#me? obsessed with the show about the multiplication/dichotomy of self?

[wwillywonka]

If you can’t answer the question, feel free to say, “unknown.”

[thedysphoriadiaries]

Entry 49? - Questions - 1 May 2023, 1:21pm

I... kind of wish that I was back on E.

Kind of.

All the searches in Google to explain my situation come up moot. There's not a single explanation out there as to why a presumed-cis guy would want to take E. There's not a single explanation as to why a presumed-cis guy would feel better taking E. Yet, I question if I am really trans.

I don't really believe that cis-ness and trans-ness exist in a strict dichotomy. I kind of believe that cis-ness and trans-ness lie on a spectrum, with the only differentiating factor between them, the presence of dysphoria, and/or euphoria.

There are fringe cases of cis, where people (most commonly femboys, or butch women), dress or present themselves in a manner that is more typical of the opposite gender's presentation.

That said, there are people who think about gender as something to play around its fringes. That's why drag shows exist - they are caricatures of masculinity and femininity.

But I don't exist in that space.

One thing keeps bothering me, though. That's my obsessions with gender-swapping potions, and, gender-swapping media in general.

Scouring the websites which I frequent (which happen to be nsfw in nature), I commonly see how the male-to-female transformations outnumber female-to-male transformations; as of the typing of this entry, a certain site (rule34.xxx), happens to catalogue 842 instances of mtf-themed gender transformations, in contrast to 108 instances of ftm-themes gender transformations.

That's almost perfectly an 8:1 ratio.

Does this have anything to do with the male psyche?

Most trans women said that they had an obsession with forced feminization media at some point. I didn't. They seemed off in a way that I couldn't quite pinpoint up until now.

I suppose I now have the words to really describe it.

Objectification. Fetishization.

The fetishization of what it means to be a girl. Especially one who's in her sexual prime. Most of the fantasies that I've heard from others involve being filled with reproductive fluids from multiple men. Or masturbation.

The same fetishization and objectification that leads to women being admired. Appreciated; their likenesses being used in art, and culture.

Nyotaimori, for example. I need not say more.

It's why I hate the concept of this entire forced feminization thing. Even if I was forcefully feminized, the... thing that would result from it wouldn't be me. I am NOT a bimbo, or a slut.

In fact, my definition for fetishization would be to think about something, and only consider the positives of said situation (with a massive amount of self-inserting). It's like saying that nothing bad will come out of me being a girl. That's simply not true, and if I think that being a girl would help me land a partner, or if it would make my life easier, that, to some extent, is fetishization, as I am not seeing what the choice truly entails.

Staying as a guy would be the safer choice, but, is it really worth all the emotional pain of knowing that I am repressing something? Is it the right choice?

Being a girl would be the more freeing choice, but is it the right choice? I wonder if I am simply a feminine man (even then, I feel disgust at this; my biases need reinspecting), or if there's something more to it.

...

I question if those two words are the reason why I feel so angry at my male self. Angry that it will never get to experience the things that women will. Angry that it will never get to experience menopause, but, instead male menopause.

Angry that I will never have children from my own eggs, but of my own sperm.

Angry that I will never get to be a mom. (I'm insane. I get it. I should enjoy fatherhood. What if I want to reject that?)

I question if those two words drove me to obsession with the female body, and its biological functions - such as periods, pregnancy, and stuff along those lines. I wonder if it drove me to question if cis guys could get pregnant (and imagine how intrigued I was by seahorses; though that intrigue became anger).

Yet, the Oedipus complex and womb envy don't explain the feelings I am feeling. Maybe I am envious of the fact that women can birth life. Maybe I am envious that women can do things that men can't, and I'm merely licking their bootstraps, trying to be like them.

But, why am I not empowering myself, the same way that other men would? After all, while women birth life, men enable it.

That statement makes me mildly uncomfortable.

Could it be that I genuinely don't want to be a man, since it'd mean that I'd have to put up with her screaming for the rest of my life?

Could it be internalized gender-based biases? A bias towards women as the 'purer' sex?

I don't know. All I know is that, for some reason, I want to be one. I have always wanted to be one.

Yes, I am an angsty little missy. (or little sir, whatever you want to call me)

I think about telling others that trying to be a guy has made me something I am uncomfortable with being. Then again, anyone would tell me that embodying masculinity or femininity should come with the excising of a certain part of yourself, in order to fit into the socially-acceptable stereotypes of what being a guy or girl is.

How, then, do I make them see that this is more than that?

...

Even as I drape a towel over my head, I still feel how much hair I'm lacking; the towel is merely a way to cope with a change that I didn't really want. So far, it's working. But I can't keep it around forever.

Then again, as I lay in my bed this morning, and looked at my own reflection in my phone, I just couldn't help but wonder where exactly I've been going this whole time.

Just two years ago, I was fine with being a guy. I was, maybe a little angry, but, I didn't have the space to feel that way - school, and my ex-partner filled the rest of my life up.

Even just seven years ago, I was fine with being a guy. In fact, I wanted to be a guy, if I wasn't just merely fine with being one. I did feel a little weird about growing an Adam's apple, but, well, I guess it's too late for that now.

There's this video essay about why Uncle Iroh (from Avatar: The Last Airbender) is the pinnacle of masculinity.

Why do I not want to approach those values from the perspective of a guy?

Why do I hate my own masculinity, and compare it to femininity?

...

I don't know.

...

I remember a little interview that Laura Jane Grace had with Wired. She talked about seeing Madonna on the TV, and wanting to be like her, but recognizing that she couldn't - she, like me, was born a male.

I'm in disbelief. Is the bar really that low? Literally having an innocent want to be a girl (or guy) is enough?

I don't believe that people don't feel like this, at some point in their lives.

I genuinely don't believe it. I don't want to believe that this isn't something that most people don't feel.

Yet, most of the people I've asked have been able to look me in the eye and tell me that they have never once felt like becoming a girl. They have never felt the same tingles that I did, when discussing stuff that would happen to girls, the same way I did.

Am I, then, the one with the issue?

...

This haircut means more to me than anybody else will know. It's a reminder. A reminder that everything you've worked for can be taken away.

Two years of questions, and answers. Gone. All gone in the span of 10 minutes.

...

I lie on my side nowadays, when I go to sleep. For some reason, I like feeling Little Lynn on my arm, and I wonder what it would be like to have breasts of my own, even if they turn out to be small. It makes me happy, for some strange, unknown reason.

But maybe this is the nature of life. Either I wait for my turn, or, as per every opportunity that passes me by, I realize that my chance to improve my life has gone by too quickly for me to grasp at them.

...

I still remember this form sitting at the grand piano in the school's hall, playing the same piano interlude, during my lunch break. My hair was this short, back then.

This is not a time which I want to go back to.

...

I am not going back to work. I can't do it. That friend of mine said that I should go to work, to go 'expose myself to the world'.

Yeah, if that was the case, why do I feel like my soul is somewhere out there, surfing on Saturn's rings? I can't keep walking rounds around a store while I feel dead.

Either way, the below still stays:

I've seen the world through her eyes, and I stand in awe at its beauty; for the first time, I see.

I want to go back.

One more thing: her favorite color is sky blue. We both saw it when we visited a Tokyu Hands outlet; back then, I was interested in pens, and I somehow convinced my mom to get me a pen, with three small bottles of ink. A bottle of sky blue ink was among them. Anyway, it's her favorite now (the other two were bark brown, and charcoal black).

(and no, to any new viewers, I just simply address the part of me that wants to be a girl as her. It's a more poetic way to put it.)

...

cool song time

[havendance]

A collection of Helena Bertinelli/Huntress panels that are important to me:

(Detective Comics #653)

Batman: That's not the way I work. I'm not a killer. Huntress: You sanctimonious... You're looking for fair play in Gotham? I got you all wrong, Batman. I thought we became what we are for the same reasons; because the streets took away everything we loved.

Detective Comics 652-653 were my first introduction to Helena's character and this was the panel that really stuck out to me about her and who she was. This is what I kept coming back and thinking about. The contrast between them. They way that they're almost similar. Just "I thought we were the same". That's the good stuff right there.

(Huntress (1989) #2)

Huntress: I'm not strong. On TV... those overgrown wrestlers wear show-off flashy costumes... symbols of how strong they are. But it's not strong people who need costumes... It's the weak ones. Weak people who have to hide behind spooky capes and masks... make themselves seem more fearsome... so no one will see them for the harmless creatures they are... harmless as a frightened little girl who's lost her parents.

One of the things that really compelled about Huntress '89 (and to an extent Huntress '94, though that one just wasn't as good) was the dichotomy between the Huntress and the scared little girl that Helena still felt like underneath it. The contrast between the front she puts up, the way she puts on the mask and lives in it, and just how part of her is still caught up in the tragedy that birthed the Huntress in the first place.

(Showcase '93 #10)

Helena (internal narration): Maybe's not the word for it. Monday morning: David Stone will never have a chance to turn savage, never know a child of his own...but I can't bring myself to think it's better this way. Survival is always better.

Helena throughout the entire two part story that this concludes has been reflecting on the cycle of violence. It's really fascinating to see the way that her cynicism interacts with the fact that she really does want to help this student of hers who's been abused by his father. And the way she reflects on it you can see also thinking about herself and the Huntress as a product of violence and you get this impression of self-loathing as well. It's all just a really interesting story and I definitely recommend checking it out if you get a chance.

(Nightwing #29)

Huntress: How can you do what you do? Nightwing: Meaning? H: Look at this town. How can you play the white knight? How long can you stick to your “code”? N: As long as it takes. H: And if you fail? And you will fail. N: Then I fail, Helena. N: But I won’t let them win by becoming one of them. H: You have to play by their rules to defeat the. N: It’s not broken. H: What? N: Your ankle.

I've talked about this page before in multiple contexts, but like, I just really like it. It's an interesting look at what separates Helena from the bats. Her cynicism of you have to play the game to beat them. And also the last exchange "it's not broken... you're ankle", I just really like it. It works for me.

(JLA #32)

Kid: Do you have super strength? Huntress: No K: Are you invulnerable? H: I'm afraid not. K: Then how are you going to save him? What are you gonna do? H: I'm going to do everything I'm capable of doing!

I think this one speaks for it's self. I just boils down what I find compelling about non-powered heroes.

(Huntress: Cry for Blood #6)

Question: There's still time. Helena: Blood cries for blood, Vic. H: Santo killed his sister. Q: Dammit, where does it end? Q: When is it enough?

I'm going to be totally honest, this one's here because it appeals to me personally. I am obsessed with the motif of "blood cries for blood" (and also the Santo killed his own sister thing, because I'm always this close to catching kindly ones brainrot). Anyway, vengeance. Very compelling.

[violethowler]

The Elephant in the Room

In my previous essays, I have covered how the Kingdom Hearts narrative follows Maureen Murdock’s template of the Heroine’s Journey, as well as how various characters and story elements tie in with the overarching themes of the framework. Before I can continue to dig further into other themes and archetypes, there is something I need to address first. While I have avoided directly touching on the topic in my previous essays, I have now reached the point where it is no longer possible to talk about the Heroine’s Journey in full without acknowledging the elephant in the room: 

Romance.

In ongoing serialized stories such as TV shows and video games, conversations about potential relationships in canon are often treated as inconsequential to the overall story. Something that is separate from the main plot. At worst, I have seen fans who openly center a ship in their analysis and theories be dismissed and criticized as biased - or worse, delusional. They are treated as being so obsessed with their pairing that they try to make everything about their ship and jump on any excuse to declare that it’s viable in canon. 

Among the Kingdom Hearts fandom in particular, this has often taken the form of someone trying to dismiss other fans’ hope for a ship to be canon by saying that the series is about friendship, not romance.

While friendship is absolutely an important theme in the Kingdom Hearts series, to insist that this is mutually exclusive from depicting the development of romantic relationships ignores the continued presence of canon Disney romances in almost every game in the series. In each “main” game where Sora is playable, he has directly or indirectly been involved in getting those Disney couples together in the KH universe. So it’s not out of the realm of possibility for the series to turn the tables and give some attention to his romantic interests for a change. 

A story having other major themes is not mutually exclusive from showcasing the development of a romantic relationship. There are many popular movies, shows, books, comics, and video games in which a romantic relationship plays a central role in the narrative but there are still other plotlines going on that are equally as important as the romance. This is especially true for Disney and Square Enix.

The reason why it’s impossible to fully talk about the Heroine’s Journey without acknowledging romance elements is best encapsulated by this quote from She-Ra showrunner Noelle Stevenson about her show’s endgame pairing in an i09 interview after the release of the final season:

“The show’s not a romance show. It is about a lot of things. It’s about choice, destiny, fighting, tyrants, you know, all of these other things. I grew up with so many stories—like sci-fi and fantasy—that I was so passionate about. And it would be considered no big deal to have the hero get the girl and to have a kiss at the end, without it suddenly becoming a romance or ‘Oh, the shippers got what they wanted.’ It was just a part of the story. And to actually see it be a central part of the plot and to fulfill the arcs of the characters in a way that felt satisfying. I really want to take it beyond ‘Oh, the shippers got what they want.’ Like, it’s not just a ship for me. It is a plot point. It is the necessary conclusion of each character’s arc, separate and together.[1]”

While not every story known to follow the Heroine's Journey features a romance for the main protagonist, those that do make the romance an integral part of the narrative. It’s not something thrown in at the end to please shippers, but a central component of the story. Therefore, when analyzing a Heroine’s Journey story, it is vital to acknowledge and discuss textual support for potential romantic relationships in order to have a full understanding of the narrative.

Even if one is not aware of the Heroine’s Journey, Sora’s repeated interactions with Disney romances indicate that there is a high probability that he will be in a romantic relationship himself by the end of the series. Every story I know of that follows the Heroine’s Journey broadly adheres to a pattern in regards to how the romantic relationships of a main character are set up.

By examining the series through these patterns, we can narrow down who Sora’s endgame romantic partner will be. 

Because the themes and character dynamics emphasize resolving internal conflict through balance, the Heroine’s Journey lends itself extremely well to Beauty-and-the-Beast, rivals-to-lovers, and enemies-to-lovers relationship dynamics. A major component of the Heroine’s Journey is the main character learning to accept themselves, and since the Animus as a Shadow figure can represent the parts of themselves that they haven’t accepted yet, it is simpler to symbolize that self-acceptance via a romance with the Animus rather than attempting to build a separate relationship on top of the existing story framework.

For these reasons, the Animus is more often than not the main character’s endgame love interest, their feelings for each other made into critical aspects of their respective character arcs. The only Heroine’s Journey stories with romance that I know of where this wasn’t the case are ones where executive meddling resulted in the finale being rewritten to kill off the Animus despite established narrative set up for them to have a happy ending together[2], while the protagonist was either forced into a relationship with a different character or left single.

And like I said in previous essays, the one character in the series who fulfills all criteria for the Animus role within this storytelling framework…. 

Is Riku.

[Image Description: Sora supporting Riku as they walk toward the ocean on the Dark Margin at the end of Kingdom Hearts II. End Description.]

As mentioned in my earlier analysis, this narrative framework emphasizes the importance of balancing contrasting attributes, which fits in extremely well with Kingdom Hearts’ focus on balance between light and darkness. For stories that follow the Heroine’s Journey in a visual medium, that dichotomy is often incorporated into the characters’ look. Height differences are common, while their color schemes and outfits are designed to make them complement each other. Further adding to the focus on balance between light and darkness, the visuals of the story frame the romantic leads with imagery associating each one with light or darkness to create Yin-Yang symbolism when they are finally in balance. 

In Re: Chain of Memories, Vexen openly calls Riku the “Hero of Darkness[3]” as a counterpart to Sora’s role as the “Hero of Light”, and their combination attack in Kingdom Hearts II utilizes moves that reflect both elements. In the Ultimania for the original game, Tetsuya Nomura said that Riku’s look was intentionally designed to balance Sora’s[4], and the contrast between their respective color schemes is maintained in each of their new outfits. In Kingdom Hearts II and Dream Drop Distance, Riku wears white and blue, while Sora in those same games wears black and red. Two different pairs of contrasting colors. Kingdom Hearts III has them both in outfits that are primarily black and grey, but still emphasize the blue and red that have been part of their respective outfits since the first game. 

In a Heroine’s Journey, the love interest is typically an active character in the story and usually serves as the deuteragonist. This fits with Riku having been a mandatory playable character in multiple games since 2004. In addition, series producer Shinji Hashimoto said before the release of the HD 1.5 Remix collection[5] that the main focus of the series is how Sora and Riku develop both as individuals and as a pair, which fits with how the central conflict of the Heroine’s Journey revolves around the dynamic between the Protagonist and their Animus. 

A common viewpoint held by many fans of the series is that Kairi is Sora’s love interest, and it’s not hard to see why people get that impression. He has sacrificed himself to save her in two separate games now. He’s charged enemies head on in order to rescue her whenever she’s been captured. He even got down on his knees and begged for her freedom when Saix demanded he show how important she was to him. Multiple characters have talked about how special she is to him, and Roxas refers to her as “that girl he(Sora) likes.” 

However, there are multiple elements in the narrative that point to them not being the endgame romance. Kingdom Hearts III foreshadows the final shot of them sitting on the paopu together at the end of the game with Sora disappearing from the cover of the 100 Acre Wood storybook, textually framing Winnie the Pooh as a parallel to Kairi. While many fans regarded their sharing paopu fruits in the base game as the beginning of a relationship between them, he still only refers to her as a friend in Re:Mind, and even compares his bond with her to the bond between Ventus and Chirithy. 

Sora also does not treat his promises to her with the seriousness he would if they were going to end up together. The promises to return her lucky charm and to come back to her that he makes in the first game are never treated as anything urgent when he awakens in Kingdom Hearts II. Instead, he declines the opportunity to return to the islands and check in with her in favor of searching for Riku. When Kairi says in The World That Never Was that they’ll be together every day, Sora agrees, yet he was content to spend the rest of his life on the dark beach at the end of the game as long as he was with Riku. 

Meanwhile, the most consistent theme regarding Kairi in relation to the Destiny Islands trio is the idea of childhood friends drifting apart as they get older[6][7]. This is particularly highlighted in Kingdom Hearts III, with Kairi writing letters to Sora that she never sends, thereby keeping her thoughts to herself. Merlin also emphasizes this when he talks about forging new connections after Sora’s visit to 100 Acre Wood. This parallel frames the ending of Re:Mind as the two of them recognizing they’ve drifted apart and choosing to put in the effort to renew their friendship by spending time together.

On a structural level, her portrayal does not fit with how love interests are typically depicted in the Heroine’s Journey, both as an individual and in relation to the main protagonist. There is no contrast between her and Sora’s designs or roles the way there is between his and Riku’s. Her color scheme is predominantly pink, which does not have the same contrast with Sora’s red as Riku’s blue. Because she’s a Princess of Heart, there is no dark and light contrast, and the combination attack she shares with Sora in Re:Mind only utilizes light-based moves. It took 17 years after her first appearance in the series for her to be made a playable character, and even then, playing as her is not mandatory. They are never portrayed as equals, and she is not an active force in his emotional growth. 

The Heroine’s Journey was crafted for narratives revolving around identities that have been Othered by society for one reason or another. Murdock designed her template as a tool to help women deal with being shamed by society for expressing and pursuing their desires. In a similar way, LGBTQ+ people also face stigma from society for expressing and pursuing their desires. So it makes perfect sense that a framework for narratives of people overcoming internalized stigma against important parts of themselves would be ripe for stories featuring LGBTQ+ protagonists of any gender.

As mentioned in previous essays, stories that follow the Heroine’s Journey challenge the biases and blind spots of the audience. A relationship between Kairi and Sora does not challenge anything because she has largely been regarded as the endgame love interest by default since the beginning. Meanwhile, a romantic relationship between Sora and Riku challenges players to recognize heteronormativity within themselves and in the media around them. It challenges people to examine the lens through which they perceive the story and rethink how they look at what’s happening in the narrative.

In summary, the portrayal of Kairi and her bond with Sora is not consistent with how love interests are commonly depicted in the Heroine’s Journey, while the portrayal of Riku and his bond with Sora is. If Sora’s story is going to continue on this storytelling formula to the end, the structure of the Heroine’s Journey narrative leaves Riku as the only thematically viable candidate for the role of endgame love interest. 

Now, as some people bring up in conversations about Soriku, there is a potential obstacle in the form of corporate executives. It is entirely possible that Disney will drag their heels and try to force the development team to downplay or remove any open same-sex relationship the series may try to depict. They do not have a strong track record of LGBTQ+ representation that isn’t a minor character who only appears for one scene. Given that their last IP to follow the Heroine’s Journey - the Star Wars sequel trilogy - crashed and burned at the end, executive meddling is my greatest fear for this franchise.

But the thing to keep in mind is that Tetsuya Nomura is stubborn as hell. One of the reasons the long gap between Kingdom Hearts II and Kingdom Hearts III was because he was holding out for permission to include Pixar movies in the game, outright refusing to start work on KH3 until they were given that go ahead[8]. If you want further proof of how stubborn he can be, this is how he described the meeting where he first pitched the series to Disney in a 2012 interview with the late president of Nintendo[9]:

Iwata: Their ideas were different from yours, naturally…

Nomura: Yes. They appeared to believe that we would make whatever they wanted us to make and came up with rather specific requests such as, "We'd like the game to feature this character." They were really excited, explaining their ideas... To be honest, though, I wasn't really interested in any of them. (laughs) 

Both: (laughter)

Iwata: You wanted to borrow Disney's characters in order to make a new game that could compete with Mario 64, and you already had a vision of what this game would look like. I suppose their ideas didn't fit in with this vision.

Nomura: They didn't, no. In the end, I actually stopped a presentation halfway through. We didn't have that much time, and it looked like it was all going to get taken up by various Disney presentations. So, I interrupted them and told them the conclusion by saying, "I won't make such games."

Talk about nerves of steel. This man basically said “we do this my way, or we don’t do it at all” TO MOTHERFORKING DISNEY, AND. HE. WON. If there is any human being with enough force of will to make the Mouse House cave in and allow the depiction of an openly LGBTQ+ relationship in the Kingdom Hearts series, it is Tetsuya Nomura.

I cannot say with 100% certainty how things will go. But everything I know about storytelling patterns and narrative structure is telling me that Kingdom Hearts is a textbook Heroine’s Journey with a romance between Sora and Riku at its core. A relationship between the protagonist and the Animus does not truly begin until the “Integration” stage at the end of the Journey, and we are rapidly approaching the point in the narrative where the two leads traditionally become aware of and acknowledge their feelings in order to be on the same page for the finale.

Sources: 

[1] “She-Ra's Noelle Stevenson Tells Us How Difficult It Was to Bring Adora and Catra Home” May 18, 2020

https://io9.gizmodo.com/she-ras-noelle-stevenson-tells-us-how-difficult-it-was-1843419358

[2] “Death of a Dark Youth, Desecration of the Animus”; December 20, 2018. https://www.teampurplelion.com/death-of-a-dark-youth/

[3] Kingdom Hearts Re: Chain of Memories. Square Enix, 2007. 

[4] “A Look Back: Kingdom Hearts Ultimania Gallery Comments Part 1″; August 30, 2019;

https://www.khinsider.com/news/A-Look-Back-KINGDOM-HEARTS-Ultimania-Gallery-Comments-Part-1-15519

[5] “How Kingdom Hearts III Will Grow Up With Its Players;” September 24, 2013.

https://www.ign.com/articles/2013/09/25/how-kingdom-hearts-iii-will-grow-up-with-its-players.

[6] “E3 2018: Tetsuya Nomura on If Kingdom Hearts 3 Is the End of Sora's Story”; June 14, 2018.

https://www.ign.com/articles/2018/06/14/e3-2018-tetsuya-nomura-on-if-kingdom-hearts-3-is-the-end-of-soras-story

[7] “Character’s Report Vol. 1 Translations”; Jul 16, 2014

https://www.khinsider.com/forums/index.php?threads/characters-report-vol-1-translations.195560/

[8] “Edge Magazine Features Kingdom Hearts III Cover Story”; January 9, 2019. https://www.khinsider.com/news/Edge-Magazine-Features-Kingdom-Hearts-III-Cover-Story-14331

[9] “Iwata Asks: Nintendo 3DS: Third Party Game Developers, Volume 12: Kingdom Hearts 3D [Dream Drop Distance], Part 2: It’ll definitely be fun”; April 2012. 

https://iwataasks.nintendo.com/interviews/#/3ds/creators/11/1

[deadmomjokes]

For me, part of being asexual means that I get really, REALLY grouchy about a lot of romance in media. Rather, the obsession with romance, sex, and sexuality in media. I am that person that will roll my eyes and turn off a movie if it looks like it’s turning into some steamy nonsense, and I will never willingly sit through a romcom even if you paid me. Sex scenes? I’m out. Passionate kissing? Peace, I’m going to the kitchen, want anything? Call me back when the actual story gets back on. Ridiculous ‘ooh they have such SEXUAL TENSION and chemistry, let’s see how close we can get to making them kiss and just have them breathe heavily in each others faces to get our audience all bothered’? I will end you all. I HATE when books or movies or shows throw in a romantic or sexy subplot just for the lols, at least what I perceive as the lols. Basically, a romance has to be really super duper well-crafted for me to get behind it and not be just utterly enraged or completely turned off from the story.

(Also please note that when I use the term romance in this context, I’m using it as a catch all for ship-based storylines that, due to our culture’s obsession with sex, usually include or hinge on sex or kissy scenes.)

That being said. When a romance is done well, and I mean really well, I absolutely 100% lose my mind. I feel that mess in my soul.

So with that introduction, allow me to lay out a few of my favorite (and, in some instances, most maddeningly painful) romances/canon ships in media.

(read more because I went off. like I said, I feel this way too deeply when it’s done well.)

Winry Rockbell and Edward Elric in FMA:B. Slow burn, mutual pining, mutual cluelessness, what’s not to love? So soft and tender and funny all at the same time, and the mad respect Ed has for Winry is absolutely delightful. She does her own thing, and he’s totally supportive, just as she is of him. And a happily ever after??? UGH, I can’t, it’s perfect. The most straightforward and least convoluted of my whole list, and it’s comparatively easy to breeze through. FMA:B is great anyhow, so do yourself a favor and go watch it.

Audrey Parker/ Nathan Wuornos in Haven (with major caveats). Caveats first: they went overboard with the sexy stuff in my opinion. It got too smutty for me, but my tolerance for that stuff is super low, and it did still air on TV, so evidently it wasn’t as bad for the target audience as it was for my sex-in-media-repulsed self. I also find the final seasons to get a bit stale and repetitive in terms of them trying to advance the love story narrative (all the plot points for it got addressed in earlier episodes/seasons, so why are we going over it again??). They also have a bit of an issue in some episodes with dragging out conflicts because the characters just won’t talk to each other like adults. But overall, taken as a whole, it hits hard. Again, we have a slow burn, mutual pining dynamic that starts as a genuine platonic friendship, and transforms into a dimension and time defying chosen soulmates love story for the ages. The things they would do to save each other, even if it means they can never be together, just so they have the joy of knowing that their beloved is okay. The tiny ways they take care of each other- Audrey testing Nathan’s coffee to see if it’s too hot, Nathan slowing down so he doesn’t out-pace her, it’s just adorable.

Faramir and Eowyn in The Lord of the Rings BOOKS. This is an interesting one because it happens really quickly and between two minor characters. But Tolkien did this really interesting thing where he established these two characters separately, and then brought them together and played off what we knew about each of them in context of everything else that had happened with the main story, and suddenly it has, as one of my professors would say, “the illusion of depth.” Faramir absolutely falls head over heels for Eowyn but won’t act until she can deal with her own crap and be emotionally available. Eowyn realizes that she was hung up on ideals, illusions, and false dichotomies. Faramir has been through a lot and is looking for peace. Eowyn is looking for who she really is when she realizes she has more than two choices in life. They find healing together, and in the process, find what they were looking for in each other. And all that happens in the space of, like, 4 pages. I LOVE IT.

Sam Carter and Jack O’Neill in Stargate SG1. This one will hurt you to no end. You will hate life. But gosh dang if they aren’t perfect. This is the slowest burn and most mutual pining of all slow burn mutual pining ships to ever grace media. I’m talking 8 seasons of these two sharing feelings but being unable to express it for one reason or another. What are those reasons, you ask? Jack is her superior and respects her too much to put her in that position. No fraternization on the team. Sam has career aspirations, he won’t ruin her life. He’s got his own issues to work through and knows he isn’t emotionally available. Sam is clueless for a while, then when she realizes she has feelings for him but it couldn’t be because of their work dynamic and because he’s still dealing with his own crap, she tries to move on but keeps coming back to the unspoken fact that she still loves him. To the point that she breaks off her own engagement to a great guy because she realizes she was only trying to move on-- and wasn’t successful. They are clearly in deep for each other, and yet they keep making excuses why they can’t say it.

In the whole series, they never officially get together, and I HATE THAT. There are multiple alternate realities and timelines where they are together, and happy, but in the main timeline, they can’t get over themselves, and it hurts so bad because they’re so perfect. Jack knows she’s the smartest person in the room, and he supports her and defends her and listens to and defers to her. He respects her first as an expert, then as a colleague, and then as a woman whom he deeply loves even though he can’t find it in him to love himself. She appreciates his experience and leadership, and trusts him implicitly. She knows she’s got more book smarts, but relies on his judgement and ability to remain calm under pressure. She also knows she can be real with him, and he knows that when she calls him on his BS he better listen. She is his conscience, and he is her backbone. And in between episodes where they’re clearly pining for each other, and even during, they’re really great friends and a great team. I could seriously write an essay on why this ship is both perfect and intensely frustrating, but then again, you could just watch a great and classic series and see what I mean for yourself. (Then you’d also get to meet the perfection that is Teal’c, and watch Daniel Jackson’s transition from Milo Thatch in Space to sassy beefcake demigod who still loves archaeology.)

Beren and Luthien, Tolkien part 2, electric boogaloo. A love so powerful it transcends death, fate, hell and heaven all at once. It’s kind of wild and not what you’d expect if you’ve only read LotR (or only seen the movies), because it’s more a classic fairy tale than anything, but hot dang if it isn’t still one of the most powerful, moving, deeply impactful love stories in all of writing. It’s even a “love at first sight” narrative and I STILL fall hard for it. This story legit moves me to tears every dang time I read it, or even think about it too hard.

It starts as a simple “forbidden love” story, but these two loved each other so much that they defied one of the most powerful kings in all the world at that time (who was also Luthien’s dad, oopsies), defied Satan himself and marched into Hell just for the chance to be together, and then changed the very way the world works forever just so they could stay together and not be parted. Luthien is a total BEAST, while never giving up her gentle, loving, and tender nature. For the love of this man, she defies her father’s wishes and breaks herself out of her own dang tower to go rescue her prince instead of the other way round, she sends Sauron (yeah, he’s here too!) scurrying with his tail between his legs, wrecks his house, and frees all his slaves and prisoners just to try and get to Beren, drags his butt out of heck part 1, then willingly walks into literal, actual Hell with him and proceeds to enchant Satan and all the demons within. Then she gets her bf outta there after he loses his hand, and goes back to face her father unafraid. Basically, Beren undertakes a literally impossible task just for the chance to be with Luthien, but Luthien is the one that makes it happen because she loves him too much to sit around knowing he’s going to die. She’s willing to die with him rather than live without him, but more willing to dare death to come at her and get some because ain’t no way she’s losing him.

Then, at the last, when all should have been their happily ever after, everything goes wrong and she loses her beloved, and instead of mourning forever, she yeets off her mortal coil out of pure “Oh no you didn’t, not after all we went through” just to go stand before the God of Fate and the Dead and plead with him to change the rules of the universe itself just so that she can be with Beren. And he does it, because their love is so strong. Just for them, all of existence is rewritten so that they might never be parted.

And if you don’t think that’s the most beautiful thing you’ve ever heard, consider also: these two crazy kids were so wonderful that the Goodest Boy in all the world, a functionally immortal and super-intelligent dog sent from heaven itself by a literal god, willingly turned on all his masters and spontaneously learned intelligent speech just so he could help them out and be their Good Boy til the bitter end, thus (in Tolkien’s mythos) starting the whole “man’s best friend” thing with dogs. So yeah. And, uh, Tolkien based it on him and his wife, to the point of ripping their first meeting frame-for-frame from real life. It’s too much y’all.

Anyhow, this post is way, way too long, but I was just feeling the need to get that out there. Maybe I’ll have more in the future, but for now, this is what was on my mind. Particularly the last two.

[diatriblicaljottings]

How significant is the representation of masculinity to the way Othello functions as a tragedy?

Literature review

Believed to be written in 1603, the existence of ‘Othello’ has not only been disputed to be one of Shakespeare’s most successful plays due to the “treatment of such timely issues as race, gender, homoeroticism and domestic relations” (Evans, 2015), but also one of the most controversial – mostly due to how the aforementioned topics were approached. This is particularly surprising as Othello is widely acknowledged as “the least political (Shakespeare play) and even the least philosophical but also as the most domestic and personal” (Evans, 2015). Perhaps this disdain comes from a place of misunderstanding towards Shakespeare’s often critical yet atypical approaches to what could be described as sensitive topics. However, the representation of masculinity throughout ‘Othello’ can be linked to most of the mentioned analytical approaches, particularly masculinity and race, in a way that enriches our overall understanding of the text, and how it fit into the genre of tragedy. A critical essay by John R Ford reads, “the play powerfully critiques the racist and misogynist constructions of Venice by making its codes and conventions so visible to the audience” (Kolin, 2001) Othello’s extreme desire for achieving an ultimate state of masculinity directly correlates with the gender politics of the time, a time in which the misogynistic attitudes Ford refers to were rife in popularity, yet still unidentified as problematic and were therefore routinely normalized. In their masses, men synonymous to Othello encouraged and expected each other to actively participate in the discrediting of women to obtain their dominance and in turn, their sense of masculinity, or at least, what they believed to be attributes of masculinity. Whilst they have been greatly unacknowledged for thousands of years, both gender and race have still influenced political structures, including the ‘constructions of Venice’ addressed in Othello and Ford’s critical essay. This directly contrasts with Evans’ earlier observation of Othello being ‘the least political’ play to come from Shakespeare, as it could arguably be one of the most.  Alongside political ideals being a key function in the representation of masculinity, there are many contributing factors as to why Othello as a character could be protective of his masculine ego (the manipulation he endures at the hands of Iago being a namely one), though it is undeniable that as a person of colour with the ability to exist in such a high rank of power, despite living in a racist society, he faces much harsher judgement from other characters. Naturally this would also have significant impact on Othello’s personal difficulties with his insecurities, or when approaching threats to his masculinity. This becomes one of many tragedies described in the text – one that is very much involved in how the fundamentals of tragedy are incorporated into the thematic structure of Othello. “Culture is a masculine region, and everything that lies beyond its purlieus ± untamed nature, the sea, forests, brutes, cannibals, foreigners, belongs to the domain of the wild” (Wells, 2000)  – in this case, ‘the wild’ could be referring to the existing fear of the unknown, but more importantly it could be used to define ‘the Other’ - a term that refers to “the creation of a dichotomy between Europe and its ‘others’ … central to the creation of European culture… part of the process of maintaining power over them” (Loomba, 1998). This coincides with the social context of Othello, particularly with the reference to ‘foreigners’ in the culture Wells speaks of.  The often subliminal struggles that Othello faces as a black male character propel the tale of tragedy depicted within the text – as it is these very struggles that are used against him consistently, driving him to a point of ultimate self-questioning: when he makes the decision to kill Desdemona. Burning “with a desire to avenge the imagined loss of his masculine honour” (Wells, 2000) is quite a bleak outlook, given that many would dispute that this ‘imagined loss’ is not imagined at all. Societal norms, especially in the historical setting of this play, are so very much ingrained into the typical thinking patterns of many of the characters, that it is certainly realistic for the character of Othello to predict the tarnishing of his name or reputation. The vengeance referred to by Wells would not appear to be Othello’s true motive to kill her, as he denies having any knowledge of her death, so it plays no part in the restoration of his honour. It seems to be, however, a result of extreme expectations that Othello has internalised becoming a malformation of fear and unattainably high levels of self-respect.  The main tragedy at the core of the play depicts the impact of unrealistic and limited implications of masculinity being a motive for murder. Othello had been systematically brainwashed into believing his only option was taking drastic measures to prove his worth in terms of his masculinity, threatened with the negative societal impacts the alleged misdemeanours of his wife would cause. Whilst his actions may not be remotely excusable in any way, they serve the purpose of truly representing how toxic masculinity can result in tragedy – and the lengths a man of his tragic circumstances may go through to preserve his ‘masculine honour’.

   Analytical essay

The importance of masculinity in “Othello” is crucial to the genre of tragedy, as the desired trait of authority, achieving a true masculine status, is shared amongst the primary male characters - a persistent battle that eventually results in disastrous consequences. Iago’s personal lack of masculine identity is the cause of the downfall of multiple male characters, as he so clearly uses it as a tool of manipulation. Othello being such a high-status character, linking to his "manhood and honour" - is quite vulnerable in terms of becoming increasingly paranoid and suspicious of Desdemona betraying him. While Othello is being manipulated by Iago, Iago creates insinuations of Desdemona committing adultery in order to pressure Othello into a state of jealousy - before proceeding to essentially warn Othello not to worry about it. Iago’s mockery of the very concept he introduced into this discussion proves just how manipulative he is, and how he is manifesting Othello’s insecurity in his own masculinity proves this - "Oh, beware, my lord, of jealousy! It is the green-eyed monster which doth mock. The meat it feeds on." (Act 3, Scene 3). Othello’s perceived ‘fragile masculinity’, which has been even further amplified by Iago’s antics, births the creation of what would become Othello’s hamartia in the tragic events to come. Furthermore, Iago creates the lie of Cassio being a violent alcoholic. In order to steal his job, Iago persuades Cassio to partake in heavy drinking, which leads to him being disgraced from his job, and in turn, his reputation. Iago’s discrete manipulation is used once again in the form of reverse psychology “"I had rather have this tongue cut from my mouth than it should do offence to Michael Cassio" (Act 2, Scene 3). This becomes a tragic flaw in Cassio’s story, continuing to destroy not only his masculinity, but also his self-worth and livelihood. With all of this being due to Iago’s jealousy of Cassio’s higher-ranking position, it reinforces the link between the pressures of maintaining masculinity and how highly men rank in both works, but also society. “Iago seems to have too many motives for his evil and thus paradoxically, no motives for it at all." (Evans, 2015). Iago's own drive - to gain a higher rank - pushes the ideology that honour equates to your level of masculinity, something which Shakespeare is almost critiquing through his creation of Iago’s character – a erratic, self-serving and desperate person whom projects his own masculine insecurities for personal gain.  

  Within the play the character of Emilia is a key part of how masculinity is portrayed, with strong opinions and an understanding of the masculine ideology she said some of the most noticeable things about how significant masculinity is within the tragedy. “They are all but stomachs, and we all but food, They eat us hungerly, and when they are full / They belch us” (Act 3, Scene 4). This phrase clearly shows that for the men within this play, women are the source of sexual satisfaction and not much more than that. Not allowing women to have any position of authority or experience a liberty of decision-making - clearly shows how society’s obsession of masculinity at the time built a hierarchy, in terms of gender. Women only really had each other to rely on, and Shakespeare progressively shows Emilia's loyalty to Desdemona only growing stronger. As a woman of practical intelligence, shown to not be led by her emotions, Emilia becomes a key character in relation to masculinity within the tragedy. The juxtaposition between Emilia and her partner Iago creates the potential of her strong-minded personality being one of many causes towards Iago’s pathetic drive to emasculate himself. Although Emilia stands by Iago through the play, in the end she denounced his lies to defend Desdemona’s reputation after her death. With regard’s to Desdemona’s murder, after being severely wounded by her husband and close to death, she remains adamant on her refusal to reveal Othello as her murderer and claims it was suicide – “Nobody. I myself. Farewell. Commend me to my kind lord. Oh, farewell!” (Act 5, Scene 2) This may be because of how much she loved her husband, but it was primarily due to the extreme effects of Othello’s desire to achieve true masculinity – a virtue Desdemona herself intends to assist with as to prove her true loyalty in her final moments.   Othello’s goal to prevent other men from being betrayed by Desdemona, further perpetuates the idea that truly masculine men must adhere to the heroic stereotype and make sacrifices for the sake of other people, even when it concerns the love of their life.

During Shakespeare’s life, there was a strict social construct of gender norms, as well as a hierarchy of sexes. As each gender experienced their own role in society, it was only logical that they'd be shown within Shakespeare’s plays. Throughout Shakespeare’s ‘Othello’ the ideology of masculinity is presented to us through the different themes that are addressed, whilst being set in a regressive and male-dominated world. The unachievable goal of obtaining an elite state of masculinity results in many conflicts of character, with horrific atrocities being committed as a result of this - from degradation of race and gender, to the sheer manipulative nature of many characters, there are a stark amount of negative consequences that can be construed as being tragic. Alongside the more obvious defining factors of tragedy within Othello, masculinity - and the constant urge to exude it – is the most consequential catalyst that results in the melancholic epilogue of this play.

 Bibliography

Evans, R. (2015). Othello: a Critical Reader, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

Kolin, P. (2001). Othello: Critical Essays., Taylor & Francis Group.

Loomba, A. (2015). Colonialism/postcolonialism (Third ed., New critical idiom).

Wells, R. (2000). Shakespeare on Masculinity, Cambridge University Press.

[terramythos]

Review: Vicious by V. E. Schwab (Villains #1) (REREAD)

Length: 364 pages. 

Genre/Tags: Fantasy, Urban Fantasy, Science Fiction, Superheroes, Revenge Narrative, Dark, Time Jumps, Perspective Shifts, Third-Person, Great Characters, Duology

Warning(s): Graphic violence and torture. One of the main characters is just straight up genocidal. There is a very dubious consent scene later in the novel (non-explicit). Child death (sort of?). This is like, a gray versus black morality kind of story, so don’t read it if that isn’t your thing?

My Rating: 8.5 / 10

My Summary:

Victor and Eli, two genius college roommates at the top of their game, come up with a hypothesis for their senior project— that near-death experiences sometimes result in superpowers. However, when they test their theory, things go terribly awry, and both are left forever changed. Victor finds himself with the ability to manipulate pain. Eli becomes functionally immortal. And with a body count behind both young men, they transform from best friends into bitter enemies. 

Ten years later, Victor escapes from prison. Cunning and manipulative, Victor has had a decade to contemplate revenge against the man who put him there— Eli. When he finds an injured 12-year-old girl on the side of the road, he discovers Eli has spent the last decade systematically murdering EOs— people with supernatural abilities. Sydney, who can raise the dead, is the one of the few to escape. 

With the help of Sydney and his former cellmate Mitch, Victor begins to enact his revenge. But it’s only a matter of time before Victor and Eli finish what they started ten years ago…

But these words people threw around— humans, monsters, heroes, villains— to Victor it was all just a matter of semantics. Someone could call themselves a hero and still walk around killing dozens. Someone else could be labeled a villain for trying to stop them. Plenty of humans were monstrous, and plenty of monsters knew how to play at being human. The difference between Victor and Eli, he suspected, wasn’t their opinion on EOs. It was their reaction to them. Eli seemed intent to slaughter them, but Victor didn’t see why a useful skill should be destroyed just because of its origin. EOs were weapons, yes, but weapons with minds and wills and bodies, things that could be bent and twisted and broken and used.

Vicious is an interesting book to reread because, while the book itself hasn’t changed, the context behind it has. When I read this back in 2016 it was a standalone novel, originally published in 2013. Now I’m rereading it specifically because there is an unexpected sequel (Vengeful, 2018), and I wanted a refresher before jumping into it. Second, maybe a more minor detail— this book is homoerotic as hell, and I remember wondering if it was intentional on a first read. Now that Schwab recently came out as gay, I’m thinking it probably was, which makes it all the more entertaining.  

It’s also interesting to see how much Schwab’s writing has changed over time. Originally, I read Vicious, enjoyed it, then decided to read her big fantasy series Shades of Magic, and… Well, let’s just say *that* ended up being one of my favorite trilogies ever. Whoops? But in many ways I feel my enjoyment of Shades of Magic overshadowed Vicious. I enjoyed this book, but honestly I kind of forgot about it even though it was the first one I read. That was another reason to revisit it; while I might not like it as much as Shades of Magic, it’s still plenty good.

Before I do a deep dive into the book, I think it’s important to discuss the structure. Vicious basically has two stories— one in the past, and one in the present. The first half mostly focuses on the past, while the second half mostly focuses on the present. “Mostly” is important here— the story is very anachronistic. This serves to heighten the drama; we learn about Victor and Eli’s past relationship, then get a glimpse of just how corrupted and different it is in the present day, and of course wonder what got them to this point. While I feel it’s easy to do time and perspective jumps poorly, the chapters themselves are pretty short, so I never felt disconnected from any particular plot thread. The pacing was always solid. If anything I found this novel pretty easy to read, because I could tackle just a few chapters at a time yet make significant progress in the story.

Vicious is, without a doubt, character-driven. People with superpowers exist— called ExtraOrdinary people (EOs)— and said powers develop in a unique way. Other than that there’s nothing super special about the setting. And aside from the interesting structure, the story is pretty standard. But the characters themselves are fascinating and by far the strongest point of the novel. The main focus is obviously on Victor and Eli, and how they serve as foils to one another. Both are arrogant and straight-up terrible people, but the way they see the world differs greatly, and that’s ultimately what separates the “hero” of the story (Victor) from the villain (Eli). Gray versus black morality, hooray!

Seeing the initial relationship between the two leads and how it sours and twists over time is quite interesting. At first Eli seems to be the most level-headed of the two, but as the story develops you learn how fanatical and unhinged he really is. Dude just straight up embraces genocide after a point. Meanwhile, Victor is clearly a vindictive and selfish dick from the get-go, yet as Eli’s true nature shows, seems much less terrible by comparison. The story is sometimes a bit on-the-nose with the whole hero vs villain thing and how the two defy usual expectations, but it is still interesting to realize you’re genuinely rooting for Victor. Despite everything he’s a pretty likable character.

Aside from Victor and Eli, there are three supporting characters who substantially affect the story. Preteen Sydney gets the most screentime, and with Mitch (Victor’s bodyguard/hacker/cellmate) serves as the humanizing part of the story. Victor even seems to sort of care for the two! Though how much of that is genuine attachment versus just finding them useful is debatable. There’s a super twisted found family vibe with the trio which starts to form near the end (they adopt an undead dog and everything!). On the antagonistic side of things, we have Serena, Sydney’s older sister, who has the power to compel others. She’s pretty terrifying, and has her own twisted motivations for helping Eli. At times she’s honestly more unsettling than he is.

One of my main complaints about Vicious when I first read it was *just* as I started to really dig the side characters, their relationships, and their developments… the novel ended. Yes, Sydney gets significant development through the story. But Mitch and Serena get shafted. We only really get to know them toward the end of the novel with backstory dumps or a handful of perspective chapters. A lot of the novel’s real estate centers on Victor and Eli’s past, and while I think that’s an integral part of the novel, it feels like something is missing. At the time I thought this novel either needed to be longer or it needed a sequel. Well, now it has one of those things, so it will be interesting to see what Vengeful does with the characters.  

Thematically and philosophically there’s some interesting stuff going on. The hero vs villain thing is the most obvious, and as I mentioned gets pretty direct at times. But one idea I found interesting to consider is what happens to the souls of ExtraOrdinary people. It’s initially stated as fact that EOs lose a part of themselves when they die and return. They’re different, changed in a way they can’t quite describe. And for most of the novel this seems to be true. Victor and Eli both become twisted, detached people, obsessed with their own perceptions of reality. The two realize they should feel or think certain things and simply… don’t. Both attribute it to the fact they died and came back “wrong”. But the more we learn about both characters, the more we realize they were pretty much like that all along. The idea that people lose something doesn’t really hold up when you examine Sydney, who turns into a stronger and more vibrant person after coming back. It’s an interesting realization, because it highlights just how wrong Eli’s actions are.

There’s also a whole deal regarding God and spirituality vs science. Eli justifies nearly everything he does in the name of God, whereas Victor is an atheist— but the extent to which this affects things is a definite gray area. There are some uncanny coincidences in the story (like Victor discovering Sydney) that would be bad writing… except the characters notice it happening. On multiple occasions Victor notes that if God or Fate exists, it seems to be siding with him, not Eli. Even the formation of ExtraOrdinary abilities is bizarre. One gets superpowers based on their final thoughts and feelings? That’s so decidedly unscientific, especially from something that starts as a science experiment, that it really sticks out to me. Is there more to this dichotomy? I guess we’ll see if the sequel explores it more.

There are some small details I really like, but I think my favorite is the blackout poetry thing. There’s just something interesting and really funny about Victor defacing his famous parents’ self-help books. He mentions it’s one of the best gifts he got in prison, and it’s also one of the first things he does when he gets out. Probably the funniest part in the whole story is an intense chase scene where Victor is trying to escape someone through an unfamiliar house. He spots a Vale book on a shelf, and pauses EVERYTHING to just grab it and throw it out the window, then returns to the scene as if nothing happened. It’s just such an unnecessary detail that might have ended up on the cutting room floor but I honestly lost my shit laughing.

The ending is also viscerally satisfying. So much stuff ties together well. While the novel is about Victor and Eli and (ultimately) Victor’s revenge, you don’t actually learn much about his plan until it happens. A lot of lines and actions read differently in context of the ending, which is always something I like in a story.

(And here’s a totally skippable aside— *is* there some connection between this series and Monsters of Verity? The latter is a young adult duology by Schwab, which I read and reviewed here and here. But the first book has an opening quote from Victor. Hell, it’s part of the quote I picked for this review. They don’t seem to be in the same universe but… maybe they are? It’s just such a goddamn weird choice to quote a “V. Vale” at the beginning of an unrelated series. Maybe Vengeful has an explanation? Maybe Schwab just really liked that whole monsters vs humans line? I have no idea.)

Anyway, yeah, that’s Vicious! It’s certainly a fun one to read. The writing is punchy and easy to get through. The conflict between Victor and Eli is very well written and compelling. And, as I mentioned, the characters are the strong point (in my opinion, anyway), so if you enjoy character-driven media I definitely recommend it. Just note my caveat about some of the character development. Skip it if you’re one of those people bothered by Bad People Doing Bad Things In Fiction or think portraying Bad People Doing Bad Things is somehow Endorsing Bad Things. If dark stories aren’t your thing you definitely won’t enjoy this one. There are some aspects of the story that I feel could have been smoother or done differently, most of which I touch on in the review. I think Schwab has improved a lot since writing it, which is one reason I’m excited that my next read is the 2018 sequel.

[thevividgreenmoss]

...Anyone who knew Eqbal in conditions of struggle knew subliminally that his loyalty and solidarity were unquestionable. He was a genius at sympathy. When he used the pronoun "we," you knew that he spoke and acted as one of us, but never at the expense either of his honesty or of his critical faculties, which reigned supreme. This is why Eqbal came as close to being a really free man as anyone can be. 

This isn't to say that he was indifferent to the problems of others, or blessed in that he didn't have problems of his own. This was very far from true. But he did give one the impression that he was always his own man, always able to think and act clearly for himself and, if asked, for others. His subcontinental origins in Bihar and Lahore steeped him both in the travails of empire and in the many wasteful tragedies of decolonization, of which sectarian hatred and violence, plus separatism and partition, are among the worst. 

Yet retrospective bitterness at what the white man wrought and at what his fellow Indians and Pakistanis did were never part of Eqbal's response. He was always more interested in creativity than in vindictiveness, in originality of spirit and method than in mere radicalism, in generosity and complexity of analysis over the tight neatness of his fellow political scientists. The title of one of his most spirited essays, on Regis Debray, was entitled "Radical but Wrong." 

When I dedicated my book Culture and Imperialism to him, it was because in his activity, life, and thinking Eqbal embodied not just the politics of empire but that whole fabric of experience expressed in human life itself, rather than in economic rules and reductive formulas. What Eqbal understood about the experience of empire was the domination of empire in all its forms, but also the creativity, originality, and vision created in resistance to it. Those words-" creativity, " "originality," "vision"-were central to his attitudes on politics and history.

Among Eqbal's earliest writings on Vietnam was a series of papers on revolutionary warfare which was intended as a refutation of standard American doctrine on the subject. U.S. counterinsurgency experts see in Vietnamese resistance a sort of conspiratorial, technically adept, communist and terrorist uprising, which can be defeated with superior weapons, clear-cut pragmatic doctrines, and the relentless deployment of overwhelming military force. What Eqbal suggested was a different paradigm: the revolutionary guerrilla as someone with a real commitment to justice who has the support of her or his people, and who is willing to sacrifice for the sake of a cause or ideology that has mobilized people. What counterinsurgency doctrine cannot admit is that the native elites whose interests are congruent not with their country's but with those of the United States are not the people to win a revolutionary war. In confronting the arch-theorist of this benighted view-none other than Samuel Huntington-Eqbal. Put it this way:

In underdeveloped countries the quiescence which followed independence is giving way to new disappointments and new demands which are unlikely to be satisfied by a politics of boundary management and selective cooptation-a fact which the United States, much like our ruling elites, is yet unable or unwilling to perceive. There is an increasingly perceptible gap between our need for social transformation and America's insistence on stability, between our impatience for change and America's obsession with order, our move toward revolution and America's belief in the plausibility of achieving reforms under the robber barons of the "third world," our longing for absolute national sovereignty and America's preference for pliable allies, our desire to see our national soil freed of foreign occupation and America's alleged need for military bases.... As the gap widens between our sorrow and America's contentment, so will, perhaps, these dichotomies of our perspectives and our priorities. Unless there is a fundamental redefinition of American interests and goals, our confrontations with the United States will be increasingly antagonistic. In the client states of Asia and Latin America it may even be tragic. In this sense Vietnam may not be so unique. It may be a warning of things to come.

What emerges in these writings is the opposition between conventional and unconventional thought and of course the even deeper opposition between justice and injustice. In his preference for what the unconventional and the just can bring peoples by way of liberation, invigorated culture, and well-being, Eqbal was firm and uncompromising. His distrust for standing armies, frozen bureaucracies, persistent oligarchies allowed no exceptions. Yet at the same time, as he showed in his great essay on Debray, it is not enough to be unconventional if that means having no regard for tradition, for the goods that women and men enjoy, for the great stabilities of human life. Eqbal was shrewd and illusionless enough to realize that overturning societies for the sake of revolution only, without sufficient attention to the fact that human beings also love and create and celebrate and commemorate, is a callous, merely destructive practice that may be radical but is profoundly wrong. 

...No one has more trenchantly summarized the various pathologies of power in the third world than Eqbal in the three summary essays he wrote for Arab Studies Quarterly in 1980 and 1981.9 Once again, unlike many of the second-thoughters and post-Marxists who populate the academic and liberal journals today, Eqbal remained true to the ideals of revolution and truer yet to its unfulfilled promise. To have heard him lecture over the years, passionately and sternly, about militarism in the Arab world, in Pakistan, in Algeria and elsewhere, was to have known the high moral position he took on matters having to do with the sanctity and potential dignity of human life either squandered or abused by strutting dictators or co-opted intellectuals. Creativity, vision, and originality of the kind appreciated by Eqbal in his great friend the Urdu poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz are the measure for political life, not the trappings of honor guards, fancy limousines, and enormously bloated and all-powerful bureaucracies. 

The measure is the human being, not the abstract law or the amoral power.

I think it must have been difficult to hold on to such ideals and principles. Most of Eqbal's written work, and indeed his activism, took place in dark times. Not only did he take full stock of the devastations of imperialism and injustice all over the globe, but in particular he more eloquently than anyone else inventoried the particular sadness and low points reached by Islamic cultures and states. Yet even then he managed to remind us that what he mourned is no mere religious or cultural fanaticism, as it is usually misrepresented in the West, but a widespread ecumenical movement. Moreover, though not an Arab himself, Eqbal reminded Arabs that Arabism, far from being a narrow-based nationalism, is quite unique in the history of nationalisms because it tried to connect itself beyond boundaries. It came close to imagining a universal community linked by word and sentiment alone. Anyone who is an Arab in his feelings, in his language and his culture, is an Arab. So a Jew is an Arab. A Christian is an Arab. A Muslim is an Arab. A Kurd is an Arab. I know of no national movement which defined itself so broadly. 

In such a situation and with such a heritage, Eqbal saw the degradation of ideas and values that grip Arabs and Muslims alike. Let me quote him again. This is in the aftermath of the Gulf Way in 1993:

We live in scoundrel times. This is the dark age of Muslim history, the age of surrender and collaboration, punctuated by madness. The decline of our civilization began in the eighteenth century when, in the intellectual embrace of orthodoxy, we skipped the age of enlightenment and the scientific revolution. In the second half of the twentieth century, it has fallen. I have been a lifelong witness to surrender, and imagined so many times-as a boy in 1948, a young man in 1967 ... and approaching middle age in 1982-that finally we have hit rock bottom, that the next time even if we go down we would manage to do so with a modicum of dignity. Fortunately, I did not entertain even so modest an illusion from Saddam Hussein's loudly proclaimed 'mother of battles."

This on the one hand and on the other the multiple degradations of what he once called the fascism and separatis clearly identifiable, seemingly hostile but symbiotically linked trends, in his Pakistan. Former Pakistani prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and his family, former president General Muhammad Zia ul-Haq, and their coteries plundered the land, demoralized the population. They tried to subdue the country I s insurrectionary constituent cultures and failed, but at the price of more blood and treasure. And everywhere, as throughout the Muslim world, they provoked, if they did not actually cause, the rise of Islamism, which as a secularist Eqbal always deplored. 

But ever the fighter and activist, he did not submit in resignation. He wrote more and more in earnest and in 1994 undertook his grand project of founding a new university in Pakistan-Khaldunia, aptly named after the great Arab historian and founder of sociology, Ibn Khaldun. In this project and his enthusiasm for it, Eqbal was no Don Quixote, tilting at windmills, but like Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, he took as his motto "Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will. This was part of the man's rareness, knowing how to rescue the' best available in a tradition without illusion or melodramatic self-dramatization. For him, Islam, Arabism, and American idealism were treasures to be tapped, despite tyrants like Zia ul-Haq and Henry Kissinger, whose manipulations and cold-blooded policies debase and bring down everything they touch.

Edward Said, Introduction to Eqbal Ahmad’s Confronting Empire

[vixianna]

Racism in Voltron Part One: The Galra are Space Negros Ya’ll

@bbtree @sol1056​ @smolsarcasticraspberry​

You all are talking about how the Galra are coded darker than the Alteans, but that the Alteans are still coded non-white and humans are white, and I’ll do you one better. The Galra are black coded. I’ve been meaning to make a long post about racism re: The Galra in Voltron for a while now, and you all inspired me to go through with it. This is part one of three.

Inception horn

Buckle up buttercups, it’s time to go deeper.

The key to understanding how this maps out is understanding both racial hierarchy as it exists in the United States under White Supremacy, and stereotypes surrounding blackness from both before and after the Civil War. Sol1056 pointed out that Altea feels like a Fallen South, a narrative about the destruction of the Antebellum ways by the War of Northern Aggression. And I’ll do you one better, this isn’t just a South destroyed by The War, this is the South as portrayed in A Birth of a Nation. The white people subjected to genocide, enslavement, and horrors by the vengeful uncontrolled newly freed slave blacks.  

The two major sources of black stereotype in America comes from the Reconstruction and Antebellum periods. The difference between them lies in the purpose of the creation of those stereotypes. Before the war, they focused on the subservience of black people. How they were natural slaves, how they were lazy, unambitious, ignorant. From there you get the “Sambo”, the “Mammy”, and the “Pickaninny”. (As well as the cautionary tale of the “Mandingo” and the exploitative self-justification of the “Jezebel”.) All of this presents black people as happy, carefree, lazy, unambitious, and naturally subservient to whites. At first, this doesn’t seem to map onto the Galra Empire, they are warriors and honorable, and aggressive. At least that is their informed traits, but we’re not talking about inside the narrative, we’re talking about how the narrative treats the Galra Race. (This is how humans ended up white-coded with multiple non-white Paladins directly portrayed.)

Before the war with Altea, how is Galra sovereignty, agency, and power treated by the narrative? We only get a single episode(The Legend Begins) to delve into that, but it’s important to understand racial hierarchy in America operates on the assumption of Proximity to Whiteness as a sign of goodness/worth/superiority. Altea doesn’t have to be literally white to have a Proximity to Whiteness and be higher up the proverbial chain. This is how Altea, and our notable Alteans, can be coded non-white by the narrative, and still treated as “white” in comparison to the darker, blacker Galra. Race in America is created around a White/Black dichotomy and anti-blackness forms the backbone of racial animism in the country. Other non-white races can leverage anti-blackness in order achieve closer proximity to whiteness and benefit themselves.

A definition of subservient before we dive back into the show:

Prepared to obey others unquestioningly

less important; subordinate

serving as a means to an end

Back in the show, there are several clues that Altea is higher up the racial hierarchy than the Galra, even excepting the idea they were meant to be the narrative’s villains. Consider that after the comet lands on Daibazaal, it’s Altean alchemists and scientist who come to study the Rift and the Comet itself. The Galra don’t research and discover the properties of the Comet and Rift and share them with Alfor, a situation that would be collaborative and signal a strong equal responsibility in the creation of Voltron. Instead, Alfor and his Alchemist set up shop on Daibazaal itself, get cozy, and get to work. Galra agency is present no where in this scenario. They did not control where the Comet crashed, that was the universe at large, and they did not have the technological skills and know-how to research the Comet and the Rift, that came to them from Whiter Altea. They are essentially not in control of their resources and scientific advancement. They are less important than Altea, despite being the source for all of the research that lead to Voltron and the discovery of quintessence.(They are a means to an end.)

Zarkon was the original black paladin and the head of Voltron, but the narrative goes out its way to show him being contradicted and ignored by Alfor(the white leader stand in), more than once. First during a battle where Alfor ignores Zarkon’s commands, despite Alfor himself saying he choose him to lead Voltron because of his battle sense, (and it’s notable all the upgrades and forming Voltron comes from Alfor. He listens to his Lion and is the first to use his Bayard and tell them to fly in formation. This strongly undermines Zarkon as the true leader, despite Alfor claiming to be his right hand man.) and later when Alfor is leaving the labs on Daibazaal and is taking Voltron off the table. Notably, the times when Zarkon asserts his authority successfully, lead directly to Daibazaal’s fall. The first when he puts his foot down about continuing to research the Rift after Voltron first forms and defeats the Rift Creatures, and second when he convinces them through deception to widen the Rift with Voltron. (During the confrontation in the lab we learn Altean Alchemists have discovered that the planet is fracturing. We see Daibazaal change from its native red to a sickly green, but Zarkon is shown putting in ineffectual measures to stabilize the planet.) All instances of Zarkon trying to assert his authority are either stymied or lead to ruin.

A note, that although Honerva is Altean and so white stand in, she is also a woman. White Supremacy is Patriarchal as well, and by refusing to submit to the higher white authority of King Alfor as the White Ruler and listening to his wife, Zarkon dooms his planet. Because while she is portrayed as the entire agent of scientific change on Daibazaal(at one point its stated her team has created a cruiser five times the previous largest size), she is an agent of ruin because of her emotional obsession with the Rift causing a lack of foresight.(She is “weak wimminz” you see?)

At no point between Honerva or Alfor is Zarkon(the Galra stand in for the whole people as the only named Galra with any lines in the past) given any agency or makes any plot relevant decisions. He is wholly subservient to either his overly ambitious grasping White Wife or the Proper White Patriarch that is Alfor. As a result, the Galra as a whole are stripped of agency and power; their scientific advances, their future, their decisions, only take place because a white stand in has power/control. (He follows either Alfor or Honerva unquestioningly.)

And so, the Galra people are lost without the guiding hand of the proper white Altean leadership. And like freed black slaves given power(by the Rift?), rise up and destroy.

After the start of the war though, we get an entirely different set of stereotypes to work with. Instead it draws from Reconstruction Era stereotypes about black people. These focused on the dangerousness of freed black men and women. As such, they were focused on the animialistic nature, the violence, aggression, impulsiveness, and poor stewardship of blackness. A note about stewardship in this context, because black people were considered “less than human” their lack of ability to be good stewards was a  moral failing as is common in Reconstruction Era stereotypes(where as Antebellum ones focused on intellectual failings, black people were feeble minded. Hmmm, just like the Galra before the war?). America is a Christian nation in cultural foundations, and Man was given dominion over the Earth to use as he saw fit by God. By being incapable of demonstrating real control and stewardship over any abundance gifted to them, Black people were similar to animals or less than human.

Reconstruction Era stereotypes of blackness like the “Brute” and “Sapphire” are angry, violent, lashing out, overtly masculine. (there are also stereotypes that “look back” so to speak about how blackness used to be like “Uncle Tom” that stand in for the white view of “proper” black subservience) The Galra Empire, as depicted through the majority of the show in “modern” times, is the Brute stereotype writ large. The Brute existed in many ways to justify the lynching of Black Americans, especially black men. Black men after slavery were “reverting” to their naturally criminal ways without the guiding hand of whiteness. They were violent, aggressive, rapacious, uncontrolled, dangerous. Unlike the good Sambo or Uncle Tom, a Brute did not respect white authority and enacted mass scale criminality on white society. The Brute is the basic caricature at use in A Birth of A Nation, where newly freed Black people act out genocide, mass violence/rape, and oppression of white people.(who have to be rescued by the Ku Klux Klan...more on this in Part Two and Three) Does this sound vaguely familiar? After dying, Zarkon is empowered by the Rift and declares War on Altea and the rest of the system. They drive the other members of the system into enslaved submission and then destroy Whiteness Altea in blanket genocide.  The Galra then expand across the universe in increasing levels of violent uncontrolled criminality. Their thirst for quintessence, a substance previously portrayed as a limitless source of energy in Honvera’s rotation experiment in her lab or when in use by Voltron or the Castle of Lions, a demonstration of their complete inability to be stewards of abundance. Without the guiding hand of Altea, the Galra plunged into self-destructive and criminal behavior.

Consider that they are shown multiple times engaging in genocide as a result of poor stewardship or lack of care(The Depths, Oriande, Tears of the Balmera), that multiple characters call them violent and bloodthirsty(notably Allura in The Prisoner), that their entire culture is warped around military violence(rite of combat of Kral Zera or displayed by Lotor in Changing of the Guard) and expansion to gather more resources like locusts. Galra are depicted as morally corrupt/failures and no where is this more clear than Lotor’s arc. The second part of this post is where I deconstruct his story re: Tragic Mulatto stereotype before we get to what that means for Keith, but it’s notable that despite the fact his failings are distinctly Altean(quest for knowledge, obsession with quintessence very much like Honerva), it is his Galra Father to which is he compared and said in the narrative to be like. (Allura’s direct comments in All Good Things, as well as Axce’s claims that all Lotor wanted was Power in The Way Forward.) That Lotor lied about peace and instead was only concerned about power and control(like Zarkon), and that he is depicted as “giving in” to his Galra nature in a way by committing genocide against Alteans just like his father.

Finally, I’ll note that if Zarkon is meant to be the ultimate representation of his people the way Alfor is, then his depiction post-war is also as important as pre-war. If before he was ineffectual and subservient, he is afterwards brutal, insatiable, savage, destructive. He is rendered in vivid tones as being Black’s abuser. Forcing their bond despite her(?) disinterest after his death, it commits Tv-Y7 rape against her will, forcing a deep psychic connection to which she is depicted as being saved by Human(white coded) Shiro. (As the Black Lion is a creation of a race higher up the racial hierarchy with a greater Proximity to Whiteness, she can exist as a white woman stand in to be violated or corrupted by Zarkon’s blackness...like Honerva for that matter.) He encourages his top generals to consume and himself consumes vast quantities of quintessence to empower himself and his Empire(Blood Duel is an especially strong example). His tactics focus on brute strength and overt violence instead of out-thinking or tricking his opponents. (His repeated usage of roebeasts and his fights in Blood Duel, Black Out, and The Black Paladin along with his method for hunting Lotor in Begin the Blitz.) He’s cruel and almost nonsensically violent.(his destruction of the mining colony is a good example of this.) Absent the presence of Altea, Zarkon and his people have degenerated to bloodthirsty, animalistic war mongers. (for an interesting and extra disturbing take, consider the meta surrounding common Galra appearance containing fur/tails/fluff/scales/ect. Things that we see aren’t present in Galra 10,000 years previous during the original rule of Zarkon, where they are distinctly more humanoid looking.) A final note, despite Honerva having ultimate agency in comparison to Zarkon, she is still corrupted by her interactions with him and his people. By becoming Empress, like all white women exposed to corrupting Mandingos (Lotor got some of this) or Brutes, her white innocence and purity was tainted by his obsession with Power and Violence. His space alien Black Dick literally fucked the morality out of her.(It’s weird that they decided to juxtapose the timing of Honerva’s increasing obsession with the rift and misstep with the Rift Monsters with an explicit consummation of their relationship through marriage.)

And on the note of the two of them fucking, we’ll end this here to set up Part Two about Lotor.

[oneweekoneband]

Why Did It Take Me So Long To Notice That The Word Is “Fury” Not “Furry”?

Hello again. While I must admit to mild surprise at Dinosaur Jr.’s absence from the constantly growing roster of artists covered on OWOB, I should also state my attempted approach to writing about a band with no lack of wordage already available on its behalf. Though potentially futile, I will be trying to write something that benefits a cross-section of readers, from the unfamiliar but curious to the currently dismissive therefore purposely detached to the self-appointed superfan. All of this being stated, please understand that “attempted” carries one hell of an implied emphasis.

As covered in the previous post, I’m an active writer with many years in the trenches, though at least a half-decade in between my first toe-dips into this endeavor and the formative teenage moment when exposure to two Dinosaur Jr. albums (1987’s You’re Living All Over Me and 1991’s Green Mind, their second and fourth, respectively) combined to transform a fervent interest in underground music into a terminal, all-consuming obsession that almost seems to have dictated, in some way, shape or form, each lifting of a finger since. 

I’ve had a fair amount of writing published on the subject of this band, but most of it appeared during the first half of my now 18 years in this racket, barring the entries about several Dinosaur Jr. albums did make it into my second (and most recent) book, which carried the subtitle of 500 Essential American Underground Rock Albums 1981 - 1996 and a title that I absolutely hate so it shall not be revisited. On that note, attacks of full-body cringe have become as reliable as Christmas upon revisiting older writings, therefore I did not in order to guarantee no points or angles reiterated. But for what it’s worth, at some point in the early-00s, I did a long and embarrassing tribute to You’re Living All Over Me for the Perfect Sound Forever website as my first piece of writing on the band. Then once the spotlight was aimed backwards and topically in 2004-2006 for that period’s two-tiered reissue and reunion activity, I wrote a bunch of features about the Homestead and SST years (plus the early run of reunion shows) for several outlets. I interviewed both Mascis and Barlow, twice each if I remember correctly, and essentially felt like I said everything there was to possibly say about this band whose music more or less put me on a personal and professional course that continues to this day. I don’t feel like that anymore.

Two things to take into account before we move on: First, none of the subsequent entries will be this long, or at least that’s the plan. Secondly, this week will feature very little writing on the four albums of new material Dinosaur Jr. has released since the original lineup of J. Mascis, Lou Barlow, and Emmett Jefferson Murphy III (almost exclusively known as “Murph” but I find his full given name to be amusing) reunited in 2005…will be of the unflattering comparative variety. However popular it might be to jump to black-and-white, definitive conclusions, do not take this to mean I consider these albums to be bad or boring or anything of the sort. But do know that they are, despite what the rest of the world seemingly believes, inferior when placed against what I will be trying to push into your ears and lives going forward. And understand that Dinosaur Jr.’s major-label era (1991 - 1997) will be explored in a nooks-and-crannies fashion (meaning, we’re going to get into Mike Johnson’s discography), as I feel there’s a nice chunk of amazing music hidden in there that has been largely overlooked or misunderstood.

I am about as obsessed with music as I am the non-fiction ghetto in which I operate.  Therefore it might or might not behoove me to do something no one outside of this little world should waste their time with, and that would be lot of overthinking about a couple of crucial elements of artistic criticism and appreciation that appear to be under constant attack these days: context and nuance. There is no such thing as good-to-great creative nonfiction or journalism that lacks or misuses either, and the most difficult to translate of the two is, of course, context. 

These days it seems every talking head (or every record-store loiterer or live show barnacle) of similar vintage to myself should be wearing a t-shirt or rocking a bumper-sticker that says, “Ask Me What It Was Like Before The Internet!”. This is something for which I harbor a visceral and distinct distaste if not great embarrassment. Any historically-precise party line of assumed profundity is going to fail at transmitting the intended impact for two reasons. First is the obvious neutering of any meaning or relevance when beating a cultural audience over the head with something, year after year, generation after generation. The second is more problematic, as I’m not certain that being present during its heyday or for a following period of linear influence is necessitated so as to provide fundamental context needed to understand how or why a band was groundbreaking or brain-rearranging or whatnot. 

For example, Dinosaur Jr. was four albums and seven years active once its music entered my life in earnest. Still, when it comes to blanket mantras of the reality-removed like, “This Was Before The Internet!” or “We Didn’t Have Cell Phones” battle stories, usually issued as some delusional badge of struggle or evidence of authenticity, we’re talking something that means far less than is assumed to a recipient without the same experiential history. I usually cringe when I witness someone else trying to get this across to a younger generation, though I have yet to figure out myself how to do it effectively. 

Conversely, there are examples of past underground rock prescience (well beyond the legendary trio of albums released by Dinosaur Jr. between 1985 and 1988) such as Mission of Burma, Black Flag, NEU!, Brian Eno’s “Third Uncle”, The Feelies, The Embarrassment, Can, This Heat, The Fall, mid-period Sonic Youth, Husker Du’s SST years, Black Sabbath, Slayer, mid-80s Swans, and Miles Davis’ 1970 - 1975 output, to name but a few, that occurred long before I developed anything close to refined taste or the ability to let music have an impact on a deep emotional and intellectual level. Or, for that matter, the ability to breath air outside of the womb in some of those cases. 

Still, once properly blown away, I could easily wrap my head around how each example was way ahead of the curve, or scared the shit out of most listeners who came in contact with it in real time. Of course, it helps if the music in question resides in the exclusive canon reserved for that which is genuinely timeless. If it falls short of timeless it sure as hell better be a high quality, well-aged specimen of music that’s nonetheless easily identifiable as being from a certain era of yore. Much of material released by Dinosaur Jr.’s during the band’s first two phases of activity, which together span 1985 until 1997, fits into one of those two categories.

My first meaningful introduction to Dinosaur Jr. essentially played out in similar a similar fashion to formative life-altering moments spun by many writers, musicians, and fans of my generation or older. I suppose a warning should now be issued that you’re about to read yet another account of someone taping episodes of MTV’s 120 Minutes. I had a habit of setting the recording time to the shittiest quality of six hours and fitting three episodes of said show onto my parents’ VHS copies of HBO and Cinemax films like The Cotton Club and Bill Cosby’s Himself. Some time after its parent album (You’re Living All Over Me) was released, on a Christmas night when I was in my early teens, the video for “Little Fury Things” ran between a Michelle Shocked number and The Cure’s infuriatingly awful “Let’s Go To Bed” (that goes for the video and the song). At first I focused on other future life-alterers like the clip for The Fall’s “New Big Prinz” and Sonic Youth’s iconic “Teenage Riot” video, as Dinosaur Jr.’s idea of a video and that song were just too fucking dark and ominous for my young teenage mind. 

But because I had to fast forward or rewind through multiple Christmas-special live-in-the-studio tomfoolery from hosts They Might Be Giants along with crap that was somehow already “not for me” like Fishbone, Camouflage, Translator, and the not-that-bad-but-long-as-hell video for Love And Rockets’ “Dog End Of A Day Gone By”, I eventually came around to the three minutes and change that was the “Little Fury Things” video….like a moth to flame. I still have the very VHS tape I used to play and rewind repeatedly while my parents were at work during the day, blasting it through the shitty speakers of our 27” Sony Trinitron and running all over the floorplans of the three houses (well, one house and two apartments, if we’re to split hairs) I lived in during my high school years. The beginning of the video goes blank for a few seconds because I accidentally hit “record” on the remote amidst some furious bouncing all over the couches and chairs.

I seriously doubt there’s a song I’ve listened to, on my own accord, more times than this one and it still delivers a palpable, albeit much different due to time passed, charge as it plays at this very moment. The sonic dichotomy that makes this track exciting- powerful noise/distortion married to a huge, highly emotive pop hook-happens to be another dragon I chase to this day and in general has been one of the crucial elements of forward movement undertaken by post-hardcore, proto and first-gen indie-rock, punk rock, shoegaze and underground metal over the last 30 years. Because I still run into music obsessives, mostly younger, who are unaware of Dinosaur Jr.’s legacy and historical place as a paramount force of innovation, influence and well-aged listening excitement, I’ll close this entry with the aforementioned video despite it visually communicating far less than it does musically. 

Much has been written (years ago by myself and more recently in Nick Atfield’s 33 ⅓ book on the album it opens) about attempting to decipher or assign one’s own meaning and words to what is probably a bunch of lyrical nonsense. I think that’s organically symptomatic of anything that hits with this kind of power and non-cheesy melancholic punch. A personal fave, however, would have to go to the one-off “Hallelujah, the sunlight brings the red out in your eyes” line that opens the gate for an instrumental mid-section of riffs (where a guitar solo might normally be).

“Little Fury Things” official video from 1987′s You’re Living All Over Me

And here’s a couple of clips that hopefully illustrate how insanely loud and air-moving Dinosaur Jr. Mach I must have been as a live band, especially considering the average age of the members was 20 to 22.

1986 at UMass…

Germany, 1988, full set. Pretty good sound given the age/era.

[thisdaynews]

‘Stable genius’ Trump has spent decades fixating on IQ

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/stable-genius-trump-has-spent-decades-fixating-on-iq/

‘Stable genius’ Trump has spent decades fixating on IQ

“Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest -and you all know it! Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure, it’s not your fault,” Donald Trump tweeted in 2013. | Alex Wong/Getty Images

white house

People who know Trump suspect his IQ obsession stems in part from a desire to project an image of success, despite scattered business failings and allegations of incompetence.

It was January 2004 and Donald Trump was on the “Today Show” to promote a new reality TV series called “The Apprentice.”

Almost immediately after the interview began, Trump started bragging about the unparalleled intellect of the contestants who would compete for a job at one of his companies.

Story Continued Below

“These are 16 brilliant people. I mean, they have close to 200 IQs, all of them,” he told Matt Lauer. “And some may be beautiful and some may not be beautiful. But everybody has an incredible brain.”

It wasn’t the first time Trump fixated on IQ as a measure of a person’s worth — or, as is frequently the case, worthlessness. And it wouldn’t be the last. Fifteen years later, Trump, now the president of the United States, still uses IQ as a shorthand for intelligence, dividing the people in his orbit into winners and losers.

In private, according to interviews with a half-dozen people close to him, Trump frequently asserts that people he likes have genius-level IQs. At various points during his presidency, he’s told aides that Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson and Apple CEO Tim Cook are high-IQ individuals, for example, former White House officials said. Trump has also dubbed himself a “very stable genius” on multiple occasions.

And the president is quick to accuse his political enemies of having low IQs, as he did when he repeated North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un’s criticism of former Vice President Joe Biden, one of his leading Democratic challengers.

“I was actually sticking up for Sleepy Joe Biden while on foreign soil. Kim Jong Un called him a ‘low IQ idiot,’ and many other things, whereas I related the quote of Chairman Kim as a much softer ‘low IQ individual,’” Trump said Tuesday after the Biden campaign criticized him for tweeting during his trip to Japan that he smiled when Kim insulted Biden’s intelligence.

While the exact reason for Trump’s IQ obsession is difficult to nail down, people who know him suspect it stems in part from his desire to project an image of success and competence, despite scattered business failings and repeated allegations from critics that he’s incompetent. Trump is also known for being thin-skinned. He often fires back at anyone who criticizes him with a barrage of insults, while simultaneously building himself up.

“I don’t think you have to put him on the couch to see that someone who has such a consistent need to build himself up and belittle everyone else must have some problems with self-esteem,” said Trump biographer Gwenda Blair, who wrote a book about the Trump family. “It’s a lifelong theme for him.”

“Part of it comes from his insecurities about not being perceived as intelligent,” a former White House official added.

In recent years, Trump has accused Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), actor Robert De Niro, Washington Post staffers, former President George W. Bush, comedian Jon Stewart, Republican strategist Rick Wilson, MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski, and Rick Perry, now his energy secretary, of having low IQs.

He once suggested he’d like to compare his IQ to that of then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, adding, “And I can tell you who is going to win.” He privately mocked former Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ intelligence, according to a former White House official. All the while, Trump has claimed his Cabinet has the highest IQ of any assembled in history.

“Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest -and you all know it! Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure, it’s not your fault,” Trump tweeted in 2013.

Just last week, the president again referred to himself as an “extremely stable genius,” and he has spent years insisting has a high IQ score, though he has never revealed the exact number. When a Twitter critic challenged him in 2013 to prove his high IQ, Trump responded simply, “The highest, asshole!”

Democrats are increasingly fed up with Trump’s name calling, encouraging journalists to ignore it altogether and arguing it’s a sign that the president isn’t serious about policy or governing.

Trump has been obsessing over IQ and pedigree for decades, long before he moved to the White House. Barbara Res, a former Trump Organization official, recalled that Trump used to brag about one of his executives graduating from Yale Law School at the top of the class, even though Yale Law doesn’t rank its students. Trump later made the same false assertion about Brett Kavanaugh.

“He always used to say that he had a very high IQ,” Res added, recalling her decade-plus working alongside him.

Trump’s black-and-white view of intelligence was formed long before psychologists embraced a more nuanced definition of the term. In 1983, for example, developmental psychologist Howard Gardner put forward his theory of multiple intelligences, which stressed that people learn in many different ways and suggested IQ tests were too narrow.

“Measuring someone’s intelligence is not simply a matter of taking one test with a sharpened No. 2 pencil. Donald Trump came of age before that whole notion, for sure,” Blair said. “He’s still thinking in terms of that No. 2 pencil.”

Recently, however, IQ measurement has found increasing resonance among alt-right and white supremacist groups, who have linked IQ and race to argue for limits on immigration from certain ethnic groups.

Trump, who attended the Wharton School of business at the University of Pennsylvania, has an affinity for people who graduated from prestigious universities.

He warmed up to his former staff secretary, Rob Porter, once he learned that Porter attended Harvard University and was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, according to two people familiar with the matter. “This guy is so smart,” he’d sometimes tell other staffers of Porter. “He was a Rhodes Scholar!”

He was similarly impressed with the credentials of his two Supreme Court picks: Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. The president has regularly touted their Ivy League educations in conversations with allies, and White House aides believe attending a top-tier law school is one of Trump’s prerequisites for any future nominee to the high court.

Trump has also frequently mentioned his late uncle, a former physics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, calling him “a great, brilliant genius,” last year.

But Trump himself has long been reluctant to reveal any details about his own schooling. Trump’s longtime fixer Michael Cohen told lawmakers in February that his boss regularly instructed him to pressure the reality TV star’s alma maters with letters warning of jail time if they released Trump’s grades.

“I’m talking about a man who declares himself brilliant, but directed me to threaten his high school, his colleges and the College Board to never release his grades or SAT scores,” Cohen told the House Oversight Committee.

The White House press office did not respond to a request for comment, nor did it respond to an inquiry about Trump’s IQ score.

The president’s elitism stands in stark contrast to the central messages of his campaign, which promised to upend establishment Washington and sought to appeal to disaffected white working class voters. But Trump’s advisers say the dichotomy works in his favor, arguing that the president’s business experience and lavish lifestyle is one of the things that makes him appealing to his base.

“He’s a populist in a way, but he’s a populist only in terms of his policies,” said another former White House official. “His personal message has always had a real elitist flavor to it.”

Daniel Lippman contributed to this story.

Read More

[romancatholicreflections]

16th July >> Daily Reflection/Commentary On Today’s First Reading for Roman Catholics Monday of the Fifteenth Week in Ordinary Time (Isaiah 1:10-17).

Last Saturday we saw Isaiah’s call to be a prophet of God taken from the sixth chapter.

We now go to the beginning of the book and from now on will have selected readings from chapters 1-39 which are really part of Isaiah’s own ministry. The rest of the Book of Isaiah (Parts 2 and 3) is now attributed to other writers.

Isaiah pulls no punches in communicating his message. “You rulers of Sodom…” and “You people of Gomorroah” are not addressed to the peoples of those cities which were long ago destroyed. He is speaking to the rulers and people of Jerusalem and the southern kingdom of Judah of which it is a part.

Today’s reading is a severe attack on religious hypocrisy. It is part of an oracle presumably uttered in the Temple at the beginning of Isaiah’s ministry. Like Amos (cf. readings for Wednesday of Week 13-II), Isaiah castigates ritual divorced from morality. The sincerity of the worshipper, not the number of his religious activities, is most important.

On the face of it, the people seem deeply religious: “endless sacrifices…holocausts of rams…specially fattened cattle…the blood of lambs, calves, goats…”. God finds no pleasure in a mere multiplicity of offerings. He does not even expect them: “When you come in to visit me, who asks these things of you?” Their offerings are not really directed to God but are a form of self-adulation. “How good we are! How pious and dedicated we are!”

The air filled with the smell of incense has become loathsome to Yahweh. He has no time for all their “new moons”, which were celebrated at the beginning of every month. Special sacrifices and feasts were part of the observance.

All their efforts at religious celebration and observance are in vain. When they spread out their hands in prayer, Yahweh hides his eyes. “When you stretch out your hands I turn my eyes away… You may multiply your prayers, I shall not listen.” Why? Because their hands are covered with blood – on the one hand, with the blood of sacrificial victims, coupled with that of the poor and weak who have been exploited and abused.

At first sight, it all seems to contradict everything we have heard about our merciful, forgiving and compassionate God. We remember, too, how Jesus taught us to pray incessantly. But here the prayers are so hypocritical. They consist of purely external ritual devoid of any real commitment to Yahweh’s will.

Their prayers can never be heard until they emanate from deep within the heart. Their prayers will be heard when people’s lives are seen to change radically. When they cease to do evil things and concentrate on what is good.

They need to wash themselves clean and put away their misdeeds, which no amount of sacrifices and holocausts will cover up. They must have only one aim: “Redress the wronged, hear the orphan’s plea, defend the widow.” When they search for justice and reach out to the oppressed, when they treat the widow and the orphan with justice, love and compassion, then and only then will their sacrifices be truly acceptable to the Lord.

In a society which knew nothing of social welfare, where the needy depended on support from the family, the widow and the orphan were particularly vulnerable to abuse and neglect. The widow might very well be relatively young, having lost her husband through disease, accident or war. She had no future as no man would want to marry her. If she was childless she was of no interest to her father’s family or even her own. The orphan, too, was left exposed to destitution or having recourse to prostitution, male or female.

Applying this reading to our own situation is not difficult. We can see people devoting a great deal of energy to religious activities, devotions, pilgrimages, novenas… We can see them obsessed with keeping commandments and regulations and external observances but in their daily lives there is often widespread lack of charity, compassion and a willingness to forgive, to tolerate, to understand. There is often a wide dichotomy between what they proclaim in church and what they do in their daily lives.

“Don’t speak of love; show me!” exclaimed Eliza Doolittle to Professor Higgins in My Fair Lady. That could well sum up what God is saying to his people in today’s reading.

[houstonlocalus-blog]

Visual Vernacular: Adela Andea

Adela Andea, “A.57,” 2016 (detail)

  Twists in technology, variance in visual velocity, lengthening light, and capturing natural conundrums are all intertwined into Adela Andea’s work. Transitioning from her work on canvas to elaborate sculptures and installations, Andea has been illuminating spaces and captivating audiences here in Houston and beyond for years. The spark seen in her eye is seen in the glow of her sculptures, otherworldly and effervescent in nature. In her latest exhibition at Anya Tish Gallery, Glacial Parallax, the artist grapples with the advancements of technology while the natural world rapidly declines, such as in the glaciers in Alaska and elsewhere.

Anya Tish has hosted Andea’s work on multiple occasions, each show luminous in its own right, but this show overwhelmingly brings together multiple concepts and materials to make for a mammoth of visual delight. This sensory experience goes beyond the materials to gracefully pin point important topics racking our society. Andea was gracious enough to elaborate on her current exhibition along with her story on how she came to make such momentous work.

  Free Press Houston: What particular part of your childhood unveiled visual art as an interest for you?

Adela Andea: As I was growing up in Romania, I had a close connection with the old orthodox churches. The beautifully painted icons and frescos were the only reason my grandmother was able to drag me to the church on Sundays. I remember staring at all the details of the paintings; some were more than 300 years old. I did not have artists in the family, but I found books that inspired me to draw and paint. Before I was in the first grade, before I could read and write I was already attempting to imitate artworks by Goya. These are the earliest memories I have about art.

  FPH: How did you make the shift into artistic studies?

Andea: After spending some time working as a paralegal in California, I realized that my calling was art so I moved to Houston and graduated Valedictorian and Summa Cum Laude from the Painting program at the University of Houston. I continued my higher education in Studio Arts and I received my Master of Fine Arts in New Media, with a minor in Sculpture from University of North Texas, Denton, Texas.

While I was working on my degrees I was introduced to contemporary concepts, trends and theories, which influenced overall my transformation as an artist. It was a difficult experience, as I was constantly trying to better myself, absorb all the information I can possibly can and be the best at what I am doing. It was an opportunity and a luxury I did not have before in my life and I appreciate it every moment.

  Adela Andea, “Ice Flare,” 2016.

  FPH: What are some experiences that helped shape your artistic concept, drawing from nature and technology?

Andea: My art education has the biggest influence over my artistic life. It was during that period when my affinity to contemporary art currents crystalized and gave shape to my endeavors into installations using light.

Outside academia, there are periodical events that weight heavier in my artistic carrier. Such events can be recreational in nature – my cruise trip to Alaska a few years ago brought new awareness in me on the ecological issues – or professional – my residency in France last year immersed me in a new culture from where I drew inspiration for my art.

  FPH: How did one of your first major shows at Lawndale Art Center help shape your visual voice into creating work of technology and light?

Andea: After I finished my BFA in painting at University of Houston I applied for my first solo show at Lawndale, The Green Cyber Web. I majored in painting for the love of painting. While I was in the studio program, I realized that paint or color is a perception of the eye, and it can be achieved with different materials, besides colors from a tube. When I projected the green cathode light on one of my painted objects I was startled by the effect, it was exactly what I was looking for in my art. I knew I made a leap in what I was doing. I was finished with my previous work and I moved on from painting and traditional sculpture into this new medium.

I started to research the new technologies on the market. These latest technological advancements inspired me to create the artworks I wanted. None of my works contain neon lights, it is all LED or CCFL. While I was already thinking about big installation, the show at Lawndale offered me the opportunity to create a full room installation. Environments, according to Allen Kaprow, are an extension of painting when referring to the issue of space. The spaces I am working with are a major consideration for how the installation will work and I took in consideration the architecture of the room as a component of the artwork. My proposal at Lawndale was specifically for the gallery that it was displayed in.

Also during that time, conceptually my work started to take shape and focus meaning of nature, natural vs. artificial concepts, environmental issues and technological advances. By applying the dichotomy of the concept natural vs artificial and it contemplates positively on the necessity of progress and technological advances, blending artistically the romantic notion of nature with the manmade esthetic.

  Adela Andea, “A.57,” 2016.

  FPH: Recently you participated in a residency in France. What was that experience like for you?

Andea: I had the honor at the end of last year to be invited by Zebra 3 Foundation with funds provided by the city of Bordeaux for a residency and show at the Crystal Palace in the old downtown of Bordeaux. It was a great experience that will stay with me for a long time. The materials were procured by the organization upon my specification upon arriving and I worked with an assistant for almost a month to finish an installation from scratch on the site. While I was working hard to finish the work, I also had the chance to experience the food, the culture and visit historic locations. My assistant there deserves all the credit for being a great liaison.

  FPH: Tell me about your evolution of some of your current work on display at Anya Tish Gallery. What are some of the highlights of the show visually and conceptually that you are now expanding upon?

Andea: The new concept I wanted to discuss with this show is the technical notion of “parallax” when it becomes a metaphor of the different points of view on the environmental issues. Just like real life parallax produces different views depending of the line of sight, my arts is addressing the different positions taken in the society that vary based on the position and situation of the observer. The environmental movement became a political movement, the new religion of the popular culture, mostly supported by the mass media influence. The whole discussion gravitates around the notion that man-made pollution is the cause of environmental decay. Some of the scientific arguments are contaminated by economic and political agendas.

Formally there are three types of work that I developed simultaneously while preparing for the fourth solo show at Anya Tish. While they are all connected conceptually, my continuous concern with the destruction of the environment, formally they differ.

The large sphere, titled “A.57,” is representing an imaginary asteroid or planet where the energies of various materials translate into a plasmatic eruption of colors. The work incorporates various previous materials and experiments wrapped into a sphere that encompasses the essence of my work in the past decade. To paraphrase Otto Piene, “Light is the incarnation of visible energy.” For me this piece has a variety of energies that emulate the existence of a live planet.

The triangular shaped mirror plexiglass pieces, like “Glacial Fracture,” “Glacial Onyx,” and “Ice Flare,” maintain the simplicity of geometric shapes while allowing through multiplicity to create organic shapes for the pieces. This play between organic and geometric insists on the visual transformation of inorganic into organic matter. The aesthetic aspects of this work comment on the antithetic perception of real vs. artificial or organic vs. geometric, deconstructing the structure of nature into geometric forms.

Multiplicity is another formal element that I embrace with my work. Either it is a large installation or a small wall dependent piece. The “Ice Grain” series and “Sun Draft” focus on one type of material that I repeat a million times. They become mini universes, obsessive detailed work that takes months to finalize. However, I enjoy the process as it also allows my mind to develop new ideas.

  Adela Andea, “Glacial Fracture,” 2016.

  FPH: How has your interaction with the community here in Houston and beyond with large site-specific instillations affected you as an artist?

Andea: I like to interact with artists who are unique and confident on their work. I think Houston attracts these independent type of artists. To be original and different from everybody else seems to characterize what artists have in common in this area. This lack of a cohesive art scene is what I appreciate the most and I consider it an asset to this community. It is a very vibrant and diverse group of people, also very warm and welcoming.

  FPH: In a time where technology is put on such a pedestal, how does art/how does your art manage to strike a balance between the digital and the visual?

Andea: My art offers opportunities to investigate the visual significance of the contemporary technologies. It provides a commentary on the individual interaction, theoretical discussion of the post-traditional self and how certain technologies are embedded in our culture. The infusion of my art with the new technologies relies on recent technological advances, which are also well received through consumer perspective.

  FPH: Any upcoming projects you would like to mention?

Andea: The upcoming show from May through September at the Total Plaza in downtown Houston is curated by Sally Reynolds and will display a large installation, as well free standing and wall dependent sculptures. Also, I am working on an outdoor sculpture project that I prefer to keep it secret until the details are finalized.

  Adela Andea’s exhibition “Glacial Parallax” is on view at Anya Tish Gallery (4411 Montrose) through February 4.

Visual Vernacular: Adela Andea this is a repost