#post in english to make others feel like we do with the US state associations

[philaet0s]

So I decided to start posting my social media AU here, in parts, and without the few bits that happen off social media that will be on the ao3 version <3

As an introduction, here’s a little bit of context:

Baz is an world-famous singer. At the beginning of the story, he’s about to go on tour for his 5th album

He and Simon are in a relationship but it’s not public. Simon asks Baz if he can make a twitter account where he claims to be Baz’s boyfriend because he thinks it’d be fun to see how people react

Baz’s albums, because I’ve thought about them a lot —except for the first one— lol:

Ergo, - 2019

→ he just wanted to be pretentious with a latin word honestly + the word “ergo” has this intrinsic meaning of consequence. for something to have a consequence, there *has* to be a something, but there’s nothing that comes before the album. it’s his first. it’s a sort of oxymoron with just one word, something contradictory at its core, Baz likes that

I don’t really know what Baz’s first album is like. the themes would probably be rather dark, but I don’t have a clear idea of what the album would represent like i do for the others. and yet i know there’s an album before those others. something that started it all

Flowers in the Water - 2020

→ a reference to Ophelia from Hamlet, who drowned surrounded by flowers. in this album baz explores his feelings after his break up. he was the one to leave his boyfriend who he was in a pretty toxic relationship with though he still had love for him. so he never had much agency during the relationship (as Ophelia doesn’t have agency during most of the play and her life) and the one time he acted on his own, he ‘ruined his life’ -the feeling of despair after a break up, when you think you’ll never find love like that again, even if it was bad (as Ophelia did when she killed herself). Cliché image of the break up as a sort of death, but you can be cliché when you’re heartbroken

baz’s ex used to buy him flowers, so there was this vase in their flat that for a long time always had flowers in it. after a while, towards the end of the relationship, baz noticed that it had been a moment since there had been flowers in the vase, and that was one of the things that made it hit that his bf didn’t care about him anymore

BUT the ‘vase’ is replaced by ‘water’ in the title of the album – a nice metonymy – to better fit the Ophelia reference.

Portrait of the Artist as a Madman - Feb. 2021

obvious reference to james joyce’s Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Baz reread the book during lockdown so he had that title in mind. he used Madman instead of Young Man because we all went a little crazy during lockdown so that was his state of mind when he wrote the album

his most reflexive album, in which he writes very personal things about who he was and is, but also his persona as a singer and the way the music industry impacts him and his life

The Prophecy - Sept. 2021

baz really wanted to use the word prophecy in a title. it’s his favourite word in the english language. it’s a very meaningful word, prophecies were a huge deal for ancient civilisations, prophets are important figures in the abrahamic religions + he likes the idea of a prophecy, something being foretold, an inevitable end, no matter what one does. it’s very tragic, he likes that

this album is about his new relationship with simon, a romantic piece about how when they met, he felt like their story had already been written and all they had to do was play it out, he felt this inevitability that he associates with prophecies. simon is the love that was foretold for him

Metamorphoses - 2022

in reference to Ovid’s metamorphoses. Baz reuses some of the stories in the Metamorphoses while also applying them to his life, creating songs that are a blend of mythology and personal. (his fans love trying to guess what is merely his interpretation of Ovid’s stories and what is personal elements he added to the songs). the songs are ordered in a way that shows how baz was transformed throughout his life to become the version of himself he is at the time of writing the album. a sort of memoir told through a dozen songs

Paroxysm - 2023

paroxysm: a sudden sharp attack (of pain, rage, laughter, etc)

the meaning of the word is why baz chose it as a title. he thought it fit the album, which he wrote very differently from his previous ones –in bursts. his creativity was renewed after Metamorphoses, which was a project that felt to him more like writing a book than songs, and it expressed itself differently. in this album, the topics he writes about are all different, with nothing to give a coherent theme to the album… which is the theme in itself. all the songs are little paroxysms

[mini-jiminie]

About your comment on jkkers associating Letter with jungkook, I agree with you and I lowkey feel like its because Letter is the only song that jkkers really can associate with jkk out of all jimin's solo work in chapter 2. On a different blog, some anon was saying they didn't think the content of jimin's solo work was compatible with jikook being real or something along those lines, and a jkker blog literally used Letter as proof against that saying that it was obviously a love song for jungkook. Outside of the songs he explicitly says he made for army, jimin's solo work doesn't exactly paint a happy picture, especially when you read translations of his notebook pages from when he was working on Face. That shit is dark and lonely, him questioning if there's anyone he can trust and then questioning if he can ever love someone to his producers while working on Muse. Not saying jikook isn't real by any means, but jimin's solo work definitely doesn't readily lend itself to shipping, not just with jungkook, but with anyone, so I think jkkers cling to Letter. I also agree with that anon's post in that jimin didn't have to comment on it at all really, it was meant to be a hidden track anyway. So the fact that he explicitly states who the track was about and some jkkers twist that does feel shitty. Of course art can have multiple meanings, but to deny the meaning jimin himself stated is just taking his autonomy away for the sake of shipping and is no different than the tkkers who twist taehyung and jungkook's actions or say the company makes them do everything. All of it is shippers disregarding the boys words/actions in favor of their own beliefs.

Before I get cancelled (again lol) this ask was in response to a comment I made under @jeonscatalyst’s post:

Look, I can’t claim to know 100% what the boys’ music personally means to them and why they choose to write and create art in certain ways.

When we look at Face, it's so clear that the album is an extremely self-introspective body of work where jm has allowed us to witness such a raw and vulnerable part of himself. What I love about bts is that the boys have always created music about themselves, their own stories and experiences. I'm so grateful that the rap line set such a wonderful precedent for the other boys to really use their solo music as an outlet.

Back to you anon, I 100% agree with you on this part:

"Outside of the songs he explicitly says he made for army, jimin's solo work doesn't exactly paint a happy picture, especially when you read translations of his notebook pages from when he was working on Face. That shit is dark and lonely, him questioning if there's anyone he can trust and then questioning if he can ever love someone to his producers while working on Muse."

I feel like face (as a whole) is such a polarising album. It's really interesting. We start off with 'face-off' and the delivery is aggressive and it clearly comes from a dark place. Like crazy is..like crazy. To this day, it's my favourite song ever. I just love the connotations and imagery behind it. I've read many analyses of the song, its mv and the choreo. One consistent thing across all of them is this reoccurring theme of reflection. This is him attempting to confront himself and the state he's in. Looking at the lyrics of like crazy, he feels lost and is struggling to cope with his reality. In the english version, there's the line 'emotions on ice' which really struck me when I first heard it. I know it's not the direct translation of the original line in the Korean version however, it's a perfect reflection the song as a whole. I've seen people interpret that line through the theme of dilution; 'on ice'. I personally read this as him feeling lost and numb. It's almost as if his emotions are an imitation of what they're meant to be. He wants to be stuck in a dream-like state and not have to face his daunting reality.

Alone also has a similar storyline (these translations are from doolset). The chorus goes:

Day & night 반복되는 fall Day & night, the repeated fall

(Mayday 날 꺼내줘) (Mayday, get me out of here)

Again, there's that need for escapism. Further into the song, we get lyrics such as:

똑같은 하루가 The same day all over

또다시 흘러가 goes by, yet again

뭘 어떻게 해야 What even should I do

이 어둠이 끝이 날까? to make this darkness come to an end

Smf is such a powerful end to the album. Its definitely a heroic song and such a poignant finish to his introspective process. He knows what he needs to do to heal and grow.

Finally, letter is clearly so dear to jm. It being a hidden song and so beautifully written says enough. It has the same delicate quality as the hidden track ‘sea’ from ly:her (another incredible song). When I say Face is such a polarising album, I say this in consideration of letter. If smf was the catalyst to his healing, letter is jm during that process of healing. In my original comment, I said that it irks me when jkkrs try to link every one of the boys' solo endeavours and actions to their relationship. And I don't mean people can't speculate that letter might be about a s/o. I'm also not trying to diminish jkk's relationship in any way but, jm has explicitly shared the meaning of the song and how it's a song dedicated to army. Yes, music is subjective however, when an artist explicitly shares the meaning of their song and their intentions, we do have to respect that.

Apparently, people have been calling him a liar?? jm -the original writer - a liar??

Jm has outright expressed what letter means to him. That's what he wants us, as listeners of his story, to get out of that song. If we the fans were part of his healing process, that's so beautiful. I don't understand why some people are so quick to brush this off. As I've said, Face is such a deeply personal album. It's jm, as an individual, laid bare and untethered. When we try to force the ship onto it, it just seems so reductive of jm's art.

Jm has expressed that face was a culmination of his struggles during the pandemic as well the relationships he's with the people in his life. For such a short album, I think he's done a wonderful job of conveying the sheer breath of emotions and struggles he experienced leading up to the production.

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

(sorry, english my second language) my theory for one of the reasons why trey is perceived differently in the west as being less appealing or not so attractive compared to the likes of malleus is simply cause he wears glasses

something i observed in mainstream western media in particular is that, wearing glasses is perceived as unattractive/unappealing or too nerdy or not sexy (we all know it’s not true don’t get me wrong) compared to jp media where glasses can be seen as hot

i think azul also falls for this, cause there’s so many azul simps in jp but he still gets to appeals more in the west compared to trey cause of the mafia aesthetic he got going on also tumblr sexyman vibes

[Referencing this post!]

I mean... while I do think the stereotype of "only unattractive geeks wear glasses" does appear in many western productions (especially those set in high schools), I feel like that sentiment no longer has the same prominence. This is due in part to changing trends (the west has adopted a lot of interest in Asian media/art as of late, part of which does often employ glasses as fashion pieces, such as in the case of K-pop) and new technology (more technology use/reliance means more and more of the general population need vision correction, so glasses and contacts are becoming increasingly common).

On the flip side, it's not as though glasses aren't associated with being "nerdy" in eastern cultures. After all, there is an entire anime/manga trope called the megane (literally "glasses") character, which often refers to an smart, rational, and stoic individual. They are also typically the “brains” or the voice of reason in a cast of characters. So… glasses are also definitely associated with “being smart” in the east; this even comes through in some character dialogue. In Trey’s Halloween vignettes, for example, Azul states that he explicitly chose to wear glasses for vision correction because others are more likely to perceive glasses-wearers as being intellectual.

I also feel like it goes both ways in terms of perceiving glasses as hot or not?? I personally have not noticed a huge gap between the east/west in terms of attraction in regards to one wearable item?? I feel like it just depends on individual tastes (because some people are just into the “nerdy” look), of maybe there isn’t that much of a “choice” irl anymore since more and more people need corrective lenses anyway.

Ultimately, I don’t think it’s the glasses that matter, but the person behind the glasses does. Like… if you slapped a pair of glasses on Malleus, does that automatically not make him attractive anymore? If you took away Trey and Azul’s glasses, would that automatically make them 10x hotter than they looked with them? (There is plenty of fan art which depicts these scenarios; there’s a reason why people make them despite loving the originals.)

If such a difference does exist solely because of glasses, I’d imagine the effect is negligible, not so significant that it explains the large gap in popularity between Trey and Malleus. (Azul was mentioned as an example of a glasses character who became popular in the west despite the glasses because of his appeal as a mob boss, but it feels like this case just shows that it’s the character himself and not the glasses that make fans love him.) There are much bigger factors at play (between the being a normal human/an actual dragon fairy prince, the design appeals, less screen time/being the Final Boss and important figure in the main story, and a lowkey personality/lots of hype and a strong presence) for this observed Trey-Malleus disparity. Malleus is just a more “exciting” character when compared to Trey, and that catches the attention of the more individualistic, often action-oriented culture of the west.

[imperialboomerang]

Why “It’s The Least I Should Be Doing” Doesn’t Sustain My Activism

Before people (perhaps rightfully) bust out the pitchforks for me saying this… let me be the first to admit: it should be enough. It’s a statement I’ve seen so many in the pro-Palestine community & the left in general throw around as justification for their work. It’s accurate as well. Palestinians are facing a genocide perpetrated by our country. To fight in some capacity is the least anyone can do — for ourselves and for Palestinians under occupation and in the diaspora.

Mario Savio said in 1964 in front of Sproul Hall at UC Berkley — “There comes a time when the machine becomes so odious, so sick at heart, that you can’t take part, you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears… upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop!”

Savio is right. The people who say "this is the least I should be doing" are right.

So why is it not enough for me?

1. It Frames My Work Terribly.

I'm an English undergraduate who has spent far too much time studying metaphors, their linguistical function, and how they shape our understanding of the world. I once had a friend (an engineer) tell me that they don't believe in metaphors. They still don't, but I explained to them (and I'll explain to you metaphor non-believers now) that metaphors shape our view of the world, and they help us express how we understand the world. One example of this is how some metaphors express our cultural values through spatial vehicles. For example, in English, we often associate positive progress with upward motion ("I'm moving up the corporate latter."). These kinds of metaphors imply a spectrum — if progress is upward, then regression is downward. If up is positive and down is negative, then this shapes how we understand progress: it is constantly going up, and anything negative is moving down. Knowing this is grossly untrue and misrepresents the nature of progress doesn't change that English-speakers will still rely on up/down metaphors in order to express progress and regression in their lives and the lives of others.

My issue, then, with the phrasing of "the least" is this: it implies the same kind of a spectrum. If there is the least, then there is the most. The most is what I should aspire towards. But what does that look like? More importantly, can I achieve that?

As we pass 300 days of "Israel's" genocide with the only "hope" of a ceasefire in the States being Killer Kamala's "progressive" VP pick Tim Walz (who is extremely problematic in his own ways, but I digress)... I've come to the conclusion, as I'm sure many others have, that the United States will have to fundamentally change and "Israel" will have to be no longer viable as a colonial project in order to see a free Palestine. The latter is in sight — BDS is highly successful, as have been resistance fighters in making this war costly on the part of the occupier. The recent ICJ rulings make "Israel" a liability for some corporations and countries. But if there is anything that has become more and more apparent, it is that the United States will not back down until it has a gun held to its head, and perhaps not even then.

The Instagram account BadSchoolBadSchool (and the inspiration behind this online journal) made this post in response to calls made to "escalate" our actions and why that is not the best perspective from which we should be challenging U.S. imperialism.

"Gaza needs a powerful movement, and we don't have it because we haven't been building mass popular power..." (slide 8) "So if you want to feel guilt about Gaza, feel guilt that we haven't prioritized building power amongst the poor and oppressed in our own country — a real movement for their lives, which, in turn, would challenge the very same power structure that is slaughtering Gaza. Is it our fault, at least partially, that Gaza is being destroyed, just not the way most people think it is our fault." (slide 9)

In sum, the most, the best action would be complete dismantle of the U.S. war machine. We need to work towards a movement that can sustain this action.

Because of that, when I say it frames my work terribly, I mean this: the work we are doing right now is not the bare minimum. It barely meets the thresh hold of what needs to be done. We need to be doing more than the "least" — we need to be doing our best. Knowing that, knowing that the work to be done requires a massive, community-based movement... it fills me with shame and guilt.

2. Yet, Guilt & Shame Don't Sustain Me Either

For some, and even myself back in 2023, the guilt and shame galvanizes them. I have realized, though, that my commitment to the work is more often destabilized by my guilt rather than sustained by it. It lives within me, boiling inside, until that guilt sours into hopelessness.

When I'm hopeless, I lose touch with the meaning of the work I'm doing. It creates within me a toxic nihilism that, frankly, isn't going to help anyone.

I do not think I'm alone in this.

Throughout the past ten months, I've met countless people who dabble in anti-war and anti-genocide action. I've lost some friendships because of people's apathy. I have been told by more than one person that they don't feel there is anything they can do.

I have told myself this as well. Many times over the past ten months, I've sat at home, telling myself that what I do is meaningless, that it does nothing to undo or intervene in the slaughter.

The only time that guilt and shame do sustain me, it is when I am hopeless. For example, when my local SJP chapter started their own encampment, it was the first protest I'd gone to in two months. I didn't even know that's what their plans were — I went to the march because I was tired of knowing I'm sitting at home while people are dying. That perhaps the war machine will not cease, but I have to try. In that way, guilt got my ass up off the couch and in the street.

But it wasn't guilt that kept me there. When I realized the students were putting up tents and building barricades, I started crying. I didn't know why at first. Looking around, I realized what I'd been missing, what I could have been part of if only I have fought against that dangerous cycle of guilt -> nihilism -> indifference -> guilt. I ended up dropping my friends at home and came back. And I came back the next day, and the day after that — because I know this shit is meaningful.

3. So What Does Sustain Me?

Hope is surely part of it, but for me, hope can be just as dangerous as nihilism. I'm an idealist — I like to think that massive revolutionary change will occur in my lifetime, that the people will band together and free each other. Sometimes, when I get caught up in this and am reminded of how unfeasible it is, I begin that cyclical nihilism.

These days, I try to think of the revolution in phases and parts. I break my idealism down into pieces that I can act upon. Working in your community is fantastic for this as well. Within community, the work you're doing is principled and driven with clear goals in mind. Right now, I'm working to get my city to strengthen its ceasefire resolution and divest from Israel. I know the broader goals in this work — to end the genocide & occupation — but I am more focused on the actual work that will make those a reality.

But... when my nihilism gets to me, when I start to dream too big and realize I will fail, I turn to something Kwame Ture said:

"Do your work now for the next generation."

The work is meaningful because it challenges the very notion that empire is inevitable and it makes it harder for the next generation to accept. Our current movement now is the product of last one. The next one will be a product of our movement now.

I know we will make them proud.

[steviesbicrisis]

"if we don't like it, we make it gay" that isn't the point, though. so many other people have said this more eloquently than i can, but you can't claim "death to the author" when the author is alive and actively lobbying for the genocide of trans people in the uk and influencing (and funding, iirc) republican politicians in the states to do the same thing. if you say "fuck terfs" but then continue to engage with the franchise and ignore the multitudes of jewish and lgbt+ people telling you the reasons why you shouldn't, the reasons why this franchise is literally killing us, your trans and jewish friends/followers are going to be cautious of you. *i'm* cautious of you, now. you're not only supporting a terf by giving her engagement, but jkr is a fascist. i can't assume your response to this, and this isn't sent out of malice, but i hope you can ask yourself if a book series and nostalgia are more important than the real people being affected by the political career of its creator.

I'm going to answer this as best as possible, but please be mindful that English isn't my first language, so I might not be as eloquent or exhaustive as I could've been in my native language.

Leaving this premise aside, I say this with no malice nor desire to sound bitter/defensive: please take a step back and stop assuming stuff about me.

I don't even know where half of the things you said come from, I genuinely thought you sent this ask to the wrong person until I read the "fuck terfs" part.

"continue to engage with the franchise" how am I doing this? I have 1 word associated with it, that's it. Do you see me promoting the books or the movies? do I reblog stuff about the franchise? Do I go around showing anything related to this? I've stopped giving money to that author the moment I found out what she stands for. I have one post related to the franchise before I knew how big of a deal it was to make fan-related content (I thought it was okay to still go on with stuff she doesn't get money from), which I decided to not continue writing it the moment I understood it might've been hurtful to someone.

You also assume I don't listen to fellow friends/followers. The thing is, you don't know me, this is Tumblr, I do not show everything about me in my blog. I have lgbtq sources I go to inform myself on how to approach topics that interest the community but not me personally because I wanna be supportive. You also have to understand that I get my information mainly from Italian resources and the approach on the topic might be different. This is not me speaking for the Italian trans community, obviously, but they seem to not really care if you engage with fanmade content, while I see in the "internet world" trans creators who don't accept fanmade as well and some do. I simply don't know where I stand but in the meantime, I'm not engaging even with fanmade stuff just to be safe.

All of this to say, I have no problem admitting that I don't know what I should do about fan-made related content because I tried to understand but with the mixed up opinions I simply don't know. Me not knowing translates to me engaging with any content until I understand better.

I'm trying really hard to not see malice in your words to be honest, since you've been assuming so much stuff about me. Everything else you touched upon it doesn't apply to me (like having nostalgia about the books, I never once said anything like that).

All of this being said, I am sorry to know that people are cautious about me. I hope you can understand that this blog is supposed to be a happy place to talk about Stranger Things and have a nice break from chaotic everyday life and I'm really saddened to know that it isn't as lighthearted as I thought.

To the people who were disappointed/had hard feelings after reading my bio, I am sorry. I mean it, I would never write something anywhere with the intention of hurting everyone.

To anyone who reads this, I hope you don't see me in a bad light after what this anon wrote and my response, I'm trying to handle this situation the best I can and be mindful of everyone's feelings. I am far from perfect but I am trying.

(I'm leaving the bio as it is if people wanna check it out after reading this but I'm going to change it after a little while.)

[orionsangel86]

Okay so I have a bit of a random question that you might or might not know the answer to. For context, I’m gonna be doing a working holiday in Ireland because it’s a once in a lifetime opportunity due to having to be currently enrolled in college or at least within the first year post graduation. Well I’ve been told by multiple people, who have no relationship with each other, that it’s much better for me to say that I’m from Texas than say I’m an American. While both are true, they’ve told me that people have been much more friendly towards them when they say that they’re from Texas and just leave it at that. Do you by any chance know why that is? I’ve tried to look it up, but all I’ve found was the impression y’all get from us are basically guns, big, and BBQ. To me those don’t seem like things that correlate, which has made me more confused.

All good if you don’t know or if it’s not even something you’ve personally experienced or heard of people experiencing. I’m just curious more than anything

Hey! Well I'm a Brit, London based, very English, so I can't speak for the Irish at all (and wouldn't dare even if I thought we might share an opinion on the matter!) but I've never heard of this.

Honestly though? Its just my opinion but I would have thought it would be the other way around? If the people telling you that are from Texas, I'd say thats a bit biased as I know Texans are known for being very proudly, well, Texan.

Most people I know from this side of the pond, whether British or European, aren't gonna judge individual Americans just on the fact that they are American. Unless you are a walking stereotype and rather obnoxious about it I wouldn't be too concerned. We are aware that America is a huuuuge place with a LOT of different types of people living there.

But Texas does have a reputation. The Texas stereotype is more ingrained that the general American imo. Loud, large, right leaning, guns, cowboys, etc...

Texas is one of the more recognisable states to most people over here along with New York and California (and Florida although I think most Brits (again, I cant speak for the Irish) just associate Florida with beaches and Disney World). So whilst I doubt your friends assumptions that people here are friendlier to Texans, its likely coming from a place of recognition. The reaction upon meeting a Texan might be "oooh Texas! Cowboys!" And the Texan in question would view that recognition as extra friendly when its really just "i am aware of you" whereas if you said you were from say Missouri you'll be met with a blank face.

A Californian might feel the same reaction applies to them, that by saying theyre from California, they are likely to get a stronger reaction than saying they are just from America simply because the European person is more aware of California and can make assumptions based on their general knowledge of California.

So thats my best guess. If you want people to associate you with cowboys, horses, guns, bbqs, etc, then by all means proudly state you are from Texas - you just might need to elaborate to then fight a general stereotype.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying everyone will stereotype you, but these are generalisations. I'm actually from Essex, and I often don't admit to that because Essex in the UK has a very strong stereotype which was only further encouraged by that ghastly reality TV show about it. If I say I'm from London, people aren't gonna make too many assumptions. Saying I'm from Essex I immediately get the smirk and the knowing look and the "oh youre an Essex girl are you?" And I HATE it. But some women from Essex might get a kick out of that I suppose.

So what I'm actually saying here is it all depends on how you want to be viewed. Its not about friendliness. People arent friendlier to Texans than other states. Its about whether or not you wanna be associated with peoples general stereotypes of Texas and whether you view those associations as positive or negative.

[bigkahuna626-blog]

Genshiken ( Part 1 ) - Blog Post

I saw a number of similarities between the characters, story aspects, and general themes of the anime Genshiken and actual life occurrences that I have either witnessed or experienced personally. These connections were noticeable while I was watching the anime. This animation, which is styled in the style of a slice of life, provides a glimpse inside the life of Kanji Sasahara. Having recently started college, he makes the decision to become a member of a club of "Otaku" enthusiasts who share his passion for manga and anime.

They have given their club the name "Genshiken," which is a combination of the Japanese term "Gendai Shikaku Bunka Kenkyūkai." Translating this phrase into English as "The Society for the Study of Modern Visual Culture." Bringing attention to the primary objective of the club, which is to establish a space where other students may express their love and enthusiasm for all that is associated with the culture of anime. It is via the few episodes that we were required to watch that we are able to observe how the members of the group interact with one another. Interest in a certain video game and heated debates over the nuances of a movie helped developed connections between the members. The group dives into more than just their common interests; it also investigates their individual perspectives on life and education when it comes to other topics. Essentially, we are seeing the development of these young individuals and the friendships that they form with one another as they embark on a new path in life. Their common interests serve as a link between them. In the same way that I stated before, this viewing was intriguing since it is virtually exactly how the culture that this class is supposed to emphasize seems. There are some people who do not always like the genre of otaku. The gathering of a group of people who have a common interest and the opportunity to investigate how our own perspectives and interpretations were influenced by various types of media is a pleasant experience. We have the ability to discuss subjects that go into great detail regarding more than simply storylines that are on the surface level. This, in a sense, contributes to the development of our own personal identities, as it allows us to feel validated in our interests and accepted by others, knowing that there are a great number of individuals who share our sentiments. I have no doubt that thousands of individuals all across the world can identify with these characters and the emotions that they are experiencing almost exactly.

[turtle-trash]

Different anon but essentially, you looked at Black people using aave: African American vernacular english, having fun on a post and decided it was OK to screenshot and imply they were all hostile people, or using "cruel" language. It's racist to assume Black people having fun on a tournament poll(which people have been actually cruel with) are threatening just because you are not familiar with the language. If you can recognize that White women refer each other as bitches and sluts out of familiarity and friendship you need to extend that kind of understanding with other languages(yes aave is a language). If you personally do not feel comfortable using such language, thats fine, but thats how other people talk you cant control that. But it goes to show that you guys need to stop stealing aave just to make yourselves appear more threatening or angry or as an interntet joke. Because nonblack people steal it so much you guys have desensitized yourselves the ability to recognize when actual Black people are just being friendly. Case in point: your "my brother in christ" post? The original phrase that white people stole to turn into a meme was "my n*gga in christ". Hence why we ask you guys to stop using "my brother in christ" memes. But even then the original phrase still means "friend". N*gga is a slur, but Black people can use it to refer as "homie" or "friend". Yall can't. Context matters. And now we are at the point where people are accusing the polls to be botted which hate to tell yall it ain't that important. Someone brought this up but if reylos didn't care to bot these things why would anyone care for two characters hardly anyone knows. But other than that, the constant association of equating Black people to bots on this website is racist and its annoying that keeps on happening. That's not even how bots work. You truly want to work on being a better a person, go learn this stuff: research. I can't even blame the other anon that just sends you a "you're just racist" message. I had the time to send this. But more often than not yall drain us because every day with this stuff. You feel exhausted through this experience alone? Imagine going through this and the racism everyday in every fandom space when you just wanna have fun. You gotta put in the effort yourself sometimes

Ohh Kay give me a sec. I need to process this (i don’t do vry good with long blocks of text with no spacing. Apologies)

When I posted those screenshots I didn’t know that the people who said those things were black, I’d try to defend myself on this but I know that I may say something wrong since I’m really bad with words. All I was trying to do was inform the op that the cruel words could have started again. I think one of my mistakes was making it public, as i didn’t expect me doing that would have spread that much (I don’t exactly have a very big presence on this site)

The reason I assumed the language being used was harmful is likely due to my inability to read tone over text, not an excuse, just an explanation. I will reiterate that my issue was with the fact that people (no matter who says it) were referring to a character who’s a child in that way

Ive already gotten a message about my use of the "my brother in Christ" phrase, I’m already removing it from the phrases I use occasionally. I try to keep posts that I’ve messed up on to not try to erase my mistakes, I think it’s good to be transparent about the mistakes I’ve made and I see I’ve failed in that department [not trying to excuse my actions or anything, I’m just attempting to state what I’ve done wrong]

I didn’t say that botting was happening anywhere, I don’t think there was any botting happening. I’m not quite sure where the statement that people think that black people are bots came from in regards to this situation (since I didn’t even mention the potential of botting anywhere except my post saying I want to try and distance myself from this situation for my mental health iirc. And even then I didn’t say the poll was botted)

I understand if anyone is uncomfortable with how I handled anything these past few days. I know I should see if I can find anything to try and better my understanding of this (which I should probably do before I somehow forget, apologies, my memory isn’t very good sometimes)

Im not sure how to end this in a good way but thanks for letting me know, sorry for making you guys feel uncomfortable

[andrewuttaro]

Catechetical Cat (Week 48) Language

God did not tell us to follow him because he needed our help, but because he knew that loving him would make us whole.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons

One of my funniest memories from Middle School is from Spanish class. One of my classmates asked our Spanish teacher how people in Spanish-speaking countries could learn Spanish without learning English first? The question drew some mocking ruckus as you could imagine from preteens in such a situation. Once the teacher got the room back under control she told the student she’d tell her after class. In retrospect I do feel bad for that teacher. It is already hard enough teaching adolescents a foreign language without getting into the nature of knowledge itself. Though the answer is plainly: word to object associations are simply assigned to another mouth sound in other languages, the way we assign knowledge to language is sneakily complex. There are levels of abstraction there that get down to our values and how we imagine the world around us actually works.

My wife and I recently had an interesting conversation about how you should teach children about swear words. She made the point that its really about impolite words and hateful words. Both groups of words should be avoided in most formal situations, the latter category should be avoided in general if we want to pursue a virtuous life, as we all hope for our offspring. How those categories grow out of regular, everyday acceptable language is caked in history and constantly change and vary place to place. All these levels of abstraction, from time and place to history and formal context, indicate how we as a distinct group of people have made up our own rules. Just like each of us decides for ourselves how we will live our lives, groups of people as small as families and as big as whole nation-states and people groups, make rules for the group on a mass scale.

All of this, from the individual scale all the way up to the mass scale, is part of how we decide to craft the way we know things. This is because language is made up. It is both made up and real. It describes real things but the tools through which it does is made up. None of these words you are reading right now exist in nature. Yet, if you responded to this blog post and told me all the words I used were fake… well I would probably just send you a link to a dictionary of something. We define our relationship with the world around us and all its variables. We are not entitled to our own material facts, those are all the same, but just beyond the material world in this weird realm of language lies the truth that the immaterial matters too. This is all real too though we cannot measure it. The intangible realities of our souls, who we are and how we will relate to ourselves and others, matters. You matter and how you define yourself and your relationship with others begins in this bizzarro immaterial world my Spanish classmate accidentally tapped into. This is the very real space of spirituality, of knowing God, and making meaning out of a universe that otherwise just looks like a mashup of chaotic matter.

[emotionallychargedtowel]

Warning, this gets rambly! This topic just connects to a number of things I find interesting and to some personal experiences of mine.

Also I haven't seen the new episode yet! I'm only caught up to episode 9.

I loved @wen-kexing-apologist's work on the original post here. There were a lot of points where I wanted to say, "but--" or "what about--" but I think even if you favor a different interpretation of this relationship, you can't argue with the fact that WKA has lots of evidence to marshal in favor of this argument. In the end, if Ray does have a shred of meaningful feelings for Sand (or anything scrap of something that could become meaningful) or any sincere concern for Sand, it's a very damning commentary on his behavior that WKA's interpretation is so convincing. I like what @porridgefeast added here. I think the central point I took from what she had to say here is that Ray is a bundle of contradictions and ambivalence and almost entirely bereft of self-awareness and that kind of widens out the scope of reasonable interpretations of the things he does because of the uncertainty that comes with that. If I can use a stats metaphor, any data we get from Ray is riddled with measurement error and we have to apply a gigantic confidence interval to any conclusions we draw from it. Personally, I think part of what makes this discussion, and similar ones about Sand and Ray, confusing is that it gets into a gray area about what the meaning of love is. And that's both as profound and as pointlessly semantic as it sounds. Because this gray area is connected to some really important questions but where we stand on them can be really dependent on where we happen to draw boundaries around different words. The main issue I'm thinking of here is exactly the kind of connections between people that we're seeing with Sand and Ray--do we still call it love when the feelings someone has for the other person are shallow, selfish, objectifying, or otherwise associated with the basest, most corrupt parts of human nature? This is actually something I have given a lot of thought to as a survivor of intimate partner violence. Do I call the way my abuser felt about me "love"? It definitely had some attributes we often associate with love, albeit only the worst kind (obsession, possessiveness). It also lacked some of the most central ones (for example, sincerely caring about my feelings and well-being). It seems both deeply true and like an oversimplification to say, "he never really loved me." One way I sometimes try to reconcile this confusion is to look for other words I can use that might clarify things. One extremely nerdy, old-fashioned psychology term I find useful here is "cathexis." From what I understand, bell hooks uses it to good effect in All About Love: New Visions, but while I've read portions of it, I'm not very familiar with that book so I can't summarize what she said about it on the fly. It's kind of embarrassing, actually, because I've owned the book for quite a while and used a passage from it in my wedding! Maybe this is my cue to pick it back up. In the meantime, I'll talk about what this term means and the distinction between cathexis and love using my background knowledge of psychoanalytic theory and related material.

Cathexis was coined by James Strachey, who did a lot of the first translations of Freud into English, came up with that term as an equivalent to one of Freud’s. Strachey tended to make things more esoteric and fancy-sounding than they needed to be, and cathexis is a perfect example. (He also came up with "vicissitudes." A favorite professor of mine used to always make fun of him for that one.) Freud apparently wasn't a fan of "cathexis." But I like it. Something about the sound of it seems appropriate to what it means. And its weirdness means we don't have to say "I'm using this term in a psychoanalytic sense" because nobody uses this term in any other way.

Basically, cathexis is the state of having a sizable emotional investment in someone or something. The verb form is "to cathect." I find it useful because it’s an accurate word for those things that aren’t love in the strict sense but have a related degree of obsession, desire, affiliation, and so on. It has a broader meaning as well (you can cathect with a security blanket, a football team, a religious figure, etc. etc.), but when applied to someone's feelings about a person who is a partner or potential partner, the word captures a lot of the things that come with loving someone without presupposing the selfless, giving, putting someone else before yourself part.

The thing about cathexis is that it can happen on its own, it can be a precursor to love, and it can coexist with love. Some theorists--I think bell hooks might take this tack--think the honeymoon phase of any relationship is always cathexis and actual love only comes later. I think this point is important because cathexis isn't some kind of fake love or un-love or anti-love. It's just a way of thinking and feeling that overlaps with love in some places but not in others--and where it overlaps can depend on the person doing the cathecting and how they think and feel about the person they're cathecting to. It can be a precursor to a real, profound kind of love or it can stagnate, never deepening even if it's very intense.

This time factor is the reason why our interpretations of these kinds of feelings are riddled with hindsight bias. Well, at a certain point it stops even being a bias and becomes just a convention of how we talk about things. When we first get really into a person we might say, “I’m in love with X.,” but when things go badly we can say, “I thought I was in love with X but I really wasn’t.” We might add other labels in retrospect like if I said, "I thought I was in love but I was just infatuated."

Love gets defined by how it turns out. I’m this way about my spouse. I can remember times when I had a crushy or lustful thought about him when we first met and I think, “that was the beginning of me falling in love.” But I had similar thoughts about other people at that time whose names I don’t even remember now. I had a whole other (brief but intense) relationship and a weird casual thing between our first meeting and starting to date each other. I wasn't thinking about him that way during that time, much less pining for him or something. But when I look back now, I attend to all of the details that pointed toward our getting together in a way I wouldn't if things hadn't turned out this way. But I don't think it's just bias and there's nothing real there, either. It's valid to look at a thing differently because of what resulted from it down the line.

I've digressed a lot at this point, so I'm going to bring it back to what this has to do with Sand and Ray. These two started out attracted to each other and determined not to get emotionally involved. They started bonding, partly because they were hanging out in other ways, partly because sleeping with someone tends to lead to getting at least a little bit attached to them. (This is the reason people regularly go from being friends with benefits to dating and more. It's hardly inevitable, but it happens.) They started making bigger emotional investments in each other. Sand's investment was greater, but Ray was getting significantly invested without admitting it to himself. Sand was more infatuated but was clearly trying to be realistic about his claims on Ray.

Ray was on the complete other end of the scale--he started to feel entitled to Sand's time, attention, and esteem, not to mention sexual access to Sand, without stopping to give the slightest thought to whether this was realistic or reasonable. But he barely stopped to think about Sand long enough to figure out what he thought of him or how he felt about him. If anything, I think that entitled, objectifying tendency began to act as a defense against getting cathected with Sand. But it's not an effective defense. Just telling himself that Sand is a commodity--and telling Sand as well--doesn't preclude him from building a different kind of emotional investment in Sand. I don't think it's possible for him to compartmentalize and choose to have one kind of investment in Sand and not another.

None of this means that the investment he has in Sand is good, or honest, or selfless, or that he sees Sand as a real human being, or understands or knows him in any serious way. In other words, none of this means that he loves Sand at all in the strict sense. But if we followed the usual conventions, if Ray's cathexis shifts to actually loving Sand, we'd retroactively label this unhealthy, selfish cathexis as love or a precursor to it. Maybe we shouldn't do that, but it's how things are typically thought about and talked about. If we resolve to be more precise about these things, we could say that this isn't love, but that the kind of cathexis Ray has toward Sand is something that can become love.

The question becomes, then, is it realistic to think that someone who cathects with another person in an incredibly objectifying, selfish, hurtful way could shift to actually loving that person in a real sense? I would say that there are people, like partner abusers, who have habitually refused to treat others as human beings in a way that precludes really loving someone else unless they make big changes in their life. That's probably the most effective way to compartmentalize possessiveness and entitlement and keep them separate from the-kind-of-investment-that-could-become-love: being a full-on abuser. It worked for my ex.

Maybe Ray is too close to that at this point to, like, be a real person with a soul again and not just a husk of a human being. But I'm pretty sure the writers of Only Friends plan to rehabilitate this character and pair him up with Sand in the end, and they're the final authority in that universe. They may put Ray through the ringer to get us to the point where we can possibly root for him again. Part of that may well involve him having to live with the fact that he doesn't own Sand, even having to see him with someone else. Honestly, I think it'd have to include that part of things, and would have to involve a pretty huge shift in his perspective, for me and a lot of other viewers to be able to root for that relationship at all.

You're Mine No Matter What: The Commodification of Sand

I have been thinking a lot in the last couple weeks about the dynamic between Ray and Sand, namely the significant imbalance between Sand and Ray in their relationship to one another that has been at the very least, fun to watch, even as I have been slightly miffed at Sand being so much of a simp for Ray when Ray does not reciprocate these feelings. 

Now, @emotionallychargedtowel had a brilliant write up about Sand’s possible parentification and resulting need to play the caretaker for the people around him, which everyone should read. I loved it a lot because it puts Sand in to perspective, that he can be jerked around and insulted and still have care and still want to help the person who is actively and intentionally trying to insult him. Sand likes Ray, that much has been clear from the moment Ray rested his head on Sand’s shoulder after puking in Episode 1, but Ray? Ray does not see Sand the same way, as much as his puppy dog eyes may lead Sand to believe. 

To Ray, who is rich, and difficult to manage, and holds on so tightly to the belief he is a burden, Sand is a commodity, something Ray owns. And it is absolutely hilarious to me that I was thinking about trying to do this write up and drop it before Episode 8, and decided I should wait. AND I AM SO GLAD I DID BECAUSE RAY LITERALLY SAID AS MUCH TO SAND THIS EPISODE. 

Listen, I love First and I love Khao and I love FirstKhao’s chemistry, but in no way, shape, or form do I want Ray and Sand to end up together, they are terrible for each other, and Sand’s lack of self respect at this point is a motherfucking tragedy. I mean, think about it, what care has Ray given to Sand?

Drove Sand to his apartment after the party (and then ditched him in the middle of a make out)

Offered to buy him a guitar

What care has Sand given to Ray? 

Driven him home and taken care of him when he was blackout drunk 

Hung out with him when no one else was around to care: Paid

Hung out with him when no one else was around to care: For Free

Cooked food for Ray 

Changed his work schedule to play at the hostel party

Cooked breakfast for Ray 

Let Ray use him as an excuse to not go to work and instead spending the day with him on Sand’s birthday 

Helped Ray change his clothes 

Followed after Ray and tried to stop him from drunk driving after Ray called him a whore 

Saved Ray from his car accident

(Most likely) agreed to something from Ray’s dad 

Took care of Ray when he was injured including helping him shave and bathe.

Tried to save Ray from getting caught with drugs by the cops after Ray interrupted his time with another guy and kissed him without consent

Tried to fight the cops to get them to let Ray go after Ray essentially said that he owned Sand.

Sand is poor, he’s booked and busy, he’s barely got time of his own to spend on the things he enjoys, he is fundamentally a caretaker, juggling school, multiple jobs, and his mother’s health. We see how much of grind Sand’s life is in the montage at the beginning of Episode 5, he does not have room to slip another person in to his life, hell, the boy barely has any friends. He’s never hanging out with anyone unless it’s Nick and he’s at home. So it is very important to keep in mind that Sand is making time for Ray. Sand has a life that is jam packed and stressful, and Ray keeps asking for more and more of Sand’s time. Time Sand cannot really afford to give and gives it anyway. 

Sand is a caretaker, Sand has a crush on Ray, Sand cannot say no to Ray’s puppy dog eyes and chronic need for help. And the tragedy here is that there is a world where I can see how Sand convinced himself that he and Ray were maybe moving in the same direction. Because Ray couldn’t let go. They fucked once, and Sand said that Ray was going to keep wanting him, and he was right. From the very beginning of their relationship to one another, Ray has been the one constantly asking for and initiating physical intimacy with Sand. The first time we see Sand initiate anything really isn’t until Episode 5 when he goes slack jawed looking at Ray before they kiss and even then Ray is the one that leans in to meet him. Ray is the pursuer here, Ray is the one that stalks Sand, Ray is the one that interrupts Sand’s next one night stand, Ray is the one that is always asking if he can stay over, that is asking for help, that is asking for sex. So of course Sand is going to start thinking some type of way about what he and Ray are to each other, even if they haven’t had any conversations about the nature of their relationship. 

But I think Sand is so used to taking care of other people that he hasn’t really gotten it through his head that Ray doesn’t not feel the same. We see every twist of the knife in Sand’s face in Episode 5 whenever he is reminded of that fact. But I think that despite the shit that Ray has put him through, Sand hasn’t fully realized, or at least, he is refusing to admit it to himself that there is no scenario where Ray falls in love with him, because to Ray, Sand is a commodity. 

Sand is something to be bought. 

Sand is someone Ray can go to when he wants to be serviced. 

Sand is his favorite toy. 

Ray doesn’t like Sand, Ray likes the attention, Ray likes being noticed, Ray likes being cared for, because in his life, his friends mostly ignore him, his father mostly ignores him, his mother is dead and he grew up knowing that she hated him. Ray fell in love with Mew because Mew gave him attention and care, because Ray held him in the bathtub while he sobbed, and Ray has never been able to let go of that idea. But so too, has Ray not been able to let go of the other person who is providing happiness on tap. 

favorite photo ever, courtesy of @liyazaki

There are two critical details to remember about Ray. One- Ray is rich, Two- Ray has substance use disorder. Which means that Ray is constantly looking for the next thing that will make him feel good. He drinks to forget, he does cocaine, Ray by nature of his substance dependency does not have a concept of delayed gratification. Ray is extremely rooted in the present, in whatever dopamine hit is within the closest reach. And Sand and his natural tendency to give everything he has is one of the easiest things for him to reach for. Every time that Sand has tried to set a boundary, Ray has crossed it because he knows Sand has feelings for him, he knows he can manipulate that if he just begs cute enough. When he wants sex, he can get sex, when he wants adventure, he can get adventure, when he wants care, he can get care quick, easy, and cheap. Ray paid Sand once for his time, and learned he could be bought, and he has held on to that one time subscription fee extremely tightly. 

When it comes to Ray and Sand, there is no winning for Sand that is not defined by the two of them never seeing each other again. Because the second that Ray paid Sand for his time, Sand became Ray’s property, and Ray has never stopped thinking of Sand as such. And we know this is true because of everything Ray does and says related to Sand showing any level of autonomy that runs counter to Ray’s vested interests. 

Ray pays for Sand to hang out with him, and soon afterwards, Sand tries to bring a girl home from the bar for a one night stand, only for Ray to interrupt them. Sand ends up going home with Ray instead. Ray convinces Sand to keep making out with him in the car, and then casts Sand aside the second that Mew calls. Sand tries to put up a barrier and Ray is like “yeah sure I’ll care about your feelings, why don’t I buy you a guitar?” because Ray is rich, and so his first solution to conflict is to throw money at the problem, but Sand is easily sated by a little bit of crossed thumbs. 

Sand tries to set another boundary in Episode 6 after he learns that Ray has a crush on Mew, and Ray blows right through that boundary by as @emotionallychargedtowel calls it, “aggressively falling apart”. Ray, to be fair to him is not getting drunk and falling to pieces to intentionally rope Sand back in to his gravity, but Sand’s long held tendencies to help people are going to send him back to Ray every time, because Ray is desperately in need of help and no one else can really be fucked. 

If we weren’t already aware of Ray’s tendency to think of Sand as property, we get another great indication of Ray’s mentality around Sand in the same episode. When Ray is going off on everyone at the bar on Mew’s birthday, Sand tries to step in to stop Ray’s escalation. Ray does not take kindly to this, and says to Sand’s face, in public “You don’t wanna be a singer. You just want to make money. If you want it so much, why don’t you sleep with me?” thus associating Sand’s moments of physical intimacy and sex with Ray as purchasable, as commodities. Why? Because Sand could be bought once, and thus can be bought again. Ray doesn’t think about Sand as a suitor, he thinks of Sand as a whore, and again he says as much when Sand runs after Ray to try to stop him from drunk driving. 

Sand: “Stop thinking about Mew and focus on me for once. Can’t you really see that I care about you?”

Ray: “Why would you poke your nose in my business? What are we to each other? What are we?” 

Sand: “Right. We are nothing to each other, but at least I am your fellow human. I don’t want you to drive when drunk. You can risk your life all you want. But don’t you dare risk other people’s lives too.” 

Ray: “Let go of me you shit. Let go. Or I need to pay you, whore?” 

And thus we have our answer to Ray’s initial question, “What are we to each other?” “whore”. When Ray is wasted, and pissed, and Sand is showing active defiance over Ray’s behavior, Ray reverts immediately back in to the mindset that Sand is owned, that his behavior, his choices, his morals can be changed if enough money is handed to him. Because Ray has bought Sand before, because Sand is poor, and Ray is rich, and Ray thinks that the only thing that Sand could possibly want is more money. 

Sand will commit crimes for money (making and selling plum wine). Sand will hang out with Ray for money. Sand will sing for money. Ray comes from a world with money, it is not absent struggle, but Ray’s struggles are more internal, engrained in his family dynamics. He has never had to worry about making enough money for rent, he has never had to worry about violence being done to him or a loved one from debtors when they can’t pay their interest on time, Ray has never had to live in a world without money, and it is clear from the first episode that Ray is someone that looks down on  poor people, the way he immediately accuses Sand of stealing from him when he wakes up in Sand’s apartment. 

And again, to be fair to Ray, he is not the only one. A couple of the other rich boys look down on Sand the same way. Mew wants Ray to lower his standards and settle for Sand, as if a relationship with Sand would somehow be lesser, when Sand is a good person who cares about and takes good care of Ray, he’s just poor. Top, similar looks down on Sand, he stole his boyfriend, he thinks absolutely nothing of Sand. 

Ray gets in a car accident, Sand saves his life, and then Ray’s expectation from there is that Sand will take care of him. Sand (who has very limited funds compared to Ray) buys him a drink, he helps him strip, he helps him shave, he waits hand and foot on Ray. And how does Ray repay him? By jumping in to a relationship with Mew the very second an opportunity presents itself, leaving Sand once again in the dust. Because Ray doesn’t ever actually take Sand’s feelings in to consideration when he is making decisions. Sand is a plaything to Ray, and Ray has a shinier new offer dangling in front of him. 

Sand, once again, tries to set a boundary, establish a barrier, remind himself and remind Ray that they aren’t friends, they haven’t been friends, and Sand is trying to be the bigger, better person by letting Ray go, by telling him he is happy for Ray to have finally gotten what he wanted in his relationship with Mew. And throughout the entire exchange, Ray keeps looking so confused when he hears Sand’s consistent rejection of Ray’s wishes about how he and Sand will move forward in their relationship to one another now that Ray is dating Mew.  

“So what’s up with Mew? I heard he broke up with Top” Sand asks, and Ray swallows hard, in a way that I personally read as guilty. 

“Good, you can finally end the secret crush. Such a waste of time, right?” a confession from Sand that Ray picks up on. 

“Are you okay?” Ray asks, this is the second time that Ray has tried to check in on Sand after his relationship to Mew got in the way of his relationship to Sand. 

“Why wouldn’t I be? You’re seeing someone you always loved. It’s a dream come true.” Sand once again is not acknowledging out loud or honestly his own feelings, but he is putting his own feelings aside to acknowledge Ray’s feelings. To try to, even still, even after how shittily Ray has treated him, even after how much Ray has taken Sand’s care for granted, spare Ray from feeling bad about fucking with his feelings. 

“Can we still be friends?” Ray asks, because he hasn’t ever had actual consequences for his behavior before. 

“Friends? You and I have never been friends from the get-go. We have nothing in common. Besides, I don’t know why I should be friends with you.” Sand replies, again trying to create a barrier between him and Ray that allows him to be free from Ray’s gravity. 

“But, when I’m with you, I’m so damn happy.” Ray says, because shit like that has always worked with Sand in the past: “Can we hang out together?”, “jerking off feels so good when you’re hungover”, “can you help me?”, and for the first time it really seems like Sand is sticking to his guns. 

*deep breath from Sand, who seems like he is fighting back tears he is so upset at hearing that Ray is happy with him and yet having Ray deny that in favor of chasing his next piece of ass* “You will be too when you spend time with Mew. What you did with me, you will get to do it with him. You might even be happier.”

Sand tries to walk away and Ray grabs him by the arm, because Ray has never once let Sand maintain a boundary, “Sand.”

gif from @liyazaki

“Let me go already.” Sand replies, and Sand here is begging Ray not only to literally let him go, but metaphorically, emotionally, to free Sand of this back and forth. To release him from this existence as someone to be jerked around, whose feelings can be trifled with because Ray isn’t fully capable of seeing Sand as a person with his own feelings that are impacted by the choices that Ray makes. 

And because Ray cannot let it go, cannot just let his precious toys leave him, he remains adamant about blowing past barriers as often as possible when it comes to his interactions with Sand. Sand literally asks Ray to let him go, and not long after that Ray is wandering back in to the study room where Sand is, trying to get them back on good terms. But again, to point out that Ray commodifies Sand, what is it that Ray is asks him for? Is it to go out to dinner with him? Is it to just hang out and chill? To go to the bar? Is it to apologize for his behavior? 

No. 

Ray asks Sand to come with him to do social work, to come with him to play music for children. Why? Because Sand knows how to play guitar, and Ray knows that he can wear Sand down eventually. But it bears reminding that Ray’s social work is court ordered, he is literally asking Sand to suffer the (very minimal) consequences of Ray’s drunk driving with him, and he’s trying to pick the social work option that is the least miserable, the least amount of work, and he is trying to rope in the only person he knows who can get him out of the types of social work that involve manual labor. Because Ray cannot play an instrument, so he would not be able to play music for children without Sand’s presence. 

Once again, Ray proves that he is not capable of associating Sand with anything other than a service provider. 

Or, as we see later on in the episode, as property. 

Because here Ray is, fucking with Sand’s feelings, dating Mew, making out with Mew at the party and there Sand is, not wanting to be at this party in the least but going anyway because he feels bad about what he did to Nick by stealing and sharing that TopBoston audio file, trying to move on, trying to kiss a random stranger with mutual interests at this party, only to have…

Ray interrupt them before they can kiss, squeeze himself physically in between Sand and Freddie #2, and asking if the two of them have slept together. 

“Did you sleep with him?” 

“Damn it, Ray. Are you high? How about you go to sleep?”

“I want to sleep with you. Or what, should we invite Mr. Freddie here to sleep with us? Let’s do it, I’ll go first,” 

AND THEN RAY GRABS SAND AND KISSES HIM WITHOUT HIS CONSENT (which I am pretty certain Mew would consider cheating especially after the whole ordeal with Top) when Sand was just about to consensually kiss someone who wasn’t Ray (again, Ray is unable to let Sand ever exhibit his own autonomy). Until Freddie #2 leaves them alone, assuming they are in a relationship, and not wanting to get involved with “someone else’s boyfriend”

“What the fuck is this. You have Mew now. What do you want from me? Go guard your boyfriend,” 

“I can have feelings for as many people as I want,” 

“But you can’t do this to me,” 

“Stop fooling yourself, Sand. You like me,” Ray points “You love me. You can’t walk away from me. You’re mine no matter what.”

gif by @moonkhao

and there is a reason why they put Ray in the fucking Joker’s costume for this episode, cause that boy is acting toxic as all hell. So even now, Ray isn’t sated, Ray made his choices, Ray picked Mew, Ray left Sand in the dust, but Ray cannot separate Sand’s autonomy out from Ray’s possession of him. I love Only Friends for the level of hypocrisy they allow their characters to have. Ray is allowed to date and have feelings for Mew, and to want Sand, but Sand is not allowed to move on from Ray, Sand is not allowed to have feelings for other people, let alone just make out with a stranger or fuck somebody else without any feelings involved. 

And I cannot stress enough that this is shitty behavior on Ray’s part, this isn’t cute, this isn’t funny, the extent to which Ray is possessive over a person he has no right to act that way towards is inconsiderate, rude, and objectifying. Sand is not allowed to have his own thoughts, Ray must put words in his mouth. Sand is not allowed to move on from Ray, Ray will keep pushing Sand’s boundaries until Sand relents because Ray knows he can manipulate Sand’s feelings for him, Sand will always be a caretaker and Ray will always need taking care of. Sand is maybe waking up to this fact, or maybe the horror in his eyes when Ray is yelling at him is Sand realizing at the very least that Ray knows how Sand feels about him, and Sand is admitting to himself in this moment that like Nick, he can’t help but love this person who has treated him poorly. 

Because Sand is a caretaker, and caretakers, at least in my own experience, are used to having their own wants and needs trampled over. No boundary withstands first contact with someone in need of help. I have tried to reach out and give support to people that I know didn��t like me after they went through hard times together, I don’t talk to my friends about shit that is actually and actively impactful to my mental health and wellbeing, many of the people I am friends with frequently only reach out when they need something from me. If they needed homework answers, or if they needed observation, or if they needed to be picked up early in the morning from the airport and otherwise they never really talked to me. Like, I get a lot of where Sand is coming from with his need to take care of Ray because Ray is a young adult, going through a lot, in need of a lot of professional help he isn’t getting, and Sand can’t not be compelled to help him as much as he can. 

And listen, in my opinion some of Sand’s actions with Ray are justified from a safety perspective, Sand is a caretaker, Sand knows Ray is willing to drink and drive, Sand puts his pride aside to try and ensure that Ray doesn’t leave in his car, and then follows him to make sure that he doesn’t get in to an accident. Those actions make sense to me.

gif from @bird-inacage

Sand doesn’t want Ray to get in to any more legal trouble, so tries to hide the evidence of drugs and get Ray out of the party, which in a normal circumstance I would generally be in support of, but crucially, as @neuroticbookworm and @lurkingshan have touched on in some of their posts Sand cannot afford a run in with police.  Not in the same way that Ray can. Ray is rich, Ray says he can handle the cops, and he can because he can buy them off, the way that Top bought them off. But Sand doesn’t come from a world where he can skirt consequences. 

But there are many places where Sand lets himself get trampled over because he has legitimate feelings for Ray, and Ray won’t let Sand make his own choices long enough to wake up, look around, and realize that Ray has literally given him nothing of substance in return.

[keagan-ashleigh]

I have some new followers so I guess it's time to do another little presentation post 😌

About me

Hi! My name is Keagan, but also Clémentine (my birthname - you can use both, you can call me Clem too). I am currently 34, I live in France (in the south), and I am a graphic designer and illustrator - and hopefully in a couple months aspiring web designer 🤞

I am a proud bisexual & greysexual (I'll often just say "ace").

And I am nonbinary: I think genderfluid - I identify as woman sometimes but many other times this just makes me feel like it's not really me, it doesn't quite fit. I identify sometimes as a woman - I identify with what women experience also, I am a feminist and my experience is one of a woman, and although I don't identify as woman most of the time I feel to be part of it - and most of the time as nothing at all.

Edit, I forgot the pronouns : she/they (elle/iel or ael in french); I don't have preferences, but I've been called "she" all my life and very rarely experienced being addressed with "they" so I'd really like people to use it more. 😊

Also I am disabled: I am autistic - not diagnosed yet but I have just started the process of getting it diagnosed. I also have dyscalculia, and chronic pain (my squeleton is sliiightly crooked, not much but enough to cause me immense pain 🥲 - in knees, back, and hips) - I also have generalised anxiety disorder and depression. And I am short-sighted and I have tinnitus, and a couple other things.

I have been touched by a bitch of a fairy at birth I tell you 😂

I am very open about all of this so if you happen to need someone to talk to about those subjects, I'm here, I can't provide answers but I can share my experiences.

About my blog(s)

I have a blog for my art here: @keagan--ashleigh ; both are me, I've just put an extra dash as to not confuse people when they see 2 usernames interacting with them 😅

I have been on this blue hell since 2012, at first I had an aesthetic blog but it very quickly became a social justice blog, and I created a side blog (this one) for fandoms, at first mainly spn, then BBC Sherlock, and although I kept the title and decorum it returned to its multifandom/multisubjects state.

I also talk about other subjects occasionally, it's not a one-subject blog, I often blog & reblog funny stuff, social justice, etc.

I occasionally post in french but I have associated Tumblr with english strongly - I will maybe introduce a bit more of french in here idk.

I usually liveblogs Eurovision, the past years I have been doing that on Twitter bc it's hard to livetweet and liveblog at the same time but if twitter goes down I'll come back here lmao. And on twitter I also sometimes livetweet Top Chef in french but I might to that in here as well if I can't on Twitter idk - is there an audience for that here idk 😅

Most of my french specific stuff where on twitter, like I said I have associated tumblr with english and international stuff, and I don't know how I'll gonna get my french internet experience back in tumblr, we'll see but maybe you'll see more of my french specific stuff in the future, or I'll make a third side blog idk yet.

Worth to note I have a tagging system on both my blogs - and I tag the spoilers (unless for some reason I forget).

I often vent in the tags - it was, in this regard, better when ops couldn't see the tags in their notifications :o) I feel exposed now 😭

My ask box is always open.

About fandoms and opinions

My fandoms are: BBC Sherlock, Supernatural, Marvel, Our Flag Means Death, What We Do In The Shadows, Good Omens, Doctor Who, etc

My favorite ships: johnlock, destiel, Aziraphale & Crowley, lokius, nandermo, gentlebeard, 13th & Yaz, etc

About opinions and discourses:

I am a ship and let ship kind of person but that doesn't mean I approve of everything. I will never use the terms proshipper/anti because those words have been bastardised and the definition changes everytime I see it show up - so it's better if I just tell you what I like and don't like: I do not like incest ships, I do not like pedo ships, I am not against the fact of writing about those things but I don't like them being romanticised and glorified even. And no I don't think "it's ok because it's fiction" - whether it be fanwork or else what is written or shown in fiction has an impact on the real world, always, in a positive or negative way.

I will not engage in discourses about that though because it is tiring and useless.

I will not engage in ageist discourses either because - yes I think it's stupid to say fun has an end for people when they reach 30 but time will prove ageist people wrong and it's just sound stupid to me to have fights with literal kids over this. I'd rather enjoy my shit in my corner and not bother or be bothered by any of this.

I see a lot of ageism and condescendance from older people as well and I don't like that, being young doesn't mean people's inputs and opionions are wrong. About the fact joy must end at 30, yes, but cutting the discussions short (on various subjects) with "young people are so prude now / they don't enjoy anything/ yadda yadda"... no. No let's not do that. Times are changing and maybe some things we thought were ok then are not ok now and before we shut them up I think maybe we should listen and question what we think is true, let's not become the boomers of this generation ok, let's keep our minds open and be critical of ourselves first, we might at worst expand our worldview. And of course it goes both ways. Respect goes both ways.

At large, I will mostly enjoy my stuff and not engage with negativity, i do not have the mental health to deal with that, if people are wrong let them be wrong in their corners. Not saying I will never engage in any sort of argument but I'd rather stay away from most (especially those 2 I mentioned). I will never stop criticise mofftiss and Sherlock s4 though 😂

I also do not like ship hate.

I am uncomfortable with shipping real people but I am not against it of course do as you please as long as you don't overstep & be rude with the real people you're shipping.

And also, if I see someone implying a real person is "queerbaiting" because they appear queer & bully them into coming out I will virtually slap you in the head, ok, real people don't queerbait, period.

Last thing: I stand with the L, the G, the B, the T, the A, and all the other letters of that beautiful acronym so if you don't include trans people and ace people: please begone. :)

And also I try to be inclusive, I will not overstep and speak above other communities but I will try my very best to listen and forward those people's voices. I will not engage in discussions/arguments I am not meant to be a part of. I will try my best to take my part in making bigots feel unwelcome.

This blog, and all my accounts here and elsewhere are meant to be safe spaces for LGBTQIAP+, POC, disabled people, etc.

About me (again) - hobbies & creation

I happen to make fanarts, and I write fanfics and ficlets, I also do fanplaylists. Writing is one of my hobbies beside drawing, I also do photography, and I have recently started sculpting too. I love creating stuff so I often make little things, like I can sew, craft stuff, I do bullet journaling, etc.

Like I said I'm a professional artist, you'll find all the infos on my other blog but basically : I draw fantasy art, mostly women and feminine people.

I love science (astronomy and astrophysics in particular), arts, cats (I have 4), animals in general, I love music (I have eclectic tastes, I like rock, metal, classic, pop, jazz, etc...), I love to read & watch movies and shows (also eclectic but I love SFFF and horror the most).

---

Voilà, I guess it covers the basis of who I am and what this blog is. Welcome and I hope you enjoy the ride (if you don't it's ok, just don't be rude). 🥰

[rightsockjin]

Cowboys and cowboy culture did not come from mexico. There were native and black cowboys in America and even regular white ones. Before you post stuff actually know and be factually educated about American history and history of ALL races not just your own especially when its not true.

Howdy! 🤠You’re totally right. At least about one thing. There were cowboys in America of color! Cool! Good job! Now let’s break this down because one thing I never do is speak out of my behind. I am very well educated so I don’t mind helping you learn as well! The “Cowboy” began by the Rio Grande. That’s the river you need to cross to come into America from Mexico in case you were wondering. I know geography is difficult. Hehe. The FIRST EVER cowboys were from SPAIN(there is even an argument that Vaquero culture was already present within the indigenous before that and that the Spanish only helped to “train” them).They colonized the people in Mexico (at this point Texas was in Mexico- weird right cuz now it’s part of the US) and so they pushed that culture onto the INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF MEXICO. The NATVIE PEOPLE of Mexico. Again. These were people who were already in Mexico and at this time Texas was a part of Mexico. Keep that in mind when I say MEXICO. Have you ever heard of a Buckaroo? OH WAIT!! Just kidding that’s what the ENGLISH SPEAKING MEN CALLED 𝘝𝘈𝘘𝘜𝘌𝘙𝘖𝘚 because they didn’t know how to pronounce the SPANISH word- Vaquero which means “cow herder” in Spanish.Now. When did I say that there weren’t any people of color who were cowboys?? I don’t remember writing that? Yes I was aware that there were people of color who were cowboys because GUESS WHAT, Mexico is not a homogeneous people. We are of all colors! Furthermore, Mexican is not a race. How about you learn basic vocabulary before you post anonymously? I also mentioned in the post that part of the culture that was associated 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 being a Vaquero was native but didn’t want to speak too much on it because that part of the culture I am not as well versed in and said that if you make FUN OF WHAT THEY WEAR you are making fun of two cultures and that doesn’t sit right with me. Which is why I posted the post to start with. I’m not cool with people disrespecting my culture and parts of other peoples just because they feel like it. Finally, I will end this with what you said to me. Make sure that 𝘺𝘰𝘶 educate yourself on ALL races (including ones that are not races so I will say instead-cultures because apparently you need to learn them all now) not just whatever you THINK you know. I’ll include some links and if you have any questions feel free to ask us! We actually really love history and I just finished taking a class on Mexican art history since I enjoy my own culture and the MANY races that can be part of it so we could have a good convo about lots of other stuff you would like!:) Ah right I forgot, yes- in conclusion, Vaquero culture was brought to the Mexican indigenous people by Spain who colonized us. Then, Americans took that. Are you trying to take that from us as well?? Because they already beat you to it . If your issue is my race- or me being a POC, hi- I am POC. My WHOLE family is very brown. My grandfather, in fact, is a Vaquero. He wears the hats and the shirts and the boots and the whole get up. So is My Uncle. Both men are very BROWN with indigenous features. Do the math. Thanks for your concerns but please educate yourself. Here are some link to help with that and some pics! I hope this a was useful and feel free to message with anymore incorrect assumptions about MY culture. (Lol like that it’s a race and POC aren’t cowboys hahahahahahaha) have a nice day!

I’ll leave you with a quote from my VERY BROWN DAD. “Es mejor mantener la boca cerrada y que piensen que eres un tonto que abrí la boca y despejar todas las dudas” that’s translated to “it’s better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you’re stupid than to open your mouth and leave no doubt.” (i.e. saying stupid things without research. Google is free)

Side note: I LOVE Vaquero BTS🥰

Scholarly links

Yeehaw link 1

Yeehaw link 2

And here’s a cute little picture of OG cowboys

Please notice their features and how they ambiguous the look.

And also here’s more of the cowboy influence

This is the traditional folkloric dance clothing from Tamaulipas which is the Mexican state closest to the Texas.

Once again, Google is free 💜 🤠✌🏽

This post was approved by all admins.

[septembriseur]

I want to come back to this article, which I reblogged a post from (after seeing it reblogged by loads of people on my dash). I recommend reading the article if you haven’t done so. Its central argument revolves around the idea that “modern liberal democracy presents itself as non-ideological beyond ideology,” and that ideology itself is always presented in literature/media as unacceptably violent— villainous. (I would argue that, in fact, any sort of cultural “accretion,” in the sense that culture is perceived as "on top of” and obscuring universalized western ideology,  is tolerated only insofar as it is not really taken specifically or seriously. That’s why even characters who are presented as deeply religious (think of Matt Murdock or Rogue One’s Baze and Chirrut) are portrayed as religious in a way that is broad, universal, flexible, and vague. 

One issue that the article doesn’t really delve into is that supposedly “ideologue” villains are actually profoundly anideological, except insofar as their ideology is, like, anti- modern liberal democracy’s lack of ideology. A really interesting example of this is in Iron Man: Tony Stark gets held hostage by a group of extremists whose extreme belief is... well... even the MCU wiki seems unable to provide any detail on this beyond “destroying world peace.” The film employs a weird move where it obviously relies on the Afghan setting of the villainous Ten Rings to suggest associations with radical Islamism, yet also provides evidence that the Ten Rings are not Islamists. On the one hand, it provides a sort of generic Western specter of radical Islamists— brown men speaking foreign languages and living in Afghan caves— and on the other hand it coyly removes all potential religious, political, or cultural motivation for their actions. These guys aren’t impoverished tribesmen who’ve been subject to tumultuous centuries of imperial warfare, and they’re not religious extremists living out masculine power fantasies. They’re just a group of dudes who kind of look vaguely Middle Eastern and kind of sound vaguely Middle Eastern (since Arabic and Persian are the languages we hear the most). 

Of course, there’s a real-world explanation for this: Marvel wants to be able to tap into that specter of radical Islamism without offending Muslim consumers. But the textual effect is to create a picture of the world in which terrorism in Afghanistan is evacuated of all meaning. Don’t get me wrong: terrorism in Afghanistan is unbelievably destructive and to a large extent nihilistic, in that it benefits no one and spreads only despair and suffering. But at the same time, it arises out of a historical, political, economic, and religious-cultural context, and if you refuse to understand this context, then you will fail to understand why people make the choice to become terrorists (or how to stop them).

That’s the real problem here: the creation of a world in which the only rational choice is modern liberal democracy, and all other choices are nonsensical. 

Marvel is a great site at which to explore this, simply because there’s so much of it. (You could also easily look at Star Wars, as MacQuarrie does in that article— why does the First Order want power? New extended universe writers have fleshed this out more in their web of liminally canonical texts, but on screen the answer seems to be, in the words of the also-manifestly-guilty-of-this-and-guilty-in-other-ways Joss Whedon’s Dr. Horrible: “the world is a mess, and I just need to rule it.”) 

The Falcon and the Winter Soldier is a wildly characteristic example of this. It has the thankless task of trying to engage with the effects of the canonically almost effect-free (cf Spider-man: Far From Home) blip, and pieces together a weirdly nonsensical storyline in which the blip enable border-free mass migration, which was revoked when the other half of the world’s population reappeared. The plot revolves around a group of super soldier refugees/displaced persons who want to stop borders from being reimposed on the world. Sam Wilson refers to the refugees as “people who have been welcomed into countries that previously kept them out with barb wire,” and indeed it's hard to imagine any version of this narrative in which the “migration” we’re talking about is the migration of Global South nationals to the Global North. There’s a really plausible specter here: the Global North does source its manual and domestic labor from the Global South while, whenever possible, keeping Global South nationals out with barbed wire. It does make sense that the Global North would import laborers and then attempt to deport them when their presence was no longer convenient. That is, in fact, literally what has happened/is happening in the UK to foreign healthcare workers during the pandemic.

However, as in Iron Man, Marvel wants to mobilize a specter while also evacuating it of all meaning. None of the displaced people we see in TFATWS bear any resemblance to real-world displaced persons. In spite of their United Colors of Benetton racial diversity, they display no marks of culture, religion, nationality, or indeed poverty. They even have British and American accents. They are completely neutral in every way.

This matters for several reasons. First of all, it allows the viewer to differentiate between the migrants on-screen— Western-looking, English-speaking, non-religious— with migrants off-screen: [perceived to be] too religious, non-English-speaking, culturally and racially “other.” Secondly (again as with Iron Man), it removes all context from the act of migration. Why did these people become migrants? Uh... because of the blip, I guess? Beyond some vague references to suffering, it’s never addressed. This allows the viewer to completely detach the question of migrants/displacement from any of its structural context. Why do people migrate in the real world? Because their countries have been completely devastated by warfare, often proxy warfare carried out by imperial states. Because climate change has completely devastated the regions where they live, with or without triggering devastating warfare. Because they belong to ethnic, political, and/or religious groups that are being systematically destroyed by state governments. Because colonialism and neoliberal capitalism have completely devastated the economies of the regions where they live. This is why the stakes of migration are high. 

If, as the show suggests, people just migrate for various personal reasons that really aren’t that important, then the stakes are not high, and we don’t have to feel bad about the behavior of our governments. This is a huge problem at a time when Denmark is shipping Syrian asylum-seekers back to Syria because it’s apparently fine now, Joe Biden is failing to make good on campaign promises about increasing refugee quotas, the UK is housing asylum seekers in situations that violate human rights law, migrant drownings in the Mediterranean Sea have become a regular feature, and the United States has systematically resisted fulfilling its promises to Iraqis and Afghans who risked their lives working for US forces in exchange for visas.

But, like, above and beyond the specific political issue of migration: what is the Flag Smasher ideology? “One world, one people.” I accept that there might be some viewers (mostly those with no knowledge or experience of immigration) who oppose this on principle, but it seems pretty obviously... good. So the bad part is... that they’re fighting for it? (According to people in my notes, this is Bad.) It’s possible to read this as another example of what the MacQuarrie article discusses: personal violence good, ideological violence bad. However, once again we have an example of an ideology that is not ideological, an ideology that is a specter cleaned out of any possible substance. The nonsensical choice here (the one beside which modern liberal democratic norms are obvious) is the choice to commit violence when there is no urgency that justifies this— none of the urgency that, in fact, exists in the real world, and explains why people regularly sacrifice their lives in desperate attempts to escape their homes. 

This is a really good example of how capitalism— a force with no real agency or subject, no evil committee planning its deeds— ends up enacting a project that systematically enforces its ideology. Attempts to render narratives apolitical are themselves profoundly political, even when justified in terms of appeal to the consumer. This is one of the most dangerous aspects of media, IMHO. 

[shihalyfie]

Kizuna itself vs. the two versions of the novel

Written on request from a friend who wanted to remain anonymous. This is more of an editorial than a meta, and while I usually have a policy of “this is an analysis blog, not a review blog” it goes into more of my personal impressions and opinions than usual, but it’s something I write hoping to be helpful.

There are basically three “official” full versions of Kizuna: one being, of course, the movie itself, one being the Dash X Bunko version of the novel, and one being the Shueisha Mirai Bunko version of it. While it’s certainly not to say that any of the three is an “incomplete” version of the narrative, if you really want as full of a picture of the story as possible, somehow, each of all three versions of the story happens to have really important information that the other two do not. If I had to pick only one of these three versions to recommend to people, I would of course pick the movie itself; it’s obviously the base story everything else is based off of and was the one the production centered around as a priority, but the novelizations have a surprising amount of info that provide a lot of insight into the movie’s story and themes.

I get the impression that the creation of Kizuna involved making a lot more story and background details than could fit in a 95-minute movie, so these novelizations, which were based directly off the original movie script, ended up being an outlet for a lot of these details (and as much as I could be harsh on the movie itself for being a bit “reliant” on extra material, I have to admit that Adventure and 02 were both like this too -- a lot of our current understanding of the series comes from the Adventure novels and drama CDs -- so frankly I’m thankful we at least got this with a 95-minute movie instead of a yearlong series). On the flip side, while I'm not going to say that the novels are completely and utterly inaccurate representations of the movie, in a perhaps too-close approximation of Adventure and 02's writing style, this is a movie where even the nuances in a single line or split-second moment carry heavy implications, which become much blurrier or harder to identify when they’re presented differently (or not even presented at all) in the novel’s context, especially when they emphasize very different things from what the movie itself was emphasizing.

The short version of this is that I believe the Dash X version contains the greater amount of “plot and story” information but significantly misses out on the emotional themes and presentation, whereas the Shueisha Mirai version abridges and cuts chunks of content but is much better at conveying the intended message. More on this below the cut. (Note that the following post spoils Kizuna’s plot events.)

The movie itself

Since the following parts are more “in comparison to the movie”, I’m not going to go too much into this in this section, but one thing I will say is that the official English subtitle translation for the movie is really not great. Even if you take out nitpickiness about the fact it misses several significant nuances (the difference between “unchangeable fate” and “changeable destiny”, or the fact that Gennai refers to partnership dissolution as a “case” and not like it’s something that happens overall) at really plot-important moments, some lines (thankfully, usually not plot-important ones) are just straight-up incorrect. And worse, there’s evidence the official English dub was based on that translation! (I’m not faulting the people in charge of the dub for this, but whoever handed them that translation to work with.)

The dialogue in the Dash X Bunko version is transcribed effectively word-for-word from the dialogue in the movie (or perhaps vice versa, given that the novel is based on the original script), so I highly recommend checking that version as a reference for dialogue or if you want to do any intimate analysis on it. I don't want to go as far as to suggest not supporting the official version of the movie because of this, but at least please be aware that the translation used there is not entirely reliable.

Dash X Bunko

If you talk about “the Kizuna novel”, this is the one that people usually tend to be referring to, for two reasons. Firstly, it was translated shortly after the movie’s release, and due to the unfortunate circumstances of Kizuna being delayed in accessibility outside Japan for several months, this basically served as the only comprehensive source of info about the movie outside Japan for a very long time. Secondly, in Japan, this one was marketed as “the one for adults” in contrast to the Shueisha Mirai one being “for kids”, which meant that a lot of people assumed that the latter one was just an incredibly stripped down version that was otherwise disposable or replaceable. (This is very, very much not the case, and is extremely ironic when it comes to a movie that partially centers around the dangers of looking down too much on things associated with childhood.)

When it comes to “plot and story info”, this is the one that probably serves as the best reference (especially for fanfic writers or those who need a refresher on certain plot events or to look up something quickly), and probably has the most “comprehensive” listing of plot events surrounding the movie. The dialogue in it is a word-for-word recreation of the movie’s script, and actually includes more scenes than the movie itself does, including two that I suspect to be deleted scenes (a detailing of the specifics behind the initial plan to pursue Eosmon, and a conversation between Koushirou and Tentomon) and adaptations of the first and second memorial shorts within their context in the movie. It also contains some interesting background details and extra context for some things in the movie that you might think would normally be animation flair or something, but take a very interesting implication of story importance if they’re going out of their way to write this in the script. (There’s a scene where Agumon and Gabumon appear in front of their partners when they’d been behind them a minute before, and it’s easy to think this might be an animation error, but not only does the surrounding context make this unlikely, the novel itself actually directly states that their positions had changed.) Given that, I think it was very fortunate that this novel was available to us for those outside Japan waiting for the actual movie to come out, because this level of detail was very important to have on hand rather than fragmented spoilers on social media.

However, the part where I think the novel is significantly deficient in compared to the actual movie (and also to the other version of the novel) is that it describes the plot events in too blunt of a manner and doesn’t bring out its themes very well. (It’s kind of like having a long and very detailed Wikipedia article plot summary; it definitely got all the hard facts down, but the emotion is gone, which is still a pretty significant issue when media’s all about the feelings and message in the end.) While “considering the movie to be more cynical than it’s probably meant to be” happens regardless of which version someone’s working from, I’ve talked to perhaps an unnervingly high number of people who started with the novel and were absolutely convinced that the movie’s message was about adulthood sucking and needing to just accept it, until they saw how the actual movie pulled it off and the surrounding atmosphere and realized it definitely was not. (I think one really big factor here is that a lot of the visual imagery makes it extremely, extremely hard to miss that Menoa’s mentality is completely screwed up and her way of seeing things was dubious to begin with; prose descriptions really just don’t capture the way they slam this in your face with visual and musical cues during the climax of the movie.)

You can figure this out from the novel itself, but you have to really be looking closely at the way they word things, and on top of that it’s hard to figure out which parts you should be focusing on and which parts aren’t actually that important -- in other words, the “choice of priorities” gets a bit lost in there. Even the little things lose a lot of value; it’s theoretically possible to use the novel to put together that Daisuke is wearing his sunglasses indoors during his first scene, but you have to put together the context clues from completely different paragraphs to figure this out, none of which compares to the actual hilarity of visually seeing him wearing the thing in a very obviously dimly lit restaurant because he’s our beloved idiot. (For more details, please see my post with more elaboration on this and more examples of this kind of thing.)

I wouldn’t say that the movie itself isn’t guilty of (perhaps accidentally) having some degree of mixed messaging, but I would say this problem is rather exacerbated by the novel’s way of presenting it due to its dedication to dropping every single plot detail and event without much in the way of choosing what to contextualize and what to put emphasis on (as it turns out, treating practically everything in the movie as if it has equal weight might not be a great idea). So, again, for that reason I think the novel serves as a good reference in terms of remembering what happened in it and knowing the movie’s contents, but I also feel that it’s really not the greatest deliverer of the movie’s message or themes at all.

Shueisha Mirai Bunko

The second version of the novel was not translated until several months after the movie first released, and shortly before the Blu-ray and streaming versions of the movie itself came out anyway, so my impression is that on this end a lot of people don’t even know it was a thing. On top of that, even those who know about it often dismiss it as the “kid version” -- and to be fair, it did baffle quite a few people as to why this version even exists (Kizuna is technically not unacceptable for kid viewing and its plot is still understandable regardless of age, but since the movie is so heavily about the millennial existential crisis, it’s not something kids would really relate to). So a lot of people tended to just skip over it...which is really a shame, because it contains some interesting things that actually aren’t in the other two versions at all. For instance, did you know that, as of this writing, this is the only thing that plainly states the specific explanation for why Yamato decided to become an astronaut, for the first time in 20 real-life years?

While there are still some things that weren’t in the movie proper (mainly the Eosmon initial plan and the adaptation of the second memorial short), for the most part, the actual events are somewhat abridged compared to the movie and the Dash X version, and other than a few stray lines, there’s not a lot of extra information that would be as helpful for referencing the events of the plot. The version of the novel here is rather broadly interpretive of the scenes in the movie, so several things are condensed or taken out (and, amusingly, because it’s assuming that the kids reading this don’t actually know the original Adventure or 02, it has to describe what each character is like in a quick one-liner).

However, interestingly enough, it’s because it’s so heavily interpretive that it illuminates a lot of things that weren’t really easy to glean out of the Dash X version. For instance:

Some scenes are described with “other perspectives” that give you info on someone else’s point of view. (For instance, we see more of Yamato’s perspective and thoughts when he has his first phone call with Daisuke, or a bit more detail in the process of how Eosmon kidnappings work.)

We get a lot more information on what’s going through everyone’s heads during each scene, and what emotions they’re feeling at a given time. (This is something that you could at least get to some degree in the movie itself from facial expressions and framing, but would often be a lot blurrier in the Dash X version; here, it’s spelled out in words.)

When things are abridged, you get a clearer idea of what the intended point and theme of the scene was because it’s stripped down to include only that part. In one really interesting case, the scene with Agumon finding Taichi’s AVs has a “censored” equivalent where Taichi’s pushed to a corner because he can’t find anything non-alcoholic in his fridge -- so when you look at the two versions of the scene and what they have in common, you can figure out that the point isn’t that it was a lewd joke for the sake of it, but rather that Taichi’s forcing himself into boxes of “adulthood” that are actually meaningless and impractical.

Some of the descriptions of the characters, scenes, and background information make it a lot more obvious as to their purpose in the narrative (it outright confirms that Miyako being in Spain means that her personality is getting overly enabled there).

The scene where the circumstances behind Morphomon’s disappearance are revealed makes it significantly less subtle what the point is. In the actual movie, a lot of this involved visual framing with Menoa seeming to become more and more distant, but in this version of the novel they basically whack you over the head with the final confirmation that Menoa is guilty of neglecting her own partner, which contradicts her own assertions that “they were always together” (maybe not emotionally, it seems!) and helps clarify the commonality between her, Taichi, Yamato, and Sora in what exactly led to their partners disappearing.

Bonus: this version of the novel really wants you to know that the ending of the movie is about Taichi and Yamato fully having the determination to turn things around and lead up to the 02 epilogue. (The movie’s version of this involves the extended version of Taichi’s thesis and the credits photo with Yamato obviously next to a rocket, while this novel’s version involves more detailed fleshing out of how Taichi and Yamato decided to use their experiences to move onto their eventual career paths and what kind of hope they still have at the end. The Dash X version...didn’t really have a very strong equivalent here.)

In other words, while this version of the novel isn’t the greatest reference for plot or worldbuilding, it does a much more effective job being straightforward about the intended themes and message of the movie, and even if the scenes in it are much more loosely adapted, it’s much better at adapting the emotional nuances of the things that would normally be conveyed via visuals, expressions, and voice acting. (Although I would still say that the movie itself is the best reference for that kind of thing, of course.) If you just want lore or plot ideas, I don’t think it’ll help you very much, but since this series is so much about characters that had their ways of thinking fleshed out in such incredible detail, and about strong theme messaging, this is all still very valuable information in its own way.

[betweentheracks]

Hello and yay for this blog!!! I have a question :D. If a certain Chinese star were to wear jeans that say "my cock is gluten free" and "pull me down and fuck me," do you think his stylist would have chosen this knowingly, or do you think it's possible they just were like "hmm english words looks good" and didn't bother to look up the meaning? If they did know the meaning, would they have likely informed the star? Very desperate for the thought process behind this Choice hehehe. Thank you!

Ah, I was wondering hoping if I would get asked about those infamous jeans and here you are!

First and foremost; the following is all speculation from my experiences in the business and is wholly subjective. 

It isn’t impossible that they weren’t aware of what was written on the jeans, but it also isn’t all that likely either. When you pull up these jeans on the Dsquared2 site there’s a listing of what is doodled and written on the jeans and it’s not something that would be overlooked by neither stylist nor client. 

That said, Yibo does know some English and while he may not have known these words exactly, there’s more than enough ways of discerning their meaning. I would also bet half a year of my salary that his stylist would have known what was written here, or any number of personnel that works with them for that matter. I would also take into consideration that even if the jeans had slipped by all these people that may or may not have had the ability to see what was all over them, some of Yibo’s fellow idols should have (looking at you specifically, Seungyoun).

Setting this aside for a moment, I’ll go into who I think is responsible for the jeans being worn to begin with - Wang Yibo himself is the likely culprit. 

Why do I think this? There’s many reasons but most are inconsequential while two points frame the scene as I see it. 

This is markedly not a choice a stylist would make. Stylists, at the end of it all, are employees and therefore it shouldn’t be too surprising to know we have rules in place we must abide no matter if we are working outside the purview of the company we are housed under. Even when we work exclusively with a client, we are still taking the name of our company as well as our own with us and are operating as an extension of the brand the company promotes and promises. I don’t know of any company here (and I live in rather free faring place which welcomes eccentricities, mind) that would allow these jeans to be submitted as part of a pitch to either buy or borrow unless they were very specifically in line with a client’s public image and style. Technically these jeans would classify as offensive and profane which means they would invite trouble and cause a stir. While stylists are not associated much with the PR side of things we are still essentially a team playing for the same client - this selection, if gone badly, would be like asking for lightning to strike twice in one place at the same time. If a scandal amounted from them PR would have to handle it and that means the stylist would come under fire for making such a bold and risky choice, most especially with a younger client that thus far didn’t have the sort of image one would think to associate with jeans such as these. 

The second reason is that, from what I can tell, this is in line with Yibo’s personality. He’s very serious about style and engages with it as he does most things; by overtaking it completely and rebranding it to suit him to the point that it makes one wonder if the style wasn’t designed with him in mind. He makes full use of what fashion is all about at it’s core; expression. These jeans in particular would have suited the Yibo of the time he wore them (2018, if I remember right?) as he was trying to break away from the image he held as a pretty boy with demure and soft looks which held the shock value of being in such contrast with his dancing and rapping. He’s mentioned before that he doesn’t really like being “cute/sy” and having to do things in the way of that since it’s not true to who he feels he is. Which, honestly, a lot of idols and stars go through this experience where they no longer wish to be constrained by the persona they play for the public and one of the most impactful means of going about it is to address the styling since it is the focal point of public image. 

The Dsquared2 jeans don’t only say “my cock is gluten free,” there’s actually quite a lot to them and I think it would help if more were aware of it so here’s the description of them on the website: 

D Squared Limited Edition Jeans. Sexy Twist Printed Low Rise. Fun, Evil Boy, Love Sucks, Pull Me Down, Open Me, Unzip, Buttons, Wine Is My Water, Tic Tac Toe, Dean & Dan, Sex, Gluten Free Cock, Hot Patches

The jeans actually say “pull me down and fuck me” right there on the ass, but naturally they can’t list the expletives in the marketing. Not strictly important to this post, but still worth mentioning given the hushed treatment of what the placement of such words could easily imply and the effect that could have had. 

Anyway, the bit that is very telling in my opinion is that “evil boy” tag. I’m not terribly certain due to having never been fortunate enough to work with these jeans myself and the internet only has so many pictures from so many angles, but “evil boy” is either written somewhere (which I think is the case since there’s devil horns present as well) or they’re being promoted as such for aesthetic value. Regardless, I am fairly certain this would be the feature which caught Yibo’s eye. It’s on brand for someone seeking to shatter the conceptual ideal of being naive, innocent, youthful, or soft.

The jeans as a whole fit with Yibo’s sense of humor, as I’ve seen it at least. He lost his mind and fell into full laughter and hysterics over a dick joke, not even minding that he was being filmed or anything. He was still laughing about it even after the other hosts had moved beyond it, making them circle back around to it and in turn making it all the more hilarious for him to enjoy. You can see it clearly in the bts footage from the CQL set that he enjoys being mischievous and stirring things up and having a good time. 

This is who he is, I believe, and it makes a lot of sense for him to have made this stylistic choice and then either convince his stylist to let him run with it or change out at the last second. Both of these are possible, though one of them is less probable than the other given how tricky it actually would be to sneak a wardrobe alteration past the many people that make up the staffing roster for any events, and then to be able to change in the limited time frame available between exiting the dressing room to being in the public sphere would be one in a thousand. Much simpler to goad your stylist into being lenient enough to give you free reign over your own styling - we can only hold out and say no when the grounds for it are met, which this wouldn’t have done in all likelihood - and most of the time we build up a good enough relationship and rapport with clients that we end up doting on them a bit and heed their requests when we can.

That’s all from me on this token moment in Yibo’s very stacked fashion history. Thanks for asking!

Furthermore, there’s the third possibility that this wasn’t a styling choice whatsoever. Or at least not one that involved the stylist in any real regard. It is very plausible that this was just Yibo in his own clothes, having dressed down after the main events wound down. I’ve never actually watched to see what that night looked like overall, but from the videos I have seen it looked to me like the actual do had passed and they were all just goofing around and having their own dance competitions and such when he was wearing them. I can’t say for sure that he did or did not have them on for the whole thing or if they were his own self packed casual wear. In which case it would fall back to his studio to tend to since stylists generally don’t hold authority over personal clothing choices and only ever have a hand in it when it is expressly stated in contracts or temporary clauses, and it just isn’t too common anymore. 

Worth a quick mention for means of distinction, here in the US this choice wouldn't have raised many eyebrows no matter if it was chosen by an artist or a stylist. The only reason I feel it necessary to say this is simply because this is not so in China and that alone lends context to the controversy of these jeans. In the scope of conservatism these jeans are outrageous and I think that a stylist would steer clear of utilizing them at all if they value their job. This is why I don't consider it likely at all that Yibo and his stylist collaborated to make use of these jeans as a way to shake away the remnants of his pretty boy aesthetic.