#like from a story analysis perspective it just doesnt really make sense to me

[bastardlybonkers]

i hope you dont mind me adding on to this op, but ive also got some reasons as to why i think this isnt a permadeath.

-narratively, it just isnt really a satisfying death. this death would feel more like a, "look see, we can kill off a main character" and not an actual satisfying conclusion to a character. i think the only characters that would apply to of the batch are hunter and maaaybe crosshair (not saying i want them to die at all, just saying for the point lol).

-the placement of it in the episode and the time it was given, or rather, lack of time, was odd. usually, main character deaths are at the ends of episodes, left as cliffhangers or something like that, and are the climax to an episode. this was at the very beginning- technically the middle if you consider the two parters as one, but i digress. you wouldnt normally end an episode where a main member of the cast dies with, "we have to rescue other character" (in this case, omega) and "i am your sister"

-hemlock having the glasses and being the only one to confirm whether tech is dead...part of me questions why he would lie, since he could use both tech and crosshair's being at the prison as a draw for why they should come with him, but i do have an idea. hemlock is sadistic, but hemlock isnt a random murderer. he keeps people alive that he believes will be useful to him, and he keeps secrets very well. we all know tech is incredibly smart- i wonder if hemlock plans to use him for his aid, much like nala se? whatever he would do to tech to get him to cooperate, im not sure, but i think its a plausible theory

-it would split the batch in half perfectly. 3 on the outside, 3 on the inside. not a strong reason, but i do think it emphasizes more the nature of how torn apart they feel at the moment. literally split in half.

-this is just a personal opinion, but it doesnt really make much sense to me to have the batch get reunited, only for tech to have been lost on a mission in season 2. like, it would just feel very strange for tech to not be there.

heres my theory on why this happened and what it means for the show. i think that this was meant to introduce the concept of plan 99, and we are supposed to keep it in the back of our heads as something that will come back. i think tech has most likely been taken by hemlock as either a subject or an intellectual asset, or both, but i am not sure when this would come into play (for example, it would be strange to have a rescue tech arc right after the rescue crosshair and omega arc, but it might be too soon after his supposed death to rescue them all at once?). mostly, i think we probably wont know whether or not he survived until later into season 3 (which we better fucking get after THAT cliffhanger)

i guess it would somewhat make sense to focus more on a character who dies in this season if they know that theyre never going to have that character again, like an episode of project runway where theres a little too much focus on one of the competitors and you know that this is their elimination episode. however, much of his development feels unresolved, especially what theyre developing with phee.

am i absolutely certain hes alive? definitely not 😔 unfortunately, characters are killed off for shock value and/or to prove a point far too often in stories, prioritizing viewer reaction over a satisfying story. but do i think he could be alive? yeah! i really do think that if they actually killed one of the batch, it wouldve held more weight. i also think, once again, that tech is just a really weird choice of character to kill off.

sorry for the long response!! i just also had a lot to say about this lol hopefully this makes sense to anybody else

Reasons why I believe this isn't a final Death

denial

There's a couple parallels between Tech's death and Echo's supposed death. First of all, we don't see a body in either case. Not Echo's and also not Tech's. We do see Echo's charred helmet and we see Tech's broken goggles later on. The team also had to leave right away in both cases, otherwise they would've been captured/killed. And they both sacrificed themselves for the team. If Echo didn't die, then why should Tech?

Denial

All that character building this season. Like of that was for nothing, then that was terrible writing. If that was to make us more attached to Tech so that his death hurt more, that is also terrible writing. I mean, he got a whole ass lovestory-in-the-making and that's the character you'll kill off?? c'mon. just as he was learning more about people and showing affection and social interaction, and learning how to properly and respectfully communicate with Omega??? that's when you kill him off? c'mon.

DENIAL

The fact that it was Hemcock that found him. You know the guy who does experiments on clones? Why lose such a valuable test subject? if there were any signs of life from Tech, he must've saved him, if only to use him and maybe modify him (again, Echo parallels)

DENIAL

✨ star wars medicine ✨

I mean, last season Hunter fell down a cliff from a moving ship and he survived just fine. I'm just saying.

DENIAL

[fairuzfan]

Oh no That's not what I meant. We should feel bad. Because she let us see ourselfs in a story that wasn't meant for us and she just used us. I meant that she only used knowledge shared and discovered by poc to give "depth" to her characters and used us for marketing. But we were never part of the main story. For me it is just as bad. We are just a token that she can use as she sees fit but she will never talk about us. For that reason I remind myself constantly that Suzanne was never on my side. Her story was for her people because in her words, she wants them to "evolve from choosing war as an option." But for us, we are not even allowed to see it as an "option." War is something that others send to our doorstep and we have no say in it.

This is perfectly worded oh my goodness, and I totally agree.

I think in my analysis in the beginning, I saw the similarities of the story and it might have been niave of me to assume that she sympathized and assumed that oppressed people were in the right. But these past few asks and the interview with her really changed my perspective on the story.

I agree, she definitely is using the concept of "war" to imply some moral standing without recognizing exactly how that impacts the people directly affected. I had felt it throughout the story as well but I was willing to excuse it and I'm starting to think that was wrong of me.

Like with the Vietnam War veteran story, she talked about how "worried" she was for her dad... but she didn't mention at all how her dad was pretty relatively safe and dropping bombs on a country halfway across the world. The Vietnamese had no right to resist in her opinion, or at least thats the way it sounded.... and the real sadness, to her, is that she worried for her father when she was six and not that her father participated in a killing campagin. Honestly, it feels like an echo of Israeli logic. What about the people the bombs were dropped on? What about the people in the Iraq war who suffered for no other reason than for oil? What about the people who suffer under oppression?

She used the idea of revolution of an everyday person, who everyone thought was indigenous coded, so that she could paint this story of "war is bad" and that the continued oppression is bad also but you know, it's never ok to start war. I had seen another interview with her about how she mentioned she wrote the books to examine what is necessary to "wage war" and that the people of the districts "had a reason" but the ending doesn't feel like that all the way.

I don't know if you read it but "Against the Loveless World" by Susan Abualhawa, who is Palestinian, also deals with revolution and resisting. Honestly, like, it's one of my favorite books ever even more than Hunger Games (which is going lower and lower by the minute lol) and in that, the book ends with a sense of love that was missing from the Hunger Games ending, which feels a little more moral in its judgement.

You're right, it was intentional the way she used liberation movements to enact a sort of echo in modern history without actually examining who conducts these liberation movements and why. She illustrates Mockingjay as a purely class struggle and neglects to mention how "whiteness" as a concept plays a part in perpetuating that class struggle.

Also the fact that District 11 explicitly has Black people working the fields (which that's a whole problem in itself, that a white woman wrote that in and that she doesnt think they are capable of revolting and owning their own future) means there is ethnicity but she doesn't want to examine the concept of "whiteness" in her book because she doesn't think it plays a part in waging war. Which truly makes it seem senseless like she claims. To me, War is senseless but because there was no reason to oppress to begin with. The war itself is not senseless — there is a purpose, but the events preceeding the war didn't have any other reason than selfishness and greed. That in itself is the really tragic part of war. It's like "I had to lose everything for you to see me as a human and why is that? Why couldnt you respect me before all this?" Collins removes the agency and even existence from the people being oppressed by painting a "war is bad" narrative and not "oppression is bad" one, like you say.

Honestly, I had assumed she wrote in the perspective of Katniss because she wanted to really make it personal in illustrating how indigenous populations suffer greatly under oppression but now with your message of that quote, I think it was solely for selfish reasons where she didn't want to examine the impact it has on people in the modern day.

"War" is not some abstract concept. It is a result of various factors of circumstances. War is terrible not necessarily solely for the war itself, which might be bloody and terrible, but more specifically for the reasons that those wars were waged.

In the Iraq war, it was waged on Iraq for no reason other than the US's greed and the Iraqis paid dearly with their lives. It ruined people even if they didn't die. And what's most tragic is that they are expected to live with the consequences of the US' decision and to move on. The Vietnam War for similar reasons, though not for oil.

The fault should be with the oppressors — not the people whose humanity isnt recognized.

I want to apologize, though, if I hurt anyone with my messages in the beginning, making it seem like I think that you are equal to your oppressors for resisting both in the America's and throughout the world. It was a pretty shallow analysis and I didn't examine the way the biases might hurt actual people.

[egg-emperor]

Your analysis has been really interesting to read through, but ngl the whole mess around text interpretation has led me to ruminate on the fandom's doings a little. This probably will turn into disjointed ramblings, so please bear with me.

What I think is causing this cognitive dissonance is exactly that cutesy framing of some of Eggman and Sage's moments. Like, I don't believe that Sage was intentionally made to soften Eggman up or something, I believe that he can play the "family" act to keep her loyal to him. However, I won't deny that during my watch of a friend playing it, this specific framing left a slightly weird aftertaste, which I now see is what can easily cause so many misinterpretations of the scenes. Like, for example, the memo with Sage's pronouns. After seeing a lot of talk around the memos in general, what seems to throw people off from thinking that Eggman could be just using this as yet another play into her view of him as her father to keep her loyal is "why does he suddenly care about endearing himself to his own creation when he freely disregarded his previous creations". It can be interpreted in character, but there's just a smidge of off-ness that can be hard to wash out for some.

Not gonna lie, I kinda envy the ability of people like to at least mostly ignore the majority of the fandom's shenanigans and drama, cause I think that also plays a part imo, specifically this weird need to somehow ingratiate Sonic as a series to the mainstream, generally non-fan crowd. Like, the onus obviously should be on the people who misinterpret the text and see what's not there, yet these people also tend to be the loudest. And most non-fans seeing it just assume that's what the fandom as a whole thinks, and that's what the text actually is about. After all, nowadays Sonic is all but advertised as "its a kids game for babies so don't think about the story too much, it doesnt make sense in the end anyway", even by fans trying to genuinely recommend the series sometimes. And you'd think that there'd be pushback against this sort of mentality, but somehow, a majority of the Sonic fandom remains almost... defeatist? Like, either they can't argue to save their lives or just passively accept the misinformation. The people actually doing the analysis and all get disregarded as no-life nerds and are told that "no amount of analysis can make a product worth the money".

It's just... I dunno how or why or when it all started going like this, but at some point, the way people talked about media in general just caused immensely screwed. Discussions only seem to happen when someone wants to further validate their pre-established biases about a thing and it all just feels wrong.

Thank you, I appreciate you taking the time to read and consider my analysis.

We seem to feel quite similarly. I'm not a fan of the cutesy framing of certain moments because it's not my thing and definitely makes it easier for fans to misinterpret. The casual fan, especially if they don't catch all context in the memos and apply them to the scenes to notice the undertones and understand Eggman's side of the dynamic, or if they're the kind who that stuff can appeal to and affect emotionally/they'd rather ignore the more unsettling aspects in discomfort, they're going to get it wrong.

I think the cutscenes mostly have the issue of focusing too much on Sage's side of the dynamic over Eggman's. A bunch of most important details of Eggman's side comes from the memos, which is great from the standpoint of being right from his personal perspective and words, so we get to know exactly how he thinks and feels- but not so great for those who won't listen or piece together what they learned from them with the scenes for needed context.

But Sage wasn't supposed to soften Eggman up. In the story he's still a bad guy wanting to do bad, wishing he could get out of Cyber Space to, and Sage appeals because of what she can do for him, how she's crucial to his survival, supports his desire for world domination and shows undying loyalty. The way some moments are framed as cute doesn't take away from it, a unhealthy dynamic can appear as cute and wholesome with unsettling undertones.

Ian Flynn pretty much describes it that way by saying you're supposed to feel happy for Sage but Eggman is a bad person and warming up to it for all the wrong reasons. It's intentionally more complex than what the loudest people who love and hate it are saying. I can see what Flynn means because all the pieces are there in the actual game for me to point out and analyze. They just could've been emphasized a bit more.

All you need is the memo where he talks about liking how Sage is loyal and efficient and accepting the father role because it can emphasize his genius and the pride he can take as her creator, then apply it to every interaction and you can see it. Eggman can play the act to appeal to Sage's desire for that dynamic and praise her actions as a way to further encourage her for her loyalty and efficiency, all for those selfish benefits.

It's how manipulation works and Eggman absolutely can and will play up the part with these conditions for the benefits, he's done similarly in the past. It's intentionally not done in the common verbal and physical abns!ve way like he does most commonly with his other creations, it's more emotionally manipulative. It makes the most sense for how he wants to further encourage her good work and loyalty, not lose it.

I can get why you felt that way. It's part of why I had the wrong idea of Frontiers Eggman's at first and it ruined my first experience playing it. The cute framing of certain moments, combined with fans taking these scenes and latching onto the misinterpretations from the moment it dropped and drilling into your head how they think we should think and feel while ignoring key details that disprove it, made me believe it for too long.

But had I not seen the misinterpretation and paid attention and did my usual analysis, which I closed my mind to in my first playthrough in ignorance, I would've caught on a lot faster. Just like how knowing what I know now after properly analyzing it then going into Final Horizon and avoiding what fandom was saying, made my experience more pleasant and let me think and interpret for myself. The fandom is still mostly to blame.

Yeah, the cute moments can give the wrong idea when you don't have all the context. But the context is in the game to piece together and understand why it's happening in a way that works for Eggman's character. I also think while he is of course playing the act, it's also framed cute as it is because we're seeing it more from Sage's side in the scenes, as it's a very different vibe in the memos where it's actually Eggman's side.

Maybe always being able to see the worst in Eggman (positively and affectionately lol 🥰💜) helps but I only see the memos as unsettling now. His creation starts to appear as more of a person to him so he thinks about how he can use it to his benefit by taking pride in his impressive scientific ability to create something so life-like as an artificial creation over the unimpressive traditional organic way he scoffs at and expresses aversion to.

He says if he created life it'd be "loyal and perfectly effective", which is fucked up thing to look for in your child, and says it's specifically because he's the genius creator/father, giving himself all credit and taking pride in her accomplishments as a reflection of his genius. It's selfish, egotistical, creepy, everything a parent shouldn't do. I can see what makes it unsettling in all his words. So many things are wrong with him I love it 😋💘

I really don't have much of an issue with that memo. It's one of the most misinterpreted but it's simply where he starts to realize that almost the whole time he's been calling her a "she" instead of an "it" like the program she was created to be. He actually starts just five after first mentioning her, in memo 13. He subconsciously sees her as a person and refers to her like such that fast due to how human and life-like she is.

Three memos after he's like wait why am I calling it a she? And wonders whether to call her an it like the program she was created to be or a she like he's seeing her as instead. Then another three after comes the disturbing memo about him creating life, so him establishing whether he's going to call her "she" or not leads to him thinking about how he can take pride and credit in her by establishing himself as her genius creator/father.

It's another of those cases where if context is removed it's more likely for people to get the wrong idea, especially if they're the type to be blinded by the cuteness factor but when you have the context of before and after and considering the important terms of why he values her at all with the she's an impressive life-like loyal and efficient creation and her dad is a genius memo, again it makes sense and is in character.

The "she's the best" line is one of the only parts I'd change, he's far too egotistical to say that about anyone else. It doesn't make sense because the whole reason he values her is what she does for him and the pride he can take in her, literally because he sees himself as the best person ever lol. Just specifying what she's the best of, like of his creations or something would've worked, not making it sound like he's saying in general.

But guess what? Apparently it was changed in Japanese in the translation I saw, to say she was just doing great or something lol. It's a case where I can make sense of it in English as her being the best in a specific area can again give himself credit as the creator as he's intentionally supposed to but the word choice was poor. But every time I felt a line should've been changed a bit, the Japanese version had me covered. XD

Back to the point- it's also important to consider that he's praising her in this memo with the important preface of saying that Sage has been crucial to his survival in Cyber Space and listing the ways she has served him well. It's on the condition of him getting something out of it every time. And in memo 19 we know he wants to take pride in her skill and accomplishments and take credit as her creator, so any praise is self praise.

So I can't be mad at the game, I think even in moments that had some level of cuteness factor to appeal to those into that which certainly worked on them, there was established context that made it work and in character, enough to piece it together and understand it. But some people's minds go blank with the "aww so cute" reaction and desire for it to be simply pure and wholesome so they don't think about it any more to do so.

I've been learning to avoid it just by stepping back from fandom because I'm less interested the more I see the drama and bad takes. Now I only see things if I'm forcibly subjected through someone else putting it on my dash/it's recommended/etc. A large majority of fandom is anti canon and literally admit it so I feel like I don't belong in it as a huge fan of it that enjoys celebrating it in my fan creations and discussions.

It suffers from the simplification and sanitization that modern fandom tends to do now, so they can fit all characters and stories into certain boxes and use them as bases to project fan character traits and concepts onto instead of celebrating canon. It makes it more appealing and mainstream and easier to consume by the crowd that stuff succeeds in appealing to. It's to the point it replaces people's memory/idea of it.

So of course from the outside looking in especially, non fans are going to believe that's what the text actually contains, especially since they get exposure to the fandom's twisting of canon and it's drilled into their heads how to think and feel about it by them, before they've even seen the games themselves. Then they find it hard to shut that out and look at the games alone for what they are. That happened to me with Frontiers.

Then of course you have people acting like the series "is just for babies and inconsistent and not good anyway you shouldn't think too hard about it", as if Sega JP especially haven't shown themselves to be incredibly passionate about the stories and characters they write. It is supposed to be that deep lol. And thinking that deeply is a good thing, as if it's better than just shutting our minds off and consume product.

That's why I've allowed myself to think as deeply as I want about Frontiers. I love analyzing every moment and line down to the last word and detail. Regardless of opinion on the concepts and how they were executed, it was intended to be thought about. I don't think it should be considered micro analyzing and thinking too hard about something ever. I'm looking at it in ways official writers have described it to be anyway.

The mentality is popular so there isn't much pushback. Plus I'm starting to see it in both people who say they don't like the games and those who say they're fans so I feel alienated for wanting to think deeper and seeing there can be more than meets the eye with characters and scenes. While clarification can be important so things aren't misinterpreted quite as easily, it's nice for there to be stuff to think about.

Nobody really wants to debate and discuss now. A majority intentionally oppose learning more about the media or hearing out other people. They take the challenging of one's perspective or a disagreement as an argument and act like it's intended as hate from the other person when that's not the case. They're like "I don't want to change my opinion, nobody can convince me, let me enjoy things how I want", etc.

I myself was a bit ignorant at first on the topic of Frontiers. I was convinced I didn't like Eggman's portrayal but it was all based on what fandom was telling me it was and how to feel when the actual game was actually way different. When I finally took suggestions of new perspectives, then shut fandom out and focused solely on canon with my mind open and willing to analyze it again, I saw it in a new light and enjoyed it.

Now some certainly think I'm a low life nerd, as I've been told "it's nice to be a fan until it "becomes serious" and by people saying they don't care what I have to say as if I have to do exactly what they want- because it's bad to be passionate and wanting to think deeply about something I guess. :P I'd rather be doing that than shutting it down. Canon is cool, analysis is good, being passionate and thinking about stuff is fun.

You really hit the nail on the head with that. I've always enjoyed being open minded, analyzing media carefully, hearing out different perspectives, and having discussions. But I made the mistake myself at one point with Frontiers and I regret it because as soon as I realized I almost became what I was against and changed it for the better, it became a lot more enjoyable again. It's always good to stay open minded!

[cleromancy]

I absolutely enjoyed reading your analysis and take on why people tend to put most of the blame on Tim rather than taking into account that other characters are just as culpable. You really help me understand why Jason stans might resent Tim for victim-blaming Jason more than the other characters (although it is still them showing their double-standard thought process at the end of the day). In truth, no one is innocent in the situation. Everyone is culpable to some degree for blaming a child for his own demise, and its frankly disgusting.

its one of those things thats really interesting both in universe and from a meta perspective bc. blaming jason for his own death when sheila sold him out to the joker who then murdered them both, which dc wrote/illustrated/published, which they decided to do because of the results a fricking READER POLL... its so silly lmao. and by making it jasons fault the blame doesnt rest with batman, for having a robin in the first place, or dc, for writing and publishing the story. absolutely fascinating tapestry of blame and fault here on all levels

i was thinking some more about it though and i do think its got some to do with tims personality and demeanor as well. hes a perfectionist and a control freak and there are times when he expresses that if someone cant hack it to tims (arbitrary) standards they shouldn't be doing it at all, that kind of thing. and this is something bruce and dick both do as well, bruce is pretty famous for it even, but they're also both like... i mean we already talked about bruce in the last ask but on top of that hes like. scary competent and intimidating. like. hes batman! and with dick, dick is the first robin, hes *the* nightwing, dick was canonically this keystone figure for the new earth dcu hero community... hes a big fucking deal yknow. in-universe people listen to them, and for good reason, and out of universe a lot of the time reading it its like. Well they'd know! and by contrast tim does not have that kind of authority he just acts like be does... like hes made a solid name for himself by the time the reboot hits but absolutely not on dick or bruces level. so when Tim says something about like you shouldn't be doing this you're going to get yourself killed its like. who is this squeaky little toddler and why is he telling me what to do. like its like "who died and made you robin" except the answer to that is uh. Jason todd.

anyway yeah i like to rotate this as an aspect of characterization for everyone involved bc in like. the version that lives in my head the narrative doesnt present them as Right so it becomes *about* the tragedy, *about* grief and the way sometimes a story gets warped in retelling, about coping by putting sense in something senseless... but. it gets a lot less fun when youre reading something and the story itself is like "Yes this 14 or 15 year old only died bc he broke the rules he got what was coming to him & he deserved it :)" loud booing i dont care for that at all.

dick is also interesting bc hes one of the only characters i can think of other than leslie barbara who blames bruce at any point for jasons death, which i neglected to mention in my other ask. (its kind of a big topic and in my defense you were just askinf about bruce Alfred and tim... sorry dickie ily) like dick took more work to convince that a new robin was necessary than bruce did and dick like... dick was so angry and heartsick and guilty over jasons death and all those feelings just went *everywhere* including at himself. so its absolutely a lot more palatable coming from dick and-- i mean i mentioned demeanor earlier. tim tends to be either very blunt or very sharp and he is NOT known for phrasing things diplomatically, like, at all. dick might be thinking about the mistakes he imagines Jason making on the road to his death but what he'll say out loud is usually smth like "he wasn't ready," and its also a lot more palatable coming from dick bc you *know* hes also thinking he himself Should Have trained jason more himself or done this or that other thing.

dickies so so so good hes doing his best. i love him so much. what were we talking about

[testudoaubrei-blog]

do you really think queer rep doesnt matter because that seems like the opposite of a lot of things you have stated before.

Short answer, no, I don't think that queer rep is irrelevant or even unimportant. It's more that, I think that the question 'is this good representation?' isn't the best way to go about artistic and cultural criticism from a queer perspective. Instead, I think there are better questions we can ask that get at the same things but encourage deeper and more meaningful encounters with art and more critical appraisals of mass culture.

So when people examine something to see if it is 'good rep' I think there are two questions contained here. First, is what is represented queer at all? IE is X character of Y identity? Secondly, is the way this character is represented good?

I think this framing of the questions encourages or at least, doesn't discourage somehat reductive answers. For 'is this representation at all?' if we are asking that characters represent us, this framing encourages us to look for explicit identities. Characters saying that they are bi, or trans, etc. Often one encounters online the idea that non-explicit identification doesn't count. Which is valid when we are talking about queerbaiting or cowardly narratives that play up gay subtext but never make it text. But what about allegory, or fantasy or hell, old fashioned ambiguity? Queerness is often about the liminal spaces between sexualities and genders, or understandings of gender and sexuality orthagonal to stroaght society. If we ask 'am I represented by this character?' we might close ourselves off to subtler ways of encountering queerness in art. For instance, in Nona the Ninth there are no characters that walk around and tell people 'I am trans' and only one character that uses they/them pronouns. But the book is full of characters that are in the wrong body (yes, when used in our world this is a reductive framing but I think it works here), and Pyrrha in particular is depicted as dysphoric. The experience of these characters is reflective of the trans experience (see also, the Matrix and Ghost in the Shell). I think Nona is a far more trans book than many more conventional stories that have trans characters. On the other hand, I have seen folks online seem happy with like, pride flag color coding in characters that have no narrative impact, like a gay version of 'spot the reference'. Some examples of this make me feel like that girl power scene in avengers endgame. It feels both pandering and unearned on the part of the corporate behemoth producing the media we watch. Again, I think this isn't just people not thinking deeply but that it reflects a flaw in the underlying question.

Even more fraught is the question of whether representation is 'good' or not. Generally 'good' is taken to mean several things, which are defined negatively - IE good rep is simply rep that is not bad. The thrre main ways rep can be bad, by most definitions, is if a character is stereotypical (in a negative way), villainous or if theor story has a tragic end. As far as I can tell, the two forces driving these definitions are establishment gay groups like GLAAD and fans. And a lot of concerns by both parties are valid! The Hayes Code basically mandated that implicitly gay characters had to be villains who came to bad ends, and characters were coded as queer through negative stereotypes. But this negative idea of avoiding bad representation also doesn't guide our analysis into very deep places. How often have we seen this idea of good rep turned into a demand that queer characters be virtuous heroes who love happily ever after? And this makes sense. GLAAD is worried about making us look good for the straights, and fans of all kinds want fanservice.

Put another way, a problem with framing queer art and queerness in pop culture in terms of representation is that this is a kind of atomistic way of looking at a narrative and its characters. It breaks the cast into individual people and those people into a list of traits and the story into character arcs (but mostly a list of outcomes). It does not view the work as a whole and so doesn't touch on themes or style or anything like that.

So are there better questions we can ask? Yeah I think so. What of we ask ourselves 'is this an authentically queer story?' Or on a more personal level 'does this reflect the queer experience?' Or in a more open ended way 'what does this work have to say to queer people about who we are and how we love our lives?' or 'what part of our lives is reflected in this?' I think these questions encourage a more interesting line of inquiry.

[shadowen]

On your series “All Stories Have Monsters”, you have an interesting, unique take on Joe and Nicky and their dynamic, with you exploring a Nicky free to stray and do as he whishes and a Joe who conveniently only has eyes for Nicky. And it hurts my heart to imagine Joe in such a seemingly unbalanced, unequal relationship. In this ‘verse Joe comes across as this almost otherworldly man, locked in the role of the perfect partner, endlessly selfless, willing to share Nicky with anyone Nicky may desire / love while Joe remains faithfully devoted, his world revolving around Nicky (and Nicky only), “incapable” (???) of falling in love with anyone else, not having other lovers to turn to like Nicky does. It’s such an advantageous / favorable situation for Nicky, with Joe making all the concessions without clear reciprocity and only Nicky reaping the benefits / rewards of their open arrangement, besides never having to guess at Joe’s loyalty, never having to share whatever there is of Joe’s affection / desire / thoughts and feelings, never having to face any man / woman who would challenge him for Joe’s love.

Ok, so, I understand where you’re coming from, and part of this critique is completely valid. You’re right to call out that I’ve centered Nicky a lot in that series, at the expense of exploring Joe’s perspective. That’s something I’ve been thinking about, recently, and something I will try to do better about in my fic in general.

As for the rest of this... I think you meant this comment as a good-faith expression of your thoughts about this series, and I appreciate that. I’m going to try and respond as clearly and as kindly as I can, so please don’t think I’m attacking you or calling you ignorant or anything like that.

The conclusions you’ve come to are based on a lot of assumptions about what healthy relationships look like, and those assumptions are almost completely wrong. Now, I don’t know anything about you or your life, so I’m not going to make any guesses about your experience with relationships or polyamory, but, if you grew up in generally the same culture I did, I know that you’ve been fed a lot of ideas about compulsory monogamy and How Relationships Work, and internalised those ideas as fact. As someone who is in a loving, committed, open marriage, I can tell you most of those ideas are, at best, bullshit.

The thing is, people experience romantic and sexual attraction in different ways. You’re on Tumblr and you follow me, so I’m going to assume that’s not a new concept for you. In practice, what this means is that people who are in a relationship also experience love and desire diferently. Even if you have two people who are monogamous, allosexual, and alloromantic, their individual needs and appetites are going to be different by virtue of the fact that they are different people. This doesn’t mean one of them loves the other more or one of them enjoys sex more; it just means that some of the things they need and want in a relationship are going to be different, because that’s how people work.

The other thing that I really want to emphasize is that relationships don’t come with scoreboards, and keeping score in a relationship isn’t helpful or healthy. That doesn’t mean there doesn’t need to be balance and equity, but the sort of one-for-one reciprocity you’re talking about isn’t balance. For instance, I’ve been sick for the past few days, and my wife has been taking care of me. Does that mean that she gets to take time off from her responsibilities to let me take care of her so we’re even? Of course not. We take care of each other when we’re sick because we made a commitment to do exactly that. For added fun, my wife and I have different health problems and different temperaments, so we tend to get sick in different ways and need different things. Which means that me taking care of her looks different than her taking care of me. Does that mean our relationship is unbalanced? Nope. It means we’re different people with different needs, and part of being married means meeting each other’s needs.

So you’re probably sitting there thinking that being sick and having sex are two totally different things. Except that... they’re not, not really. Sex is one possible aspect of a relationship, just like dealing with illness, doing the dishes, going out, sharing finances, et cetera, ad nauseum. Sex isn’t a special, magic thing that has it’s own set of rules; it’s a thing people do together, sometimes there are emotions involved, sometimes not. The real point, here, is that different people have different needs and wants when it comes to sex, just like everything else, and every sexual relationship is unique, just like every friendship or romantic relationship is unique.

So what does that mean for an open relationship? Among other things, it means that one person sleeping with someone else doesn’t mean their partner needs to sleep with someone else to make things even. It means that how a person feels about having sex with their partner is not necessarily how they feel about having sex with people who aren’t their partner. It means that reciprocity and keeping score are just as bullshit when it comes to sex as they are in other parts of a relationship.

Now, let’s talk about Joe and Nicky and polyamory in All Stories Have Monsters.

Again, you’re right: I haven’t given as much time to Joe as a character as he deserves, and I’m working on that. But if you’ve read all 89,000 words of that series, to date, and you came away with the impression that Nicky doesn’t absolutely and utterly adore Joe with his entire being, then I need to re-assess my abilities as a writer. 

The subtext of The House in Sicily is that Nicky built a mansion out of love for Joe. The final punch of Joe’s speech in New Orleans, 1868 is “that he is just as devoted to me as I to him, that my comfort and pleasure are of greater importance to him than his own”. You sent me this ask right after I posted a story all about Nicky carefully and tenderly fucking Joe to a spectacular orgasm. Then there’s all the little moments of care and comfort, the casual touches, the easy companionship. I don’t really know what else you want with regard to expressions of love and devotion.

You refered to Joe making concession and Nicky reaping all the benefits, but it’s stated more than once that Joe enoys the fact that Nicky sometimes sleeps with other people, and even gets off on it. Likewise, Nicky makes it clear, both that he wouldn’t do it if Joe didn’t want him to, and that any other partners are a distant second to Joe. In Goddess of Victory, he tells Booker,  “Another man may touch me for a moment, but it is only a moment. I will never belong to anyone but Joe” and  “If he did not like it, I would not do it, but he does like it, so I do what I want”.

Ok, you’re probably thinking, but why does Nicky get to fuck around and Joe doesn’t? The simple answer is that Nicky wants to and Joe doesn’t, not because one of them is more faithful than the other, but because they are different people who experience attraction differently. 

It’s first implied and then plainly stated that Joe in this series is demisexual, which doesn’t AT ALL mean that he’s not capable of falling in love with or being attracted to anyone other than Nicky; it just means, in this case, that he needs to have a strong romantic connection with someone before he might want a sexual relationship. You can imagine a lot of reasons that might be tricky to navigate with the complexities of immortal life, and since he already has a passionate, satisfying relationship with the love of his life, there’s not much reason for him to look for anyone else.

Then there’s Nicky, who pursued sexual relationships with other men despite believing it was a sin, and who, like Joe, had never been in love before. For Joe, romantic love and sex are necessarily linked, but for Nicky they’re not. Sex is something Nicky enjoys doing; he definitely PREFERS doing it with Joe, but that doesnt mean it’s not fun with other people. Add to this the fact that Nicky having sex with someone else turns Joe on, and Nicky has at least one very compelling reason to seek out casual partners and few complications in doing so.

The thing with Booker... Honestly, that’s another entire novel of analysis, so I’m not going to get into it here.

The point is: having a committed, balanced relationship doesn’t mean having all the same needs and desires as your partner. It means, among other things, recognizing that you and your partner(s) have different needs and desires and making sure that everyone is fulfilled and satisfied as individuals. In a case where there is a primary couple with an open arrangement, it also means trusting that you and your partner are each other’s top priority when it comes to love and sex. Joe and Nicky have different sexualities, but they’re absolutely, unequivocally devoted to each other. Whether or not they have sex with other people doesn’t change that.

Does that make sense? I hope that makes sense.

[readingaccountability]

snow crash - neal stephenson

my playlist (because of The Way That I Am)

final thoughts:

okay, im going to be honest right out of the gate- i cant decide whether this is a book id recommend or not. it was really fun for the most part, but personally there was a lot more exposition than id like. the early portions of the novel have exposition which feels completely fair, mostly things relating to worldbuilding. stephenson creates his own vision of future america, and some places online referred to it as cyberpunk, and some as post-cyberpunk. id be more in the latter camp, mostly due to the way he plays with tropes, leaving the reader unsure of which will be subverted and which wont.

the use of language was really fun, and i enjoyed the worldbuilding a lot. his vision of a futuristic capitalistic earth feels surreal in its immediacy and recognizability. the back jacket blurb ends with "a future america so bizarre, so outrageous, you'll recognize it immediately." which, yeah. a texan info-tech magnate? two competing corporations owning the highway system? suburban city-states? this was another enjoyable thing- everything was colorfully named, and names treated totally normally, which kind of poked fun at how we have everyday things named very ludicrously and for the most part we are totally blind to it.

one aspect i really enjoyed was that the author often doesn't make certain things clear to the audience, until he does, and then it becomes necessary to reassess the entire story and setting. this goes to underscore the theme of the importance of information and the ways we take it in and perceive the world based upon it. for example, we don't learn that y.t. is fifteen until maybe 75 pages in, at which point a lot makes sense in retrospect. the same thing occurs in the worldbuilding, as suddenly a detail is given in passing and the reader must incorporate it into the setting, which by default we assume to be similar in many ways to our idea of america. it keeps the reader on their toes as well as furthering the worldbuilding. for the most part, the tech stuff didnt feel outdated to me, despite being a future projected out from '92.

however, aspects of the book are definitely very 1992. id put these into two camps: the first, being that the book does at different times use slurs. the main character is black and asian, the n word is used a few times by racist side-character/antagonist types, as are a few other racial slurs. there was also the occasional usage of the r slur, within the narrative prose itself, rather than usage as an insult within dialogue.

the protagonist, who is named, unfortunately, hiro protagonist, is a great character and felt very fleshed out to me, though at times he reminded me more of dirk strider than normally would be ideal. (its obvious that stephenson and andrew hussie are of a similar type of writer, and play with similar tropes, lmao.) hiro is a man of many worlds. he seems to shift between them easily, though never fully existing in any of them. this is reflected in his background, both in his biracial identity and in having been raised on a myriad of army bases. this is layered further in his fluidity in interacting with both reality and the metaverse, yet remaining slightly, consistently aloof. fascinatingly the first moment i sensed this drop was when we meet juanita- aka where his real and meta realities coincide. the description of them as the adam and eve of the metaverse is both insanely romantic and thematically key (good god i wish we had more than like, two conversations between them). juanita designed the facial component to metaverse avatars, doing the majority of this work when the two were together, and hiro can see echoes of both their facial tics in the face of every avatar in the metaverse. in a way, by having done this work juanita is positioned by the narrative as one of the gods of this digital realm. she is also hiro's call to action, being aware of the coming trouble and alerting him to it, as well as connecting him to the informational database he needs to prepare.

y.t., the secondary protagonist, fucking ruled. i loved that she was just a fifteen year old punkass kid whose mom doesnt know how crazy this part time job is. y.t. being worried about her mom was a great thread throughout, and a really good balance to how obviously independent y.t. is. i do wish there had been a chance to explain more about her background (she has a dad who left who is mentioned in a throwaway sentence, and a boyfriend who is mentioned near the beginning but never again.) i really enjoyed how obviously hyperaware y.t. was at all times about her own place within the insanities of the setting, while also consistently writing her as a teen maybe in way too deep who thinks about things in typically teenage ways. but like, that wasn't ever held against her? the narrative meets her where she is. it was honestly awesome. HOWEVER,

i absolutely hated the raven and y.t. scenes. how creepy!!! he basically statutory rapes her!!! we know hes at least late 20s early 30s, because hes the same age as hiro. if this sort of content is upsetting to read for you, i definitely do NOT recommend this book. (if you want to avoid reading these bits: ch 47 y.t. meets raven, ch 50 they are in a bar eating, ch 52 things happen that result in y.t.'s anti-assault device activating- she did not activate it on purpose, but forgot it was there- and raven is knocked out.)

please PLEASE dont take any of the following analysis as like, trying to be apologetic towards this scenes. because again they were awful and hard to get through and really gross. but im also cognizant that the author was obviously trying to convey something by making the choice, like the way it was written is obviously not condoning this sort of thing.

i think maybe what stephenson was trying to get at with that, was that we see hiro internally negate any potential for anything untoward with y.t. basically immediately, since he kind of senses that she might have a small crush on him (though this doesnt last more than a fleeting moment, especially from her perspective). vs raven, whose 'poor impulse control' warning tattoo eventually elicits a sarcastic remark from hiro after he finds out raven and y.t. were "a thing". i really dont think hiro knew how far it went? like it was just suuuper weird, but i figured it was meant narratively to 1. execute the chekovs gun of y.t.'s anti-assault device, 2. contrast hiro and raven (especially considering the bike-racing argument where theyre telling the story together, which is supposed to parallel them, while contrasting the differences in how they ended up?), and 3. just to get raven unconscious, i guess. but good god it was weird and i hated every second of it, why couldnt the device have like, activated way earlier?? gah. fucking upsetting. moving past that!

honestly i was really frustrated by how little screentime juanita got, because the way she was introduced was so fucking interesting and then shes mostly off doing her own thing. the bits of explanation she gives at the end about what she was up to on the raft are so sparse and im like damn, can we get a little bit of her pov in here? please? that would have ruled. additionally, shes supposed to be hiros love interest, but we see so little of them interacting outside her intro scenes. a huge portion of why hiro is getting into the sumerian mythology is literally framed as something that will help him understand juanita, but we dont get to see him talk to her about it barely at all.

the supporting characters were quite fun, i particularly liked the librarian. big surprise, i liked the overly literal ai information-dispensor, lmfao. watching him and hiro interact reminded me SO hard of geordi laforge having honest to god conversations with the computer where he tries to coax information out of it, aka one of my favorite little aspects of tng.

and lastly, the major plot themes themselves. i adore the way stephenson approached action, it was very entertaining. usually i cant really visualize action scenes written out, but his use of language was really really effective and engaging. the plot itself was absolutely fascinating, though i found the premise pretty contrived. which isnt bad in itself, i was fully suspending my disbelief until the last hundred pages or so. which for a 550+ page book, isnt too bad.

i did like the approach of linking the ancient to the modern, that is always really neat. and i think ultimately stephenson did it in an interesting way, not how i would have done it, but definitely interesting! creating these ideas about information infrastructures, and there being words that can access those and be used to control people, was wild. not sure if i agree about the equating of religion to a virus, though he did specifically establish that it was more the approach to religion, than religion itself. (maybe if juanita had been more goddamn present in the narrative that could have been elaborated on a little more. literally her perspective would have been perfect in balancing that out!!)

ultimately what did me in was the very very very long winded MONOLOGUE where hiro re-explained the whole premise, in ways that didnt really neatly organize into a cohesive argument. a lot of the scenes where hiro talks to the librarian, which are interspersed throughout the book, are really exposition heavy, because stephenson is rooting his ideas in historical concepts that need to be explained to both hiro and the audience. and i thought all that was fine, because it was a conversation where hiro was grappling with the information, and he was figuring it out along with the reader, and most importantly it was a conversation between him and the librarian computer program.

howeverrr later on we get a full rehash of all that, where hiro makes clear some stuff that was just implied for the reader, and hes literally just telling these important men whats up in this big long monologue. utterly worthless. i kept reading it and going YEAH, we KNOW, we know this we know this. and the important men barely interjected. it added basically nothing to our understanding of the situation, other than reframing it. but everything added was already an implicit thing, and didnt really need to be said again.

the resolution to the book was stellar, the last 30-40 pages, once hiro is onto the raft, were great. ultimately after reading and giving some time to digest it, i think it was a solidly great book with a few big drawbacks near the end, but which dont carry through and sully the ending.

[macklives]

alright, im actually kind of in the mood to unpack some stuff regarding karkat's character and the way alternia works actually, so i dont mind giving this a go. and while act 5 isnt completely finished yet (so this is an analysis post for act 5 up until page 2305), there is still more to explore, and im pretty sure i have a lot more to read regarding both karkat AND alternia. until then, i will give a general layout as to what i know so far and how i can expand this in a psychological way (especially considering i did my psych exam so my mind is FRESH from studying)

alright, starting with what seems to be the deal with the hemospectrum, theres a total of 12 blood colors. HOWEVER, one of those blood colors is a "mutant" blood which is unwanted in troll culture as it is, well, "mutant", meaning whoever has this blood will get brutally slaughtered. hurrayyy. im guessing it is even lower than aradia's rust blood, as she is allowed to live but is the lowest on the hierarchy triangle. meaning karkats blood is not even ON the hierarchy triangle and simply buried underground where they hope he stays. so its not exactly pleasant to be living in a society where everyone is trying to KILL you or at least keep you away from everything.

from what i remember, troll reproduction is a vital aspect in their culture, that everyone is forced to mate and drones will come by each house to collect the genetic material. this is mandatory apparently, and if someone were to object, they will be “culled" as quickly as they could say no. alternia seems to be really keen on the whole "blood and carnage" thing, which means their probable solution to anybody breaking the law, is to kill them on sight and just leave them there to rot - regardless of who they are and what families they comes from or have. trolls are free to kill whenever or whoever they please without any governmental repercussions. which means revenge upon revenge happens without any policy.

however this is very important when looking at karkat, because karkat may not be able to do the whole reproduction process (not that we necessarily want him to, im saying this in terms of how its mandatory for every troll and there will be a time when the drones WILL come for karkat). but as he is already a mutant and if they were to "collect" from him, they would find out his blood regardless of how he hides it. they will either cull him for saying no, or cull him for his blood. karkat, in this sense, is doomed regardless. which makes his character much more interesting.

and keep in mind alternia kind of sucks, because from the looks of it, trolls are constantly tested throughout their lives to prove themselves to society that they are allowed to live and survive. but ONLY if they are the strongest among them. alternia wants to become this fearful planet where the weak die off and only those proven worthy can stay to grow up and slaughter more of their kind until the world is nothing but blood thirsty strong murderers. im not too sure who is governing alternia but they can suck a dick if they think this is how good morals work. alternia only really has one way to solve things which is to kill those who question/fight back, OR to kill those who CANNOT fight back essentially. which puts all the trolls through a double edged sword where they cannot do anything but follow the guidelines given to them by troll's society and government, and try to survive as much as they can until then.

if i remember correctly, when it comes to the law side of things. if you look at it from terezi's introduction where she explains prosecutions with her plushies (lemonsnout ect ect i forgot the term for them lol), she said "you are guilty until proven innocent" which is the polar opposite of "innocent until proven guilty” used in OUR own society today (tho i guess we are by far the "good guys" in this situation, but we are far different than how trolls live their lives). anyways, what this means is that everyone dies regardless unless theres literal proof that they have not done the crime. even so i wouldnt put it past them to do nothing about their case even WITH proof. terezi even goes to say that technically there is no way to deal with the law on alternia, and most of crimes get solved through death. she even demonstrates this by how easily she hung the "suspect" and flipped a coin to determine his fate. however, even with the coin landing on the side of safety, where the suspect were to be released, she said "im blind remember i cannot see this coin" and essentially "killed" him. while terezi may have just been playing with her plushies, theres something we can take from this which dictates how their actual court cases are actually solved.

NOW, vriska (yes ik pls bare with me here, i will not make it about vriska but i do have a point here), from the last few pages i saw, can basically kill her friends in an instant, without any remorse. i can tell she sees this as the most "necessary" solution for her problems. i wouldnt say its for survival, but she does do it as a way to provide some sort of safety on alternia. she is a higher blood, and apparently the high bloods are known to kill whoever they please as long as its convenient. and since trolls have this whole fad of "killing the ones who cause you trouble so the problem is out of the way", she is wired to think its the only solution when threatened or when you dislike a person. 

god, she killed aradia because she wanted "revenge", because she wanted to get back at aradia for tormenting her with ghosts EVEN IF aradia did so because she threw tavros off a cliff in the first place. this may have worsened their friendship, KEEP IN MIND THEY WERE FRIENDS, but NEITHER, and i mean neither terezi/vriska/aradia, had any remorse if the other dies as long as there was a reason. in the story, vriska didnt care what happened to tavros because she disliked him, therefore becoming pretty bias over his fate. because of this attempt at killing, aradia didnt care what happened to vriska either, and neither did terezi. terezi sold her out to one of the most powerful beings on their planet, solely because of their revenge cycle. as long as the troll in question did something "malicious”, then that plays a factor in their morals. vriska gave no second thought to killing both of her friends (or at least attempt to with tavros), terezi also tormented john in act 4 which led to his “doomed timeline death” and sold vriska out after she realized vriska wouldnt change. so no fucking WONDER karkat tries to hide who he is, he's overly cautious to not let it slip out because even the people he calls friends could backstab him at any given time considering theres LITERAL EXAMPLES OF THESE TROLLS HAVING DONE SO.

to karkat, he sees this as dangerous, which is why he even CALLS vriska dangerous to begin with. she might not even hesitate to kill him herself or maybe sell him out to the drones, because 1. she may not want to be a witness to something society actively seeks to destroy and 2. she cares more for her survival than karkats. EVEN if they were friends (re: aradia and vriska and terezi). so it just shows. 

on that note, i find it funny how karkat indirectly distracted vriska after she baited him with the question of his blood in a past conversation, which prompted karkat to monologue about troll romance. he was, yes, VERY interested in this topic to start with, but it was a nice little bonus for karkat as to not be found out by the one person who would most likely kill him even if it wasnt on purpose. however, we do not know how this will play out IF she does find out, we just know karkat is in the right to be scared of the theory.

and, alright i do have to mention this, while karkat may have been an angry fucker to START with, who spites the world and throws out insults every chance he gets, i feel he does this as more of a survival instinct as well. he doesnt care what he says to people no matter what they rank on the hemospectrum. they dont know his blood color so he feels he has some sort of immunity, but he just needs to keep it hidden. it also may just be his personality, as he IS a character who was given specific traits and andrew went along with it without so much thinking about plot. yet if you look at this from more of the metaphorical route, think about it with uhhhh lets say the perspective of how dogs work. for example, when you put a chihuahua next to a doberman, a doberman is more of an excited, energetic dog whereas a chihuahua will rain hell down on anybody who so goes near them. sometimes this is to make up for their size, to seem as menacing as the larger doberman, as they have nothing else to fend themselves with. another way to look at it is, if you see a bear (i forget if its black/brown or grizzly) you make yourself seem like the bigger person by scaring it off with sounds and eventually it will leave you alone. these sort of tactics work in the sense of survival. this is sort of what karkat could be doing, he uses insults and a defensive shouting to not really "hide" himself, but to have some sort of way as to not be found out if people start to question. someone asks him "hey karkat whats your blood" he goes "FUCK YOU, FUCK OFF, END OF STORY" which could make a person go "yo sorry dude forget i ever asked". so this could be a factor as to why he is so crabby, however on the other hand, he is crabby because that is also his character. andrew probably thought yo cancer = crab = crabby. however i do like how he is perceived and the whole "mutant blood" really made me do a double take on how he views life himself. he has to always hide who he is or he will get physically killed. alternia would take joy in finding out he does not belong there because lets face it, alternia is a bitch of a planet.

this also brought me to ask the question, why does karkat want to be a leader if hes so scared of what would happen to him if he were to be found out? which then, at first i said lol this is just karkat, he wants to a leader because he just wants to be the leader, he likes when things go to plan and that he the most say in their sburb plans considering he thinks everyone else is a "dumbass". to which, i then thought about it more and went ouch what if hes a leader because he knows hes not valued enough in society, that he somehow wants to feel some sort of importance in the world, so he wants to become a leader. i imagine younger karkat, not knowing why his blood is so undermined, finding out he is not wanted and suddenly on the most wanted list without having even DONE anything. even TAVROS said he was on that list, but only because he was weak and had no back-bone, here karkat may have been strong but no matter what, he was to be culled BECAUSE of his blood. something he cannot change no matter what. imagine a little kid knowing he will die at any point because of who he is (rlly sounds familiar if you think about it). so of course, he hides himself from the world, but do you think for an instant, little angry karkat wants to simply be FORGOTTEN about? i doubt that, he wants to be heard, he doesnt necessarily want to be rejected as he knows he will be, so while he does hide his blood, he wants to have a voice no matter what. when being a leader, people dont reject you, they LISTEN. they all may not want to because karkat is just a fucking ticking time bomb, who can lash out at any second, but i feel theres now a reason why he has this superiority complex. he wants to sort of become the person he knows he never will become (if you put it into that perspective). so thats kind of why im giving him the benefit of the doubt here.

i would also like to point out a sort of.... comparison?? not with the dogs but with unwanted children in a family household. this doesnt necessarily apply to karkat, but sub in family household with society and it might as well. (on that note, a warning/viewer discretion, if you have any problem with this kind of discussion, i wouldnt read further into this paragraph and skip to the next one) alright, the unwanted child psychology basically deals with the process of a child which is neglected by their parents, and/or know that they were never wanted in the family. i read an article a while back when we were discussing this in a lecture, we were browsing multiple people's perspective on the matter, and one said "An affective relationship may be suffocating to [the unwanted/neglected child]: it’s a defense against intimacy of which they know nothing. Normally they fluctuate between egotism and deep feelings of inferiority. They don’t understand what a balanced and healthy self-esteem looks like." it explains how the child who grows up in an unwanted home admits great emotion deprivation, because the child's bonds of affection are extremely fragile, and this can lead to both egotism and feeling like they are inadequate. and it really strongly shows karkats personality. we havent gotten that much from him in general, but considering how he uses this egotism to cover up the fact that he may be doomed, really shows the similarity. i liked this short article so i want to give some points to take into consideration, specifically this part: "It will be very difficult for unwanted children to build healthy relationships of affection in their adult life. Love is a foreign language to them. They don’t know how to decipher the codes and much less how to build them. It’s very hard for them to need and to be needed. That’s why, more often than not, they completely shirk their conflicts with peers and superiors, or do nothing but generate them. They speak incessantly about the broken relationship that marked their arrival in the world. A person with such a background will need help to get through those abysses of love that live in their heart. The most important step is that they recognize that their discomfort doesn’t depend on who they are, but the circumstances that led to their being." it may not be 100% tru for karkat but theres a small portion of it that can link back to karkats view on life and how being this mutant can really change who he is as a person. and i hope you can see the similarity between karkats character and this form of psychology. yet i also do not fully know the depth of karkat vantas. however i do hope it continues to build up in this way, as it would be both interesting and make us feel more for him as a person.

alright, i think if i write any more i will never stop aghjsk, which is a bit too much for a sunday afternoon, basically to sum up this post, trolls are violent and karkat will be killed if hes found out, even by his friends if it comes down to it. so karkat cannot really trust anybody, hes alone and imagine the thrill he had when he saw jack cut his hand to show the bright red blood? that he finally has someone LIKE HIM. imagine when he finds out about the kids. so i believe in his growth, while he needs to get a better vocabulary, i do get why hes so defensive all the time. because hes both scared and unwanted. and he wants to make up for it.

and i guess with all that being said, you can tell i now have a slight soft spot for the kid lmao

[cheryllcher]

season finale analysis?? (reaction?? idk)

sooo miracle queen aired so i watched them together. if u haven't watched it yet u can scroll your way out of here to the next post cuz mobile ain't letting me add the cut anytime soon :))

---

loveater/ heart hunter (apparently that's the english name) this is in no particular order im just throwimg my thoughts here

well honestly im confused. like audrey and andre were not getting along amd suddenly they are all lovey dovey again after akumatisation?? cool. i guess the akuma makes sense but overall not really that amazing and kinda pointless to me besides tryna use that to get chloe on her side and master fu's location

awww i think the friendship between adrien, mari and kagami is pure. and marinette didn't stutter!! im proud of my girl!! this is the kind of content i really love to see and it makes me happy when the writers do that :)

umm andre's flavour combis are a little weird tho like orange and peppermint?? no offence i wouldn't eat that together

also mari looks so pretty with her hair down and the way she helped her friends escape. and ended up breaking her own heart to help kagami

and if im being honest, not just cuz im bias to the love square but the relationship between adrien and kagami is weird for me cuz all season i haven't seen that development?? adrien was so hung up on ladybug (which he should have stopped confessing since in glaciator he said her friendship was all that matters but okay) and suddenly kagami?? sorry but i just cant with it unless there's something in felix and chat blanc but i doubt it

luka was cool tho, like he was just being there for mari and all patient while mari had a breakdown.

hawky's plan was actually not bad tho if im being honest here. and chloe should have already learnt about not getting bee back in miraculer right?? sorry i cant rmb rn if she did

overall other than the initial sadness cuz of the lovesquare before watching. now that i've did, it just doesnt reallly... feel like a finale to me. just trying to push some relationships and kinda unlearnt lessons that should be learnt before this. also random 'subplot' of audrey and andre that just resolved out of nowhere. but im happy to finally see marinette being human and go through emotional breakdowns from stress and all her responsibilities.

---

miracle queen. right i couldnt find subs unfortunately so im going in based on visuals and sucky youtube captions (which only worked for a few lines) once more not in order

akuma was basically queen wasp but the victims are mind controlled instead of frozen. not fantastic honestly in my opinion. also looks almost exactly like queen wasp

so identities are comprimised which cause problems. i actually think this is okay and i hope to see how mari deals with this

i really love that ladynoir moment cuz it shows how much they care for and trust each other. all love aside. it means that there is development and hopefully they grow to love each other completely, both sides of mask and all

also pegasus did u just send cat noir to the flipping sun?? kim's special power was actually pretty funny. pretty cool to see dragonbug and snake noir ngl

again i love how they show marinette having meltdowns from the stress. she can feel negative emotions!!

chloe going after the akuma willingly just showed how she just wanted to be a superhero and get apporval and all. wanna see how that plays out maybe

not sure what happened with fu as couldnt understand but i think he forgot miraculouses existed or something?? and he reuntied with marianne!!

the ending was sorta bittersweet. and idk if it's just me but i feel like mari's eyes looked kinda weird. maybe it was the eyebags?? idk but im cool with it

side note i called it when i thought that something would happen during that supposed adrigami kiss. but not the point hehe oops. also pretty upset that she chose adrien over friendship even after all the things mari's done for her. my opinion tho u are welcome to disagree if u want

overall it's a meh. some good moments but meh.

---

as i've said earlier i feel like this isnt a finale. the staff said we'll cry but other than the initial disappointment before i jumped in that the love square is crushed and that our 2 idiots are still big idiots, not really the emotional episode i was hyping for.

i also feel like it's sorta all over the place. like they're tryna push for 2 relationships that i didnt really see developing.

in adrigami i see kagami constantly pushing for a choice. like yea i was like ooooh she just said that when she said adrien's indecisiveness hurt her (based on the minimal subtitles youtube caught), but to me i feel like she's not giving adrien the time to sort out his feelings and was just hounding on him when she got the chance. i feel like it isn't going to work (my love square shipping heart thrown out the window at this point so not biasness but from perspective)

lukanette tho. luka is as for now, flawless. he's patient kind and at first i thought how being with him is pretty healthy. but now it's just... "perfect". and that's not really gonna end well?? not really sure if there would even be a start. maybe be a brother figure but not conviced as love interest. also again out of nowhere.

im actually excited at the prospect of a platonic lovesquare but u cant just throw all these soft looks from adrien towards marinette (finale has some too) and expect me to believe that nothing's happening. he should at least be denying some feelings right?? he cant possibly only have 1 brain cell his whole life that doesnt think about it. like it would make more sense (to me) to develop adrien's relationship with mari, platonic or not.

chloe-- cant really see her getting her redemption arc soon. she needs to really be faced with the reality for her actions and learn that superheroes isnt all action and attention and glory and that ladybug is looking out for her by not giving her the miraculous anymore. not keep insisting and turning to the dark side for superpowers.

i also dont really see the point of the love rivals?? i rather they take care of themselves and grow and mature without love being in it. i think it would be a good lesson to learn. to take the time to care about yourself and learn wut is best for u and learn about yourself before plunging into a relationship with all these things. the love rivals make everything crazier and doesnt help the situation. just makes the already complicated love square more complicated, then chucking it to the side for now. doesnt make sense to me even tho im sure they'll grow to be better versions of themselves cuz it's so out of the blue to me @gale-of-the-nomads mentioned it in his review and when i read it i really feel like he took the words out of my mind and put it into words. but i still respect the writer's work and will anticipate the next season to see their story play out :)

so... yea ://

[jamesdazell]

Un Monstre Sacré

Un Monstre Sacré

ART AND REPRESENTATION

(2019)

Enamorado de ti, de tu vida y de lo que quieres.

- Frida Kahlo

1

   I’m tired of reconsiderig my story in the mind of the idealism of present fashionable criticism.

  Concentrate on what you have to say and the images which manifest themselves to you. Stories are more than their features, their meaning runs much deeper than its costume. Consider the representation and diveristy only if it tells your story better, makes your characters explore their themes better, adds to their own story. You can make whatever art you want to make. No matter if it goes against the idealisms of the day. Idealisms come and go, the whole of art history shows us, but no one has the right to shut down your own stories and interpretation of life that you need to express. We’re running close to a prescribed imagination, not a free one, where the manifesto is a total and political movement, not an arts movement. Full of ideals but not ideas. Right now its like the Puritanical movement, if not a bonfire of vanities, against those who transgress the ideals of the day. Make whatever art that has been revealed to you to make. Make art with whatever great inspiration you had to make it and do not apologise for how it is manifested.

  Your imagination is a cerebral reflex. Don’t apologise or criticise it for not representing the ideals of the movements of the day. I’m not bothered about representation in art as I think it goes against the whole job of art.

  Artists and writers are representations of the cultural history of their time (they're not the only that, but even that is informative about the time). Not everything about them is going to be golden, maybe everything will be bad taste and bad intelligence. But in any case, it is far far more important think with them as if in conversation and disucssion. Their purpose is to stimulate thought not to emboss on it on the minds who receive it.  To be honest it seems clear why the Bibles were so effective. Most people want to be told what to think and to have their own thoughts amplified back at them, they want to have something celebrate them, and to rise up in significance by celebration.

  No matter where or who the work comes from, I wouldn't favour anyone for their cultural representation but for the talent and ideas their work carries. Great work is recognisible immediately. It affects on a cross-cultural level. I'm always looking to become foreign to myself, both in culture and time. The act of de-culturising seem more to the task than to represent it. Foreignness might illuminate and ignite dormant aspects within me that my own culture may not. So it is better to be in conversation than to outright reject, because it mattered, and if it mattered enough to be remembered and preserved, and to be copied (often by hand) through the centuries or ever just the last hundred years, then it probably meant something on a deeper level that is beyond their cultural representations, into a deeper part of humanity, whether the good or bad side. So through them we can understand ourselves.

  The purpose of representative writers is more needed by institutions and publishers etc but in artist's work the aim ought to be to dissolve those differences and to find the human being in experiences and the stories we tell. Like Susan Sontag said in conversation with John Berger about story-telling, she doesnt need to be a Russian man in Russia, or even feel like one, to read Tolstoy. And any reading of it in that way would be a superficial reading. That's not what’s on offer in a work of that magnitude. Likewise to quesiton whether the lead in a story is a man or a woman. It doesn't matter in itself. It only matters to the dramatic nature of the story. There are so many possible ways to unravel a narrative, that the lead doesn't signify anything but a focus. The lead could be positive or negative traits, the purpose of a lead could be celebratory or negation. The point is the same as ever. To tell great stories.

   It annoys me when people say how sexist Japan is (and it always comes from the Anglosphere who have a terrible time of seeing themselves as they are). When Japan has such a great history of female lead characters (and female charaters in general) who are both heroic and admirable, that Japan should rather be an inspiration for telling female lead stories more than the west's tradition. What representative writing is doing (though is not saying) is suggesting that certain ideas and arts belong to different races, genders, sexualities. There are certainly particular experiences only certain people will be able to tell, but then you run in the problem that certain races, genders, sexualities, are supposed to tell stories in a certain stereotyped way because it represents them. Take class for instance; that a working class writer is supposed to write about working class life and in a stereotypical way. It makes no sense but to write with and read it with your own humanity. That is the point of reading and writing, to reengage with our humanity. Hemmingway innovated, but that style doesn't belong to his race and sexuality. At the end of the day, no matter how representative, all you're doing is telling a story and or making an artistic choice, and it needs to be coming from your deeper humanity, that dissovles boundaries and shows there isn't a difference between us. I don't believe there is necesarily homosexual art anymore than homosexual science. The purpose isn't to write autobiography. I would never begin to think of Lorca's poetry as a homosexual perspective. His poetry is universal, he transgressed those social, political, cultural representations. He dissolved as he defied them: as a human being. He humiliated them as he transgressed representation. He became everyone, on everyone's essential journey, a primordial everyone. That rather seems the ambition and the proper task. So, I can never see the seduction in representational writing.  Art’s very purpose is to liberate ourselves from the privilege of an authorial stance of representation. To dissolve differential representation back into a unity of a human being. To reveal, from the cultural political delusion, the communalness and universals of our being human.

2

   Characters exist to embody a theme to tell a story, they define their character by decisions and actions they make. Without that they would be autonomous, independant from the story, representing exactly what they are for the sake of being. We have a name for that: reality TV. Reality TV as the fulfillment of modern dramatic theory; the most naturalistic, identifiable, devised, post dramatic, audience participation, theatrical entertainment one can imagine, unfolding in real time along the lines of life without the logic of narratives.

   Turn on the TV and Reality TV is there either as the news, people eating, people dating, people’s jobs, people’s cultural aspirations, or people selling things on the market. A frieze of national life as an interactive game show. We even now demand that fictional characters are played by their representative real life identity. Reality TV is all people really want. Real life stories about real life people, played by real life people for real life people. There is no question who the ideal character is. Theres no point in having idealistic characters, because they have nothing to learn. They are in themsevles a fulfilment. What journey do they have to go through. What themes are they able to explore.  Reality is more conplex than there being good people whose attitudes we like and bad people whose attitudes we don't.

  Characters are representations of themes, they help explore themes. If the themes and meaning of the story is good, then the characters will be good. Then the representation will be justified. What matters is from how a deep an instinct, an interpretation, if for lack of a better word a soul the story sprung from.

3

Progressives in art: I always find progressives in arts, especially those who outright reject the past, to be a continuation of that same spirit, which they are sadly too ignorant to have perceived. It was rather that they have found a different expression, maybe a more honest expression of the same spirit. And the very idea that it was able to seem progressive was because the culture had changed underneath. That it was this time and not another. In in the final analysis of their progressiveness you see they were bondaged to the time their lived in that it hardly seems a progressive act at all but one that was merely an expressive of prevailing conscience of the time that had erupted in a few people. But there is no such thing as progess in the arts. Every activity in art is the art of a human or a group of humans. Their life is its own condition within a certain set of condiitons. They are representative only of the condition it was made. Their lifespan cannot be compared to the life of another in terms of progress. Neither has art a goal to measure progress upon. And if it did, are we further towards a goal now than in any earlier time? And any possible yes, then an earlier time must have had the same goal as the progressors in art to.... I give up. There is no progress in art. Everything is a representation merely of a human being, the community, or the age that it was made it, each with its own values and ideas that belong to being a human being, not the progress of human beings. For in fact nothing in humanity progresses, because the measurement of progress itself depends on parameters of leaning towards or away from our values, which can only be a subjective axiom.

  Anything "progressive" means an old aspiration conducted more openly and honestly; which appeals to all subterranean risings; perhaps a crisis which for a long time has been in conflict with a masterful way which, to the subterranean, now seems simply an old fashioned idealism. But it is only a re-expression. Even the masterful way was really their way but unfaithful to its condition. Whatever becomes progressive is merely a more honest approach, a step towards being more faithful to its impetus condition. Progress is a condition striving to express itself more honetly and value itself more openly. "Improvement" is arbitrary to the matter.

  Popular culture is often more conservative than so-called elite culture because it reflects a caricature of the general public, and so isn't intellectual curious or demanding enough to be ahead of the curve by the ideas it embodies. It perpetuates old ideals in flashy new colours.

   Now we're surrounded by ordinariness masking itself as extraordinary. The ordinary is no longer embarrassed before itself. It has even become critical of the extraordinary. Instead of being humbled by the great achievements of the past we are arrogant even before the future.

People now have so little historical minds. All those who want to break from the past are always the most ignorant of it. Art right now lacks an intellectual energy that has soaked up the intellectual thought of humanity and can say "this is an intelligent thought in 2020 that on its own merit could be in conversation with the thoughts past and knows where it would be placed in the lineage.” However, people are having anti-intellectual ahistorical attiudes. People are attacking history for not being diverse in cultural representation, are attacking the best minds for not being their Jesus figure of imitation, and have great disbelief in things which they cannot do themselves. There is no genius that belonged to this race or that, or this religion but not that, or this gender or that. We talk of them because of what they had done, and what that meant to the time, and to us, and that we dont talk about some of the people worth talking about is an historical expression of the time. There are many clever people, many talents, but the genius is the humanity within it, that they transgressed their “character” into something more fundamental either about ourselves or the world around us. That they dissolved their cultural and political position, and became a human being.

  However, people are now saying the literature canon needs revision. Kafka said on how to choose a book that literature should be the axe that smashes the frozen ice within you. Discover your books that mean the wrold to you. Read whatever you want, but don’t read a canon. Read whatever makes your heart beat, your breathing clearly, what positively changes your brain, and makes you feel at home in their words. Any really great writer will ascend beyond what they are. Discovering art should not be deprived to us. And we should not expect children to admire the artists and writers they were taught about at school, no matter if it is revised. These schooled artists will always be those artists they had to study and do homework on. On rarely will they become the artists they love.

  I dont think we should revise anything. An education is not being taught what to learn, its discovering your own thoughts. And real educatioin isn’t like stacking knowledge up in a warehouse but mixing wine in to water, it alters the whole composition. Being knowledgable is knowing more things - there are game shows for that - a real eduation requires much forgetting. We should be far more encouraging of independent guided learning. School should help develop general characteristics of the brain. The Greeks had their nine canonical of poets, the japanese had 36 inmortals of poetry (one for men and women). They dont have to be our favourites. No one has robbed you of that choice. But these canons tell us about the way people thought at a time. And no time, no matter how blind by its idealism can be, no time is the truth and end of a conversation. It is easy to look back and dismiss it, to avoid the harder choice of measuring up to its cultural affect.

   Every artistic decision has a psychologically relative world view. Artistic choices are reflexes. In art (rather in everything) nothing is purely theoretical. Everything is fully representational of your conditional perspective, and feeling of existence. You always have to wind it back to that. Everything else is a secondary effect. Ideas and attitudes are just reflexes. An art cannot be a definition of its form, but only of the condition of the artist who made it, which subsequently gives us some impression of the age it was made in depending on its context. No painting defines painting, no music can define music, no poem poetry, nor dance dance.

4

  People go to the theatre not to think but to see a caricature of their own views, executed with the technique of a children's toy commercial. Showing them everything they love. Now people read books this way too. In valuing books, people only want to see themselves reflected in them. Even when great books are in vogue, they choose to read them because they already know what they are about and going to say and they finish with the same mind as they had begun reading them.  People read 1984 because they already know what it is about, and what it is going to say. Most people simply want to amplify their own point of view.

  Right now stories are like a dramatised op-ed article, featurig their token selling point of diversity, with critics acting as the puritanical bonfire of transgressions of the ideals of the day. But the game is the same as always: to make incredible stories. To interpret life artistically. You have to research in order to find the right symbols for your work. Like going through layers and layers and doors and doors but you keep running into the same symbols. For a visual culture were actually really bad a symbols.

  So you have an idea, fine, but thats not enough, you have to be able to pull it off in the form of a great story. Its not enough just to say youre against something and that you made your work from an ideal. You have to tell great stories, or make great performances. Our story telling is becoming conceptual where the idea behind it is supposed to mean more than the actual merit of the work of art. Which shows our minds are becoming conceptual, less artistic, and more scientific. The concentration on the technique of great arts, of all great arts and great artists, is an insight and experience of reality much higher than that of science.

5

   There has been an increase in melodrama this century. All American television and film (that wasn’t but somewhat including the Marvel / DC films)  seems to have been melodrama (of course French cinema, and independant, has been for longer - its their penchant). Melodrama is sadistic. Its full of pathetic characters who if they werent so pathetic they wouldn't be in this mess. If not of their own fault then they deal with it in a pathetic way. The effect on me is not pity but frustration, like watching a sympathetic horror movie. Sympathy is a sin in art. It makes your characters pathetic and all i can think whilst watching them is if they werent so patheric they wouldnt be in this mess and this wouldnt be a story. If a solution is befitting and negates its whole existence, the idea of the story is bad. Its not their circumstance, its the sympathy that is requested. Melodrama is sadistic - and this is coming from a guy obsessed with Greek tragedy. Euripides wrote melodrama, he wrote romanticism, satyr play, and tragi-comedy, but Euripides did not write tragedy. Character drama/study is always melodrama because it depends on the investigation of the 'soul' the innermost of them. Tragedy is concerned with overarching events that reveal the religious (Dionysian - most closely today related to Shiva that they’re almost the same) nature of the universe, people as agents of action, but not people as characters.

6

  Art can be whatever.  Yes. But don't just go with your instincts like an amateur. You have to understand the meaning of choices, in order to change your instincts. To make your instincts artistic. Otherwise there's no difference between you and your audience. And you don't take them anywhere than they arrived. 

    Then there is the insistance on “accessibility” which can be unhealthy because it rejects the high bar and creates stereotypes of styles. It creates new idealism in the character of the work. And it gives marit of accomplishment just for showing up. Make accessibility wide but on the same basis of making great art In respect and recognition of where the high bar is set.

7

   The worth of a book, music, film today is merely judged by how much it is needed at the time it arrives. The public and the critic have the judgement of the tradesman weighing cattle at the market, as they estimate everything merely for value of supply and demand.

Frida Kahlo "I dont give a shit what the world thinks"

   Critics and social media seem to be having their own insular conversation and they go to movies or listen to music or whatever and judge it on how much they can continue to have that conversation whilst experiencing the work of art, which cannot exist on the merits of its own.

   Majoritism is to anoit bad taste and bad talent over good. To put amateurs in charge. I think less educated and amateur care much more about it.

"There is one good opinion which must always be of consequence to you, namely, your own." R. W. Emerson

  Social media has created the method audience. Instead of the method actor disagreeing with the director over the way a character is portrayed its the audience. Or maybe they feel themselves executive producers. But certainly anything but an audience. They complain as if theyve been forced to pay at gun point.

  The idealism our age has just put a chip on people's shoulder and given all a licence to have an attitude about everything. The opinions of the public dont matter, thats why they feel their deep rights to have them. I'm not an audience first type of artist. The public come to market, and the market sways, but it has no reigns on the artistic activity that has travelled further in its pursuit of ideas than they may have ever been. To make a work of art involves obliterating and exhausting oneself, in pursuit of techniques and ideas that inform the works direction and merit, and reassembling oneself. To dicard that for the public who come to market and place it on the weighing scale of ideals is a joke.

  Plesse be rude, derogatory, offensive, insensitive. Its a cruelest humanity that sacrifices its cruelty. It's against our nature. The 21st century is the conservative 40s and 50s, with the yuppies of the 80s, that overturned the free spiritedness of the 20s and 30s, 60s and 70s.

8

  Make whatever goddamn work you want to make, and that will be the work you made. Just be proud to have manifested what you had envisioned in whatever form you wanted to tell it and be proud it has your name attached to it. And dont take criticism from those who do not inspire you.. Being an artist is to be your own beast. Un monstre sacré.

[tumblunni]

Fuckinghell i got to That Part in USUM and it was even worse than i expected

Kfuckinh fuck i alreadyhated lusamine cos i hadan abusivemum like that in real life but this time i wanted to fucking stab her actual eyes out with my thumbs! How can a bad writing flub trigger such a huge ass panic attack in me!! Am i really that pathetic!! God im just sitting with my face in a fan cos im overheated as fuck i was all fight or flight mode just about hitting the A button and knowing the next scene i get will be Somehow Lusamine Was Right, in the place of the execellent callout scene lillie got in the original. So much actual detailed analysis of child abuse and now NOPE ITS OKAYMOMMY HURT U FOR A GOOD CAUSE

And what i hate so much is that they didmt even completely rewrite it! This isnt even an 'alternate universe story' where lusamine was a good mom, which would already be problematic in context but at least there'd be an excuse for it. Nah instead they just left in all the foreshadowing leading up to her being abusive and all the scenes of her being a fucl but just at the last second its ok cos something something necrozma.

Things that are still canon in this universe:

lillie and gladion ran away from their mother and nearly died on the streets and all that

Lusamine still controlled how much they acted and looked and etc that lillie has anxiety over picking her own damn clothes in a shop (and gladion mentions the same in an optional dialogue that also wasnt removed)

"Oh no its a big reveal that aether foundation is evil and working with team skull and they kidnapped lillie and now u have to fight thru an entire foundation full of evil murderous adults and also faba the fuckmeister supreme"

Lusamine wants to murder cosmog to open an ultra wormhole and laughs about it

Lusamine has an entire fuckin secret room full of pokemon corpses preserved in ice so they'll 'stay beautiful and never disobey'

Lusamine tells her kids theyre disgusting for disobeying her and she doesnt love them and never did and also they are selfish cunts for daring to want to be not abused

Then she fuckin attacks them, and you fight

Fuckin ALL THEY CHANGED was that at the end shes like 'but i do it cos necrozma bad and i was really save world'. And the writers seem to think that this somehow justifies her actions rather than just making her an equally evil equally abusive person who just has a dumb knight templar reason for why she thinks she's in the right. Like maybe you could say this would make her more redeemable in the end, i guess?? Like if she actually had a proper redemption plotline you could use this as a springboard to jump off in order to create that plotline. That she was once good and her evilness is a very specific sort of 'murder and hate is justified because my purpose is so important' kind of thing, which should honestly have led to her personality being entirely different and written entirely different. But you still actually have to write a redemption route! Shes not just suddenly good because she has a motive for being evil! And shes not even as redeemable as the other villain bosses, if we only hear about her 'good reason' AFTER we see her do everything evil! And her evil is so much more personal than the other bosses! Like maxie and archie were still likeable eveb before their VERY EXTENSIVE AND WELL WRITTEN redemption plot, because their evil plot was abstract and nonsensical ('destroy world') rather than actual detailed real life crimes to characters we care about. Abd very manipulative and deliberate ones! Maxie and Archie had it established very early on that they THOUGHT what they weredoing would improve the worls even if it was obvious they would actually destroy it. Lusamine didnt abuse her kids accidentally or because of a mistake, the only way she thought she was doing the right thing is that she thought her kids were ungrateful evil fucks who deserved being hurt because they MERELY WOULDNT OBEY HER EVERY WHIM! And we see this from the perspective of the kids who are very much just goddamn innocent kids and very much show actual realistic ptsd symptoms and relateable stories of abuse. So yeah lusamine already starts at a higher tier of villainy that would require more redemption than archie and maxie, even if you can technically say 'maybe her plan to beat necrozma via pet murder and child abuse might actually work'. (Or, in the origonal, that technically her plan was just to fuck off to another dimension of obedient mindless slave jellyfish and never come back, which is technically less wprld damaging than the hoenn guys.)

And just MANNNN what i really hate is that they didnt remove anything except like.. The parts where you sympathise with the kids. I feel like the scene of lillie at the clothes shop early on and the dramatic break in to aether paradise were just left in out of laziness more than anything. Like theres a lot of stuff that seems 'oh we have to do that cos thats how it went last time, but lets half ass it and rewrite the dialogue shorter and rush to my New Bits'. I feel like if someone played this first before sun and moon then half of the plot wouldnt make sense! But why did they choose to leave in just enough that it made lusamine still look like a monster, if she never gets her comeuppance!!!

And man i really fucking hate how they rewrote lillie and gladion during the big plot swrrve into LUSMINE HAD GUD REASONS 2 DO THE THING. Lillie says barely anything and gladion is suddenly all 'please stop because I CANT LOSEYOU ASWELL AS DAD, MOM' not fuckin please stop because you are murdering nebby and you just told me you dont love me. Andthen hebegs her to take him with her to fight necrozma becauseits type null's destiny to be a beast killer?? When just five seconds ago hehad unchanged dialogue about how he saved type null becauze he saw it was born and raised to be what its 'parent' wanted it to be, just like how lusamine abusively raised him. Like fuckin entire story about him escaping to be himself and give this lil frankendog a chance at a real normal life, just WHOOOSH right over the new writer's head...

And then THE FUCKIN WORST BIT is that they kept the same scene of lillie sleeping in lusamine's bed but changed all the dialogue to just 'i'll sleep here' *scene ends* rather than 'i remember when i used to sleep in her bed after nightmares when i was like five and thats the last time i can remember that it felt like she actually loved us, i need to sleep here again to say goodbye and steel myself to fight to save the world next time we see her'

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha nuance what is that complexity who is she never heard of her

Fuck that scene was so relateable cos thats literally what i did the day before i ran away from home.fuck you for removing it.

Fuck this game really is like a weirdass rom hack some other guy did of a game he didnt understand. It at least makes me feel better to know it was directed by a different team and isnt considered the 'final full version' like platinum and emerald and stuff. I felt practically gaslit when i was tryong to reconcile the idea someone could write a complex analysis of child abuse and then unwrite it as if it was never important. Was it never really intended to be abuse at all and i was just imagining it?? But nah no its just someone else handling the expansion pack for a game and turning it into an 'alternative story' with his different lame motiveless Bad Legendary villain cos somehow he didnt think the original was good enough. Fuck, it was the most emotional most terrifying villain boss of all time, fuckin geez what is wrong with you!

GUZMAAAA WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOUUU

oh yeh did i mention that also Still Exists but the npc thats implied to be his abusive dad has his dialogue slightly rewritten to be 'my kid ran away on a pikemon journey and beat me' not 'i beat my kid but he beat me back'

God fuck u fuck this fuck EVERYTHING what goddamn motives do you have for removing a goddamn How To Spot Child Abuse manual for kids in game form. THIS ENTIRE PLOT WAS SO IMPORTANT IF I SAW THIS AS A KID I WOULDNT HAVE TRIED TO KILL MYSELF

gahhhahahahhhhh

[vethyourhalflingmother]

whenever you have free time: can you explain your opinions on what houses vox machina and the mighty nein are in? i 100% agree w gryffindor nott btw

I’d just like to start by clarifying that altho I do feel strongly about some of these opinions (& ive joked about them being unchangeable - which is not true, to be serious), that doesnt mean I don’t wanna hear y’all’s - do you agree w/ me on some & not the others? completely disagree? completely agree for different reasons? tell me (politely pls) & give me some of ur reasons! i think part of the intrigue of sorting our fav characters into hogwarts houses is that it tells us what we value in them & what traits of theirs stand out to us the most - and that subsequently makes it…. fairly subjective (also doesn’t help that the standards for each house are kind of……vague lol)

I expect all of ur essays on this v important question on my desk by 8 am monday morning

now onto answering the actual ask:

The Mighty Nein

Caleb - Ravenclaw; aside from the fact that he obviously values books & advancement of his own magical knowledge, he also seems to think through important decisions in a logical manner (ex. he spent a lot of time thinking about whether he & nott should stay w/ the rest of the mighty nein)

Fjord - Ravenclaw; again, besides the obvious, his interest in studying at the Soltryce Academy, he’s also really observant & intent on learning from those around him, given all the questions he’s asked Caleb & the way he keeps an eye on Jester’s divine magic

Molly - Hufflepuff; altho initially i had some mixed feelings about this, after giving it some thought, im actually most convinced of this one: as many have pointed out, he’s shaping up to be the Mom Friend & taliesin also says he has a moral code that he sticks to - i think being steadfast in the way youre gonna put good into the world (& in how u treat the evils & injustices) is very Hufflepuff  

Yasha - Slytherin; though I say this tentatively bc we haven’t seen a lot of her yet - she doesn’t seem like a traditional slytherin in a highly ambitions sense, but she does seem like to stick to her guns & prioritise herself when necessary (“I run into the woods”)   

Beau - Gryffindor; she strikes me as fight first, ask questions later kinda gal & going in guns blazing seems very Gryffindor to me - in addition, she also saved nott from that manticore, which struck me as reckless bravery consistent w/ gryffindors

Nott - Gryffindor; i spent some time thinking about this one after @matt-the-blind-cinnamon-roll gave some of their reasons for slotting nott as a hufflepuff - ultimately, I think nott’s a gryffindor despite the fact that she doesn’t consider herself brave is bc her actions speak louder than her words (“I cover Caleb’s body with my own” & “I kill the baby manticore”); the willingness to put urself at risk for the people u care about over and over even at ur own expense strikes me as a gryffindor trait (for better or worse, I might add - see my thoughts on Vax’ildammit)

Jester - look I……………………………..honestly don’t fuckin know. Hufflepuff? Slytherin? Idk ask me again in fifty episodes

Vox Machina

Percy - Ravenclaw; initially i had percy as a Slytherin but i think once he got over the whole demon revenge thing he actually turned out to be pretty Ravenclaw - I mean, he does invent things, and he’s not interested at all in being in charge of Whitestone (also what kind of fuckin nerd learns Celestial for the fun of it lmao)

Vex - Slytherin; Lady Vex’ahlia, Baroness of the Third House of Whitestone and Grand Mistress of the Grey Hunt - she cares about the title & the money & with very good reason, i think - her ability to obtain what she wants & persevere through the tough times puts her in Slytherin (also - with trinket’s origin story - i think it takes some real fucking grit & confidence to dig urself out of that kind of situation on ur own)

Vax - Gryffindor; this one is a lot to unpack. @swiftbell & i have been arguing about this one on & off for awhile; she thinks Vax is a Hufflepuff (& she has good reason to). there’s a lot of debate about whether hogwarts house are based on who u are vs who u want to be/strive to be & while i think arguments based on the latter r fine, i tend to base mine on the former in this list bc its easier to see actions than try to parse out thought

so that being said, i think Vax is a gryffindor bc while he cares deeply about his found family, he doesn’t exactly place a high price on his own safety; he goes in first, he goes in stupidly, he almost gets himself killed a lot - that kind of drive toward self sacrifice, to me, falls under the reckless bravery of a gryffindor

(as I said to steph: a hufflepuff would die for their loved ones if they absolutely had to, but a gryffindor tends to look at it as one of their first choices - also vax reminds me a lot of sirius black but im gonna stop right here to avoid turning this post into a vax character analysis)

Grog - Gryffindor; grog doesn’t do much thinking, he just does (& im not saying all gryffindors don’t think - obviously many do (@ hermione granger)- but i do they’re the types of people most prone to falling into the trap of not thinking things thru) it’s almost like the opposite of vax’s problem except we’re not talking about vax anymore bc this isnt a vax character study

Keyleth - Gryffindor; i feel like im beating a dead horse here but kiki also doesn’t always think things through & is very prone to action; the difference between her brand of gryffindor as opposed to vax’s & grog’s is that her outcomes are a little more mixed bag

Pike - Hufflepuff; i think pike is a hufflepuff for a lot of the same reasons i think molly is… which is a little surprising so just bear with me a second; she’s very devoted to Sarenrae, which sets up her (mostly) clear perspective of the world and how she should exist & treat people in it; she’s less of a mom friend (altho she still has some of those qualities), and she’s as loyal to her own causes as she is to Vox Machina; she also tends to be very kind & fun-loving w/out being a pushover

Scanlan - im a huge fan of scanlan, which probably means i should have some momentous opinion here…………….but I don’t, I really don’t know - i think once i get to some key points in scanlan’s character development (which i think are coming up in the next like 15 episodes or something), i’ll have a clearer thought

Tiberius - im not sure i remember tiberius well enough to make a full judgment, but I would say Ravenclaw probably if i had to bc of his constant interest in intelligence & learning to be a better sorcerer

Tary - ive heard of him but i dont know him yet so tbd  

[idreamtofmanderleyagain]

As someone who loves Hellraiser and has a human/cenobite ship (Kirsty/Pinhead. So like, the possibility of consenting to a cenobite in some way is a factor in my perspectives otherwise I would not have a ship)... I think you are taking things way too literally and this is maybe why you might be getting distressed.

When being absolutely literal about things, the puzzle box is not consent, period. Consent requires a full, cognisant understanding and interest in proceeding into something. It also requires the ability to revoke consent at any time. Safe and sane are also a fundamental aspect of consent as well in BDSM. Most characters in Hellraiser have little to no full understanding of what they are doing, and no ability to revoke it. Nothing about it is safe or sane. There is no literal real consent with the Configuration, period.

But people tend to get confused on this point because they are aware of the more metaphorical, figurative ideas in the story (and it is a HIGHLY symbolic story, it is not meant to be taken absolutely literally) and often try to express what they are feeling through more literal means, which does not really fit.

When we are looking at the story more figuratively, we understand emotionally that opening the box requires some desire for something inside of you, something that the box decides it can provide. The box is not about consent or lack thereof, it is a symbolic object that represents the psychological dilemma between a great longing and the terrible urge to go beyond what is good for you to alleviate your longing. When you choose to take such a step, you are in many ways responsible for the consequences, or at least have some level of personal compulsion to proceed. Which is why the concept of an addict as our protagonist makes a lot of sense to me.

Personally, I was worried that we might end up having conversations about any new Hellraiser material tha get muddled up in the extreme literalism we tend to take with online critical analysis of media these days. There are some stories where literalism is just...a very bad fit imo, but online spaces tend to make us feel obligated to use that lens for everything. I get where you are coming from, in that it wouldn't make much sense for accidental, desireless puzzle solving to take place, because it defeats the purpose of the deeper meaning. That said, it doesnt make sense to me to criticise the new material for not having the puzzle box be about consent. It was never actually consensual.

i suppose the concern i have about the new hellraiser film, provided that this synopsis is accurate: 

A “young woman struggling with addiction comes into possession of an ancient puzzle box, unaware that its purpose is to summon the Cenobites, a group of sadistic supernatural beings from another dimension.” (20th Century Studios)

is that to me, a key part of the hellraiser/cenobite lore is the idea of opening the lament configuration as a form of consent to whatever the cenobites decide to do to you afterwards. obviously few people who solve the puzzle box actually understand what exactly it is they are getting into (bc this is of course a horror franchise and fear of the unknown is a fundamental part of horror) but the point still stands that the person who opens the box carries some form of agency and responsibility for what comes after. 

the cenobites (at least in the earlier films) are not fundamentally malicious, but they just have a very outlandish (by human standards) idea of pleasure, and to me, their lack of malicious intent is codified in the rule that they will only come when called, and thus, by their own reckoning, provided consent.

this brings me back to the new hellraiser film. as someone who has personal experience with loved ones struggling with addiction, one thing you learn is that if someone is in the grip of addiction, they have an illness which is just as much of a mental illness as any other. and when they are in the grip of that addiction, they are not “themselves” so to speak as everything in life becomes subordinate to the one goal of getting the next fix. thus, as someone who also struggles with (a different sort of) mental illness, it’s not clear to me, when one is in that state of mind, to what degree one can actually “consent” to something, especially an experience as extreme as what the cenobites provide.

 hopefully, the film will be able to explore the intricacies of this issue in a nuanced way but………i don’t know. hollywood does not have a good track record of dealing with these kinds of issues delicately….

[adambstingus]

Macaulay Culkin: ‘No, I was not pounding six grand of heroin a month’

The Home Alone star talks about the drug rumours, dodging paparazzi and his cheese-flavoured Velvet Underground tribute act

Of all modern myths, it is the fall of the child star that most compels us. Whether theyre embarking on 55-hour marriages, throwing bongs out of windows or abandoning monkeys at customs, we cant seem to get enough. Theres something pathological in our need to tear down our icons of innocence, which might explain the overprotective nature of Macaulay Culkins US publicist, who wants to see all my questions upfront. I refuse. I thought we could just … have a chat? The interview, Culkins biggest in 10 years, is supposed to focus on his comeback. Im instructed to avoid anything negative. I ask if I can ask if he has any regrets. Regrets sounds too negative, is the response.

When we meet, in the lobby of a hotel in Spain, Im still trying to figure out what exactly this comeback consists of. Culkins filming an advert for Compare the Market, which is obviously not a passion project. It was fun, and we hammered that sucker out pretty quickly. The biggest scene was me sitting on a bench eating ice-cream.

Is he doing this to fund an exciting new venture? No, not necessarily. Hes dressed grungily, long hair man-bunned back, boots open-laced, blazer badge-studded. He doesnt project the focused careerism of most actors. People feel they have to be in perpetual motion, or drown. Ive never had a problem saying Ive got nothing lined up. Maybe Ill take the next year off. It sounds as if hes not particularly drawn to acting at all. Im not much active, he concedes. If I knew what I wanted to do, Id be writing it myself.

The trajectory of Culkins life feels like fallout from an atomic blast. By the age of 12, Uncle Buck, two Home Alone films, My Girl and (to a lesser extent) Richie Rich had made him the most successful child actor of all time. At 14, he became legally emancipated from his parents; both had been trying to gain control of his $17m fortune in their divorce. Culkin married at 17, and separated two years later. Sleepovers with Michael Jackson became public knowledge when he was called as a defence witness at the singers molestation trial. Im ghoulishly fascinated by this alien childhood. Id like to ask about Michael Jackson.

In Home Alone (1990). Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo

I think its best you dont, interjects his manager. She is one of three people sitting with us. Its not that its a painful topic … begins Culkin. His manager insists we move on, the PR next to her agrees. Culkin clearly wants to say something, but six eyes are telling him not to.

I suspect were both wondering why were here; 35-year-old Culkin doesnt do this sort of thing any more, having turned his back on the spotlight. I dont just turn my back, I actively dont want it. The paps go after me because I dont whore myself out. He has spent a decade turning down interviews, and mostly lives in France, where the aloof Parisians leave him alone. (Its also where Kevin McCallisters family were headed when they left him Home Alone, but we cant talk about that.) I get the impression hes as eager to talk about a price comparison website as I am to ask about one. Instead, I ask why people are still fascinated by him.

I have no idea. I was thinking about this the other day Id crossed the wrong street, picked up a tail, suddenly theres a crush of 20 paparazzi. Then people with cameraphones get involved. I dont think Im worthy of that.

With Michael Jackson in 2001. Photograph: Kevin Kane/WireImage

Has it got better with time?

Its been like that my whole adult life. You take on a prey-like attitude, always scanning the horizon. Its strange on dates, as it looks like youre not paying attention. But Ive stopped trying to think of myself in the third person, because thats just gonna drive me nuts.

You had to think about yourself in the third person?

Exactly. Macaulay Culkin is out there, and Im Mac. You guys can play with the first one.

Hes not averse to a bit of playing himself, for Culkin is the celebritys meta-celebrity. You may remember the meme-meltdown a few years back when Ryan Gosling was pictured wearing a T-shirt of Kevin McCallister. Culkin responded by creating a T-shirt that pictured Gosling wearing the shirt, before Gosling responded in kind, being photographed wearing a T-shirt of Culkin wearing a T-shirt of Gosling wearing a T-shirt of Culkin. They may still be at it for all we know.

Culkins previous ads, for the likes of Orange (and, in a Partridge move, the rebranding of Norwich Union), trade in close-to-the-bone self-analysis. For Compare the Market, he plays a hitchhiker picked up by the lovable meerkats, who see him as a child, buying him ice-cream and making him ride merry-go-rounds hes too big for.

In 2006, Culkin wrote an experimental novel, Junior, from the perspective of a certifiable child star with father issues. In web comedy :DRYVRS, hes a blood-spattered sadist, unhinged by the childhood trauma of parental abandonment, and defending himself against home invaders. Is all this self-quoting what hes drawn to, or just what he gets offered? A bit of both. It suits my personality and sense of humour. But I would be game for something non-self-referential.

Given this dilemma constantly returning to a past he wants distance from where does his sense of self come from? From me. I try to figure out what makes me happy and not in a superficial way. I keep my soul fit. Is he spiritual? I know enough to know I dont know. I was raised Catholic, so theres a lot of guilt. Were born with original sin. He veers off into a joke. Since I was told that, Ive been trying to come up with even more original sins, thatll really blow my priest away at confession. Like, heres one you havent heard it involves a pitching wedge, a donkey and a bucket of ice. And two meerkats? Yeah! You might wanna record this one!

With his brother, Kieran Culkin, c 1990. Photograph: Dave Benett/Getty Images

He reflects. Actually, Im very much at peace lately. I can debate with people, and my heart rate never changes. And Culkin is witty and affable. Funny, but distant. He offers confrontational figures of speech amiably. If you want to get into an argument with an artist, ask them what art is, he says. If you want to make an actor feel uncomfortable, ask them what theyre doing next. (I hastily scribble out one of the few questions Ive written down.)

Are his debates political? I have leanings, but Im the definition of a disenfranchised voter I think the system is ugly. This whole Trump thing is amazing. (Trump cameos in Home Alone 2, showing our hero the way to the Plaza Hotel lobby, although we cant talk about it.) Culkin doesnt want to be drawn further. Discussing politics is the quickest way to alienate people, so I dont wanna go into it. And Trump has enough column inches? Exactly! Hes like the Candyman, we have to stop saying his name.

Culkin was acting at four, an age at which no one knows what they want beyond watching cartoons and eating oversugared cereal. Having described himself as effectively retired, he works occasionally (voices for Seth Greens Robot Chicken, cameoing as himself in Zoolander 2), but: Im much more proactive with visual arts and writing, my notebook and little projects. Of the projects that reach the public, most could charitably be classed as divisive. There are paintings: one of the cast of Seinfeld on the set of Wheel of Fortune, being painted, nude, by He-Man. Theres The Wrong Ferrari, a Dadaist knockabout written on ketamine with Adam Green of the Moldy Peaches, shot entirely on iPhones. Most notorious is the Pizza Underground, his Velvet Underground tribute act that replaces the original lyrics with pizza puns (Im Waiting for Delivery Man, Take a Bite of the Wild Slice). At Nottingham Rock City, the band were pelted with beer and booed off stage as he played a kazoo solo. They cancelled their European dates, citing a cheesemergency. My question about all this is: what the hell?

Its one of those good ideas you have when youre drunk, and you wake up and forget about it. But were taking it to the end of the joke. We have an album coming out, a vinyl pressing with a childrens choir, a symphony orchestra. Were giving it away, our gift to the world. Does he still find it funny? Of course I find it funny! We rhyme mushrooms with mushrooms, come on. Its the same joke, relentlessly. Like, theyre really doing this?

Culkin enjoys the absurdity his fame bestows. But scrutiny has its downside. In New York, he takes walks at 4am to avoid harassment. On YouTube, one can find clips of him being harassed by wannabe-paps with smartphones. In 2012, photographs of him looking gaunt, almost transparent, set tabloids aflame with stories he was addicted to heroin and oxycodone, following the breakdown of his relationship with Mila Kunis. Given his friendship with Adam Green and Pete Doherty as well as a previous arrest for possession of marijuana, Xanax and clonazepam it seemed plausible.

Performing as Pizza Underground with Deenah Vollmer. Photograph: Sam Santos/WireImage

Were people right to be worried? Not necessarily. Of course, when silly stuff is going on but no, I was not pounding six grand of heroin every month or whatever. The thing that bugged me was tabloids wrapping it all in this weird guise of concern. No, youre trying to shift papers. Is there a story there he might want to tell one day, on his own terms? Perhaps.

Whatever his recreational habits, Im surprised by how unscrewed-up Macaulay Culkin is. Plans for the summer mainly involve roadying for Har Mar Superstar and Green (with whom he has another lo-fi film out, Aladdin). Home is where my boots are. Im a big fan of jumping on peoples tourbuses, making myself useful, doing load-ins and outs. I do everything except the merch table. I tried that, but … we didnt sell anything.

He has directionless days. He sleeps in, stays up late, indulges immature humour, bounces around with bad-influence friends. In short, hes enjoying the adolescence that celebrity stole from him. Ironically, his personal problems and turbulent relationship with the media have also given him a pretty grown-up perspective. Not a bad epilogue for a child star.

Its allowed me to become the person I am, and I like me, so I wouldnt change a thing. Not having to do anything for my dinner, financially, lets me treat every gig like its the last. He laughs, and this time addresses himself in the second person. If it is, Id think: Culkin, you had a good run.

from All Of Beer http://allofbeer.com/macaulay-culkin-no-i-was-not-pounding-six-grand-of-heroin-a-month/ from All of Beer https://allofbeercom.tumblr.com/post/181995008877

[samanthasroberts]

Macaulay Culkin: ‘No, I was not pounding six grand of heroin a month’

The Home Alone star talks about the drug rumours, dodging paparazzi and his cheese-flavoured Velvet Underground tribute act

Of all modern myths, it is the fall of the child star that most compels us. Whether theyre embarking on 55-hour marriages, throwing bongs out of windows or abandoning monkeys at customs, we cant seem to get enough. Theres something pathological in our need to tear down our icons of innocence, which might explain the overprotective nature of Macaulay Culkins US publicist, who wants to see all my questions upfront. I refuse. I thought we could just … have a chat? The interview, Culkins biggest in 10 years, is supposed to focus on his comeback. Im instructed to avoid anything negative. I ask if I can ask if he has any regrets. Regrets sounds too negative, is the response.

When we meet, in the lobby of a hotel in Spain, Im still trying to figure out what exactly this comeback consists of. Culkins filming an advert for Compare the Market, which is obviously not a passion project. It was fun, and we hammered that sucker out pretty quickly. The biggest scene was me sitting on a bench eating ice-cream.

Is he doing this to fund an exciting new venture? No, not necessarily. Hes dressed grungily, long hair man-bunned back, boots open-laced, blazer badge-studded. He doesnt project the focused careerism of most actors. People feel they have to be in perpetual motion, or drown. Ive never had a problem saying Ive got nothing lined up. Maybe Ill take the next year off. It sounds as if hes not particularly drawn to acting at all. Im not much active, he concedes. If I knew what I wanted to do, Id be writing it myself.

The trajectory of Culkins life feels like fallout from an atomic blast. By the age of 12, Uncle Buck, two Home Alone films, My Girl and (to a lesser extent) Richie Rich had made him the most successful child actor of all time. At 14, he became legally emancipated from his parents; both had been trying to gain control of his $17m fortune in their divorce. Culkin married at 17, and separated two years later. Sleepovers with Michael Jackson became public knowledge when he was called as a defence witness at the singers molestation trial. Im ghoulishly fascinated by this alien childhood. Id like to ask about Michael Jackson.

In Home Alone (1990). Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo

I think its best you dont, interjects his manager. She is one of three people sitting with us. Its not that its a painful topic … begins Culkin. His manager insists we move on, the PR next to her agrees. Culkin clearly wants to say something, but six eyes are telling him not to.

I suspect were both wondering why were here; 35-year-old Culkin doesnt do this sort of thing any more, having turned his back on the spotlight. I dont just turn my back, I actively dont want it. The paps go after me because I dont whore myself out. He has spent a decade turning down interviews, and mostly lives in France, where the aloof Parisians leave him alone. (Its also where Kevin McCallisters family were headed when they left him Home Alone, but we cant talk about that.) I get the impression hes as eager to talk about a price comparison website as I am to ask about one. Instead, I ask why people are still fascinated by him.

I have no idea. I was thinking about this the other day Id crossed the wrong street, picked up a tail, suddenly theres a crush of 20 paparazzi. Then people with cameraphones get involved. I dont think Im worthy of that.

With Michael Jackson in 2001. Photograph: Kevin Kane/WireImage

Has it got better with time?

Its been like that my whole adult life. You take on a prey-like attitude, always scanning the horizon. Its strange on dates, as it looks like youre not paying attention. But Ive stopped trying to think of myself in the third person, because thats just gonna drive me nuts.

You had to think about yourself in the third person?

Exactly. Macaulay Culkin is out there, and Im Mac. You guys can play with the first one.

Hes not averse to a bit of playing himself, for Culkin is the celebritys meta-celebrity. You may remember the meme-meltdown a few years back when Ryan Gosling was pictured wearing a T-shirt of Kevin McCallister. Culkin responded by creating a T-shirt that pictured Gosling wearing the shirt, before Gosling responded in kind, being photographed wearing a T-shirt of Culkin wearing a T-shirt of Gosling wearing a T-shirt of Culkin. They may still be at it for all we know.

Culkins previous ads, for the likes of Orange (and, in a Partridge move, the rebranding of Norwich Union), trade in close-to-the-bone self-analysis. For Compare the Market, he plays a hitchhiker picked up by the lovable meerkats, who see him as a child, buying him ice-cream and making him ride merry-go-rounds hes too big for.

In 2006, Culkin wrote an experimental novel, Junior, from the perspective of a certifiable child star with father issues. In web comedy :DRYVRS, hes a blood-spattered sadist, unhinged by the childhood trauma of parental abandonment, and defending himself against home invaders. Is all this self-quoting what hes drawn to, or just what he gets offered? A bit of both. It suits my personality and sense of humour. But I would be game for something non-self-referential.

Given this dilemma constantly returning to a past he wants distance from where does his sense of self come from? From me. I try to figure out what makes me happy and not in a superficial way. I keep my soul fit. Is he spiritual? I know enough to know I dont know. I was raised Catholic, so theres a lot of guilt. Were born with original sin. He veers off into a joke. Since I was told that, Ive been trying to come up with even more original sins, thatll really blow my priest away at confession. Like, heres one you havent heard it involves a pitching wedge, a donkey and a bucket of ice. And two meerkats? Yeah! You might wanna record this one!

With his brother, Kieran Culkin, c 1990. Photograph: Dave Benett/Getty Images

He reflects. Actually, Im very much at peace lately. I can debate with people, and my heart rate never changes. And Culkin is witty and affable. Funny, but distant. He offers confrontational figures of speech amiably. If you want to get into an argument with an artist, ask them what art is, he says. If you want to make an actor feel uncomfortable, ask them what theyre doing next. (I hastily scribble out one of the few questions Ive written down.)

Are his debates political? I have leanings, but Im the definition of a disenfranchised voter I think the system is ugly. This whole Trump thing is amazing. (Trump cameos in Home Alone 2, showing our hero the way to the Plaza Hotel lobby, although we cant talk about it.) Culkin doesnt want to be drawn further. Discussing politics is the quickest way to alienate people, so I dont wanna go into it. And Trump has enough column inches? Exactly! Hes like the Candyman, we have to stop saying his name.

Culkin was acting at four, an age at which no one knows what they want beyond watching cartoons and eating oversugared cereal. Having described himself as effectively retired, he works occasionally (voices for Seth Greens Robot Chicken, cameoing as himself in Zoolander 2), but: Im much more proactive with visual arts and writing, my notebook and little projects. Of the projects that reach the public, most could charitably be classed as divisive. There are paintings: one of the cast of Seinfeld on the set of Wheel of Fortune, being painted, nude, by He-Man. Theres The Wrong Ferrari, a Dadaist knockabout written on ketamine with Adam Green of the Moldy Peaches, shot entirely on iPhones. Most notorious is the Pizza Underground, his Velvet Underground tribute act that replaces the original lyrics with pizza puns (Im Waiting for Delivery Man, Take a Bite of the Wild Slice). At Nottingham Rock City, the band were pelted with beer and booed off stage as he played a kazoo solo. They cancelled their European dates, citing a cheesemergency. My question about all this is: what the hell?

Its one of those good ideas you have when youre drunk, and you wake up and forget about it. But were taking it to the end of the joke. We have an album coming out, a vinyl pressing with a childrens choir, a symphony orchestra. Were giving it away, our gift to the world. Does he still find it funny? Of course I find it funny! We rhyme mushrooms with mushrooms, come on. Its the same joke, relentlessly. Like, theyre really doing this?

Culkin enjoys the absurdity his fame bestows. But scrutiny has its downside. In New York, he takes walks at 4am to avoid harassment. On YouTube, one can find clips of him being harassed by wannabe-paps with smartphones. In 2012, photographs of him looking gaunt, almost transparent, set tabloids aflame with stories he was addicted to heroin and oxycodone, following the breakdown of his relationship with Mila Kunis. Given his friendship with Adam Green and Pete Doherty as well as a previous arrest for possession of marijuana, Xanax and clonazepam it seemed plausible.

Performing as Pizza Underground with Deenah Vollmer. Photograph: Sam Santos/WireImage

Were people right to be worried? Not necessarily. Of course, when silly stuff is going on but no, I was not pounding six grand of heroin every month or whatever. The thing that bugged me was tabloids wrapping it all in this weird guise of concern. No, youre trying to shift papers. Is there a story there he might want to tell one day, on his own terms? Perhaps.

Whatever his recreational habits, Im surprised by how unscrewed-up Macaulay Culkin is. Plans for the summer mainly involve roadying for Har Mar Superstar and Green (with whom he has another lo-fi film out, Aladdin). Home is where my boots are. Im a big fan of jumping on peoples tourbuses, making myself useful, doing load-ins and outs. I do everything except the merch table. I tried that, but … we didnt sell anything.

He has directionless days. He sleeps in, stays up late, indulges immature humour, bounces around with bad-influence friends. In short, hes enjoying the adolescence that celebrity stole from him. Ironically, his personal problems and turbulent relationship with the media have also given him a pretty grown-up perspective. Not a bad epilogue for a child star.

Its allowed me to become the person I am, and I like me, so I wouldnt change a thing. Not having to do anything for my dinner, financially, lets me treat every gig like its the last. He laughs, and this time addresses himself in the second person. If it is, Id think: Culkin, you had a good run.

Source: http://allofbeer.com/macaulay-culkin-no-i-was-not-pounding-six-grand-of-heroin-a-month/

from All of Beer https://allofbeer.wordpress.com/2019/01/14/macaulay-culkin-no-i-was-not-pounding-six-grand-of-heroin-a-month/

[allofbeercom]

Macaulay Culkin: ‘No, I was not pounding six grand of heroin a month’

The Home Alone star talks about the drug rumours, dodging paparazzi and his cheese-flavoured Velvet Underground tribute act

Of all modern myths, it is the fall of the child star that most compels us. Whether theyre embarking on 55-hour marriages, throwing bongs out of windows or abandoning monkeys at customs, we cant seem to get enough. Theres something pathological in our need to tear down our icons of innocence, which might explain the overprotective nature of Macaulay Culkins US publicist, who wants to see all my questions upfront. I refuse. I thought we could just … have a chat? The interview, Culkins biggest in 10 years, is supposed to focus on his comeback. Im instructed to avoid anything negative. I ask if I can ask if he has any regrets. Regrets sounds too negative, is the response.

When we meet, in the lobby of a hotel in Spain, Im still trying to figure out what exactly this comeback consists of. Culkins filming an advert for Compare the Market, which is obviously not a passion project. It was fun, and we hammered that sucker out pretty quickly. The biggest scene was me sitting on a bench eating ice-cream.

Is he doing this to fund an exciting new venture? No, not necessarily. Hes dressed grungily, long hair man-bunned back, boots open-laced, blazer badge-studded. He doesnt project the focused careerism of most actors. People feel they have to be in perpetual motion, or drown. Ive never had a problem saying Ive got nothing lined up. Maybe Ill take the next year off. It sounds as if hes not particularly drawn to acting at all. Im not much active, he concedes. If I knew what I wanted to do, Id be writing it myself.

The trajectory of Culkins life feels like fallout from an atomic blast. By the age of 12, Uncle Buck, two Home Alone films, My Girl and (to a lesser extent) Richie Rich had made him the most successful child actor of all time. At 14, he became legally emancipated from his parents; both had been trying to gain control of his $17m fortune in their divorce. Culkin married at 17, and separated two years later. Sleepovers with Michael Jackson became public knowledge when he was called as a defence witness at the singers molestation trial. Im ghoulishly fascinated by this alien childhood. Id like to ask about Michael Jackson.

In Home Alone (1990). Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo

I think its best you dont, interjects his manager. She is one of three people sitting with us. Its not that its a painful topic … begins Culkin. His manager insists we move on, the PR next to her agrees. Culkin clearly wants to say something, but six eyes are telling him not to.

I suspect were both wondering why were here; 35-year-old Culkin doesnt do this sort of thing any more, having turned his back on the spotlight. I dont just turn my back, I actively dont want it. The paps go after me because I dont whore myself out. He has spent a decade turning down interviews, and mostly lives in France, where the aloof Parisians leave him alone. (Its also where Kevin McCallisters family were headed when they left him Home Alone, but we cant talk about that.) I get the impression hes as eager to talk about a price comparison website as I am to ask about one. Instead, I ask why people are still fascinated by him.

I have no idea. I was thinking about this the other day Id crossed the wrong street, picked up a tail, suddenly theres a crush of 20 paparazzi. Then people with cameraphones get involved. I dont think Im worthy of that.

With Michael Jackson in 2001. Photograph: Kevin Kane/WireImage

Has it got better with time?

Its been like that my whole adult life. You take on a prey-like attitude, always scanning the horizon. Its strange on dates, as it looks like youre not paying attention. But Ive stopped trying to think of myself in the third person, because thats just gonna drive me nuts.

You had to think about yourself in the third person?

Exactly. Macaulay Culkin is out there, and Im Mac. You guys can play with the first one.

Hes not averse to a bit of playing himself, for Culkin is the celebritys meta-celebrity. You may remember the meme-meltdown a few years back when Ryan Gosling was pictured wearing a T-shirt of Kevin McCallister. Culkin responded by creating a T-shirt that pictured Gosling wearing the shirt, before Gosling responded in kind, being photographed wearing a T-shirt of Culkin wearing a T-shirt of Gosling wearing a T-shirt of Culkin. They may still be at it for all we know.

Culkins previous ads, for the likes of Orange (and, in a Partridge move, the rebranding of Norwich Union), trade in close-to-the-bone self-analysis. For Compare the Market, he plays a hitchhiker picked up by the lovable meerkats, who see him as a child, buying him ice-cream and making him ride merry-go-rounds hes too big for.

In 2006, Culkin wrote an experimental novel, Junior, from the perspective of a certifiable child star with father issues. In web comedy :DRYVRS, hes a blood-spattered sadist, unhinged by the childhood trauma of parental abandonment, and defending himself against home invaders. Is all this self-quoting what hes drawn to, or just what he gets offered? A bit of both. It suits my personality and sense of humour. But I would be game for something non-self-referential.

Given this dilemma constantly returning to a past he wants distance from where does his sense of self come from? From me. I try to figure out what makes me happy and not in a superficial way. I keep my soul fit. Is he spiritual? I know enough to know I dont know. I was raised Catholic, so theres a lot of guilt. Were born with original sin. He veers off into a joke. Since I was told that, Ive been trying to come up with even more original sins, thatll really blow my priest away at confession. Like, heres one you havent heard it involves a pitching wedge, a donkey and a bucket of ice. And two meerkats? Yeah! You might wanna record this one!

With his brother, Kieran Culkin, c 1990. Photograph: Dave Benett/Getty Images

He reflects. Actually, Im very much at peace lately. I can debate with people, and my heart rate never changes. And Culkin is witty and affable. Funny, but distant. He offers confrontational figures of speech amiably. If you want to get into an argument with an artist, ask them what art is, he says. If you want to make an actor feel uncomfortable, ask them what theyre doing next. (I hastily scribble out one of the few questions Ive written down.)

Are his debates political? I have leanings, but Im the definition of a disenfranchised voter I think the system is ugly. This whole Trump thing is amazing. (Trump cameos in Home Alone 2, showing our hero the way to the Plaza Hotel lobby, although we cant talk about it.) Culkin doesnt want to be drawn further. Discussing politics is the quickest way to alienate people, so I dont wanna go into it. And Trump has enough column inches? Exactly! Hes like the Candyman, we have to stop saying his name.

Culkin was acting at four, an age at which no one knows what they want beyond watching cartoons and eating oversugared cereal. Having described himself as effectively retired, he works occasionally (voices for Seth Greens Robot Chicken, cameoing as himself in Zoolander 2), but: Im much more proactive with visual arts and writing, my notebook and little projects. Of the projects that reach the public, most could charitably be classed as divisive. There are paintings: one of the cast of Seinfeld on the set of Wheel of Fortune, being painted, nude, by He-Man. Theres The Wrong Ferrari, a Dadaist knockabout written on ketamine with Adam Green of the Moldy Peaches, shot entirely on iPhones. Most notorious is the Pizza Underground, his Velvet Underground tribute act that replaces the original lyrics with pizza puns (Im Waiting for Delivery Man, Take a Bite of the Wild Slice). At Nottingham Rock City, the band were pelted with beer and booed off stage as he played a kazoo solo. They cancelled their European dates, citing a cheesemergency. My question about all this is: what the hell?

Its one of those good ideas you have when youre drunk, and you wake up and forget about it. But were taking it to the end of the joke. We have an album coming out, a vinyl pressing with a childrens choir, a symphony orchestra. Were giving it away, our gift to the world. Does he still find it funny? Of course I find it funny! We rhyme mushrooms with mushrooms, come on. Its the same joke, relentlessly. Like, theyre really doing this?

Culkin enjoys the absurdity his fame bestows. But scrutiny has its downside. In New York, he takes walks at 4am to avoid harassment. On YouTube, one can find clips of him being harassed by wannabe-paps with smartphones. In 2012, photographs of him looking gaunt, almost transparent, set tabloids aflame with stories he was addicted to heroin and oxycodone, following the breakdown of his relationship with Mila Kunis. Given his friendship with Adam Green and Pete Doherty as well as a previous arrest for possession of marijuana, Xanax and clonazepam it seemed plausible.

Performing as Pizza Underground with Deenah Vollmer. Photograph: Sam Santos/WireImage

Were people right to be worried? Not necessarily. Of course, when silly stuff is going on but no, I was not pounding six grand of heroin every month or whatever. The thing that bugged me was tabloids wrapping it all in this weird guise of concern. No, youre trying to shift papers. Is there a story there he might want to tell one day, on his own terms? Perhaps.

Whatever his recreational habits, Im surprised by how unscrewed-up Macaulay Culkin is. Plans for the summer mainly involve roadying for Har Mar Superstar and Green (with whom he has another lo-fi film out, Aladdin). Home is where my boots are. Im a big fan of jumping on peoples tourbuses, making myself useful, doing load-ins and outs. I do everything except the merch table. I tried that, but … we didnt sell anything.

He has directionless days. He sleeps in, stays up late, indulges immature humour, bounces around with bad-influence friends. In short, hes enjoying the adolescence that celebrity stole from him. Ironically, his personal problems and turbulent relationship with the media have also given him a pretty grown-up perspective. Not a bad epilogue for a child star.

Its allowed me to become the person I am, and I like me, so I wouldnt change a thing. Not having to do anything for my dinner, financially, lets me treat every gig like its the last. He laughs, and this time addresses himself in the second person. If it is, Id think: Culkin, you had a good run.

from All Of Beer http://allofbeer.com/macaulay-culkin-no-i-was-not-pounding-six-grand-of-heroin-a-month/