#morality and literary quality are not the same thing

[nochd]

This view of the matter will not, I am afraid, satisfy what may be called the Vigilant school of critics. To them criticism is a form of social and ethical hygiene. They see all clear thinking, all sense of reality, and all fineness of living, threatened on every side by propaganda, by advertisement, by film and television. The hosts of Midian ‘prowl and prowl around’. But they prowl most dangerously in the printed word. And the printed word is most subtly dangerous, able ‘if it were possible, to deceive the very elect’, not in obvious trash beyond the pale but in authors who appear (unless you know better) to be ‘literary’ and well within the pale. Burroughs and the Westerns will snare only the mob; a subtler poison lurks in Milton, Shelley, Lamb, Dickens, Meredith, Kipling, or De La Mare. Against this the Vigilant school are our watchdogs or detectives. They have been accused of acrimony, of Arnold’s ‘obduracy and over-vehemence in liking and disliking—a remnant, I suppose, of our insular ferocity’.

But this is perhaps hardly fair. They are entirely honest, and wholly in earnest. They believe they are smelling out and checking a very great evil. They could sincerely say like St Paul, ‘Woe to me if I preach not the gospel’: Woe to me if I do not seek out vulgarity, superficiality, and false sentiment, and expose them wherever they lie hidden. A sincere inquisitor or a sincere witch-finder can hardly do his chosen work with mildness.

It is obviously difficult to find any common literary ground on which we could decide whether the Vigilants help or hinder good reading. They labour to promote the sort of literary experience that they think good; but their conception of what is good in literature makes a seamless whole with their total conception of the good life... All criticism, no doubt, is influenced by the critic’s views on matters other than literature. But usually there has been some free play, some willingness to suspend disbelief (or belief) or even repugnance while we read the good expression of what, in general, we think bad. One could praise Ovid for keeping his pornography so free from the mawkish and the suffocating, while disapproving pornography as such...

But the Vigilants, finding in every turn of expression the symptom of attitudes which it is a matter of life and death to accept or resist, do not allow themselves this liberty. Nothing is for them a matter of taste... A work, or a single passage, cannot for them be good in any sense unless it is good simply, unless it reveals attitudes which are essential elements in the good life. You must therefore accept their (implied) conception of the good life if you are to accept their criticism. That is, you can admire them as critics only if you also revere them as sages. And before we revere them as sages we should need to see their whole system of values set out, not as an instrument of criticism but standing on its own feet and offering its credentials... For we must not run round in a circle, accepting them as sages because they are good critics and believing them good critics because they are sages.

Meantime we must suspend judgement as to the good this school can do. But even in the meantime there are signs that it can do harm. We have learned from the political sphere that committees of public safety, witch-hunters, Ku Klux Klans, Orangemen, Macarthyites et hoc genus omne can become dangers as great as those they were formed to combat. The use of the guillotine becomes an addiction. Thus under Vigilant criticism a new head falls nearly every month. The list of approved authors grows absurdly small. No one is safe... we may doubt whether such caution, so fully armed a determination not to be taken in, not to yield to any possibly meretricious appeal... is consistent with the surrender needed for the reception of good work. You cannot be armed to the teeth and surrendered at the same moment.

To take a man up very sharp, to demand sternly that he shall explain himself, to dodge to and fro with your questions, to pounce on every apparent inconsistency, may be a good way of exposing a false witness or a malingerer. Unfortunately, it is also the way of making sure that if a shy or tongue-tied man has a true and difficult tale to tell you will never learn it. The armed and suspicious approach which may save you from being bamboozled by a bad author may also blind and deafen you to the shy and elusive merits -- especially if they are unfashionable -- of a good one.

---C. S. Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism

[jambeast]

I'm sure I've made this point before, but there's a pervasive brand of internet lefty that can't seem to perceive art as anything other than propaganda, and if it doesn't register to them as propaganda that supports their politics, then it has to be propaganda against their politics.

Like when people argue whether warhammer 40k is fascist propaganda that says that fascism is good, or if it's actually a satire of fascist propaganda saying that fascism is bad. When it isn't really either of those things. That's not what it's going for and that's not what it's doing. It's got satirical elements floating around in there in varying degrees depending on era and author, but the point of them isn't to instruct the audience whether fascism is bad - it's for drama, and mood, and weird interestingness, and humour, and all the other reasons why things are in art other than political and moral instruction. It portrays a bunch of fucked up stuff connected by in-setting circumstance and lets you make your own mind about it, or just let yourself think "damn that's fucked up" and leave it at that.

It's not even, like, complex, by almost any literary standard. It's the same thing with them being unable to understand marvel movies, literally the most accessible movies ever made, when they crack out the most basic #101 nuance for teenagers where a villain has a sympathetic motive or a hero makes a mistake, and they can't really understand it, thinking that because the villain has a sympathetic quality then the movie is trying to demonise that sympathetic quality, because they assume that the film is operating at the level of basic propaganda, when it's, like, even slightly above that.

And they talk so much about being Media Literate and the importance of Media Literacy, in a way that makes them vastly, vastly less capable of understanding media, crunching down all the myriad ways you can interpret things into the simplest and stupidest form of idea, which is so galling when you compare it to the *actual* form of Media Literacy, the beautiful gemstone with its thousand-and-one beautiful shimmering facets!

[bdsmrist]

gonna get a bit personal here, but as an actor it hurts me to see how ppl misinterpret a character as layered and nuanced as kim

now u might be wondering: girl wtf does being an actor have to do w lieutenant kitsuragi. well, i believe it to be the case that actors are storytellers. its our job to write in our characters studies what isnt in the script, to fill in the gaps, and portray that to the best of our abilities.

while in school, my professor’s always emphasized that as an actor, 100% of the time its more interesting when your characters motivations are rooted in love, rather than resentment. and i feel like too often i see ppl understand kim’s motivations be fueled by a desire to reject, protect himself, and detach himself from a world he resents.

now; thats not to say that isn’t entirely true. after all it is what the canon tells us explicitly: that he gave up on moralism, religion, etc, because he again and again was disappointed by the reality of elysium. therefore, that must mean that from there on out kim was a lost soul, that when coming to contact with harry’s spark, it lit his ambitions once more

and yes, to an extent, thats true, but its not the whole truth. to imply otherwise is very derivative. one of the things that makes kim such a compelling character is how he never stopped loving the world around him, *before* meeting harry. and even tho he limits how much he allows himself to indulge in it, it still bleeds through the cracks. hence, when he meets harry, he pours his devotion into the case, and in turn, into harry, without even knowing the guy

would a detached character have the patience and compassion he has for harry on day one? absolutely not. the man is borderline coddling to harry despite it all. and you can hear it in the performance!

jullian champenois’ voice is characterized by its mellow, soothing quality. hes gentle about it! and the actor made that choice for a reason! kim is a gentle person! he stands his ground, he sets boundaries, keeps u in course, and is nothing of a pushover. but regardless, his temperament is calm and reassuring. thats his function as a literary device! to contrast harry’s self-hatred and self-loathing with compassion and understanding!

think about it: would a character thats insistent on being a cold wall, sit on the swing-sets with harry for the pure purpose of just being there so harry doesnt have to confront that alone? if kim only wanted to keep people at an arms length, would he insist you two to be the ones to break the news to working class woman about her husband when ur at her doorstep? he said it himself; the precinct couldve handled it fine.

if kims actions were rooted in resentment towards an unfair world, would he be an instrument of justice for the rcm in the first place? kim, who verbatim despises the cops who become cops so they can use policing as an ego outlet?

kim kitsuragi cares. he cares very deeply, and i believe that the walls around him are a result of kim attempting to keep himself *in*, rather than keep others *out*. kim keeps HIMSELF on a short leash, because he knows that otherwise he’d go all in, just like harry.

harry and kim are at the opposite ends of the same spectrum of people that are too passionate for a world that does not reward such earnestness. therefore, harry copes with addiction, and kim copes with restrictions. regardless. its all comes back to love.

[kafkaoftherubble]

时鞭自我弊不轻，永宽他人宜为重

//The Intrigue Of Tokinaga Sachiyuki

In the first essay, I speculated about Ahu’az, Furuya Rin (a.k.a. Yako), and Chapter 58.

This one, meanwhile, is a character analysis of Tokinaga. It is the second of my After God essay series. Beware; it's a long read.

You don’t always get one of your favorite characters gone through my Lyndisian treatment, @orange-peel-candy, so I hope this has been a good way for you to pass the time.

Oh, you’re curious about what the Chinese title says?

“Always punishing himself for his profound sins; always forgiving others and prioritizing their virtues.”

It’s my crappy attempt at making a 对联, “duilian poetry.”

There are rules in making one. The same number of characters are used in both lines to form a couplet. There have to be counterpoints in tonal pattern between two lines, such that if they “counter” each other. Words from both lines have to be within the same category, and the meaning of the first line must correspond to the second line's meaning.

I did break one rule though: the first line’s last character has to be of an “oblique” tone while the second line’s last character has to be of a “leveled” tone. In my duilian title, the opposite is true.

There’s also just how lacking in beauty my poetry is. Not much can be done about my genuine absence of literary competency, I’m afraid!

Yes. You might also have noticed it. The first character of both lines makes up the word “时永/ 時永,” which is... “Tokinaga.”

---------------------------------------

Super Good Guy; Very Moral

The first time I read this manga, the one thing that stood out a lot to me, especially against the backdrop of After God’s society and every other character in this series—is how unambiguously moral Tokinaga is.

This is how Nayuu described the Bio-Tech department:

Chapter 4

Not even a minute passed and we got this scene:

Chapter 4

Tokinaga stood out a lot because he was the only one who opposed the unethical treatment of  “a child,” even though such a thing was standard of his colleagues. These people were known for being unscrupulous, yet Tokinaga was calling people out like he was a YouTuber dropping some bombs about his fellow creators.

There are many, many moments like these. In a world full of characters with grey morality, he stood out like a sore thumb just on the virtue of his unyielding, monkish self-discipline.

Chapter 4. Dude was seriously against this when no one else commented on it.

Chapter 9

One might, because of this, pass him over as uninteresting (at least, before the reveal of who he is). He’s straight-laced! He’s nice! He’s the good guy. He will do what’s ethically right; there’s no ambivalence. And yet, I’ve always found his strange fixation with ethics fascinating.

Yes, there’s a personal angle to this—a very close acquaintance (to my chagrin) is incredibly interested in ethics and often ponders about them, even if that situation or thought experiment is pragmatically insignificant. Another dear friend of mine also adheres to ethical principles with the same level of monkish discipline. In both cases, there are deeper reasons for their fixations.

Even before the reveal of Tokinaga’s other identity, this quality of him was already grounds for curiosity. With the benefit of hindsight, I’ll even argue that the mangaka has been teasing us about the full scope of his character with little psychological breadcrumbs.

There is a startling lack of flexibility in Tokinaga’s frame of ethics.

Tokinaga seemed dangerously close to holding a black-and-white morality. But there’s more to it.  

He’s perfectly capable of allocating leeway to most people whose ethics and morals are less than exemplary. After all, the department he cooperates with—due to Waka—is deadass staffed with moral-is-optional weirdos. Their amorality doesn’t make him see them as less, though. He values every single one of them—their safety sent him into a self-sacrificial panic, while their lost lives crushed him straight into depression.

It seems to me that, in Tokinaga’s mind, the only person who should adhere to this black-and-white morality is himself. He needs to be. He has to be.

-----

“Apologize! Apologize! Apologize!”

Chapter 33 is one of my favorite chapters in the manga so far. It’s raw as fuck and a great character study—and it features a very intriguing facet of Tokinaga’s psychology.

Now, dude had just experienced a heart-wrenching betrayal from a dear friend. Losing control of his emotions was only expected of anyone. But he had a very peculiar fixation. Despite the weight of Orokapi’s crimes (including the many people he had murdered as the Snake God), Tokinaga was hyper-focus on only two things: the injustice Orokapi had done to him—and the act of apology.

Previously, he spelled out why he didn’t believe Orokapi could apologize: “You can’t apologize, feel remorse, have a change of heart, or comprehend sadness.” And yet, subsequently, “apologize to me” was what he fixated on. He discarded the commands from his superior and colleague and went berserk in his personal demand for that apology:

Why is an apology somehow enough to forgive the things Orokapi has done? Lives were lost. Damages were done. Orokapi, as Tokinaga’s mentor had said, doesn’t live by human ethics and acts like an animal. And even Tokinaga himself had called Orokapi’s capacity for remorse into question.

So why the fixation with apology? Because, I’d argue, to Tokinaga, it’s the “right” ritual to do. Tokinaga’s stringent, black-and-white ethics demand a ritual.

It demands something that needs to be performed after crossing ethical wrongs, even if it no longer makes sense. Here, an apology is a ritual of absolution, even if it’s technically useless after all that had happened.

Tokinaga clings to it. Why?

Could it be because it’s a ritual Tokinaga himself undertakes?

As you continue the chapter, you might notice—with the benefit of hindsight—that the things Tokinaga was screaming almost sounded like things he would say to himself.

At some point, it could seem like he was projecting himself onto Orokapi—who, by being such a dear friend to him, who learned to be an ethical human from him—was like an extension of himself.

“Don’t run away, dumbass.” “Doesn’t it suck being scolded right now?” “Who would want to be friends with someone like that?”

—all of these could apply to Orokapi, but they can also be applied to Tokinaga himself. For example, Allula called him out on one specific accusation Tokinaga leveled at Orokapi: running away.

Chapter 55

-------

Quite the Literal Hate Boner

We later know one(there are plenty) of the biggest reasons Tokinaga hates himself: he gets aroused and hard from nothing but violence and hate. The more vile and violent, the harder his hormones run. And all this happens contrary to what his higher-ordered thinking believes and thinks.

Chapter 54

Side note: remember how Tokinaga shouted at Orokapi with “Doesn’t it suck being scolded right now?”  Yet, here, he was admitting to his body getting hard from being insulted. The one that felt pained when being scolded was his mind. The part of Tokinaga he believes is him, “the ethical, pure one.” The one he’s constantly reinforcing and tormenting, over and over, as his fitful penance.

Now, contrary to what Tokinaga believed, this isn’t as black-and-white as his thought process made it out to be. You can also just accept that this is who you are, and mitigate what you don’t like reasonably. You’re living in a crappy nigh-post-apocalyptic society with a bunch of amoral people who regularly skirt the edge of ethics, goddamn it. You’re hardly the only one with questionable morality.

In fact, it’s fine. You never act out on these desires. You don’t harbor the thought of wanting to kickstart a violent rampage to pleasure yourself. Tokinaga’s (literal) hate boner can even be safely relegated to the realm of kinks. There are plenty of doms who will happily take him as their cute puppy-dog sub.

But Tokinaga cannot accept it. He is determined to maintain his sense of purity. Even in the face of his sexual desire. Or the decisions he had made using his time-loop powers to ensure his “perfect death.”

He wants to believe he is “clean.” And that he can keep himself that way.

If you were a certain kind of person with a similar thought process as Tokinaga, you might go to punishing lengths to hold onto this quixotic sense of purity, while simultaneously tormented by the anxiety of it slipping away from you.

You might, perhaps, cling to every ritual of purification you can to scrub yourself clean of this constant onslaught of contamination. Apology is one of them. Eviscerating yourself and other forms of mental flagellation is another.

He even mentioned the latter. He described how much his heart ached and trembled at the sight of brutality while his body went ahead and got excited. And then, hinting at punishment, he admitted to torturing his mind with intense mental castigation every night.

Chapter 54

This matches the experience of my aforementioned friend and acquaintance—who, last I checked, are not godkillers who can turn back time (aww man).

Nonetheless, they suffer from a specific mental disorder that I find to be an interesting comparison to Tokinaga’s psychology.

---

Tokinaga Sachiyuki:  An Allegory of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder

Chapter 50

Hey! If you’re like my acquaintance, who freezes up at OCD mentions sometimes, take care when reading this part!

Now, I’m not too terribly interested in headcanons. The mangaka has made no such proclamation, either, and so my personal principles come into play. I won’t claim he definitely has OCD.

What I would like to put forward, though, is that Tokinaga’s psychology mirrors much of a person suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder. What he has isn’t an exact match to the real-world experience because, again, he’s a fictional character who can loop time and might be a dragon (oops, did I just drop a teaser for my next essay? Hmmmmmm).

---

“This isn’t what I want! This isn’t who I am!”

What separates OCD and Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder is that thoughts and compulsions in the former are egodystonic, while the latter is egosyntonic [1][2].

Egosyntonic: thoughts, behaviors, and feelings that are perceived by the self to be in harmony with their self-image, as well as their goals and needs. “There is nothing maladjusted with my behavior; this is  who I ‘really’ am.”

Egodystonic: thoughts, behaviors, desires, compulsions etc. that go against one’s perception of their self-image, “who they are,” and are dissonant to the needs and the goals of the ego. “There is something seriously fucked-up with my thoughts/behaviors.”

Chapter 55

Tokinaga exhibits egodystonic agony in droves. His sexual desire insults the self-image he holds about himself—the “Tokinaga” who’s disgusted by carnage, unforgivingly repulsed by brutality, as well as terrified of the frequency of such violence occurring in life. He hated all of it with his soul, and yet his penis is getting so fucking hard by seeing it.

---

Intrusive Thoughts and The Behaviors/Rituals To Fight Them

His sexual desire, as well as any thoughts of him being possibly unethical or immoral, are his version of intrusive thoughts. They aren’t just “negative thoughts” he can swat away without them corroding his sense of self. They are his obsessions[3][4]. He had managed to keep them at bay for the first bulk of the story—unless, of course, you notice his compulsive adherence to ethics and his overall behavior from Chapter 30 onward. The façade cracked as the story progressed to Orokapi’s betrayal; it dealt a blow to his mental stability. In Chapter 55, Allula even wonders if Tokinaga is suffering from a mental decline.

All of these distressing obsessions compelled Tokinaga to follow a very stringent set of ethics—which he mostly applies only to himself. To me, his rigid ritual of an apology is as good an allegorical insight as any. His nightly mental castigation, where he fervently visualizes himself dying with all the sins of the world on his shoulder, is an even wider window to such a psyche.

What sets him as a great allegory of OCD while distinguishing himself from OCPD is that he’s not doing this because he believes he’s a good, sinless person.

He’s doing it because he believes he’s the worst.

So shitty, in fact, that he thinks being killed by Allula—whose abuses would put him through the most excruciating, pleasureless pain while his body experiences blissful, painless pleasure—is the only fitting end he deserves and therefore works toward that goal. Before he gets there, though, he’d have to endure his many intrusive obsessions... and hopefully, along the way, eradicate the embodiments of violence the masses had called “gods.”

-----

Conclusion

Chapter 20. This expression tells you a lot about what Orokapi genuinely sees in his friend. One of my favorite faces yet.

Again, lemme reiterate: there is no canonical word on Tokinaga being a sufferer of OCD. I mean, if he were to perform compulsive behaviors, such as skin-peeling or hair-pulling, it might become more canonically implicative.

What I’m going off from here is his actions and psyche so far, as well as the empirical recognition—by my friend and acquaintance—of his experience. To me, OCD has become a fascinating and fitting framework for understanding some of the complexities of this character.

It speaks to the strength of After God’s character writing when Tokinaga turns out to be a great allegorical presentation for OCD in media.

Side note: I’m personally a big fan of writing about atypical experiences in an organic, humanizing way however possible, because it helps readers understand the experience without too much focus on “therapy speaks” and the rules in the DSM-V. Yes, I say this as someone who studies cognitive science, is familiar with that manual, and advocates more rigor and replicability in the fields of psychology.

In case the length of this essay did not show it clearly enough: I adore Tokinaga. As of now, I sincerely believe him when he says he’s genuinely a good person... because, as I witnessed from my friend, it takes a certain kind of good person to be able to get this tormented in the first place. More importantly, Tokinaga may have clung to a stringent sense of morality out of compulsion, but it still makes him a good person in action.

If you feel similarly to him—OCD or not—remember that one’s mind could often distort one’s vice into virtue, and virtue into vice.

Maybe you’re moral because you’re compelled to do so to battle your intrusive thoughts, and so it feels less “authentic" than being "genuinely moral."

But I disagree. As is the spirit of Buddhist Philosophy (which I personally adhere to; also lowkey study), I think you’re already pragmatically good, and through those actions, you already position yourself in an advantageous spot for moral progress. And that will always be a cause for optimism.

Thank you for reading my ramble—despite the length! I hope you've enjoyed it.

----

Citations:

“Egosyntonic and egodystonic” In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egosyntonic_and_egodystonic

“Obsessive–compulsive personality disorder. In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive%E2%80%93compulsive_personality_disorder

“Obsessive-compulsive disorder” In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive%E2%80%93compulsive_disorder

“Intrusive thought.” In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrusive_thought

[greenerteacups]

GT!!

Your writing inspires me every time I read it! I have long admired how you so skillfully drop deep insights into your writing in seemingly throw-away lines. You masterfully weave impactful themes into your narrative without disrupting flow for even a beat.

Personally, this is something I struggle with in my writing, and I'm really trying to improve. How did you learn to do this so well? Any tips for a new-ish writer?

Thanks for sharing your beautiful art with the world :) I wish I could scream at you in person about how much your writing has impacted me, but I hope you feel my respect and admiration across our screens! 🫶🏼🫶🏼

Thank you so much for the kind words! I offer you an answering scream into the void, out of mutual appreciation for the inspiration and kindness.

I think "writing themes" is tricky, because it depends on the kind of fiction you're trying to write. Some authors are deeply invested in telling a story that communicates a particular idea about how to live. (Contemporary critics tend to be dismissive of this mode because they see it as unrealistic; real experiences don't happen in order to communicate ideas or parables, etc.; and to that I would say who died and made you king of fiction, nobody said realism had to be the goal of all books ever, and the fact that the current literary climate happens to favor realism is an accident of taste and culture, not an objective standard of quality.) Those authors — I'm thinking of people like C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Harper Lee, George Orwell, Oscar Wilde, Paul Coelho, Anthony Burgess, most big-ticket science fiction novelists since Isaac Asimov and many fantasy novelists as well — have characters who act as representations of particular ideas. If you want to write that way, you might consider what you want one idea to "say" to one another in the moral thesis of your story: how do you think these concepts engage with each other? If you were going to visualize that by treating these concepts as people, what would they do to each other? What flaws would they have? How would they survive in different environments? What would be the "conclusion," i.e., which of them end up better-off? Is that a good thing? Why?

Alternatively, maybe you want a story that's more naturalistic and character-centric, and you don't want to necessarily give your reader a moral at the end of it. That's fine! In general, I've found that when most people talk about "themes," they use it as a sort of a catch-all term for "the author is thinking Deeply about Some Stuff," which doesn't necessarily mean that the text takes a position on any particular moral problem. It just means that the problems your characters have are rooted in choices they make, which allows the reader to see how certain ways of living may result in certain costs and benefits. The Great Gatsby isn't about capitalism and inequality per se, but watching Nick run around with these rich people, it's hard not to think about what capitalism and inequality are doing to each character in the story. Which kind of inevitably makes inequality and capitalism one of the themes of the book. It's not that the author put it there on purpose as an easter egg for you to find; it's just that if you want to discuss the book on a level deeper than a straight-up plot summary (asking the big why and how and what-if questions of analysis), you'll probably need to think about the ways that money and class are playing out in the story. It's woven into the structure of the story, right? These are concepts with force and energy in the novel, and they're moving pieces on the board. Conversely, some concepts don't play a role in the novel. For instance, nobody in the book is particularly religious. (Except, of course, the murderous idiot Wilson — and whoa, what does that seem to say about religion in the book?) So the redeeming power of Christ is clearly not a "theme" of Gatsby in the same way it very much is a theme of, say, Brideshead Revisited.

In that case, you might try dedicating a freewrite or two to what your concepts are. What's moving your pieces? Why you think your characters have the problems they do: what do you think causes them to fail? What in their pasts made them that way? In what situations would their faults become virtues? When they hurt other people, why does that happen? What institutions, systems, and social rules might have shaped their thought process? What do they believe, and does it help them or hurt them?

[that-ari-blogger]

Hypocrisy (Launch)

In my opinion, there are two broad sides of literary analysis. “I think this is a bout… because…” and “I like/dislike this because…”

I am also of the opinion that it is not fun to discuss things I am not fond of. Partially, this is because there is a difference between something not working and something not working for me. As in, am I not the target audience, or does this miss the mark it was aiming for?

However, I genuinely dislike Launch. I think it has some redeeming qualities, and I am going to make the case for them in this post. But I think this episode falls short, or rather, is held back by one detail that I think is important.

Let me explain.

SPOILERS AHEAD: (She-Ra and the Princesses of Power, The Owl House)

I’m going to start with the positive. I really like how Horde Prime is portrayed in this episode.

This is technically his third appearance, although it’s his second majour episode, and as such, we are still learning about him. So far, we have seen his cruelty and tactics. This man operates through restriction of free will, forcing others into actions he wishes of them. He is a con artist, a cult leader, an abuser.

Here, we see his hypocrisy. In my last post, I talked about how his antagonism reflects the themes, and I think that continues into this character trait of his.

The main question of this season is “what do you want?” Where do you want to go? What are you going to do? The characters are exercising their free will for the first time and struggling, falling on bad habits or doing nothing instead. The escape from abuse is framed as more than just physical, but psychological.

This is a season centred around motive.

As such, Horde Prime is a character who lies about his motivations at every turn.

In my series on The Owl House, I discuss Belos as an obsessive, too held by his own ideas and self-importance to see his error. I think Horde Prime is similar, but with one main difference. Both have egos the size of a solar system, and both have a worldview based on self supremacy. But I don’t think Horde Prime has a motivation.

Bellos had a 42 step plan of genocide and heroism because he wanted to be the next Witch Hunter General. Horde Prime seems to want conquest only because it is fun at the time. He is a shallow person.

This stems from the difference in story. The Owl House is about Luz learning she is not the main character and so a villain who shares that flaw but can’t progress beyond it is a good way of getting that across thematically. She-Ra is about shaking off the psychological chains left by abuse. It is a more introspective and psychological story, so the villain doesn’t need to be complex. This story isn’t about him, its about the struggle to defeat something he happens to symbolize.

So, let’s take a look at some of the statements he makes during this episode.

“Worlds that I brought into my eternal light.”

This one gets called out as bollocks pretty immediately by Glimmer.

Light is a fascinating way of describing death, and the idea that it can somehow be his is an insult to the many hard working Grim Reapers across the world. Horde Prime is reveling in power, showing off how well he kills people, as if destroying something is the same as owning it.

In his mind, it would seem, the two concepts are interchangeable, destruction and control. We can link this back to the idea of abuse and suggest that Horde Prime is abusive because that’s how he expresses ownership.

Catra had a similar mantra earlier on in the series. She wanted to be safe, and she associated control with safety and physical abuse with control.

The issue with this is that possessing something and destroying it are opposites. Not even on a moral sense, in practicality. If you have a thing and destroy that thing, you no longer have that thing. It’s gone.

Horde Prime has collected “trinkets” from places he has destroyed, so that he can have them when nobody else can. But again, there is an issue.

Artifacts are worth things to people. If the culture or the original owner give them value. If all traces of that person or culture are destroyed, historians will value the item.

But if the vast history is reduced to a “behold, my shiny thing” on your wall with nobody to see but yourself, then it loses that power.

It’s demeaning.

This is part of a recurring thing with Glimmer's response to Horde Prime. She did it with the Black Garnet in the season four finale. Glimmer lashes out at Horde Prime in an attempt to gain back her freedom, but he has put up so many shields that she can only destroy things that he has put between them. Often, those things did nothing to deserve it except be in the way. It's the cycle of abuse in action.

We see this in the real world with museums (one in particular but it is far from the only offender) keeping items it describes as loot in its accounting hidden away from their original owners. Those owners have their connection to their original culture deliberately weakened as a method of control. Or they find it insulting specifically because the items and the culture by extension are not given the respect and value they deserve. It is a psychological mode of colonialism.

Horde Prime has done this, but to himself as well as everyone else. He has taken the items from their home, denigrating their possible importance and making it to that they only signify his victory, his triumph, his possession. But he has so many that they lose that significance even to him.

Case and point, we don’t ever learn any of the names of places Horde Prime has destroyed. He doesn’t care about them, just taking their stuff. We don’t know the history of anything in this room, Horde Prime has forcibly taken that from them.

Eternal light? Bollocks.

“I take no joy in destruction. But the weeds must be burned away so that new life must flourish.”

Ok smart guy. If that’s true, why are you so cruel? If you take no joy in this, why do you do it?

Draw your mind back to when Horde Prime summoned Glimmer to meet with him. His takeover of this clone seems rather painful.

If he took no joy in destruction, why would this exist? Why would he have ostensibly invented a way of control that was this painful? Clearly he only wants to target the mind, why does he have to twist the subject to get to that?

The answer is as I mentioned earlier. He can’t separate control from destruction.

But, to take apart the metaphor, ecosystems are balanced for the most part. You don’t have to burn away the weeds in a forest for it to be beautiful. There’s nobody going around in outback Australia with a set of gardening gloves.

Invasive species are a problem, sure. But again, that’s Horde Prime. He is the outlier, the issue, the intruder. He is the colonist.

Additionally, most plants are flammable, and fire is notoriously difficult to control. If you burn away the weeds, you will burn away everything.

I live in Australia. The cycle of life here is based in a large way on fire. Certain plants have seeds that only grow after a fire, but that’s devastating to everything else, including the plants that have already sprouted. The term “trial by fire” isn’t a positive one.

Also, fun fact, we have a word in Australia for people like Horde Prime. People who take from others for the sake of it. It starts with a c.

I find that people with heads on their walls tend to at least enjoy the act of obtaining them.

However, weeds aren’t necessarily invasive species. In reality, and in the way Prime meant it, weeds are wild plants that interrupt the growing of a garden. In other words, they aren’t bad, they just happen to be where you want them to be.

If you apply this to people and places, this is how things like planetary genocide happen, and it leads back to a point I have been making for five seasons. The abuse isn’t about the victim, it’s about the abuser.

Horde Prime doesn’t care about the planets he destroys, they may have angered him, but we don’t know that. All that matters is his high of control, his glory and treasure, and the fact they were there.

Hot.

“Your planet belongs to me.”

No, it doesn’t. If it did, Prime wouldn’t need Glimmer’s help.

Just a picture of the planet not belonging to Prime. Nothing to see here beside the villain being wrong.

“I am still merciful”

Prime is in a room filled with icons of planets you destroyed. How many of them surrendered? How many of them asked for his mercy?

“Those who cling to the darkness have made their choice.”

Ok. Let’s talk about light and dark symbolism.

Worth pointing out that the first thing Prime does after complaining about people choosing darkness is snap his fingers, and turn off the light. Glimmer can't do that, she can only create things shat glow, Horde prime can cut things off.

Light and dark are usually synonymous with good and bad. This leads to issues of coding and problems of stereotypes that I am not entirely equipped to discuss. But broadly, this is the norm.

Horde Prime subverts this. He is identified with light and clearly the villain of the story. But he is simple in his application.

Light is only special in comparison to shadow. It reveals things and shines the brightest when there is none else around. When everything is lit up, the world seems flat.

We see this in the animation of She-Ra itself. I highlight moments that look stunning, but those that don’t usually fall short in my opinion because everything within has that same lighting. Everything feels monotonous.

Horde Prime is all light. There is no choice for anyone. You will be revealed, you cannot hide. Every wall in his ship is white or light grey, every surface bathed in that light.

Too much light is blinding.

The man forces everything to be without nuance, which is especially noticeable in a show that excels so much on writing humanity.

Or rather, it would be noticeable, if it were in any other episode.

Buckle up, I have thoughts.

I want to preface this with something important. It is possible to dislike part of something and still like that thing overall. Not all criticism should or can be crippling.

I love She-Ra and the Princesses of Power, it is one of my favorite stories out there, and I would not have devoted this much time to discussing it if I didn’t enjoy the series or find it worthwhile.

However, I dislike this episode more than can simply be left in the Final Thoughts section. I think that it’s handling of Entrapta doesn’t work.

Entrapta is a nuanced character in this series, just like everyone else (even Frosta). She breaks the moral spectrum of the series by refusing to care about it, and rather than that leaving her as neutral, it means she is villainous in some situations and heroic in others without breaking character. She has a moral compass, it’s just different to everyone else’s.

She is also neurodivergent, and this episode tries to talk about motivation and those who hide that by leaning into the neurodivergent stereotype and pulling her really far out of character.

First, impulsiveness and lack of regard for orders and plans. We focus on how much it upsets the others, but wait a step. This is She-Ra. Everyone breaks orders, everyone does their own thing all the time. Why is it so annoying when Entrapta does it but not anyone else?

Second, the alignment issue. The complaint from the others that she built weapons to hurt them and their kingdoms. This is a good point, only slightly undercut by the fact that Scorpia is standing less than a metre from all of these people. Does she not count? Again, why is it so frustrating when Entrapta does it but not anyone else?

Third, the emotional disconnect. Entrapta is bad at listening and reading emotions. She is also obsessive, and doesn’t seem to care about anyone other than herself and her tech until she tells you.

On the one hand, speaking as someone who is neurodivergent, obsession is something I struggle with, and reading emotional cues is difficult.

But we have seen Entrapta misread emotions before. We have seen her responses to Catra and Scorpia before. She isn’t good with the emotional stuff, so she learns context clues. If the characters around her react in the same way to different stimuli, Entrapta will register and assume there is a similar emotion there, even when the minute details reveal otherwise. She’s not incapable, she just goes about it a different way.

She also shows her affection in a manner unique to her. It’s not that she doesn’t care, its that she expresses that care dissimilarly. For example, she gives a lot of compliments and gifts, and it takes Catra and Scorpia a while to warm up to this because that kind of thing can get unnerving if you aren’t expecting it and in a way that can be hard to grapple if you are neurodiverse.

Put a pin in that phrasing. “It can be hard.”

There is a difference between that and being unwilling to help Glimmer unless she can go to space. That kind of bargaining obsession isn’t a trait we have seen in Entrapta at all. She is clever and knows how to get what she wants, yes, but she very clearly does care.

Later on in the episode, we actually see this in action. During and after the confrontation, Entrapta hyper fixates on the signal in a way that is more than just the obsession with tech. She demonstrates her dimensionality by using what she knows she is good at to help her friend, and she does it in a way that fits her character. She finds a tangible thing that can help and she damn well gets that thing.

I actually like the moment where she audibly tells herself to focus. It's a character beat played for humour that doesn't demean her at all. It's a real thing that I and a few other neurodivergent people that I know do, and it is objectively quite funny.

Can you see the difference between that and “I love space”, “I would give anything to go to space” and *waits blankly because the only thing that can motivate her to do anything is the thought of going to space.*

Hey look, it's the trope of "neurodivergent person talks so much jargon that nobody can understand them". Hooray. I find this trope annoying because usually the writer doesn't know that much technical Jargon, so they make the character either make up words, or say something normal and have everyone else look like an eejit. This scene does the second, Entrapta isn't saying anything other characters in this scene have already said. But also, they know her and have spent a not insignificant amount of time with her, they should be able to understand her.

The key thing here is the phrasing from earlier. “It can be hard.” Can is the operative word.

There are neurodiverse people who match the stereotype. But there are also a vast number of people who don’t.

The word is neurodiverse, it’s an out group not an in group. It isn’t a collection of people who fit a specific box that is separate from the majority of people who fit a different box. It is a plethora of different ways of operating. Diversity, not conformity.

Entrapta was that and is that for the majority of the series. She wasn’t the stereotype, she was just a person who worked differently from others. But here, she acts out of character so that a flaw she didn’t have could be used as a plot device.

This is especially frustrating because the main two who criticize Entrapta's behaviour in this way are Mermista and Perfuma, who, as I have discussed, are ALSO NEURODIVERGENT!

Perfuma shows signs of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, and it is part of her greatest strength and greatest weakness. In other words, a pretty core part of her character. Perfuma doesn’t yield on things, she is remarkably stubborn but freaks out when people get too loud or too emotional around her in a way that I liken to an overstimulation response. She struggles with that out of the box thinking.

Mermista, on the other hand, had a whole episode about how she was tricked into giving time for a rebellion because an opportunity arose to cosplay one of her favorite book series and she couldn’t let it go. Mermista who learned to time lightning in a storm because she practiced at home.

And the pièce de résistance?

“You’re still a weirdo, but you did good today.”

Excuse me?

The compliment is a caveat to an insult, which undermines Mermista’s argument a little bit. Still odd, but welcome because she is useful?

This was not an issue Mermista had. She was already the person who would do anything for people. She was willing to work with Shadow Weaver and Entrapta and Scorpia because they were already useful and/or were part of the fold. She didn’t need this character arc.

In short, I think multiple characters act out of character and it results in the neurodivergent individual seeming like a caricature and the plot feeling contrived.

I don't have much on this scene that relates to my whole point, but don't think I missed it.

Final Thoughts

I once again feel the need to stress that I still love the series as a whole, but also that I don’t make a habit of explaining why I think things are bad. This episode needed this discussion, and needs to be treated as an outlier.

And again, it is an outlier. The characters don’t act like themselves. Entraptra is written better in the rest of the series. This episode feels out of place in a good show, which is why it stands out so much.

Next week, however, we get back to the positive, with Corridors. Stick around if that interests you.

Previous - Next

[possum-quesadilla]

Chapter 10 of Time’s Arrow, “Used to be one of the rotten ones and I liked you for that, Now you're all gone, got your make-up on, and you're not coming back”, is here! Lydia POV time! Sorry it is short… that is for literary purposes.

As always, here are the extras!

- The lyrics for this chapter’s title are from “Anthems For A Seventeen Year-Old Girl” by Yeule! Haha, get it? Because this chapter’s from the POV of a 17 year-old demigirl? Also, it is meant to reflect their relationship and her mental space throughout it. The dream-like quality of the song is meant to mirror how confused and adrift Lydia feels here.

- The chapter is much shorter because less happens, and adding the next chapter on to this would make the pacing off, and because Lydia’s POV is very different from Beej’s! Also different from how it used to be. She’s older and more put together, and her thoughts are more concise. She takes less time to ponder than Beej does.

- “And she felt like she couldn’t breathe. … Lydia’s throat burned, which she’d assumed at first was from crying. But now it still ached horribly, and it felt like it was constricting.” … “Lydia’s hand drifted up to her throat. So red. Her hand flinched away as she swore she felt something warm and wet, but there was nothing there.” - Lydia’s connection with Beej is making her feel an echo of what he is currently feeling. It only really happens when something major happens to him, so she didn’t feel every car accident and shin-banging. Just the catastrophic things.

- “Normally, she’d go to Beetlejuice on nights she was plagued with nightmares and insomnia. Either he would curl up at the foot of her bed, or she would join him in his own bed in the basement. His presence somehow always chased the nightmares away.” - Because Beetlejuice always uses his demonic powers to will the nightmares away. Bc he’s a good big brother sometimes.

- “The image of her brother, trembling and snarling, just about frothing at the mouth, hunched over with stark-white hair, growling wildly as he turned and lashed out at- ” - A bit of the physical description we missed out on from Beej’s POV! He looked just as wild as he felt.

- “It was surely one of their… ‘episodes’. They’d been having them less and less as time went on, as they grew and healed and adapted to their own traumas and triggers. (Afterwards, she’d realized it was the yelling and touching of his old back wound that had set him off. It was understandable, she supposed, but still… scary. He’d never lashed out like that before.) She and Adam had theorized it was PTSD, but they couldn’t be sure. The idiot wouldn’t see a therapist.” - Beej was learning and healing and growing, but only so much can be done without professional help.

- “… promising she’d whip him up a healing spell as soon as she could gather the ingredients. (Healing wasn’t her sort of spell. She was more interested in scrying, curses, and hexes, but she was certainly willing to try it out for her father.)” - A peep into Lydia’s studies as a witch! One of the things that is regretfully lost in the last few chapters due to Beej’s spiraling POV. He was having trouble holding on to all the details in his mind.

- “She huffed out a laugh, halting to turn her head and cough.” - Lydia is much more polite than Beej. He would just cough in people’s faces.

- “ “Oh dear.” Delia placed a hand on her chest. “I still have my old inhaler. Do you think that would help?” ” - Delia lore! She had childhood asthma.

- “The morning came at a snail’s pace, but in just a breath at the same time. It was staggering.” - Lydia experiencing a little bit of what Beetlejuice usually did. It is rather upsetting, especially since she’s not used to it.

- “Her girlfriend readily offered a sympathetic listening ear, offering to put up signs for the store and then come to the house to be a sort of moral support. (That’s why she l- liked her so much.)” - Another thing that was regretfully lost with Beetlejuice’s POV is the full development of Lydia and Ash’s relationship. I hope to do an extra side chapter on them in the future! Also she almost slipped up and admitted she loves them here.

- “Pluto and Percy were sat staring at the door, their legs tucked under themselves.” - They could tell something was wrong, and were waiting to be let in to go check.

- “ “H-he left a note,” they eventually managed. ” - This is one of two key differences that sets this version aside from the bad ending: Ash found Beej’s note left for them.

- “If you’re reading this, I have to go away for a while. I don’t know if I’ll be able to bounce back this time. Be nice to Chuck and Delia. Give Adam and Barbara a hug. (I know you hate those, but just one for me, alright?)” - Oops! This accidentally referenced Eda’s speech in “Agony of a Witch” from season one of “The Owl House”.

- “ - Beebleboose’ ” - The curse’s lingering effects still won’t let him say or write his own name.

- “ ‘Go away’? What the hell did that mean? If anything, it read like- Lydia gasped, gripping Ash’s arms as she stood up straight.” - Lydia realized it reads like a suicide note here.

- “ “.. she woke up screaming, calling his name.” Her expression softened with concern, brows creased together. “She was clawing at her throat and begging to come see him, but I was worried it was just… one of her fits. Made her wait it out, see if it would pass. But-” “Wait, ‘clawing at her throat’?” She nodded, some sort of dark fear clouding her eyes. “.. yeah. Saying she couldn’t breathe, that.. something was wrong, that she needed to…” she swallowed hard. “That she needed to see Goose, and she… she couldn’t stand to lose another sibling.” ” - Bela watched a lot of the Shoggoth spawn fall prey to other demons. She is similarly connected to Beetlejuice, but she chose to be since she can tell he’s not very smart and she wanted to keep an eye on him. She felt a more extreme version of what Lydia did, and had an anxiety attack thinking he was dead-dead. She is devastated to think she lost the little brother she just gained.

- “Lydia was startled by the sound of Pluto growling. She’d stopped at the base of the stairs and was now frozen there, back arched and fur standing, her one golden eye round and wild.” - Pluto could sense Cyrus’ lingering vibes, and she decided they were rancid.

- “There. A gentler, hazier voice pulled their awareness to the far wall, where a piece of paper was taped to it.” - This is the insight from her scrying pulling her in the right direction.

- “She lifted the hefty cat up, draping him over her shoulders. Fuck, he’s getting huge.” - No longer a runt, he’s a giant boy now!! He has long fur too.

- “She closed her eyes, speaking the ancient words she’d rehearsed over and over again. She pressed her forehead to Percy’s, feeling the boost in power her familiar granted her flowing through her, buzzing and melodic.” - A peep into a scrying ritual! No blood required, thanks to Percy’s help.

- “She was standing in a pool of blood. It nearly covered the entire basement floor.” Cyrus cleaned up after himself. (Aside from one thing, which we will see in the next chapter)

- “ “B-” Lydia dug deep within herself, finding the rooted connection within her. She tugged hard at the thread that connected them, but found it went slack. Like there was nothing on the other end.” - This thread was referenced in the second chapter of Time’s Arrow, where she used it to find Beetlejuice in the woods. It can’t help her now.

[goldfinchwrites]

author ask tag

thank you very much to @the-inkwell-variable for tagging me! i rarely talk about my projects and this one is a mere tag of aesthetic pictures so far so here's my first foray - i will refer to it with the working title of WAWN (what a wounded name) for convenience's sake

What is the main lesson of your story? Why did you choose it?

There's no lesson. WAWN is a lot about things I myself don't have answers to - of perspectives that are at odds with one another that don't fit into right or wrong. I don't want it to ever feel like any character is condemned or vindicated - it just isn't that sort of story.

I chose this because it's more interesting to me than a straightforward Story with a Moral.

What did you use as inspiration for your worldbuilding?

I don't write second world fiction. Worldbuilding is just research to me. I suppose I chose the era I did - the end of the 1970s - because it felt so suited for gothic fiction, from a right-wing perspective because of its sense of decay, especially surrounding the future of the arisocracy, and the harshness of that winter, the horror stories of rats en masse and bodies piling up, but from my more left perspective that it doomed the UK to Thatcherism which we never really recovered from. (If I had a nickel for every time I wrote postwar fiction set just before general elections, I'd have three nickels, which wasn't intentional.) And any historical fiction with its salt considers the way it resonates with the present, and extreme weather conditions, inflation, a drastic right wing shift and rise in strike action...need it be said. And then the place! I chose the countryside surrounding Bath because I don't live in them but I've been there enough that it's both familiar with a degree of seperation. It's set in the same town as Innocence (as dicussed on my old blog), just four years earlier, and all the reasons are the same. Something, I suppose, about WAWN being about writing itself and the monopoly Jane Austen has on defining literary figures and tourism that's getting old.

What is your MC trying to achieve, and what are you, the writer, trying to achieve with them? Do you want to inspire others, teach forgiveness, or help the reader grow as a person?

Julia's an odd one. All she strives for is comfort - a cosy house, something sugary, protection from others. That isn't what she actually wants, but she deliberates makes the world she occupies very small out of fear. I'm not ever sure she is the main character, or just the narrator, in that was she has a Richard Papen/Nelly Dean quality. She's unassuming and so the most interesting person to see WAWN through. For the second question, no, no and no. As long as the reader has enough attachement to want to listen to her account of the plot, that's all. Again, I've no interest in teaching moral lessons.

How many chapters is your story going to have?

No idea. It has nine so far, but the way I plan isn't by chapter, but as I write the natural breaks just come to me. I don't think about chapters with WAWN much at all - Innocence had two perspectives to alternate between so was more segmented but this is all Julia, and I have so much more to go. It could be forty or fifty.

Is it fanfiction or original content? Where do you plan to post it?

As always, original content. I might post it privately to friends but nowhere else any time soon. I hope to query it with agents but I'm still on the first draft so I'm not thinking about that right now!

When did you start writing?

It's hard to pinpoint a specific moment in time because it's something gradual over my teen years, but I say fifteen for convenience's sake because that's when I began a (god-awful) fantasy novel that ended up being the first full draft I finished, even if it took three years. As for when I started writing this, August 2024, which makes it five months in, with my goal to finish this draft in December.

Do you have any words of encouragement for fellow writers of writeblr? What other writers do you follow?

No, actually, everyone should give up immediately. In all seriousness, writeblrs, or any writer on tumblr, that I'd like to shout out, and also tag for this: @transthadymacdermot @oliolioxenfreewrites @radioregine @laufire @skippydiesposting @goodluckclove @clypso @asablehart @redotter @erensattacktitancock @verifiablebot @barnbridges @chargoeson @authoralexharvey @vickythestrange @pinespittinink

[ludiharambasha]

Hey! So I saw your anti atla posts. I was intrigued.

I have to ask, how would have liked the show to go about Zuko? How to handle him and his plot and arc? And what do you think about him as a character in general?

Hi, sorry that it took me so long to answer this ask, and this is sadly because I am not sure I am able to provide a satisfactory answer. (This is going to be very long). I will try to approach this from several angles.

In short, Zuko's entire conception is one I have a problem with. Zuko is not a character the writers tried to do something with and failed or wrote in a confusing, messy way that could be bettered with some tweaks- Zuko is exactly what the authors of AtLA wanted him to be, and it is their artistic vision that I have a (and at the same time don't- this will be clear to you as you read on) problem with. Not just Zuko, but Iroh as well, and I think this character arc stems from the privileged background of the authors, and a larger context of Western popular art, something I discussed in greater depth when I wrote a couple of posts about The Hunger Games.

Now, there are three angles I read Zuko and his redemption arc from:

1. Redemption arcs generally being indicative of poor or mediocre story-telling;

2. Zuko as a Western, colonial fantasy;

3. Zuko as a character in media intended for children.

I think this is the most organized way I can argument my feelings and thoughts about him as a character.

1.

It was fairly obvious that Zuko was a character fallen from grace that will see glory by the end of the story. From the moment he first graced the screen, it was apparent that he would go through a redemption arc, and that his character was all about that. There are some blogs that I will add here that might have a lot more to say on the issue (I will tag them in an edited version of this post if they would be ok with me tagging them), but redemption arcs are indicative of, at best, juvenile, at worst, flat out bad writing. Redemption arcs are really fine in children's literature because of their didactic nature, but in writing intended for older audiences they should not be treated seriously.

Art really isn't about instilling morals into the audience - art is supposed to make the readers'/observers' ideological, sensory and moral world challenged in interaction with it - art presupposes the already existing morality of the one interacting with it, not a blank slate onto which the art is supposed to leave an imprint. This notion that art is about didactics is a very outdated, passée idea that resurfaces every now and then, usually in think-of-the-youths type of discourse. Art is the fruit of the author's sensory, ideistic and moral world, and innately expresses something about the auhor and the world as they percieve it-it is not meant to indoctrinate or instill something, but to provide someone's perspective on a phenomenon or idea. This does not mean that art cannot be evaluated because it is personal; its merit is decided through analysys, usually of theme(s), characters, motifs, etc., of their quality, inventiveness, coherence, and so on. It is a delicate matter and not all critics agree on every work; moreover, there are different schools of methodology of the analysis of literary works; they do not agree on many things. There are good resources on the internet where you can find more info on lenses, approaches, etc.

I cannot say that evey literary lens or critical approach condemns redemption arcs (some classics with this arc include A Christmas Carol); however, there are two very good reasons to be vary of them in fiction. A) they are moralistic, and b) they are predictable, and these two reasons are somewhat intertwined.

I've already said quite a lot about didactics and moralizing in fiction earlier, so now I will try to focus on why this impacts characterization poorly and give more focus to reason b). When I say predictable, I mean that the character that this character arc goes along traditional lines of a certain archetype, and never once goes beyond them or manages to state anything new about the convention itself or break out of its confines. Zuko starts as a prince fallen from grace and ends up as the new Firelord- there is nothing in his story that even once nods to the fact that anything else was going to happen (him failing to redeem himself in book 2, only to then be consumed by guilt and finally be redeemed for realz is also an incredibly common pattern). There is nothing transgressive or challenging to constructing a character like this. There is no profound idea that Zuko brings forward with his presence in the story. How can someone genuinely say that writing a character that has been written a MILLION times before in the EXACT SAME way to be good? We laud stories that say something; creating a character like Zuko is akin to butting into a conversation, not because you genuinely have something to say, but just to hear yourself speak. Redemption arcs are the death of character- if we know where the character arc is going to go, the readers' perspective is not challenged. It is failure to tell a unique, authentic story.

Redemption arcs are enjoyed because they deal with a commmon fantasy that we CAN do better and be better, eventually. Very few follow up on this and become better people, but reading about people that do sure is reassuring. This creates this self-righteous feeling in the reader for aligning with the right cause. This has a very clear moral and instructive tone - do better. When art is made to instill values is when the art ceases to be creative. This does not mean that art is and should be devoid of morality; on the contrary, art is meant to engage your morality through self reflection. When you read about deplorable characters doing deplorable things, there is no need for the narrator to outright say 'this bad' - how you feel about actions of the characters is inherently a moral excercise. (Why should anyone celebrate art that insults the readers' intelligence and their ability to make moral judgements?)

At the heart of redemption arcs is that they are digestible, easily understood, and reaffirm the goodness of the reader. It is the most simple, juvenile type of writing there is.

2.

There is a reason why Zuko's redemption arc (and many others of the like) have a particularly strong appeal - they are reassuring to white, Western readers. They play into another, more disturbing fantasy - the sins of one's colonial past can be undone, forgiven and forgotten. If a prince of an empire that committed genocides, military occupations, and so on (there is a very long list of the crimes the Fire Nation committed), can be redeemed and become better and help the oppressed people, then so can they (they won't, and don't really intend to, but the fictional realization is enough!). There is also a reason why the fucking beach episode is beloved in AtLA fandom- it goes through the motions of 'humanising the Fire Nation' and showing them full of just some random, 'normal' kids that just live normal lives (in the eyes of the 1st worlders). It is the ultimate justification of white Western conformity, ignoring how this conformity keeps oppressive, violent systems running. Aang's culture being wiped off the face of the Earth, showing us the torture Hama went through, seeing Katara never find peace about her mother being killed by a Fire Nation soldier, never getting to see Jet get justice for the murder of his parents, all the environmental damage the Fire Nation caused is extended as much or less sympathy than privileged kids from the Fire Nation. Let that sink in. Zuko is just the most glaringly obvious realization of this motif.

Zuko's redemption arc is reflective of Westerner's feelings about colonialism and racism. This guilt is something that is part of them, as one has to be painfully stupid to be oblivious to their nations' pasts- everything around them reflects their vile history. They either choose to double down on this fact and percieve themselves as victors and their past as full of glory, others have trouble dealing with the gravity of these facts. And Zuko's moral dilemmas, his failures reflect this "revelation" and (surface-level) abhorrence towards imperialism. And it reflects a more awful truth, that these people seldom truly recognise the true implications of their own involvement in these systems - they often see colonialism as these sins of the past and systems divorced from their own involvement, and not the sins of both the past and present they actively contribute to - and Zuko also realises the faults of the Fire nation not based on what he personally did or has seen with his own eyes; he truly starts to recognise the evils of the Fire Nation when confronted with his past and his lineage. It is not the institution of the Fire Lord and the immense power it carries that has led to these heinous crimes, or the militarism- it is particular people that need to be brought down. Zuko, despite being a war criminal just like his father and sister, is absolved of what he did de facto. Just like the primary audience of AtLA would like to be.

Another thing to note, one that is not analytic but entirely subjective on my part, is that I cannot brush off the feeling that Zuko's redemption is more strongly motivated by Zuko's feelings of inadeqacy, rather than a developed sense of justice (this one is more up to interpretation, as there is proof n the story for and against this assertion).

3.

Redemption arcs and Zuko I don't have a problem with if we are looking at AtLA through the lens of mediocre standard children's media. Children's media should be didactic, because children learn a lot from engaging with the environment, and media is a particularly influential one. A child will not be capable of detecting all the implications of AtLA as a narrative - for them, it is enough to see a simple character like Zuko. I just cannot stand it when people delude themselves into believing he is written well, he's average at best.

That is all I have to say on the matter, for now. Thank you for your question. Take care.

[theanimeview]

[Analysis] Black Butler & Aestheticism

Source: Chapter 138

By: Peggy Sue Wood | @pswediting

To be honest, after completing my Master’s thesis on Oscar Wilde and aestheticism, I never thought I’d revisit the concept of aestheticism again in my life. Yet, here I am—drawn back into it and overlapping it (much to my dismay) with the world of Black Butler, a series I’ve loved since middle school. With another arc now adapted into an anime this season, I’m excited to discuss the latest installment of this gothic tale, this time with a bit on aestheticism, the gothic, and academia.

Black Butler: Public School Edition is a distinctive arc. While each arc in the series has its unique qualities, this one is perhaps the most interesting to me because it is the first time we really get to see Ciel work independently and prove himself apart from Sebastian for a prolonged period. Sure, Sebastian is there and working too, but Ciel is powering through this particular arc solo more than we’ve seen before and since. So while the series has always told us Ciel is smart, this time we actually get to see him in action. 

Moreover, in this arc we get to see the role of aestheticism and gothic literary form wrapped in a dark academia theme—a match made in my dark academia aesthetic soul. 

Of course, Black Butler fans have probably noticed how the series consistently embraces various aspects of the gothic aesthetic, but what is aestheticism and how is that different?

Aestheticism is a cultural and artistic movement that emerged in the late 19th century, with Oscar Wilde being a known proponent of the movement, the setting in particular being in the second half of the Victorian era. It emphasizes the importance of beauty and the pursuit of refined sensory experiences as the highest ideals in life and is often associated with a rejection of the notion that art and beauty should be valued for its moral or political utilization rather than for its own sake. To quote, badly I might add, my own thesis: 

“the literature on the subject of Aestheticism highlights four consistent tenets of the movement (and the art within said movement),… These four principles are the pursuit of beauty for the sake of beauty, the elevation of art or the pursuit of beauty alone, the celebration of individualism, and the idea that art is separate from life, meaning that while art should not have limits, life should” (Wood, pages 4-5 I think). 

Meaning:

The pursuit of beauty for the sake of beauty = We should like things simply because we like them and appreciate that sometimes things are just beautiful without meaning behind it.

The elevation of art or the pursuit of beauty alone = We should champion the autonomy of artistic expression, rejecting external moral or utilitarian purposes in expression.

The celebration of individualism = An encouragement of individuals to seek and appreciate beauty in all aspects of life.

The idea that art is separate from life = While we should pursue a beautiful life and not always try to apply morals or ethics or utility to art, we should not confuse that with reality. Reality has rules and should, but art can and should be free for expression of any and all forms. This rule extends to several things. For example, a morally and ethically horrible story about doctors killing patients might be a well-written thriller that people love, but that doesn’t mean the reader likes murderers. If they like the book, it doesn’t mean that they should become a murderer either. It means that life does and should have moral and ethical limitations, but art should be free of those and that we can like art while being free of those same moral and ethical limitations.

On the other hand, an “aesthetic” is a broader term that refers to the appreciation and study of beauty, whether in nature or art. It encompasses a wide range of styles, tastes, and artistic preferences, without necessarily subscribing to the specific principles of the Aesthetic movement. 

With that said, I always viewed Black Butler as a largely aesthetic piece, not applying aestheticism. The aesthetic of the work is gothicism, and you can see this in every arc, which contains some aesthetic focus within the realm of the gothic. We see it in a wide range of themes from the circus to J-pop imagery, but with different forms of the gothic theme based on the setting/frame. These aesthetics also fit within the realm of the gothic novel. Paraphrasing here, ”The gothic novel is defined by its emphasis on mystery, horror, and the supernatural. It frequently features elements such as haunted castles, concealed passageways, spectral visions, and various artifacts that contribute to the overall atmosphere of terror within the narrative (NTC’s Dictionary of Literary Terms by Kathleen Morner and Ralph Rausch).

When we think of the gothic, we often think of the architecture or clothing styles, but there is a lot more variation to this aesthetic than you might think and we see how the creator is applying these variations of the aesthetic throughout the series as we trace some pivotal parts of late-Victorian era history.

So, broken down, we have the Black Butler Arc & Red Butler Arc, which present a basic gothic tale. We have the Indian Butler Arc, which focuses less on the gothic, but more broadly sets us in late Victorian England to match the Red Butler Arc’s Jack the Ripper narrative, based on the socio-political context. 

Then we have the Circus Arc, which presents a new, dark meaning to the freak shows of England’s history and returns us to the gothic novel themes. We have the Phantomhive Manor Murders Arc, which I’ve discussed already as being true to the gothic form for the inclusion of the sublime. Next is the The Luxury Liner Arc, which coincides with the Titanic that sank just as the Victorian era was coming to an end. The Public School Arc, which we’re discussing here, followed by Emerald Witch Arc and the Blue Arc(s) that I will not discuss at the moment, but probably will in a later post. 

Now, all of these arcs are–in some way–gothic. They all feature the supernatural, they all include a bit of horror, and they all contain some mystery that the Queen’s watchdog must solve. In the Public School arc, the story unfolds within the chaotic halls of academia, weaving a prolonged and intricate narrative involving demon contracts, soul reapers, and other unearthly mysteries. The aesthetic is still gothic, this time as a dark academia vibe, and though I started to notice this turn to the aesthetic during the circus arc, really all of BB has spent a significant amount of time overlapping history, image, and the gothic to build us up to the aesthetic notion. 

However—when thinking of the latest arc to be animated, something clicked. In this arc it really started to click for me that, actually, this work is both a gothic novel and a follower of aestheticism, much like Dorian Gray or Wuthering Heights.

In Chapter 138, Sebastian makes references to following the aesthetic–and that does not seem unintentional. He could have said it was against a code, or policy, or moral or ethic–but he doesn’t. He says it’s against his “aesthetic” and all throughout the series Sebastian has a very hard time letting go of beautiful things. The mansion must be clean, the staff must be well dressed (so too should their lord), the cats are “beautiful” creatures, he doesn’t do “dirty” things to the best of his ability and will give up on what is natural in appearance or progress for a human with his human image to maintain his aesthetics. 

So too does our story. 

Ciel is rejecting external morals by maintaining his contract with Sebastian. We’re told in the anime and the manga that he doesn’t care what is “right” and he’s not getting revenge for anyone else but himself–others be damned. 

What I pull from this is that Sebastian is representative of the art for art’s sake and Ciel is the elevation of art, and their approach is that of celebration of individualism. As Sebastian encourages Ciel’s individuals to seek and appreciate “beauty” in all aspects of life on the road to hell because, as mentioned, art is separate from life. The consequences of following the aesthetic, in this case revenge, are there and Ciel is actively moving towards them because his “art” is not separated from his life.  

If I am right about this, then it adds some new meaning to the work as a whole. The gothic novel element still stands, but it adds additional meaning to the end and makes the use of Hamlet in the “His Butler, Performer” so much more reflective of the tale. Ciel is chasing revenge for revenge’s sake, for his own sake and it is a costly journey. One that, like Dorian Gray, will capture Ciel’s soul not because of the revenge itself, but because of the inability to separate life from art.

To me, it is an absolutely fascinating idea! I look forward to seeing how aestheticism works its way further into the work. What about you all? Do you agree or disagree with this idea?

Copyedited by: Krow Smith | @coffeewithkrow

[hospitalterrorizer]

diary278

6/21-22/24

friday - saturday

another day up too late playing video games.

i am not like this mostly, these days at least, it's fun though, it makes me kind of happy i can go here, again, like being younger i guess or something. today fsr there's a free weekend thing going on w/ sony so i have access to the online for a little bit, it's really pleasant seeing all the messages and bloodstains around honestly, it reminds me of when i played dark souls for the first time and got to see all that. idk. really magical stuff, this is really getting at that nostalgia a bit, now that i reflect on it, though it's very different, and definitely not out to recapture anything dark souls had, cuz w/ dark souls it's this journey through levels, this is floatier because of the open world and stuff, the look is also way different, i do miss dark souls' sharpness w/ textures and how metal looked, i still think that and demon's souls could be their best looking engine? idk. bloodborne and elden ring both have really perfect art direction generally so it's not like i dislike how they look, it's just idk, those engines had something weird and special in them, these new games are also weird and special though.

beyond that, the more time i spend w/ the game and the dlc, the more i feel, though i am not totally convinced/able to make it declarative, that the game has some kind of literary theory lodged in it, or all the souls games have philosophy lodged in them, i can't tell how deliberate it ever is, the general nietzschean qualities across all of them, and then the ways they move from that, what else they employ/look at, absorb (digest?) and make use/waste of, make waste the better turn of phrase here (this only means i love what they do more), in terms of history/culture, past(s (plural because multiple + alternate reads on that past within the same context/moment/history staring back on itself)), anyhow with this sense that there's a heavier kind of thought lodged in the games, and the sense of a movement of thought in all of them, from demon's souls being an almost desperately pessimistic thing, to dark souls being more ambivalent and curious about why these things have come to or what enabled them, the manufacturing of morality, the development of the incorrect, what the human "is" in a cluster of ways, humanity against itself, from there most of what comes after is in debt, and squarely this feels like or recalls to me everything i hear/make of the french leftist reads of nietzsche. this isn't to say secretly the games are communist, they are though rather intensely pointed at using thought + strange notions against empire and morality, making explicit in the world colonial/exploitative facts of existence and then making you go through the overturning/transvaluation of things, contending with eternal recurrence in the klossowski sense w/ the gameplay, you go through malady to mania, that kind of thing. anyway that's the way it feels/comes off to me, in a strange way elden ring is the one so far that seems to come closest to pointing at literature, this is hard to think of all examples of, i suppose there are 'none', but what i mean is, the way ritual is employed, the shaky nature of religiosity in the game, what's become of death and whatever, the impossibility of death, this feels it sets one into a bataillean frame almost, where there's excess energies that cannot be wasted, life is eternal + useful, or that is the ideal, that is the disaster you are contending with through much of the game. beyond that however, generally in the game, it seems aware of the need to develop a subhuman for the human, to create the human, and it illustrates that drive in the general cruelty of the broad powers of the land. blah blah blah, anyway in the dlc, it gets really explicit, i feel like, you go to a whole castle level and a huge part of it is this specimen archive zone, where the misshapen/graceless things are hung and displayed, the example is kept and studied! messmer is so oddly and explicitly fascistic a villain, for the series, it's genuinely going out of its way it feels, to make that faction feel intensely evil.

however, i would like to say, i guess for the sake of honesty, that out of all the lanky pale evil villain characters people think are hot, messmer is one of the ones to do it for me. maybe it's the snakes, they make him like, cuter, idk. the cutscene where you see him is really something though, it just made me go, wow, i really really like him. the other characters to do this for me were from dark souls 3, the incest yaoi brothers, where there's weak one hanging on his brother's back and the stronger brother with broken legs drags him around on his back and fights you, and if you kill the stronger brother, the weak one heals him. frustrating fight totally saved by the fact that you know they were made to make you think about them fucking. ds3 is freakishly sexual, i think, maybe. or maybe not. idk. maybe i am telling on myself, elden ring is only slightly less bizarre, on that scale, i think.

any wayyyyyyyyyy, uhmmmm,

thinking about devi mccallion uploading a video about homestuck today and saying her favorite character is andrew hussy because she is also "an ugly blogger who fumbled the bag also." which is a powerful statement. i don't think either of them are ugly, though. hussy just looks like his lips got stung by a bee but it works out for him. some people get away with that look.

here's a song i'm listening to right now:

anyway i really have to sleep, so

byebye!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[nijjhar]

Proofs VB of Jesus - 3:- Hajj for sons of Man to be Son of God. First be... Proofs VB of Jesus - 3:- Hajj for sons of Man to be the Son of God. First be born of water then of God. https://youtu.be/zksMaGvFVts THE BIRTH AND DEATH OF JESUS – PROVED Many people know that Jesus was born of a Virgin in the manger of an Inn situated in Bethlehem, the birthplace of King David, the lion of the Judah tribe, and He died a very humiliating death on the cross at a place much haunted and feared by people.  But why did it happen so? Why the Virgin Birth? -   The answer is very simple for the twice-born people of the holy spirit, who are capable of "perceiving" and “intuition” based upon logical reasoning.  At the same time, it is well beyond the apprehension of the once-born people of "flesh", who are capable of "seeing" only and they believe what they can read or prove in material terms or scientifically.  Thus, they take the Holy Books by the dead "letters".  No wonder such people are also called the “people of Book” and they address Super Servant Christ Jesus as Lord Jesus Christ so that they could Lord over the others in His name whereas Father has sons, who are welcome into the House whilst the Lords have slaves that are kept outside the House. Our Anointed Elder Brother Christ Jesus, the First anointed Christ (Satguru) of God Elohim, Allah, Parbrahm, etc. was to appear among the people of Judah tribe who at the times of King David were highly religious and they had a good knowledge of the Holy Books such as Torah.  They used to obey the moral laws of Moses to the very "letters" and for their religious devotions; they were called the "angelic people" or DEVTAS.  But the act of "adultery" by King David was a "sin" that put the people of Judah tribe to great "shame". However, in this Dark Age, things happen just the "opposite" to the past "enlightened" Ages under Rabbis, the “Moon”.  Thus, the most religious people of the Judah tribe become the "highly" satanic people (misusers of religious knowledge for greed) of the tribes of Isaac and they turned the shameful act of "adultery" by their king David into an act of great pride to be boasted off publicly with such an "arrogance" that if our king David did it, so why couldn’t we do it in the "steps" of our great King David.  In short, the people of the Judah tribe were too clever for the rest of the tribes of Isaac. The nature of these satanic people of the Judah tribe was well illustrated in Judas Iscariot, the only twice-born evil-spirited Labourer of the Judah tribe who, like his forefathers, was well versed in the “letters” and accounts. It was he who begged Jesus to take him on for his literary skills, especially to handle the "purse". The Omniscient Jesus knew his love of Mammon and his smartness culminated in taking a bribe of 30 Shackles to deceive Jesus. By the time of the Last Supper, every Labourer knew the character of Judas Iscariot too well to be told except the once-born Peter and so, at the Last Supper Jesus rebuked Judas Iscariot and turned him away for his smartness and dirty heart Not properly dressed for the Wedding Banquet before He started to baptised the rest of His eleven Labourers in the Last Supper rites Eucharist of sacrifice or entering into the Bridal Chamber. Further, people knew that Jesus had come in the line of King David among these satanic people of the Judah tribe, who had become the bad characters. But when a woman saw Jesus doing good “deeds” worthy of the qualities (salt) of old King David, then she remarked, “You are a real son of David” in qualities but not in quantity or in the “seed” of flesh. Remember that Jesus healed many Jewish people but hardly any one of them thanked him whilst a Samaritan of “Salt” of Abraham and Yahweh, who was healed not only thanked Jesus but also accompanied him. Whilst the Gentiles who were considered by the smart people of the BOOK, the so-called Jews, to be the "simpletons", the “stones” or Goyeishi Koppah, they became the great religious people of "spirit", the Saints and earned the fame that organisations like the present "Good Samaritan, the generation of Joseph" openly speak of. Now, the tribal "identity" of "flesh" establishes one's link or "covenant" with our ancestors or Adam and by doing so one becomes a "son of Man'', which Jesus termed as the "wheat" plants or “Salt of the earth”, that our heavenly father, the demiurge "creator" Yahweh = Brahma = Khudah, planted in this field of world - Matt. 13.24-30.  But if you hide or severe Any help:- YouTube removes my Bitter Videos and gives me a strike. My ebook by Kindle. ASIN: B01AVLC9WO Private Bitter Gospel Truth videos:- www.gnosticgospel.co.uk/nobility.htm www.gnosticgospel.co.uk/Rest.htm Any helper to finish my Books:- ONE GOD ONE FAITH:- www.gnosticgospel.co.uk/bookfin.pdf and in Punjabi KAKHH OHLAE LAKHH:-  www.gnosticgospel.co.uk/pdbook.pdf Very informative Channel:- Punjab Siyan. John's baptism:- www.gnosticgospel.co.uk/johnsig.pdf Trinity:- www.gnosticgospel.co.uk/trinity.pdf

[aksarabumilangit]

Dismantling the interesting contents of Denny JA’s selected work to 39: the voice of the teacher

Dismantling the interesting contents of Denny JA’s selected work to 39: the voice of the teacher    In the world of Indonesian literature, the name Denny JA is familiar. Denny JA, known as a writer, teacher, and activist, has given birth to many works that inspire the younger generation. One of his interesting works is “the voice of the teacher”, who was chosen as his best work at the age of 39.    “The voice of the teacher” is an essay poem that tells the story of the life journey of a teacher in a remote village in Indonesia. This essay poem succeeded in attracting the attention of many readers with the strength of the story full of inspiration and deep moral messages.    In this essay poem, Denny JA succeeded in describing the life of a teacher in great detail. He described the challenges and difficulties faced by a teacher in guiding children in remote villages. However, Denny Ja also did not forget to slip the extraordinary hopes and enthusiasm of the teacher to provide the best education for his children.    The depiction of the character in the “teacher’s voice” is so strong and deep. Denny Ja is able to make the reader feel the same emotions as the teacher, as if we joined in feeling every struggle he faced. The presence of children’s characteristics in this story is also very interesting, with diverse personalities and in accordance with the conditions of rural communities.    In addition to a strong portrayal of character, Denny Ja also has a unique and flowing writing style. He uses simple but captivating language, making it easier for readers to connect with stories and understand each scene displayed. He also presents realistic dialogue, making the reader seem to be part of the conversation that occurs in essay poetry.    The theme raised in the “Teacher’s voice” is very relevant to the current educational situation in Indonesia. Through this work, Denny Ja wants to convey an important message about the importance of the role of a teacher in shaping the nation’s future. He invited the reader to better appreciate and support teachers who tirelessly struggled to provide quality education.    Not only a strong moral message, this essay poem also teaches many things to the reader. Starting from the values of honesty, hard work, friendship, to the spirit to achieve dreams. Denny Ja managed to pack all this message well, so that the reader can feel the warmth and wisdom that is in this story.    Not only that, “the teacher’s voice” also gives a clear picture of the natural beauty of Indonesia. Denny Ja carefully described the stunning rural landscape, as well as the life of a harmonious community with nature. He invited the reader to love and protect the nature of Indonesia which is rich in local beauty and wisdom.    This 39th Denny Ja chosen work has succeeded in attracting the attention of many people. Many literary readers and critics give praise for the quality of the stories and messages conveyed. The essay poem “The Teacher’s Voice” is proof that Denny Ja is still able to produce inspirational and meaningful work at an age that is no longer young.    In his career, Denny Ja has contributed a lot of contributions to Indonesian literature. He not only writes, but is also active in teaching and research activities in the field of literature. The work of Denny Ja always reflects his intelligence and dedication in fighting for education and culture in Indonesia.

Check more: dismantle the interesting contents of Denny Ja’s selected work 39: The voice of the teacher

[ersaputriii]

Interesting Analysis of Denny JA's Selected Work 46: "Gathering of Ibrahim's grandson"

In the world of Indonesian literature, Denny JA has become a familiar name. His work that is interesting and full of meaning has always succeeded in attracting the attention of the readers. One of his latest works, "Gathering Cucu Ibrahim", became a hot topic of conversation among literary lovers. This article will conduct an interesting analysis of the 46th selected work of Denny JA. "Gathering of Ibrahim's grandson" is an essay poem that lifts the story of friendship that grows in the middle of difference. This essay poem has a rich Indonesian cultural background and a touching story. In this analysis, we will see some interesting aspects that make this work so special. First, the quality of writing Denny JA in this essay poem deserves thumbs up. His beautiful language style and deep description make the reader really swept away in the storyline. He succeeded in describing each character so well that the reader can feel the same emotions as felt by the characters in the story. Furthermore, the theme of "Gathering of Grandma Ibrahim" who raised the value of friendship and tolerance is also very relevant to our current social conditions. In an increasingly advanced era of globalization, it is important to understand and appreciate differences. Denny JA wisely shows that true friendship can arise among individuals who have different cultural backgrounds. In this essay poem, Denny JA also succeeded in describing the lives of Indonesian people very well. He highlighted various social problems faced by our society, such as economic inequality, intercultural conflicts, and life struggle. By taking the perspective of his main character, Denny JA helps readers to better understand the social reality that is around them. One thing that is interesting in "Grues of Ibrahim's grandson" is the use of myths and folklore in the storyline. Denny JA combines traditional stories with modern narratives, creating an interesting and charming combination. This not only adds cultural wealth to the work, but also gives a deeper message to the reader. Apart from the interesting writing terms, the figures in "Grues of Cucu Ibrahim" also have an interesting complexity. Denny JA succeeded in creating a living character and has a very important role in telling this story. The reader will feel tied to them and feel every excitement and sadness they experience. Finally, the moral message contained in "the friendship of Ibrahim's grandchildren" is very valuable. Denny Ja wisely teaches the importance of mutual respect, mutual respect, and mutual understanding in establishing social relations. This message is very relevant and important in strengthening unity and integrity in Indonesia, as well as building a more harmonious society. In this analysis, we have seen several interesting aspects that make "Grunds Ibrahim's friendship" a special work. Denny Ja with his expertise in writing succeeded in creating an entertaining essay poem and giving a deep message to the reader. In terms of writing, themes, community depiction, the use of myths, complex figures, to moral messages contained, this work really deserves high recognition.

Check more: Interesting Analysis of Denny JA's Selected Work 46: "Gathering of Ibrahim's grandson"

[www-islandofsodor]

Character Comparison:

Hello everyone. Admin here with a brief character analysis. Today’s spotlight character is, of course, Duck. To say Duck is a lot of things is definitely an understatement. He is a very complex character with a crap ton to say about.

I kinda align Duck with 3 different characters from three respective franchises. The first of which being Steve Urkel from Family Matters. Both being annoying as hell type characters with a surprising amount of charm to them and were only meant to be one-offs but were brought back so much that they were made into series regulars.

The second of whom being Bucky Barnes from the MCU. Both are charming, respective individuals who go out of their way to stand up for the little guys. Since Bucky actually fights with the bullies, it makes sense that Duck does the same in the books. It also makes sense that, like Duck, Bucky is also a city boy. He is Steve got toughened up playing the alleys. They also saw a plethora of jerkasses and knew just how to deal with them.

The final character I align Duck with is one of my favorite literary characters ever. That, of course, being Wendy Darling from Peter Pan. She’s a young girl who’s identified as a supreme authority on all things Neverland; similar to duck being a supreme authority on all things Great Western. Both are chatterboxes when excited and are doe-eyed daydreamers. Like Wendy, Duck also wants to see lands beyond the horizon. but in the end, both characters learned that life‘s greatest rewards are not seeing what’s out there but it home where you have friends and a purpose. Friends give you purpose. True happiness is discovering where you truly belong and uncovering the purpose that you were on this earth to fulfill; a pretty high concept moral for either child or steam engine to vessel. But a damn important one.

Also, like Duck, Wendy represents true unbridled quality within the Peter Pan mythos. In any adaptation (be book, film, or character art), she was never tarnished, never ruined, or made into anything less than what she was always meant to be.they are both characters that are, and will forever be, good. With far more to them than meets the eye.

In conclusion, all three of these characters combined to form one of the finest most superior Great Western engines that you will ever hope to see.

[columboscreens]

Been loving the Twitter account and realized I'd love the Tumblr too.

Anyway, I've always wondered something... my mom and I began to realize that maybe one of the reasons classic Columbo's formula made such a splash and continues to be unique is that he's basically presented as the story's "villain".

Not in a "he was the real killer" kind of way, I mean structure-wise for most episodes the killer is the main character with the majority of screen time. It occurred to us that all the best episodes really seem to present the murderer as the protagonist, with us seeing them plan and carry out their scheme, even sometimes be privy to their inner thoughts. Then after they've done their killing, this... monster starts stalking them. It seemed to us the best episodes were the ones where WE are put in the killer's shoes the most, and maybe the character and show formula has endured so well because its thrill feels so similar to watching your favorite movie monster pursue dumb teenagers in a haunted house.

We noticed it kinda felt like it had that same weirdly sadistic glee. Like sure the movie might be "about" the campers or family or whatever, but the monster creeping around "getting" everyone is who you really came to see.

I wondered if anyone else had felt this fun "relentless antagonist" vibe from Columbo? Maybe the formula continues to feel unique even today because it isn't set up quite like a detective show. It's a rich arrogant murderer show, we just can't wait for our favorite monster to show up and chase them (with insidious, relentless politeness).

thank you!

not to needlessly intellectualize my own favorite show (i say, maintaining this blog), but there's a real sophistication to columbo, a literary quality that i think appeals to people. though the production appears facile at first, those choices in formula and perspective you mention are indeed very deliberate and part of what made columbo so fresh and special both when it aired and today. it was a very novel approach to the mystery format to have us start off with the murderer and maybe even root for them sometimes against columbo. as i always say, the show evokes dostoyevsky and doyle, not bruckheimer; it's born from old-fashioned drawing room murder mysteries, not CSI.

the mysteries are usually sharp--between columbo and murder she wrote alone, levinson and link were two of the most prolific mysterysmiths of the 20th century. but ultimately, for both the viewer and for columbo, it's all about the chase, the game, the banter. it's about a mangy little guy tussling with someone with more dollars than he has hairs on his body, and winning to boot. the legwork is important, but it does ultimately come second.

steven moffat got torn to shreds for calling columbo a sadist, but he was absolutely right and needn't have apologized. if you get up in arms about that, do you really understand columbo?

the man is a benevolent sadist. that's why he appears borderline villainous. he is a sadist with a level head and good moral compass, but still a sadist. he goes well out of his way to fuck over people who deserve to get fucked over, and he clearly enjoys every minute of it. it's how he's able to remain so relentless without getting burned out. is that so wrong?

just look at the smirk on this man's face. you cannot deny that.

like a fine wine, his power grows with time...

peter falk himself often likened being chased by columbo to "getting nibbled to death by a duck". nobody can stand there and tell me ducks aren't the cutest and also pettiest most sadistic little bastards in the animal kingdom...

sir!!!! SIR!!!!! i don't mean to bother you, i've just got this one little thing on my mind, i thought maybe you could help me...