#like i really genuinely do not have an issue with teh use of the term on oneself. do whatever makes you happy yk | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

skamamoroma · 3 years ago

Text

I Promised You The Moon - Episode 1 Thoughts - aka did John Hughes direct this and not tell us?

Oh I had to wait so long today to see episode 1 as I was working but I am so very happy I waited till I was in bed and with a cup of tea... which I then cried into four times. So that’s where I’m at. This is going to be long, I’m not even sorry in the slightest!

For ITSAY, I made so many posts about this show and how moving and beautiful it was, how the symbolism and writing was exceptional, how the music was absolutely incredible and how much I adored BK and PP’s chemistry. P’Boss’ work is special and the feel of Part 1 was a delicious kind of awkward, indie movie full of metaphors, fraught pain and emotion and pretty breathtaking storytelling of love and growth. I fell absolutely in love with Teh and Oh and their story, obsessed with Teh as a character (as I see a lot of myself in him and I love when he spirals) and I just felt utterly moved by the whole show. So I never needed Part 2. Part 1, for me, is perfect. And I certainly didn’t expect to love Part 2 as much or feel as much emotion because I just thought it wouldn’t be possible especially with a change of director and city and storyline... but I genuinely think that was a good idea after seeing Episode 1.

I just finished it and I’m kinda tear stained and the first thing I couldn’t get out of my head was just how much it reminds me of the late dear John Hughes movies from the 80s. Those of you who are a little old like me born right at the beginning of the 90s, will have been brought up on those movies filled with 80s synth music, stories of growing up, artsy camera work and filled with colour and emotion. Those movies are some of my all time favourites and I absolutely felt their influence on Episode 1 and maybe the rest of the season, I don’t know! I really wonder if P’Meen used them or was aware, hahaha. Anyway...!

But first off, I cannot, and I mean CANNOT handle the music. Part 1 really did floor me with the use of the score and how it was such a huge part of the reason it was so beautiful. Phuket Dreams has me in tears about 3 notes in... so cue me crying at the remixes of the old score with 80s synth sounds and almost Dream Pop echoy sounds. That right there is my jam, my absolute favourite music and the way IPYTM is so clearly going to be full of it makes my heart very happy. Especially those last scenes with Oh, that sweeping 80s style music taking him from heartbroken pain to dancing to forget had John Hughes all over it and just felt so impactful. So I will bang on every week about the music I’m sure.

As for the beginning and the casual buying of condoms (yesssss god damn Nadao, thank you for safe sex lessons for LGBT+ youth and a nod to actual sexual expression, I’m mega proud) leading into the way Hoon and Suri were involved (they didn’t give me Tuty 😭) in transferring Teh, it felt like such a gorgeous transfer from ITSAY vibes to IPYTM... watching Teh’s mamma so proud, Hoon watching over him as always and then gently leading into the first moment that made me cry...

How dare they put a remix of the old score over Teh being told by his mamma that she accepts him as he is so casually and softly, in a way that not only lets Teh know he’s loved but welcomes Oh as someone she cares about deeply and is happy being someone her son loves. It was beautifully done and I couldn’t help but think of Teh’s teary face on the Cape at the end of Episode 5 and thinking how proud I am of him. The way Hoon stroked his hair - help.

Teh. Now I made no secret of the fact that I loved every moment of watching Teh go through it in Part 1, how his very physicality and struggle played out especially him writhing all over his rug! But we had to see him grow. He isn’t the same boy he was but he still feels like Teh, just a little more comfortable, a little more mature in some ways and just READY for life. He feels tentative but also prepared to grow more and I just adore him. Oh, on the other hand, the one who was much more secure in himself in terms of his self and sexuality in Part 1 is now absolutely thrown into the unknown and isn’t handling it well.

Oh was established so beautifully as a Phuket boy. His name is rooted in his home, he lives in shorts and by the sea, he’s shaped by that place and what it means to him... his signature scent is coconut! He literally embodies Phuket... so it doesn’t in any way surprise me that we are watching him flounder and feel lost. It feels so human and so many moments felt so moving. When he told Teh that the best part of his day was seeing him, when he imagined the waves on his mind, when he listened to his mamma talk about the coastal weather... it’s hardly surprising that he cried as he was asked to explain his name. That was the second moment that got me. I was a wreck. Watching him break down and fall to pieces infront of total strangers just because he was recounting the meaning of his name, the foundation of who he is, the thing he misses to very much... he doesn’t fit, he doesn’t feel at home and he didn’t feel himself. It was beautifully done, for me. I caught my breath the second he started crying because it was so utterly human and raw. I have felt the way he does and recognised every second on his face. PP has come so so far with his acting.

Then we get the mention of Yongjian. NOW SOMEONE TELL ME IS THAT TEH AS YONGJIAN IN THE TITLES? If so, how dare they spoil it?! I am going to weep uncontrollably if Teh gets his dream. But the way Teh spoke of their future, the way he tried to recreate their past with Yongjian’s speech. Their entire history as friends and boyfriends is rooted in that story, that character, the idea of being Male protagonists... and Teh is so sure of their future. Also, you cannot also avoid the meta of it all with BK and PP. That moment and their words felt so personal to them too and their own real lives!

Do not even start with how their first kiss in Phuket was underwater and arguably their first kiss in Bangkok is the same albeit in public. DO NOT LET ME THINK ABOUT THIS TOO MUCH.

The issue is that, Part 1 set out for us how they ended up where they are. Oh fell into acting, it was never his dream from the start. Then it all became a fight, a thing to win from his rival and in the end a thing to prove. We haven’t really ever see Oh show a passion for the stage and acting, not really. He worked so hard to get his place in Uni but there’s so much irony at play. Their entire story of rivalry has actually caused this current situation. Oh “won” the coveted Uni spot (helped in part by Teh) and Teh “lost” and was making do. But we see how that’s not how life goes. Oh never really felt he knew what he wanted and so he just ploughed on. He’s now in a situation where he has to start deciding, has to be his own person and he’s just... lost. I can’t wait to see him find it whatever it may be! The difference with Teh is that he may not have got his number 1 desire but his passion is ENOUGH. He loves what he’s doing and that moment where Khim (is that her name, I forget now, it’s so late, but Goy’s character) was explaining the lights was gorgeous. Teh’s passion was ignited, you could see that “oh wow” moment... and you can see the difference in how they’re going to progress, Teh didn’t need the top Uni because his passion can carry him and will help him succeed whereas Oh doesn’t know what his passion is and perhaps he’s where he is for the wrong reasons after all. The story telling is lovely to me, if completely heartbreaking.

The tears came again at “but I’ve already given so much of our time to other people”. Oh the tears. The boat scene from ITSAY is my favourite scene of the show and that line is one of the most beautiful bits of writing I’ve encountered for a long while... and to see Teh use it and remember it and effectively set out the issue they’re facing was heartbreaking. They made that promise on the boat and they’re breaking it. Oh-aew is trying to be what he thinks Teh needs and Teh is wide eyed and filled with this new world and getting to indulge his passions. They’re both so human and both trying the best way they know but they’re so young and so unsure and have so little life experience that they don’t know how to be adults or how to manage all of this stuff. They know they care and love and are each other’s person but they have such a lot to learn.

So the introduction of Q and the boys... and let me say they’re glorious... feels both beautiful and tragic because they look like they will be accepting and also potentially LGBT+ themselves or maybe Q (I see your gorgeous painted nails, sweetheart and the way you didn’t question Oh saying “partner” for a second)... but also they’re what Oh is using to fill the time he promised to Teh. It’s not Oh’s fault. He deserves friendship and a world of his own too but he was relying so much on the familiarity of Teh and Teh’s presence to keep him grounded and comfortable but he can’t do that all the time. He is trying so hard to be good and thoughtful and kind that he’s not telling Teh the truth. He’s doing what he said he wouldn’t do on the boat, but we can’t blame him in the slightest, he’s the sweetest boy.

I have so much to say but I guess that’ll do for now. I really loved the episode. Yes, it’s different but I think I realise now why it needed to be. In a way I’m kinda of happy about it because ITSAY stays sacred!!!! It stays as that beautifully fraught and emotional indie movie of my heart filled with metaphorical depth. It can’t be touched as far as I’m concerned but with IPYTM it feels just as moving, just as emotional, just as impactful but in a different way that reflects maturity. I don’t think it would have worked if it still felt fraught and characterised by ITSAY vibes. They’re not kids, they’re not insecure about who they are anymore in terms of their sexuality and they are moving into adulthood.

I know it’s going to break me. Episode 1 had me genuinely crying into my tea but I also know that it had the potential for its own special brand of symbolism and meaning. We can already see some special moments which seemed to be saying way more than the words themselves like the speech on light and how we see things and the way Oh even used it himself to see a different perspective at the end. That felt really very meaningful. They’re going to need to be able to see different view points as they navigate what will probably be a shit ton of pain! They will need to adjust to the light, to their circumstances to be able to survive and for their bond to be what is important without allowing other stuff to pass into their line of sight. Oh saw nothing. Empty stage, no Teh, not even himself... he opened his eyes too soon. He needs to learn to adjust and learn how to see the world and his place in it so that when he opens his eyes he sees what he desires and has worked for and made for himself rather than emptiness.

The last thing for me is the chemistry. What more can you say other than they’re perfect? They have the most natural, enigmatic, intense and sweet chemistry. They work so beautifully together. They sell even the smallest of moments and they absolutely destroy with emotion. I just feel every second of Teh and Oh’s emotion and that is such a damn skill. Their talent, man.

So I loved it. I am going to be dreaming tearstained in 80s synth music tonight! I can’t wait for the rest to emotionally destroy me a little more.

#ipytm #i promised you the moon #ipytm thoughts #itsay

67 notes · View notes

nct-oli · 3 years ago

Text

IPYTM EP 4

I just feel like saying all of my IPYTM ep 4 thoughts now that I watched the episode, before I read any other posts on here. Raw thoughts minutes after closing the episode.

I feel like I need to say this first. I do not agree with Oh reading Teh’s logbook and invading his privacy, but I do appreciate that he told him later that he did. I also do not like the hitting Teh with the bouquet. Okay, just wanted to get that out of the way.

TEH (AND JAI)

I’m still mad at Teh. I do not forgive him. But I do want to say that Jai is a piece of shit for manipulating Teh the way he did. This episode made it so clear to me how Jai used what Teh wrote in that logbook to his gain, recognizing how vulnerable Teh was and seeing how weak his relationship with Oh-Aew had gotten and using that to his benefit.

Now honestly, I can’t tell if that truly was his plan from the start or if he saw the way Teh had fallen for him and what happened with Oh and decided to say that it was never real in an attempt to stop it as soon as possible.

Regardless, if he was a good friend as well as a good director, Jai would never have used Teh’s broken relationship the way he did. He could have tried to help Teh rekindle things with Oh, work through some of his fears and anxieties that were keeping him from feeling close to his boyfriend. That very likely could have solved both problems–Teh’s relationship issues and his acting barrier–but instead, Jai manipulated Teh’s feelings.

However, I’m not letting Teh off that easily either. There was a moment when I actually did feel a little bad for him, when I started to recognize how Jai was using him and playing with his feelings. And when Teh and Oh started doing a little better, I allowed myself to think that maybe they could figure it out with more communication.

But no, Teh wandered off at the after party to see Jai, and any tiny flicker of forgiveness I felt went out the door. The way he showed no genuine guilt or shame with Oh too made me honestly sick. Like Oh said, did he think he was stupid? Did Teh think he was being subtle? It gave me secondhand embarrassment to see him believe he was being anything except disgustingly obvious about what was going on.

And then for him to call Jai the Fang to his Akin, with his too-forgiving boyfriend sitting in the other room?? Again, do you have no shame, Teh???

Also, the way Jai and Teh both gaslit Oh-Aew, trying to make him think he was overreacting and overthinking when both of them knew Teh’s feelings were not just the result of his great acting. That the kiss was never just an exercise (at least from Teh’s side, which is the side that mattered most). Watching them both lie to Oh’s face like that lit a rage fire within me.

Now, the scene of Oh-Aew and Teh singing on stage and the music going quiet as Teh’s attention drifted from Oh to Jai was heartbreaking in a really good way. I’m so proud of Oh-Aew for finally deciding that moment was enough, that Teh deserved no more chances, and that he needed to walk away. I’m so proud of him for choosing himself.

I appreciate Teh’s roommate. I don’t have the sympathy in me at this very moment so soon after the episode to wish Teh such kindness, but I’m sure tomorrow morning I’ll be a little more open to him having the emotional support I know deep down he needs. So I’m glad he has his roommate extending a hand.

And it was incredibly sad to watch Teh realize how he’d isolated himself to the extreme all for this one dream, maybe forgetting along the way to dream about his relationship with Oh-Aew, his long term friendships, etc. All of the other dreams you can and should have as well. I think he started to realize everything he’d given up for acting and how less glamorous and fun it really was now that he was here.

And that hit him even more when he got casted and potentially signed, only to face the reality that it also meant erasing the digital footprint of his relationship with Oh, one of the few things he still had left. This life he had envisioned kept getting less and less glamorous by the second.

I’m not saying I want him to give up on his dream of acting, but I do hope that everything that has happened is his much needed wake up call. That he finds more empathy for the people he judged for drifting from acting, for the people he pushed away for not trying hard enough. I hope he sees how selfish and ignorant his actions and his words have been over the past few years and that he takes this as a starting point for a more understanding and accepting outlook on not just his own life but the lives of those around him.

And I do hope he heals one day. Or, well, I will hope for that tomorrow. Tonight I’m still mad at him.

OH-AEW

Now on to Oh. As I said before, I don’t condone the invasion of Teh’s privacy or hitting him with the bouquet. But otherwise, I really am proud of Oh-Aew. Do I think he handled everything perfectly? No. In an ideal world, I would have liked him to confront Teh sooner so he could have given him the opportunity to be honest early on.

But given everything, I think Oh’s level of compassion and his willingness to try to understand are more than most people are willing to give in his shoes. I genuinely do respect how level-headed he went about it. I wish he had been better rewarded for his grace, and instead he got a boyfriend who lied and continued to go behind his back even after Oh had given him an undeserved second chance.

But what I am most proud of is how Oh-Aew handled breaking up with Teh. Telling Teh that he was hurt and asking him to have pity on him. Oh chose himself again, more permanently. In that moment, he understood that Teh’s apology did not warrant forgiveness and that he was allowed to stay hurt, to stay angry, to stay unwilling to take Teh back.

Oh was vulnerable and still stayed firm in his decision to respect himself anyway, to trust his feelings and prioritize his healing. Teh was there crying before him, and he still understood that he had no responsibility to fix Teh’s pain. That the pain Teh was feeling was pain he had inflicted on himself.

You can see in the way he turned back to look at Teh leave and then the way he sobbed afterwards that it took all of his strength to not give in moments earlier. How easy it would have been for him to take comfort in the familiarity of Teh’s embrace once again, to give him that second chance and hope for the best. I wouldn’t have blamed him if he did; it’s hard to give up someone who once made you feel safe. Who once felt like home.

But I am so proud of him for choosing himself anyway. For knowing that, however hard it was in that moment to let go, it would have been even harder to live every day sacrificing his mental and emotional security for a relationship he knew would never feel the same. For a man he could never fully trust again.

Oh-Aew has grown so much.

OH’S FRIENDS

Also, Oh has the cutest, sweetest friends in the world. This was my favorite scene in the entire episode. I’m so glad he found his group and that they love him so much.

The contrast between Teh and Oh-Aew throughout this season and especially in this episode has been really apparent as they’ve drifted apart. And I think this scene really highlighted that. Teh verbally acknowledged how he had no one to turn to anymore, how he’d ruined his relationships with everyone over time, meanwhile Oh was surrounded by people ready to love him and take care of him until he was better.

Oh’s honesty with himself and the people around him resulted in a community of friends supporting him as his authentic self, while Teh’s lies to himself and the people around him resulted in solitude.

It’s tragic for him, really.

EP 5?

Honestly, I have no idea what will happen with episode 5. At this point, I want Oh-Aew to find happiness away from Teh and for Teh to fix his insecurities on his own. I don’t want them together.

Maybe one day they’ll find each other again. I don’t know. But after this season’s storyline has unfolded, I think Oh deserves better. And I don’t think they make sense anymore.

AND BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE SAID

Oh-Aew dying his hair from red to black again? Yeah. He is Teh’s red no more.

#this took me 2 whole hours to write and gif #it’s not even THAT long but organizing my thoughts enough to write something coherent took a long time #they should have just left it at itsay #they could have left everyone believing Teh and Oh were happily together :(#long post #sorry I’m on mobile so I can’t add a read more thing #teh x oh aew #i promised you the moon #ipytm spoilers

34 notes · View notes

preserving-ferretbrain · 6 years ago

Text

The I in Vampire: Joss Whedon and the Philosophy of Identity

by Dan H

Monday, 21 September 2009

Dan almost manages to say something nice about Joss Whedon~

Recently I did two things. I read The Pig That Wants to be Eaten - a nicely accessible book of philosophical thought experiments – and I watched Series five of Angel (review forthcoming from Kyra or myself, special exclusive spoiler preview, it’s shit).

One of the infuriating things about S5 of Angel is its blatant disregard for any of the show’s prior mythology (to be fair, this was partly due to network pressure). The girls at Boils and Blinding Torment get particularly furious about this, complaining about the way it craps all over the notion that vampires are in any way different to regular people. To quote them quoting Buffy

To paraphrase almost every character in Buffy ever: A vampire is not the person they appear to be. They walk like them, they talk like them, they have access to their memories, they might even do their hair like them, but it’s not them.

Which is pretty darn clear, and is, as the girls observed, spelled out in the first episode, and about every five episodes thereafter.

The thing is, while it’s spelled out like that, it’s pretty clear that it’s not like that. Jessee pops up in the second damned episode and seems quite convinced that apart from being “connected to everything” he’s still the same guy he always was. Angelus, while evil, still has a lot of Angel’s basic personality traits (“it’s just … you’re still the only thing he thinks about” is I believe how Willow describes it). Not only is there textual evidence against the whole “demon in a Xander suit” theory (and very little to support it except maybe that scene in series two where Angel’s “inner demon” beats up that other demon inside Angel’s body), there’s also some fairly fundamental problems with the whole idea of something that has your appearance, memories and personality being, in any meaningful sense “not you”.

Memory, Continuity, and Tom Riker

The question of who “you” actually are is a horrendously difficult one in philosophical terms. In practical terms, you know that you’re you, other people aren’t you and that’s an end to it. In the world of the philosophy of identity it’s far trickier.

One of the thought experiments presented in TPtWtbE is the teleporter problem. Suppose you go through a Star Trek matter transporter. It scans your body, and reduces it to data. Then it blasts you into atoms, and reconstructs you miles away from (presumably) completely different parts. None of the characters in Star Trek seem remotely bothered by this but it raises a lot of difficult questions. If the person who is reconstituted at the other end of the teleporter is made from completely different atoms from the person who went in, in what sense are they the same person?

The problem is compounded by the fact that the person who goes into the teleporter and the person who comes out are in fact capable of living independent lives. In a relatively famous episode, it is discovered that exactly that had happened to Riker. A transporter accident had split him into two people, both with exactly the same memories and experiences, and both believing themselves to be the “original” Will Riker. The Trek episode neatly dodged a lot of the nastier problems involved with this kind of conundrum by having the “other will” be one who had been stuck on a remote planet for several years, making it fairly clear to one and all that the Will Riker who has been, y'know, on TV all this time is the real one.

A similar idea crops up in The Prestige - Tesla's teleporting machine doesn't destroy the original, so you always get two copies, an Hugh Jackman solves the problem by drowning himself. This creates a terribly haunting image in the original film, but it's interesting that in many ways the machine functions identically to the “real” teleporter in Star Trek. It's just that the way it disposes of the “original” is less neat.

I understand that the way a lot of philosophers resolve such issues is with a concept called “Continuity of Consciousness” - broadly speaking if the individual coming out of the transporter remembers being the person who went into it, they can be said to be the same person.

Of course there are arguments against this definition (the two Rikers and the Tesla machine highlight one of them) but it's still extremely useful, and it's very interesting when applied to Buffy vampires.

The Buffy vamp remembers its human life. This is described in early episodes as “having access” to the human's memories, with the implication that the vampire knows itself to be a demon, and simply uses the human's memories to trick people into thinking it's something else, but this is clearly untrue. We witness the transformations of several vampires, and all of them clearly genuinely consider themselves to be the person who got bit, not some alien parasite. They have, in a word, continuity of consciousness. Not only that, but no vampire ever displays knowledge or memory of having existed independently as a demon.

Of course once a person becomes a vampire they are changed - they lose their soul (which seems to have a rather nebulous effect, certainly it doesn't seem to alter their sense of identity very much) and become Evil, but you can't really say that they're different people except in the metaphorical sense that we are all “different people” when we are – say – drunk.

This has particular consequences when it comes to little things like moral culpability.

Blame, Responsibility, and Evil

Even if you accept that vampires, whatever the show might say, are the same people they were when they were alive, it's still perfectly reasonable to say that they are the same people but evil(it's also perfectly reasonable to argue that the “but evil” segment of that sentence renders them not the same person at all, what isn't reasonable is arguing that they're suddenly a demon occupying somebody else's body – whatever the text says, Buffy vamps clearly don't work like that).

But even here we run into a bit of a stumbling block. Okay, vampires are evil. They kill people, because that's what they do, hence the slayage. Except that repeatedly, starting lest we forget in series two when Spike turns against Angelus, vampires have shown that they are capable of choosing to do good – or at the very least not to do evil. Now frequently they choose it for selfish reasons: Spike helps save the world because he likes being evil in it, and later fights demons because he enjoys hurting demons. The vampires at the dodgy place Riley goes to avoid killing people because it helps them stay under the radar. Harmony goes on the cowblood because it's a condition of her employment at Wolfram and Hart.

Now on the one hand, this makes the vampires that actually do kill people way more reprehensible. On the other hand, it makes killing vampires on spec a little bit dodgy. Yes, some vampires kill people, but a great many of them don’t, either because of artificial constraints (a chip in the head) emotional constraints (I haz soul! It make me sad if I do the killing!) or rational self-interest (killing people will get me fired, killing people will make them less likely to let me feed on them repeatedly). These, not to put too fine a point on it, are pretty much the three reasons that regular people don’t go around committing murder.

Now true, vampires are still much more likely to kill people than humans, but to get all formal logic about it, you can’t say that all vampires are killers – they are clearly capable of choosing not to kill – which leaves you only with “some vampires are killers” which is kinda useless. This means that staking vampires the moment they rise is basically a form of racial profiling. It’s effective racial profiling, to be sure, since they’re mostly going to go on to be mass murderers, but it’s much less cut and dried than the original remit of “a demon in the body of your friend”.

Dolls, Identity, and Consent

The whole philosophy of identity issue gets even more interesting (and even more problematic) in Dollhouse. Is that me saying something positive about the show? Well yeah, sort of. The actual philosophy of identity bit is kind of interesting – and on some levels it seems to be what Joss is interested in (q.v. the “it makes humanity irrelevant” speech in Man on the Street) – unfortunately because Joss is pathologically incapable of writing a show that doesn’t have EYE YAM TEH FEMINISTS scrawled all over the front in crayon, he muddies the water by making it something that is also about the abuse of women by men who aren’t him.

The problem with Dollhouse (why yes, I am recycling content from an old article) is that it brings up a whole lot of important rape myths and then not only fails to challenge them, but dips the whole thing in a the kind of abstract philosophy that dickheads use so that they can accuse feminists of being “too emotional”.

To quote one blogger whose name, weblog, and other identifying features I have totally forgotten: “the thing I love about this fandom is that you can always find somebody willing to argue that it isn’t rape if she was brainwashed”.

The problem is that “it isn’t rape if she was brainwashed” is actually part of several interesting philosophical questions about identity, free will, and perception. The problem is that rape is not in any way the right subject to be using as a vehicle for these questions. The concept of consent and complicity is complex enough in real world rape cases that it doesn’t need imaginary supertechnology muddying the waters. The abstract philosophy of the Dollhouse contributes to, rather than challenging, the prevailing notion that consent is so vague and ill-defined that anything short of a clear “no” counts.

One of the things I really liked about The Pig that Wants to be Eaten was the way in which it tempered its abstract content with pragmatism. In its discussion of the

Ship of Theseus

, for example, the author points out that the identity of the “real” ship depends on what you want to do with it. If, for example, you were looking for forensic evidence in a murder investigation, you would want the physical components that had been present at the time of the crime. If on the other hand you were looking for Theseus himself, you'd want the ship that was actually in his possession.

The abstract, philosophy-of-identity stuff in Dollhouse is at odds with the simple, practical fact that the Dollhouse is all kinds of fucked up. If the Dollhouse was more benign and less rapetastic, it could explore some of the interesting ideas about identity which are – in theory at least – part and parcel of the show. Unfortunately the nature of the Dollhouse makes abstract theorizing about identity an offensive disservice to its victims. Yes, you can wonder to what extent Echo's imprints are real people with volition, and to what extent therefore they are moral agents in their own right capable of, amongst other things, consenting to sex. The problem is that the house's “brainwash and bone” routine is so close to real-world date-rape that it becomes genuinely uncomfortable.

Which is a shame, because the actual ideas are rather interesting.

Themes:

TV & Movies

Sci-fi / Fantasy

Whedonverse

bookmark this with - facebook - delicious - digg - stumbleupon - reddit

~Comments (

go to latest

)

Arthur B

at 14:18 on 2009-09-21

Uh, actually

the novel came first

. Though you are right that there's a particularly striking image that results from this, if it's the same one from the novel I'm thinking of.

That's a nitpick though, and I completely agree with the rest of your points here. I think the conclusive thing is that, whilst not a compulsive

Buffy

-watcher, I've seen at least a season or two's worth of episodes, and I've

never

even caught an inkling of the idea that vampires are not basically the same people they were before the Embrace (TM White Wolf) but with kewl powerz, simply because I never saw an episode where it was explicitly stated. Which I suppose is another good philosophical question: if you cut out the episodes which make the "they're different people" thing explicit, and a viewer can't work out that vampires are different people from the humans they used to be through observation, can it really be said to be true?

(The best example of using this plot point right, in my book, is

Dracula

; part of the reason the vampirisation of Lucy is so horrifying is that vampire-Lucy is so utterly different from normal-Lucy.)

permalink

go to top

Dan H

at 15:36 on 2009-09-21Sorry, you're right, the use of the word "original" in that sentence is entirely specious. I think in my head i was using "original" to mean "before it was co-opted to be an example in a short article about the philosophy of identity".

permalink

go to top

Niall

at 22:37 on 2009-09-21Must ... resist ... urge ... to debate ... Buffyverse ... mythology and metaphysics ... must ... resist ...

permalink

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 23:36 on 2009-09-21Ooh, interesting. Hmm. Yes.

Two very

obiter dicta

On the rape / brainwashing point, I sometimes wonder whether it wouldn't help to make the same sort of distinction as is made in law between theft (taking another person's property without permission) and fraud (using deceit to trick another person into giving you his property). The word 'rape' was until only a few decades ago almost entirely confined to violent and plainly non-consensual violation. That, of course, is only because society hadn't got far enough in reducing toleration of that extreme form of sexual abuse for it to even begin seriously looking at less obvious forms. But it does also, rightly or wrongly, cause a certain trickiness when we use the same word to denote sex where there is ostensibly consent but the consent is vitiated by, for example, incapacity. On the one hand using 'rape' in this broader sense is strategically shrewd because, now that everyone pretty much agrees that 'classic' violent rape is wrong and is a real problem, saying that something else is also rape immediately challenges people to think again about that other thing and may well shock them into new understanding. But on the other hand, as with assertions like 'meat is murder' or 'property is theft', there is a risk that people simply say, consciously or unconsciously, 'No, that's plainly not literally true and therefore I can ignore whatever point underlies it'. Whereas more progress might be made by treating the two things as separate and concentrating on getting people to acknowledge that the second is also bad. One might say that to some extent this panders to the tendency to regard 'fraud-type-rape' (if I can for the moment call it that without seeming to imply an actual analogy or to trivialize the whole business with my sloppy terminology) as less bad than 'theft-type-rape', it might at least make more progress in solidifying a consensus that 'fraud-type-rape' is actually wrong to some degree. I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a time when theft was recognized as bad but fraud wasn't; nowadays, though, fraud is often regarded as actually worse than theft because it involves an abuse not only of the institution of property but also of human trust. Anyway, perhaps this isn't the right article for this line of thought...

The second thing is that the two links in the article don't work because in each case the URL they're trying to point to has somehow got the URL for the Ferretbrain articles index tacked onto the front, in addition to the usual quotation-marks-coming-out-as-'&8221' problem.

permalink

go to top

http://belmanoir.livejournal.com/

at 00:47 on 2009-09-22Actually, the Tesla machine functions entirely differently in the book--the duplicate that is created in the book is not really capable of functioning independently, so the philosophical/ethical issues are still present but very different. The movie DID come up with the image Dan is discussing.

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 01:25 on 2009-09-22Ah, I was thinking of the image right at the end of the book, but now it occurs to me that that only happens in the framing story, which wasn't included in the film.

permalink

go to top

Robinson L

at 22:00 on 2009-09-24It's perfectly simple, Dan. Removing the soul counts as an involuntary alignment shift to either Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil (I don't think there are many vampires I'd characterize as Lawful Evil). Side effects may include some changes in personality which go beyond those associated Character Alignment, although this has only been documented in one case (Angel), and as you point out, it's not like he's a different person—more like the same person under radically different circumstances.

Now, vampires can act outside their Alignment (Harmony trying to stay friends with Cordelia in Season 2 or 3 would be an even better example), although Spike takes it to ridiculous levels in

Buffy

Season 5. Evil is just the default.

Contrast with Russel T Davies' depiction of the Daleks and Cybermen in the new

Doctor Who

. You kind of have to admire the guy for sticking to the concept that they're without personality and totally evil—no matter how blisteringly dull this makes them as villains, or the stories they appear in. Whedon, on the other hand, through out the whole “vampires without personalities” angle (probably without even realizing what he was doing) pretty much as soon as it threatened his ability to tell an entertaining story. There's probably a lesson to be learned in all that.

Interesting question about whether vampires can be considered monsters in the moral sense, even without souls. Of course, ever since Season 2 (still referring to

Buffy

), I was wondering why the couldn't just restore the souls of all the vampires they encountered. Or at least a couple, like the Alternate Willow from Season 3.

If the Dollhouse was more benign and less rapetastic, it could explore some of the interesting ideas about identity which are – in theory at least – part and parcel of the show.

Yes, but they would also have to make the plots and characters and dialogue and trivialities like that more

interesting

, too. Even without the unfortunate implications of the Dollhouse-as-human-trafficking angle, there's still the

Dollhouse

-as-fecking-boring-tv-show issue to contend with. Without an engaging

story

with which to prevent it, all the deep philosophizing in the world is so much wasted screen time.

@Jamie: Really? The links work just fine for me.

permalink

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 22:54 on 2009-09-24

Really? The links work just fine for me.

This is because someone has fixed them. Presumably for the sole purpose of making me look silly. :)

permalink

go to top

Rami

at 06:37 on 2009-09-25

This is because someone has fixed them. Presumably for the sole purpose of making me look silly. :)

Not at all. I've added some smarts to the Ferret so it shouldn't happen again.

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 15:04 on 2009-09-25I confess: I used

seeecret poweeers

to dive in and fix the links for everyone's short-term convenience.

Which isn't to downplay the importance of Rami's unique ability to alter the ferret at will, or Jamie's keen bug-spotting powers.

TEAMWORK!

(picture of Captain Planet and cast goes here)

permalink

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 16:04 on 2009-09-27Go Planet!

Incidentally, I do wonder sometimes whether it would be kind to newcomers if it said somewhere on the site who has the secret powers. Or indeed who the editor is. But most of the time I enjoy the fact that it doesn't.

permalink

go to top

http://pozorvlak.livejournal.com/

at 22:19 on 2009-09-29You might be interested in the Less Wrong post

Timeless Identity

. Spoiler warning: it turns out to be a sales pitch for cryonic preservation. But it's good up until that point.

permalink

go to top

Dan H

at 11:18 on 2011-01-10Sorry, I know this is an old post but I was just playing with the Random Article function and I've just found the article linked from the bottom of this comments section.

ARGH ARGH QUANTUM BULLSHIT RAGE!!!

Firstly: you know somebody is a nutbag when they say "as we have seen in..." followed by a link to a post on their own blog.

Secondly: you can't solve the transporter problem by reference to quantum mechanics. Not only does quantum mechanics not really apply to macroscopic bodies, but it ignores the fundamental question of what identity is by clinging to the (completely false) notion that it is somehow impossible to distinguish between particles.

Thirdly: I love how this long winded nonsense about "rationality" ends in something little better than Pascal's Wager - sign up for cryonics because if you're right you get to be immortal and if you aren't you don't lose anything.

Fourthly: GAAAAH QUANTUM BULLSHIT RAGE!!!

permalink

go to top

http://orionsnebula.blogspot.com/

at 17:41 on 2011-01-10The "less wrong" guy, Eliezer Yudkowsky, is fascinating. A lot of his stuff seems to be totally nutty, or at the very least exceedingly pretentious, like "the ten virtues of a rationalist." That said, some of his writing is really good.

http://yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth

is a hilarious essay on epistemology that I found pretty convincing.

He also wrote a Harry Potter fanfic:

http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/1/Harry_Potter_and_the_Methods_of_Rationality

which I thought was quite funny as well, even if he occasionally stops the story to complain about JK Rowling's plotting.

permalink

go to top

Dan H

at 18:43 on 2011-01-10

The "less wrong" guy, Eliezer Yudkowsky, is fascinating

Fascinating he might be, but I find people who cite "quantum mechanics" in support of their personal ideologies extremely irritating. Quantum mechanics says nothing about the nature of identity except as it relates to sub-atomic particles. You certainly can't use quantum mechanics to prove that psychological continuity is the essence of human identity and you certainly-certainly can't use quantum mechanics to prove that psychological continuity is the essence of human identity by using it to argue, falsely, that physical continuity exists where it doesn't on the basis of the erroneous belief that all electrons are really the same electron.

Quantum mechanics *does* say that "identity" is not a measurable property of particles - when I say "this electron" what I really mean is "the electron that currently has these properties" and if I look at the electron again and its properties have changed I cannot meaningfully describe it as being either the same electron or a different electron.

The same ideas can be applied to human identity as well, and funnily enough they have been for years going back to the original Ship of Theseus. Quantum Mechanics doesn't offer us any new insight into the issue. Just because it is true that the identity of a sub-atomic particle depends only on its quantum numbers, that does not mean that the identity of a person depends only on the quantum numbers of the particles in their body (certainly it cannot be a *necessary* component of identity because I am pretty sure the quantum numbers of the particles in my body are changing all the damned time).

Sorry, personal bugbear.

permalink

go to top

http://orionsnebula.blogspot.com/

at 19:03 on 2011-01-10I don't disagree with any of that--I just really wanted to take the opportunity to pimp his epistemology essay, which is not about quantum.

permalink

go to top

Dan H

at 19:21 on 2011-01-10Yeah, the epistemology essay is pretty cool, although it gets a bit straw mannish towards the end. Then again, if it's good enough for Galileo...

permalink

go to top

http://orionsnebula.blogspot.com/

at 05:16 on 2011-01-11I see I should have specified why I find him "fascinating" in my first comment. I was going to, but didn't because I was too hungry.

On the man's main website he says that he "wears two hats." One writes about the "fine art of human rationality." Now, this is an insufferably pretentious way of putting things, and some of his articles follow suit, but most of his writings are actually quite good. What particularly strikes me is his phrase, "intelligence and learning are worth nothing if used to defeat themselves." He talks about the danger of trying to confirm ideas, various cognitive biases, and then, (this is the one that really got me thinking) the fact that even studying psychology is dangerous if you're not scrupulously honest, because the more you know about how people rationalize, the more easily you can find reason to discredit anything you don't want to believe.

The other hat is "concerned with artificial intelligence." And everything he says about this appears to be goats on fire. He supposedly works for the "Singularity Institute," a "public charity funded by individual donations." Sounds like a con man, except he's too obsessive.

It's just a jarring juxtaposition. I can't wrap my head around the existence of a person who can write at length about how to do good science, the cognitive flaws that generate wishful thinking, and the difference between a real explanatory theory and vague pseudoscience--then turn around and hit you with cloning, quantum baffle and singularities.

#Ferretbrain #Buffy the Vampire Slayer #Angel the Series #Joss Whedon #Dollhouse #Dan H

8 notes · View notes

knightofbalance-13 · 7 years ago

Text

http://dudeblade.tumblr.com/post/164840215031/icindernikos-dudeblade-icindernikos

This argument? really? Someone else figure out how many times this excuse argument has been used please. I genuinely want to know how many people have used this argument and how many times it’s been used.

My cynical and sarcastic comments aside…

Maybe because you keep trying to use these people as your bias argument: Remember that time during BMBLB you tried using LGT people and their mental illnesses s an attack on RT, a bisexual called you out anbd you proceeded to eb a condescending douche to the point you told them to commit suicide? (http://dudeblade.tumblr.com/post/162638201666/magecunt-14-is-at-it-again / http://dudeblade.tumblr.com/post/162639498436/yknow-what-i-take-back-what-i-said-about-kob) Yeah, some oif them don’t li8ke it so trying to speak for all of them kind of pisses people off. You can say YOU want representation but that’s it: You are allowed to speak for no one but yourself. Anything else, like speaking for people against their will, is wrong.

First off, it’s been nearly FIVE YEARS since they made that promise, and the only things they have to show for it are the Scarlet Fanboy, and a VA’s headcanon. Five Years. Over FOUR volumes. I get that it’s not the end of the series, but if they really want it to feel natural, then they would have done it a long time ago.

And in those five years, do you know what actually happened in romance? Three sunk ships, one dubious one and one barely, not even confirmed canon one. Yeah, they’\;ve been taking their sweet ass time with heterosexuals too. Also: Proof that they said they’d give an LGBT character at a specific Volume or time and broke it. No? Then the promise still stands, no matter how long it takes.

Secondly, you can’t write RT a hall pass for their lack of representation. Just because YOU’RE okay with it doesn’t make it okay. There are other people in the LGBT+ community that are miffed about the lack of representation. Are their opinions invalid because they aren’t giving RT an excuse? - Because that’s how you’re coming off as.

And what you are doing is any different. Wait, it is: @icindernikos is only speaking for themselves and you are trying to speak for a community as a whole you are not a part of and people are telling you to stop. Kind of comes across more as “What I SAY only matters” than what they are doing.

Also, this is not the first time an LGBT person has said they are fine waiting or disagreei on the queerbaiting so this isn’t just one person: This is multiple people contradicting you. People who WOULD be affected by your inseesant preaching and attacking, making them look bad and giving them a worse product because you spoke over them. These people have grown to the point they rival the number of people calling queerbaiting and if factor in the silent majority, the numbers far outnumber you so you should probably take that as a hint and stop talking about the issue they don’t want you too.

Also, I’m either Bi or Pan (Still trying to figure out which), and I’m pretty miffed about the lack of representation. Sorry that you can’t write them a hall pass for this sort of stuff, but it’s the truth. Similarly, I can’t write a company a hall pass for how they treat Filipino characters despite being Filipino myself - that would be stupid.

A. I find that highly skeptical as I have more mlm fanart in my Tumblr than you and you have a stated bias and hate against the male gender (http://dudeblade.tumblr.com/post/160161209960/rwde-theory-reactions-to-everything / http://dudeblade.tumblr.com/post/163800343229/i-hate-jaune) so you claiming to be bi or pan seems more like you want the status to talk over LGBT people who speak out against you.

B. Actually, they can: By showing that the community is not unanimous or even majorly against this, it shows that this is a PERSONAL issue and not a COMMUNITY issue and thus road speaking and broad terms are not allowed.

And C.By this logic, I can claim to speak for teh whole RWDE tag: Do you really want ME to have full control over what you say? Because I am sadistic enough to abuse it.

Sorry if I took what you said the wrong way, but like I said, it’s coming off as if you’re saying that opinions that disagree with yours are invalid because they don’t give RT an excuse for their baiting.

And your words say that you aren’t sorry, their voice doesn’t count because it doesn’t support what you say despite you being an outsider and they give a reason why RT ISN’T queerbaiting.

Basically: You’re projecting again Dudeblade while being a homophobe as well. Next time and each time after: Speak for yourself and yourself ALONE.

#rwde bullshit #dudeblade

9 notes · View notes

selfdeterminedsymbionts · 8 years ago

Note

Edrin and/or Kalem, what are the big misconceptions Yeerks have about humans? AJ and/or Cassidy, what are the big misconceptions humans have about Yeerks? And what do HYPA's Hork-Bajir members make of all this?

It seems like these questions should be addressed the other way around but sure, let’s do this.

Okay so most humans are pretty creeped out by yeerks. That’s a fairly natural response as we humans tend to have a fairly high need for privacy and while it’s possible, with careful maneuvering, to try to respect certain boundaries, it’s straight-up impossible to draw hard lines of privacy in a shared brain. Here’s the thing about yeerks though: they are aliens.

This sounds obvious but man so many basic misconceptions can be found in people assuming that sharing a brain with a yeerk is like sharing a brain with a human friend. It’s not. It doesn’t occur to them to really notice or care that you remember wetting the bed at twelve or secretly fantasise about having sex dressed as Batman or whatever weird fucked-up thing you think is super embarrassing, and the stuff that they might find weird and awkward is stuff that you’ve never even thought about. Totally different standards, see? Now, an Empire yeerk will use your own mind against you if they need to do so to pacify you. It’s what they’re trained to do. So the view of yeerks as vindictive little creeper shits who are out to take over the world For Teh Evuls makes sense from the perspective of an involuntary Controller, but trust me, they’re mostly confused kids who have been released in an alien environment with basic weaponry and told “there, go play with each other, we’ll expect a progress report in two months”.

As for hork-bajir, they are a calm and forgiving people who take absolutely no shit, which is both a blessing and a curse here. Most Hypa hork-bajir, although they won’t generally blame Hypa yeerks for what the Empire have done to them, still won’t take a new yeerk. There are a few hork-bajir-Controllers running around but I’ve not heard any of them outline their positions on any complex philosophical or sociological issues.

-- Cassidy

What a fascinating question!

There are of course many misconceptions on both sides, but we think that one of the big misconceptions from the human side is really about what a yeerk is. A yeerk, simply put, can be thought of as both a sentient being and an interface, a new method of communication between beings. Cassidy is correct in their summation that humans have a tendency to think of yeerks in human terms, and this is not necessarily an accurate or useful model; not only does it equip yeerks with perspectives and experiences that they do not have (as Cassidy outlined), but it robs them of ones that they do. A yeerk is a mind, a control device, and a highly specialised memetic transfer machine. Hypa tends to focus on the first of these definitions; the Empire puts their attention on the second. We think, however, that a lot is lost by not appropriately considering the third. Every mind influences every mind that it communicates with, but human minds rarely get to communicate so directly as in a yeerk symbiosis. When people espouse negative information about yeerks, well, much of it is probably a result of the war and of the unsavoury nature of yeerk control, but one has to wonder... how much of it is a hatred of the self?

As for the hork-bajir, we would like to point out that while Cassidy has accurately surmised the general disposition of the active Hypa hork-bajir, this should not be taken as a read of hork-bajir in general. The mere fact that these are the hork-bajir who ended up in Hypa rather than (or at least in addition to) their own isolated rebel group self-selects the sample.

Regards,

I think that the biggest mistake that yeerks make is to think that they understand their hosts. This is definitely not true. Being able to read memories and thoughts is not the same as being able to properly understand them, any more than being able to use google means you understand how google works or why it was built that way. Listen to your host when they tell you things. Respect that they probably know a lot more about themselves than you do, even if you’re both reading from the same brain. I’ve lost count of how many yeerk stories I’ve heard where a host has said they’re, for example, afraid of something, the yeerk has found no evidence of it an no particularly alarming levels of fear underlying the statement and dismissed it, and then the yeerk has been surprised later by unexpected panic. Don’t assume that reading a host is like reading a book. Respect their expertise.

-- Edrin 986

I have a message for all you involuntary Controllers out there: none of you fear your hosts enough.

Trust me on this. If a human wants to wreck your shit, first chance they get they will wreck your shit. You think that reading fear in their minds makes you safe? A human’s response to fear is to arrange to have the object of that fear eliminated. Ever seen a human who fears spiders screaming “KILL IT” at some tiny harmless arachnid? That’s not an abnormal response.

You think that because your human’s not planning to kill you, they won’t? Have you seen how fast these fuckers plan and improvise? You don’t know what your host is going to do if an opportunity comes up, because they don’t know either. War is something we learned to expand, it’s something they simulate for fun as little kids and practice idly their whole lives. Start taking them seriously, or die.

To be honest, if you’ve seriously hurt your host already, it might be too late for you. If you’ve done real harm to someone they care about, it probably is too late. My advice to all of you is: grovel. Grovel as much as you can and surrender while you’re still in power, because they’re not idiots and if you wait for the Empire to lose to start grovelling then nobody’s going to listen. Then get as far away as you can from the person you enslaved and anybody who cares enough to enact revenge on their behalf, or if you can’t manage that, be genuinely harmless and repentant and hope that this provokes pity. Notice I said pity and not forgiveness -- humans like to pretend they’re good at forgiveness but trust me, they’re not. What they call ‘forgiveness’ usually means ‘a truce until this fucker fucks up again because it’s against my moral code to harm the helpless and/or I can’t be bothered with this fight right now’. That’s about the best you can aim for.

If you can’t believe in the rights of a host, at least believe in the ability of that host to completely wreck you, because they can. And they will, the instant they get the chance. A cowed host is a very temporary state, and the moment the circumstances change and those stressors are removed, you’re going to have a fight on your hands that you’ve gotten out of the habit of being prepared for.

-- Kalem 442

25 notes · View notes

mild-lunacy · 8 years ago

Text

Sherlock Is Not in Unrequited Love with John

It seems that after Series 4, an increasing number of people think BBC Sherlock is TPLoSH come again. Sherlock is therefore in unrequited love with John (ala Molly, seen as Sherlock's own mirror). Whether it's because they cannot unsee the gay pining in TSoT or because a loving John wouldn't have beat up Sherlock or blamed him for Mary's death, it is what it is. And either that's okay, or (more commonly) it's the reason people leave fandom or simply reject BBC John as hateful and Johnlock more broadly, or at least shipping it in canon. The way I see it, however, BBC Sherlock only makes sense and works for Mofftiss' stated purposes in showing how Sherlock became a 'good man' and John and Sherlock became the legendary Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson in two ways.

Version One: it was always just really intense devotion, true platonic love at first sight. John is 'not gay' as in he's heterosexual, and Sherlock made the choice to be pure mind, as Moffat has said. So basically, he's not gay or straight because he's not anything, as I discussed in my post-S4 reading of ASiB and Sherlock's sexuality. Sherlock genuinely angsted over losing his life with John in TSoT, as I've said post-S4, but it doesn't mean that he's in love. It certainly could be but doesn't have to be read romantically to make sense. Given we're interested in making the show work as a narrative, I think TSoT works best as a tribute, a high point before John and Sherlock's slide into prolonged suffering, and a narrative demonstration of the parallels between John and Sherlock and John with Mary.

This reading of the show is internally consistent both with the text and with what Mofftiss have said. Basically, this would mean we read into the text, and have been wrong (and this absolutely includes people who simply saw romantic feelings without expecting canon Johnlock to happen). I absolutely think it's possible and important to learn how to be wrong, and that one can and should simply reevaluate the data at hand when that happens. I admit I personally still can't read ASiB platonically, and then there's stuff like Sherlock bringing himself back to life for John, relapsing into drugs at least partly 'cause he lost John (three times!) and all the subtext and actual text where we're prodded by other characters to consider the queer reading, like TAB's waterfall scene. The feelings between John and Sherlock are epic and intense, and once you see it romantically, it's a lot to unsee. Plus, I recognize that we're in Sherlock's head a lot more than John's, so we witness how he cares about John Watson again and again, and it's explicitly lampshaded by Magnussen and Moriarty, etc. With John, there only that one time with Irene, and perhaps Mary's innuendos in TEH or TFP... and that's it. No one seriously and explicitly explains to us how John cares about Sherlock to nearly the same degree. There's him rescuing Sherlock in ASiP and TGG, and even the third time in TLD is compromised 'cause it's hallucinated Mary's doing (though, of course, Mary's just a part of John in TLD).

I get it. I know where it comes from. My point is, the show doesn't really work with this reading only going in one direction, full stop. BBC Sherlock is not literally TPLoSH. It has many inspirations, and draws on many other adaptations, but this show is doing its own arc in its own way. Sherlock being in unrequited love doesn't work if they're trying to show how Sherlock used to be messed up and immature, hurting John and manipulating him without realizing that he was even his best friend, and then finally accepting his own emotions and those of others. Unrequited love makes the arc less positive and mutual. It's not that Sherlock and John resolve their issues in TLD, in that case, and grow to a full, more mature understanding of who they are and their humanity, their vulnerability. If Sherlock is in love and never tells John, he's always going to be in pain, keeping it from John. Their partnership in TFP is therefore no longer full and absolute. TRF hasn't been resolved because they're both still keeping back those words on the tip of Sherlock's tongue at the tarmac in HLV, and that John told Ella he could not say in TRF. And so, if Sherlock is in unrequited love with John, his whole arc in BBC Sherlock essentially fails to resolve.

I know that it's a whole lot to dismiss, and requires some significant mental gymnastics. There are certainly difficulties due to issues with some of the writing, such as the extensiveness of the queer coding and subtext, not to mention the fact that Mary wasn't really integrated properly and her use as a conduit for John and Sherlock confuses the issue, as I said yesterday. In case it isn't clear, I'm not really a fan of the heteronormative reading. I just think it's more suitable for understanding the text than the idea that Sherlock is in unrequited love. However, the fact is that there is an alternative canon-consistent reading that I personally prefer. Needless to say, that is version two.

Version Two: the full implicitly canon queer reading of BBC Sherlock. It's actually a lot like version one in that this reading only functions consistently with canon if you accept that both John and Sherlock love each other, and neither is supposed to be the only one suffering or feeling more pining or pain on behalf of the other. John did plenty of painful pining during the two years that Sherlock was 'dead' (and before, when Sherlock wasn't really giving him a lot to work with in terms of showing feelings or communication in general). In fact, the only major difference is that you take the show's queer subtext as seriously as the text. This means Sholto is a romantic parallel to Sherlock, and Mary meant it that way when she said 'neither of us were the first'. You also get to pay a lot more attention to the fact that Irene said 'look at us both' and Sherlock had that dazed eureka face afterwards. You'd still have to accept that both John and Sherlock loved Mary, but that marriage wasn't exactly ideal, and John felt trapped with Mary and with a 'normal life'. With this reading, it's just that he accepted what he really wanted sometime after TLD, when they finally started talking honestly to each other. And of course, after we see that the sociopath persona and presumably the 'pure mind' stuff was an artificial product of Sherlock's trauma with Eurus rather than his natural predilection, the embodiment arc can only be implicitly resolved by Johnlock. John's frequent words about 'romantic entanglement' are also directly relevant to Sherlock's growth, and in fact we can surmise that this must have been addressed between John and Sherlock further as well. As Ivy said, what else could they say to one another now? The possibilities are amazing. This is the reading I support, and I absolutely do see it.

Of course, this takes a certain amount of acceptance and understanding of both John and Sherlock's issues, including their unforgivable behavior (such as John's beating Sherlock or Sherlock faking his suicide), but the end of TLD explicitly supports that sort of reconciliation. It also requires the viewer to be able to see John's feelings as being deep and real in Series 4, as much as ever. Just as we had to look deeper to see Sherlock's feelings in Series 1-2, we'd have to do that work with John in order for the queer reading of BBC Sherlock to work. However, as Ivy demonstrates, it's certainly possible to do so. And, I believe, it makes the end of the show more rewarding and the entire arc more satisfying. Now as always, I believe in canon Johnlock, but I'm just as absolutely certain that Johnlock requires John.

#sherlock meta #sherlock feels #narrative #sherlock's arc #johnlock feels #series 4 #the sign of three #the lying detective #series 3 #john watson things #embodiment #parallels #the great divergence #queerlock

55 notes · View notes

wavemaker9 · 8 years ago

Text

Me: Kyle and Mel having a good close friendship that makes them both happy Also me: Make them fight and have kyle jeopardize that like everything else he loves

(it got long sorry)

So Kyle doing the cornered, ‘animal in a case’ thing with mel. Unlikely if she won't press but if it did happen that'd prolly hurt mel so much if the thing she values most about her friendship with him is not feeling judged, just feeling like a lot of her perceived flaws are accepted without question. Because I've mentioned when kyle argues back defensively, he gets nasty. Just like Austin will lash out physically if pushed hard enough, if Kyle feels cornered in a convo, even if it’s only in an attempt to help him, he will turn on them verbally to get them to back off. He's not always aware of everything (see his relays with summer/doug that he dismisses the aggressively negative behavior yet his relay with art who he's frustrated with for just not displaying that art cares in a way that kyle gets), but he's pretty good at spotting people's insecurities and then using them during heated arguments without thinking about it. He wouldn't genuinely mean anything he said, he just knows. Well, his insecurities and/or fears are being brought up and he wants out of the convo more than anything, so if he does the same to them, they'll back off too. Again, Mel not being the type to press or call out specifically because she doesn’t want it back, so it's not like Cami or something where it'd be relatively likely, but if it did ever happen, suddenly this second person ever that mel has had that hasn't judged her is listing every problem and flaw she has, searching for the topic that gets the sharpest reaction and focusing on that. I remember Khep and I discussed this with Cami and Kyle and then other stuff too (during the 2p event in Hetalr, Austin said some mean stuff to Cami because he considered all the 1p nations imposters trying to fuck with them so that plus her refusing to leave because this is her friend but like super wrong finally irritated him enough that he asked her how alone she had to be to be desperate to spend time with him. basically he hopes to never see this woman again so who cares about being polite when she won’t listen to his requests), she ended up just popping him in teh face and storming off, and I have to imagine it’d be like that at least. Mat least those first few moments of accusation and betrayal and /hurt/, there’s gotta be a surge of anger that bubbles up enough to swing at least one punch his way, yeah?

Which actually speaking of that, that might be more likely to make kyle and mel clash like that since if his mood dips hard enough he’ll also get instigatory without being provoked first. It’s another self-destruction method. He gets a mindset that he deserves punishment for fucking up so badly about something and getting beat up in a fight works for that. How does he get someone mad enough to kick his ass? Make them furious with him, make them /hate/ him. And of course he doesn’t think about long term ‘do i really want them to hate me forever? No! Will they understand i was just being the world’s biggest dick to them because i was in a low place? Probably not, especially if I don’t tell them!’ so he’ll regret it later but he’s not thinking clearly now, his brain is full of bad time thoughts right now, so that’s all he can focus on, especially since in that headspace if he /does/ consider it, his brain justifies it away that he doesn’t deserve them anyway and he’ll finally send them off which will be doing them a favor and blah blah blah

Actually actually, even when he’s not in a bad place, like if he feels someone’s holding back in a fight, even if it’s just sparring, he’ll try to push them and provoke them because when he’s angry, he’s willing to fight harder, so clearly the same must be true for them. I think it was mentioned the same is kinda true for mel and that she instigates or at least instigated stuff with austin a lot in the hope it’d get him to fight her. He’s very much teh same. If he can piss them off, they’ll actually fight and that’ll be more fun than them going easy on him (I had this thought because of the taz xover since griffin had said avi was so nice he went easy on the thb when training against them and that’d annoy kyle quickly. You’re my friend and I love you but if you don’t fight me with your all that’s at best a weird unneeded secret about what you’re capable of and at worst an insult in that you think I can’t handle it, and i won’t stand for either. Gimme your hardest punch, damnit. )< ). He’s usually less emotive and fight-or-flight-y there, though, so he’ll be more careful about what he says in that he won’t aim for the comments he knows would cut deep, but he’ll reach for a lot of more shallow careless insults then and that can still get irritating very fast.

Anyway, Kyle is always super regretful and apologetic afterwards once his fight or flight reaction eases, but the problem is that he's already said those things and cannot take them back. He can apologize to mel all he wants and assure her he doesn't believe anything he said before and she shouldn't either, but he still said them. Even if mel recognized at the time that this was him being aggressively defensive, that doesn't ease the hurt of still hearing it. If she thinks about it logically, she could probably figure it didn’t mean anything and was him just being a childish asshole, but it’s hard to be 100% objective with this sort of thing. He can tell her he didn’t mean it but that doesn’t undo the hurt she felt when he said those things. It's something I never want to make canon for any of kyle’s relays because he does seriously like fuck up these good things of trust he has and that can’t easily be undone, but it’s always interesting to consider. Pushing away people he loves is something he's very good at.

Also, the one person that doesn’t tend to happen with is ivan and I think that’s very much a case of ivan never wanting to make kyle mad so he’d back off before things got that far. If he sees either of them are genuinely frustrated, he’ll back off until things cool down or switch to seeming more accommodating so that kyle doesn’t feel the need to fight as much. Besides, ivan probably would forgive kyle even if kyle said some mean shit. There might be a limit but Ivan’s super good at forgiving kyle. On the other hand, kyle would do the same if it was reverse and ivan said some super mean shit. Honestly, no matter who said it, kyle would 100% forgive the person eventually if he even remotely liked them. again, kyle took like months after being cheated on and manipulated in an old rp to even consider for longer than 3 days that maybe he should leave the relay. you have to /try/ to push him away. He wouldn’t really get past the hurt either, but it wouldn’t be a betrayal of trust or anything like I feel it would be if he was the one attacking them. Doug has gotten him really used to constant criticism and just blatant insults and has conditioned him to see that being ‘honest’, so if another friend spent 5 minutes suddenly tearing into him. Like it’d hurt and crash his mood but he’d never blame /them/. It’s /his/ fault for being so shitty. If he were better, they wouldn’t have anything to talk about, he can’t be mad at them for telling the truth, what kind of asshole does that? (see him when anyone who /isn’t/ a friend suddenly criticizes him; he’s the kind of asshole who does that) And like, he rarely fully trusts that a person 100% genuinely likes him so hearing someone suddenly flip and be overly aggressive to a hurt point like. He knew that was coming, he’s surprised they didn’t reveal how annoyed they are with him sooner. It’d never come back to the other person; it’d shake the relationship up badly enough but, unlike the reverse in at least some cases, it’d get back to where they were, and if the person showed enough effort to apologize, he’d treat them and view them exactly as he did before, no blame on them. Again, though, the exception to this is if he didn’t already like them before hand in which case it falls to the grudge level. As i’ve mentioned, poor ludwig in hetalr criticized kyle once during a bad mood time (and that time it was just genuine issues not even just aggressive argumentative callouts) and kyle has never forgiven him.

Other stray thoughts! If he did end up doing that to mel, not just mel fucking pissed off at him, but micha when he finds out what kyle did. Two friendships one stone, whoops. Micha probably even worse? Like Mel’s probably not happy with kyle but suddenly dealing with a lot of self-critical thoughts again. Micha wasn’t the target though, not dealing with that, just full on ‘how dare you make my sister feel like that’ anger. Remember that ‘bitch was talking shit, now bitch can’t talk no more’ ask micha had a while ago? That. Micha 100% killing kyle brown, fucking finally. Even if mel recognized why kyle did that and eventually got even partially past that, i feel like micha wouldn’t ease up on that even after some time because that wasn’t at him, that was at mel. He liked Kyle, a part of him still wants to like him, but that man hurt his sister terribly and so Kyle can suck a fucking big one.

Also, less expected, but like. austin would def kind of side with mel, too. Mainly because he’s just so annoyed by kyle constantly, it’s very much the burr vs hamilton ‘i just want him to stop talking and acting so confident, that’s what i’m here for’ thing, but also. Like in family au especially, kyle gives /a lot/ of shit to austin. Like /a lot/. I’ve made at least a couple posts about how kyle knows how to get under austin’s skin and knows austin doesn’t have the strength to get him back so he fucks with austin constantly. Austin’s in a bad combination zone in that he’s family so teasing/being a dick as a form of showing love is acceptable to kyle, and austin’s cold and selfish personality makes him seem like a dick to kyle + he’s not trying by kyle’s standards so it falls under ‘the asshole has it coming’ category. Austin tries hard, just like mel, or kyle, or anyone else. It’s not always obvious and there are some times sure where he’s not trying as hard as he could, but more often than not, austin actually is doing his best to just manage here. he’s not an overachiever or anything. when he cares, it’s barely and surprising, but just because he’s not putting his all into it every second doesn’t mean he isn’t trying at all. But he’s cold, he’s selfish, he’s asocial and solitary, he’s not charismatic or kind or loyal or empathetic, he’s passive and he takes for granted the things /kyle/ sees as austin’s best assets in life (his family), he’s all the things kyle looks down on, and there aren’t many things kyle /does/ feel like he can look down on, so kyle looks downon them extra hard. I said how kyle is very much the ‘as long as you’re trying your best, that’s fine!’ person, but the catch to that is that /he/ has to accept that you’re trying your best. Just like how he’ll not always catch on that someone loves him as much as they do because they’re not showing it in ways he recognizes as affectionate or caring, he also is clueless to the idea of someone trying in a way he doesn’t recognize. It’s really something i guess most if not all teh australias show, but while with aus and aud, that conflicts with people like mel, for kyle, he wouldn’t get aus or aud. That’s why he totally gets mel is trying, it’s very much in the same way he is. But austin’s trying is by being reserved and proper, and it doesn’t make sense so clearly austin just /isn’t/ trying. Kyle is very aware of only the things he can recognize. He understands that people have different views and ways of handling things like scientists understand how the brain works. He knows it’s technically there, and he understands parts of that to a point when given the chance to learn, but if you really look at how much he gets that, it’s surprising how little he actually understands for how open minded he tries to be sometimes. Which is another thing i don’t like about him. I gushed before and said i was too hard on him but right now nah i remember why i don’t like him, i’m probably about right in how hard i am on him.

Anyway, austin deals with kyle’s shit constantly and, as i’ve mentioned in the hp au talk, he’s well aware that kyle’s charisma and charm and loyalty and people-pleasing nature all make people like him more. He’s obnoxious and irresponsible and reckless and instigatory and has about a billion double standards that are shitty as fuck, but kyle tries to make friends and is passionate enough to win people to his side, so people tend to not acknowledge kyle’s shitty behavior as much when he’s an asshole to austin. They're easily swayed by the ‘he was an asshole and had it coming. Besides, we’re cousins so it’s fine’ argument. He knows Kyle has his ‘good’ sides, but he also is aware of kyle’s negatives, sometimes seemingly more so than kyle is. Which makes the ‘austin’s not trying’ conclusion kyle reaches even worse because austin’s trying specifically to keep his more negative sides on lock, like his bad temper. Kyle lets that shit run free and then has the nerve to criticize austin for not trying?? And I don’t think austin would be annoyed in any cases where mel and micha befriend kyle. Again, he expects that, and while mel and micha are his best friends, he doesn’t fully see them as such and certainly not in a ‘tehy’re /my/ friends, you can’t have them’ way. They’re adults, if they want to befriend kyle great. Maybe they can distract him so he stops trying to hang out with austin all the time, that’d be nice. But austin probably mentioning that to mel when she and kyle are first going to meet. She’s an adult and can choose her own friends but kyle is (“objectively” austin says which he isn’t but to austin he is) terrible and she should have all the information and understand how fucking annoying kyle is sometimes before she meets him. Of course he’s bad at clearly listing all the reasons why with examples, and he complains about everything, so it probably comes off as a ‘oh he’s just annoyed because kyle’s all energetic and fun and austin hates fun’ thing.

But then kyle reveals the shitty child he is underneath and it turns out austin was actually somewhat right? I also think, if mel was confronted by just how aggressively hurtful kyle can be in his worse moods, that’d surprisingly not be an ‘I told you so’ moment from austin (provided she didn’t make a huge deal of dismissing any early comments he made. If she did, she’d get a little ‘i told you so’ then). Because again, people being charmed by kyle happens all the fucking time, it’s not their fault they made a shitty friend. If he wasn’t asocial and totally aware of how bad to be around kyle can be, he’d probably like him more too. It’s not an ‘i told you so’ thing at this point, it’s just a ‘finally someone else sees what a jerk he can be sometimes thank god. Unfortunate it was from him messing things up again but silver linings and all that’. Austin that’s a silver lining for you, not for mel, cmon. Though on the other hand, It might be an ‘i told you so’ at /kyle/. Mel didn’t do anything wrong by befriending him, but austin’d absolutely use this as a ‘hey, get off your high fucking horse and acknowledge that you’re a piece of shit!’ thing which is relatively ironic coming from austin. I mean, just because austin’s trying doesn’t make him any less of a piece of shit too, since he doesn’t actually regret a lot of the hurtful things he does to people and, as mentioned with the cami thing, he’s willing to do hurtful things if he feels they’re necessary to his best interests, he just also doesn’t pretend like they don’t exist. Austin thinks the positives of his personality outweigh the bad, sure, but he still has some bad he knows about and tries to handle and he’s also fully aware not everyone would view all those positives as positive. He knows he has a bad temper so he avoids things that irritate him and 90% of the time it’s /kyle/ pushing him into those situations that set him off. Kyle should recognize by now how aggressive he himself gets when defensive, how much he can hurt people, but does he try to avoid those cases? No, of course not. That would take being responsible and mature! Half the time, kyle purposefully tries to provoke people as some self-destruction attempt that he doesn’t care about dragging someone else down with him on.

I think i’ve mentioned before that this is why i prefer austin to kyle despite, weighing the pros and cons of their personalities, how kyle would more likely be the ‘better’ person than austin is. Kyle has a lot more pros and they are to a far higher extreme, but the negatives are equallly as low and he ignores them completely. Refuses to acknowledge them, very irresponsible about that. Even when called out, he gets dismissive or instigatory or that ‘can’t you take a joke’ bullshit that I think I still hate most about his personality. Austin is a dick but he’s usually aware of it, knows he’s not a total victim in life. He’s more responsible and part of that is accepting bad behavior in oneself. Changing bad behavior is usually the best option, but neither boy does that. Austin at least accepts and acknowledges it and tries not to go out of his way to let it affect others. He’s polite in most cases if he has to socialize with someone, and besides that he does try to stay on his own most of the time. That’s also, again, the asocialness, but he sees it as a win win for everyone. I’m going to be annoyed by them, they probably won’t appreciate me, it’s best we keep to ourselves. Kyle hides it before springing it on someone and, again, I know that’s not 100% his fault, it’s very much a side effect of his childhood and a nasty combination of disorders he’s struggling to deal with, but that doesn’t make it 0% his fault either. Cool motive, still murder, except not murder of course, just being an asshole, but i still very much like that phrase for that kinda thing. It’s great that he has a reason to explain why he feels the need to behave like that, but he’s not unaware. It may feel hard or impossible not to choose that option, like, say, staying up late again for 2 weeks in a row when I definitely know I need more than ~5 hours of sleep a night- but that’s still me failing to go to sleep on time. i might have to fight myself on it some nights, but i’m still making that choice, y’know?

In most au’s, someone points it out to him at some point, and he refuses to change that bad behavior and worse, it’s often times not even a ‘i’m trying but I can’t’ situation, he just doesn’t want to acknowledge another flaw of his and that is. That’s why he drives me up a fucking wall sometimes. He always tries to portray himself as super friendly and understanding and accepting and good, he tries so hard to be good. like i said, when he cares, it’s so much and over the top and to the point of sacrificing at a moment’s notice, but he can get a holier than thou mentality on morals and yet either isn’t aware enough or just doesn't care to see both the attempts other may make using methods he’s not used to as well as how necessary it is to address and try to change his own major and friendship-threatening flaws. I have my own high standards for others that I myself don’t meet, but I don’t fuck over people who don’t meet those standards either, y’know? I go ‘maybe we’re both shit’ and I move on with my day. He’s literally the ‘when he’s good he’s great’ line except instead it ends with ‘but when he’s bad i wanna kick his fucking ass’

#ignore this #amusing muse musings #aus being a dick #kyle being the biggest dick

7 notes · View notes

ruffoverthinksthings · 7 years ago

Note

Any BenxJordan headcanons left after all teh questioning I've put you through like what would happen if they actually got married? Possibly the ship meme?

1.Whois the most affectionate?:

Ben.

Even if he’s shown time and again that he is definitely not likeall of Jordan’s exes or her circle of casual intimate partners (bethey immortals, Fae, or mortals), the trauma and the instinctiveaversion to being TOO open with her feelings, affections, and justgenerally putting herself in a vulnerable position is extremelydifficult to get rid of.

Giveit a few decades, though, and Jordan will be the one constantlyshowering Ben with kisses, oftentimes with full knowledge that peoplecan see and someone is recording it.

2.Bigspoon/Little spoon?:

Jordan.

Have you seen Ben’s muscles? Do you want to be hugging all that orbe hugged by it? Because Jordan sure as hell loves feeling all thatstrength like damn.

3.Mostcommon argument?:

Howmuch work Ben is taking on.

“You’re a chronic workaholic, ifanyone’s supposed to be working their ass off and skipping sleep,it’s me, seeing as it’s physically and magically impossible forme to drop dead!”

4.Favoritenon-sexual activity?:

Unloadingand discussing all the ridiculousness of Auradon politics and governance, plus a little bit of current events.

As youmight expect, Arendellian chocolate is a highly valued commodity,both in the state itself and elsewhere for strictly unofficiallyplying others to your thinking.

A potential supply crisis with cacao beans sends the entire realm into a tizzy, and Jordan and Ben both laugh at it and genuinely worry, as Queen Elsa famously, subtly threatened to cause catastrophic damage to the economy and supply chains of Auradon by shutting down Arendelle’s ports, if chocolate was included in the “anti-lobbying” law, alongside silver dollars, precious metals and jewelry, and real estate.

5.Whois most likely to carry the other?:

Ben.

Jordan COULD carry him by virtue of being able to manipulate herphysical strength to however she wants to, but honestly, with someonelike him, would YOU want to be the one carrying him or be carried?

6.Whatis their favorite feature of their partner’s?:

Jordan’seye game is top notch, bringing plenty of meaning to terms “windowsto the soul” and “eye fucking.”

Bennever really quits Tourney or vigorous physical exercise, and Jordanlikes the fact that she’s got her own personal iron-man to protecther from danger and make her feel safe, almost 24/7.

7.What’sthe first thing that changes when they realize they have feelings forthe other?:

Benstarts to be a little more friendly and flirty towards Jordan.

Jordanproceeds to get VERY antsy, nervous, and flighty around him becauseshe can’t help but think of all the numerous politicalramifications and the negative attention that could arise from amortal king having an immortal lover, who might eventually become animmortal ruler and set a dangerous precedent.

8.Nicknames?& if so, how did they originate?:

Ben:“Ironman,” “Your Majesty,” “His Highness,” “Big Man”“Beast Boy,” all alluding to his physical size and strength, and position

Bendoesn’t really do nicknames, seeing as he loves saying Jordan’sname and would never think of calling her anything less perfect andbeautiful, as that would be an insult to the perfect and beautifulcreature before him.

(Cue a flustered Jordan smacking him.)

9.Whoworries the most?:

Jordan.

Benhas long learned to let go of unnecessary stress and anxiety byvirtue of physically being unable to give, nor have that many fucksto begin with.

Jordan,being immortal, and not needing things like sleeping or eating, does.

10.Whoremembers what the other one always orders at a restaurant?:

Jordan.

Perks of being an immortal magical creature with an impeccable,infallible memory.

11.Whotops?:

Ben.

Jordan initially has issues with it considering that it’s playinginto the stereotype of genies all being submissive as hell, and onher own fears and insecurities about being controlled, but sheeventually decides to say “Fuck it” to what other people think ofwhat she does in the bedroom.

“Ifyou seriously spend a good chunk of your time thinking about what Ido, in private, specifically away from people’s eyes, and wouldrarely, if ever, tell them about it, then something is VERY wrongwith you.”

12.Whoinitiates kisses?:

Initially,Ben, before Jordan overtakes him on that regard as she gets over herinsecurities. It starts to get more and more frequent the older Bengets, because she is VERY aware that she can’t do this forever...

13.Whoreaches for the other’s hand first?:

Ben.

Jordan is highly reluctant to make any sort of physical contact asidefrom self-defense or derisive gestures.

14.Whokisses the hardest?:

Ben.

He’s something of a non-Newtonian fluid: hardens and solidifies assoon as you expose them to some initial pressure.

15.Whowakes up first?:

Ben,but Jordan generally doesn’t sleep at all, so it’s kind of a mootquestion.

16.Whowants to stay in bed just a little longer?:

Jordan.

She gets precious little time with Ben because of said chronicworkaholism, and his numerous inescapable duties.

17.Whosays I love you first?:

Ben.

Jordan is VERY careful about throwing such strongly worded termsaround, to the point wherein she only has a handful of things shewill say she loves, and dislikes it whenever marketing slogans orreviews overuse the term.

18.Wholeaves little notes in the other’s one lunch? (Bonus: what does itusually say?):

Jordan.

“Try to actually get home on time today, your majesty; your lovinggirlfriend would love to do more for (and to) you than make you lunch.”

19.Whotells their family/friends about their relationship first?:

Ben,because it would be a scandal otherwise.

It’s a lot less theatricaland disastrous than “Did I Mention?” considering he’s underJordan’s “spell” by his own volition.

20.Whatdo their family/friends think of their relationship?:

Beastand Belle are highly supportive of it, though only the latterseriously talks with Ben and Jordan about the legal and politicalramifications. Beast just thinks he can claim that he loves who hewants, and does what he does, and bulldoze it through the legislativesystem, just like he had most of Auradon’s laws and legislation.

(Ona side note, this is why the production of all his favourite snacksare so heavily subsidized and why Castle Beast is required by law toalways have an “emergency supply” of the ingredients to makethem, along with capable staff.)

Aladdin,Jasmine, Genie, and Eden are similarly supportive of it, though allof them do constantly remind her to take advantage of the time theydo have together, and help her through the more interesting andunique perils of Djinn/Mortal relationships and the hell that isbeing the lover of a royal.

21.Whois more likely to start dancing with the other?:

Ben.

He’s as good as Beast is, which is to say, not at all aside fromthe annual “Tale As Old As Time” waltz, but Jordan can’t helpbut oblige him because it’s so much fun.

22.Whocooks more/who is better at cooking?:

Jordan.

Ben has staff for cooking because his time, energy, and skills areused for much more important things. That aside, she does obviouslycook and do recipes on her channel.

23.Whocomes up with cheesy pick up lines?:

Ben.

Jordan does not know what compels him to use his wide vocabulary andskill with linguistics and speech to make the lamest, most awful punsshe has ever heard (and that remains true for the rest of theforeseeable future), but she does know that it’s both annoying andstrangely endearing.

24.Whowhispers inappropriate things in the other’s ear duringinappropriate times?:

Jordan.

As with the Dangerous Liaisons headcanon series, she doesn’t havethe same sense of modesty nor the same standards as humans do.

25.Whoneeds more assurance?:

Jordan.

Ben is perfectly capable of standing on his own and self-regulatingby virtue of being the well-adjusted person that he is, and nothaving the giant slew of emotional issues that Jordan has.

26.Whatwould be their theme song?:

Ican’t figure out something at the moment, sorry.

27.Whowould sing to their child back to sleep?:

Jordan.

She isn’t worn out by meetings, royal hearings and publicappearances, and legislative work, alongside the fact that she canstay awake all night (not needing sleep and all) and let her husband get his much needed sleep.

28.Whatdo they do when they’re away from each other?:

Benreads and constantly goes about working and hanging out with hisconstituents. Jordan makes videos, and experiencing things forherself without Ben, both as a helpful habit for a healthyrelationship, and as training for when she inevitably outlives Ben.

29.oneheadcanon about this OTP that breaks your heart:

Jordanis always aware of Ben being mortal and that he’ll eventually die,and there’s nothing she can do about it—and neither does Ben WANTto live forever, because he’s well aware of how even the best willeventually be outshined by the new generation.

Itgets worse and worse as Ben gets older, and weaker, and sicker, andshe constantly puts up a happy face for him...

30.oneheadcanon about this OTP that mends it:

… Benreminds her that she doesn’t need to do it, that she has hispermission to be sad, to share all her feelings, fears, and worrieswith him, just as she did for him for all these decades.

It reallyhelps keep her sane (in as much as you could call a djinn “sane”considering they don’t really have a remotely human psyche), andthough his passing still hurts, it doesn’t hurt as much if shehadn’t had all those long, important conversations with Ben.

0 notes

mild-lunacy · 8 years ago

Text

The Mary Question (redux)

So here we are. I’m not looking forward to this, but I feel like I have to revisit HLV and Mary, just like I revisited ASiB and Irene in light of Series 4. As I’ve said earlier, I’d made a mistake in treating the subtext in TAB and HLV differently. The surface level of HLV deserves a lot more attention paid to it than I’d hoped. As in, the characterization is still doing a huge twist to the dark side-- you’re not going to find justifiable, fluffy Mary in HLV-- but ethics arguments are usually either fungible or beside the point in Sherlock. More to the point, the surface plot is continuous. As in, Sherlock took his vow to John and Mary very seriously, and his primary source of anger seems to be that Mary hid things from him and didn’t come to him for help, rather than the fact she shot him. In ‘The Six Thatchers’, this pattern continues: Sherlock tries to help Mary, Mary evades, Sherlock tries harder, rinse and repeat until someone gets shot. TST further suggests that John really was angry and unhappy at the situation (and at Mary), but ultimately accepted it as his lot in life (with extra helpings of attendant guilt and increasing inner conflict, as I discussed with @airstyledraconos earlier).

As for Mary, in a sense, she really was as untrustworthy as it seemed in HLV (that is, she’s likely to make somewhat similar mistakes again, as she did by drugging Sherlock), though it’s also simply used for the purposes of plot-related suspense. It’s not so much that Mary’s characterization shifts back and forth, as much as the frame changes. HLV plays with frames, scene cuts and facades explicitly (as in the scene at Leinster Gardens). Basically, I agree with Ivy’s assessment, in that we’re meant both to struggle and to believe Sherlock when he tells John ‘you can trust Mary’. If it seems difficult-- even near-impossible-- to swallow, that’s not unusual. As I described recently in regards to transgression in ‘The Final Problem’, Moffat and Gatiss enjoy ‘rug pulls’ and purposefully discomfiting the audience, especially in a series finale like HLV. At the same time, they tend to put things back where they found them (so the bomb in TGG never explodes in ASiB, Sherlock survives the fall and gets back to Baker Street in TEH, and Mary’s back with John in TST just as John himself is back at Baker Street with Sherlock while Eurus is safe in Sherrinford at the end of TFP).

All those uncomfortable scene transitions and ‘red flags’ we saw in HLV were red flags. That’s probably the hardest part to fully integrate. Mofftiss were trying to make us question the narrative; it’s not like we were reading too much into it, and the people seeing an innocent or ‘justifiable’ Mary were right. The scene cuts were meant to discomfit and make us question whether the Watsons were really happy afterwards, because there were consequences: John cheated on Mary in TST, after all. The focus on the AGRA flash drive, and the uncomfortable sense that Mary wasn’t telling John and Sherlock everything was certainly meaningful: she did lie, and those weren’t her own initials.

‘Mary Morstan’ was a facade, but then, so was Sherlock, in many ways. The ‘Sherlock Holmes’ persona was even represented by a jaunty hat. John had his own facade, as we get hammered home in TLD. I think that was the overall idea. Their world is off-kilter, and their expectations of what’s normal and acceptable (especially Sherlock’s) are way off-base. In TLD, he tells John that Mary’s death ‘conferred a value’ upon his life that he doesn’t know what to do with. In that context, obviously her shooting him for literally stepping out of line may even be seen as understandable. Essentially: Sherlock’s right about Mary in terms of her danger level, even as he remains an unreliable narrator about himself. I mean, trusting Mary is one thing, but Sherlock actually says ‘she saved my life’ right afterwards. Even John doesn’t buy that. Sometimes Sherlock just, you know, overdoes it. You can’t swallow everything he says blindly, in any case.

It’s difficult, basically. It takes effort to reframe any of it enough to create true narrative coherence. For example:

SHERLOCK (over phone): How good a shot are you? (She reaches inside her coat, pulls out her pistol and cocks it, holding it down by her side.) MARY: How badly do you want to find out? SHERLOCK (over phone): If I die here, my body will be found in a building with your face projected on the front of it. Even Scotland Yard could get somewhere with that. (x)

Mary nods, acknowledging Sherlock’s point without apparent rancor. In TST, she tells Sherlock that she likes him, before she dies. She even tells him that she’s sorry for ‘shooting you that time’. She probably is, though it’s not a big deal to her or anything (I don’t think). So....

Mary’s arrogant. She thinks she’s the best. She thinks she’s better than Sherlock. This may translate to shooting him or rescuing him, depending on the situation, the way it would for many similarly hard-edged, stone-cold and super-competent spy characters. It’s not that she’s ‘good’ or ‘evil’; she just does what she thinks has to get done. Nothing stops her. She’s got what it takes: no remorse, no hesitation. That would only slow her down, wouldn’t it? It would make her less effective. She makes split-second decisions and she takes really ‘surgical’ shots (though there’s always a bit of human error, in the end, isn’t there? Some things can’t quite be controlled, after all, and life and death is one of them, but Mary’s comfortable walking that edge for herself and others.) She says what she thinks it’s about quite clearly at Baker Street later: ‘People like Magnussen should be killed. That’s why there are people like me.’ She’s good at it, too.

‘You were very slow,’ she told Sherlock about his efforts to rescue Sholto at the wedding. She sounds exactly like... a cold, arrogant assassin, ready to kill if necessary at any time. She sounds just a bit like Sherlock (although she’s probably much more genuinely dispassionate than Sherlock). It’s not personal. Shooting him, not shooting him: she always views both as an option. It’s something she can do, and she can do it well. Like Sherlock (like many typically violent male characters on screen), Mary takes her skills seriously, and she’s proud of them-- she thinks she’s the best (and Sherlock could only interfere, whether in HLV or TST). Unfortunately, she’s such a fine hammer that everything starts to look like a nail. ‘Mission mode’ is very easy to slip into. And so, you could even say that saving Sherlock was born of a similar sort of thing as shooting Sherlock: it was a split-second decision, and Mary took the single most efficient course of action in either case, from her perspective.

So have I come around to @wildwoodgoddess’ post about antihero Mary? Not quite, though I suppose I’m closer. Watching Mary be ‘the Assassin’, she’s definitely believable as someone who could be sympathetic in another context, if she were male, not in spite but because of her attitude. This is not necessarily so for the same people who like the relatively fluffy, very much female Mary (and certainly not to those who simply wanted her to have a villain arc but otherwise enjoyed her character, like me). Still, that is there. However, people (particularly female fans) do relate to male and female characters differently, and that is a neutral fact. You can never simply replace Sherlock with a ‘female Sherlock’, whether it be Irene or Mary, and whether you’re talking about John’s heart or that of most viewers. It creates a nice mirror effect, but it only highlights how unique and irreplaceable Sherlock is, in the end. Well, he’s the protagonist.

Essentially, I think the problem is probably execution and pacing, because the show is all about Sherlock, and there's only so much time for anyone else. Then there's the fact that these are two problematic characters who have a problematic relationship that never quite works, and that’s the point. Mary is treated as a minor character, so all these characterization details are really smooshed together and condensed. Her stone-cold scenes and her casual everyday prickly teasing personality are great, quite enjoyable, but her ‘sincere’ scenes are kind of stiff and awkward, and that all remains a problem for me. I also still don’t think that the ‘female antihero’ angle is the only or predominant issue people have had, necessarily. If there was more of a visible bridge between the Mary modes, I would be a lot more at ease.

Instead, we have the weirdness of the death scene, and stuff like this in HLV:

John’s always ‘playing it straight’, repressing his emotions, hiding himself from the viewers and from the other characters. You could imagine he has a secret plan here because he’s obviously keeping so much to himself, especially in the Christmas scene. He keeps on doing it in TST, to more dramatic (and sordid) effect. That’s just John, but it makes it difficult. Mary sort of explodes sometimes; to be fair, even Sherlock does (I mean, he emotes more than John, in a way). That contrast between John and Mary is there and is more obvious than the scenes between John and Sherlock, where John emotes more... the chemistry is more vivid, anyway (I mean this on the acting level). The effect is that when Amanda Abbington shows emotion, it’s like she’s playing in a different scene than Martin Freeman. They don’t share emotional energy. I could see Mary’s part as sincere, as not being fake, except then I see John’s part and it’s weird and imbalanced again. John and Mary never quite gel emotionally, and I definitely think that’s on purpose. It just doesn’t mean it’s Mary’s fault, exactly. In fact, it’s probably John’s issues at the heart of all this, in many ways.

In general, Mary and John’s relationship, whether in HLV or in TST, is pretty unhealthy and built on very shaky foundations. You could argue (and people certainly have) that this is realistic, and reflects the fact that John and Sherlock’s bond also has plenty of fault-lines (as we see in Series 3 and Series 4 both), and that’s true. But we have a lot of time to really dive deep into Sherlock and John, individually and together, and we know that for all their problems, what they have is real and unassailable. It’s a rock-solid friendship, appearances to the contrary, and we know they are devoted to each other even if they hurt each other deeply. With John and Mary, it’s hard to impossible to have an equivalent faith, because the natural sympathy surely goes to the leads, and Mary shot the protagonist and the deuteragonist is unhappy and dissatisfied with her (he tells her he’s ‘very pissed off’ in HLV, and then cheats and lies to her by omission in TST). In the end, their marriage has what amounts to ordinary, realistic problems-- communication problems, different priorities, an unexpected baby-- but on the flip side, it gets compared to an epic friendship that saved John’s life and feelings that can literally motivate the protagonist to come back from the brink of death. It’s apples and oranges, in the end.

It’s the normal vs the epic, in a show about the epic. Of course, in the end, Mary had to die, and her voiceover even explicitly blesses the ‘legends’ that her husband and his best friend could now freely become.

Basically, I think there’s an intentional contrast and mismatch between John and Mary’s ordinary relationship and its relatively ordinary problems, and their actual individual lives (which can get rather dramatic and intense). That was supposed to be a source of tension and discomfort for the viewers as well as the characters, I think. John certainly struggles with it in TST and the beginning of HLV; he wants more out of life. He needs more. He’s addicted to a certain ‘lifestyle’, but Sherlock’s wrong about Mary being able to be a good substitute for Sherlock’s abilities. It’s difficult to parse the different levels of these conflicts, ‘cause they all happen at once, and the more dramatic aspects of the plot can overshadow the quieter things going on, as I also mentioned with regards to Molly’s portrayal in TFP.

I think John and Mary’s conversation at Christmas was meant to reflect this casual, ordinary ‘married sniping’ quality to their dynamic. People tend to get upset that Mary says she won’t let John choose the baby’s name (’not a chance’), for example, seeing it as a sign this is a ‘toxic’ marriage. I see it as more problematic that John just wanted Mary to be ‘Mary Watson’, and didn’t want to really integrate her past into their lives. He wanted a normal life so much, he was purposely blinded by it. He’d learned to be a lot more accepting and flexible with Sherlock: he was able to integrate their different lives, because they’re partners. With Mary, he wasn’t too comfortable with her old abilities and other interests, and that’s the sort of thing that eventually ruins a marriage more than sniping over who mows the lawn. John was never really on board ever since he found out who Mary was, which is (of course) partly why her heroic death hit him so hard. As Ivy has said so well, Mary ‘out-heroes and out-nobles’ him in TST. It’s a hard pill to swallow for someone trying to live up to an impossible moral standard himself and trying to project it onto others (then being deeply hurt when it shatters, like with Sherlock).

In retrospect, I think Mary’s arc was trying to do some relatively novel, interesting things, both in terms of the realistic problems and issues she had, and the larger genre archetypes she embodied. These aspects existed in a largely intentional tension together. That is to say, the story isn’t meant to be fully consistent or pleasantly smooth, probably by design. It seems to be trying to hint at the inner contrasts and emotional messiness comparable to the main characters without doing the long-term work of setting up the character of Mary Morstan. I still think it doesn’t quite gel, but I think I appreciate the direction more than I did before, at least.

#sherlock meta #his last vow #the six thatchers #mary morstan #series 3 #series 4 #the great divergence #characterization #john watson things

10 notes · View notes