#like I very much get people who are grieving will cling to narratives

[glompcat]

Yikes but people really do not understand how little we know about the ocean, huh?

[greenerteacups]

If there was one major plot element that you could change in the original canon what would it be?

The Marauders' deaths. With the exception of James, I don't think any of the Marauders die in a way that's narratively suitable — or, to be more particular, they die in a way suitable for a narrative I don't like very much. James is an acceptable (though, obviously, tragic) death to me because it completes his arc: he's an obnoxious, arrogant bully who grows into a selfless soldier on the side of the light, and lays down his life as a final gesture of abnegation. It's not Proust, but it's good, right? His death represents a symbolic triumph over Voldemort because it's something Voldemort would never do.

None of the others make the same kind of sense for their subplots. Sirius dies at the Ministry because Harry fucks up and lets his abandonment issues override his judgment, and while that's a compelling moment for Harry — whose hamartia is a trauma-forged combination of hot-headedness and desperate fear of losing people — it's not for Sirius. Sirius's problem in Book 5 is that he's emotionally stunted by his years of imprisonment and refuses to grow up, because he's clinging to the life he thinks — rightly — he should have gotten to have. This is made painfully clear in the Department of Mysteries, wherein some of his last words to Harry are "Nice one, James!" He refuses to treat Harry like the child he is, and he keeps acting like he's this fun-uncle type, blowing off rules and pissing off Mom (Molly), because that's the dynamic he should have had with Harry if Lily and James had lived. Sirius doesn't want to be Harry's guardian and role model. He wants a brother and a nephew, and he's trying to force Harry to be both, because he's all he has left of that family. His death doesn't tie any of those threads; they're left dangling. That's a valid narrative move — every death cuts a story short, and you can't give everybody an arc — but I loved Sirius. Giving Harry the "grieving loss of a parent" arc that was originally meant for Ron (Arthur was the original Big Death of the OOTP, in JKR's drafts) also means that Ron spends a lot of Book 6 without anything to do, whereas Harry goes through what's essentially a more intense version of the grieving-and-recovery arc he did after Cedric's death.

Remus, on the other hand, is just — first off, a Mess, I agree with so few of the choices made with Remus in the later books, but let's say he's deep in the trauma, the grieving, and whatever living among werewolves as a spy does for your mental health. So he gets into this will-they-won't-they with Tonks, gets married, tries to abandon pregnant wife, then goes back and gets to be with his wife and son for about half a year before dying, with said wife, in battle. Okay. So like:

I think the Remus Weirdness in Book 7 is actually an attempt to close a plot hole, which is that the Horcrux Hunt happens completely without adult supervision, despite the fact that there are lots of adults the Golden Trio could and should ask for help. Harry's insistence that he doesn't want to risk anyone's life except for Ron and Hermione's is, while understandable as a character move, utterly ridiculous, because the other Order members are risking their lives anyway. One of the biggest holes is Remus and Tonks, who are (a) both already targets for Voldemort because of who they are, and so have nothing to lose, but also (b) both care for Harry on a personal level, and would never accept his reasons for pushing them away. So Teddy Lupin is conceived in order to bench Tonks, who's safely out of commission while pregnant. But that leaves Remus, who probably in fact would have super complicated torn-loyalty feelings about the situation, and who is scarred and traumatized and probably has enough abandonment issues to try and walk out, but — in my view — never resolves any of those things. He doesn't suddenly realize that he loves Tonks and wants to be with her, or feel a sense of duty to his son; when Harry's justly furious at Remus abandoning his kid in Harry's name, Remus gets pissy about it and goes "well, if you don't want my help, fine," and leaves. Which is, again, fine, a character flaw, it's childish, he's allowed to be, and he is, in fact, similar to Sirius and James — but it left a bad taste in my mouth, because that's one of the last conversations we get with Remus, and it's such an impoverished vision of his bonds with others. It doesn't delve deeply into why he loves Tonks or Harry, or the substance of his conflict between them; like always with the Marauders, he just invokes James, and Harry throws James's name right back at him, and it ends there.

And then he dies, so that baby Teddy Lupin can be an orphan, and we can do a parallel to baby Harry Potter. Even though we don't see Teddy Lupin on the page ever, so we have no idea what that comparison means, or how their experiences compliment or contrast one another, or literally anything more substantive than the series beginning and ending on the same event. Which: great. Okay. To quote a Roger Ebert review that I think about, on average, once every thirty-six hours:

"J.K. Rowling has learned from better novels that authors sometimes create narrative parallels, but she has not learned why."

[shmowder]

Hello! Firstly id like to say how much I enjoy your writings. And I was wondering your opinions on Stanislav Rubin, and if you have written anything about him yet?

Thank you very much. I'm glad that even though I post a lot of memes and silly things, people still remember that this is a writing blog at its core.

Ah Stakh, the man, the myth, the legend Rubin himself. I absolutely adore him. He's like what happens if you drop the soul of a 90' anime tsundere into a survival horror middle age man.

Rip Stanislav, you would've loved going Hmp >:/. You would've loved posting blank black screens on your snapchat with a single dot in the text bracket. You would've loved getting away with throwing heavy-duty physical objects at Artemy in the name of comedic effect during fillter beach episodes.

What's so interesting about him is how much the narrative is out there to get him. How much his story tells a complicated relationship about bline love, trust, and abuse.

At times, it seems like Rubin loved Isidor more than his own son ever did from the amount of faith he held in him. Especially when that said person took advantage of his willingness to serve in order to do the dirty work.

That's probably why Rubin is acting extremely difficult during the game. He's grieving deeply. He seems lost and devoid of purpose, so he clings to whatever new problem he can find to give himself purpose. He works himself to an early grave just so he doesn't have time to think, and if you don't interfer as Artemy, he's successful.

Rubin's extremely devoted to his own set of morality, even when it contradicts itself and hurts him in the process. It's like he's willing to dig himself further into a mess even if he knew the chances of him solving it alone are very slim.

He'd rather do it himself than ask for help.

But it doesn't feel like pride, more like spite. That's the thing him and the bachelor have in common. They're both moved in spite of the universe and not because of.

Meanwhile, Artemy does things out of love for the universe. It explains why Rubin was described by the developers as being Artemy's rival.

Stakh was the best student Isidor ever had, the most diligent and quickest to learn, even a better student than his own son.

But that's exactly the problem. That's all he was great at, being an excellent student. Isidor didn't want a student for life. He wanted a new Menkhu to replace him, to pave the way for the future. How could he let someone who always looks to others for guidance ever take the lead?

Rubin decided to follow the bachelor when it came to curing the plague. In P1, Rubin used to be a soldier and an extremely good one at following orders too before he had to come back hom from a head injury.

In P2, when Rubin is devoid of purpose again, he doesn't try to be his own person and pave his own path. No, instead he sticks with the familiar and goes to join the army.

In the marble nest where Artemy is dead, Daniil says that Rubin has already joined the army and he could be behind any of those soldiers' masks.

What's the alternative future for him? Remaining a student. But for Artemy this time, who successfully took his father's place in p2.

Rubin and Bad Grief were the first ever people to fall out from the friend group after Artemy left, and it makes sense with how opposite they are in nature.

Grief saw how good he was at doing what he is, how excellent he is at being a gang leader and how easily this life came into his hands with very little work. He almost seems perfect for the job of being a glorified sketchy shopkeeper with a dangerous front as a gang leader.

He saw that, and he hated it. He wanted out. He wanted freedom and to break from the narrative. He acted out of script and went to the Inquisitor with his own two legs, closed shop, and threw away that perfect life, which was designed especially for him.

Meanwhile, Rubin longs back for that life. For Isidor to crawl out of the grave and tell him what to do next, even if it meant he will be mistreated and forced to bear the sins of his master just so Isidor keeps his own hands clean. He wants someone more knowledgeable to direct him again, tell him what to do, where to go and what to say.

Grief adored freedom, but Rubin loathed how terrifying it was. Grief understood the way of the world, how everyone is masquerading as their roles, how the whole of humanity is a game of pretend we play with each other, a mere facade. He understood that, and he climbed up as a result of playing his cards well. Or at least, life handed him the perfect hand for his role.

Rubin's black and white view of the world was his doom. Isidor was right and could never do anything wrong in his eyes, even when it was Rubin suffering because of him. Grief was bad. Therefore, he could never do anything right no matter what explanation he gives.

Artemy abandoned his father, therefore he is forever responsible for Isidor's murder in Rubin's eyes.

It's almost funny how throughout the whole game, as Artemy, you keep getting reminded of how much Rubin hates you and wants you dead.

Yet when he invents the panacea after you neglect your job, he fully credits it to you as your invention. The inquisitor even says so.

Love and hate are like dusk and dawn, different angles, but still the same sun.

Rubin's hate for Grief and Artemy proves that he still cares about them above all.

Even then, it doesn't take much convincing for him to abandon that hate. Almost as if he wants to be rid of it himself but can't do it on his own, he requires you to talk to him and give him that one final push. Aware of it or not, he has always looked to others for help despite him trying his best to handle things alone.

-

Now, as for writing something about him, I haven't yet. I would love to, he seems very fun to write. Emotionally constipated characters usually are.

But do you mean as a ship or x reader?

If it's a ship, something with Artemy is my first thought.

I know Isidor was in the process of adopting Rubin and that he refers to him as father sometimes. But all of that happened after Artemy left the town and not before.

So while Rubin and Isidor saw themselves as found family, Rubin and Artemy never did. Their last time together was spent as childhood best friends, and not once do they refer to each other as siblings or imply it.

To me they will always be just childhood friends. Artemy was estranged from his own father for 10-5 years depending on the game and Rubin filled that spot in the meanwhile. The sole reason for the adopting thing was just to get Rubin the right to cut bodies and nothing more in Isidor's case.

Rubin might have seen him as a father figure, but I doubt Isidor saw him as anything but a student, let alone a son.

In his dairy during his last days before death, Isidor only speaks of Artemy. Wishing his son was by his side.

And in Artemy's case, he immediately forgives Rubin for so many things during their first meeting in P1. And in P2, he still attempts to talk and have a resemblance of a friendship with him.

Artemy literally follows him like a kicked puppy, wanting his best friend back and desperately attempting to mend things with Rubin. The fics practically write themselves at this point. Stakh clearly likes Artemy but he won't let himself easily give into the temptation because he is just angsty like that.

Maybe that "rivally" was extremely one-sided in Rubin's case.

-

But for x reader, you're not Artemy so you'll get very favourable treatment.

He's already willing to let himself burn at the stake for someone else. Rubin and Eva both share the passion to sacrifice themselves for the sake of someone else, ironically enough.

The only difference is that Eva took the hopeless romantic path whole Rubin took the selfless devotion one.

He'd do well with someone who is soft and caring, that man requires a hug that lasts a century. He needs someone to be patient with him, someone wise who understands him better than he understands himself. Someone be there for him to fall back on.

Stakh is the type of person who will mould himself to your expectations and needs rather than just let himself...be himself. He will think the way he is just isn't enough to get you to stay in love, and so he will try to adapt what you deem impressive and love-able.

Breaking himself in the process.

A reader who gets him out of that cycle would be perfect. Someone who reassures him that he is enough. That he doesn't need to set himself ablaze just to keep you warm.

He will be extremely awkward in love. He doesn't have a single romantic bone in his body. But he's nothing if not a fast learner.

it's clumsy attempts at the start, but eventually, he learns to speak his feelings more. Words of sincerity and promises of devotion acting as his flirting.

He stares at you a lot with his big round, lovely brown eyes. Across the room? he's looking at you until you come talk to him. Suddenly, he's not slouching so much. It's endearingly embarrassing how honest his eyes can be when his lips won't admit that he needs you.

He will cling to you as time goes on. Why exactly can't he go out with you when you're hanging out with your friends? Listen he knows this is just a grocery trip but he wants to walk there with you and carry the bags.

One time, you took too long in the bathroom at night, and he woke up from sleep just to knock at the bathroom door and ask when you were going back to bed. You found him half-asleep sitting on the ground near the door when you opened it.

[thestrangestthing89]

Mike character analysis: Season 1 -Part 1 here

Part 2:

Mikes reaction to Will's fake body being found is very different than Dustin and Lucas. They are all upset but Mike is devastated and angry. El lied to him about Will (or so he thinks) and he just watched his body get pulled out of the water. He is heartbroken and bikes home to his mother crying. They only show Mikes reaction here because that's the one that's important to the narrative. Not that Lucas and Dustin don't care about Will - they do and are clearly upset - but it's different. They probably went home crying to their mothers too but Mike's reaction is where the story is, just like the bullying. And it's a direct parallel to Joyce's. Joyce finds out about Will and is comforted by Jonathan and Hopper while Mike is comforted by his mother. It's the first of many parallels between the two. They both (along with Jonathan) love Will the most. But even Jonathan believes that Will is actually dead when Joyce is trying to explain her theory to him. And she does sound crazy. She sounds like a grieving mother who doesn't want to accept the truth so she clings to the crazy, unrealistic story. Mike does the same thing. He believes the unbelievable thing El tells him and tries to get Lucas and Dustin on board. Lucas is immediately against it in the same way Jonathan is (and again Lucas gets the most criticism from the GA for this attitude even though he's not the only one) and Dustin seems like he's on the fence but goes along with Mike. Both Joyce and Mike love Will so much they are willing to believe and do anything rather than accept that he's gone.

The boys end up dressing El up in Nancy's old clothes so she can go outside because she isn't "normal". They say this right in front of her face, which is what leads her to ask Mike if she's pretty later. She wants reassurance that she's a normal girl. Mike gets prompted by Dustin to respond here and says "pretty" in response to Dustin. He gives the answer he is supposed to give. He would't be saying them if Dustin and Lucas weren't there. He's performing. And so is she. El has on normal girl clothes and is now going to act like she's supposed to. Mike is doing the same. They are conforming.

(Edit: I want to add that Mike's kindness toward El is entirely contingent upon how cooperative she is looking for Will. When she helps he is nice and when she lies and leads them in the wrong direction he gets mean and screams in her face. Does this make Mike a terrible person? Of course not and it's incredibly simplistic to say so. What it does mean is that he doesn't trust her and why should he? He doesn't know her and she's done nothing to earn his trust.)

Right before Will's fake body is pulled out of the quarry, Mike and El have a brief conversation on the train tracks. Mike doesn't want to tell El he's been bullied but she presses. He tells her he didn't want her to think he was a "wastoid". He doesn't think this superhero can understand what being bullied is like. This whole conversation sets the stage for all of the problems in Mike and El's dynamic. Mike is insecure about what other people think. He wants this superhero to think that he's cool. El claims to understand this, but this conversation comes up again later in S4 and she doesn't. They don't really bond here. This wasn't a big moment of connection that Mike took it to be. It clearly doesn't mean much to El when she dismisses him for bringing it up in S4. And Mike spends the rest of the season feeling insecure about how he's a loser who found superman on his doorstep. This whole moment at the train tracks is about his insecurities and tying his confidence to El. El thinks he's cool so he's cool. But if she thinks he isn't then he spirals into self-doubt. (It's only Will seeing him as The Heart that fixes this because Will is the one who actually sees the true Mike.)

It's a dynamic they continue to have through season 4. El lies to Mike because she thinks he won't understand her bullying and she's scared. He needs her to be the superhero that saves the day all while most of his attention is fixated on Will. They have never communicated well and they have never grown into a more emotionally mature relationship let alone a friendship. They are stuck. They've also grown more emotionally mature separately but together they coexist in the way that 2 people who have been through a lot together do. They share trauma and nothing else but they can't let each other go because they went through something major together. It's not a romantic dynamic let alone a friendship.

Part 3 here

[jasontoddiefor]

Rant about D.Gray-man and father figures, spoilers up until the most recent chapters:

Mana adopts Allen out of a circus, which had allegedly bought Allen from his parents. So we know that the concept parents is entirely foreign to Allen. He knows that they exist and other people have them, but he doesn’t - and also doesn’t see the need for them. Narratively, we learn very early on that Mana loved Allen and Allen cared for him so much because Mana was basically his savior. So of course Allen blames himself so much for turning his father into an Akuma after he'd died and then sees it as his duty to help free souls as his father cursed him with the ability to do so. So we have a character that went from not caring (openly) about parents, to dedicating himself entirely to his father, building his grief-wrecked identity around him.

Which, you know. Seems pretty standard for a plot, nice father died, resurrected as an Akuma and is exorcised by his kid again, cursing him with the ability to see other monsters.

And then the image starts to deteriorate and you're left staring at it like "oh. oh they were SO NOT okay".

First of, "Allen" was named by Mana. His name before that was Red, for the color his deformed arm. And Allen wasn't just named randomly. As far as he is concerned he was named after Mana's dead dog. Like, that is so fucked up. Especially because throughout the series he always ensures that he is actually called Allen and not by some nickname. He has claimed this name, clings to it as if it’s all he has. (Which, would be an interesting parallel to Lavi, but that’s for another post.

What Allen doesn't know is that Mana named his dog after a deceased friend.

But point is that he still clung to the name of a pet that he'd taken for himself. Next up is the fact that Mana had hallucinations his mental health was continuously worsening to the point that he didn't exactly know where or when he was and likely, at points, saw Allen as Nea, whether that is subconsciously recognizing his presence or not, Allen was definitely aware that Mana was struggling and must have internalized that. As much as Allen saw Mana as his father, and Mana showered Allen with love and took care of him, they were So Messed Up.

And D.Gray-man handles that so wonderfully. When you're introduced to Mana, it's through the eyes of a grieving child who lost everything. Mana seems so perfect, so good and holy, and it is only as Allen grows up and learns more of the truth that he understands this broken image. And this is also one of the reasons why I don't mind the many hiatus of dgm so much because the reader literally got to grow up with Allen. I mean, I was 12 when i started reading it and Allen was 12 when his father died - now I'm older than he currently is in-universe (17) but it still feels like we grew up side by side as the narrative just became more and more mature and you learn to reflect actions more in depth.

So in Mana we have what appears to be a father figure first slowly turning into a deeply hurting man whom you're not even sure truly understood what he was to Allen.

With Allen's teacher Cross we have the exact different development. We see him pick up Allen and apparently tell him about Akuma but that's it. Otherwise we learn that he was rather rough to Allen, made him pay off his debts, left him alone for a long while and didn't even teach him all that much given how much the Order still has to explain to Allen when he joins them - which is also interesting. The fact that Allen has seen Grave of Maria in action and knows precisely what it is, the kind of magic Cross deals with, but is ignorant in so many other ways.

But then we have the plot reach a flashback and we learn that Allen was pretty much catatonic for months after Mana's death and that Cross, while bitching about it bc He Did Not Sign Up For It, cared for him. Fed him, cleaned the bed and him, talked to him and tried to get a rise out of him. All while saying that he can't afford to get attached to Allen bc Allen's death is pretty predestined.

And then again the narrative's growth just helps you reflect on it. You learn to view Cross and Allen's interaction as that of a kid who knows nothing but tries his best and a man who never meant to get attached, to ensure Allen only lived as long as he needed to but suddenly actually grew to love the kid and want him to survive, going as far as entrusting Allen with some of his most precious belongings and wanting Allen to actually deal with his repressed trauma and learn to live only for himself. Like!!! The parallels between Cross and Mana are so fascinating and while Cross by no means was like A Good Guardian, you see that it was him honestly realizing "ah fuck, I did it now. this is my kid huh.". And just!!! The fact that there are not many fanfics dealing with how fucked up it is to raise a kid for slaughter only to realize that you want him to have a fighting chance now makes me wanna cry. Hoshino did such an amazing work building up these relationships.

And I really love how Hoshino didn't go with any of the typical routes for father figures, but uses tropes to dig deep. you have the "uncaring but secretly loves him" father but it is actually bound to the fact that said father had to keep the emotional distance to avoid breaking the world. You have the "perfect and ideal" loving father whose love comes from the fact that he is actually so lost and doesn't have anything at all.

Just,,,,, I adore this manga so much

[my-bated-breath]

Closing Thoughts on Vincenzo

No one asked, but here you go.

I watched the last two episodes of Vincenzo yesterday, but even in the midst of my viewing experience I was able to synthesis and analyze what I was enjoying and not-enjoying, what worked and what didn’t work (for me), so that itself says something about how immersive it was. Of course, Vincenzo is a great show — the action is sharp and satisfying, the schemes are elaborate and spectacular, the humor is cracky yet genuine, and the characters are so, so lovable. And I loved the romance side plot, because yes, I am weak. Still, the last 2-4 episodes strained some of that, and this is my take on why I felt not exactly disappointed, but underwhelmed in the final stretch. I’m also including what I did like at the very end, as that makes sense with how I’m structuring this kind-of-analysis.

spoilers below

Tension, Stakes, and Pay-off

The tension in Vincenzo has been ramped up ever since the death of Vincenzo’s mother, loudly and painfully declaring in that moment that “this is not a game” (contrary to Vincenzo telling Hanseok in jail that he’s toying with him). This leads to a chilling confrontation between Vincenzo and the antagonists while also uniting the residents of Geumga in all-out, unapologetic war. And there is no more game of chess — just one of cat and mouse, with Vincenzo descending upon his prey.

Hence, Vincenzo is noticeably less soft, and he strikes Babel with the steel of his resolve. His schemes feel much more sinister than mischievous as they had been before; he is ending this, once and for all. So, how does the show amp up the tension and stakes from there?

Well, it’s all in what I said before. The tension is teased out in Vincenzo stealing everything Hanseok has ever treasured and then taunting/threatening him in prison, and then with the Babel villains descending into chaos and desperation. The stakes, however, are less noticeable, because Vincenzo is kind of obviously winning. The stakes have already been established with Vincenzo’s mother, then paid off with her death, and then paid off even more with Vincenzo mercilessly seizing the upper hand.

That’s why I feel like Myunghee and Hanseo’s death just... happened. Because it’s been 3 whole episodes since Vincenzo has founded this new resolve, that sort of dragged out follow-up loses its thrill and gratification. They’ve been defeated now, completely and totally. But so what? They’ve been on the losing end for more than 3 hours of screen time now, and even their last resort of a counterattack didn’t hold much narrative weight (which is something I’ll get to later). Their deaths are not boring to say the least — I saw a post that said something similar to “Myunghee, a woman who danced to the music of others’ pain, died dancing to her own” and “Hanseo, a man with no heart, has a hole drilled into that empty cavity.”

But their deaths also happen very isolated from everyone else, not just physically, but emotionally as well. It’s almost as if Vincenzo’s clapping his hands and saying, “Let’s wrap this up now, I’m getting a little tired.” And while I wouldn’t say their deaths are unnecessarily cruel, given everything they’ve done, I don’t think Vincenzo does this in response to anything particularly substantial. Is this for his mother’s death? For Chayoung’s injury? For everyone else? Well, maybe, but it sure didn’t feel like he was contemplating that during or after torturing them. If I put the Vincenzo from the beginning of the show there in those two scenes vs Vincenzo from the end of the show, post character development and all, I think the only difference would be that beginning-of-the-show Vincenzo would still be unfamiliar with Babel’s crimes and see this as a waste of time.

A sort of side note: Now, one of the strong points of this show is its use of comedy in its otherwise very serious schemes (I still thinking about episodes 8 and 15 all the time). But with the impending climax and increasingly serious tone, there was no comedy to make said-serious schemes as engaging to watch. So now unable to rely on one of its greatest strengths, the show must rely on emotional impact. Or similarly: narrative weight.

Narrative Weight

In episodes 19-20, Chayoung is shot, Hanseo dies, and Chulwook is stabbed (and you think he’s going to die but he doesn’t). Who said there was no emotional impact in these episodes again?!

Oh right. Me.

Beyond Hong Yuchan and Oh Gyeongja’s death, injuries and fatalities suffered from our protagonists’ side don’t really have that many consequences. You can argue the consequences of Hanseo dying is that we’re all very sad, but both we and the characters are barely given a moment to grieve before we have to move on. What does Hanseo die for? He dies as an abuse victim just beginning to break out of the cycle he was trapped in, and that itself isn’t necessary a bad narrative choice, and he dies as a warrior in this Mafia vs Conglomerate war, but what does he die for? If it’s for Vincenzo and Chayoung to live, they pretty much get lucky with Hanseo running out of bullets. If it is to show that he had changed, and that this tied into some greater theme of redemption, then his death really isn’t really given enough thought for it to resonate well. I would’ve loved to see Vincenzo reflecting on Hanseo learning to trust and love again, despite all the mistakes he made in the past, and how that influences his own decision to embrace his version of villainous justice. But no. This is something I only thought of after reading a few Vincenzo posts and trying to justify my own moral for the show.

Don’t forget that Chulwook almost dies too. Like I genuinely believed he was dead, shed a tear for the daughter he would never meet, and then the show went like, “Guess what? Psyche!”

I’m not very fond of that injury/pseud-death-but-not-really.

And now we have Chayoung, the person who Vincenzo is the closest to. Don’t get me wrong, I amso weak for her never giving into Hanseo and asking for death over Vinceno getting hurt, for guarding Vincenzo from the bullet, for Vincenzo’s shocked and empty eyes, for Chayoung’s glazed gaze, for him desperately and powerlessly hugging her tightly because that’s all he can do for her now. Afterwards, she’s in the hospital, her shoulder is recuperating, and there’s a nice Chayenzo parallel to episode 4 when Chayoung was waiting by Vinny’s hospital bed. But afterwards afterwards? She’s just in the hospital. Sidelined from the climax.

Vincenzo told her, “I will finish this, for you.” That could’ve worked, because we could’ve seen Chayoung emotionally or spiritually with us during the climax and Myunghee and Hanseo’s deaths. But like I mentioned earlier, it really didn’t feel that way. Ultimately, the narrative tells us that Chayoung’s injury just means she can’t strain herself for a couple of days, despite initially delivering it so dramatically and emotionally.

As one of my friends said while we were discussing this episode: Vincenzo is the titular character, but Chayoung has so much to care for too. Her father died because of Babel, and she said, “We should share the danger.” Instead, we got a decentish-but-slightly-underwhelming scene where she is driven to see Vincenzo off. Okay then.

Characters

Speaking of, Chayoung receives much of the short-end of the character development stick in the last 4 episodes. I found this to be acceptable in episodes 17-18, and she does have that moment where she looked uncertain and nauseated at the death of the “hunting dogs” before shoving down her misgivings, clinging onto a facade of strength as she says “this is what I wanted.” Also, even though it wasn’t episode 14, I wasn’t complaining about the Chayenzo moments either.

But still, this is the second most important protagonist in the narrative and nothing about her really changes in these last few episodes. Nor does she experience catharsis alongside Vincenzo, emotionally or otherwise. There had been some buildup about whether or not Chayoung can swallow the cruel path that she has chosen, but if she’s not even the given the chance to make her own decision on said cruel path, that’s just wasted set up.

(I know that during the Babel Tower party-fiasco Vincenzo told Chayoung that he originally wanted her to push the button that’ll kill one of the hunting dogs, but then decided against it upon seeing Chayoung’s wavering face, but like. Narratively, if she was the one to press it, and then we had some follow-up character arc about her coming to terms with her decision... Oh, we could’ve had it all.)

Another thing I want to point out is that Chayoung has been a foil to Vincenzo in that she represents the happiness, love, and innocence now unattainable to him. (This is just his view, by the way, since Chayoung isn’t exactly innocent herself, which he could’ve seen if the show had only taken this direction.) That is to say, Vinceno’s most interesting character moments are drawn out of him by Chayoung: In his apartment, when they are under the ceiling-stars, and she asks him whether he has ever killed anyone. On the rooftop, when they decide that Hanseok must lose everything before he dies, and he promises to her that he’ll stay in Korea to see things through to the end, in direct contrast to himself at the beginning of the show. In the highway pass, when she embraces him after a gunfight, the closest he’s ever grazed past death. When they drink makgeolli together and he tells her about what her father wanted to say to her. When they sit together by the riverside and she tells him that his mother would have been proud of him.

One of my favorite parts of episodes 11-12 during the gun fight is just how emotionally present Chayoung is, despite not wielding a gun herself, or even being anywhere near the action. I’m not sure if I’m getting this right, but I think this is the first time Vincenzo had killed people on screen, so to see Chayoung embrace him so tearfully afterwards almost felt like he was being reminded of his humanity. And this also shows that Chayoung, despite saying that she would feel distant towards Vincenzo if he did have blood on his hands, loves him closely, so closely it hurts.

We think about Vincenzo, what it means to be a consigliere, and his distorted flashbacks of flesh and blood and killing and losing himself, and that teddy bear, slowly panning out to a child, staring at him in fear. We think about how is it possible for him to love again? Can he even know what love is?

Then Chayoung appears, a woman whose very presence unraveled the mystery that is Vincenzo. But the moment that Chayoung’s development was stunted, that was the moment Vincenzo lost his foil, and we, the audience, lost the ability to see how his past, present, and future reconcile.

Themes: Loving in Sin

In episode 20, Vincenzo and the monks have a conversation about whether he was worthy of love or not before being told that he was Vaisravana — and though he could never be accepted by Buddha, he would be appreciated at times, and he would have his own role to play too. I like this conversation a lot in concept. In execution, it would’ve left much weightier an impact if only we had seen Vincenzo’s journey to reconcile his villainy and humanity play out more, if we had a glimpse into the moral conflict warring in his mind. The last time the drama showed that to us — not told it to us — was with the death of Vincenzo’s mother.

I would add more, really, but I feel like my review up until here says everything I want it to. In my opinion, there was no real epiphany that Vincenzo reached upon hearing those words from the monk because he hadn’t reflected on it enough for there to properly be one. And the ending to Vincenzo and Chayoung’s romance would’ve felt a lot better if it was Vincenzo choosing to love her despite his fear of himself, despite his belief that he could only hurt people. (Also that ending monologue wouldn’t have felt so tacked-on, like, oh wait this is supposed to have a theme right? Here, this is vaguely related, right?)

Because a lot of this emotional potential was not quite met, I think the finale also had to resort to some cheaper ways to make us feel for the romance, such as Chayoung rushing to see Vincenzo off and Vincenzo leaving the diplomacy-relations party early (he very poetically disappears while walking behind this sculpture, but I thought it was hilarious that if the shot didn’t get cut off there in another 2 seconds we could’ve seen him walking out of where that sculpture thing blocked him lol).

Overall though, I’m pretty happy with the romance’s ending, at least conceptually. The way they incorporated the story of cow herder and weaver girl and the bridge of pigeons (not magpies!) that will allow them to see each other again every year was so bittersweet, and as someone familiar with this myth, it made me very nostalgic. Also, I do think it works better with Vincenzo’s themes that he would be apart from Chayoung in some way. They each have their own lives to lead, but although they met by coincidence, they’ll remain by each other’s sides by intention. He is a villain, and so is she, but villains love tenaciously.

[c-ptsdrecovery]

Traits of Adult Children of a Narcissistic Parent

1. Indecision and Guilt

Adult children of narcissistic parents fear that they will hurt someone else by choosing to do what’s right for them. They have been ‘trained’ to consider their parent’s needs first and foremost, and it is therefore hard for them to consider their own needs without feeling selfish for doing so. This indecision and guilt can be paralysing for years.

2. Internalised Gaslighting

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgement.

Growing up with a narcissistic parent can leave the adult child feeling that they have very little to offer, even when the contrary may be true. Growing up, their talents and skills may have been downplayed, ignored, or co-opted by the narcissistic parent who will have felt threatened by their child’s skills.

Even when the now adult experiences success, they may feel that they don’t deserve it and this can give rise to imposter syndrome.  

3) Love and Loyalty

Even after growing up amid lies, manipulation, and abuse, it can be really difficult for adult children of narcissists to step away from caring for and loving their narcissistic parent. They will likely feel guilt for trying to step away or input boundaries, and may even enter into relationships with partners who show narcissistic traits. A love that is based on manipulations and conditions is something that is known to them, whereas a love that is unconditional might seem quite terrifying.

4) Strength and Resilience

Very often, adult children of narcissistic parents display a great ability to show compassion and love for others, are able to form loving relationships, and to learn to love and care for themselves. It is possible to recover from growing up with a narcissistic parent, and this will be discussed later in this article.

5) Chronic Self-blame

Whether or not the parent is openly abusive to the child, they are almost always emotionally tone deaf, and are too preoccupied with themselves and their own concerns to hear the pain of their child. As discussed earlier, in order to try to maintain the family unit, the child (even if they are now an adult) shies away from blaming their parent and instead takes all the blame on themselves; “If I was better at…”, “If I wasn’t such a difficult child…” and so on.

This can continue into adulthood, where the adult child continues to take the blame for things that aren’t always their fault. They become the scapegoat in many situations purely in order to keep the peace.

6) Echoism

Echoists and Narcissists complement each other and you can read more about Echoism here. Essentially, narcissistic parents can explode into anger or burst into tears without much warning, which forces their children to take up as little space as possible in order to avoid triggering one of these emotional outbursts. It can feel like walking on eggshells; trying to do everything possible to avoid their parent having a meltdown.

7) Insecure Attachment

Adult children of narcissists are likely to become insecurely attached to their parent; never experiencing that safe base that they need in order to feel comfortable exploring their environment.

The neglect, manipulation, or emotional absence of a parent can leave their child questioning how safe they will be able to feel in other people’s hands. This leads some adults to become fiercely independent, not trusting that anyone else can be relied upon. However it can lead others to cling to their partners for love and demand the attention of their significant other at all times.

8) Parentified Child

Children who grow up with a narcissistic parent will have organised their whole life and personality around the happiness of their parent, and will then grow up organising their life around the happiness of others – many of them working in the helping professions. You can read more about parentified children here.

How You Can Move Forwards

There are many different ways that you can move forwards and heal from being raised by a narcissistic parent. I would recommend that you don’t attempt to do this alone; whether you enter into a therapeutic relationship or work through your recovery with a partner is up to you. Working through this healing process with another family member could cause problems, so proceed with caution.

Here are some key steps that you can take to begin the healing process;

1) Recognise. As with anything, the first step is awareness. We can’t move on until we know what has caused us pain. If you are reading this article then it is probable that you suspect that one of your parents had narcissistic traits or Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

2) Study. Educate yourself about NPD and the impacts that it can have on the family system. Scour the internet, read text books, and talk to therapists who understand narcissism.

3) Recount your experiences. This exercise can be difficult, so I would definitely recommend that you get support with it. [Note from @c-ptsdrecovery: if you have symptoms of PTSD, I would NOT suggest doing this without a trained trauma therapist. They can help you recount your traumatic experiences without becoming overwhelmed by them.] For each sign and symptom of NPD, recall and write down your own experiences from childhood or adulthood that match.

For each of these memories, the narrative needs to be re-written with a new dialogue of “My parent is a narcissist and is treating me this way because of that.” There is no blame in this new dialogue; not for you, and not for your parent. This is a way of re-framing your experiences in the light of new information, and extricating the blame from yourself.

4) Identify. During the previous step, it is highly likely that some abusive, traumatic, and neglectful behaviour on the part of the narcissistic parent becomes evident. As painful as it might be, you will likely be able to identify emotional abuse and neglect (guilt-tripping, manipulating), and even psychological abuse (gaslighting or the silent treatment). You might also find examples of physical abuse, financial abuse (neglect or excessive gift-giving). It can be extremely helpful to work through these memories with a counsellor.

5) Grieve. there can be a lot of grieving involved in this type of healing. Both grieving for the childhood that you didn’t get, and also grieving for the image of your parent that has been shattered. As mentioned, growing up we only know what we know. And so, when you grow older and realise that other children had a very different childhood from your own, you might feel jealous, hard-done-by, and angry that you didn’t get to experience this.

You might have grown up protecting your parent, or idolising them, only to realise that they have actually caused you some harm. This can be quite de-stabilising and we may find that we need to grieve for the image that we used to hold of our parent.

6) Work through developmental milestones. It is very likely that, growing up, you missed some pretty important developmental milestones, and now is the time to start experiencing them and learning. Now is the time to explore your own identity, to experiment with your sexuality, with dating, with choosing what you want to study and what you really want to do with your life. You will very likely have to learn to ask for what you need (you can start off small, i.e. by asking for directions), to learn how to identify your emotions which were kept buried for so long, and to learn how to set healthy boundaries.

7) Understand. Finally, it is important to understand and come to accept that your narcissistic parent won’t change. As much as you might want to confront them, or as much as you do confront them, it is very unlikely that the parent will change their ways.

Confronting a narcissistic parent can cause some quite big arguments in families as, as mentioned earlier, a narcissist will feel great shame and vulnerability that their perfect image is being penetrated. This can lead to them becoming extremely defensive and angry.

It is also important to acknowledge, and maybe even forgive, your other parent. If one of your parent’s is a narcissist, it is likely that the other is an enabler. By going along with and/or excusing the narcissist’s abusive behaviour, enablers essentially normalise and sustain it. Sometimes enablers also assist the narcissist in their dirty work, condoning and perpetuating their abuse. By not naming the abuse and not protecting their kids from it, enablers become complicit, even if they are also victimised by it.

[pedroalonso]

it’s so funny to me how the fandom is so divided about palermo’s development there is no middle ground in any of the arguments i’ve seen so far

Martín has always been a divisive character from the start and I honestly love that for him. lmao. But yeah, In truth, I can’t scroll through the LCDP tag without seeing someone ranting about Palermo, either negatively or positively regarding his arc this season.

And after thinking about it for a while, I realize that a large chunk of people’s arguments (my own included) are deeply rooted in personal interpretation and biases. We all have our own takes on a character. We project either our likes or dislikes on them, depending on our own life experiences and beliefs. It’s not wrong to do so, it’s literally a normal thing humans do. To personalize a story in a way that resonates with them.

But at the end of the day, characters are not sentient beings. They are narrative tools to tell a story and move the plot forward. While we can get a gauge of the “basics” of a character from the stuff we are presented with in canon, we can never really be certain about “who they are” because they aren’t real. Their development is dependent on what kind of story is being told, and writers will always adjust their characters to fit the current narrative.

In terms of Volume 1, the writers have always hinted that they wanted to make the final season “an explosive one”, meaning they wanted to make it more action heavy. And looking back on it now, they succeeded in doing what they set out to do. The new season was like an action movie. Lots of gunfire. Explosions. It’s easy to brush it off as LCDP mimicking another Hollywood blockbuster to increase viewership, but I think it made sense. It showed us how dire their situation is in the bank. How much deep shit they were in that the military was willing to bomb the building and inadvertently kill hostages just to catch them. And the first volume ended with the MAIN CHARACTER getting killed off. Like the stakes were so high not even the goddamn narrator survived. The show is literally telling us how fucked things are for the band.

So with that said, the characters adjusted to this “action” movie vibe the writers wanted to go with. And I think they all acted accordingly. There was less conflict within the group because they worked together to beat a common enemy, setting aside their personal issues to get the job done and survive. And while it’s true that some character arcs (Palermo’s especially) had to be set aside, it was because they HAD to in order to move the plot forward. How much sense would it make if Martín kept raving on about the gold when the Bank was literally exploding around him? He’s a chaotic asshole, yeah. But give him more credit than that, he’s not an idiot. The gold can wait. He needs to survive NOW.

And again, narrative wise, who he is in Part 5 directly connects to his last scene in Part 4. He made a promise to do better and they followed it through in literally the first episode of Volume 1, where he’s shown to be more remorseful for his actions. If he just went back to being an angry asshole, it wouldn’t have made sense because otherwise, what was his last scene in Part 4 supposed to be for?? Just for funsies?? No, of course not. They were already foreshadowing where his arc was heading in Part 5.

And I know LCDP sucks at maintaining continuity. There are a lot of plotholes that haven’t been addressed because they probably forgot about it or deemed it unnecessary. (Like me, for example, wondering if Martín knows it was Helsinki who blew up the tunnel that resulted in Andrés death??? Like I want that angst PLEASE).

But, hear me out. What LCDP fails in continuity, they make up for emotional terrorism. Not only are they more than capable of killing off likable characters (NAAAAIROBI), they are also very good at making unlikeable characters… not always loveable. But understandable, in a way. More empathetic. For example: Berlin was 100% a disgusting dipshit in the Mint, yes, but in the end when he sacrifices himself to save the gang and you find out he and the Professor were brothers this whole time? That was a twist. Maybe you didn’t end up liking Berlin, but you felt pain for Sergio for losing someone so obviously dear to him. They made you feel sorry for seeing this asshole go.

Which brings me to my final point. Characters are used to convey a theme. What do they represent in the story? Berlin’s thematic arc in the first two seasons, for example, was him going from a villain to an anti-hero. From the moment we find out about his terminal illness, we knew he was going to die either way. You can see him grappling with his mortality — about the inevitability of his death. And it seemed like he was planning to live out his last remaining years being an asshole surrounded by a shitload of money, until he ultimately dies from his illness.

But then, he sacrifices himself. Not only does he escape the “humiliating” decline that was to befall him when he escapes, he also gave meaning to his death. He, the heartless evil bastard, made himself the hero in the end. How rude!

So, when it comes to Martín, we have to think: What is his purpose in this story? What is the theme he’s trying to convey? Is it the tragedy of an unrequited love? Or is it learning to let it go?

Because looking back in episode two of Part 3, Sergio recruits Martín in a dirty flat in Palermo, littered with empty liquor bottles and Martín himself looking like a mess. When he broaches the topic of the heist, Martín can barely mention Andrés without his voice cracking. And when he and Sergio do discuss Andrés, he screams and gets angry and cries. He was obviously still mourning Andrés, who at this point, died FIVE YEARS AGO. That is not… a normal grieving period. May it be due to the lack of a support system after Andrés’s death (since I doubt Sergio visited), or the lack of real closure between him and Andrés, or something else, the point is… Martín Berrote was not okay. He was still clinging to Andrés in some way. Still unable to move on.

So when Sergio proposes to do the Bank of Spain heist and Martín accepts, his thematic arc began. He is introduced as Andrés’s long suffering best friend who was in love with him for years until he was eventually discarded. A lot of his moments in the show discuss and convey this dynamic. From him telling Sergio he loved the plan as much as he loved Andrés, to Nairobi confronting him about Berlin, to Martín himself telling Helsinki how Andrés leaving him made him the “asshole” he is today.

His theme is not just about his love for Andrés, but his grief and suffering because of it. Where the show will eventually take it is still debate-able, and we’ll have to wait for Volume 2 for that. But viewing Martín’s whole arc in this way, through the scenes they chose to put about him, and the way they connect it to the main plot — his development this season did not come out of the blue. It made logical and narrative sense. It all connects! This was the kind of story they wanted for him from the start.

[marmalade-mir]

you were my first asker!! <3<3 thank u unrelated but i am brainrotting so if you are down to word vomit what are some of your fav dsmp dynamics?? 👀👀

Thanks for the ask ! I’m always down to appreciate & lovepost about the characters :) Warning though: I wrote a Lot. For me, characters and their relationships are at the heart of any story. And I think that’s a big reason why so many people are so drawn to the Dream SMP specifically. The variety in personalities of both the content creators and their characters make for some really phenomenal dynamics! Here are my personal favorites:

1. Quackity and Technoblade:

The potential ??? The potential. Maybe it’s my love for rhetorical analysis, but these two are such clear narrative foils! For starters, the clash between Quackity’s melodrama and theatrics versus Techno’s dry deadpan is so fun to watch both in and out of the Dream SMP canon. They compliment each other to a tee. I adore them. 

Things get even more interesting when they so adamantly oppose each other in canon. As much as opposites have a great propensity to attract, they have just as much potential to clash. At their core, they both want to undermine institutions of absolute power, but their definitions of what that power is and what it looks like vastly differ. Quackity is at his strongest when he utilizes his social and political power. Technoblade, on the other hand, is at his strongest when he utilizes his physical power. 

Quackity and Technoblade’s characters were practically destined for one of two extremes. Their mutual hatred of absolute power could have been a bridge between the two. If they were to ever both play to their strengths and team up against a common enemy, there is no doubt that they would be extremely powerful together. But for now, they remain diametrically opposed.  

*posting the rest under read more, in case anyone doesn’t want to be subjected to whole ass essays lol

2. Ranboo and Tubbo: 

Two words: absolutely adorable. Their real-life dynamic plays a big role in their character dynamic, and that’s a good thing! Although I don’t religiously watch their streams, whenever I do happen to catch one, it’s sure to make me smile. Tubbo’s quirkiness stands out a lot when he’s with Ranboo, who often plays the “straight man” to Tubbo’s eccentricity. Flirting competitions to see who can make the other one more flustered? Very fun. I too have jokingly flirted with one of my friends and until it ended up in a joke marriage,,, I suppose I have a soft spot for that very specific dynamic because of that...

3. Schlatt and Quackity: 

Speaking of joke flirting, Quackity and Schlatt. It’s pretty funny when they slip into a similar back-and-forth as their characters regardless of whether they’re doing lore or not. They still play up the bits they’ve developed—overly flirtatious couple giving each other increasingly ridiculous pet names, exes with an awkward tension because of unresolved feelings, or just two idiots arguing with each other over the most randomly inconsequential topics to ever exist (Spirited Away and quesaritos and gun etiquette, to name a few). 

Like these two hadn’t even talked in a month before Sam’s face-reveal stream, but the second that they were in call together they picked up right where they left off. They didn’t hesitate to start spewing their usual obnoxious, lovey-dovey banter like “my sugar plum pumpkin-spice latte” or “I’m waiting at the finish line.” RIP to Sam for having to third wheel for a few awkward minutes.

Within the story, I think some of their strongest character moments were when they were with each other. Other posts have expressed this before, but it requires trust in one’s acting partner to be able to commit to the more intense scenes (it probably helps that they get into a lot of lighthearted arguments as it is). But whether they’re pretending to love each other or pretending to hate each other—if they’re together, it’s guaranteed to be entertaining. Not good for each other in canon, but I miss them anyway!!

4. Jack Manifold and Tommy: 

Jack and Tommy’s characters have a complicated dynamic, to put it lightly. Jack Manifold’s stream after he got news of Tommy’s death revealed a lot. The stream’s cheery celebration title belied Jack’s actual very conflicted feelings towards Tommy and his death. Yes, Jack originally set out to kill Tommy himself. But he made that his main purpose in life. Revenge and resentment gave his life meaning. And consequently, he felt that Tommy gave his life meaning. 

So he grieved. Because, regardless of any contempt he felt, the person that made him cling to life so desperately in the first place was gone. The complexity and thought put into those character motivations is something to be admired!! And now there’s another added layer of complications now that Tommy has returned and just wants everything to go back to normal. Back when things were simpler. 

It’s all very tragic, for both parties involved. And that makes them both very very intriguing and sympathetic characters in my eyes. 

That’s all for now, hope I adequately fed your brainrot <3 I wrote an excessive amount,, but there’s always more where that came from :0

[missabnormal]

Alright, so I watched Wonder Woman 1984...

[MAJOR SPOILERS UNDER THE CUT]

So, in no particular order:

1) I get where Jenkins and the writers are coming from: they needed a lot of time to develop the characters--establish their stories and their personal lives, especially where they are at emotionally. I just think they needed to find a better balance between the action and that development. That is to say, I think the movie suffers from the 2014 Godzilla movie problem, in which it took a hell of a long time to get to the action parts in a movie that was marketed as showcasing a lot of action. 

It’s... agh, I’m conflicted, but I’m leaning towards there should have been more action. It just needed better balance of it all, even when Diana doesn’t have her powers. After the first movie had a (mostly) nice balance of action and development (for plot and characters)--and frankly better action--it’s hard to then see this movie and not see... less.

I also feel like the movie thought because it was taking place in the 1980s, it needed the nostalgic tone to it; that is, it’s weird for Diana to be, at her final scene with Max to be talking about how beautiful the world already was without the lies that the wishes create, but I feel like she would know that the world wasn’t... that. We’re at the height of the Cold War and the nuclear arms race, racism is still rampant, the President (not sure if he was supposed to be Reagan or an analogy to him) in real-world history was defunding a lot of things including mental health treatment, and so on. The movie definitely establishes the Cold War, the conflicts in the Middle East, and at least anti-Irish sentiment from the English, but it all feels... not quite surface-level, but also not quite explored in depth. I don’t know, did Jenkins/the writers just not want to explore the same themes as the first movie? Maybe they thought it would be too similar? It could be, but... there could have been better ways of handling it, you know?

Of course, there was also the topic of racism with Max. Let me tell you, Max’s arc in this movie was so far and beyond what I expected. I thought, from the interviews from the cast and crew, that the movie was going to go full on Max-as-Trump-analogy. To show him as a Latin American immigrant who suffered from racism and poverty is a lot to adjust to. I like JLI Max Lord, but he was also the epitome of born-wealthy white man corporate capitalist privilege--he just had the opportunity to be fully developed by DeMatteis and Griffin as a character and not just be left as a cardboard cutout and personification of 1980s corporate America. 

Also, Max’s development is reminiscent to who he was in the very early days of the JLI, in terms of goals and--at the end of the day--care for like... not destroying the world and all that. The difference is that instead of an alien computer manipulating him (to an extent), the movie had Max use a wishing-stone. Also, he has a son for whom he cares about which, again, I was not expecting.

2) It feels bizarre and so wrong that neither Diana nor Steve asked themselves 1) why Steve reappeared in some random 1980s guy’s body instead of appearing as himself, 2) the moral/ethical questions of Steve inhabiting random guy’s body without consent and just doing whatever with it (especially after it’s implied that Diana and Steve had sex, which HELLO??? That’s not his body???). Like, it’s the kind of plot point that would probably happen in an actual ‘80s movie, no questions asked, but just because the movie is taking place in the 1980s doesn’t mean it should have the same values as the ‘80s. Like, it feels like the “trick” of the wish should have been Steve taking this random guy’s body and life and not just Diana’s powers. 

Anyway, how the movie handled this particular aspect of the plot is all kinds of wrong and baffling to see it coming from a Wonder Woman movie in the year 2020.

3) Flying aircraft from the 1910s would be drastically different from aircraft from the 1940s and on. Pretty hard to believe that Steve would just know how to fly a future military airplane without even a few pointers. 

4) The movie has a tendency of randomly showing objects or characters when it’s convenient instead of actually establishing them in a cohesive manner within the narrative. For example, the Eagle Armor appears just when its convenient to talk about it. The movie could have established sometime in the first act of the movie; i.e. it could have, say, had used the dinner scene to show Barbara asking Diana something like “What made you pursue anthropology?” and Diana answering with a “Oh, I wanted to explore my Greek ancestry” and then shown a brief moment when Diana is at her apartment of her checking the monitors and a brief panning over the ~mysterious~ object under the sheets. 

Another example is Diana using invisibility powers on the jet. I could have lived without an invisible jet in the movie, but if it was gun-to-the-head-there-MUST-be-an-invisible-jet, then I would have tried to also establish those powers before hand. For example, the movie could have shown Diana casually practicing using her powers on random objects once or twice before having her use them on the jet. That way, viewers could have understood that this power is a thing that actually exists within the movie and not just something that comes up when its convenient. 

5) It feels like Diana didn’t get as much development in this movie as in the last one. If anything, it feels like a lot of it was given to Max and Barbara, which on one hand I understand because they are new characters within the DCEU; but on the other hand, it’s supposed to be a Wonder Woman movie with the central character being Diana. She and Steve did have many scenes together, but the Max and Barbara scenes outshone theirs. 

6) Barbara... well, she borderline falls into the “powerful woman becomes evil” trope that is saved from falling into it full-on by the wishes having traps to them. However, things get complicated, narrative-wise, after Diana makes her speech about the world already being beautiful and all that. Sure, in terms of Barbara herself, she was already a kind, if awkward woman; but her coworkers and random men were shitty to her. They treated her like she barely existed, taunted her or attempted to assault her. Barbara became power-hungry, sure, but are the other people who had been shitty to her not wrong, too? There’s something fundamentally wrong with how society treats certain people (like how white Americans treated young Max Lord, or how that English woman treated the Irish man) and the movie can’t show it and then not address it in-depth, especially when the suffering that people have gone through is what lead many of them to make rash wishes (although, to be fair, the grand majority of them didn’t know what the wishes actually entailed). 

The movie doesn’t say if after everyone renounced their wishes everything became better or just went back to how things were. Although this movie is vaguely within the DCEU, it is still in it, to it’s fair to say that the world didn’t become better after people realized the destruction they were bringing upon the world with their wishes. However, to then say that everything went back to how things were is not a good ending, either. Does Barbara have to suffer through people’s indifference to her, if not outright assault, again? Is the Cold War and the threat of a nuclear apocalypse still going to continue? Are Irish people going to continue to suffer through discriminatory English sentiments towards them? Is unchecked exploitative corporate America just going to continue existing, especially those that deal with oil? Are people just going to continue to be racist? Because here’s the thing: Max may have said “life is good, but it can be better” but of course things weren’t great and the movie taps into that; yet, it’s just that, tapping into it. It presents the problems, but it doesn’t present the solution. If it’s not wishes, then what? Because going back to how things were is, you know, not great. 

Any story that presents the existence of complex conflicts has the responsibility of dealing with those in a satisfying way, and I’ve seen many stories that want to be complex, but don’t want to give it a complex solution. No story, or movie, is perfect (and none will ever be), but WW84 could have at least tried a bit more. 

7) I don’t mind Diana grieving so much over Steve, but her reluctance to renounce her wish to regain her powers could have been better handled, along with her grief. The movie briefly established that pretty much everyone she met in the first movie (except maybe Chief?) is dead. Yet, it’s so brief compared to the rest of the movie. To truly understand the depth of Diana’s desperation to keep Steve alive, the movie could have emphasized how pretty much everyone she ever cared about--on an interpersonal level--is dead or on an island that she can never return to. She’s not only alone in terms of romance, she’s alone in almost every emotionally conceivable way. And as time passes, she will remain young, but all the people she meets will grow old and die around her. The movie could have emphasized how Diana is emotionally clinging to those people she met when she first arrived in Man’s World and she can’t take being emotionally close to others again because she fears it will be too painful to see these new people die around her. It’s doubly hard when Diana also loves humanity: she wants to help them in any way she can, but that also means she can never separate herself from them. It’s love and pain interwoven, but the truth is that’s life. You lose people and doors close on you, but others open and new people come through. Everyone wishes to have everything they ever wanted, but part of being human is learning what that “everything” actually means to one’s personal life. 

The movie could have tried of uniting these ideas: Diana’s grief over Steve, Diana’s loneliness, Diana’s love for the world, the state of the world in the 1980s, human desire and fallacy, what it means to truly love and be loved, and what is it that we can do with our lives, and that of others, in an imperfect world. I can almost see some of these ideas floating on air throughout the movie, but they’re just that: floating, not quite coming together in a cohesive manner; a draft that never got that final and needed revision. 

*I might have missed a few things to talk about, but this is what comes to mind for now. 

[sinnhelmingr]

aloe, belladonna, fern, sage for DS Hel // @royal-dragonslayer-ornstein​​

ALOE : how does your muse handle grief ?

Honestly? Very, very differently from how others seem to process it. Especially when younger, given her life being built around the tending of the dead and that in their dark rest they know peace. For a long while, Hel saw no reason for lamenting death, knowing what lay beyond, though she understood it hurt others to have their time with a loved one cut short. This actually bit her in the ass at one point in an ask with a Gwynevere in that she got chewed out for not showing due contrition over the loss of others.

It took forging many bonds in the world beyond that she began to understand grief -- especially, I think, at the loss of Artorias. His death was meaningless, and cruel, and wholly avoidable, and there was nothing to celebrate in his passing. Lost to the Dark, there was surely no peace for him. I think that cut her the most deeply at first, and the impact his death had on those he left behind. It was only later on, when alone to think on it of her own accord, that she registered she missed him, and she wished he had come back after all, and that was her first brush with personal grief.

Even so, it has been fleeting in her life. She’s more likely to echo it as per decorum than truly feel it. When Gwyn died, she was more upset for his children than the loss of the king. She grieved that the king never appreciated his youngest as she should have been appreciated, that he never made amends with his firstborn, that he pushed such responsibility onto his already struggling eldest daughter. She grieved his failings and their impact, not his death, a secret she keeps close to the chest knowing how further deified the godfather has become in the centuries since.

I think this silent sense of grief for lives unlived deepens once she takes on Nito’s dominion and is further separated from others. Others will die, in time, god and human, king and beggar, all passing into what is now her keeping -- but she never will. She will stand and watch all things fall, and in the dark of the grave all will be reunited. Her grief is exhausting then, to watch old friends enter her dominion without a word, to see children she once doted upon be broken and put out of their misery during the final sputters of the light. In its final form, her grief is unexpressed but it is powerful, and she presses on because someone must when the rest are gone.

That said, at it’s deepest, Hel is seen to express her grief violently. For a brief period in the story, she’s openly gunning for the Undead after they kill Nito, pulled back from claiming them permanently only by their own undying nature and the firm rebuke of the Dark Sun. In turn, the loss of her beloved, even though they had been separated for at least a few decades, is expressed in the fact she’s hunting members of the Church of the Deep for sport. Just a widow and her scythe, demanding blood black as ichor for divine blood as if it can ever measure up. 

BELLADONNA : how does your muse respond to silence ? do they take comfort in soundlessness , or seek to fill the void with noise ? 

It depends on the situation, honestly! Silence is sort of the resting state of her home, where ones duties as a servant of the Graves should be done peacefully and with care taken not to disturb the dead. This manifests in a lack of light and treating the deceased with a sort of hushed reverence so their rest will be as comfortable as possible. The Fenito keep their work sacrosanct, though there are certain regions within their Lord’s dominion where the dead do not reach where japery and more open fraternization is encouraged. Even so, some of her siblings prefer to keep their silences, and so Hel is always comfortable with it. Silence, when comfortable or sacred, feels like home to her, and so she cherishes it.

However, she’s well aware that is the way of the Graves, and that the world outside is not beholden to such practices. Sometimes silences can be downright eerie even to her, a mark of the Darkness, a reminder of how far the splendor of a city has fallen. It can be an omen of violence past or present, or a mystery best left unpursued. In those moments, she might retreat from perceived threat as quietly as possible, or fill the still air with song or some other distraction from empty halls and paths. 

In the good old days, especially, she sought to fill silences, eager to ask questions and make merry and in some way belong to the world of Light and all its decadence. Laughter was her calling card then, and fast-moving feet as she fled from whatever innocent mischief she wrought in Gwyn’s hall. Yet she loved more than anything to make those around her join in her mirth, whether by word or deed, and so she coveted the sound of other voices, of approval in her actions.

FERN : does your muse believe in magic or cosmic forces , or are they more likely to think their life is ultimately a matter of their own control ? 

Magic is real and her dearest companion is a master of the craft. There are energies across all levels of the world which lend themself to those dedicated to their pursuit, and Hel thinks that’s actually pretty neat. Except for when it, like, drives the Paledrake mad or causes women to go missing in the night or -- Okay, maybe magic is far more a neutral force in this world. Neutral in that it falls to the wielder to decide what to do with it, rather than magic defining the user as some assume.

Hel is a staunch believer in accountability and the power of personal decision. be it in magic or life. She has, in the flow of the age, seen a lot of people do terrible things and then blame it on tradition, on necessity, on doing wrong for the right reasons. Perhaps due to her morality having developed separately from most surface-dwellers, she is very against the end justifies the means. Honestly the only reason she didn’t pull back from the plot to keep the flame burning sooner was just because the Undead needed to be dealt with, and at least this way the curse served some purpose. Notably, the second others spoke of using a living child as kindling she balked and abandoned everything she loved and called home after the loss of her Lord.

You can justify your choices through the Flame, through Gwyn, through your Covenant, through your orders, but at the end, all are left with how far they chose to go in that pursuit, and in that they must reflect and, if finally able to assert themself as more than pawn, atone. You cannot blame any force or power for personal failing, no matter if it might help you sleep at night -- or so Hel sees it.

SAGE : what is your muse’s legacy ? what do they want to be remembered for & what might they actually be remembered for ?

There’s actually a little headcanon title I gave Hel that really sums it up in certain time periods. Lunar Shadow -- that is, the shadow cast by the moon as depicted by Gwyndolin. She is the shade and mystery that clings fast to Luna in a lonely sky, the reflection of her will and power. Hel is never her lover’s pawn the way others accuse her, as shown in that she’s willing to butt heads with Gwyndolin on certain facets of the plan and her place in it, but she is inextricably linked to her all the same. Many will remember her as ally and acolyte of the Holy City in its twilight, bound to its cause like marriage vows.

In the golden age, however, she was the Mourning Princess, grey-clad and dust-soaked, a death that was both fair and welcoming. Others cossetted the strange creature, looked to her for amusement she, as already outlined, was all too willing to provide. Many godkin who fled will remember her for that, her good nature and sharp tongue, and a generous nature that adored even the most wretched creature that slithered across her host’s hall. The ending that most write is that she’s still in that city today, entangled in the arms and scaled limbs of that which she loved most dearly -- and for a time, they are not wrong.

Time shifts, however. In a far flung future, her Lord has been forgotten by all but her siblings, and she has risen to take Nito’s place. She’s revered as a goddess of death, Death-Who-Walks among the inhabitants of some far-flung land, black-clad and with a voice like song, ever-watchful. But Gods rise anew, in a land of snow and moonlight, and she is Queen, she is Beloved, she is the future of a people she never quite belonged to, the silk to glove her patron’s iron will. Her statues stand in the courtyards and palace, commissioned by one who loves her and wanted to depict what she saw as beauty. These stand even after that love has faded into opposition. And after her lover is gone, she is Avenger, Warrior, the Bane of heretics.

What I’m getting at here is that Hel’s legacy is different things to different people, from a stately queen of the dead to a curiosity in the eyes of gods. She’s the widow and divorcee depending on whose record you follow in her love life, and she’s both the hunter of heretics who spites the Church of the Deep and the vocal defender of a certain Prince’s choice to damn the Flame. She can’t really be neatly divided into simple lore because so much of what she is seems contradictory. That’s perfectly valid, too, as many that will be reduced to simple legacies were so much more than a condensed story as well.

All Hel wants, really, after she leaves the Land of Lord’s behind once there is no one left to tether here there, is to be remembered as someone who tried for others. Someone who fought for more than the legacy of a fool and the flame he coveted, someone who was able to see the bigger picture and hopefully leave an impact through her words and actions. But then, after all her life was over the extended age, I think the most she hopes for is to be forgotten and allowed to slip safely out of the narrative to make her own somewhere in the growing Dark.

[twodudesandamovie]

Brokeback Mountain Review

In lights of the recent Academy Awards, Eric nominated one of the more famous Oscar snubs in Brokeback mountain. Both Alex and Eric also were interested in how we look at LGBTQIA+ movies today as opposed to 15 years ago. Among the things discussed post-review were how Brokeback Mountain wouldn’t be controversial today, and how it was really a common love story with a twist.  Alex's Review: With ample amounts of dread, I dove into this over two hour long Lil Nas X origin story. Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger's characters seem to have no real jobs and instead aimlessly move sheep from Point A to Point B for no fucking reason and get paid for it. I guess maybe this is what being a cowboy entailed, but I assumed you became noted as a cowboy by your big hat combined with a denim jacket/jeans. Who could say really. Their relationship starts out on a confusing note, where you feel uncomfortable as to the willingness of both parties, but eventually you get to see a very complicated narrative form about what it was like to be secretly gay in 1963. The parts of the film that involve herding sheep are actually very entertaining, to have a peek into a lifestyle of a man who has to be able to pick up an entire sheep. I do not want or think I will ever need that ability, but I digress. The movie itself, although dreadfully long, hit on a lot of complicated emotions. Trying to follow three or more unsuccessful relationships throughout the course of the movie felt emotionally taxing at times, but not necessarily in a way that I could not relate to. At the end of the day, it sort of is just a complicated love story, but with a twist on it. Not unheard of in film, but I've never had to experience it told in this form. Usually, there's a "taking two girls to the same dance" kind of humor to it all. Eric and I talked about how we were interested to see the movie post 2005, where the stigma of homosexuality is no longer prevalent in society. That being said, the movie felt like its overall message was sort of missed, if it actually had a message. However, the movie's goal to hit me on an emotional level was extremely successful. I went from not caring about the characters and very confused about the purpose of their work or why they could not foster a single healthy relationship, I ended being surprised I had somehow burnt through 135 minutes and very sad Jake and Heath did not get to live their best lives. Although I think it was a actually a REALLY good movie on a lot of levels, I wouldn't say I necessarily enjoyed the film. It is surely the highest rated movie on Rotten Tomatoes I have seen in the past decade that is not a comedy or animated, the entire sentiment was sort of lost on me, because in 2020, the year of our lord, I now have shame that I am straight. Funny how time works. Alex's rating: 7/10

Eric’s Review: Growing up, Brokeback Mountain was of course known as “the gay cowboy movie.” Looking back, that summary was so minimizing for a movie of this excellence, but that’s what 14-year-old me knew it as. That shortsighted synopsis carried with me to this day, I’m not proud of it, but that’s what it stuck in my head as. It generated tons of controversy when it came out in 2005. Primordial fuck-noodles like Rush Limbaugh and Don Imus weren’t short on homophobic remarks of Brokeback, and the owner of the Utah Jazz even pulled it from his movie theatre’s. Every conservative with a mouth cavity couldn’t contain their uproar. Then it was snubbed at the Oscars. Crash won Best Picture instead of Brokeback Mountain, it shouldn’t have hurt this movie’s legacy, but it did. Crash seems more deeply-ingrained in my memory than Brokeback Mountain, and maybe because society at that time wasn’t ready for a movie quite like this. We put it in a box and never let it out. After watching, I deeply felt that it didn’t matter what Jack or Ennis’ sexual orientation’s were (as it shouldn’t), it was a love story about two exceedingly lonely human’s trapped in a society that wouldn’t accept them. Fast-forward 30-40 years from when the movie was set, and it didn’t seem like much had changed. I don’t think Crash deserved Best Picture over Brokeback Mountain, but am I angry that it happened? Not really. Awards are decided by those that vote on them (no shit), and that particular group of people felt Crash was the better movie. C’est la vie. I usually don’t enjoy dwelling on plot in my reviews but I owe it to the reader to say what this movie is about since so many people refer to it as “the gay cowboy movie.” Two men, Jack Twist (played by Jake Gylenhaal) and Ennis Del Ray (played by Heath Ledger), show up at a trailer in Wyoming asking for work for the summer. A jack-of-all-trades (including being a jackass) named Joe needs someone to keep an eye on his sheep for him up in Brokeback Mountain, so he sends them up there to do so with a horse, some guns, and some cans of beans. As they spend time on the scenic heart-swelling Brokeback Mountain, they fall in love. But it’s the early 60s, and as they prepare to go back down the mountain, they know they can’t carry out their romance in the narrow-minded rural landscape of their country towns. As Ennis points out, people get killed for that. This act ends in Jack and Ennis having a fist fight, as emotionally repressed men tend to do. Focus-in on blood Jack gets on his shirt and save this for later. Post-tryst, Ennis gets married and Jack is a rodeo boy making passes at bull-tamers. But then Ennis gets a postcard one day. The screenplay does a wonderful job seamlessly transitioning time as they carry out their romance over the years. They’d tell their wives they were going on “fishing trips,” when they were really going to the mountains for some whiskey and love-making. We can tell Ennis truly does love his wife Alma (played by Michelle Williams) at the start of their relationship. They have two kids, but the kids cause quite a strain on their marriage. And as the years go by, Ennis’ commitment issues due to his parents abandoning him as a child rear their ugly head. Jack marries a fellow rodeo girl in Texas named Laureen (played by Anne Hathaway), but their relationship is more of a business transaction. She approaches him to engage in some tumbleweed-rodeo-secks. She just wants a kid and a husband to help in the machinery business. This is okay with Jack and their marriage lasts, even with Jack’s infidelities. Ennis’ doesn’t. Alma knows about Ennis and Jack’s relationship and they grow apart over the years. Ennis’ commitment issues aren’t exclusive to Alma, though. As the film progresses, we see he applied this to every relationship in his life: his future girlfriend, his daughter’s, and even Jack. It’s why their relationship ultimately fails. Jack had dreams of living in the Wyoming country and being a cattle rancher with Ennis, but Ennis often laughed at the notion. Ennis remembers a time when his dad showed him a dead body of a gay man beaten to death. It’s hard to say if he’s ashamed of their relationship, or just scared. Even when he breaks down to Jack and exclaims: “YOU MADE ME LIKE THIS!” The audience knows he doesn’t really mean it, he’s just a scared Wyoming cowboy with commitment issues. The last act starts with Ennis attempting to mail Jack a postcard, as that’s how they used to communicate (I really do love how much more romantic a postcard or a letter can be than a text), he gets a return to sender that says “deceased.” Ennis calls Laureen and talks to her for the first time in his life. She knows he was one of Jack’s lover’s and seems slightly annoyed but at peace with it. She gives him a bogus story about how a tire popped and Jack drowned in his own blood, but Ennis knows he was beaten to death for being gay. His whole bitter-tough-cowboy facade crumbles, as it only could with Jack, and Ennis and Laureen have an honest moment reminiscing over the man they both loved. We could tell Laureen’s relationship with Jack was no longer transactional, as they aged together and learned to love each other. She tells Ennis he was cremated and that Jack always wanted his ashes scattered on Brokeback Mountain, and that he should go visit his parents. When Ennis arrives, we immediately know the family dynamic: Jack had a typical tough-exterior-tobacco-spitting farmer dad, but a sweet gentle mom where Jack may have gotten the familial love and understanding that Ennis never got. He used to tell his dad that he wanted to buy a home near him with Ennis and help with the ranch. Even through the dad’s tough exterior and his insistence on Jack’s ashes being scattered at the family plot and not at Brokeback Mountain, we can tell he’s truly a father who misses his son. There is something fragile to him, something so melancholy that it expels a grieving scent throughout the home. Jack’s mom tells Ennis that she left his room as it was when he was a child. Ennis goes up there in the most heartbreaking scene of the movie, and sees Jack’s roots. Then he wanders over to the closet and finds the shirt Jack was wearing the last day they were on Brokeback Mountain. The blood from their fight is still on the sleeve. It’s a symbol of how Ennis pushed away everyone he’s ever loved, but especially Jack, the love of his life and only one who ever truly understood him. He takes the shirt, not only as a memorial to Jack, but as a reminder of how he’s treated his loved ones in his life. In the last scene, Ennis’ daughter visits him. Previously, we learned Ennis was largely absent from her life. Ennis doesn’t even know who she’s currently dating when she visits him, and then she tells him she’s getting married. At first, Ennis wants to cling to his cold exterior, the shell it seems he’s reverted into even more since Jack’s death. But we see him finally shed this shell, as he tells his daughter he’ll be at the wedding. Maybe he heard Jack’s voice in his head reminding him to be a bit more brave, as after Ennis’ daughter leaves, he walks over to his dresser where Jack’s bloody shirt hangs. Cut to credits and let me cry. The first point that caught my eye about directorial choices in this movie was the stark juxtaposition of the dream-like Wyoming mountains and the depressing domestication of Wyoming and Texas rural home-life. The resplendent colors we see in the mountains and the off-whites and browns we see in Wyoming and Texas are purposeful and are painted with sincere artistry. Ang Lee had a balloon and he grabbed it with his gentle directorial touch then smeared it with peanut butter and sent it off into the clouds. The acting was downright phenomenal. I believe this was the first movie where Heath Ledger was taken seriously as an actor and not a Hollywood heartthrob. It was pre-Dark Knight and he may have never gotten that role if it weren’t for this movie. I know I pointed it out in my Little Women review, but the talent it takes to change your accent like that is befuddling. Ledger is Australian and is talking in a down-home Wyoming drawl. His portrayal of Ennis is the beating heart of this movie. I’d like to say he was a strong and silent type, but really he was weak and silent, sort of a metaphor for the way our society treated sexuality back then. I could review each actor’s performance, but the truth is: it was utterly superb all around. Only with this kind of acting and screenwriting can a movie achieve such character depth and nuance. Rating: 9.5/10. One of the best film’s of the twenty-first century. Did this deserve the Oscar over Crash? Fuck yes it did. I liked Crash but it wasn’t the all-around masterpiece Brokeback Mountain was. It’s also insane to think how far LGBTQ+ has come in 15 years, as I think Brokeback Mountain wouldn’t even be close to as controversial today as it was back then. Do I think it might’ve won the Oscar? Probably not. The academy hasn’t evolved much since then. R.I.P. Heath Ledger too, it was so sad watching a deceased actor at the top of his talent in one of his best roles. 

[everythingisgreenandsubmarine]

Ari Aster's Search for the Soul of Horror

When I first saw Hereditary, I was mixed. On one hand, I appreciated the eerie imagery and the coy, teasing nature of the film. It maintained such a heightened level of tension and fear that I was constantly looking over my own shoulder (or up at my ceiling, later that evening) waiting for the other shoe to drop. Yet, when that did occur, when Aster finally revealed his hand and the final half-hour of the film kicked in, I felt almost betrayed. This was what I had been expecting in many ways, and yet to see it visualized on the screen felt like a cop-out, like Aster was trading the family drama, which had made the film so unique and accessible, in for something more pedestrian.

I’ve had time to reflect on Hereditary since that initial viewing, and it has grown on me considerably. While my original review for the film pinned it at 3 and 1/2 stars, I would now put it at 4 stars (perhaps even verging on 4 and 1/2). There are a few reasons for this, but the main one — and the one that this blog post is centered around — is his search for humanity in his filmmaking. In essence, Aster is searching for the soul in his horror.

I. Hereditary and the Tragedy of Family

There are a lot of quotes out there from Ari Aster, particularly about his relationship with horror. One of my personal favorites, “I often cling to dead things.”, perfectly preceded his sophomore film, Midsommar. Yet, the most interesting quote of his that I’ve found is also one of his most succinct.

"I don't necessarily consider myself a horror filmmaker."

Considering both of Ari Aster’s films are, in the most overt terms, horror films, this quote may seem odd. Yet, I think they also speak to the truth of what Aster is doing. This can particularly be seen in Hereditary, which I would argue is more of a horror film than his sophomore effort.

For two acts, Hereditary is a family drama more than anything else. Horror lingers on the periphery of the film. Occasionally we’ll catch a glimpse of what looks like a ghost, or we’ll meet a character who doesn’t quite make sense. We struggle to catch out breath after the film throws us a horrifying curveball, and we grieve with this family as its tragedy unfolds. In this way, Hereditary works more along the lines of something cold and harrowing, like an eerie combination of Lynch’s harrowing visuals in Eraserhead and the uncomfortable drama of Ingmar Bergman’s Scenes from a Marriage. It’s in this exploration of grief that we see the first sign of Aster’s true vision, and the reason why the above quote is understandable.

Because yes, Hereditary is a horror film in the way we understand it: it’s scary, it deals with the supernatural, and it involves a lot of eerie, dark corners down which we often find something unpleasant. Yet, it’s also a dramatic tragedy: the visualization of a family overcome by grief, splintered apart by distrust, and eventually torn asunder by, if anything else, a desire to reconnect. The fact that it also includes demons and ghosts is more akin to the icing on the cake than the sponge itself.

II. A Fractured Relationship Is the True Horror In Midsommar

This is even more true of Aster’s sophomore effort, Midsommar. While it offers some similarly grotesque images and a harrowing narrative that is fraught with danger and horror, it’s not really a horror film — not in the way we would consider something like The Conjuring a horror movie. Aster’s goal is not to scare us, but to explore the deterioration of a relationship.

It’s here again that my previous comparison to Lynch and Bergman appears again (though, of course, I doubt Aster himself was consciously choosing this combination of styles; rather, it’s probably my personal adoration of these directors’ works). There are moments of genuine tension and fear, where I found myself gripping the edges of my theater seat. However, those moments are not what dominate the film — in fact, I would argue that horror elements dominate Midsommar much less than they did Hereditary. Aster keeps his focus on the broken relationship between his two main characters front and center. It’s their story.

This interpersonal story is what helps set Aster apart from other filmmakers out there in the horror landscape. You can feel the palpable bittersweetness in this film, particularly in its opening scene. As the film goes on, and we see the fracturing of this couple, I’m reminded of key scenes in the aforementioned Scenes from a Marriage. In Bergman’s film, the deterioration of the relationship is shown in words. It’s explore in arguments. In Aster’s film, it’s visualized in micro-moments, in glances, in harsh tones and inflections. It’s much more subtle, yet the result is similar.

III. More Than Just Jump Scares

With this, we come to the central difference between Aster and other filmmakers in the horror genre: he is searching for the very soul of horror. Rather the reveling in genre, he is using horror elements to explore humanity, to view what it means to be a person, to visualize these emotions of grief and loneliness that we grapple with on a daily basis.

While that may seem pretty ordinary in and of itself, it’s honestly a breath of fresh air for horror junkies like myself. When Aster is behind the camera, I know I’m not going to be subjected to cheap, deafening jump-scares. I know that there are going to be interesting characters at play, instead of cookie-cutter caricatures. I know that there is going to be emotional depth and resonance, in addition to scares.

Aster’s filmmaking recalls a certain type of horror film — Rosemary’s Baby, The Exorcist, The Shining, Don’t Look Now, Invasion of the Body Snatchers. These horror films were scary, but they were also incredibly human. They explored the humanity behind the horror, the people behind the ghosts, aliens, and demons. That’s what gave them the legendary status they enjoy to this day. Even when you look at some of the more propulsive slashers that used to come out, like Wes Craven’s A Nightmare On Elm Street, or foreign horror films like Hideo Nakata’s Ringu, you can see this undercurrent of relatable humanism.

Sadly, this seems to be something we are missing in the horror genre. While big blockbuster horror franchises focus on adding to their cinematic universes, and while Hollywood continues its obssessive desire to remake every old property in sight, Aster is leading the charge to bring unique, honest, reflective horror cinema to the screen. He’s not alone, either! Jennifer Kent, Robert Eggars, David Robert Mitchell, and many other filmmakers are right beside Aster in this attempt to bring unique, profound horror filmmaking back to the silver screen.

Horror has not died, let me get that straight. While I prefer films that have a bit of depth to them, I will always enjoy something bloody and ridiculous, like the Friday the 13th franchise. There are tons of independent efforts that fly under the radar, and I even enjoy some of the big blockbuster films that get released. I just like to appreciate effort when I notice it, and Aster is certainly putting in the effort.

Who knows what he’ll do next, whether it’s horror or he decides to jump out of the genre and explore other stories, told through other lessons.

All I know is I’ll always be in the theater opening weekend for his films.

[reikiajakoiranruohoja]

Why asshole-Blue matters

As much as I find Blue the forever flip-flopping hate sink amusing, I think people are massively missing a lot of messages in her narrative and behaviour.

The Blue in Steven's Dream wasn't the Blue her family knew. It was not the Blue Yellow considered her equal. That Blue was a shadow of her former self, put down by grief and guilt that she couldn't heal from.

The Blue in Familiar and Together Alone? That might be closer to her real personality before Pink's stunt. She is snarky, opinionated, classist and very willing to cause havoc behind White's back.

For Yellow, imagine if your strong counterpart who commanded respect with far more ease than you (Blue commands, Yellow negotiates) just went to ruin in front of your eyes. You already lost one person, but another is wasting away slowly before your eyes on top of it. Then Yellow basically gave up on Blue, because seeing a person fall down such a spiral of woe is -frightening.- To someone like Yellow, who puts so much stock in control and her image, it is even worse.

The moment Pink was revealed to be (sorta) alive, Blue basically reverted. Not in a good way, nor a healthy one. But she had her Pink back, so yay no more sadness. But that might not be something that she can uphold much longer. She is trying to cling to a thing lifeline of joy, thinking she can return to the way things were. But Yellow is not the same, Pink is not the same and even she is not the same.

But, this allows us to see just how strongly grief can mould a person. In a dark Aesop, just because someone grieves, it doesn't always mean they don't have dark sides to them. There is a positive though, in that we get a sense of Blue's idea of fun.

Her speaking to Greg was not a one-off thing made from grief, in private Blue actually is pretty amicable to different things than the norm. I refer to the Familiar bath scene a lot because I think it shows just how easily Blue drops the mask of duty and can just chill and have fun. Naming a batch of gems for the lols is very not proper, especially once it drew White's ire. But that was what Blue and Pink saw as fun. Even her put-down of Garnet tells just how much Blue likes to do things that amuse her over things she is supposed to do. Yellow most likely would have gone 'no' and leave it at that.

Blue is the red-herring of the duo, the one who seems more chill and easier to approach. That doesn't make her good qualities any lesser, but rather inform her flaws.

Blue is a great proof of why you cannot put people into boxes. Yes, she is a classist jerk, but she also cares a lot and isn't afraid to look at things from a new perspective. She has a limited pool of those she cares about, but damn if she isn't protective of them.

[sineala]

I'm a different anon but I want those paragraphs of why you don't ship Steve/Bucky. I got into Stony by way of MCU!Stucky, so something I struggle with Stony fics (of any fandom) is feeling the Stony chemistry when Bucky is present as a character. With my very selective gay-ified memory of a very small slice of Marvel canon, I just feel like Steve probably wouldn't go for Tony if Bucky is an option? But I recognize I have very little evidence for this opinion other than shared 1940s life exp.

Okay. For the five of you who, I guess, sincerely want to know why I don't ship 616 Steve/Bucky. Here goes.

I get why people ship MCU Steve/Bucky. They had a lot of comics material to draw on when deciding how to present Captain America in the MCU, and they intentionally chose and shaped a story that would make Bucky incredibly important to Steve; the combination of factors they arranged is such that no one else in the MCU is going to be able to be what Bucky is to Steve, although certainly other characters can be meaningful to Steve in different ways.

The MCU started off by borrowing from Ults, as they did for much of the MCU, and making Bucky Steve's childhood best friend as well as WWII teammate. They structured the plots of the Cap movies so as to make Bucky very important to Steve in all of them. In CATFA, rescuing Bucky was Steve's motivation to finally become Captain America, in the sense of actually going off and using his newfound abilities to fight evil. And then Bucky dies, which they arrange so that we can actually see Steve grieving for him (rather than a scenario closer to 616 in which they both go down at the same time). They also had the advantage of knowing that they next wanted to adapt The Winter Soldier arc, a storyline in which Bucky comes back -- so, since they knew that, they were able to take the "man out of time" quality of Steve and refine it and aim it, narratively, so that Steve is adrift in this strange future, and even though he connects with Sam and Natasha in CATWS (as well as the other Avengers in the team movies) they really set it up so that for him Bucky is the person who represents his past, who knows the "real" Steve who isn't Captain America, who has all this shared life experience that no one else can match. After Peggy dies in CACW, there is no one but Bucky who knows Steve from before the ice.

Recently I saw while checking fannish news sites that Chris Evans described Bucky as Steve's home. And, man, if that's what they're going for, I can see it. I mean, they've done three movies where one of the major things that drives the plot, in each of these movies, is the fact that Steve has some intense feelings for Bucky -- the rescue in CATFA, the, uh, entire plot of CATWS, and Steve trying to find Bucky and keep him safe in CACW. Bucky clearly means a hell of a lot to him, and Steve's plots have centered on having Bucky as his friend and ally. Why shouldn't you ship Steve with this guy who is his home? I get the impulse.

And I feel like I should start out by saying all this because I see all these things that people like about MCU Steve/Bucky. This is my understanding of what people like about MCU Steve/Bucky. What MCU Steve and Bucky have are all extremely romantic things for your OTP to have; if this is what you see in them, I see why you ship it in the MCU. But I don't think any of what people like about MCU Steve/Bucky is there for them in 616. At all.

I'm not saying this because I don't like 616 Bucky, because I do. I like him a lot! He's great! But... I don't ship him with 616 Steve. I don't really see it, not when there are other choices I see a lot better. (Like Tony.)

Where I am coming from in terms of my familiarity with comics: I've read some but not all of Golden Age Cap and none of the fifties Commie Smasher stuff. I've read a fair amount of Silver Age and Modern Cap comics, including the 1970s Invaders run, which is my primary point of reference for pre-retcon WWII Steve & Bucky. After v1, I've read Waid's v1/v3, most of the parts of Brubaker's run that Steve was alive for (including WWII-set work like The Marvels Project), and, God help me, most of Remender and all of everything after. So I acknowledge that I haven't read everything with Steve & Bucky and it's possible that there's something with 616 Steve/Bucky content that I haven't read that would really sway me, but if there is, I haven't heard about it.

Right. So, first off, one of the big differences is that Steve and Bucky aren't childhood friends, did not grow up together, and in fact did not meet until Steve was already Captain America. Steve's best friend as a child, in a retcon from the early 80s, was a kid named Arnie Roth. Not Bucky. So right there, if one of the things you like about Steve/Bucky in the MCU is the intimacy of the fact that Bucky knows who Steve was before the serum -- well, he doesn't in the comics. They don't have that.

I don't know if Bucky's age in WWII was ever explicitly given, pre-retcon -- Brubaker has put his age at sixteen -- but he was very definitely depicted as a kid sidekick, pubescent if not pre-pubescent (to me, he looks like he's about twelve), in the vein of Golden Age kid sidekicks everywhere, until Brubaker's run in 2005. MCU was working with the age retcons already in (actually, more like the ages from Ults), so if you're a MCU fan, Steve and Bucky have always been close to the same age, and their relationship has been one of equal or near-equal teammates and close friends. The retcons have pushed 616 Steve/Bucky closer to the same age -- when they met, now Steve would have been 20 and Bucky 16 -- but this really hasn't been the case for the majority of the years Marvel Comics has been going. Bucky has spent the majority of his fictional 616 life being Steve's (dead) kid sidekick, and if you're going to slash them in 616 you have to either accept that this does not bother you and you're going to use evidence of their friendship from that kid-sidekick time period to lend credence to your shipping, or you're going to restrict yourself to only material published after 2005, of which there... isn't much. (More on this later.)

This is personal preference on my part, I am aware, but the mentor/kid sidekick dynamic is not one that does a lot for me in terms of a romantic pairing; I think I'd have a hard time seeing pre-retcon 616 Steve/Bucky in a way that wouldn't paint it as, uh, kind of a fucked-up thing for Captain America to do with his kid sidekick, on account of the age/experience gap. It is a squick for me. And, yeah, I know that Bucky's not a kid now, and that the retcon evens out the age gap, but I think the fact that there's so much canon (even recent canon ignoring the retcon!) in which Bucky is a kid makes it hard for me to... just ignore it. That's a me problem. I know. And even when he's not an actual kid he's still a sidekick, which is that same dynamic, just less extreme. It's just hard for me to get over that in 616; in MCU, the Steve/Bucky fans have never had to get over that.

And, okay, yes, Steve does have some intense feelings about Bucky in 616 -- but they're essentially a one-sided relationship, because Steve's intense feelings are basically "being sad that Bucky is dead." He feels personally responsible for Bucky's death; MCU Steve mourns Bucky, certainly, as a lost friend, but 616 Steve's power differential over Bucky is a lot greater. He was a kid, Steve was supposed to protect him, and he let him down. It's different. Anyway, we see a lot more dead Bucky than we do live Bucky. One of Steve's major characterization points, especially in early Silver Age canon, is that he regrets that he couldn't save Bucky. Bucky is basically a narrative trope, a source of pain for Steve, not a living character with motivations and agency and so on and so forth who Steve is regularly interacting with. Prior to Brubaker, Bucky was dead. Dead dead dead. Not coming back, never going to come back. So the comics weren't really structured like the MCU films are, where this hanging thread of Bucky's death in CATFA is neatly resolved by his return to life in the next movie -- in the comics, he died, he was dead, and he was gonna stay dead forever. MCU viewers didn't have to wait nearly forty years, real-time, to see Bucky come back after his death was retconned into Avengers #4. Comics readers did. This has some pacing consequences for the comics.

So, yeah, sure, 616 Steve grieved Bucky's death. He made Rick Jones dress up as Bucky and be his new teen sidekick (side note: what the fuck, Steve?). There are a bunch of plots where he thinks Bucky is alive again but it isn't really Bucky and he's sad all over again. Or plots where he's a man out of time and he misses the past and misses Bucky. I'm not saying those don't exist, or that they're not evidence that Steve cares, because Steve certainly cares. But the thing about the pacing of all this is that eventually they stop doing those plots. Over time he connects with new people, modern people, civilians and superheroes, his fellow Avengers and his new sidekicks. Eventually Steve settles in and lives in the present and his life is no longer about missing the past and he's finally accepted who he is and when he is. (I feel like this is something MCU Steve hasn't really had the chance to do.) And it's long after he's accepted this that Bucky finally comes back into his life. If they’d brought Bucky back to life in, say, 1965, it might have been different, but as it is Steve definitely has a place in the modern world by the time he meets Bucky again, and he doesn't have to cling to Bucky as the sole focus of the past he desperately wants to return to -- because that's not who he is anymore. So if one of the things you like about MCU Steve/Bucky is Bucky being particularly special to Steve in this way, as a continued focus of intense feeling, you're not going to find the exact same thing in 616. There's grief, but then there's acceptance, and then there's... a whole lot of time Steve doesn't spend thinking about Bucky. There is a lot of Cap canon and it's not all about Bucky. Or even mostly about Bucky.

Building on that, the idea of Bucky as the best possible romantic partner for Steve specifically in terms of shared life experience is one of the big draws of MCU Steve/Bucky, as I understand it -- the idea that no one else has this shared life experience. And this is also another one of the things that is absolutely not true of 616. When Steve came back to life in 616, it was 1964. World War II had ended less than twenty years ago. If Steve hadn't gone into the ice he would have been in his early 40s. There were a whole lot of people walking around with shared life experience, and the comics knew that and used it. Pretty much everyone he served with other than Bucky was still alive! His childhood friend Arnie was still alive in the 1980s! Over the years, Steve builds various friendships with a bunch of people he served with or otherwise knew in the war: Fury, Fury's Howling Commandos, Logan, Natasha, Namor, the rest of the Invaders! Granted, some of this has gotten more and more improbable as we get farther out from World War II time-wise but that doesn't make it canonically untrue. Bucky definitely isn't the only person hanging around Earth-616 who has served in World War II. If that's Steve's criterion, he has options, is what I'm saying. There are other people out there who understand where he's coming from. He's not alone if he doesn't have Bucky.

While I'm at it, the commonality of Steve and Bucky being super-soldiers together also isn't a thing that exists in 616 in exactly the same way. Bucky was never experimented on in captivity; he did get the metal arm and was naturally an excellent sniper. In Fear Itself he is, IIRC, boosted to peak-human when Fury saves him with the Infinity Formula, but this isn't a thing that makes him and Steve unique, because there are plenty of super-powered people running around Earth-616. I mean, if you're going to say that Steve should date someone who's a super-soldier because only a fellow super-soldier can understand that aspect of Steve, then that's a lot of people in 616, up to and including Tony at certain points in his life. (Because, yes, Extremis was a super-soldier program.)

There's also the fact that, well, if you want to ship Steve and Bucky in 616, they don't exactly have a lot of canon together. If you ship 616 Steve/Tony, they have a lot of canon. The Cap-IM Slashy Moments List has about 200 moments, and those are just the bits people think are the absolute slashiest -- Steve and Tony have been in, at this point, close to two thousand comics together. This is not the case for Steve and Bucky. If you're willing to consider pre-retcon Steve/Bucky, you have the Golden Age Cap comics, and you have the 70s Invaders comics, as well as a few flashback issues of Cap here and there. I really enjoy the Invaders comics -- they're a whole lot of fun -- and they do portray Steve and Bucky as great teammates who get along well, but not, I think, in a particularly slashy way. If you want to look only at post-retcon Steve/Bucky, you are limited to comics after 2005. Steve unfortunately died pretty soon after Bucky came back to life -- so they don't really interact -- and then Steve stays dead until 2010, and after that they... still don't really interact much. They never serve on an Avengers team together. Bucky appears only infrequently in Steve's book. I never finished reading Brubaker's run so there may be some canon I am missing but no one has told me about it being particularly slashy for Steve/Bucky; I am told they do interact some in Brubaker's Winter Soldier run, if you want to read them in a book together, but I have not heard anything particularly slashy about it or, indeed, most of their other interactions. As far as I can tell, Brubaker goes straight for the Bucky/Nat in terms of romance, when Bucky comes back, right from the very beginning.

It's clear when Steve and Bucky do interact that they're good friends and that they have fond memories of serving together, and Bucky is closer to Steve than the rest of the Invaders are, probably, but you're not going to find a deep relationship where Bucky is everything to Steve. To the best of my recollection, the last time I saw them together on page in a non-WWII setting having any kind of prolonged conversation was in Avengers Standoff and then Secret Empire, and for most of their interaction, Steve was Hydra. I guess there was that scene at the beginning of Standoff where Bucky cooked him eggs in that diner. That was Real Steve. And that was two entire years ago.

(Okay, the bit after Fear Itself where Steve punches Fury in the face because he's mad Fury lied and didn't tell him Bucky was alive again is pretty great. I will give you that.)

I know that there are two 616 miniseries that MCU Steve/Bucky fans enjoy. One is Captain America: White, and the other is Captain America: Man Out of Time. Cap White is a WWII-set miniseries but it is also one in which the creators have definitely gone hard for kid-sidekick Bucky, so I feel like it's hard to really get a lot of slashiness there. And then there's Man Out of Time, which as we all know tackles Steve's origin story, and it shows how important Bucky is to Steve and how poorly Steve initially fits into the modern world by making him determined to go back in time to the forties. And he does, in fact, go back in time, albeit to a time after Bucky's death. But the thing about Man Out of Time, for me, is that ultimately, Steve chooses the future. When he has to pick between the past and the future, he picks the future. He picks the Avengers. And at the end we see Steve at the Grand Canyon, where Bucky always wanted to go, and, yes, he's obviously thinking of Bucky... but he has, in the end, made a choice to stay with the Avengers, and that's one of the things I actually love the most about Man Out of Time. Steve gets an opportunity to stay in the forties and he instead makes a conscious choice to go be an Avenger.

(There is also the recent Cap annual if you want to see them interacting in WWII in recent canon, which is very good but... it's not, like, super-slashy.)

And then there's the question of how long Steve and Bucky have known each other. Being childhood friends in the MCU gives them a long, long time to know each other, longer than anyone else in the MCU could. At this point in the MCU, Steve has only known the Avengers for, what, six years? He's known Bucky for way longer than that. By the time he meets Bucky again in the MCU he's only been an Avenger for a couple years, right? The Avengers are the new guys. The situation is reversed in 616. Steve meets Bucky in 1940 and they serve together until 1945. That's five years. Depending on what you believe about Marvel's sliding timescale, by the time Steve and Bucky meet again, Steve has been an Avenger for somewhere between ten and fifteen years. If you think about the other founding Avengers (Tony, Thor, Hank, Jan) or the rest of the Kooky Quartet (Clint, Wanda, Pietro), Steve has known them two to three times as long as he's known Bucky -- and the lower bound here is an entire decade. He's known Sam for at least as long as he's known Bucky, and probably longer, since he met Sam in 1969 and that is way closer to the beginning of modern Marvel than it is to the current day. There are all these people whom Steve has had years and years to form deep and enduring friendships and relationships with, before Bucky ever came back into the picture.

So as you can see, the situation in 616 for Steve/Bucky is really, really not the same as it is for MCU, and as far as I can tell, everything that MCU fans like about Steve/Bucky just doesn't play out the same way in 616 for a variety of reasons. If you want a 616 Steve ship with the goddamn single-minded intensity of MCU Steve/Bucky, honestly, 616 Steve/Tony is going to be your best bet, because I can point to multiple major comics events that basically revolve around Steve and Tony and their epic feelings for each other, with the proviso that sometimes these feelings involve them trying to murder each other. But I figure if you like CATWS you are probably okay with that. Also, hey, if you enjoy extremely intense fight scenes in which one character, beaten badly, is lying there, unresisting, staring into the eyes of his former friend while his friend readies the final blow, begging his friend to finish it -- well, let me introduce you to 616 Steve/Tony in Civil War:

So, you know, there's that.

You might ask at this point, okay, well, what would 616 Steve/Bucky look like on its own merits? If it doesn't look like MCU Steve/Bucky, what would it look like? Honestly, post-retcon, I think it would look a hell of a lot like shipping Steve with, say, another one of his fellow Invaders or other WWII teammates. Something like Steve/Namor. (Although probably with less "I resent all the times you tried to murder my friends" than Steve/Namor would have. So maybe Steve/Logan is a better comparison, except I don't remember how much of WWII Logan remembers.) Buddies from World War II, a lot of camaraderie and positive feelings and shared memories to bond over, and it would be sweet, but there wouldn't be any kind of unique dynamic that Steve only shares with Bucky, and I don't think there'd be the intensity that Steve and Bucky have in the MCU. It would be fun. It would be nice. It would be the kind of rarepair you'd request in exchanges. But it probably wouldn't be a juggernaut ship.

Until they start pulling all of MCU back into 616, you're just not going to get a dynamic in 616 where Bucky is Steve's home. You're really not.

Also, uh, if you want to talk about 616 Steve's feelings about home, and who he associates with home, I think we all know that there is a canonical statement about this:

In 616 Steve chooses the future, and I'm going to keep on shipping him with the futurist, the guy whose voice was the first voice he heard, coming out of the ice. The one who's been there for him since he woke up. The one who gave him a home.

So that’s why I don’t ship 616 Steve/Bucky. It’s really, really not the same dynamic as the MCU, and if you’re looking for 616 characters that Steve has repeatedly demonstrated deep and intense affection for, as well as a lasting friendship and partnership... well, there’s Tony, right there.

[estrangedocean]

To whomever it may interest.

I recall a vivid memory in which I was in the living room with my parents and family. Being about four years old, my mom was speaking about the things I would do as I grew up. I would finish school; then I’d go to university, get my bachelors, then I’d finish my masters, and finally complete my Ph.D she said. All of this would take quite a long time, perhaps as much as 30 years. Funnily enough, as I heard closely every dreamed aspiration she had for me, I spurted out a slowly looming question that lingered in my head and said, “If that’s the case, then, when will I marry?” The sting of desire was alien to me, and it didn’t mean much to me back then. However, out of all the questions a kid would ask, why would I ask this one?

Love shared by two people for each other is intense, passionate, scary, and an all consuming fire. When I fall for someone, it is a cathartic process by which I empty myself so that I can fill my being with the object of my desire. For “where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” If I truly love someone, I empty my heart and being (existence) for them; if I truly love someone, I live for them, and everything else comes afterward and is of little importance in comparison to my burning desire for the object or person. Once I’m burned with the insignia of love, I am truly and wholly theirs. This innate desire that props up for different objects in my life is an essential aspect to understand who I am.

I love God, I love philosophy, and I’ve devoted my whole life to them. Someone asked me “How do you wish to live your life?” I replied by saying, “by studying philosophy and theology, and spending my entire time thinking about them.” This is how crazy I am, greater than this motivation, greater than the desire to live for that which I love, I have nothing. If I do fall for a woman, it would be no different, my entire life would be forfeit; and it would not grieve me, it would make me happy beyond compare, as it would fulfil the deepest desire which lingers throughout my deepest crevices in my being.

The Snares of Language

Today, failure is widely considered unacceptable, and it is necessarily frowned upon. For most, “failure is not an option.” These are not cliches that people believe in, these are the core and fundamental values which make up many people today. In my take, the most important commandment in the Bible is “Be Holy, for I am holy.” Propositions like this can be found throughout the Bible, and there is a counter narrative that goes against the language of success that you find therein. God has plans for Israel to prosper, he wants her to multiply, and be fruitful. Being fruitful and being successful are the same thing, but a tree that is premature and has failed to grow can bear no fruit. Growth is a necessary part of begetting fruits; and fruits doesn’t necessarily mean children (just a reminder).

One can imagine being in a relationship that seems to have utterly failed, but failure is part and parcel of life. Failure is not the end of all things, it is an instruction from God that there is something that needs to be attended to. This is more important than merely gaining success from having a stable relationship with seemingly has no blemishes. For scars and imperfections are easy to hide, but they are very hard to embrace and ratify. For this reason; failure is essential most endeavours in life, and they don’t have to big ones, little ones count too, as any kind of failure is an opportunity to teach us something. This doesn’t mean that successes are irrelevant, it only means that failures are important aspects which signify an area that needs work, so that you may grow and finally succeed in being fruitful: that is success, and it cannot be had without the sweat of the brow.

Sacrifice & Love I

According to the modern practitioners of the distortion of the term sacrifice, they think it means to “give something up, for something else.” To give an example, if you wish to sacrifice yourself for someone, it means to give up something that you love, so that you can satisfy someone else. This interpretation has had terrible consequences on those who truly seek love. Consider for a moment that a woman who wishes to “sacrifice” herself for her man, and so she notes, that even though the man is deceitful and cheats on her, she has to give up her ideal of loving a man who loves her back just as much, in order to satisfy him. Here we see that she has a desire for an ideal, something that he fails to live up to, but she nonetheless uses her will to make a choice and abandon that ideal for him.

The curious dynamic here is that her will necessarily separates itself from her desire, and it moves to diminish her desire and aspiration to love and be loved by a man who loved her back just as much or more. She has “given up” her deepest desire, and her will has taken the forefront, even though she may not feel anything for the man anymore. This shows everything that is wrong with the idea. For there is a clear desire that the woman clings to, however, she has to abandon it for the sake of a promise made purely by the will. Naturally, this will become incredibly harder for her overtime. While such an act indeed takes a lot of courage, it is ultimately doomed to fail.

Courage is no substitute for the limitations of man. Torture him enough, and he will give. This is the nature of mortality, and it is the reality of things achievable with torture. By this definition of sacrifice, the wife has to give up what she desires in order to stick with a promise of marriage to the man. The word takes precedent, but it cannot substitute desire. If this continues, without the grace of God, her will will weaken and slowly fade; and even if it doesn’t, this paints for us a picture which divorces desire from the will, and makes love; an act of sacrifice, subordinated purely to the will of the human.

Although her choice to make the promise of marriage and seal it with a kiss is something that could only be done with her willing it, it couldn’t have been borne without love. Courage is underpinned by love, even if men and women are afraid to the brink of collapse, their bodies and feet move, because it is love which fuels their action. It makes no sense to say that a man is going to stand up for a woman because he simply wants to. A man stands up for a woman because he is motivated by something; either by virtues of justice and truth, or by love. Any man or woman who is not motivated by desire to do these things, is but an irrational being who does things purely on the basis of their whim, or something far worse: apathy. Justice, truth, love, these virtues motivate act, and action does not precede virtues and desire. Similarly, the seal of marriage and her kiss is posterior to something prior, to the desire tempered in the fires of love. It is ultimately this, that the modern definition which uses the language of “giving things up for what you want,” fails. It fails to capture the reality of love, her power of influence as a desire, and it eviscerates desires from will completely.

Sacrifice & Love II

Consider another scenario: suppose we raise a being in a cave, although we give him or her everything she desires, we deprive her of food and any knowledge of it. We shoot nutrients through her veins, and she has no concept of the notion of food. She might be inclined towards something; an outward movement from her soul would be present, but we couldn’t really say that she is ever hungry, or that she has ever felt what it is. Inclinations are such movements, which have no specified object, no goal.

Desires are different. When I desire, I desire “something.” There is always an object attached to the end, and my desire directs and leads me towards it. The job of the desire is to necessarily lead you to her object. Once we do know what we want, there is a final aspect to the puzzle, our dear friend will. The activation of choice is the final part which determines whether we indulge in our desires, or we overlook her force and change our course. The term sacrifice comes from two words, “sacer,” and “facere.” Sacer, means “sacred,” whereas “facere” means “to make,” and “artefact.” When conjoined, it means “To make sacred.” Although the term sacred has religious connotations, it doesn’t have to. For all it means by sacred, is “to set apart for specific use, purpose, or person.” Lots of things can be sacred, including persons. To love, means to sacrifice, to sacrifice, means to make sacred, to make sacred, means to set yourself apart for that which you love.

When in love, then, the desire one has for something will be overbearing, and it could not be merely willed away. This is why love is usually considered to be a desire that transcends and overpowers the will; you cannot merely will to fall in love, and similarly, will to fall out of it. It is an overarching desire that directs both your being and your will towards the object. If then, the woman truly loved her husband, then she desires to see him happy above all things. If that is the case, then she will not be “giving up” anything, it will be subservient to seeking happiness for what she wants the most: to love her man and make him happy. She will set herself apart to get what she desires above anything and everything.

Fencing

But what then should we say about her feeling upset? The infidelity of her husband will necessarily make her upset, and what place does it have in our philosophy? Jealousy is a strong tool because it means to be deprived of something that is rightfully theirs. After marriage, her husband is rightfully hers, and she is his, the good of both these people lie with each other, and not other men and women. For if other men and women have not set themselves apart for them, how then, can their efforts of desire surpass one who has literally forfeit her life for the happiness of her husband? They can’t.

One could now argue that we see that more than one person can pledge allegiance to a flag, and similarly, more than one person can swear their love for another person; however, now I turn the question on to the one who has ever felt such a thing as love. Why would you entrust the object of your deepest desires, someone or something you feel so strongly for, in the hands of someone else? Is your desire not strong enough to make you believe that the goodness of the object lies in your hands? Is your desire not strong enough to make you fiercely attack someone who wishes to threaten your man or woman, or your relationship? Don’t you know that you should have the task and that only you could make them happier than anyone else? If you don’t, then you should thoroughly question how strong your love is.

Can we honestly trust thing that we hold dearest to our hearts to someone else? I don’t, and I wouldn’t. This feat requires an extraordinary faith in other human beings, more faith than you’d have on what is necessarily in front of you, i.e., your desire for someone, and I refuse to have this faith. For if I love someone, I refuse to leave it someone else to make them happy. People are untrustworthy, and I have no reason to believe that the person who challenges my love with theirs will make the one I love more happy than I can. This is the battle of love, and only a defeatist with a confused faith in humanity would abandon their dearest in the hands of others. If you want to do something right, you do it yourself. You can only assure yourself that this task can be done by you, leaving it to others is playing Russian roulette, if you are cynical enough to do this; then indeed, you shouldn’t have ever loved at all.

Guarding their heart and directing their will, guided by the desire for their beloved everyday is the only way a strong relationship can be maintained. Only the ones who truly feel such a burning desire can raise their hearts and feet to have courage and act. Anyone’s hearts which hasn’t been raised to the level of action, is still young and their love has yet to mature. However, when it does mature, rushing with their feet will hardly be a problem; what will be an issue, is how jealous this will make others feel, as this will radically change your life and transform you, and it will keep changing you, making you stronger everyday as you grow deeper in that love.

Who do we love, and how do we know it?

Growing up, I always desired the ideal of helping a girl who is need. As a man, I’ve been taught to protect people, especially women. There is a natural attraction that occurs between the damsel in distress and the knight in shinning armour. However, this doesn’t tell us the full picture. We live in a world which is inhabited by more than 7.5 billion people, and there are many people in distress. If one is to choose who they love simply on the basis of need, then they’d have to love everyone, there’s only one problem: you can’t love everyone, you cannot be in more than one place at one time, and you will always have a priority in your heart. Being in need is a common attribute, lots of people need help. The bane of the knight in shinning armour is that he pours his heart out for that which is commonplace and everywhere.

Suppose that a man confesses his love to a beautiful woman, because she is beautiful. Beauty, although definitely desirable, is not that uncommon in our world. We see men and women with beautiful appearances everywhere. If the man decides to pour his heart out for a woman for this seemingly common trait, then, what if someone who is equally beautiful or more comes up towards him? Given that we do not control our desires, the man will not be able to control his desire, in the sense that it will plant itself in his heart, and there will be a war of attrition. This is an entirely undesirable state of affairs, and it is for this reason that one should be discriminative with love. One should love things which are noble and rare.

For if you love things which are rarer to find, there is less of a chance that this desire can be uprooted by other temptations in this world. The harder it is to find a man or woman who has a trait that you are attracted to? The harder it is for someone else to replace the object of your desire and uproot your beloved from your heart. This is not to say that beauty is irrelevant; if you are not sexually attracted to your partner, that is a decisive end to romantic aspirations about passion and love. While sexual attraction and physical beauty are important, they shouldn’t be the primary things you should be attracted to. When you’re looking into a person, you should be searching them for virtues. For these are rarer and harder to cultivate, and as for physical appearance, we have everything under the sun that can fix and rectify; and though important, it is of secondary importance to the primary traits that we are attracted to.

A kingdom needs to be defended from outside attacks, for this we have foreign policy, a peaceful way to resolve disputes. However, if a kingdom loves her own people, she shouldn’t be afraid to take necessary action in order to save them. The question is not whether it is justified that they should protect their people, it is rather, whether the actions it takes upon the rest is necessary to protect her people. Letting go of some people forever might be a necessary action in order to save a relationship, these are the hard facts about life. No heart can serve two masters, it will either hate the one and love the other; or vice versa. We can draw a scenario in which you are contacted by your best friend and by someone you claim to love, where your decision to save either one of them will necessarily lead to the death of the other.

This is what I call the victory of priority, and the heart can only ever have one thing above all else. Similarly, it is in times like these that we realise who we truly love. These are times of test to help us grow and see where our happiness really lies. Anyone who wishes to save both the friend and the one they claim to love, is but fooling themselves, and others. For no human being can be present in two places at once, and no one can be there for two distinct people, at all times. You cannot set yourself apart for two distinct things, where serving either one deprives the other of your aid. You can only ever set yourself apart for one thing, whoever hasn’t come to this realisation is living but a false and confused dream, and isn’t strong enough to love. That is to say, they haven’t loved. Only the ones who love can set themselves apart, to the exclusion of someone or everyone else. The moment you say “I do,” to someone, you’re saying, “I don’t,” to everyone else, this takes courage and is built upon the strong desire of love.

I for one, am attracted to courage and passion, something that I don’t see in most women. This saddens a part of me, but it also gladdens my heart, since if and when I do fall for someone completely, she will be very special and won’t be easily uprooted from my heart from he wiles of the world. In order to discern that you love someone, you should sit down and think of the person you like, then, write in the order of priority, the things you like about them. Then, consider whether the qualities that you like about the person are rare, and if they are incredibly rare? Then be assured that you’re very close to love; indeed, this kingdom is worth living, fighting, and dying for.