "for a minute", and you can tell that's not normal protocol.

"Would it kill you to pick up the phone?" - Carmy is already wounded by Mikey more than 4 years before his death. You can immediately tell by Mikey's earnest response (along with his previous discussion with Sugar) that he was just keeping Carmy at arms length to ensure he never returned, to spare just one of them from a life of hardship. In spite of everything else we see about Mikey and how poorly he manages his trauma in this episode, he is an inherently good brother who started early in inciting loathing in the person he loves above all others just to save him.

I wanted to peek behind the "Our Mother of Victory, Pray for Us" bit, as you know damn well it wasn't selected by Storer by accident. The whole idea is that Mary, the Mother of Victory "pleads our cause with a mother’s heart and concern with whatever we bring her. Confident that Our Lady’s prayers are always heard we pray"

I may be reading too much into this, but that's a whole fuckton of power projected onto Donna. Even though it's said in jest, its maternal compassion and mercy that was never extended to the Berzatto kids. It could also be seen as "only Donna's prayers are heard and answered" (through the placating and emotional gymnastics performed by her children) so they utter this little prayer to her as much as they do to God - for control, for relative calm, for the day to simply be ok. They know better than to expect much more than that.

What is the actual point of Fak and Ted? I mean this narratively. I know that the Ricky actor who plays Ted originally worked on the set of The Bear in S1. Did the producers think they had an awesome "boys club" vibe and just plop them in as chauvinistic comic relief? Or is this part of a long-con? Do Fak and Teddy embezzle all of The Bear's money and retreat to Hawaii or something? Right now it's giving "Matty Matheson needs to sell more cookware" and I need a reason for this set-up, as the rest of the players offer more than enough relevant chaos to the episode.

Also, when they ask "Mrs. B, are our skateboards in here? Can we sleep over?" as Donna is cycling in the kitchen - Matty Matheson is in his 40's, so he time-traveled back to a rough-looking 35 to freeload off of his fake-besties Mom and aid in her spiral? I don't get the age timelines/ideas on what arrested development in this show are anymore....

"Say the fucking words" - ooof. I feel like a lot of ink has already been spilled on what the word "love" means in the Berzatto realm, but no wonder Carmy can't comprehend it even when it's right in front of him. Love to him is sacrifice and struggle, panic attacks, pacifying meltdowns, idealization and inevitable betrayal (hello other shoe!), and just saying the word because it diffuses an argument - not unlike rubbing one's chest.

So....what's the likelihood that the abusive chef at EMP is just a projection of Donna living rent-free in Carmy's head at this point? The way she lobs the ball at Carmy with all of the elements that need to be swapped when the timer goes off, the practical matters of running a high-pressure kitchen trailed with jests and insults and total emasculation. Yeah...I think it's pretty high up there.

The second Richie and Carmy trade off the homemade Sprite (before Carmy can grab the prosciutto and mortadella that his mom asked for 2 seconds ago) is just enough silence for Donna to feel abandoned and start unravelling again/start screaming about moving the pot. I can't quite place my finger on the weird amalgam of mental illnesses they gave this woman (hit me up, psych majors) but if its not over-scripted/acted, its a lot.....

Richie and Mikeys "Just take a break from being a mopey little fuck" - phew, these dudes really think that a high-school chick will be Carmy's salvation.

"I don't have a love of my life?" Carmy doesn't even flinch or show recognition of who they're talking about at first, and then it dawns on him that they've probably embarrassed him and he wants to crawl in a hole and die (which is the most honest feeling expressed this episode to date).

And wow. Donna intercepts the whole thing by throwing a spoon at Stevie and screaming "Richard, bring her the fucking pop!" - a.k.a the title of the previous episode with the house party. Those words ended the gang's harassment re: Claire, but then future Carmy willingly waded right back into the abyss of thoughtless conversations, bullying, projections, others' expectations, and the terrible Christmas.

Ok, that's it for now - I'll be back on my bullshit tomorrow.

[thenugking]

multiples of 5 for Val?

5: Dark Urge or no?

Nope, they’re my first BG OC and I wanted to get to know the game before playing Durge.

10: Are they proficient in playing any instruments?

Not in game, but I headcanon they have some skill in playing the piano, due to their mum getting them lessons in it when they were a kid. They despise it, like the good little Rebellious Goth they are.

15: What NPCs do they like? Which ones do they dislike?

For NPCs they like: Val loves kids and tried to adopt pretty much every orphan they met in the game. They adore the tiefling gang, Mol especially (biggest disappointment in the game was the end of her plotline being cut, I had to make up some stuff myself). They pretty much adopt Yenna instantly. I think she officially becomes their kid at the end of the game, along with Mattis and Silfy and maybe a few more of the tieflings, and travel to the Underdark for their Next Adventure with them. (Mol doesn’t, she and Val might think of each other as family, but she has Things To Do in baldur’s gate and is too independent to just follow Val around. She makes them promise to come back soon though.)

As for non-kid NPCs… The tieflings from the Grove, Isobel and Aylin, and Hope all kind of feel like family. And Arnell, Emmeline and Nocturne, because while they don’t know them well, anyone who’s Shadowheart’s family is Val’s family too. They liked the Emperor for a while, before it became too much of a manipulative dick.

NPCs they hate: For someone who tries their best to get along with everyone they meet and avoid conflict when possible, it’s a pretty long list.

Obviously they’re Not A Fan of any of the villains who hurt their companions (Cazador, Viconia, Gortash, Vlaakith). They fancied Orin to begin with, before she kidnapped Lae’zel. At which point, oh this is personal, get fucking dead, asshole. Slavers can also all go die.

Withers has not been welcome in their camp ever since “Arabella needs to go off by herself and not get any emotional support after the death of her parents, it’s Fine actually.” Fuck Kagha also for threatening a child like that.

Val maybe doesn’t hate Duke Ravengard, but they are not a big fan of him. Which… they legitimately don’t like how he treated Wyll, but they’re also projecting a load of their own father issues onto that relationship. They… would not have been upset if Mizora had killed him.

The character they loathe the most is Araj Oblodra, because they’re worried about being her themself. They liked her during their initial conversation. They had a nice little conversation about how weirdly into blood they both are, and yes, being bitten by a vampire is incredibly hot. And then Astarion was uncomfortable, and Araj was acting like his feelings didn’t matter, and Val was suddenly reevaluating every single interaction they’d had with Astarion, and deciding that they absolutely didn’t want to be this person ever.

20: Would they destroy the elder brain or control it?

Destroy. Earlier in the game, they might be tempted to control it, but by the time the endgame comes around, Val’s had so much bullshit thrown at them that they’re just, “I have had Enough, we are getting RID of this thing, I don’t want to fucking deal with anything else.”

25: What arcana major best represents your Tav?

I know nothing about Tarot but going off this website, (https://www.biddytarot.com/tarot-card-meanings/major-arcana/ ) they feel most drawn to the Devil. 

Val believes, at the start of the game, that being half-drow makes them half-evil. Growing up as an unwanted bastard in a family of humans and your only knowledge about drow being what other surface races tell you sure can give you a load of internalised racism! Except that Val’s twisted this round in their mind to make it mean that they don’t have to take responsibility for any selfish unpleasant actions they take. It’s not their fault, it’s just inherent to their nature--they don’t want to be a bad person, but there’s nothing they can do to change it! They learn to let go of their shitty internalised beliefs and start taking accountability over the course of the game.

(Also they did make a deal with Raphael and end up trapped in the House of Hope for a while at one point, so That Fits Too.)

30: What’s your favorite thing about your Tav?

Oh man, it’s so hard to choose just one favourite thing about the Current Brainrot OC. They give me gender euphoria, but that might be more of a favourite thing about Baldur’s Gate because, I mean, I’ve had nonbinary OCs in Dragon Age and Elder Scrolls before, but not one the game would actually accept as nonbinary. It’s so good not to be cringing constantly when an NPC uses the wrong pronouns for my character.

For Val’s actual personality… hmm. I love that their default mode is a charming and easy-going people pleaser, because life is just easier when people like you and think you agree with them. But when push comes to shove… when kids are being hurt, or Araj is like that about Astarion, or when they’ve reached their very last straw with Raphael’s bullshit, the charm drops away, and Val will tell you exactly what they fucking think of you.

[thecarnivorousmuffinmeta]

i love your metas! I just discovered them today and have spent all afternoon reading them. I have two part ask, if that's okay. Firstly, do you think a sensible version of bella could survive if she recognised early on that keeping on Edward's good side was her only survival option? and secondly, on the flip side, just how unhinged do you think bella could be before edward rejected her?

Ooh, both interesting questions, anon. Let's do this.

Sane Bella and the Yandere Simulator

Last time, on The Carnivorous Muffin's ridiculous blog, we covered what would happen to a sensible Bella who realizes the Cullens are not fluffy bunnies she should take home.

The long and short, Edward eats her.

Edward's romantic interest in Bella, the thing that has him fighting his own baser nature to keep her alive, is dependent on a few things.

One of those is Bella's interest in turn.

In time, if Bella truly was not interested in him, he would eat her. Alice tells us there's only two paths for Bella: death or vampire. Leaving her and walking away is never a true option for Edward.

So, Sane Bella loses Yandere Simulator because she doesn't realize the key aspect of Yandere Simulator: You Never Say No to Yandere.

However, you point out something interesting here, that this is a sensible Bella.

Sensible people do not immediately think they're playing Yandere Simulator. You don't run across people like Edward often, there aren't many of him, and while there are red flags early in Twilight Edward did a pretty good job of making them not particularly visible.

By the time we hit Eclipse he's pretty much thrown pretending to be nice and sane out the window. Luckily for Bella, that doesn't appear to bother her as much as it should.

Bella thinking "if I don't play along with this inhuman whack job he'll eat me", is paranoid lunacy. It is not the first conclusion a reasonable person would jump to.

That it happens to be the right conclusion is irrelevant.

But alright, I'll play ball.

Paranoid Bella and the Yandere Simulator

Bella is utterly paranoid and wearing her tin foil hat when she enters Forks. She remembers Biology very well and when Edward comes back and pretends to be nice she gives him a strained smile and thinks, "This motherfucker will eat me the moment my back is turned."

Bella considers travelling back to Florida, but that would be leading Edward to her mother, more it would be very easy to find Bella if he truly wished to.

Florida isn't an option.

Bella tries to keep her distance from Edward, hard when he sits next to her in Biology, but he seems willing to ignore her. Bella calms down a little, maybe this will work out.

Bella is nearly crushed by a van, desperately pretends she definitely did not see Edward fold that van like a pretzel. Nope, no siree Bob, Bella is concussed! She then stays awake all night in terror and OH GOD HE'S CLIMBING THROUGH HER WINDOW! HE'S GOING TO EAT HER IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT! HE KNOWS THAT SHE KNOWS!

Bella pretends to sleep, horrified, and Edward stays there all night. Staring.

(Edward, meanwhile, is realizing he's in love.)

Bella enters school a nervous wreck, waiting for that fateful Biology class and... Edward is studiously ignoring her. He doesn't even say hello.

Bella would be relieved, except he keeps sneaking into her bedroom at night, staring. Bella gets no sleep for weeks.

Then the blood testing happens and suddenly Edward is talking to her. He tells her they shouldn't be friends and he doesn't want to be friends, GREAT, EDWARD, THAT'S GREAT. But then it's very clear that he's after something, and Bella's spidey senses are tingling.

Edward doesn't want to be friends.

Oh, oh shit.

Suddenly, Edward sneaking into her room at night takes on a whole, new, sinister twist. First he'll rape her, then he'll eat her (or who knows, maybe vice versa, Bella certainly doesn't want to find out).

Bella is driven home by Edward (he insists) and enters the house to wheeze into a paper bag.

She thinks over her options.

Edward can crush cars, Bella trips over asphalt. Even if she wasn't Bella, there's no way she could outfight him even if she wanted to.

Edward was very concerned when he suspected that she knew, he likely still suspects and Bella's not a very good liar. Bella doesn't want to find out what happens to her if Edward realizes she really does know.

Edward appears to have a romantic interest in her. Does Bella really have the option of saying no?

Bella, still wheezing in her bag, comes to what seems like an inevitable decision. She must humor Edward at all costs. For the sake of her family, of her own life, she must play into his romantic overtures. Bella can't act but now, her life depends on it.

Well, Bella still can't act, but luckily for her Edward doesn't care.

Edward just thinks Bella's very jumpy, a little nervous and shy, and just plain weird (given he thinks Bella's just plain weird in canon this is not too far from normal events).

So Bella gets to live in terror for things like the meadow, where Edward talks about how easy it would be to eat her, how he contemplated murdering Biology in cold blood to eat her in the most efficient manner, how he loathed her for daring to smell delicious, how Alice warned him there was a good chance of him eating Bella in the meadow today, all while pressing his cheek against her hammering heartbeat.

"AH HA HA HA HA, EDWARD, YOU'RE SO CHARMING."

Edward invites Bella to the house. These creepy, man eating, people all meet her with smiles. Edward has composed her a lullaby. One of them, Alice, tells Bella they're going to be best friends.

"AH HA HA HA HA, EDWARD YOUR FAMILY IS SO NICE."

In other words, somehow, all of Twilight still happens because Bella is terrified of saying no.

At least, until Volterra. Given Bella's being hunted by Victoria, even had Bella not gone cliff diving eventually Alice would see her eaten and then black out as the wolves chased off Victoria instead.

Bella spends New Moon having a great time. Mostly. The Cullens are finally gone, she's free, she spends weeks on edge thinking they might come back.

Just when she starts to relax, fucking Laurent shows up and learns Victoria's trying to kill her. Because of Edward, because of course, it's always about Edward. WHY ARE VAMPIRES ALWAYS TRYING TO KILL HER?!

Regardless, Alice shows up and goes, "Bella, my god, you're alive!" And Bella dies inside. Alice Cullen is back. Oh no.

Bella pretends she's thrilled to see her. Alice, her best friend, her favorite demon. Hurray. Alice fills Bella in on the New Moon scoop, Bella pretends to be very invested. Then Alice gets the vision.

Edward has decided to commit suicide via the Volturi.

Bella has no problem with this, unfortunately, she realizes that Alice clearly has a problem with this. Alice fully expects Bella to run off to Italy to save Fucking Edward.

Once again, Bella isn't sure she's allowed to say no.

Bella runs to Italy, finds herself saving Edward's life, and then she's brought before the Volturi where she might very well be executed because Edward Cullen happened to involve her in this mess.

BELLA NEVER WANTED TO BE HERE.

Bella snaps. She's crying, she just can't take it anymore, and she finally loses her shit at Edward. SHE NEVER LOVED HIM! HE IS SCARY AND WON'T LEAVE HER ALONE! IF THEY'RE GOING TO KILL HER JUST DO IT NOW BECAUSE SHE CAN'T DO THIS ANYMORE.

Aro watches Bella's mental breakdown in utter amazement. Naturally, while Marcus suspected something was funky with those two, Aro did not see this coming from Edward's perspective.

Aro offers Bella her out, it is unfortunately death or vampire, but vampire is very much an option and Aro will offer Bella sanctuary in the Volturi.

Bella takes that offer and runs with it.

Edward is devastated and blindsided.

Somehow, neither he nor Alice saw this one coming.

But to answer your question: Paranoid Bella survives Yandere Simulator By Defecting to the Volturi

How Unhinged Does Bella Have to Be For Edward to Dump Her?

He won't.

Remember, Edward in canon thinks there's something legitimately wrong with Bella. She doesn't think like normal people, she always makes the least rational choice, and he can't hear her thoughts.

Edward doesn't think Bella's gifted just that she's... different. (Bella, hilariously, immediately picks up that Edward's calling her a freak. Edward backtracks hard on that one.)

Bella's decisions also become increasingly ridiculous as the series goes on.

She stabs herself in the middle of a battle, she insists on having sex with him while human, she consorts with shapeshifters (to Edward this is lunacy), she picked up motorcycle riding, she threw herself off a cliff, she ran from his sweet protection to the reservation, she believes he doesn't love her, and she doesn't want to get married.

I imagine Edward thinks there isn't anywhere left for Bella to go. She's left the planet, unhinged is her middle name.

But none of that matters.

I already linked the Edward/Bella post I always link near the top so I'll just recap. For Edward, it's all about the blood, the silence, and the projection.

An unhinged Bella is still a delicious and silent Bella. He can still pretend she's Carlisle.

Even if Bella became addicted to cocaine, and ruined that sweet scent, it wouldn't tarnish her memory. He'd nurse her back to health, then eat her so she never relapses.

That's the trouble with Edward/Bella, it's not about Bella, not at all. You could replace her with sweet smelling cardboard and Edward would not notice a difference.

[mbti-notes]

Hi, INFP here. I usually can't take people's actions at face value because I try to guess their biases and unconscious thoughts, because I think it defines them. And most of the time I conclude that they're bad people based on that (including myself lol). I feel like it makes relationships with people harder, because even if someone likes me/spends time with me, I think they hate me deep down for reasons they don't bring up but I know are there. (1/2)

[con’t: I saw it's a very common thing with xNFPs (and even xNTPs and some xSFJs, I think it's a Ne thing) and my question is, how do I focus on judging people by their actions /only/?]

Being judgmental is a common thing for humans, particularly when they remain stuck at low levels of ego development. Having sound judgment requires a factual, impartial, and logical mindset. You can legitimately come to the conclusion that someone is “bad” based on the facts of their behavior over time. But is your judgment sound? It seems not, because you don’t care about the facts, or you play very loosely with them according to whatever you want to believe. You even claim to “know” things despite no evidence.

In contrast to sound judgment, being “judgmental” is about being driven by unconscious feelings like fear, anger, inferiority, or low self-worth - your perception and judgment is heavily distorted and you don’t realize it. It seems that you are afraid of people’s biases and unconscious thoughts because you haven’t resolved your own. Irrationally suspecting that people “hate you deep down” is merely a projection of your own self-loathing. If you’re not able to accept yourself and believe that you deserve love, you won’t be able to believe that anyone else would love you, either. How can you know any person, for real, if all you ever really see is a twisted reflection of yourself when you look at them?

Being judgmental is a crude act of power by someone who feels powerless. It feels satisfying in that moment to put someone down or to put them in their place, does it not? But what is the cost of that “satisfaction”? To exercise power over someone just to feel self-satisfied for one fleeting moment is a form of moral corruption, isn’t it? It’s what abusers do, right? When you get enjoyment from being judgmental, are you aware of sacrificing your honor and integrity in the process? Do you understand that sacrificing your integrity is exactly the path that leads to you hating yourself, as you become what you hate? When you’re being judgmental, are you being the kind of person you really hope to be, the kind of person that dominant Fi requires you to be to feel proud of yourself? 

If your main approach to relationships is to wrestle people for power and control, even if only in your own mind, you will not be capable of healthy and loving relationships. Approaching relationships in terms of “power” means that you fundamentally view people as a threat, so you are always paranoid and distrustful. It means building thick walls to protect your feelings from being hurt. And how can you connect with people if they never get close enough to know you, and you attack/dismiss them before even getting to know them properly? How can a relationship thrive and flourish and become more intimate when your attitude is essentially to hurt people before they hurt you?

The heart of the matter is probably that you are imprisoned by your own fear and self-loathing. This usually indicates unhealthy Fi and Te grip problems. INFPs are negative and judgmental when they fail to develop Ne and then do not believe in their own power to improve their outlook, have a positive influence, and work for betterment. Without healthy Ne, you believe that the world is a dark and evil place, so you live your life like a victim in waiting.

[themockingpoint]

A million minutes late but here is my Sansa Appreciation Week day 5 submission. Takes place during the feast of 8x4. Shout out to @chryswatchesgot because I could not do that stupid cannon quote and their post from that episode gave me the perfect response.

  “It’s alright to be enjoying yourself.” Jon said, to Sansa shaking her out of her somewhat drunken thoughts. “If only for a little bit.”

 “Tell that to your queen.” Sansa said, before she could help herself. She showed off a grimace as she practically felt her brother’s annoyance bleed off him with a sigh.

 Sansa knew that the conflict between her and her brother’s… paramour was causing him undue tension, but she could not help it. Jon told Sansa that she is just refusing to see the Targaryen queen as she truly is and is letting what her family did to the Starks get in the way of that. However, Sansa would argue that it was her brother that was not seeing clearly ever since the two monarchs slept together. She sighed and downed another cup of wine.

 The way that she legitimized Gendry “Rivers” without thinking or consulting her advisors showed Sansa exactly what she needed to know. Putting aside the fact that she barely knew him enough to even know his actual name or the fact that he was her second cousin -and according to the great council of 101 AC that would probably make him, as a male, a stronger contender for the throne- his father was Robert Baratheon and her father was the Mad King.

 As bad of a king that Robert was, the smallfolk did not see it. His era signified an era of peace. Meanwhile her father was Mad King Aerys. He… well he got the name for a reason. Jon may have bent the knee to her, but their lords will always remember their Uncle Brandon and their grandfather. Let alone what the smallfolk will think. Joffrey most publicly was the smallfolks woes, yet Tyrion was the one blamed since he happened to be there once they started. No way would they forget what the mad king put them through. They were slaves waiting to be freed, they were people who just wished to go on with their lives with Highborn war.

  Another thing that Jon was forgetting but Sansa never would, was the fact that she spent years in King’s Landing, years. Joffrey, Cersei, Baelish, Ramsay, all of them taught her how to see a mask of benevolence. The Dragon queen may be projecting the air of the Good Queen Alysanne but Sansa likened her to the Young Dragon, Daeron I. The Dragon Queen may win the throne, but she would never be done conquering. She took over rulership in Meereen but was now looking to rule the Seven Kingdoms. The woman would never be done conquering, and Sansa did not plan on allowing the North and her people to be one of those Kingdoms to conquer that she will eventually become bored with.

 “I’m sorry.” Sansa slightly slurred from drink. “I am a little on edge… Feasts… I do not have the greatest history with celebrations…”

 “Here, here!” Tyrion said, walking behind them causing Sansa to roll her eyes.

 Sansa looked at the man that she used to think was the smartest man alive. When she knew him, he was the sharpest man in the room, taking people’s number without much of a challenge. He, Jon, and Varys -although he seemed to flip-flop worse than the Tyrells- all trusted her, is her own prejudices not allowing her to see the woman truly?

 Jon told her a little bit about the woman. The parallels between Sansa and Daenerys herself were strong, very strong. Sansa would not, could not, deny it and to be perfectly honest? It scared Sansa just how similar the two of them were. Abusive husbands, they were both raped on their wedding nights, both were used and passed around as bargaining chips, and both would do anything to get their countries back. Sansa almost crossed a line she never could have come back from.

 As similar as they were, Sansa knew that the dragon queen was not her friend, and definitely not Jon’s friend. She would only ever see them as subjects, never allies. They would be expected to fight whatever wars she would want to fight at the drop of a hat; ironically not unlike how Robert Baratheon was like with Sansa’s own father. As Sansa said, she would never be done conquering and -like during the Baratheon regime- the North would be dragged into it. She could not let her people be killed by the petty southern wars. She would not fail them; not again.

 “Why don’t you walk around?” Jon said, giving her a sympathetic smile. He knew how the last few feasts that she had turned out.

 “I… don’t think that is a good idea… I think I may be a little drunk.” She said, with a slight giggle.

 “Well I believe in you!” He said, slamming his hand down on the table in an ironic echo of her earlier statement.

 She walked away and a few minutes later saw the queen walk off in a huff of jealousy. She must admit, she was no Joffrey. He never would have abided by someone singing praises that were not directed at him, especially if he thought it was at his expense. She was not her father either, who would have just burned someone alive had he gotten annoyed with them.

 But it does not matter. The North was the North. They were not like the other seven kingdoms, even Dorne had more similarities to the southern kingdoms than the North did. The North just did things differently, they had different traditions, hell even their gods were different from the rest of the kingdoms. They were too detached from the rest of the Kingdoms to be part of such a kingdom that was practically united against them.

 She needed to clear her head as she was depressing herself. As she walked amongst the lower tables she saw where Tormund got to. She froze as she saw who he was sitting next to. Sansa knew he was here. Jon and Arya both mentioned the fact, he apparently had saved Arya’s life during the siege. Sansa has not been avoiding him, but she had not been seeking him out either.

 “Af’er all that he just comes North and takes ‘er from me.” Tormund said, weepily leaning on Sandor. “Just takes ‘er. Like that!”

 “Her?” Sansa thought to herself before she remembered who Tormund had been obsessed with since she had met him. “He can’t… He can’t mean Brienne, can he?”

 Thinking back to how her sworn shield starred at Jaime Lannister with starry eyes as they continued speaking, Sansa quickly realized what had happened when a quick look told her that she was not there. She felt happy for the woman despite her feelings about Jaime Lannister. She was more devoted to her duty than any other person than Sansa knew. She deserved this, she deserved to relax.

 “I’m not ‘fraid of Wildlings.” The serving girl (whore? She know Tyrion hired many to spread into the waiting staff) said, raising an eyebrow as Sansa finished another glass of wine. She doubts that she has even been this drunk and she must say she thinks that she is handling it very well.

 “Maybe you should be.” Tormund said, suggestively wagging his eyebrows.

 As Sansa realized what was happening, she felt a tightening in her own belly. One she had not really ever felt before, except maybe with Loras Tyrell. She shook out of her distraction as Sandor growled at the woman, terrifying her so that she would make her escape. Thinking of the feeling in her belly she walked over.

 “She could have made you happy…” She said, as she sat down. She wondered if his rejection of her was due to lack of interest or because of self-hatred and cynicism. Gods know that he has enough of that. Enough that he tried passing it onto her. “For a little while.”

 He looked up in surprise, whether he was shocked she was there or that she decided to speak to him she did not know. When they finally broke eye contact, he said, “There’s only one thing that’ll make me happy.”

 “And what’s that?” She said humoring him, trying to get him to lighten the hell up.

 “That’s my business!” He growled trying to scare her away. Once, it might have worked. She drunkenly cocked an eyebrow to show that she was unamused. “Used to be you couldn’t look at me.”

 “That was a long time ago…” She said sadly remembering the kiss from the Blackwater. One of the only two people she has ever kissed and the only one she somewhat wanted it from. Is that why he was not looking at her, trying to scare her away. “I’ve seen much worse that you.”

 “Yes I’ve heard… Heard you were broken in… Heard you were broken in rough…” He said, almost smugly and she clenched her teeth. Why was he being so hostile? She was trying to extend an olive branch.

 “Yes.” She said, she had already lost Theon today and her patience was quickly wearing thin. “He got what he deserved. I gave it to him.”

 “How?” He asked, genuinely curious.

 “Hounds…” She said, causing a moment of laughter from him.

 “You’ve changed, Little-Bird.” Sandor said, taking a drink. Once she had a sickening liking to the demeaning nickname. Now it just angered her. “None of it would have happened had you come with me.”

 “And there it is.” Sansa thought to herself. Most of the men in her life tried taking credit for what she was or could have been. To be frank, she was sick of it. Sansa was the woman she was today because of two men and a woman, all of which were named Stark. She may not have gotten everything she has due to her own merits but the men who spit poison and abuses at her no longer could claim credit for it. She would not allow it. No longer.

 “That’s the thing Sandor.” She said, grabbing his hand to his surprise. “I was never a little bird. I was a puppy. And Gods help those who think they can tame a Direwolf.”

 She stood up and grabbed Tormund’s nearly full goblet. If he wanted to stew in his cynicism, hatred, and self-loathing than he was more than welcome to it. She was not going to allow him to infect her with it as well. That is all he tried to do even since they first met at the Crossroad Inn all those years ago. She was done trying to save someone who did not want to save themselves but drag her down to their level instead.

 She would always be grateful for what he did for her sister, but she was done trying to save him. It was not her job. She looked down at her former would be protector and walked off, forgetting the reason that she came over in the first place.

[rametarin]

Just some thoughts.

Thinking about why we don’t have as much diversity in cartoon shows and such, I realized a very big problem.

Trustworthy writers that won’t fucking use the platform to pitch their galaxy brain ideological shit.

Imagine if we tried to make a cartoon like THIS in the modern day.

Too many writers in the room would try to use it as a platform to make strawman versions of the Cops shooting people, but only in the most hilariously slanted and one sided interpretations that play into contemporary conspiracy theory shit.

When all you really wanted to do as a creator is have inclusion. That becomes the foothold these types of assholes need to write your white teammates as racists just to have a message of “generational racism” and give the impression to the kids watching it that we’re still in 1920-50s race relations in America. And that that is the status quo their “more enlightened” generation is growing out of. Like that’s where we’re starting from.

Suddenly what you make with the interests of being inclusive and fun becomes just a fucking mouthpiece for whatever BLM shit is popular in a “real” black person. Capitalizing the B in black, the mob boss character spends a curious and suddenly extra amount of time being a white supremacist asshole,  and even the good guys in the police wind up looking like unintentional racist assholes who “just don’t know better. They’re white.” All because a project with an inclusive cast has the wrong kinds of creative writers licking their disgusting soyboy chops to be good allies, and drive it into the ground.

As someone that fancies themselves a creative, this is a concern I have when it comes to making work with representative characters, visions for those characters, and anabsolutely rigid idea of what they are NOT supposed to be. And with a particular sensitivity for the impression other people may want to give using my work, because it may be popular and a franchise. I absolutely loathe the idea of being platformed to do someone elses ideological work.

I still plan to have plenty of inclusion and diversity. Just not on the disgusting pretense that my characters should give free publicity to BLM, or Farrakhan, or legitimize them as valid.

[raykid]

Rabbids Invasion: Top 5 Best Season 4 Episodes So Far

Season 4 of Rabbids has so far easily been the best the series has had to offer since Season 2. Up until this point, this fourth installment has managed to flawlessly combine old elements that worked in previous seasons with new elements that in my opinion, have helped the show improve vastly.

From the episodes I’ve watched so far, I’ve been greeted with wonderfully bizarre stories such as a mutant Rabbid-mole stalking a flying submarine, Rabbids switching bodies with dinosaurs, and even a Red Riding Hood parody where the wolf is the hero, and the grandma is the antagonist, making this the craziest season yet. And since this is, after all, a Rabbids TV show, the crazier the better.

For that reason, today I’m going to be counting down to the top 5 absolute best this season has had to offer us so far. Grab a plunger and read on.

5. Rabbid Princess

Starting off this list is the episode I consider to have probably the funniest set-up for a Rabbids plot since Season 2′s ‘‘Glow Rabbid’‘. In this episode, a wimpy biker Rabbid who is part of a gang of tougher Rabbids accidentally knocks out their leader after attempting to perform a dangerous stunt. Afterwards, thinking that he ‘‘killed’ his leader, the wimpy biker Rabbid attempts to ‘‘revive’‘ him  by placing him inside the submarine’s disguise chamber, which results in him being dressed up as a princess. Clearly, hilarity ensued.

This episode takes advantage of every opportunity it has to crack a slapstick or visual joke about a tough biker Rabbid suddenly acting very feminine-like, and every moment of it is comedy gold. Probably the best scene in the entire episode is when the biker-princess Rabbid quite literally becomes a full-on parody of a classic Disney princess, possibly Snow White, where it then begins to sing in a high-pitched voice while cleaning the floor, complete with a whimsical soundtrack and tiny little chicks as backup singers.  There’s also a really good lesson at the end, which while I won’t give away, I feel makes the ending feel surpsiringly satisfying. Definitely an episode worth re-watching.

4. Rabbids Special Unit

This was one of three episodes that established the few mini- story arcs and recurring characters this season would continue to offer, and this particular one started off with a bang. In this episode, three Rabbids wearing tu-tus fall off the submarine, and it’s up to Zak and Zoey to get them back inside while avoiding the government, who is hot on the submarine’s trail. I had already talked about why this episode  works  so well in the past, and I still stand by my opinion that this is not only one of the best of this season, but possibly the series in general. The Rabbids’ antics while dressed as ballet dancers may already be funny on their own, but something about having human characters being there to react to them somehow makes the gag ten times more hysterical than it should be. The surprising amount of character development and growth given to both Zak and Zoey, at least when compared to previous seasons, also felt very earned. Not only is Zak now officially Zoey’s boyfriend, but he’s also grown fond of the Rabbids, going as far as to actually help them rather than try to obsessively catch or study them, and it never feels out of place or forced.

There’s also a lot of action and chase sequences, which I’m sure a lot of kids would enjoy. Everything this episode tried to go for was honestly pretty ambitious for only a mere seven minutes, and I guarantee you that the way this episode is paced will have you wanting more by the time it ends.

The only episode that could possibly top it would be one where a legitimate threat to the Rabbids is introduced, which leads me to my next entry..

3. Rabbid  Elite

Another episode  I had also once talked about in the past, but is definitely worth talking about  again, because the amount of care that was put into making this episode feel as atmospheric and intriguing as possible is just amazing. This episode introduces us to a supervillain named Otto Torx, who is obsessed with making the presidential office recognize his ‘‘genius plans’‘. Things then go awry when the Rabbids’ submarine becomes attached to the entrance of Torx’s lair, interfering with his plans of releasing flying robots to attack the city.

As I mentioned before, there’s something about the way this episode is written and animated that gives it a strange sense of atmosphere. The darker colors, the music, and even some of the camera angles give the episode a somewhat more somber tone from others. There’s this particularly great scene where Torx’s robots invade the Rabbids’ submarine and start shooting lasers at them, which perfectly implements all the elements that I just mentioned, and I  could easily watch it over and over again simply because of how beautiful it looked. The use of a strange, synthezied drum sound for the background music during this scene also helped this scene become a true highlight. This episode, in a strange way, I dare to say felt cinematic to me, and it doesn’t stop there.

The Rabbids, as always, have their cute slapstick moments, but easily the best part of the entire episode is Torx himself.  While his evil plans may not seem like much, everything from his attractive design , smooth voice  and Bond-like tendencies make him a very enjoyable character to watch, and his chemistry when facing the Rabbids is undeniable, and it’s where his personality truly shines. The ending of this episode is also especially hilarious, making this another must-watch.

2. Rabbid Clowns

After Torx’s nearly flawless introduction in ‘‘Rabbid Elite’‘, I honestly couldn’t wait to see more of him, and thankfully this season has had plenty of Torx-centric episodes, but probably his finest appereance following his debut episode is the one in question, titled ‘‘Rabbid Clowns’‘. It’s Torx’s birthday in this episode, and his mother sends a clown to his lair, despite him loathing them. Unfortunately, three Rabbids arrive at Torx’s lair before the clown does, and dress up as ones as well, driving Torx insane with their comedic antics. As I mentioned in the previous entry on this list, Torx’s personality shines best when he’s surrounded by the Rabbids. His irritability and formal demeanor combined with the Rabbids’ loud and rowdy behavior make for the perfect comedy team, with Torx playing the ‘‘straight man’’ to the Rabbids‘ insanity, and this episode relishes every second of it. Not only were the Rabbids hysterical, with them bouncing and running around screaming and acting like clowns like they usually do, but there was a moment where I was legitimately concerned for their well-being.

At one point, Torx becomes so fed up with them that he finally loses his patience and starts chasing them around his lair with a golf club. Granted, the Rabbids have survived countless of injuries before, but something about the angles that they showed when Torx dragged the golf club across the floor, as well as the music, made him seem genuinely threatening, and it’s such a great thing to see. After all, if Rabbids are going to be the stars of their own show, the viewer needs to care for them in some way, and what better way to do so than by putting them in legitimate danger. The action in this episode was also great. We get to see, once again, all of Torx’s robots shooting lasers, as well as Rabbids running away and hiding in the dark, and it’s all a joy to watch. This episode just had a great balance of action, comedy and suspense that I honestly don’t think I’ve seen in any other episode of Rabbids, making this episode one of a kind. But if this is the case, what other episode could possibly be better?

Well… that, my friends is…

1. Rabbid Vikings

This is the episode that comes to mind when I think of the perfect Rabbids story.  I’m just going to say it: Before Torx came along, Alice was my favorite human character in the series, and she still holds a strong position as my second favorite. This episode justifies not only everything I love about this character, but what I love about Rabbids in general. This episode sees the Rabbids dress up as vikings to retrieve their ball from a cow. Unfortunately, they soon become mad with power and start causing destruction and mayhem in the entire city, eventually  having Alice join them as their leader.

There’s a lot of reasons why I chose this as the number 1 episode of this season so far. For one, it was great to see the Rabbids return to their slightly more destructive roots from some of their earliest video games. at least for the lenght of one episode. As always, there’s a couple of cute slapstick gags and all the classic Rabbid humor fans have come to enjoy over the years, but what makes this episode stand out to me the most is that it has something that’s probably what I consider to be the most important thing any project, (live-action or animated) should always have: Heart. This episode of Rabbids has a lot of heart underneath all its chaos, particularly in its resolution, and they couldn’t have chosen a better character for this type of storyline than Alice. Any episode where Alice and the Rabbids interact is easily some of the most endearing and sweetest stories the show has to offer, as I’ve always seen their relationship as  sort of couple of neighborhood kids who occasionally get together and play, and this entry is no exception.

I don’t want to give away the ending of the episode, but I am going to say that it’s easily the highlight of the entire thing, and it embodies everything I love about these crazy bunnies. They may seem loud and obnoxious on the surface, but at the end of the day, it’s their child-like innocence and endearing side that has managed to plunge its way into my heart, as well as hundreds of other fans’. This episode represents what made the Rabbids so appealing to begin with: A  perfect balance of chaos and charm.

Let’s hope these lovably idiotic anti-heroes never change their wicked ways, especially for the remainder of this season. Hope you enjoyed my list!

[queer-as-used-by-tolkien]

37, 47, 49+ Tiffany?

Thanks for the ask! These look like hard ones lol, but I'll do my best.

37. How is your character’s imagination? Daydreaming a lot? Worried most of the time? Living in memories?

It depends on the timeperiod, honestly. She changes a lot. She has a good imagination, and she spent a lot of her early life daydreaming about the day she'd finally reunite with her father.

Once she hit late teens and joined the Seraph, I'd say she was living in memories a lot - it got better after she joined the Vigil and went away entirely after she met Trahearne, and then she was a very present-moment, grounded individual. She can be worried, yes, but more in a sort of 'I'm focusing rn' way and less of a pessimistic kind of way.

It all came back after he died though, and after dying and coming back she slowly started healing, so finally by IBS, I think Marjory says it best after the first strike in Bound by Blood: "Optimism, Commander? From you?" The whispers probably changed that a bit and she got more full of chronic worry - the same thoughts and concerns chasing themselves around in her head - and it got worse the nearer to the end of IBS she got. (It could've just been Jormag trying to keep her quiet and out of the way, but some of it was legitimate concern.)

47. Do they want to project an image of a younger, older, more important person? Does they want to be visible or invisible?

'Want'? I'm not sure. She is aware of her own importance - that moment when she tells Bangar she 'won't let him take credit' because she knows how influential she and her victories are and how much of an inspiration she is. So she very much 'wants to be visible' because that's part of her job, to present a positive front against the dragons despite all the bickering that tends to go on, e.g. during No Quarter and Jormag Rising. You'd also see it in the Commander's speech in Thunderhead Keep and her decision to manage anxiety levels to best of her ability in Bound by Blood.

Now, if we go back to S3, she was completely desperate. She was trying to present an image of competence to hide her own self-loathing for failing again and again in HoT, but she failed at that too, at least in her mind and to those close to her (Dragon's Watch), which may have been a contributing factor to why she ran off to Elona where nobody knew her.

Younger and older don't mean a whole lot to her in general, since she's part-sylvari and even though she's mostly human, she's always been a little advance for her age; her age was never really something she defined herself with. Now, if she'd been more of a social person when she was younger (pre- to mid-teens?) she might have been more self-conscious about her advanced mind and tried to prove she wasn't as immature as everyone else her age, but as it was (shy, bullied all the time, etc.) she was never really concerned about it.

49. What about voice? Pitch? Strength? Tempo and rhythm of speech? Pronunciation? Accent?

Aw, I'm bad at these. I lump this in with visual things (art and whatnot) and call it 'I'm bad at aesthetic things' - I'm more of a mind person.

But there is one moment in early HoT that really characterized my Commander for me in this regard. This was my second time through HoT and I knew how it ended, but Tiffany Commander sounded so confident, so strong, so unwaveringly certain of success that she almost convinced me that things would be alright. I'm not sure when she began sounding that confident, but I'm gonna lump it in with social competence and say she learned it 'sometime after becoming the Commander' and 'sometime before the World Summit.'

Otherwise, she sounds just like the human female PC, because I'm boring lol. But human female PC is bold, strong, and confident - most of the time. The most notable example of a time she wasn't was the famous words at the end of All or Nothing - "I don't know." She sounded genuinely broken, applause to the VA (no idea how the other VAs did it but wow).

When she's not being the Commander - giving orders and organizing military action - her voice is warm and full of kindness, softer in a way but no less certain.

Now. There's one other thing about Commander's speech: she's bilingual. Trahearne taught her to speak Orrian, and while she doesn't have an accent, certain words she'll pronounce differently. These certain words are usually ones I've noticed Trahearne saying strangely - my favorite example is the time Trahearne was introducing Commander to Sayeh and he said "privacy is paramount" - pronouncing privacy with a short i, so [prih-VAH-see].

Now, on Trahearne it's far more pronounced, because he's immersed himself in the study of this language for twenty-odd years, but you'll notice an oddly-pronounced word from the Commander now and then.

Although, speaking of accents, she might have a slight British accent (which all sylvari have) due to one parent being a sylvari and them living together during the years she was learning to speak, although after he left it might've faded a bit. (Being around sylvari at any time probably draws it out a bit more, though - just subconsciously.)

50. What are the prevailing facial expressions? Sour? Cheerful? Dominating?

Facial expression! I'd pass on this except that I've said, repeatedly, how she has lines all over her body and never really expounded on it. These lines mimic sylvari patterns, so - if she were born more planty and less fleshy - they're basically the outline of what her leaves would have looked like. Very natural and beautiful on a sylvari, but very uncanny valley for humans, which is a reason she was bullied so much in her younger years and why Andrew and Petra were never that nice to her. (hey, maybe that can also be a reason neither of us click well with Kasmeer and Marjory!)

There are a lot more of these lines in her face, because faces are delicate things. I know most sylvari faces are smooth like humans', but the lore of that, iirc, is that sylvari heads, specifically, are formed of plant matter sort of packed together and pressed into shape properly. (Mordrem, afaik, don't really have very humanoid heads, and there are no naturally humanoid Mordrem, which means the Pale Tree had to work hard to make sylvari humanoid.) Anyway, these lines would, at least, denote where those leaves would before being pressed like that, and at best actually be what her face would actually look like if she were more sylvari.

And it's all very patterned, very symmetrical, all that cool stuff, which makes it extra creepy. No random lines going in opposition to anything else like scars; it's just eerily organized. It might remind some people of sylvari, but only the most insightful would make the connection consciously.

Anyway: this all gives her a rather frightening look to those who don't know her. The lines gather most around her eyes and mouth, which makes her look permanently stern and like she's judging everything she sees, and her mouth looks long and relatively thin, sort of like she's holding back some stern remark or comment. The business of the lines around her eyes also creates the illusion that her eyebrows are higher up than they should be, as if she's raising her eyebrows in displeasure or skepticism or something.

Of course, Tiffany Commander isn't feeling anything like this; these lines greatly enhance her 'Commander aura' of authority and control, but it can be very debilitating in personal relationships. She tends to get along much better with members of other races, who get less of an 'uncanny valley' impression and therefore find it much easier to look past her markings, especially once they've seen her be in several different emotions and moods and established that the lines are always like that and aren't relevant to what she's feeling.

There are one or two humans she's clicked well with: her half-sister, Deborah, and also Logan Thackeray. Most people tend to have a sort of flinch reflex in their eyes when they see her; either they stare, or they glance away for a moment, or they blink a few times - and that's usually the best she can hope for. People who 1) have been warned and 2) are naturally in control of their facial expression can keep a composed expression when seeing her, although of course they'll still be surprised. But that's if they've been warned first (e.g. the first time she met Queen Jennah).

So! I'm not a great facial expressions person, and I currently am working on a system of 'strangers see stern angry Commander, friends see normal facial expressions' although I have no idea what 'normal' is for her. She might have a habit of exaggerating her positive emotions and smiling constantly to try to put strangers at ease, but I feel like that would be even more creepy. Anyway, maybe the whole 'sylvari patterns' thing was a derailment of the original question, but that's how the majority of people perceive her facial expression.

[corkcitylibraries]

Book Review: Mona Awad’s 13 Ways of Looking at a Fat Girl

by Dr. Sorcha Fogarty

Mona Awad's debut novel, 13 Ways of Looking at a Fat Girl, won the 2016 Amazon Best First Novel Award, the Colorado Book Award and was also shortlisted for the Scotia Bank Giller Prize. In 1990, Naomi Wolf published The Beauty Myth, which was deemed the most important feminist publication since Germaine Greer's The Female Eunuch, published twenty years previously.  With the "natural inferiority of women" argument debunked by second-wave feminism, Wolf’s book viewed our modern obsession with dieting as its replacement, a socially engineered phenomenon that “is the most potent political sedative in women’s history”. Constantly beleaguered by endeavours to live up to an often impossible ideal of beauty, an ideal that is unremittingly perpetuated through the media and advertising, Wolf posited that women’s bodies are not their own but society’s. As she writes in her Introduction to The Beauty Myth,

"The more legal and material hindrances women have broken through, the more strictly and heavily and cruelly images of female beauty have come to weigh upon us... [D]uring the past decade, women breached the power structure; meanwhile, eating disorders rose exponentially and cosmetic surgery became the fastest-growing specialty... [P]ornography became the main media category, ahead of legitimate films and records combined, and thirty-three thousand American women told researchers that they would rather lose ten to fifteen pounds than achieve any other goal...More women have more money and power and scope and legal recognition than we have ever had before; but in terms of how we feel about ourselves physically, we may actually be worse off than our unliberated grandmothers."

Enter Mona Awad's 13 Ways of Looking at a Fat Girl, almost thirty years after Wolf, publicly acknowledging a truth which is both abhorrent and incredulous in this new millennium: not much has changed, even if we, as women, are loathe to admit it.

Comparisons to Margaret Atwood's 1969 novel The Edible Woman are inevitable. Atwood's novel depicts a young woman whose sane, structured, consumer-oriented world starts to slip out of focus. Following her engagement, the protagonist, Marian, feels her body and her self are becoming separated. As Marian begins endowing food with human qualities that cause her to identify with it, she finds herself unable to eat, repelled by metaphorical cannibalism. Awad takes on this topic with the title of her novel referencing a poem of Wallace Stevens, "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird", from his first book of poetry, Harmonium. The poem consists of thirteen short, separate sections, each of which mentions blackbirds in some way. Similarly, Awad’s 13 interlinked stories each take the topic of self-induced starvation and the pathological belief that happiness is only attainable through the achievement of The Thin Ideal: a perpetually hungry but most importantly, slim, body, "I’ll be hungry and angry all my life but I’ll also have a hell of a time.”  It is also important that we contend with the word "fat" itself. It should be a simple descriptor, but fat is often used as an insult — whispered by gossips, or hurled by bullies. Many people use euphemisms — heavy, plump, overweight — to avoid it all together. But Awad has decided that it's time to take "fat" head on, as she states, "I knew it was a charged term but that is why I put it on the cover of the book, because I wanted to unpack it, and I wanted to challenge it, and I wanted to complicate it. "

 Awad manages to temper the novel with empathy and humour; not an easy feat when writing what is essentially a grim and harrowing description of an existence consumed by a dark and tragic obsession. Phrases such as, “She says it's like you have Leonard Cohen's touch with lyrics coupled with Daniel Johnston's sincerity coupled with a Rimbaudian aura of tragedy but with Nick Cave teeth” show Awad's remarkable ability to leave the reader stunned with her skilled use of language, a skill which is unrelenting throughout the novel,

 "My father has always felt that being fat was a choice. When I was in college I would sometimes meet him for lunch or coffee, and he would stare at my extra flesh like it             was some weird piece of clothing I was wearing just to annoy him. Like my fat was an elaborate turban or Mel’s zombie tiara or some anarchy flag that, in my impetuous youth, I was choosing to hold up and wave in his face. Not really part of me, just something I was doing to rebel, prove him wrong".

  After decades of struggling with a body image-obsessed culture that tells women they have no value outside their physical appearance, Awad does not shy away from the appalling fact that things have not changed much, and are, more likely, even worse now with our social media obsessed culture and the desire and pressure to project at all times the perfect outward appearance. Where behind one single Facebook picture often lies a multitude of discarded, not-good-enough selfies. Identity is at the core of the book, with Lizzie’s name changing multiple times as we follow her from overweight teenager to a divorced neurotic thirtysomething, and to refer again to Wallace Stevens' poem, it seems that the agonizing longing for The Thin Ideal throughout each of the 13 vignettes in the book is, much like Stevens' blackbird, the "indecipherable cause", reminding us that there will always be things in nature to which we cannot assign an easy symbolic meaning, and which we cannot rationalize in a human scheme of organization. Completely irrational beliefs such as to be thin is to be beautiful, or to be rich is to be happy, only reveal themselves as empty illusions when the things that are truly important - such as love, friendship, and family - are in jeopardy.

VI

Icicles filled the long window  

With barbaric glass.  

The shadow of the blackbird  

Crossed it, to and fro.  

The mood  

Traced in the shadow  

An indecipherable cause.  

 In 1978, Susie Orbach wrote Fat is a Feminist Issue, and as recently as January 17th 2021, The Irish Times featured an interview with Orbach, under the heading “40 Years on, Fat is Still a Feminist Issue”. Orbach states,

“It’s much worse now than when I wrote Fat is a Feminist Issue. It is as if everyone feels they have the right to comment. You’re surveyed and you’re found wanting. The preoccupation with the body and the fact that there are industries that make so much money out of women’s discontent, and now men’s. The diet industry, fitness industry, the cosmetic industry, these are all huge businesses. They sell an aspirational position where we have to appear in a certain way.”

One critic has described 13 Ways of Looking at a Fat Girl as “honest, searing, and necessary”, and indeed, while we may wish it wasn’t, the dialogue around body-image is still absolutely necessary now, and likely, always will be. With her creation of Lizzie, Awad gives us a story full of experiences that many, if not most, women have had. The book is full of “Wow. That’s me.” moments, with Awad giving voice to an array of body-image issues that feel at times like our own secrets are being exposed. We may bemoan the fact that we need to lose a pound or two, we may laugh and say we’ll start that diet next Monday, or refuse desert as we are “watching our weight”, but to go to the real core of the issue is something almost distasteful – we are supposed to be above it, we are supposed to be strong, capable, successful, multi-tasking, intelligent women with no time for vanity. So we pretend not to care, or we laugh about it, or we punish and deprive ourselves privately, or we torture ourselves by repeating the lie that thin equals happy. There is no denying that healthy equals happy, but thinness is certainly no barometer for health, as Lizzie clearly shows us with her journey. Awad’s success in making Lizzie a relatable, likeable character in spite of her devastating relationship to food and her own body is largely due to her ability to write Lizzie’s scathingly funny inner dialogues. In “The Girl I Hate”, a brilliant story which centers on a slender co-worker, Lizzie watches the woman dramatically devour a pastry,

“Gobs of clotted cream catch in either corner of her lips. She tilts her head back, closes her eyes, starts to make what must be the groaning noises […] She’s too high on scone to really carry on a conversation. She’s so high, she’s swinging her little stick legs back and forth underneath her seat like a child and doing this side-to-side dance with her head.”

There are so many moments like this throughout Lizzie’s story, where Awad displays her tremendous ability to bring humour to painful truths, and for that alone, the novel is stunning.

Fundamentally, Lizzie is trapped by her body, whatever size she is, and the shame of her own physical existence is isolating, having countless negative repercussions on her relationships, and, above all, her relationship with herself. Awad writes powerfully about the all-consuming nature of weight loss and body image, illustrating Lizzie's intense obsession with her weight – measuring out two-ounce glasses of white wine, eating only four ounces of fish along with boiled grains and sprouts, allowing “her evening ritual, a square of dark chocolate from a bar she keeps at the back of the cupboard like an alcoholic’s hidden stash of gin.” Her efforts to be and stay thin are her entire identity. If self-hatred was Lizzie’s motivation to lose weight in the first place, then as Lizzie loses weight, we see how self-hatred consumes her, destroys her, and damages her relationships with others. Her calorie-counting takes up all of her energy, leaving her too depleted to do anything else. She is too tired, too hungry, and too angry. Her obsession has drained her of her ability to live - she merely exists and endures. It is only when we reach the last lines of the novel, and Lizzie encounters a defining moment outside of her weight-obsessed existence, that we witness an epiphany, "I feel dangerously close to a knowledge that is probably already ours for the taking, a knowledge that I know could change everything.” This final sentence is the core sentiment of the novel: that so many of us can become so enmeshed in keeping up our physical or outward appearances that we waste our lives and miss out on the things that are truly important, choosing to sacrifice the many precious moments and encounters in our lives in order to maintain a societally imposed illusion of beauty or success.

Critics have praised Awad’s “devastatingly thorough” portrait of the body image issues and disordered behaviors around diet and exercise that affect an inordinately large proportion of women in modern society. However, 13 Ways of Looking at a Fat Girl is just as much about weight and body image, as it is about the harsh judgment that we all cast on each other and on ourselves. For if we continue to allow ourselves to be influenced by the media and false advertising and how it plays on our own insecurities with promises of outward  beauty and an ideal physique as keystones to success and happiness, we would be well advised to listen to the words of Swiss-American psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross,

"The most beautiful people we have known are those who have known defeat, known suffering, known struggle, known loss, and have found their way out of the depths. These persons have an appreciation, a sensitivity, and an understanding of life that fills them with compassion, gentleness, and a deep loving concern. Beautiful people do not just happen."

 Available on BorrowBox

Sources:

Wolf, Naomi. The Beauty Myth. UK: Chatto & Windus, 1990.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/susie-orbach-40-years-on-fat-is-still-a-feminist-issue-1.2291162

[onestowatch]

McCall Talks New EP, Fake IDs and Self-Imposed Isolation [Q+A]

Atlanta-born artist McCall released her latest EP On Self Loathing on Friday, September 18. With lyrics as straightforward and cutting as its title, the candid 5-track project shows McCall at one of the lowest points in her life and understandably so - as she admits, it’s been a volatile last few years. Speaking to her now, however, it seems like she is in a much better place than On Self Loathing suggests. Coolly, she tells me about her plans to move to Minneapolis for the year to make her next project with producer Bobby Rethwish. “I feel extremely free right now,” she notes. “I think it’s a little ridiculous that as an artist you’re expected to live in LA. I’ve been inspired by artists like Bon Iver and Imogen Heap who don’t live in a music capital. I’m pretty grateful quarantine has allowed me to see beyond the big city.”

According to McCall, making this record was “like therapy,” a way to identify and unravel the deep insecurities that have been holding her back. Overall, the most remarkable attribute of McCall’s On Self Loathing is its ability to discuss mental health while avoiding cliche, preachiness or melodrama. It is obvious that her pain is heartfelt and legitimate, as McCall believes that she has let everyone in her life down, including herself. At times, it even feels as though the record is a form of penance as she fixates on the same issues over and over but that is what gives On Self Loathing its sincerity - it sounds just like anxiety and self-hatred feels.

Its production underscores this feeling with precision. In the project’s midway point “Without Even Trying,” McCall sings, “I’m sorry I can’t come out / I really hate myself right now.” Punctuated by frenetic drums and assorted synth noises, played staccato, the track’s production draws unexpected inspiration from hyper-pop. But although much of hyper-pop feels cartoonish and ironic, McCall’s On Self Loathing is grounded, using the eccentricities of the sub-genre without any trace of its ridiculousness.

Carefully assembled, the record was written in a self-imposed exile from October 2019 to January 2020, and the artist’s attention to detail is transparent across On Self Loathing. Ones to Watch had the opportunity to talk with McCall about her latest project, fake IDs, and becoming nomadic. Read the transcription below.

Ones to Watch: You got your start using fake IDs to play in bars when you were a teenager. How did these early moments shape your identity as an artist and person?

McCall: Growing up I didn’t ever really want to go out to bars and drink or anything like that, but I got a fake ID for the purpose of playing shows. It didn’t feel risky or sneaky to me. I thought “I don’t want to give up these opportunities to play shows just because of my age.” It was a very natural, easy choice for me. I’m very lucky, though, to have had a lot of older people in the scene that looked out for me... I guess it taught me that rules are extremely arbitrary, and if I want to do something, I can find a way to do it. The pursuit of music is very holy to me, and I’m not going to give up.

Because music is so important to you, I imagine you had to overcome a lot of obstacles, beyond just a fake ID, to make it work. Has quarantine presented any major issues for you as an artist?

I started making this project in October 2019, and I kind of put myself in a self-imposed quarantine to focus on it from November to January. I told my friends “if you want to see me, you’ll need to show up at my doorstep! I’m not going out.” Bobby [Rethwish] and I have always worked remotely, so we worked on this alone from our bedrooms. I had no idea, but the writing of On Self Loathing did condition me to handle COVID, I guess [laughs].

Have there been any benefits to getting locked down right after your self-imposed isolation?

Yeah, honestly, it gave me the freedom to move back home to Atlanta for a bit. I’ve been in LA for the last few years. I think it’s a little ridiculous that as an artist you’re expected to live in LA. I’ve been inspired by artists like Bon Iver and Imogen Heap who don’t live in a music capital. I’m pretty grateful quarantine has allowed me to see beyond the big city, and now, I plan to live in Minneapolis for a while to make another record with Bobby. You can make music in so many other places besides LA. I’m excited about moving away.

I feel it’s outlandish to expect all musicians, many of which aren’t making solid returns on their work yet, to live in one of the most expensive cities in the world. There’s also definitely something to be said about fostering a local music scene.

Yes, exactly. In the not-so-distant past, before recorded music, musicians were minstrels, traveling around the country. They were not glamorized. I think there’s something religious to me about being a nomadic artist.

Is there anything in particular about On Self Loathing that you are especially excited to share?

I’m obviously so excited for people to hear the music itself, but I wrote a book of essays to go along with it that explain where I was mentally when i wrote the songs and what I did to not feel that way anymore. This record was like therapy to me, but I also took a lot of time afterwards to work through these things. I want to stress that. I didn’t write this dark project and then go on my merry way. I wrote it, worked through my issues, and now, I’m ready to release it. I’m excited for everyone to hear it.

Now that you’ve left this period of your life which produced On Self Loathing, does it feel at all like a time capsule of where you once were?

For sure, honestly it feels like a turning point. The process of writing this EP was like a before and after. I’m a completely different person. It truly helped so much to write this and I feel so much lighter now.

For someone approaching this record for the first time, what would you say its overarching theme is?

I didn’t like myself very much. The EP captures different aspects of my personality that I didn’t really like. In the essays, I phrased it as having a lot of little demons in my head, and they wouldn’t stop making me feel bad. The only way I could get rid of them was to give them space to say everything they wanted to say. Once it was done, I looked at everything and was able to see that I was no worse or better than anyone else.

[49scribes-a]

celestite, copper, kyanite, quartz

celestite: how my muse deals with anxiety

{–Anxiety is a slippery slope for Lavi. As an heir to Bookman, its an obligatory duty that he never look away from even the ugliest acts humans commit, as his purpose in life is to record the world’s history, especially that which other historians would either overlook, omit, or censor.

This means facing fear and anxiety head-on and moving towards danger, regardless of how much he doesn’t like what he sees or experiences, with the intent neither to flee nor fight it, only to be near it. This goes against the very nature of self-preservative sentience and instinct hard-wired into most animals and humans.

Lavi will absolutely fight in self-defense if cornered, or run when the risks are too great, but most of the time this instinct is deeply suppressed.

Unless he’s got a strong point to focus on, he has a hard time holding still.

This is because exposure to war fronts since a young age has him conditioned to always be tense and on alert, even when, or sometimes especially when, things are too quiet. If he doesn’t stay active and and move around and do things, he starts to feel suffocated by his own spring-coiled energy getting pent up.

Most often his anxiety manifests in pestering others for attention, playing pranks, or instigating annoyed chases, tussling, or sparring, so that he has outlets to burn off this excess energy.

Its also easy to see it manifest in his long, frequent periods of acute insomnia, staying awake for days at a time other than the occasional short doze/microsleep. His sleep habits are at their worst out on missions, which is why he crashes hard whenever he first returns to HQ.–}

copper: how I think my muse will end up when they’re older

{–Older? Lavi’s dead ya scrub. KIDDING.

No but real talk, let’s roll back to the events of the Ark for a moment, because as much as Lavi loathes having had his head fucked with by Road, I think that was also a point of self-realization about a lot of things for him.

The most obvious things are that Lavi came to care about people when he’s not supposed to, and that Lavi – or perhaps the Core Junior Bookman himself – began to have doubts and questions about himself and the true face of humanity after he became the 49th Name, “Lavi”. Not only that the Name had changed, but the Core had as well.

But there’s another distinction here that I think is really important that isn’t addressed a lot, about the difference and changes between the 48th Name and the 49th.

The previous Name “Deak” was bitter, jaded, and had come to the conclusion that humans were irrevocably stupid, bound to repeat the same mistakes over and over, with no sign or hope of being anything better than killers.

While its true that Deak maintained the rule of No Attachments that a Bookman must uphold, what he didn’t uphold was the rule of No Bias. He regarded humans with hate and disgust. This then entails that he regarded humans with a tainted Negative Bias.

Lavi’s problem was that he began to form a positive bias, a bias which the Junior Bookman hadn’t developed before.

Undeniably, both biases went against what a Bookman should be, but it took slipping up on the rule about attachments and favoritism, and being confronted with both of these flaws, for him to realize how he had failed and how he has to change. And its this realization he confronts Deak/Junior with, saying “Aren’t you the one asking these questions?”.

I think that without that lesson, without having screwed up in both directionsn, Lavi would become much less of a Bookman than he will, and that as he grows older and learns to fill the role of Bookman more, he’ll be much more self-aware about striking a balance between both mentalities, neither feeling negatively or positively about humans – and thus projecting that bias into his records – but neutrality. True neutrality.

He’ll struggle, I think, with trying to keep that balance, because despite all the years of conditioning and experiences he’s had, he hasn’t completely lost heart, but its something he will try his best not to let feelings cloud his judgment as he has in the past, even when he used to believe he hadn’t.–}

kyanite: an anger headcanon

{–For the most part, Lavi doesn’t go beyond a low simmer when it comes to anger. Its really difficult to piss Lavi off to any large degree, but there are a few things and people who can manage it, and you definitely want to stay out of his way when he’s really pissed.

He isn’t his angriest when he’s yelling or making a lot of noise (like when he’s banging on the Medical Wing door yelling at Komui). His angriest is when he reverts closer to his Core personality; to Junior Bookman more than whatever current Name he’s dawned.

Junior Bookman’s anger is cold, highly calculated, and merciless. If he says anything, he won’t yell, but his tone and his words will cut where it hits deepest and truest. He won’t feel even slightly sorry either.

However, its rare that he’ll legitimately get this angry. Normally, such anger is reserved only for a very select, very special few types of people. Generally, those types can be chalked up to people who get off on war-mongering, torture, abuse, and those sorts of things. The uglier actions humans are capable of that he’s too often witnessed in war.

Occasionally, if he’s pushed far enough on the subject, he’ll still go off somewhat about his bitterness towards humanity, but its a safe bet to say this is a mere hint or echo of the full depth of his anger at the human condition overall, rather than its full extent.–}

quartz: how my muse thinks other people see them

{--Although it could easily be mistaken that Lavi has no idea how much he manages to irritate those around him, he knows full well the psychological impact he has on others. It is more often than not that he doesn't care to be any less annoying than he is, disregarding negative opinions.

To him, humans aren't much to be regarded, and he sees emotions as stupid and irrational for the most part. Because of this, he puts little importance on the feelings of most others, and funnily enough, sometimes falls into his own hypocritical and contradictory trap of becoming irritated at how easily others follow their own emotional impulses and aggressions, rather than cold logic, or detached humor.

Generally he knows that others think little of him, especially in regards to social interaction, but he only sees this perceived childishness as his advantage. If others think little of him and his intelligence or threat level, its that much easier to find things out he normally wouldn't, or for his presence to be ignored, or to gain the upper hand on others who underestimate him. Its also much easier to go unnoticed when sneaking around or being stealthy when he's too often associated with being loud, obnoxious, and the center of attention. Therefore, when he's not being those things, its much easier for him to blend and vanish.

He fully utilizes people's own perceptions and falacious views to his own gains, and he does so without letting others onto his true intentions.

However, while he knows and uses his negative traits to his advantage, knowing that others see him as trouble, and he knows that others know him as intelligent and tricky, he doesn't tend to think much of how others might see him positively. There are many traits about him, especially in regards to consideration towards others or feelings, that he will wholeheartedly deny are traits of his at all. To be seen as a conniving trickster and heartless jerk is more than fine with him, but to be possibly seen as a compassionate friend or meaningful family figure is where he trips up and refuses to think about.--}

[genresavvvy]

Science Fiction v. Fantasy: WTF is the difference?

For people who are not huge fans of both, it might seem weird that these two genres are so often lumped together: in the bookstore, in film categories, hell, sometimes the same authors write both! What gives? They’re completely different, right? One is based on technology and the probable, while one is focused on magic and the impossible. Right?

People who are fans of both these genres probably know that there is a huge connection between science fiction and fantasy, and many books or movies out there might fall into either category; also science fantasy, but we’ll hold off on that for now.

Because there are tons of sub-genres under both fantasy and Sci-Fi, we cannot possible cover all of them in this blog post. Instead, we will be dissecting both genres as a whole and in a very general sense. Even then we won’t cover everything, because no one wants to read a three thousand page tumblr post.

TL;DR: When examining the genres as a whole, it is very difficult to see the differences. Things like setting, impossible creatures, impossible magic/technology can be shared by both genres and the line gets blurry.

Also, both genres developed for similar reasons; hundreds of thousands of years ago fantasy was how we explained the world that we didn’t understand. When we began to develop a better understanding of science and our world we began looking to the future that is nearly impossible to predict. We use Sci-fi to write stories about what we want to happen, what we believe can happen, and what we fear lurks for us in the future.

A quick comparison in VERY general terms:

Sci-Fi:

Usually takes place in a modern or futuristic setting

Emphasis on technology (usually) that is either completely futuristic or an expansion of what we already have.

Tends to attempt to explain the impossible.

Generally seen as more plausible.

Can totally be an accurate or close to accurate projection of the future/technology

Any “magical” creatures tend to be otherworldly in nature (AKA aliens) or have some kind of biological explanation.

Fantasy:

Emphasis on magical and the supernatural (usually)

Can take place in every setting, but if it is not a modern or our own world, past settings seem to be favored

Usually less of an explanation on things like magic.

Creatures tend to be drawn from or based on mythology or other sources where they are regarded as impossible or non-existing.

Is usually not as grounded in reality

*Please note there are ALWAYS exception to rules; hell, there are complete sub-genres of both that are exceptions to what I said above. Sci-Fi and fantasy are extremely broad. For the in depth comparison with some examples, read on:

HOW THEY ARE DIFFERENT

Science fiction and fantasy may differ in many areas but the most obvious ones are technology and setting. While both can take place in our real world or a completely fictional one, there tends to be differences in the world that they create.

Sci-Fi tends to focus on either the future or future technology, even if the setting appears to be in the present. For example, a more “modern” setting might focus on perfecting AI and robots, or cloning, or creating a magical cure for cancer that turns people into zombies. If it doesn’t take place in our world, sci-fi will most likely take place on another planet or a space setting with even more crazy technology, think Star Wars (and remember Star Wars, because we’ll get back to that). Far reaching into the future is also very common. There are obviously exceptions, but in general Sci-fi will have some type of a futuristic setting.

Fantasy in our world differs from our real world through magic and the supernatural rather than advanced technology. When fantasy doesn’t take place in our world, often times the technology in that world is very simple; think LOTR, GOT, Narnia, etc. In more industrialized settings, magic tends to play an integral part in the technology of the world.

For both these genre’s setting there are obviously exceptions. Faux-Victorian settings are pretty popular for both. A lot of times to make it more sciency they’ll just slap some gears on it and say its Steampunk. Or sprinkle some fairy dust and make it fantasy.

THE PROBLEM WITH THE DIFFERENCES

The main problem with these differences is that sometimes, they don’t matter. What about technology that is made from magic? Or magical  things happening because of technology? A book in a far away universe with flying ships that look like pirate ships and power because of a bunch of people inside rowing giant wings would be technology that doesn’t exist in the real world - but we’d probably call it fantasy. It’s also incredibly likely another world with magic will develop technology differently and with different uses; some parts might be less advanced, some parts more. Than what is it? What about a series that takes place in space with advanced technology and laser guns and lightsabers but there’s also literally magic? Yeah, the Force is magic. While there are a lot of people who consider Star Wars to be a fantasy, science fantasy, or a science fiction story with fantastical elements, it is probably more technically correct to consider it a sci-fi (to be even more specific, most people cite it as a space opera, but that’s a genre for another time, but it does fall under sci-fi) What you personally classify Star Wars as doesn’t really matter, but it does lead us into another important topic.

THE EXPLANATIONS for the impossible.

Since magic is something that is extremely hard to explain because you know, it’s magic, a lot of time fantasy can go without a logical explanation for things (I mean a magical explanation for the magic, not why plot points happen or the old A Wizard Did It trope) Why does a character have psychic powers? Why are there mythical creatures no one else can see except the protagonist? Who cares? While there is definitely fantasy out there that tries to give as reasonable of an explanation to magic as possible, it’s still regarded as fantasy because it’s not real.

But the problem is, a lot of sci-fi explanations are also not real, or at least not how they work in real life. For example, the Force. Whether or not you love the Star Wars prequels or loath them, the fact is trying to explain how the Force works doesn’t make it any less magically.

For a less outright magical example: time travel. Time travel is a staple of sci-fi, everything from The Time Machine and distant futures to Futurama and fucking your own grandmother - but it also pops up in fantasy too from time to time. While the dream of many mad scientists, it's definitely not something that is regarded as highly probable. Most people say it’s impossible, probably close to magic than actual science. Despite that, when The Doctor jumps into his TARDIS it’s sci-fi, but if you use an Elder Scroll to see the past, it’s fantasy. But why? Both are equally unlikely and when they’re explained, the explanations don’t really matter because they don’t exist in the real world.

The point is: if technology doesn’t exist and isn’t something that we can theoretically make exist; it’s no different than magic. But it totally goes the other way too: just because we don’t have an explanation for something, doesn’t mean there isn’t one. How many things that have been perceived as magical throughout history have ended up having legitimate scientific explanations? There was literally a time when people didn’t understand how anything in our natural world worked and attributed it all to magical beings in the sky. Sometimes it rains? That’s a god. Lighting? Must be a god. Fire? So glad prometheus gave that to us, there’s clearly no other explanation for how it exists. Science and magic are two things that have been woven together for the entire history of existence. But don’t take my word for it; listen to Sci-Fi author Arthur C. Clarke

***I do want to say that obviously, some Sci-Fi is more realistic than others, and in some the science is actually there. Some Fantasy also tries to give as reasonable as possible explanations, sometimes even using science. However, that doesn’t change the fact a lot of things we consider Sci-fi can’t be explained by real-world equivalents.

And speaking of Arthur C. Clarke, here is a seamless segway into the last topic I want to discuss:

CREATURES, MONSTERS, ALIENS, OH MY.

You got your vampires, mermaids, witches, demons, sirens - what have you, all fantasy creatures.

There are also sci-fi creatures; you're martians, wookies, mutants, lab experiments gone wrong.

Plenty of creatures fall into both categories: Zombies, for instance. They can be made through medical or biological means, or they can have more fantastical origins; ancient ancestors not laid to rest, those roused from the dead by necromancers, whatever a white walker is I’m not caught up on Game of Thrones.

Aliens can have some pretty fantastical traits, but often times they are almost always regarded as science fiction. If it comes from space, it’s science.

Arthur C. Clarke is actually an interesting person to look at for this topic. In his sci-fi novel, Childhood’s End Clarke introduces us to the Overlords, aliens who are incredibly advanced especially in science, have a superior intellect, usher what is essentially the end of the world disguised as the next step in human evolution - which destroys what makes humankind, well, human - and they also just so happen to look like everyone’s favorite red, horned, barbed tailed fallen angel. Yup. Putting demons in space makes it science fiction. Because aliens.

OKAY BUT WHAT’S THE POINT?

The point is that science fiction and fantasy are two extremely similar genres that always seem to be either lumped together or pinned against each other. More differences definitely exist and become clearer when comparing sub-genres, but when looking at the bare bones of both genres, nothing is all that different.

But the fact that these genres can be perceived as being so different but also be similar is kind of amazing, and it shows how our values have changed over time. I mean, back in ancient times basically all stories were fantasies. Everything from myths to folklore to the first written novels had some fantastical element to it; but back then some people thought they were real. Fantasy used to be a way for us to explain the world that we didn’t understand because we didn’t have the science to explain it. And what does a lot of science fiction do? It tells us the future. It tells us stories of faraway societies with technology we hope to emulate; it warns us about the dangers of science going into the wrong hands, or shows us how we can destroy our own world.

Thank you for reading, and if you’re interested, add your own thoughts to the discussion.

Other resources for your enjoyment.

[bigghoti-blog-blog]

Mindful Improvements

I’ve decided that for my final project I am going to work on reaching out to others, meditating and organizing my thoughts with journaling. 

I admit that the first of these three items is undoubtedly by greatest weakness, but it’s also what I need the most in life. I need to reach out to people, to take time to see how they are doing and to speak with them in some regularity beginning next week. The meditation aspect is completely doable, but it’s also something that I often neglect (I admit, I’ve been resistant to meditation for years, but maybe it’s something I need to open my mind to). The writing aspect I legitimately enjoy and it helps clear my thoughts --like everything else, it’s an issue of taking the time to do it. I’m hopeful that these three elements can transform into continuous practice, though I’m always cynical about these sorts of things. 

The cases of Covid continue to climb exponentially. There’s isn’t a way to describe other than horrifying and psychologically exhausting. Again, trapped indoors, there is little to do except obsess over numbers and statistics. I admit that getting out more would probably change my perspective on all of this, but every piece of objective evidence suggests that to be a terrible, self destructive idea. As thus, while people living their lives can trust their eyes and ears, I have to trust what I can read and interpret. I can fully appreciate how understanding the world through media leads to fear, paranoia, but when combined with the testimonials of the people that I trust, I feel as though I have at least an understanding of how dire the situation is. 

The consternation surrounding covid, and the controversial responses from different people, are fascinating. According to Foucalt’s study on heterotopias, society is structured in such a way as to keep the unpleasant and the psychologically burdens of reality hidden away, at arms length or in outright denial; ie. psych patients, killers, the deformed, the elderly to an extent, the impoverish, etc. The sick and dying fall into this classification and hospitals, elderly care facilities, the homes of their descendants operate to shield the average person from the visible specter of illness, of death and dying so that it can be pushed out of the mind and hidden away. It’s easy to think that going to bars, going to restaurants, working your day job, you would not come into consistent contact with the people visibly dying from Covid-19 --these people are sheltered, stowed away and out of sight. Moreover, the people out on the streets are going to embody a natural boldness or proclivity towards denying the existence / impact of the virus, simply because they are predisposed to do so. As thus, the more people you encounter, the more likely you view this as no big deal. Fewer people are exposed to one another and the chorus becomes an echo chamber. It’s no wonder that the mask / no mask talking points have become so polarized --we are literally, living in different segments of the world now and it’s not even close. 

Along these lines, part of the normalization of the non mask crowd seems rooted in the psychology of masculinity and aversion to authority (coopted as “freedom” in the minds of many.) Americans are incredibly good at initial shows of strength and compassion, but incredibly bad at long term durability when it comes to responses. Look at 9/11 --the need to reopen the economy was seen as a brave affront to terrorism. By coopting the need for “bravery,” there was defining purpose in action, and more than that, one that fit the needs of the country like a glove. Americans were suited for this type of response. It’s the same with any kind of initial reform movement; lots of energy and spectacle up front and eventually, it fizzles out. We lack durability. 

This is why Covid-19 is such a force to be reckoned with. Americans are being asked to be brave, but the concept of bravery here is something that doesn’t fit the traditional narrative. Bravery is reticence, mindfulness, prudence in this case; these contrast heavily with the brawny masculinity of daring, of forcing one’s will, of projecting dominance and the risk of self preservation. The paradigm has been shifted and many people see the act of cowering in our homes, donning masks, as the word of cowards driven by media hysteria. Again, it’s antithetical to how many Americans view civid duty (there is no enemy to defeat, no showy spectacle to be undertaken). In these cases, it feels to many that doing anything, throwing your arms angrily into the air, lashing out, is better than nothing. To those who cannot whether this storm with temperance, with prudence, there is a true sense of impotence that overtakes them. They are helpless to do anything and as thus, they cowe and loathe those who are willing to tuck them selves away. But their actions in turn make the situation worse, and so their opined sense of bravery, of common sense masculinity and willingness to sacrifice become the sick machinations of a mind that rationalizes destructive behavior as some red pill hero narrative. 

[pauldeckerus]

Why is Street Photography So Contentious?

As a street photographer, I accept that I have a bias towards the kind of work and criticisms I prefer to seek out as an audience to the work of others – although there are examples of landscape or portraiture that I do enjoy it is street photography and photojournalism that take up the majority of my interest. 

I know that photographers and the photography community, in general, is a passionate one and that there is no shortage of critiques available for any work or opinion that creators choose to share. However despite knowing that there is criticism in every area of the art I still feel that some of the criticisms leveled against street photography as a genre as well as specific examples of street photographs are harsher than any I’ve seen in, for example, landscape, or portraiture.

Of course, there is no objective status for any kind of photography, so why does it seem that street photography is treated with more hostility and controversy than any other genre? I simply don’t see the same level of judgment in other genres – I couldn’t even imagine people questioning how “legitimate” landscape or portrait photography is, for example, and yet somehow there are people who will feel that it is a valid opinion that street photography simply should not exist. I disagree with this strongly, as well as the mindset where that kind of opinion can originate.

I’ve thought about this issue a lot, as I feel it is important to understand where criticism comes from and whether it can be used to improve my work in the field.

One of the obvious reasons that street photography receives so much criticism is that the term contains such a diverse subset of image types that any singular example is open to criticism as any one of these. A “Street Photograph” can contain elements of portrait, journalism, wildlife, landscape, fine art, and even macro or any other category. It can, therefore, be judged on the merit and balance of any of those factors. This can be an issue when, for example, a street photographer has captured an image which is mostly a portrait but features elements of a landscape – and is judged on the merit of the landscape aspects rather than the portrait. 

I would argue that there are some fairly classical standards to measure the quality of a portrait – does the composition work, are the colors aesthetic, can you feel an emotion from the eyes, or tone, and so on. However what constitutes a “good” street photograph can be more difficult to define, and can involve only composition, or emotion, with other criteria ignored entirely in that specific image.

Even in the example of a street portrait vs a regular portrait, things like the role of spontaneity vs planned vision, the role of collaboration between the subject and photographer, and control/lack of control over the environment, and control over oneself and the camera I find are overlooked.

A street photograph is judged by the standards of whoever is viewing it, and if that person happens to have stronger opinions on how a landscape should look, or how a portrait should be presented, then that makes this hypothetical image entirely invalid. The rest of this article will be dealing with less ambiguous criticisms, but I thought it was important to deal with the role of the audience, and the way that “baggage” is brought by them to every criticism they present. No one image will ever please every photographer, let alone every armchair critic; accepting that is one of the most important things for an artist to deal with in order to come into their own, and find their voice unrestricted by others.

Repetition

One of the most common criticisms I see for street photography is that it’s “been done.” I think that this criticism can be valid, as many urban settings do look familiar – and there are even some “overdone” locations, which are popular for street photographers to visit.

In London alone, there is the Tate Modern, British Museum, and Barbican Centre which must host dozens of street photographers each trying to produce something unique from the location. I think that outstanding photographers will be able to produce outstanding work regardless of how played out a location is, and that there is always a new angle or a temporary element that can be manipulated for an image.

There are also “activities” in street photography which technically fit the genre but have nothing much to say; these include people standing around, crossing the road, or simply interacting with light. Good examples of these exist, with tension between elements and drama and mood from the light, but bad examples are far more plentiful.

The number of active street photographers is only increasing. Photography is one of the most democratic art forms there is, and the price of entry is already in the pocket of most people in the form of their mobile phone. In such a saturated field it absolutely makes sense that work start to seem to look the same. Of course, over time those outstanding examples will hopefully remain while the rest will fade, but operating during this time of massive oversaturation and being a member of the audience as and when this work is being churned out can absolutely feel monotonous.

I think that rather than being dissuaded from producing street photography I think that this should be used as an excuse to motivate yourself to become outstanding. My personal criterion for great work includes images with a tangible aesthetic, a storytelling component, emotion, and contain an unrepeatable moment. I have never settled for mediocrity in my own work and will always look for new ways to produce something engaging both for myself and for my audience. None of the examples I mentioned have anything inherently inartistic or bad about them, but they do dilute the selection and make it harder to identify the truly great work.

My suggestion for this is to become more active in the gallery scene, both as a photographer and an audience to photography. Exhibit your work in person and visit galleries as often as possible to support your peers. The work will be better presented than on screen and will be more likely to engage you as the gallery operator has curated it. I also encourage you to become more active in your local and global street photography community. Share your work through a blog rather than a social media site where you can discuss thoughts as well as share images. Feedback from these ventures is much more likely to be useful rather than scathing and you will feel better about the genre overall.

I also think that starting a long-term project is a great way to escape the monotony of repetitive work. By focusing work around a central theme or story, the methods and visual techniques being applied will mold and fit that content. The work will make sense when viewed as a collection as well as through standalone pieces, but the sense of monotony will vanish, as many aspects of ambiguity will be removed.

Many street photographers find that they are re-treading old ground, going through the motions of the “Greats” and that their work, while aesthetically beautiful, lacks their personal touch and as a result can feel like simple variations on a theme. I find that mimicking composition ideas can be a great way to learn new techniques that, once mastered, can be applied spontaneously to new situations. However this kind of work I would be loath to share or sell as it is nothing more than painting by numbers.

Over-Saturation

This is an expansion of an idea I touched on in the above point, but I think it’s worth elaborating on. Street photography is such an accessible genre, and photography such a prevalent art form that there is simply an incredible quantity of work being shared. So much work being generated does by definition mean that there will be more good work produced, but also means that there is a lot more bad and mediocre work to get through before finding those excellent images. Add to this the fact that many artists aren’t happy with achieving fame or recognition after their death and want to profit from their talent now which is easier than ever with some basic marketing skill.

Currently, the “best” street photographers you’ve heard of are the ones with the most successful marketing strategy. This is nothing new, and I find it really interesting that photographers as early as Ansel Adams have well-documented marketing strategies, which help explain why they are still so well enjoyed and long-lasting.

We are also subjected to a lot of work from beginners, which will likely suffer from many of the issues I’m discussing in this article. We should be able to measure our criticisms against these and provide useful and constructive responses to people who have clearly not been doing work in the genre for long, rather than tearing them down with the same ferocity you would critique the work of a veteran documentarian.

Uninspiring

Another common comment I read is that a particular image is “uninspiring” either because the content is uninteresting or that the audience is not particularly engaged by it. Again, this is quite a generic criticism for any kind of photography or art, and what is inspiring to one artist at one stage of their journey can be absolutely dull to another at another stage.

However, in street photography, an image can often be described as “uninspiring” simply because there is nothing interesting occurring in the frame. Many of the best unrepeatable street photography moments have elements of speed and spontaneity in the subject and required the fast reactions of the photographer to capture it. Many examples of New Wave street photography are much slower, towards the Fisherman approach rather than the hunter. If someone is not engaged by a piece of work then it can indicate that there is not enough tension in the composition, not enough moving parts to keep a viewer occupied.

I find myself annoyed by a common trend in the presentation of these kinds of uninspiring images, which is that often the story (sometimes entirely distinct from what is happening in the image) is written in the caption rather than show in the image itself. Some photographers seem to think that labeling their subject or event as something “definitive” or ambiguous that it will elevate it to that status, rather than going the more difficult route of actually capturing that kind of thing in the first place.

Using the Term Incorrectly

Although street photography is one of the broadest genres in photography, as discussed above; it is still a fairly well defined and understood one. The rise of the street as a “location” for things like street fashion and even street portraits would not have been as popular if not for some of the earliest street photographers.

Without wanting to gate-keep any specific idea of what street photography is or isn’t, I still find myself seeing images marked as or referred to as street photography when they simply are not. A studio fashion portrait of a posed and directed model wearing a streetwear brand is not street photography. An urban cityscape long exposure from a rooftop with the photographer’s legs dangling over the edge is not street photography. Without clear definitions and boundaries in our understanding of what we are trying to produce and share we will lose and dilute our audience and confuse people trying to start out in the genre.

Following Trends

This point is a little similar to the idea of repetitive work but directly focused on the echo chamber of social media. Sharing work on Instagram is very different from publishing a book or zine, or featuring in a gallery, and also entirely different from producing work for a client brief or assignment.

People often overlook the role that the social aspect of these sites have on the way creatives work, and it is difficult to ignore all of the little number tickers that tell you how popular you and your work are. Following trends are a great way to make that little counter move up as you contribute to a growing body of unoriginal and usually temporary work.

Instagram tends to be an echo chamber of trends so if that’s the only place you consume street photography then your work will end up reflecting what you are being most often inspired by, or what you think is popular at the time. Taking a break from this environment and just focusing on honing your own vision is the best way to tackle this.

Learning the trends can be an excellent way to learn new techniques or to incorporate a new style into existing approaches to street photography. Similar to my point about re-treading old ground this would not be work I would post until I was certain I had made it my own.

Breaking the “Rules”

In street photography, I find that photographers feel more comfortable breaking traditional “rules” opting to trade things like sharpness, depth of field, grain, motion blur, and even “good” composition, against emotion and “the moment” – going for the gist of a scene above technical and artistic perfection. These things are deliberately given up through the photographers chosen style, and yet when shared anywhere other than a street photography platform they are critiqued on all of these things.

Perhaps only the greatest are immune from this but there must be some way to communicate that many of the things people find issues with were deliberate choices and that you are viewing an image the way the artists wants for it to be viewed, not a rough draft that was posted by accident. I don’t think any photographer should receive negative feedback for sharing images that don’t follow a certain compositional style and should instead try and identify how an image makes them feel before they examine exactly what it may be made of on a more technical or artistic level.

However, I also think that the photographer should have an understanding of why they made the decisions they did and that they should be equipped with that understanding when it comes to defending themselves. If they can’t explain why they made something the way they did then by learning that they will be able to take control of their aesthetic.

Privacy

There are a few issues people have with street photography that are more related to the sociological factors rather than anything artistic. Street photography by definition involves actions involving other people, usually without their explicit “consent” which provides for consistent discussion as to the exact ethics of street photography. Many people argue that street photography is an invasion of perceived “privacy” of the subjects, especially when that subject is identifiable, or in a vulnerable state.

Although early street photography had equal issues unless those images became published in a gallery or magazine it was unlikely that they would be seen by many people, but the Internet means that any image has the potential to be seen by millions of people. This represents far greater “risk” to that subject’s privacy, and therefore issues like privacy are given more room in the conversation.

I think an interesting recent trend in street photography is an effort to preserve privacy by presenting subjects as anonymous through obscuring or silhouetting the compositions. This “New Wave” street photography is a little more “cinematic” and often lacks the personal touch of eye contact and relate-ability.

This preservation of anonymity whether conscious or unconscious on behalf of the photographer is something I find really interesting, and I’m sure after more thought I’ll have more to say on the subject. For now, though I think that it shows that there are forms of expression within street photography that are self-aware enough to take such issues seriously, and make aesthetic decisions accordingly.

Consent

Consent is an extension of privacy, and some street photographers do deal with the issue by approaching their subject after the fact and checking things over with them. It’s easier to ask for forgiveness than permission as the saying goes, and for photographers who choose for that to matter to them, this is an excellent compromise.

However, I think that many issues of consent have been rendered irrelevant due to the current state of public surveillance by both government and individuals – especially in London where I live and shoot most frequently. Anyone worried about privacy while out in public is deluding themselves in my opinion, and taking that out on street photographers is just a symptom of this constant erosion of feeling like you can go unnoticed in a crowd.

The artists’ intention does play a role when there is a specific idea being communicated in an image which might not reflect reality. I think that the best form of street photography is one that tells stories of hope and beauty rather than highlight ugliness or to make a mockery of someone.

Exploitation

One of the connotations of street photography that invades privacy is that it “exploits” the subject. This is especially prevalent in discussions regarding homeless people, who are unable to have the same level of privacy as the more fortunate. I can see how this would concern people, especially when it comes to profiting from such images but my own view on the matter is that as long as you treat others as you would want to be treated essentially no image is really off limits.

For homelessness specifically, I think that refusing to document such a pressing and damaging societal issue is the equivalent of “erasing” it from public discourse. The reason for choosing not to document such scenes in “everyday” street photography, which has no specific theme aside from the human condition, must go beyond not wanting to exploit the subject. We cannot pretend that these issues in society do not exist, and making images is the best way of keeping these topics not only at the front of street photography discussions but general discussions as well.

All photographers have a different moral code and will draw the line in different places. I don’t think it’s controversial to say that there are incredible examples of street photography that in some way exploit a situation, and equally there are terrible images that do the same. The best examples can elicit a response, and if that response is sympathy or empathy then such an image can do a lot of good. For bad ones, the response is usually entirely about how it exploits the subject if there really are few redeeming qualities about it.

Shock Value

Occasionally an image will be identified as having only one central intention – to shock the audience with its content. These are always interesting to talk about; as the discussion usually takes place around the value of the shock itself rather than the content of the image and the issues it may be dealing with – which sometimes have genuine substance.

There has always been an audience for controversial work, and I think people are drawn to creating and consuming that kind of work in street photography in the same way that actual photojournalism is drawn to the more violent or scary stories (just look at the last few years worth of World Press Photo winners to see this).

I think that street photography is full of all kinds of pieces of life and that controversial work receives attention due to the fact that it’s controversial. However, I also think that if there is something shocking in front of the photographer then they should not restrict themselves in that moment – and should make the image. Whether or not to share that image is then a decision they can spend longer on, and can even research to make an informed choice. I’ve recognized this hesitation in my own workflow and am in the process of changing that.

Photographer Attitude and Ego

Many people have an issue with specific behaviors and attitudes from street photographers that can have a negative effect on the way photographers are seen in general. There is more likely to be a confrontation between a random person and a street photographer than for example a landscape photographer, but the way that interaction goes will affect the way that person perceives most photographers they meet after that.

I don’t really have a solution for this because their behavior is not really a reflection of the genre of street photography, and it is more likely that outgoing people are drawn to confrontational styles of street photography in the first place. It is possible to follow the advice of my previous point, to treat others as you would treat yourself, and be a mindful and valuable member of your community as a street photographer.

To me, street photography is a way to identify aspects of the world that are neat or which speak to me, and sometimes those will take the form of a situation I will have to react to differently to my normal behavior in order to document.

I do have a strong opinion towards photographers who choose to conduct their street photography by employing bold and intrusive techniques at almost all times, whether the situation calls for it or not, and that is as follows: make sure you are not producing mediocre work. The end results must absolutely justify the means if it means causing situations that may affect someone else’s day negatively.

When it really comes down to using street photography to document your life and the lives of those around you self-censorship, both in the way you go about producing the work (by simply living your life) and sharing it, should not really be a factor.

Jealousy

Lastly, and this may sound cliché, it should be obvious that when some people find work that’s particularly outstanding in any field they will find reasons to put it down out of sheer jealousy. In street photography, it may be jealousy over the photographers capacity to consistently find and approach interesting characters, or live in a particularly aesthetic city, or even over the gear they are using.

Jealousy can be redirected into inspiration, through practice you can produce the same if not better as the work you were jealous of using the tools available to you.

I’m aware that everything I’ve discussed here is immensely subjective, and that your experience of street photography and street photography criticism may be entirely different from my own. Art is one of the most subjective topics there is, and art criticism will always be a difficult topic to tackle as an artist. I can only offer my own perspective on these ideas and hope that it helps aspiring photographers in any genre to deal with the way their work is judged and understood by their audience, and by themselves.

I also know that it is one of my longer pieces, and I’ve still only been able to talk about a handful of topics. Thanks for sticking with the article throughout, and I look forward to hopefully continuing this discussion and any others that may happen as a result.

About the author: Simon King is a London based photographer and photojournalist, currently working on a number of long-term documentary and street photography projects. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. You can follow his work on Instagram and you can read more of his thoughts on photography day-to-day over on his personal blog. Simon also teaches a short course in Street Photography at UAL, which can be read about here.

from Photography News https://petapixel.com/2019/02/27/why-is-street-photography-so-contentious/

[sailorrrvenus]

Why is Street Photography So Contentious?

As a street photographer, I accept that I have a bias towards the kind of work and criticisms I prefer to seek out as an audience to the work of others – although there are examples of landscape or portraiture that I do enjoy it is street photography and photojournalism that take up the majority of my interest. 

I know that photographers and the photography community, in general, is a passionate one and that there is no shortage of critiques available for any work or opinion that creators choose to share. However despite knowing that there is criticism in every area of the art I still feel that some of the criticisms leveled against street photography as a genre as well as specific examples of street photographs are harsher than any I’ve seen in, for example, landscape, or portraiture.

Of course, there is no objective status for any kind of photography, so why does it seem that street photography is treated with more hostility and controversy than any other genre? I simply don’t see the same level of judgment in other genres – I couldn’t even imagine people questioning how “legitimate” landscape or portrait photography is, for example, and yet somehow there are people who will feel that it is a valid opinion that street photography simply should not exist. I disagree with this strongly, as well as the mindset where that kind of opinion can originate.

I’ve thought about this issue a lot, as I feel it is important to understand where criticism comes from and whether it can be used to improve my work in the field.

One of the obvious reasons that street photography receives so much criticism is that the term contains such a diverse subset of image types that any singular example is open to criticism as any one of these. A “Street Photograph” can contain elements of portrait, journalism, wildlife, landscape, fine art, and even macro or any other category. It can, therefore, be judged on the merit and balance of any of those factors. This can be an issue when, for example, a street photographer has captured an image which is mostly a portrait but features elements of a landscape – and is judged on the merit of the landscape aspects rather than the portrait. 

I would argue that there are some fairly classical standards to measure the quality of a portrait – does the composition work, are the colors aesthetic, can you feel an emotion from the eyes, or tone, and so on. However what constitutes a “good” street photograph can be more difficult to define, and can involve only composition, or emotion, with other criteria ignored entirely in that specific image.

Even in the example of a street portrait vs a regular portrait, things like the role of spontaneity vs planned vision, the role of collaboration between the subject and photographer, and control/lack of control over the environment, and control over oneself and the camera I find are overlooked.

A street photograph is judged by the standards of whoever is viewing it, and if that person happens to have stronger opinions on how a landscape should look, or how a portrait should be presented, then that makes this hypothetical image entirely invalid. The rest of this article will be dealing with less ambiguous criticisms, but I thought it was important to deal with the role of the audience, and the way that “baggage” is brought by them to every criticism they present. No one image will ever please every photographer, let alone every armchair critic; accepting that is one of the most important things for an artist to deal with in order to come into their own, and find their voice unrestricted by others.

Repetition

One of the most common criticisms I see for street photography is that it’s “been done.” I think that this criticism can be valid, as many urban settings do look familiar – and there are even some “overdone” locations, which are popular for street photographers to visit.

In London alone, there is the Tate Modern, British Museum, and Barbican Centre which must host dozens of street photographers each trying to produce something unique from the location. I think that outstanding photographers will be able to produce outstanding work regardless of how played out a location is, and that there is always a new angle or a temporary element that can be manipulated for an image.

There are also “activities” in street photography which technically fit the genre but have nothing much to say; these include people standing around, crossing the road, or simply interacting with light. Good examples of these exist, with tension between elements and drama and mood from the light, but bad examples are far more plentiful.

The number of active street photographers is only increasing. Photography is one of the most democratic art forms there is, and the price of entry is already in the pocket of most people in the form of their mobile phone. In such a saturated field it absolutely makes sense that work start to seem to look the same. Of course, over time those outstanding examples will hopefully remain while the rest will fade, but operating during this time of massive oversaturation and being a member of the audience as and when this work is being churned out can absolutely feel monotonous.

I think that rather than being dissuaded from producing street photography I think that this should be used as an excuse to motivate yourself to become outstanding. My personal criterion for great work includes images with a tangible aesthetic, a storytelling component, emotion, and contain an unrepeatable moment. I have never settled for mediocrity in my own work and will always look for new ways to produce something engaging both for myself and for my audience. None of the examples I mentioned have anything inherently inartistic or bad about them, but they do dilute the selection and make it harder to identify the truly great work.

My suggestion for this is to become more active in the gallery scene, both as a photographer and an audience to photography. Exhibit your work in person and visit galleries as often as possible to support your peers. The work will be better presented than on screen and will be more likely to engage you as the gallery operator has curated it. I also encourage you to become more active in your local and global street photography community. Share your work through a blog rather than a social media site where you can discuss thoughts as well as share images. Feedback from these ventures is much more likely to be useful rather than scathing and you will feel better about the genre overall.

I also think that starting a long-term project is a great way to escape the monotony of repetitive work. By focusing work around a central theme or story, the methods and visual techniques being applied will mold and fit that content. The work will make sense when viewed as a collection as well as through standalone pieces, but the sense of monotony will vanish, as many aspects of ambiguity will be removed.

Many street photographers find that they are re-treading old ground, going through the motions of the “Greats” and that their work, while aesthetically beautiful, lacks their personal touch and as a result can feel like simple variations on a theme. I find that mimicking composition ideas can be a great way to learn new techniques that, once mastered, can be applied spontaneously to new situations. However this kind of work I would be loath to share or sell as it is nothing more than painting by numbers.

Over-Saturation

This is an expansion of an idea I touched on in the above point, but I think it’s worth elaborating on. Street photography is such an accessible genre, and photography such a prevalent art form that there is simply an incredible quantity of work being shared. So much work being generated does by definition mean that there will be more good work produced, but also means that there is a lot more bad and mediocre work to get through before finding those excellent images. Add to this the fact that many artists aren’t happy with achieving fame or recognition after their death and want to profit from their talent now which is easier than ever with some basic marketing skill.

Currently, the “best” street photographers you’ve heard of are the ones with the most successful marketing strategy. This is nothing new, and I find it really interesting that photographers as early as Ansel Adams have well-documented marketing strategies, which help explain why they are still so well enjoyed and long-lasting.

We are also subjected to a lot of work from beginners, which will likely suffer from many of the issues I’m discussing in this article. We should be able to measure our criticisms against these and provide useful and constructive responses to people who have clearly not been doing work in the genre for long, rather than tearing them down with the same ferocity you would critique the work of a veteran documentarian.

Uninspiring

Another common comment I read is that a particular image is “uninspiring” either because the content is uninteresting or that the audience is not particularly engaged by it. Again, this is quite a generic criticism for any kind of photography or art, and what is inspiring to one artist at one stage of their journey can be absolutely dull to another at another stage.

However, in street photography, an image can often be described as “uninspiring” simply because there is nothing interesting occurring in the frame. Many of the best unrepeatable street photography moments have elements of speed and spontaneity in the subject and required the fast reactions of the photographer to capture it. Many examples of New Wave street photography are much slower, towards the Fisherman approach rather than the hunter. If someone is not engaged by a piece of work then it can indicate that there is not enough tension in the composition, not enough moving parts to keep a viewer occupied.

I find myself annoyed by a common trend in the presentation of these kinds of uninspiring images, which is that often the story (sometimes entirely distinct from what is happening in the image) is written in the caption rather than show in the image itself. Some photographers seem to think that labeling their subject or event as something “definitive” or ambiguous that it will elevate it to that status, rather than going the more difficult route of actually capturing that kind of thing in the first place.

Using the Term Incorrectly

Although street photography is one of the broadest genres in photography, as discussed above; it is still a fairly well defined and understood one. The rise of the street as a “location” for things like street fashion and even street portraits would not have been as popular if not for some of the earliest street photographers.

Without wanting to gate-keep any specific idea of what street photography is or isn’t, I still find myself seeing images marked as or referred to as street photography when they simply are not. A studio fashion portrait of a posed and directed model wearing a streetwear brand is not street photography. An urban cityscape long exposure from a rooftop with the photographer’s legs dangling over the edge is not street photography. Without clear definitions and boundaries in our understanding of what we are trying to produce and share we will lose and dilute our audience and confuse people trying to start out in the genre.

Following Trends

This point is a little similar to the idea of repetitive work but directly focused on the echo chamber of social media. Sharing work on Instagram is very different from publishing a book or zine, or featuring in a gallery, and also entirely different from producing work for a client brief or assignment.

People often overlook the role that the social aspect of these sites have on the way creatives work, and it is difficult to ignore all of the little number tickers that tell you how popular you and your work are. Following trends are a great way to make that little counter move up as you contribute to a growing body of unoriginal and usually temporary work.

Instagram tends to be an echo chamber of trends so if that’s the only place you consume street photography then your work will end up reflecting what you are being most often inspired by, or what you think is popular at the time. Taking a break from this environment and just focusing on honing your own vision is the best way to tackle this.

Learning the trends can be an excellent way to learn new techniques or to incorporate a new style into existing approaches to street photography. Similar to my point about re-treading old ground this would not be work I would post until I was certain I had made it my own.

Breaking the “Rules”

In street photography, I find that photographers feel more comfortable breaking traditional “rules” opting to trade things like sharpness, depth of field, grain, motion blur, and even “good” composition, against emotion and “the moment” – going for the gist of a scene above technical and artistic perfection. These things are deliberately given up through the photographers chosen style, and yet when shared anywhere other than a street photography platform they are critiqued on all of these things.

Perhaps only the greatest are immune from this but there must be some way to communicate that many of the things people find issues with were deliberate choices and that you are viewing an image the way the artists wants for it to be viewed, not a rough draft that was posted by accident. I don’t think any photographer should receive negative feedback for sharing images that don’t follow a certain compositional style and should instead try and identify how an image makes them feel before they examine exactly what it may be made of on a more technical or artistic level.

However, I also think that the photographer should have an understanding of why they made the decisions they did and that they should be equipped with that understanding when it comes to defending themselves. If they can’t explain why they made something the way they did then by learning that they will be able to take control of their aesthetic.

Privacy

There are a few issues people have with street photography that are more related to the sociological factors rather than anything artistic. Street photography by definition involves actions involving other people, usually without their explicit “consent” which provides for consistent discussion as to the exact ethics of street photography. Many people argue that street photography is an invasion of perceived “privacy” of the subjects, especially when that subject is identifiable, or in a vulnerable state.

Although early street photography had equal issues unless those images became published in a gallery or magazine it was unlikely that they would be seen by many people, but the Internet means that any image has the potential to be seen by millions of people. This represents far greater “risk” to that subject’s privacy, and therefore issues like privacy are given more room in the conversation.

I think an interesting recent trend in street photography is an effort to preserve privacy by presenting subjects as anonymous through obscuring or silhouetting the compositions. This “New Wave” street photography is a little more “cinematic” and often lacks the personal touch of eye contact and relate-ability.

This preservation of anonymity whether conscious or unconscious on behalf of the photographer is something I find really interesting, and I’m sure after more thought I’ll have more to say on the subject. For now, though I think that it shows that there are forms of expression within street photography that are self-aware enough to take such issues seriously, and make aesthetic decisions accordingly.

Consent

Consent is an extension of privacy, and some street photographers do deal with the issue by approaching their subject after the fact and checking things over with them. It’s easier to ask for forgiveness than permission as the saying goes, and for photographers who choose for that to matter to them, this is an excellent compromise.

However, I think that many issues of consent have been rendered irrelevant due to the current state of public surveillance by both government and individuals – especially in London where I live and shoot most frequently. Anyone worried about privacy while out in public is deluding themselves in my opinion, and taking that out on street photographers is just a symptom of this constant erosion of feeling like you can go unnoticed in a crowd.

The artists’ intention does play a role when there is a specific idea being communicated in an image which might not reflect reality. I think that the best form of street photography is one that tells stories of hope and beauty rather than highlight ugliness or to make a mockery of someone.

Exploitation

One of the connotations of street photography that invades privacy is that it “exploits” the subject. This is especially prevalent in discussions regarding homeless people, who are unable to have the same level of privacy as the more fortunate. I can see how this would concern people, especially when it comes to profiting from such images but my own view on the matter is that as long as you treat others as you would want to be treated essentially no image is really off limits.

For homelessness specifically, I think that refusing to document such a pressing and damaging societal issue is the equivalent of “erasing” it from public discourse. The reason for choosing not to document such scenes in “everyday” street photography, which has no specific theme aside from the human condition, must go beyond not wanting to exploit the subject. We cannot pretend that these issues in society do not exist, and making images is the best way of keeping these topics not only at the front of street photography discussions but general discussions as well.

All photographers have a different moral code and will draw the line in different places. I don’t think it’s controversial to say that there are incredible examples of street photography that in some way exploit a situation, and equally there are terrible images that do the same. The best examples can elicit a response, and if that response is sympathy or empathy then such an image can do a lot of good. For bad ones, the response is usually entirely about how it exploits the subject if there really are few redeeming qualities about it.

Shock Value

Occasionally an image will be identified as having only one central intention – to shock the audience with its content. These are always interesting to talk about; as the discussion usually takes place around the value of the shock itself rather than the content of the image and the issues it may be dealing with – which sometimes have genuine substance.

There has always been an audience for controversial work, and I think people are drawn to creating and consuming that kind of work in street photography in the same way that actual photojournalism is drawn to the more violent or scary stories (just look at the last few years worth of World Press Photo winners to see this).

I think that street photography is full of all kinds of pieces of life and that controversial work receives attention due to the fact that it’s controversial. However, I also think that if there is something shocking in front of the photographer then they should not restrict themselves in that moment – and should make the image. Whether or not to share that image is then a decision they can spend longer on, and can even research to make an informed choice. I’ve recognized this hesitation in my own workflow and am in the process of changing that.

Photographer Attitude and Ego

Many people have an issue with specific behaviors and attitudes from street photographers that can have a negative effect on the way photographers are seen in general. There is more likely to be a confrontation between a random person and a street photographer than for example a landscape photographer, but the way that interaction goes will affect the way that person perceives most photographers they meet after that.

I don’t really have a solution for this because their behavior is not really a reflection of the genre of street photography, and it is more likely that outgoing people are drawn to confrontational styles of street photography in the first place. It is possible to follow the advice of my previous point, to treat others as you would treat yourself, and be a mindful and valuable member of your community as a street photographer.

To me, street photography is a way to identify aspects of the world that are neat or which speak to me, and sometimes those will take the form of a situation I will have to react to differently to my normal behavior in order to document.

I do have a strong opinion towards photographers who choose to conduct their street photography by employing bold and intrusive techniques at almost all times, whether the situation calls for it or not, and that is as follows: make sure you are not producing mediocre work. The end results must absolutely justify the means if it means causing situations that may affect someone else’s day negatively.

When it really comes down to using street photography to document your life and the lives of those around you self-censorship, both in the way you go about producing the work (by simply living your life) and sharing it, should not really be a factor.

Jealousy

Lastly, and this may sound cliché, it should be obvious that when some people find work that’s particularly outstanding in any field they will find reasons to put it down out of sheer jealousy. In street photography, it may be jealousy over the photographers capacity to consistently find and approach interesting characters, or live in a particularly aesthetic city, or even over the gear they are using.

Jealousy can be redirected into inspiration, through practice you can produce the same if not better as the work you were jealous of using the tools available to you.

I’m aware that everything I’ve discussed here is immensely subjective, and that your experience of street photography and street photography criticism may be entirely different from my own. Art is one of the most subjective topics there is, and art criticism will always be a difficult topic to tackle as an artist. I can only offer my own perspective on these ideas and hope that it helps aspiring photographers in any genre to deal with the way their work is judged and understood by their audience, and by themselves.

I also know that it is one of my longer pieces, and I’ve still only been able to talk about a handful of topics. Thanks for sticking with the article throughout, and I look forward to hopefully continuing this discussion and any others that may happen as a result.

About the author: Simon King is a London based photographer and photojournalist, currently working on a number of long-term documentary and street photography projects. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. You can follow his work on Instagram and you can read more of his thoughts on photography day-to-day over on his personal blog. Simon also teaches a short course in Street Photography at UAL, which can be read about here.

source https://petapixel.com/2019/02/27/why-is-street-photography-so-contentious/