#nothing exists in a vacuum

[smokeys-house]

Is my work derivative? Perhaps!! But it is mine and all things must be derived from something

[qwuilleran]

ceteris paribus

(but they're not)

thank you to whoever made this meme, it's a big hit in the lab and sends microbiologists into hysterics

[xartus]

I'm gonna take Celtic and Germanic and mix them up in a big pot and make delicious stew and drink it

[thefudge]

You're really here. Yes. I'm here. Owen? No. I'm not Owen.

[vitaetmorsfilo]

i wonder, could be that slay the princess, which as far as i understand it about a lot of things but i think most of all is about choices, could also be about art?

the thing that gets me intrigued is that the princess herself has said that she is what player perceives her to be, "if you believe i can do it, then i can", and that what makes the shifting mound, different perspectives of her

that sounds to me a lot like commentary on some modern art nowadays, that modern art is not just a thing, but your feelings towards it that shapes it. there was a little comics snippet, where man was looking at malevich's square and called it useless, and the second panel was the painting itself screaming at man that he is useless (i can't for the love of me find it). so, the mans feelings towards the picture shaped the picture itself in his mind.

some may say that it is what is art, a sort of conversation, an exchange between the piece of art and the viewer.

and i think it falls neatly into place the dynamic between the princess and the hero/player. the former is the art, in all it expanse and variety, while the latter is the viewer, who brings it clarity, whose feelings shape the world around this art in one moment of a time, while having conversation not just with art, but themselves, too.

[kaurwreck]

Another reason why I don't love quotes out of context (and maybe this comes from having been raised in the Deep South and Southern Gothic literature), but I think it encourages sanitization and censorship where language isn't acceptable. It's harmful.

I'm against glossing over the realities of the stories that shape us and our cultural histories, even where uncomfortable. Ignoring context dulls our ability to recognize the implications of what we're taking in when we engage with any media.

Hello I was wondering if you had a post of atsushi and chuuya quoting their IRL books? I thought I saw a post like that but I may be wrong

I've invited games in which I've responded to asks with lines from my favorite Nakahara Chuuya poems.

But, I haven't done the same with Nakajima Atsushi. I love reading Nakajima Atsushi's works, but his short stories, much like Akutagawa Ryuunosuke's, are tightly written; it would pain me a bit to pluck quotes out of context, when the punchiness of their stories can't be divorced from their overall construction.

(Which implies Nakahara Chuuya's meter and narratives aren't as clever, but really, I'm just far more ignorant regarding poetry and my ability to interpret poetry than I am short stories. I'm slightly more capable when navigating free verse like Arthur Rimbaud's, but what can I say, other than perhaps Nakahara Chuuya was right when, according to Kazuo Dan, he drunkenly shouted at Osamu Dazai, "There is no way a novelist can comprehend the soul of a poet!")

That said, there are other blogs that will share quotes from the irl works like @bsd-bibliophile, so perhaps that's who you're thinking about!

[uncanny-tranny]

Life got more interesting when I learned that everything is an argument, everything is political, and everything is deeper than it seems. Everything is the product of something, and it's up to us to figure out what that "something" is. We are interesting as fuck! We are deeper than you think!

It might seem really tedious, but recognizing this has made me so much less incurious. I now want to learn about us as people. Everything is deeper than it seems.

[aprito]

(English is not my first language, so I apologize if what I say is not very understandable).

It left me thinking what you said about some people only being interested in your account to escape reality through fandom.

Have they even stopped to think that the canonical history of the fandom they follow is full of wars, and children used to kill?Aren't we all worshiping Sasori, who lost his parents in the war and then became an active participant himself, being just a child?

Are they so oblivious to the fact that these characters made us see the gray of a world full of death and violence, that they cannot realize that all these stories are a representation of the real behavior of our humanity?

Don't delete anything, please say everything you feel necessary to say. These people have me in shock.

Naruto's ""darker"" themes has always been an analysis of how inherently evil militarism, feudalism, hyper nationalism and exposing literal children to the horrors of war and death can be and how these systems enabling these horrors shouldn't exist. It's not black and white like you said, but there are beliefs that will always be red flags to me. Take the Uchiha massacre for example, which would be the closest comparison we can make to current events.

Unfortunately, partly due to Kishimoto's shitty centrist writing and due to how predispositioned and pre-propagandized the audience is, all of these conclusions can get glossed over and lost. How many in this fandom defended Konoha's violent pursuit of Sasuke for the longest time? Saying that he wasn't allowed to deal with Itachi, and then reprimanding him for turning his hatred towards the village? Worse, how many fawn over characters like Obito, Shisui, and especially Itachi - who had no qualms about endangering their clan and ultimatively agreeing that none of them deserved to oppose their oppressors and live? Konoha, not just Danzo, in turn had kept up a heavily propagandized image of the Uchiha due to their own personal hatred and beliefs. In Danzo's case, an excuse to get access to their organs for personal profit. Worse, they (Itachi, Shisui) didn't bother being honest with their own people, ultimatively not allowing them to escape or fight back. Contrast this against the hatred for Fugaku, who not once decided to act on his own and correctly pointed out that they have been ostracised and dehumanised for things they didn't do and feared it would get worse. Sound familiar? People are correct when they call the Uchiha massacre a genocide because that's what it was, but those are the people who actually drew from real life examples to criticially engage with the material.

Analysing real world struggle and applying that analysis to the narrative is the reason I continously empathize that Sasori's hatred for Suna shouldn't be glossed over for cushy high ranking positions because he just so happens to be talented. It's integral to his character and his actions, and it's a valid hatred to have. I honestly wish Kishimoto would have a fraction of enthusiasm for exposing the systems of oppressions as Oda has (a lot of conflicts in One Piece heavily, I mean HEAVILY, draw from the Cuban Revolution), because Naruto as a story would be far better off and probably would have more to say.

This also means, of course, that I recommend the audience to engage with this subject, and not fall for the propaganda of their oppressors <3 Palestine: A Socialist Introduction is currently free as an ebook for a start.

[jadetheblueartist]

I needed to post all of these together bc they are quite the saga and I love them (pretty sure I drew a few of these…)

For you, dear @banana-pancake5

[prophecyofgray]

i could fix voltron legendary defender. i could do it i swear. this show is REALLY GOOD at doing a lot of things but also REALLY BAD at doing a lot of other things. she's so close she's sooo close i could fix herrrrrr

[theghostofashton]

.

[novemberthewriter]

re-evaluating a lot of stuff about fiction rn <3

[backfliips]

I always feel a little bad when I get interested in something new and then I make fanart and a couple goofy posts about it and then people sort of expect me to engage in fandom-related things about said property but if one thing is true about me its that i would rather die than willingly engage with fandoms

[wavesoutbeingtossed]

.

[gaogaigoatgrrl]

btw i think trans shit gets a lot easier to understand when you realize that trans people do actually occupy their own distinct materially-constituted classes within the gender system, that this is a recurring pattern within patriarchal societies throughout history, and that it only appears not to be the case in the imperial core today because these classes exist tacitly rather than explicitly in most modern western cultures. gender (social) isn't binary, it just pretends to be when it suits its interests

it also needs to be understood that these gender classes don't correspond 1:1 to the full range of possible identities, as experienced internally. we're talking about oppression! it doesn't respect our feelings!

[fideidefenswhore]

There's a tendency in modern fandom to rob Henry of his agency, like saying Anne "lured" or "stole" him as if he isn't responsible for his actions. What I find weird is that seems to have, to an extent, been the idea at the time. A hell of a lot of the Catholic/Imperial faction seemed to get the thought that well, all we do is get rid of Anne and everything goes back to normal. Like Mary and Chapuys act like they expect her to be princess and heir again as if nothing happened and the English Reformation will just stop there and turn back. I just can't get my head round how much people then revered Henry as king but then think he's some weak puppet Anne manipulated and who they can manipulate when she's gone.

Yeah, the thing is that...A) We haven't changed as much as we like to believe that we have, B) Obviously modern analysis of contemporary reports of this period is reliant on these reports, but has the benefit of hindsight (and yet when hobbyists without any background in history simply read these reports absent of any contextualization or expert analysis, they tend to take them pretty...literally? which dovetails into these fandom interpretations), C) That very double negative is the cornerstone of misogyny. Women are ultimately, even supernaturally, powerful but also ultimately powerless/weak, and/or exploit men's weakness, world's tiniest violin.

Misogyny alone is not enough to explain, there's also the political and religious at play with the psychological:

"Anne became [...] 'the evil counsellor.' In spite of Chapuys, the Emperor needed to maintain a civil relationship with Henry for his own purposes. He therefore chose to believe that Anne was bullying Mary (and Catherine) behind her husband's back. In a similar way Mary deceived herself into believing that it was not really her father who was subjecting her to such remorseless pressure, but the wicked woman who had acquired such an ascendancy over him." +

"Her actual contribution to the 'scourge' of Lutheranism [...] was inflated to unbelievable proportions. Chapuys [went as] far as to blame 'the heretical doctrines and practices of the concubine' as 'the principal cause of the spread of Lutheranism in this country.' [This] created [...] a political/religious 'wing' of sentiment [against Anne Boleyn] that was [later] exploited by Cromwell [...] and it was a powerful obstacle in the way of Anne's acceptance by the (still largely Catholic) English people."

For me, what separates is that this subject (although more specifically on the mistreatment of Princess Mary, riffed on that here) is discussed as if it was an untapped timeline, and it's ...not? The events immediately preceding May 1536 do not vindicate or absolve any cruelty on Anne's part; by any means, but what they do prove is that Chapuys was wrong about her being the 'X factor' here, as it were. Once she's subtracted is when Mary's disbarred from succession in much firmer legal language by Parliament. Moreover, the Boleyn downfall was a watershed in court division and factionalism, its aftermath was not a period of 'relative' (or otherwise) tranquility but rather continuance, even amplification, of religious suppression for those that did not adhere to the tenets of the new Henrician 'supremacy'.

Also, let's not underrate the ambition of the 'Marian faction'. They wanted a return to the status quo, yes, we shouldn't discredit religious motivations either, but they also wanted to regain the status and favour they felt they had lost. They were bargaining on the future favour of Mary once she was heiress again, bargaining on the future of Henry having no other children by marriage (so, even Mary as Queen), that's generally forgotten because most of them did not survive to reap (and, arguably, Mary becoming Queen later had very little to do with her faction of the 1530s that had failed upwards, considering especially that Mary was not reinstated into the succession--conditionally, but still--until several years after the Exeter Conspiracy).