#literary subject

[sashathegreyhound]

"What Gordon had gone through was immense hurt. I mean at first he was disbelieving, and then almost inconsolable"

How does one justify a betrayal? Do you think decades later you could stare at a camera and talk about how heartbroken your ex best friend closest ally was when you helped his greatest counterpart, the person he had thought of as his greatest supporter (and why wasn't that you?), stab him in the back and steal his lifelong goal out from under him, and not regret it?

Could you convince yourself that it was necessary for the good of the party? Could you convince yourself that that made it worthwhile?

And now I will make the necessary connections to Julius Caesar yet again (hold out no hope for consistency in character assignations between posts, they're all Caesar at some point, trust me)

"If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of Caesar’s, to him I say that Brutus’s love to Caesar was no less than his. If then that friend demands why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer: not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more.”

Caesar trusted Brutus completely, he was his greatest helper and closest friend. Their relationship was built on such love and trust that his support was never questioned. Cassius won Brutus on warnings of danger and promises of prosperity for the city-state. Brutus betrayed Caesar because he thought it would be better for Rome.

"Et tu Brute?"

It is strange then that even in the upholding of that betrayal you cannot help but look to him. Cassius may have won Brutus but the betrayal was Brutus' to enact and Caesar's to experience. Cassius may feel the fire of his actions for the rest of his life but he will not feel the hints of reconciliation, for that honour rests only in the one whose betrayal was so dumbfounding in the first place. It was not the counterpart who the world might have suspected to take that step, but the dearest friend who silently and tragically supported him that drove that final dagger home.

"I rather tell thee what is to be feared than what I fear, for always I am Caesar, come on my right hand, for this ear is deaf and tell me truly what thou thinkest of him”

He will live in constant fear of Cassius, always suspecting a betrayal or a fight or a coup where there is none. But will he ever trust you Brutus again?

Mystifyingly, yes.

[ultimateinsomniac]

hopping up on my special interest soap box to say: i think we as a fandom should discuss the satire in danganronpa V3 more.

idk if it is just me but i have always viewed this game as a satire, if only just because of the ending. it exagerrates the formula set up by the previous games to criticize the current state of media and media consumption. i know a lot of people in the fandom don't like V3, and i think that is by design. it is ridiculous, it is over the top, the ending is a punch to the face, but it's all on purpose. you're supposed to be uncomfortable because it is a satire. (of course you don't have to like the game, i just think it is intentionally like that)

the whole theme of fiction vs reality is put in there intentionally to make fun of the fandomization of danganronpa, as well as to poke at game studios and companies that put out media in general. tsumugi, in my interpretation, is representative of danganronpa fans (hence why she's the ultimate cosplayer). she is the mastermind. you aren't supposed to like her. her insistence on the idea that "fiction doesn't affect reality" is a direct criticism of that exact idea in real life fandom. the idea that this is the "53rd" danganronpa is directly making fun of other pieces of media "jumping the shark" because fans insist upon it. this is not to say you can't like tsumugi, i think you absolutely can, i just think her character represents some key ideas relating to the satire of the game.

this is why everything in the game is SO over the top. kirumi being the prime minister, korekiyo both having DID AND being a serial killer in a reference to the first game, EVERYONE'S over the top backstories (gonta and keebo come to mind), it's all acting as an exaggeration of common tropes (albeit highly problematic in several areas, not trying to excuse those aspects by any means).

and then there's kaede. they set her up as a strong female protagonist, only to kill her chapter 1 to be replaced by a male protag. on paper this is very misogynistic, but in the context of satire it is an exaggeration of the danganronpa formula. of course we couldn't have a female protag in a main line game, of course it would have to be a man. shuichi having a secret ahoge only adds to this; it's making fun of the trope. the best part is that i truly do love both of these characters, and their role in the satire doesn't diminish the excellent writing that went into them and the story.

this entirely shapes how i view this game. it manages to tell an incredibly compelling story with very complex characters while making fun of itself at the same time (as a good satire should). i know a lot of people have said they feel like the writers of v3 must have hated danganronpa, and while i see exactly what they mean i don't think that's necessarily true. i think it was an intentional choice as a work of satire.

i can see an intense love behind the writing of this game. the characters are rich and the story is compelling. the ending just serves to send home the point they wanted to make. i think it adds a really beautiful perspective to the danganronpa series as a whole.

[yanderefairyangel]

I find it very funny that some people try to point at the "I wanted to be a good dragon" as being bad dialogue and proof Engage is badly written when it does the exact opposite.

I know you are tired of hearing it but allow me to repeat it. Just once more. Past Alear is someone who use hiragana, an alphabet use mainly by kids in anime and in jpn media.

That is what makes their dialogue in chapter 24 so unsettling. This shows that Past Alear has the emotional maturity of a child. This is a childish dialogue devoided of emotions, where the characteristic of the hiragana lacking the polysemy of kanji is making this dialogue feels even colder, even more robotic, mecanic, empty, devoided of emotions. Hiragana is used to show how broken past Alear is as a child whose innocence was completely destroyed.

However, in this cutscene of chapter 22, the use of hiragana is no longer to convey this feeling. This time, it's to convey a warm feeling, letting Alear's childish personality of that time shines as them showing their innocent side, their weaker and true side to Lumera. it's them dropping the facade, and finally revealing what they were concealing when we meet them in chapter 24 : an innocent, kind child. You don't even need to turn off Alear's voice and hear how the performance changed to realize that because you can see this from the models. How Past Alear's blank and emotionelss gaze in chapter 24 contrast to the one bright and tender gaze they gave to Lumera in chapter 22. The sentence they speak is no longer intended to be read as emtioneless because of this, because now the property of the hiragana as conveying the childish innocent feeling, like it does with Veyle, is the one aspect exploited in this scene. It's to show Alear's innocence and child like nature, their warmth. This immediately makes their "tadashii ryuu ni naremasen" all the more tragic. They speak this time with the tone matching the undertones of the hiragana, unlike how in the past they used that "childish" dialect with the tone of a robot. In fact, the change of tone in the voice shows the shift in tone despite how Past Alear still uses the same alphabet. All in context.

The same way Past Alear's politness express through the same conjuction and expression as current Alear but have a different nature because of the context, the same way Alear's incantations read as prayers/wish rather then commands/orders because of the context, the use of hiragana's meaning changes because of the context. This is no longer to express a broken child speaking, but to show Past Alear's innocence and to emphazize their love for Lumera by showing how they reveal themselves to her only.

[ace-and-ranty]

Wicked, the book, feels in theory like something I could really love. Unfortunately, I did read it, and I did not like it.

[longagoitwastuesday]

Every day I am haunted by the fact JJK could be amazing but it will be just idk Bleach or something

[santacoppelia]

I just finished reading Neverwhere, and I’m about to fall into an intertextuality rabbit hole through Neil Gaiman’s tropes, themes and phrases.

Don’t wait me up, children. This is going to take some time.

I’ll just say that I've just read about an angel living in a trendy district with antique shops and places to eat, who is named after a place, who drinks a very fancy wine… And he is a perfect bastard who loves old music. If you haven’t read or listened to Neverwhere, you don’t need any more spoilers.

No. Not a single thought in my head, really. I won’t spoil anything more. I guess that I’ll spend part of my “birthday holiday” writing this (and reading some more stuff, obviously).

[theclearblue]

Me: Hmm it's been awhile since I've been to reddit and it's not always terrible so let's see the jjk discussions being had

The discussion:

Me: ....oh nothing interesting right now, I'll check back later

[philosophybitmaps]

[lintwriting]

"Goodbye My Danish Sweetheart" and "Love Like You": The Poetry of Envy

by Mitski and Rebecca Sugar respectively

"Comparison is the thief of joy," and "Of all the seven deadly sins, only Envy is no fun at all." In the moment, envy is all the pain of humbled pride and none of its glamor, with only schadenfreude as a reprieve.

But what if you sat with that envy and accepted the humbling, instead of praying for someone else's downfall?

What if you grew to love that which you envied? What if they loved you back? What if you humbled yourself and matured past that petty need?

Well, there's pain in that, too.

Mitski and Rebecca Sugar know it well. They approach it from completely different angles, but it's surprising how closely they match in conclusion: There's a special kind of drama in the pain of disappointing someone you think is better than you.

(And behind it all is self-hatred.)

Goodbye My Danish Sweetheart by Mitski

This song is an apology for ever failing to appreciate someone (or cheating on them), and as you listen to each verse, Mitski is singing in real time on how she's learning to humble herself.

Unlike the soulful croons of Bruno Mars's "When I Was Your Man," which is an ode to the break-up regret caused by feeling lonely again, like he's begging to come back now that he's seen you with someone else, Mitski's verse is less a reaction to her own loneliness and more self-flagellation, like we're listening to a therapy session wherein she explains why she treated you wrong in the first place.

Maybe this is why Miley Cyrus wrote a girlboss anthem ("I can buy my own flowers") in response to Bruno ("I should've bought you flowers") and not Mitski ("You can see how it's blossomed for you")/s.

To tell this story, Mitski uses repeating refrains to contextualize the previous, recreating the experience of maturing enough to see your past mistakes and taking advantage of the structure of songs.

The most important repeated line within the song is "There's nobody better than you."

It opens the song, is directed at her ex-lover, and it contradictorily sounds like she's questioning their worth.

Because that is a BOLD statement.

Really Mitski? There's nobody? Nobody at all better than 'you?'

Mitski admits to this boldness with the next line: "It took me a while 'til I knew."

That there is what she's apologizing for—a failure to appreciate them. A microcosm of the song in the first two lines.

Her mistake is direct contrast with her lover, who "knew from the start it was us, didn't you?"

This is how Mitski characterizes what makes her lover the best.

The undisputed number one person whom no one can be "better than" is simply someone who had faith in 'us,' in Mitski.

All the while Mitski makes excuses: "It just took me a while 'till I knew"

The ambiguity of the phrase is useful. Not “took too long” but just “a while.” 

“Just” is also an excusatory statement. I just forgot. I just didn’t notice. Just protects pride. This is a prideful thing to say, to be in the position to judge someone (and failing to judge them correctly)

Skipping to the chorus, the refrain is:

And I don't blame you

If you want to bury me in your memory

The first time you hear this, it's Mitski describing the pain of understanding why someone would want to forget you.

I'm not the girl I ought to be, but

"Ought" is doing a lot of the heavy lifting, implying a failure to do good.

Maybe when you tell your friends

You can tell them what you saw in me

And not how I turned out to be

This ‘saw in me’ transforms "bury me in your memory" from a line about forgetting Mitski to a line about only keeping alive the memory of what Mitski could’ve been—her lover's idealized version of her. 

In effect, she wants to kill and bury that part of herself that failed to justify her lover's faith in her, the part that disappointed them. Self-hatred!

Thus, "ought to be" and "not how I turned out to be" become lines about failing to meet their expectations. This last line is the one that changes meaningfully with each refrain, recontextualizing the previous. In the next chorus, she sings:

And not the way I am

Instead of "not how I turned out to be."

With "Turned out to be" in the past tense and "I am" in the present tense, the changing of lines indicate a progression of time.

Not only a progression of time, but growth over that time as well, since "I am" creates the sense that Mitski is actively accepting that she was at fault for the break-up, while "turned out to be" created the sense that she was distancing herself from that before through its passive voice.

With the introduction of "I am," she demonstrates, in comparison, how much "turned out to be" protected her pride, recreating the experience of maturing enough to see the past clearly.

In the last chorus, she sings:

But could we be what we're meant to be?

I'm just about to beg you, please

And then, when you tell your friends

You can tell them what you saw in me

And not the way I used to be

With the last refrain of the chorus, she's begging to come back and be the couple her lover believed in, but it's to demonstrate that she's changed for the better, not just because she's lonely or jealous.

This is because the focus is on how, instead of "way I am," it's "way I used to be." She's recontextualizing herself as having matured, once again, past her previous mindset.

In this case, she's saying it'll be different this time because she's buried who she "used to be," or the self that didn't appreciate them as she should've. And she proves it with the last line that bookends the song:

'Cause there is nobody better than you

In effect, the whole song is a thesis on why there really is "nobody better than you," and THAT in itself proves that she's changed! It's a song about the lowering of herself and her pride, of recognizing that they're better than her, and of recognizing the pain of having disappointed them because of how much better they are.

Love Like You by Rebecca Sugar

One of the best parts about this song is the way it truly works as an ED song to Steven Universe. It, in effect, is the theme of the whole show, and therefore it works to embody the ...theme of the whole show, which is the transformative power of love.

This song can basically represent the relationship between any two characters in the show in BOTH directions—Rose Quartz and Greg Universe, Greg and Steven, Steven and the Gems, Steven and The Diamonds, etc. And it's such a poignant message as well, managing to create depth with nuances like how self-hatred affects your ability to love, the importance of connection in healing from trauma, and even the limiting nature of only having one perspective—again, all those being themes within the show itself.

Video by Let's Talk Cartoons that talks about this theory that it's about Rose. This theory is right, but misses the point that EVERYONE deals with this in the show lol not just Rose.

If I could begin to be

Half of what you think of me

These two lines are a microcosm of the song, as Mitski's first two lines were, and, like Mitski's song, it's about the disappointment of someone who has faith in you. Someone better than you, as implied by the next two lines.

I could do about anything

I could not put this any better than Rebecca Sugar has already put it, which is characteristic of good poetry!

They think of you so highly that achieving even half of their expectations would be hanging the damn moon! What I'd like to bring your attention to is that it's the same characterization that Mitski used for her lover—part of what makes them so amazing is simply how much faith they put in you!

Within Steven Universe, everybody has had experiences with betrayal of trust and the resulting fear of ever putting your faith in someone again. So this kind of earth-shattering faith can seem naive, but doing so with full knowledge of its pain reveals a kind of invulnerability and confidence that would make someone seem someone god-like, hence your idolization of them.

I could even learn how to love

This line is the one that gets recontextualized over the course of the song, like Mitski's "There's nobody better than you." The idea that someone loves poorly or can't love, though I will say, is beautiful and relatable.

The next refrain of it:

I could do about anything

I could even learn how to love like you

"Like you" is the magic phrase!

Because while they have a god-like faith in others, being on the receiving end of it—that's buoying, too! Much like people have "faith" in god, your idolization of them represents your own earth-shattering faith in the opposite direction! It's a mutual idolization! You're loving "like them." It's a faith that spurs you to do better in return!

But better than what? That's where the verse comes in:

I always thought I might be bad

Now I'm sure that it's true

'Cause I think you're so good

And I'm nothing like you

Comparison is the thief of joy, and unfortunately you've compared yourself to them and found you don't measure up. You're using your faith in them for your own self-deprecation. But, this is tempered by the next lines.

I just adore you

I wish that I knew

What makes you think I'm so special

The last one is a conflict resolving line. It reveals that this painful, comparison-based self-hatred isn't just something you're doing, but something they could be doing as well, as it highlights that the faith is mutual. That although you think they're special, they think you are, too!

And therefore that—since you're so alike—that they could also be struggling with the pain of thinking they're not enough. It's this mutual aspect that makes this song sing, why it works so well to connect basically all the characters of the show in any combination.

This is further supported by the next refrain:

I would do about anything

I would even learn how to love

When I see the way you look

Shaken by how long it took

I could even learn how to love like you

The fact that the "Love like you" refrain follows this "mutual" revelation then implies that loving IS truly "seeing" them by seeing yourself in them, and the way this relationship/self-hatred/revelation is mirrored on this other side.

You're both shaken by how long this took!

Love like you

Love me like you

And this line is the natural end of this line of thought. You can't learn to love without loving yourself first, but being loved and loving in return can teach you how to love yourself. You can learn how to love yourself by following their lead.

But also-- in this song, to love someone else means you see yourself in them—and therefore you learn to love the part of you that's in them.

Comparative Analysis

Mitski's "nobody better than you" and "took me a while 'till I knew" and Sugar's "nothing like you" and "love like you" are repeated throughout the song as symbols of their object of envy.

They're better than you because of their faith in you, in contrast to your own disappointment in yourself. To reach their level, you have to learn to have faith, either in them (Mitski) or yourself (Rebecca Sugar).

There are slight differences. While in Sugar's version, their faith in you helps you respect yourself, Mitski's is about learning to reciprocate her lover's faith to restore her faith in herself, as she's starting the song from a place of unfaithfulness and regret. Her self-hatred is less self-destructive and more a motivator to improve. In Sugar's song, the threat of disappointment/unfaithfulness looms in the background, but the singer didn't actually disappoint. Or if they did, their 'idol' is strong enough to still have faith in them, in spite of that.

In the end, it's a healing of envy, of the sin of comparing yourself to others. Because the answer isn't taking them down, or stewing in your own self-hatred, it's learning to accept yourself where you're at.

Whether it's by embracing your flaws and improving, or loving the part of you that you see in them.

[planarbindings]

no one exhibits more restraint than i do when i open up this app to write some absolutely vitriolic hater shit and then realize i’m an adult with bills to pay and a fulfilling life outside of social media

[wordshaveteeth]

Why I picked this: After reading The Overstory, I decided I would read whatever Richard Powers wrote. He is now up there with John Irving for me (which also made me realise I don’t have any women authors where I feel the same. I’m working on that but if you have any suggestions feel free to send them in).

Which is to say I was always going to read this book, and I bumped it up my reading queue so I could read it straight away (it was published in September this year).

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Hermeneutics

The philosophy of hermeneutics is the study of interpretation, particularly of texts, language, and symbolic expressions. Hermeneutics originally developed as a method for interpreting religious scriptures, but it has expanded to encompass broader issues of understanding and meaning in various contexts, including literature, law, art, and social sciences. Central to hermeneutics is the idea that understanding is not a straightforward process but involves complex interpretive acts influenced by history, culture, and the interpreter’s perspective.

Key Themes in the Philosophy of Hermeneutics:

Origins and Development:

Biblical Hermeneutics: Hermeneutics began as the art of interpreting sacred texts, particularly the Bible. Early thinkers like Augustine and Origen developed principles for understanding scriptures, focusing on the need to uncover deeper, often allegorical, meanings.

Philosophical Hermeneutics: Over time, hermeneutics expanded beyond religious texts to include general principles of interpretation. Friedrich Schleiermacher, often considered the father of modern hermeneutics, argued that understanding any text requires insight into both the author’s intent and the broader cultural context.

Hermeneutic Circle:

Part-Whole Relationship: A central concept in hermeneutics is the "hermeneutic circle," which describes the process of understanding as a circular relationship between the whole and its parts. To understand a text (the whole), one must interpret its individual elements (the parts), but understanding each part requires an awareness of the whole.

Prejudices and Preconceptions: The hermeneutic circle also highlights that interpretation is influenced by the interpreter’s preconceptions. Understanding is thus seen as a dynamic process where initial assumptions are continually revised in light of new insights.

Key Figures in Hermeneutics:

Friedrich Schleiermacher: Schleiermacher emphasized the importance of understanding the author’s psychological context and argued for a universal approach to interpretation that could apply to any text, not just religious ones.

Wilhelm Dilthey: Dilthey extended hermeneutics into the human sciences (Geisteswissenschaften), arguing that human experience and history could only be understood through interpretive methods, contrasting with the natural sciences’ emphasis on explanation.

Hans-Georg Gadamer: Gadamer, a leading 20th-century philosopher, developed a concept known as "philosophical hermeneutics." He emphasized the role of history and tradition in shaping understanding and argued that interpretation is a dialogical process, where the interpreter engages in a conversation with the text.

Paul Ricoeur: Ricoeur introduced the idea of a "hermeneutics of suspicion," where interpretation involves uncovering hidden meanings, often related to power, ideology, or unconscious motives. He also explored the interplay between explanation and understanding in interpreting texts.

Interpretation and Meaning:

Text and Context: Hermeneutics stresses the importance of context in interpreting meaning. A text cannot be understood in isolation; it must be seen within its historical, cultural, and linguistic context. This idea is crucial in both literary criticism and legal interpretation.

Meaning as Process: Hermeneutic philosophy views meaning not as a fixed entity but as something that emerges through the interpretive process. Meaning is constructed in the interaction between the interpreter and the text, shaped by both historical tradition and the interpreter’s unique perspective.

Understanding and Language:

Language as Medium: In hermeneutics, language is seen as the medium through which understanding occurs. Gadamer argued that language shapes our experience of the world and that all understanding is mediated by language. This leads to the view that interpretation is always situated within a linguistic and cultural tradition.

Fusion of Horizons: Gadamer introduced the concept of the "fusion of horizons," which describes how understanding involves merging the interpreter’s perspective (horizon) with that of the text or author. This fusion allows for a new, shared meaning to emerge, transcending the limitations of both the text’s original context and the interpreter’s preconceptions.

Hermeneutics and Phenomenology:

Influence of Heidegger: Martin Heidegger, a major influence on hermeneutic philosophy, argued that understanding is a fundamental aspect of human existence (Dasein). He shifted the focus from the interpretation of texts to the interpretation of being itself, emphasizing that our understanding of the world is always interpretive and situated within a particular historical and cultural context.

Existential Hermeneutics: Heidegger’s ideas led to the development of existential hermeneutics, which explores how individuals interpret their own existence and the world around them. This approach emphasizes the subjective and situated nature of understanding.

Applications of Hermeneutics:

Literary Criticism: Hermeneutics is a foundational approach in literary theory, where it is used to analyze texts, uncover deeper meanings, and explore the interplay between author, text, and reader.

Legal Interpretation: In law, hermeneutics is applied to interpret legal texts, such as constitutions, statutes, and contracts. It involves understanding the intent of the law, the context in which it was written, and how it applies to contemporary situations.

Historical Understanding: Historians use hermeneutic methods to interpret historical texts and events, recognizing that understanding the past involves reconstructing the perspectives and contexts of historical actors.

Critiques and Challenges:

Objectivity vs. Subjectivity: One critique of hermeneutics is that it can lead to relativism, where all interpretations are seen as equally valid. Critics argue that this undermines the possibility of objective knowledge. However, hermeneutic philosophers like Gadamer counter that interpretation is not purely subjective but is guided by tradition and shared norms.

The Role of Power: Hermeneutics has been challenged by critical theory, particularly by thinkers like Jürgen Habermas, who argue that hermeneutics often overlooks the role of power and ideology in shaping meaning. This critique has led to more critical approaches that incorporate an awareness of social and political factors in interpretation.

The philosophy of hermeneutics is a rich and complex field that explores how we understand texts, language, and human experience. It reveals that interpretation is not a straightforward process but is shaped by history, culture, language, and the interpreter’s perspective. Hermeneutics challenges us to recognize the situated nature of understanding and the dialogical process through which meaning emerges. Whether in literature, law, history, or everyday communication, hermeneutics offers profound insights into the nature of meaning and the act of interpretation.

[nicorobinphd]

why is it that reading is one of the hardest things to do when your personhood is being semi-subsumed by your mental illness, yet also one of the easiest fucking ways to keep your personhood from being semi-subsumed by your mental illness in the first place? what the fuck is up with that? who decided that this would be the way things work, & where do i go to find them?

[gennsoup]

We are exquisite coral reefs, Dying when exposed to strange Elements.

Hafez, Why All This Talk?

[joelletwo]

@coquelicoq tagged me to list 5 topics i can talk on for an hour without preparing any material.......... fascinating!! thank you

animal care at this point i still retain most of the info i learned for my last job. if i had to narrow it: i never got very intimately familiar w small mammals. lizards confused me and have such a wide range of needs per species. invertebrates dont need enough care to talk about for an hour LOL. but almost certainly i still know enough about fish husbandry and tank maintenance to fill up an hour easy peasy without even going in depth on any of it. (or dog/cat food nutrition but only from a 'collating data' viewpoint and not a 'having confident opinions about any of it' one)

the intersection of thematic elements and real-world production circumstances of a small unrelated circle of media lol. the hs-gintama-orv-umi-twig venn diagram that lives in my head at all times.

i transcribed a lecture on baroque and rococo architecture that charmed me enough that i did attempt to replicate it for my roomie. transcribed material was always like. i understand it while working on it but lose it once i try to convey it to someone else lol so it wouldnt be very Coherent but it would be Impassioned. and for top lectures to vicariously listen to its between this one and the biology class one about the function of hormones from pregnancy to birth to childhood to adulthood to old age, and i have an easier time remembering architecture details

hmmmm riffing on yours. put any amv in front of me and i could talk about its choice of song/scenes/editing an hour easy.

ICE OVA

tagging @arytha @istherewifiinhell @yamameta-inc if yall want bc im interested in what ud pick and ofc as always anyone who thinks this'd be fun to do :)

[orchidego]

My parents are not fiction readers at all but I will say that they made it a point to heavily populate my bookshelf with Newbery nominees and I think that’s the reason I gravitate towards lit fic when I want a comfort read. Newbery child to Booker adult pipeline