#represented. like I know. I KNOW. that I talk about this ad nauseum I /KNOW/ okay.

[musical-chick-13]

My God I am so tired of people only talking about mental illness and/or disability in fiction/as a literary theme when they can use it to back up their terrible male faves by saying that they Weren't That Bad, Actually and They Belong To A Marginalized/Unfairly Demonized Group, So You Need To Be On Their Side.

[rallamajoop]

Mia Winters in Shadows of Rose

I really did think I was done talking about (read: furiously defending) Mia Winters when I made all those other posts earlier this year. I’ve even touched on the misconceptions about her in Shadows of Rose before, at least in a reblog. But someone reblogged one of those posts recently with a comment that mentioned this particular aspect of the hate she gets in passing, and I had such a strong response to it (and for what is honestly in no way that poster’s fault) that I had to accept that maybe I wasn’t as done as I thought he was.

So there’s the idea in fandom that Mia voluntarily gave up her daughter to the government after RE8. It's bullshit and obviously so, but it's still going to take me another whole post to get into why seeing this ‘fact’ parroted about her annoys me so damn much.

Because this is not an outside take. I’ve seen people claim they didn’t have any particular opinion on Mia until this was the tipping point that pushed them into hating her. I’ve seen "sympathetic" takes on Mia which suggest that really it’s not her fault at all that she couldn’t love her own daughter, because [elaborate bullshit]. "Mia abandonned Rose at the first opportunity after RE8" is one of those takes that gets repeated ad nauseum.

First question: based on what, exactly?

No really, if there’s some obscure, mistranslated press release out there as the source, please, someone point me to it, because nothing in Shadows of Rose tells us anything of the sort.

Excluding Eveline’s horrifying Mia-puppets, the real Mia is mentioned all of twice in Shadows of Rose. The first mention comes when you find young Rose’s diary, which tells us that she found regular school a bit basic, because she’d already learned all that stuff with ‘Mommy’. So we can safely assume Rose was home-schooled by Mia for much of her childhood, though now Rose is attending a regular school. "Home schooled with enough care to put her ahead of her same-age peers" sure says "abandoned" to me!

The other mention of Mia is more ambiguous, and is easily missed, heard only if you read her letter about baking a cake for Rose’s half birthday in the Winters’ home sequence. After reading it, Rose sadly says, "I haven’t seen Mom in ages." Why she hasn’t seen her mother in so long isn’t explained (though she certainly sounds like she'd like to), nor do we have any idea how long ‘ages’ really is. It’s certainly enough to make the player wonder, but no answers are ever supplied, or even really hinted at.

And that’s it. That’s everything we’ve actually got on Mia’s place in Rose’s mid-teens life. I have played this DLC multiple times and poured through the game files ‒ trust me on this.

Unlike so many other bits of slander thrown at Mia’s feet, the idea that Mia ‘gave up her daughter to the government’ sometime after that first diary was written is at least theoretically possible, given the very little we know. But why the fuck do people treat it like it’s the only possibility? Do we really have so little imagination?

The only thing we can positively say about Mia in Shadows of Rose is that she’s not in it. Mia could be in a coma for all we know! She could be in prison! The government could’ve taken Rose from her against her will! She could be deep undercover in some criminal organisation who represent a real threat to her daughter! She could be in some mental institution after the stress of losing Ethan proved too much! Those experiments Miranda performed on her could’ve had horrifying long-term side effects! ALL of these things are at least as possible as ‘Mia gave her daughter up voluntarily’. And they’re all a whole fuckload more plausible.

Because lemme tell you what we actually know about Mia's relationship with her daughter. In fact, you know what, have a whole mini gallery of what we know.

Mia ‘nothing else matters as long as my family is together’ Winters – the woman who advanced on Chris demanding where is my husband? Where is my daughter? – who positively lights up when she sees her daughter safe at the end of RE8 ‒ the one with the whole photo album full of pictures documenting her pregnancy or where she's gazing happily at her newborn daughter… you’re telling me this woman would just give Rose up? Come on.

Even Shadows of Rose contributes to this take on Mia: to get that one line from Rose about not having seen her mother, you have to read the one document in the game written from Mia’s perspective, which is full of joy about making a cake for her daughter’s half-birthday celebration.

Heck, even the Baker Incident Report makes clear that Rose is the most important thing in Mia’s life. Mia loves Rose more than anything in every other part of this canon.

And someone still went, "Oh, well Rose hasn’t seen her in a while in SoR, and the government seems to have their sticky fingers in her life, so clearly Mia just gave her up"? And the rest of fandom has been repeating it ever since? What is wrong with people?

In fact, while we’re talking the adults in Rose’s life as of SoR, why on earth does Chris get a pass? The only thing we hear about his current ‘relationship’ with Rose, a girl who’s still in high school and hasn’t even begun learning to control her powers yet, is that he’s apparently pestering her to join his para-military squad. Her first assumption when a member of his squad comes to talk to her is that this is what it’s about. I mean, that’s objectively pretty fucked up.

In all seriousness here, I’m not trying to start some #cancelchrisredfield movement, because I really doubt those lines were written with the primary goal of establishing Rose’s relationship with Chris – they’re just clunky exposition. They’re here to let us know a) Chris is still working with his Dog Dog Squad, b) Kay, the guy we’ve just met, is a member, and c) Chris is aware that Rose’s powers are going to be a big deal – and presumably he’s still as weirdly intense about everything as he is in the rest of RE8. Rose does seem happier about Chris’s role in her life in her diary, where he seems to have pulled some strings to allow her to go to a regular school (but presumably even Chris draws the line at recruiting pre-teens, so that’s yet to start), so we've got some friendly interactions between them, but Chris seems no more involved in Rose's teen life than Mia is.

I don’t know how the RE8 writers did expect us to interpret the idea that Chris is apparently trying to recruit untrained under-18s to his team, but I’m sure with enough imagination, you can come up with some way to spin it that doesn’t paint him in a completely irredeemable light (maybe he just wants her involved in training and self-defence or something, or maybe it’d give him the power to tell other government departments with an interest in her to take a hike, who knows?) What really stands out to me, however, is that I don’t have to defend Chris over how his non-part in this DLC is so under-explained. So why the hell does Mia get both barrels, when we know even less about her current relationship with Rose than for Chris?

Oh wait, I know this one. It’s because she’s a woman, and we’ve already decided she’s a bad person. Any mother whose life doesn’t seem to revolve entirely around her sad daughter is obviously an irredeemable human being, amirite? [Insert table-flip here]

As I’ve said before, I’d really like for there to be a more interesting explanation for why we hear so little about Mia in Shadows of Rose. I would love for the reason to be that they’ve got big plans for Mia in RE9, and don’t want SoR to pre-emptively spoil whatever’s going to happen to her. I would kill for a whole game about Mia, starting way back before RE7 and filling in all those big holes in her story, before picking up again post RE8 and beyond. I’m realistic enough to realise that’s not likely, but gdi, I can dream. It’s certainly possible that one of the reasons we hear so little about her in Shadows of Rose is because the writers are trying to leave their options open, just in case.

But putting all my pipe dreams for RE9 aside, I'd bet good money the main reasons why Mia has so little presence in Shadows of Rose are thematic. The whole story depends on Rose feeling isolated and lonely as motivation for why she wants to be 'normal', before she finally decides it's worth giving that up for the chance to meet her Dad properly for the first time. That all hits a lot harder on a thematic level if we downplay the few positive relationships Rose does have in her life ‒ her mother included. I mean, you may as well ask why all the teachers in any Harry Potter novel are so useless most of the time: because it’s easier to tell the story they want to tell that way. Chris’ part in Rose’s life is almost certainly downplayed for the very same reasons (plus possibly some resistance to making fans face an incarnation of Chris who might well be in his 60s by whatever year this actually is).

So, yeah. Maybe Mia as-long-as-we're-together Winters did home school her beloved daughter all through her early years, and then one day just decided "y’know what, I’m done with this" and signed Rose over to the government without a second thought. God knows I’ve heard of worse cases of random character assassination from franchises I’ve trusted. And the moment Capcom actually gives us any reason to believe that’s the intent, I’m sure someone will let me know.

But in the meantime, Jesus Christ, people – this DLC is like three hours long, and it’s all on youtube – it is not hard to check this shit, c’mon.

[power-chords]

you know, grain of salt bc im nobody and know nothing. but re: your post about oasis motif in heat 2; i certainly think youre self-evidently on to something with what the idea of an oasis represents as a theme. when it comes to the references to the actual band specifically, tho, bc it cant all just be about the name/word, right- i immediately wonder if it has to do with inviting comparison between the relationship central to heat as a narrative and the relationship between noel and liam gallagher. bc i mean. heat is famously about this intense (arguably intimate, and more intense due to its intimacy, and more intimate due to its intensity, ad nauseum feedback loop) mutually antagonistic rivalry right? from my understanding. and noel and liam gallagher.. fucking hate each other but they are. Literally brothers and truly could never hope to escape the (grotesque? humiliating?) visceral quality of that connection regardless of how much it is left to degrade. does that scan? just something that occurred to me right away ig

WELL funny you should mention that… Neil makes a “throwaway” comment in the film about a brother he was separated from and lost touch with; in the book, Vincent’s full name is revealed to be Vincent Thomas Hanna (“Thomas” meaning “twin”). There’s even a Paolo character introduced in the novel who, based on other textual clues, might be a reference to a certain Paolo Hewitt:

Mann went to film school in London and resided in the UK for several years afterward to, ahem, escape the Vietnam draft. He has remarked many times in interviews that he lived the full Swinging Sixties experience. So it’s not like he’s unfamiliar with the territory.

Oasis also as a band represents a cyclical return to form, the rebirth/re-emergence/re-invigoration of a style of popular music that until the nineties was broadly considered passé and even retrograde. Cue Britpop, Oasis, and the decade of Cool Britannia. (The novel concludes with a Pontiac Firebird crashing and burning and Vincent discovering a heart-shaped locket with Neil’s photo in it among the wreckage… LMAO.) A few days ago BFI posted their full talk with Mann that was recorded at the beginning of the year, and he makes passing mention to what he was trying to impart with the first couple seasons of Miami Vice on TV, a sort of “neo-rock ‘n’ roll” spirit. So while I had never really pegged him for an Oasis fan, there’s clearly enough associative congruence for him to work with. All You Need is Love, maybe.

I do wonder what kind of relationship Mann has with his own brother, if indeed he has one at all. His father’s sudden death in his early twenties “shattered the family,” according to that Wall Street Journal piece from the Heat 2 press tour in 2022. Who knows what that means! He’s mentioned David a few times by his birth name, and not many details otherwise, but cursory Googling reveals that he does not go by that name any longer, and may be a practitioner of the Hindu faith. That’s as far as he goes, and as far as I can speculate!

[licncourt]

Do you know some sort of like history or timeline in AR's feelings for Louis? Cause I know she originally projected onto him, then diminished his role and admitted she disliked him, but then she made Loustat endgame after all and I've seen some positive posts about them on her facebook lol.

Oh boy, I can try! It's a pretty simple answer but the implications and outcomes are...something.

Like you said, in IWTV Louis was AR's self-insert that helped her process the grief of losing her daughter, so that's a given. She published TVL a decade later when she was in a better space mentally and had begun to shift her focus and projection onto Lestat, and while we don't know exactly what she felt about Louis at that time, she did write a wonderful reunion for the two of them and Louis is portrayed pretty positively there.

I feel like things shift more in QotD. Maybe she doesn't actually dislike Louis yet (again, the ending), but she definitely isn't interested in his character much at all considering how little he's in the book. Just like the rest of the book series though, everything takes a hard left in the 90s with TotBT.

This is an interesting point on the timeline because while I as a reader agreed with (or at least understood) most of Louis' opinions and decisions in this book, he's treated pretty badly by the narrative itself. Anne Rice (via Lestat) is much harsher towards him in this book than in any other besides IWTV, pretty explicitly ripping into his personality traits and character flaws.

The scene towards the very end of the book where David and Lestat talk about how "weak" and wanton people who choose to become vampires are (versus those who are forced) is particularly infamous because of how obvious the dig at Louis is. David is also important here because TotBT is where AR starts pushing hard to replace Louis in the narrative and in Lestat's life, another serious, intelligent, wealthy, dark-haired prettyboy that she decided she liked more.

It's worth mentioning that after this book was published, The Vampire Companion was released, a sort of VC encyclopedia Anne Rice wrote with a co-author. This is the first time she publicly expressed her dislike for Louis and it REALLY shows in his entry. @sofipitch owns the book and has the specific passages on her blog, but among other things, Louis is described as weak, passive, and submissive, unaware of what's best for him and needing/wanting to be controlled.

She writes that he "made himself vulnerable to vampire attacks" with his behavior as a mortal (wow, I wonder what that sounds like) and that he brought Lestat's emotionally abusive behavior on himself by being so weak. It's a really awful section of the book that ties her opinions of Louis to real-world issues like victim blaming in cases of rape and abuse, "slut shaming" (terrible term but you know what I mean), and the mistreatment of people who are depressed and suicidal.

I mention this also because Louis' next major appearance is a few years later in Merrick, a book I've spoken about ad nauseum already. This really seems to be the peak of her hatred for Louis' character and she spends a significant chunk of the book tormenting him and having David disparage him in the narration. He's shamed for his mental illness and grief, sexually assaulted, and goaded into a suicide attempt all in a book that was never even meant to be about him.

It really seems like she just wanted to punish him for existing while flaunting her new favorite, David. It's very uncomfortable to read, not just because of how cruelly the issues Louis deals with are dealt with, but also because of the fact that Louis represents her past self. I'm no psychologist, but torturing and degrading the literary representation of your past self seems like a red flag. In a way, it makes me sad for her because it seems like she had must have had as little empathy for the person who created Louis as she did for the character himself.

After that, Louis doesn't appear in the next two books outside of a couple passing references, his longest total absence from the series and where TVC was supposed to end permanently. If the books had truly stopped in 2003, that's where we would've left Louis forever.

It does seem like she softened to him by the time Prince Lestat came out in 2014, maybe after some distance and with the urging of fans. She admitted during the writing of the PL trilogy that she preferred David in general and as a partner for Lestat, but understood that Louis was by far the fan favorite, so she had taken that into consideration. I have to imagine that the rise of social media and the influx of messages she received from fans of Louis/Loustat had something to do with that pivot in storyline overall.

Because of Louis' epilogue in PL and the fact that he ends up with Lestat at all, I feel like she must have at least stopped hating him as much as she did in the 90s, even if she never really liked him again (she repeated her dislike in response to fan emails around the same time). I'm just glad she didn't kill him off or give us Davidstat endgame though, so I'll take it.

Sidenote: AR injecting misogyny into VC at every possible opportunity combined with Louis' female coded characteristics may very well have played into this mess, so I'll link my posts about that right here and here

[danpuff-ao3]

The Making of Devotion

If you've followed me long enough, you've probably seen me and gotten fed up with me talking about my pride and joy, Contempt. And I promise, it's only half as much as I wanted to talk about it.

Long after Contempt was written, and finally posted, the story continued to haunt me. It wasn't done with me yet.

And so...Devotion.

The story of Contempt and Devotion was inspired by two other Snarry fics, Shame and Denial; inspired in their own ways. Those fics placed in me the need that shaped the story of my soul.

Similarly, the idea to write a companion piece, to explore Severus' POV of the same story came from another Snarry fic, or rather fics I've long loved: Nights of Gethsemane and Invictus, by starcrossed.

Forever I am in awe of what that author did. And left to my own devices, I would wax poetic about that series ad nauseum (and in fact did so before I realized "wow I'm a few hundred words into a Nights of Gethsemane rec instead of Making of post.") The main point is: Nights of Gethsemane is entirely from Harry's POV. Invictus is the same exact story from Severus' POV. I've read both numerous times and am forever in love with seeing all the bits of, not only information one knew that the other didn't, but all the times they misunderstood each other, or had the wrong assumptions, etc. And how well done it was, really losing oneself in a character's head, limited by their own experience and their own knowledge.

So when it comes to my own work, I've known the whole story all along. At first, the core of it, and over time, more of the shapes and colors. I knew when writing Contempt where Severus was coming from. So why not write that? There is so much between Harry and Severus both. So much going on in them individually. And isn't it true that there are two (or even three) sides to every story?

It occurred to me, at some point, how neat it would be to write and submit Devotion for Snarry-a-Thon. My one real issue was...well, I knew it would be able to standalone, but I wanted to be sure I could submit a companion piece. Partly since it might be obvious to anyone who's read Contempt. But also...I'd not made much secret that I'd been working on Devotion. Which I thought might be an issue for an anonymous fest. So, eager and impatient as I was, I reached out to the mod before the official Thon 23 announcement even happened. "I know we're not there yet, but...."

They had no problems with it, thankfully, just a note that it couldn't be connected to the series until after reveals, which I figured. So I stopped using the name Devotion when talking about it publicly and instead referred to it as Super Secret Project. And I dove right on into it! And also couldn't shut up about it. (RIP the poor people who had to listen to me that whole time...) I made a playlist! And a title graphic. I wrote and wrote and wrote and wrote...I pulled out some hair. I sobbed. Etc, etc, very dramatic writerly things.

And while details in Contempt were inspired by HP Flowers (the flowers on Severus' door), the writing of Devotion is what fully prompted me to start HP Fruit Fest. Specifically a scene involving apricot jam. I've always been a bit of a fruit fanatic, but I felt compelled to research symbolism for apricots ("optimism and hope for the future"; thought of as an aphrodisiac in some areas, while ancient Chinese lore saw them representing "cowardice"), which really got me hung up on fruits (again) and pushed me to start the fest! (I do love some good symbolism, what can I say?) (Also: fruit.)

Strangely, I thought Devotion would be a smooth ride. Or smoother than Contempt had been. In fact, it was not. It was merely a new set of challenges.

My brain, silly as it is, fretted about the word count. I had a bad feeling it was going to be shorter than Contempt! Which my brain did not like, for Reasons. (Brain has yet to inform me as to what these Reasons are.) I think maybe I projected it would be longer, then as I was writing I thought "oh no is it going to be shorter??" (Still unclear as to why this matters.) My original thought turned out to be right, as Contempt is 20,400 words and Devotion is 25,843. So...5,443 more words!

Then...lots of overthinking about small details. I wanted more scenes showing Severus' life outside of Harry. But also...poor dude doesn't have much. I put a lot of thought into the layout of Knockturn Alley, and activities Severus might be interested in, etcetera, but a lot of that needed to be cut for the flow. And let me tell you, I've gotten pretty comfortable over the years about cutting extra tidbits, but that whole section about Severus' nights on Knockturn Alley hurt to lose. I had a feeling even as I wrote it that it was a bit much, which a friend later confirmed. Ah well, I'll drag my "list of things to do in the Wizarding world" ideas into another story. (Why have characters do to a Muggle cinema when they can go to a Wizarding play???? Come on!!!!) Just little things like that.

And absinthe!! There's a whole process to that, and it seemed wrong to not mention, but also...I didn't feel like expounding on the proper distillation of absinthe for forever and a day. Yet the one place it felt fitting to sort of show the ritual was later in the story, when I needed more of a nod towards the start. So absinthe was its own headache, basically. (Cramming a lot of details into a small space is no easy feat, let me tell you.) (And I'm so dang particular about word choice and flow!!) (No one ask me the total time I spent on the absinthe detail in this fic alone. Because I don't know other than to say: entirely too much.)

The real agony of this fic was not the writing of it, though. Which...I mean it was, but the real test was after. I very rarely use beta readers. I have bad experience, for one, and I'm a big ole sensitive lady for another.

Because the biggest worry of all was that Contempt is my pride and joy, and I worried about adding more to that universe. What if Devotion was a big failure or disappointment? What if attaching a subpar work to my baby ruined it?? The best hope I had to keep that from happening was to get a beta reader.

But first, I had Ephie (@fleetingdesires.) At the tail end of writing I was losing steam and focus and hope and I was in desperate need of someone to read what I had and tell me it wasn't garbage. So if you like Devotion, please thank Ephie for saving it from the dumpster.

Then...there was aristi, my beta. Aristi has known me for a while. She knows my writing. She knows my soft, fragile heart. She also knows a lot about editing. Which is to say, the process wasn't nearly as awful as I expected, but the whole "waiting to have my heart ripped to shreds" feeling was rough.

Also, it still wasn't nice, exactly, having flaws pointed out. For every typo I wanted to put my head through a wall. Every email about updates in Google Docs, my heart stopped, and I just thought: "this is it, today's the day she tells me to set the whole story on fire." (Me? Issues? Noooo...) There was also my deadline anxiety that came into play. We missed our projected deadline (for reasons), but that was why we gave ourselves breathing room! We did still get it all done before submissions were due. Life gets in the way sometimes, which I totally understand. It didn't stop me from thinking the worst and spiraling a bit as time went on. ("oh no, it's so awful, she doesn't even have the heart to tell me!")

In the end, I had a handful of typos. Most of which I'm pretty sure came from my single edit run wherein I finagled a few scenes and probably created more errors than I fixed. And aristi suggested a bit of expansion in a few places, which wasn't really much. I added less than 100 words, I think.

Best of all, each suggestion was well-cushioned and sweetly presented. And I think more of her comments were just fun commentary or compliments than anything. I hardly had to fix much at all! And better yet, I was feeling pretty good! Comfortable, confident, and cared for! She was so incredibly thoughtful about everything she said, which really touched me! I'm used to people sort of being frustrated with me, and telling me to deal with it, put up with it, etc. Which is fine. I know I can't make my issues everyone else's problem. But it's nice when people stop and try. To feel like it's not a great burden to want gentleness. To be treated like my feelings, and I, matter. I dunno, it was really special to me.

So really, not a bad process! Better than I could have hoped for, really. But my own overthinking and worrying made it hard. An extension of all the overthinking and worrying I did while writing.

I was more lonely writing Devotion than I was with Contempt. My writing group from the year before more or less dispersed. That was an additional hardship I didn't expect. I'm a big sharer. It's important to me to talk and chat and have people to be excited with. (And to cry with, ngl.) It left me a bit stuck and a bad sad. But I found new support in the end, and in the aftermath.

For me, it makes for a good reminder of why I do what I do, why I put myself out there so much. It matters to me in general, but it's crucial when things change. Not all ties are forever, but there are always new ties to be made, if one is willing to go out and make it happen.

[grokebaby]

Hell yeah, OC questions time >:)

How does Pesticinger feel about how people perceive her? How correct are people's assumptions about her?

Oh this is interesting hmm. I'm sure it can depend for some people but I think most would perceive her as this, kind of, horrifying creature tbh, despite her vaguely angelic appearance. She looks great in moonlight! Oh oh this is the perfect time to talk about her color scheme bc it relates to this topic so hard!!!

See, in the setting where she comes from, white is The Bad Color. It has the same kind of vibes and connotations as black does for us. It represents death most strongly and prominently, along with things like starvation, withering, a lack of things, deprivation and so on. That, along with like, a desaturated fleshy purple are The Danger colors but she doesn't have purple so I'll carry on. Sooo.. To us, her appearance is a bit creepily contradictory: Pearly white and golden feathers, yet it has a skull for a head and those icky lung sacks. It definitely looks eerie and does communicate a sense of wariness and danger to us, however, if I'd have designed her with the color conventions of like, regular color theory as it's understood in our corner of the world, she'd look something more like this

At least, if I'd use color symbolism to communicate things about her. But to the people of her world, she, in her white feathered glory, looks the same as That^ would look to us. Death on wings. There's even a saying back there, that goes "Beware of white wings", which she definitely fits into!

Anyhow, all that to say, she may be perceived differently based on culture. But I wanted to babble about how I made her white on purpose :3

I doubt that even with having white feathers, she'd look very friendly to us either, though.

I think she takes pride in being feared tbh! So for the most part, it's very favorable to the way people perceive it! However as I mentioned in it's original intro post, she also tends to sort of lure people in, like a siren's call, to come along and follow it and join her little nightmare parade of pillaging animals. Pesticinger is quite a social entity, I mean Hello it's a bird, a songbird no less, this gal needs playmates! In fact, the song that she sings whenever coming to pillage, is an invite! It's lyrics repeatedly encourage the listener to come along and join in. So to that extent I'd also say, maybe she might also wish to be perceived as more approachable. Beautiful, even u_u obviously she sings for a wide variety of reasons but maybe, just sometimes, she wishes to be heard by an adoring audience, who can't get enough of her song. So while yes it's happy to scare humans, sometimes Pesticinger wishes to be able to draw people in without the need for a hypnotizing song. I will say, she's a bit attention hungry..

I feel like a good amount of the time people's assumptions about her are.. Vaguely in the right direction but not necessarily accurate. If she's not being thought of as a sadistic menace (fair), she's perceived as an idiot (Maybe understandable but c'mon..) no, she's a smart bird, and extremely self aware, however humans see her engage in silly play and repeat playground rhymes ad nauseum and think "Ah, I can outsmart that, it's just a creature!", which, usually doesn't end well. If you don't get to know her beyond her raids, you'd probably just remember her as a terrifying monster. However people who've seen that, tend to be surprised to learn how playful and goofy she is, and that's usually when they'll start thinking "Oh it's just a big bird." which isn't incorrect but it's very reductive, as she's on the same level as a person, in intellect. And the intellectual part is what most people miss, see even among her peers she's thought of as the playful goofy one, but you can't be a singer without at least a little emotional baggage amirite!? :D

Unfortunately in order to be taken a bit more seriously she tends to be a bit of a playground bully, or some form of nuisance, as we see with characters like Margaretta Wormer. She does like goofing around and being her obnoxious nuisance self but she also has great memory, is poetic, good at reading people (at least their emotions) and an insatiable learner.

I'm also sad to report that she has gotten captured by humans a few times, and been kept in very cruel ways due to a combination of being seen as a monster and also just some creature rather than a person. If there's one thing she's scared of, it's nooses.. But I won't elaborate on that here, this reply got way more substantial than I expected haha whoops. Enjoy! Thank you for the ask :3

[tlbodine]

When the Timeline Split

2016 was a crazy year. 

My perspective on it, like anyone else’s, is colored and clouded by my own experiences, like the personal tragedy of an unexpected job loss. Things had been strange and bad in the world before, of course, an ebb and flow of tragedy. But four years ago, somehow the world shifted cataclysmically, irrevocably, into a dark new timeline. 

I remember early in the election assuming that the race would come between Hilary Clinton and Jeb Bush. I was not thrilled at the prospect. I was researching other candidates, taking the quiz I have relied on for previous elections, and discovered Bernie Sanders -- someone whose ideals aligned almost perfectly with my own, something I’d never seen before in a candidate. I didn’t know that “Democratic Socialist” was an option, but that sure as hell described me. 

And for a brief while, it looked like he might win. 

I remember the Idaho caucus. I remember the, “Holy shit, this could actually happen!” feeling. I indulged myself in imagining a future where all of the things I cared about were addressed -- socialized healthcare, student debt forgiveness and free education, green new deal, tax on the wealthy. 

It was the last time I have felt true and genuine hope. More than four years ago, today, was the last time I thought about the future and imagined it could be good. 

Donald Trump seemed like a joke candidate at first. Good for a laugh. Good for a meme. 

I remember the exact moment that changed for me. I was at the gym, a 6am workout before my commute. The news was on, the television above the treadmill, some morning show where they were talking ad nauseum about whatever new impropriety Trump had done. I thought: Holy shit, the media is going to hand this man the election. They cannot help themselves. He’s like catnip to them. They’re giving him all the free publicity in the world and he’s going to win because of it. 

And, of course, that’s exactly what happened. 

A rash of celebrities died in 2016: Alan Rickman, David Bowie, Gene Wilder, Prince, Ron Glass, Glen Frey -- many others besides. 

It became something of a dark joke. When Glen Frey died, everyone was posting "Hotel California" on social media in tribute. I was irritated (couldn't they have used one of the Eagles songs that Frey actually sang? "Take It Easy"? "Tequila Sunrise"? Come ON!). My best friend and coworker, who shared two hours of commute with me every day, decided that "Hotel California" was simply The Song You Played when a celebrity died. We played it with gentle irony for every celebrity death, even Fidel Castro. 

The celebrity deaths set a strange, grim tone for the year. We joked: They’re leaving before things get any worse. Eventually, we started to believe it. 

Mass shootings were reported seemingly every week, but all of them were dwarfed by then-record-breaking 49 deaths in Pulse Night Club, a hate crime of unfathomable size. 

But perhaps more than anything, 2016 was weird. 

Pepe the Frog, a cartoonish internet meme, became a Nazi dogwhistle. 

Bernie Sanders became an unwitting meme lord, probably with the help of 4chan trolls and Russian hackers. 

People reported sightings of scary clowns all over the country. 

Liberal friends started fighting each other out in the open on social media, and sometimes in person, during the most divisive primary election I’ve ever witnessed. 

The internet filled with conspiracy theories about Russia and Iran and inevitable war. 

“This is Fine Dog” became the rallying symbol of the year for many -- a dog cheerfully ignoring the room on fire around him. 

On May 28, 2016, a silverback gorilla named Harambe was fatally shot in a zoo after a child got into his enclosure. There was a brief ripple of genuine controversy surrounding the zookeeper’s decision. Some misanthropes wondered whether the life of a human was, necessarily, always more valuable than the life of an endangered gorilla. Fueled almost certainly by racism and the ironic edgelord culture of the internet, Harambe became a meme -- Justice for Harambe! Dicks out for Harambe! 

Given the backdrop of Black Lives Matter protests that had already been taking place across the country, and the ongoing murder of black people by police, it seems self-evident that the Harambe meme was a racist dogwhistle. Not everyone who shared it was probably aware of that -- but it had a meanness there at its center, a cruelty, the hint of a dark equivocation between a 17-year-old gorilla and, say, 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. 

In hindsight, for me, I think Harambe’s death was the moment when something in the fabric of our social reality snapped. 

Nothing so fully encapsulates the exact tenor of modern discourse -- irreverent, nihilistic, performative, and absurd. 

Of course the society that joked about a dead gorilla would elect Donald Trump as president. 

Today is May 28, 2020. Four years to the day since Harambe. 

Today is the third day of nationwide riots and looting as black communities protest the death of George Floyd, who was pinned by the neck to the ground for seven minutes by a police officer, while other officers looked on. Floyd’s abuse and death were captured on video, but the police have not been charged with any crime. 

Years of peaceful protest have amounted to nothing, and so things have reached a fever pitch. As we speak, a police precinct in Minneapolis is on fire. 

It is May 28, 2020, and 100,000 Americans have died from a global pandemic.  40 million people are out of work. The country was brought to a halt, shutting down helter-skelter in an attempt to keep people safe, and no long-term plan was enacted during that period for re-opening. People return to work now, putting themselves in danger. 

The president refuses to acknowledge these deaths in any meaningful way. He complains, instead, that this pandemic is unfairly hurting his campaign. He claims that no one has been treated more unfairly. 

Black people make up 13% of the population but represent 25% of deaths from the Covid-19 pandemic. 

Today is May 28, 2020, in the midst of the deadliest pandemic in a century, with nationwide protests and riots, and President Donald Trump signed an executive order to threaten social media, because Twitter put a “fact check” link beneath one of his tweets. 

[rosarenn]

All things are ephemeral

I've been thinking a lot about the illusion of certainty and the way it holds us back from achieving great things.

There's this idea that if something is temporary, transient, that it isn't worth putting any effort into. That something is only worth your time if it endures, if it's permanent. That the investment must be followed by a payoff or why bother.

I am very much talking out of my own experience here, as a white settler/colonizer raised in a more or less middle class family. I know my experience is not universal, and I am still going to talk about "we" and "us" because I want to include myself in this group, and I'm noticing a pattern that I want to talk about. If you have never experienced certainty, or are in a stable position for the first time in your life, this is probably not about you, for example. Take what you need and compost the rest.

I'm reading Nine-Tenths of the Law: Property and Resistance in the United States by Hannah Dobbz, which discusses squatting in the US. One of the themes that comes up over an over again is the idea that because a squat is temporary, because the police could kick you out at any moment, because you don't have ownership or equity or any kind of title on your side and you could lose everything in a moment's notice, that it doesn't make any sense to improve the home you're living in. That the work would be wasted, and who wants to work their ass off and not reap the benefits? Why would you bother?

And this, to me, is so incredibly short-sighted, and represents an internalization of the logic of capitalism. Why would you bother? Because you are fucking living there. You're living there, you're passing your limited time on this planet in this space, and why would you live in a dump if you don't have to, if you don't like living in a dump, if you would feel better, be happier, enjoy your time there just a little bit more than if you didn't clean it up. It's the same reason I've painted countless rental apartments - even though I don't know how long I'll be there, while I'm there I eventually get sick at looking at plain white walls. It's why I'm planning to paint a mural in my rental apartment - it will bring me daily joy for as long as I am here. It's why I decorated my office when I still had an office. Because if this is where I am passing my time, I want it to be a little more pleasant.

We've so internalized the logic of the state and the market that we have this illusion that home-owning provides certainty, that it makes sense to invest in a home you own because it can't be taken away at a moment's notice. But it's a lie. The bank could repossess your home. The sewer could back up. A flood or a wildfire could make your home vanish in a moment. With climate change these events are only going to increase in frequency, as will the unrest and failed states and all the other forms of violent dispossession that that entails. The entire stock market could blow itself to pieces tomorrow, the currency we've all agreed to use could become worthless pieces of paper, anything can happen. I could die tomorrow. I could die today. There is no certainty, any where, ever. Anything I work for could be for nothing - nothing except for what I make of it here and now. I want to live before I die.

I think about the way I've been indoctrinated to delay gratification to the extreme. That's what the promise of capitalism to the middle class is, after all. Work tirelessly for all of your productive years, save your coins prudently, invest them in the stock market for the future and never take out your principle because compound interest is magic and you'd be a fool to forego that sweet, sweet "free" interest income. And then, and only then, you can retire for a few years and live a tiny sliver of your life free from the constant grind of daily waged labour. If someone is not able to make ends meet, I was taught, it's because they are too loose with their spending, they aren't able to delay gratification long enough for the real payout, the poor dears. Scrupulously saving, denying ourselves the momentary joys of right now in order to chase a possible future prosperity, is positioned as a moral good.

Of course this is a lie, and a terrible way to live (even as it is incredibly privileged). I lived this way for years and I'm only now beginning to come to terms with it. There's so much grief there. How much did I miss out on? Think of all the joy, vitality, and the things that make life worth living that I denied myself - and for what? To chase certainty in the future, because I couldn't accept the ephemerality of today.

There's a delicate balance needed here, of course. There's an argument to be made that what we need is more delayed gratification, not less. The constant churning consumption, the endless extraction from the earth and our bodies, putting today's profits ahead of tomorrow's, or even above the survival of our own children - these are features of capitalism and they are destroying us.

But they need to sell us this lie, that if we work hard today we can be happy tomorrow, to keep us working. Because if we truly looked at horrors of this reality, if we truly knew in our bones that everything we have today could be gone tomorrow, that everything in life is fleeting - would you still go to work, day after day after day? I know I sure wouldn't. Even though I don't know what I would do to survive instead. Even though stepping into that unknown is terrifying. Even though I have no answers, I would have to take that leap.

I think, too, about the way I sometimes see people talk about revolution - and I include myself in this group. That until we are ready to make a global revolution, until we are all but guaranteed success, until the moment we reach critical mass, all we can do is wait. Maybe we agitate, maybe we form unions and organizations and try to spread the word, but until success is certain we can't act, not truly. I see this more in communist circles than in anarchist ones, and it was especially present in the critiques of the temporary autonomous zones that popped up in the midst of last summer's uprisings - they would never succeed, they would be quickly dismantled, and thus were doomed to failure and shouldn't even be attempted. As if there was no value in the experiences, however fleeting. As if the way we live our lives is irrelevant. As if a thing bringing you joy is not enough justification in itself.

Even though I skew more towards anarchism, I can still feel this attitude infecting my own thinking. I don't want to try to unionize my workplace because it will fail and I'll get fired and it won't matter, really, anyways. I don't want to talk openly about my politics when I know people don't agree with me, because what's the point when I already know I can't change their minds. What's the point of guerrilla gardening when the city can just come by with a weed whacker and destroy our labour. So on and so on ad nauseum, every endeavour doomed to be temporary and thus, automatically, a failure.

I think of my friend who spent the past two summers building up an incredible garden, who now has to move, suddenly, before the end of the growing season. My first reaction was that it was such a waste, that she had put in so much effort and time and money and now wouldn't even be there to collect the final harvest, that it would be better if she hadn't done the planting, somehow. As if she hasn't taken immense pleasure and pride in her garden for the past two years. As if she hasn't harvested throughout the whole summer. As if the harvest she planted suddenly winks out of existence if the benefits go to someone other than her. As if this somehow invalidates everything that came before. But this line of thinking is horseshit. Someone will still eat those vegetables. If nothing else, the birds and the beasties will love eating what she has grown. She learned so much and will be able to carry that knowledge forward with her. On and on, there was great value in this venture even if she will not be there to reap every last piece of the harvest. And if it wasn't a sudden move, it could have been a drought, or a violent storm, or an infestation, or theft. Or or or. The possibilities are endless, results are never guaranteed, and if we are only working to achieve an ends, we might need to take a good long look at what we're up to.

I wonder if the roots of this ideology stretch all the way back to the agricultural revolution. Ephemerality would have been the day to day lived experience of hunter-gatherers. Here today, gone tomorrow, pick the berries now, while they're ripe and before the birds get them. But agriculture? Prepare the field, plant the seeds, water, tend, wait. wait. wait. then finally harvest. Finally finally your labour has paid off and you can eat. Careful though because there won't be another harvest until next year, so be careful, ration, wait. Would you plant the field if you didn't know if you'd be around to harvest it? That's a tough sell, for sure.

I think of flatwormposting, on instagram, who announced suddenly that they would delete their account today. That they felt like they had accomplished what they wanted to accomplish, that they were complete, and ready to move on. The immediate response, of course, was no, don't go, or if you must go, please don't delete the account. Leave it up, to sit in perpetuity, an archive of your work and legacy. Please, you did good work, please let us keep it. As if deleting their account deletes their work. As if they won't carry it forward with them. As if people who interacted with the account while it was up weren't changed in some small way. As if a thing that is temporary - which is all things - is somehow less important than a permanent thing.

And their response was simply, all things are ephemeral. All things are ephemeral, everything could be gone tomorrow. If they didn't delete this account, instagram could. A hacker could take it. Nothing is certain, everything is a constant renegotiation. Given that, what now?

What now? How do we want to live before we die? What choices might we make if nothing was certain? What risks would we take? How would we live our lives if we knew, deeply, truly, in an embodied way, that another world is possible, as the Nap Bishop constantly reminds us? That the continuation of this one as it is, that the status quo is not and has never been certain? That each day we wake up we make this world again, and we could simply chose to make it differently, to paraphrase David Graeber. If we no longer privileged that which is over that which could be. If we no longer held onto the illusion of certainty and control and permanence.

All things are ephemeral. What now?

[fixyourwritinghabits]

Hey! I'm not a good writer, it's hard for me because I'm more of a visual artist, but for a long time I've been planning out a story that is very important to me. It's supposed be a realistic portrayal of ocd, but I don't want to explicitly state that the main character has ocd. I want the readers to notice symptoms throughout the story, and gain a better understanding of how it feels to have this horrible disorder, but without them bringing along harmful (and unfortunately extremely common)...

…misconceptions about ocd. As someone who has had severe ocd as long as I can remember, I really want this story to turn out well so I can do my part to challenge the stigma. Do you have any tips or ideas for how to go about this? 

You’ve got a hard but important task set out before you here. My advice is to start out just writing. Get it all down. It’s going to be flawed and imperfect, but you need the content to exist before you can start analyzing what about it is harmful or misleading. You’ve got a big advantage in that you actually know what you are talking about – it makes you the perfect person to write this story. 

Trust yourself to write about everything – and don’t pull any punches. Don’t hold anything back, no matter how vulnerable it makes you feel. There will be times when it sucks to share those things, even with a piece of paper. Push through. Finish that first draft.

Then, trust yourself to know what reads well, and what doesn’t. Second draft revisions are all about cuts. What’s not adding to the story? What’s not as realistic a portrayal as you thought at the time? What’s simplifying, instead of complicating, the issues you are exploring?

When you’ve finished your second draft, go back to the first kind of trust, and look for places you can add nuance, scenes you think are missing, etc. Trust yourself to add the write things and know what’s missing.

Cycle through steps 2 and 3 until you feel pretty okay with your story. Then take the big leap and find someone else, preferably someone who is also intimately familiar with OCD, and trust them. Give them your story, ask them if it represents their experience, and if not, how. I promise, it won’t represent their experience 100%. It almost certainly never will because they are not the writer, you are. You’ll have to choose which parts of their experience you want to include. But an outside pair of eyes is crucial to understanding how an audience receives your text. You are writing to an audience, after all.

When you’ve had one or two people familiar with OCD read your piece, find a few people that you trust, and/or a few people who are the kind of people you want reading your book. Ask them to read it, and ask them what they took away from it. Not whether it was good or bad. Ask what stuck in their memories at the end, what they identified with or didn’t identify with. See if they came away with what you hoped, or at least what you like.

When all this is done, and you’ve done a responsible job of revision and rereading ad nauseum, and you get your piece all published and now you’re super famous and a million people have read your portrayal of OCD, breathe. Know that you are not responsible for communicating anyone’s entire concept of a disease that many people suffer. It is not up to you to police people’s ability to not draw poor conclusions and make offensive stereotypes. You do a responsible job of writing and revising, and then you’ll have to let it go a bit, and let it live it’s life. Maybe somebody will point out something legitimate that you portrayed poorly, and you can apologize and if future print runs go out you can choose to correct it for those. But if you do a responsible job telling your story, then you’re going to be okay, because it’s your story. The best way to erase stereotype is to add to the images of the thing being stereotyped. Not all Asians will be seen as Jackie Chan if Constance Wu and Ken Jeong and John Cho and Lucy Liu and Steven Yeun, etc, etc, etc also get to be on screen and get to have vastly different roles. Not all OCD sufferers will be seen as Monk if you and others add your voices to the chorus. You are one of many, and it’s not your burden to represent the whole.

[gingermintpepper]

The Elite Four and the 8th Gym Leader

Something I only really noticed now despite it really being a running theme in Pokemon is the strength of the eight Gym Leader in relation to the League. 

We see in Pokemon Origins that Gym Challengers are encouraged to challenge the Gyms in any order and that Gym Leaders have teams of varying strength to cater to the badges and approximate strength of their challengers but the one thing’s that’s been consistent across almost every region is the fact that the eighth Gym Leader is someone of Champion Trainer Caliber--often times proven to be stronger than multiple Elite Four members. And I honestly don’t know why? 

Don’t believe me? In Kanto, the eighth Gym Leader is Giovanni--a man who has the entire region in his pocket what with Team Rocket’s mafia-like hold on things like Silph and the Game Corner and someone who was undeniably powerful; brazen enough to head the creation of the ultimate battle oriented Pokemon and strong-willed enough to actually control Mewtwo for a while. When you bring him down, Green takes his spot at Viridian even though we know Green’s strong enough to be the new Champion. He beat Lance and the League before Red and he’s still a Champion Class trainer now. But he doesn’t take up a spot at the League like he wanted all that time ago. Is it because he’s grown past his petty one-up complex with Red? We never find out, but it doesn’t change the fact that a Champion class trainer is sitting in eighth Gym Leader’s seat when he could’ve easily snagged a League chair. Alright, one time’s not to bad. 

In Johto, Claire’s the eighth Gym Leader and, not only is she second only to Lance in their family of Dragon Tamers, the elder says that she could surpass him if she just had a better attitude. If that doesn’t make her at least League class then I don’t know what does. 

Hoenn’s the first region where the eighth Gym Leader outright becomes Champion eventually, though it’s not through usurping but rather through request. Wallace and Steven have a great relationship all throughout R/S/E and it’s even better fleshed out in ORAS but when Steven grows tired of being stuck up on Ever Grande, he doesn’t ask any of the E4 to cover for him. Drake’s right there and he’s bound to have tons of experience and strength, not to mention the respect of the other League trainers but, nope, he asks that Wallace hold on to his title and take up his seat on Ever Grande for him while he does some rock finding. Wallace is already widely established as a powerful Water type Pokemon Master but this more or less means that Wallace was always a Champion class trainer and had simply inherited the Gym from Juan because “well, I can still do contests as a Gym Leader”. Not to mention, in ORAS Wallace is revealed to be a guardian and gatekeeper for the Cave of Origin and Sky Pillar. This guy’s got mad power and skill, but he’s most often found chilling in Sootopolis when he’s more than powerful enough to rival--if not outright surpass--Steven in strength. 

Sinnoh is wild. Volkner challenges the Elite Four out of sheer boredom as the eighth Gym Leader. I don’t know if he’s on Cynthia’s level (and let’s be honest, that’s a bit ludicrous to think about) but, like Claire, he’s definitely more than powerful enough to be in the Elite Four. Like Wallace and Steven, Volkner has an excellent relationship with his best friend Flint who’s third in the lineup of the Sinnoh Elite Four and it’s highly implicated that Flint and Volkner are, not only of equivalent strength, but very used to working and training together as seen by their Double Battle techniques and the fact that Volkner turns down battles with Flint when he’s bored because he knows Flints techniques too well. 

Again in Unova, Iris is your eighth Gym Leader in White but is outright the Champion in both Black 2 and White 2. I have no idea if she was always comparable in strength to Alder, we don’t get to see Alder battle at all really in the main stories but in both B/W and B2/W2 Iris is active in the region and she takes care of people. 

And that’s another thing actually! All of these trainers? These eighth Gym Leaders? Not only have they all been super powerful and respected as trainers, they’re also incredibly important people to their regions and communities as a whole. Green keeps an eye on things from Viridian, takes the time to train up new trainers so another Rocket fiasco doesn’t happen and in HGSS he’s investigating things on Cinnabar after the eruption. People speak highly of him and of course they would--this is the kid that helped Red save Kanto from Team Rocket. Claire’s the next head of her clan--Lance is busy with League stuff so it falls to her which is why the Elder pushes her so hard. I’ve already talked ad nauseum at how Wallace is more or less Hoenn’s poster boy--a master of contests, of battles, gatekeeper and lorekeeper of important places to the Continental Trio and of water type Pokemon, something that couldn’t represent Hoenn better what with them being like 70% water. Volkner’s in charge of the lighthouse, an architect, technician and skilled craftsman all in one. This bastard took out the streets of Sunyshore and replaced them with solar panels. Who the fuck?? He’s easily a certifiable genius with energy and that sort of proficiency just sorta naturally bleeds into his battling. It’s why he gets bored so easily. 

Kalos is iffy--we don’t know anything about Wulfric and Alola doesn’t really have a League, but Hapu is chosen by the Tapus which I suppose counts for something. 

In Galar things are back to form with Raihan and Leon’s legendary one-sided rivalry and the fact that it’s outright stated that  Raihan is more than Champion class--all he’d need to do is fight a Champion that’s not Leon-- but he won’t out of sheer stubbornness. So like, what’s the point? Why are the Eighth Gym Leaders some of the strongest in the region without having actual seats on the League proper? 

Is it a bureaucracy thing? Is it a security thing? The strongest trainers can’t all be in the League because generally speaking the Pokemon  League is usually pretty far removed from the action on the ground and that way there’s always a powerful Champion or thereabout-class trainer ready to respond when the Elite Four can’t come and intervene? Pokemon is confirmed to be a universe in which many, many wars have taken place; maybe it’s a left over from that era where first responders meant the difference between life and death.  

I have no idea what the connection is and I’ve been agonizing over it for ages heLP--

[pikapeppa]

Pikapeppa Tutors: How to accurately portray canon characters in your fanfic

@the-rogue-mockingjay ahh I’m so honoured you would ask me about this! Forgive me - I’ve gotten carried away and decided to write a little tutorial post to answer!

I will preface this by saying my key goal when writing fanfic is to represent canon characters (henceforth CCs) as accurately as possible, both in their personalities and in their speech patterns. If a reader tells me they can hear the dialogue I wrote in that character’s voice, then I have done my job properly. Now, this is NOT the only way to write fanfic; some people write it as pure fantasy fulfillment without worrying too much about keeping things in-character, and that’s ok too. I personally strive to write CCs to be as true to their canon as possible, and that’s the outlook I’ll take in answering this ask.

Since Rogue asked about Dragon Age’s Fenris, we’ll use him as an illustrative example. 

Tip #1: Learn as much as you can about your canon character.

This first step is pretty straightforward: learn as much as you can about the CC. Find out as much as you can about their backstory: where they’re from, their social status, their family, any major traumas they’ve been through, any key positive experiences in their life. Watch Youtube videos of all the dialogue options with the CC in question, since dialogue that you haven’t seen in your own playthrough can give new and fresh facts or perspective. Very importantly, read or listen to all of their canon dialogue with the other companions in the party, so you can see who they get along with and who they clash with, and why they clash. It is my belief that some of the most important information you can learn about any character is how they interact with the people around them, so searching for all of the CC’s canon dialogue is something I strongly recommend. The Dragon Age Wiki and Youtube are great sources for writing Fenris, or any DA characters, obviously. 

The more you know about the CC, the more accurately you’ll be able to portray the CC’s actions and reactions when you start writing them. Knowing as much as you can about the CC’s backstory, motivations, and temperament is especially important if you’re thinking of writing in the CC’s POV, like I have done with Fenris. 

CAUTION: Don’t worry about knowing every single fact about the CC. Don’t let yourself be paralyzed by the possibility of not knowing everything.

I’ll use my own example of Fenris to illustrate this. When I first started writing Fenris, I hadn’t even finished playing DA2 yet; I’d only gotten to the beginning of Act II when I was seized with the urge to write him. I somehow managed to write all the way through to Act III before I realized - from watching Youtube clips - that Fenris was regularly sexually abused by Danarius. (In my playthrough, I didn’t get the dialogue from Danarius where he taunts Fenris about this.) That’s a pretty huge fucking piece of information about Fenris’s character, IMO, and one that I still smack myself now for not realizing ahead of time. Once I discovered it, I incorporated it into my writing of his character (and somehow no one seemed any the wiser since I never got any complaints LOL). All of this is to say that you don’t have to know EVERYTHING to start writing the CC! 

Tip #2: Make up a character sheet for the CC. If you’re writing a romance, make up a character sheet for the CC’s love interest as well.

A character sheet is a good way of just compiling together everything you know about the character and getting a clearer picture of who they are in your mind. Making a character sheet is something that every writer does differently. There are probably some writers who don’t do it at all, while some people have very structured templates. 

Personally, I don’t have a formal way of writing a character sheet; I just word-vomit freeform facts into a doc. And since romantic relationships play a central role in my writing, I tend to have a character sheet for both characters together, with a huge focus on how the two characters’ personalities will impact - and be impacted by - their relationship as time goes on. 

Let me use Fenris and Rynne Hawke as an example. Here’s the beginning of my outline doc for Fen and Rynne. PLEASE FORGIVE MY TYPOS, Maker help me.

**************************

***************************

So as you can see, this character sheet gives info about Rynne, plot-important aspects of her appearance (her tattoo), and why Fenris would fall in love with her. It’s not comprehensive or particularly organized, but it contains crucial information about my plot - i.e. Rynne and Fenris falling in love and getting together. 

Tip #3: Listen to audio clips to capture the CC’s speech patterns.

Once you have a good handle on the CC’s backstory and motivations, it’s time to think about writing the actual words that they would say. Honestly, the way I capture a CC’s voice is by listening ad nauseum to Youtube clips of their dialogue so I can have their voice and speech patterns in my head when I’m writing. While I’m in the middle of writing, I frequently pull up dialogue video clips to refresh my memory of their voice and to make sure I can imagine them saying the lines I wrote. (As you can imagine, listening to video clips of Fenris talking is NO HARDSHIP WHATSOEVER.)  

Tip #4: Don’t worry about portraying them perfectly right away.

Like all skilled crafts, writing is a learning process, and you have to start somewhere! It can definitely be intimidating to start writing a CC, especially CCs who have extensive and complex backstories or attitudes like Fenris or Solas. But I have also found that the more you write, the more you will come to know your CC. The more you write, the more natural and familiar their voice will become. To be boring and cliche, practice makes perfect!

One way to ease into writing a CC, especially when writing from their POV, is to take some of their canon dialogue and write a drabble about their thoughts during that moment of dialogue. This can be a fun and low-pressure exercise for getting yourself into the CC’s headspace and speech patterns. For example, early in my Fenris writing, I wrote this very short oneshot revolving around Fenris’s famous “I dance, of course” dialogue line with Varric, which illustrates his sense of humour, his relationship with Merrill and Varric, and his growing crush on Rynne.

Tip #5: My Fenris is not your Fenris.

It’s important to remember that the more you write a character, the more that character will change in ways that may not necessarily be canon, because people change and grow by virtue of their relationships with the people around them. For instance, “my” Fenris has a somewhat softened stance toward mages as a consequence of being in a rivalmance with a mage!Hawke who pushes him to challenge his anti-mage prejudices. But another writer’s Fenris could continue to be very anti-mage if their Hawke was also anti-mage, and that could still be true to character. As another example, I am also a notorious slut for the Fenris rivalmance, but I have written a oneshot of the Fenris friendmance, and that was challenging because it felt like I was writing a very different person. 

All this to say that different writers will write the same character in different ways, and all of those ways may still be accurate. The way I write Fenris is probably unlike the way other people write him, and that’s okay, because people - both real and fictional - are changed by their relationships with those around them. The idea is to retain the character’s core temperament and motivations while bending the aspects that are more flexible. To paraphrase someone somewhere on this hellsite who was talking about Solas at some point: “my Fenris is not your Fenris.” 

But Pika, you write dialogue for all the characters in Inquisition and DA2. Do you have a character sheet for every character? Have you done extensive research about all the characters?

HA. NO. Fenris is actually the only CC I have a character sheet for. But Fenris is also the CC I have written the most, and the vast majority of my FenHawke work has been from Fenris’s POV. He is also an undeniably complex and multi-faceted character, especially since you can both rival- and friendmance him, so I had to be well-informed and thorough in order to do him justice. 

If you’re planning to write the whole Dragon Age crew, I would say the amount of research you do about each of the CCs will depend on how large a role they’re going to play in your fic. For my Fenris the Inquisitor fic, Cole, Solas and Dorian have been playing pretty big roles, so I have done more research about them than about other characters in the cast. I don’t have character sheets for them, but my fic outline for Fenquisition does contain a lot of notes about Fen’s relationship with each of them. And I’ll still listen to video clips of them talking to refresh my memory of their speech patterns.

I hope this has been helpful for some aspiring fanfic writers out there! Let me know if there are other topics you’d be interested in reading about, and I’d be happy to address them if I can!

- Love, your friendly neighbourhood Pikapeppa xoxo

[kdtheghostwriter]

SNK 116: V Has Come To

Alexa: play “Roundabout”

When I first saw the Kanji that represents “rumbling,” my first two thoughts, in immediate succession where as follows: “Oh, shit, is it already happening” and “Oh, no, wait it’s just like JoJo.” (Fun fact about that ED, since Ded Memes live here. The little To Be Continued arrow always flies in before the drums hit. Like everything it gets adjusted for the purposes I suppose. Anyway!) Honestly, every chapter in this volume has ended like the episode of an anime, including this one with its hero/villain stare down and triumphant proclamation from the narrator. More on how those tables have turned later.

 I want to spend most of this essay talking about Eren, since I spent most of the last one talking about his older brother. I’m not so much surprised at the direction his character has taken after so many years of pain and abuse. What does take me aback is how so many people are apparently sympathetic to Zeke while hating Eren, especially considering how Eren had a comparatively awful upbringing while spending a lot less time being shitty to people.

But maybe I shouldn’t be too shocked. Even as the main character, he’s always been controversial. Whether by people who want him to be paired with one character or another, or those who just plain don’t like him. Even in-story, good will has been hard to come by. One minute they’re honoring you and your friends in front of the Queen. A few years later, you’re locked underground as a fugitive of the military-controlled government.

It was the Chapter 112 recap where I broke down the nuance of a pro wrestling storyline – specifically in regards to their character-driven nature. I used performers like Shawn Michaels and Brett “The Hitman” Hart to outline the natural progression of a character from fan favorite to hated ne’er-do-well. Now, I’ll be using an example much more relevant to the story. The Rise then Fall then Return then “Turn” of Daniel Bryan.

Most important thing to note about Daniel Bryan is that he’s not supposed to be in the ring at all. A series of concussions and other injuries forced him to retire from active in-ring competition. This was directly after a year-long saga of him trying to prove himself as a main event player. After what seemed like endless waves of red tape and front office hurdles, he achieved the absolute pinnacle of the business. Winning in the main event of the year’s biggest show, WrestleMania, and becoming the World Heavyweight Champion. It was always going to be downhill from that point. What couldn’t have been predicted was the suddenness of it.

Three years pass and Daniel Bryan announces his imminent return to active competition. His first match back is yet again at the Showcase of the Immortals. He receives a hero’s welcome and for several months is riding a familiar high as the most popular superstar in all of wrestling. And then, he fights AJ Styles and something changes.

I must note here briefly that at this point in the latter part of 2018, AJ Styles himself is enjoying a year-long run as champion of the world’s largest federation. He and Daniel Bryan were scheduled to have a match at the Crown Jewel event in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Yes, the same Saudi Arabia that allegedly orchestrated the murder of Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi. Daniel Bryan, along with other members of the roster, refused to make the trip. As such, his WWE Championship match was pushed up a week to be contested on TV. Bryan lost this match, but that would not be the last time they faced. In fact, the very next time the two squared off, Bryan captured the title, albeit via some nefarious means. It was after this match (followed by a match with former UFC Heavyweight Champion Brock Lesnar) that something broke within Daniel Bryan.

The WWE’s relentless media schedules as well as the punishment of months of fighting on the road finally broke him down mentally as well as physically, and he decided that enough was too much. Daniel Bryan utilized his newfound platform as champion and killed the movement that catapulted him to worldwide fame. In its place, a message of repentance. He replaced the leather strap of his title belt with one made of hemp and naturally fallen oak. He railed against the paying fans for their unchecked consumerism and even admonished his boss, billionaire Chairman of World Wrestling Entertainment Vince McMahon, for exploiting their more reductive tendencies.

This is going to sound weird because, honestly, these things change month-to-month but, yes, Daniel Bryan is supposed to be the bad guy here. And for a segment of the audience he absolutely is. Live crowds across the country (excluding his home state of Washington) hate Bryan with a fiery passion. Meanwhile, all of Twitter asked all at once, “Wait, you want us to…boo him?” It’s the most famous Heel Turn in recent memory due in part to the circumstances and the performer involved. This was the most popular wrestler in the world not six months prior. But even though the crowd still loved him, they were not clamoring for him like they had been. The magic of the Yes Movement was largely gone.

In Shingeki no Kyojin, I’ve witnessed this cycle ad nauseum. It’s the ebb and flow of fandom. I’ve been reading this series long enough to recall a time when Eren was seen as a useless, whiny geek as opposed to the badass world-beater he is now. There was a time, believe it or not, where Reiner was as polarized and hated as Eren is now. Before that even! Reiner was little more than the cute, air-headed jock before he and Bertholt revealed themselves as spies. Isayama reveals him as his favorite character and he’s been the darling of the fandom ever since. Second perhaps only to Commander Handsome himself who is even more popular in death. Annie still has her fans, despite only being in maybe fifteen percent of this manga.

My point is the same that Isayama has been getting at for the past three volumes or so. (Maybe more than that if we accept Kruger’s monologue as the first example.) Your notion of how the world works has been fucked from the start. Good and evil; right and wrong; Marley and Paradis. Reality is only as good as your perspective. The author was not content with just stating this, though. To prove his point, he deconstructed his own carefully planned narrative, rebuilt it backwards, then flipped it upside down so that now, we’ve come back ‘round to this.

Funny thing, life is. When your idols become your rivals. Eren once confided in Reiner for support in his darkest moments. Now, it’s very likely he’s going to try and kill him. Simply for getting in his way. This is more of the framing I’ve talked about before from Isayama. This looks like any other match card from an actual title bout. To show you what I mean, I’m going to line up several examples.

Seeing it now? Classic promoter tactics. Building up the hype. People rib on the Dragon Ball series for doing this sometimes – in the case of Z – to a comical extent. But really, this method can be seen elsewhere in stuff like JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure, One Piece, Yu Yu Hakusho, Lupin the Third; I really could just name twelve more titles.

This is a rematch four years in the making. Yes, they met in Liberio but I don’t count that as a fight, considering Eren won long before anyone even transformed and Reiner was literally begging for his death. In present day, the Warriors have caught The Usurper off guard and they have much needed backup. This conflict has been set up like the apex of any Marvel movie. The mismatched group of heroes converging on one point, because the only hope they have of defeating the super villain is if they do it together.

This is why Pieck didn’t pull the trigger when she had the chance and also why Eren didn’t transform and splatter her and Gabi against the dungeon walls. Pieck is part of a team. A team with a plan. Part of that plan involved getting Eren Jaeger out in the open where he would be exposed to an all-out attack. Eren had prior knowledge of the Warrior Unit’s arrival and knew his best option was to track their location and cut them off. Pieck was likely dead whether she cooperated or not. What Eren didn’t account for was Porco, who was actually in plain sight amongst the other Jaegerists, but in a world where photography has just recently been introduced, one could not expect them to recognize him out of his Titan.

 Pieck trusted her friends, and now they are all dropping in to Shiganshina to aid in her rescue. Eren did not trust his friends, and now they are all dead, mutilated or locked in a cell and they won’t be coming to his rescue. In another manga, this would be the turning point of the story where the Big Bad got his comeuppance and learned the ultimate lesson about the Power of Friendship and the series would end with the two brothers embracing in a pile of rubble. This is not any manga. Eren has three Titan powers at his disposal. (Four if he can get his hands on Porco again.) Unless there is a legit airstrike of some sort or some other secondary offensive, Reiner has no chance of winning this. Maybe he doesn’t have to, depending on what the plan is.

We still don’t know what Eren’s plan is either! That’s probably the biggest difference between him and Daniel Bryan. The Daniel Bryan character was developed weekly on television over many months and his motivations up to this point have been fully fleshed out. Eren’s motivations are a mystery to everyone except Eren. Even his brother Zeke doesn’t know what he’s up to. Zeke who, by the way, can magically appear in this upcoming battle as well. No, I don’t think Eren is the final “bad guy” of this story. I just wish he was, because he’s damn good at doing it.

I do not know how this ends. I am, however, sure of one thing.

  Stray Thoughts

- I wouldn’t say either Eren or Pieck had the other fooled at any point. They were at an impasse and Eren decided to move the plot along.

- Eren isn’t the classic mwahaha villain (yet) but wow is he angry. And not the violent, explosive anger we know him for. Cold, cunning, calculated. I genuinely feared for Pieck’s life despite her holding the gun.

- I know we’ve been conditioned by this story to search for subtext, even when it’s not there, but I wouldn’t read too much into certain…stuff that happened with the 104th. The point here was to re-establish what we already know about the crew. Jean is a very perceptive lad and almost certainly the next Commander if anyone survives this story. Armin is…having a moment.

- I have to wonder how good Magath’s intel is for this op. Does he know that Shiganshina is deserted? Has he accounted for Zeke’s appearance? Does he know the God of Destruction is nearby?

- Yelena has been a favorite of mine since her debut, when everyone thought Connie grew three times his size. I won’t call it a Heel Turn because it doesn’t count if you weren’t wearing the White Hat to begin with.

[oscar-isaacs-number-one-bitch]

“How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World” Movie Review

It’s been 5 years since our screens were last graced with the presences of Hiccup and Toothless, the dynamic and impossible not to love duo of the How to Train Your Dragon films. At the end of How to Train Your Dragon 2, audiences were left off seeing Toothless taking position as the alpha of the dragons, and Hiccup accepting the call to be chief of Berk, as his father had wished him to be. With the beginning of The Hidden World, Berk has become the world’s first-ever dragon-Viking utopia, and Hiccup and friends conduct raids on armadas of ships, freeing all manner of dragons from captivity all across the world. But with the presence of a new night fury dragon, as well as a new enemy called Grimmel, Berk is once again in danger, the relationship at this series’ center is tested, and both Hiccup and Toothless must learn that eventually, some things must come to an end, as we learn to let go.

I’ve talked ad nauseum about the How to Train Your Dragon movies and what they mean to be both as a film lover and as a visual storytelling junkie, and I will continue to talk about them until the day I die. The first film is my favorite animated movie of all time (and rightfully so) with a brilliant script, astounding animation (especially for its time), one of the greatest animated film scores of all time, and a narrative that’s both sharply plotted and perfectly paced. The second HTTYD movie followed that up with a story that was more mature, if not quite as naturalistic in its dialogue and pacing, with animation that had advanced during that four-year wait to the height of its capabilities. The Hidden World, then, aims to be that rare trilogy capper that takes the series out on a high note, and for the most part, it does. I just wish the rest of the film, the stuff that wasn’t part of the finale, held up as well as the finale (and the other two movies) did.

See, I did like this film, but I wanted to love it. The adventures of Hiccup and Toothless are some of my favorites of all time, and while with that legacy comes (understandably) a lot of weight that may be difficult to hold, I’ve seen this series hold that weight before with ease. Those first two films have some of the most perfect pacing in any animated features, so the fact that the first two acts of this one are actually kind of dull apart from a handful of moments shared between the light fury and Toothless, as well as a barely 5 minute segment within the title location, is disappointing regardless of how well-animated the action and lighting is. Your mileage may vary on that front, but for me, things just seemed a little bit off what with the intro not including the usual title theme, or “this is berk” introduction by Hiccup until about 6 or 8 minutes in. Those two elements are not necessarily huge missteps for the film, but Dragon devotees like myself will notice their absence. Don’t get me wrong, I’m far from one to endorse pure fan-service as replacement or non-tertiary strengthener for narrative storytelling, but The Hidden World doesn’t quite have as many callbacks to the first or second films as it probably should when considering it’s meant to be the closer to a trilogy nearly ten years running.  

In addition to this, whole swaths of the movie go by where not much actually happens at a plot level. Yes, the friendship between Hiccup and Toothless is tested, and Hiccup’s role as chief is challenged somewhat, but both of these things barely have any effect on the overall narrative as it stands. The large driving force of the plot is that Grimmel presents such a huge threat to Berk that they’ll have to relocate, and maybe the dragons will have to relocate too, but the threat he’s meant to represent honestly isn’t all that compelling. Grimmel’s character is not only under-written, but generically so, and doesn’t have anything quite as affecting to him on a character level as Drago being a fellow disabled person because of dragons in the second film. The script tries to do something with him that parallels a real-world anti-immigration allegory, but while the effort is notable, it ultimately feels underwritten, like they introduced the idea, but then didn’t really know where to go with it, and so it just fades into the background.

In fact, this movie has a character development issue that was bothering me for most of its runtime. Hiccup grows and learns something, but virtually no one else does. No one except Hiccup changes at all from the beginning to the end of the film, and while that’s all well and good that he undergoes a transformation (albeit only in one spoiler-ish respect) this time around, one of the greatest strengths of these movies is that most of the supporting characters change along with him, learning their own lessons along the way. The supporting characters in this movie, though, are relegated to small roles usually designed to deliver a low-level joke one too many times or scout something or tell Hiccup he’s better than his self-doubt. They’re no longer characters in their own right; they’re crutches by which to tell the story (apart from a couple of sweet Stoick flashback scenes) and move the plot along, which is sad considering how richly detailed they’ve been in the last two installments.

There is enough to like about the film, however, that despite being kind of let down by it overall, I still had a good time watching it play out. The animal courtship between the light fury and Toothless is one of the strongest aspects of the movie, and plays out in often simultaneously hilarious and adorable fashion. There are some new things she teaches him that come in very handy during the film’s thrilling (if a bit generic) final sequence, and the results are truly marvelous to behold. While she remains unnamed for the entirety of the film, she will be one of the characters audiences walk away remembering the most. The movie is also fantastically animated, and while The Hidden World plays it pretty safe in terms of shot selection (seriously, where did all the rest of the wide shots and flying intensity go?), what’s up on screen is incredibly detailed and looks gorgeous in its coloration and lighting design, particularly in that 5 minute title sequence. The hidden dragon world is a stunning piece of animation that will go down as one of the greatest ever committed to film. It may feel a bit strange to say that about an animated feature, but if you’ve seen the other two films, you know I don’t exaggerate. Some reviews are also touting John Powell’s score as a major strength, and while it does feel weaker than the other two overall (and doesn’t really enhance the film much), I can almost tell what they mean when listening to it on its own.

The Hidden World’s greatest strength, though, is its finale. Sure, the first two acts may be a bit dull and underdeveloped, but once this movie decides to turn on the emotional gauge, it dials it up to 100 and never looks back. Despite feeling like the overall movie wasn’t quite as good as the first two, this finale is by far the best since the original. Writer and director Dean DeBlois has gone on record several times as saying he never wanted to make anything more than a trilogy for this series, and for that level of integrity, I respect him immensely. Film trilogies are quite rare in this modern, franchise-crazed movie landscape, and to get a finale that makes it so hard to say goodbye to these characters and this world despite its gradually diluting quality, is something truly special and remarkable. (Yes, I was absolutely in tears by the end, and you will be too.)

Overall, How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World is a heartfelt and sincere, but somewhat flawed finale to what remains a great motion picture trilogy. While I found the supporting cast underwritten and the villain uncompelling, I still had fun watching the friendship between Hiccup and Toothless be tested, and seeing where the characters ended up. The first two acts are really just fine (if not super affecting), and it may be the weakest of all three so far, but this trilogy conclusion also has some of the best moments of the whole overall set, not the least of which is its grippingly emotional finale.

I have loved getting to watch these movies over the past 9 years. I have loved growing with them and re-watching them in anticipation of each entry. I have loved taking this journey which has brought me such joy, laughter, and at times, wonderful sorrow. It is bittersweet for me to say goodbye. Farewell, citizens and dragons of Berk. It has been an honor watching you.

I’m giving “How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World” a 7.8/10.

[is6621]

Behind the Buzz: Women in Tech and Entrepreneurship by Hannah Fay

It’s hard to consume business (or even mainstream media) news in 2018 without coming across the same few tech buzzwords again and again...and again. We mentioned a few last class -- “AR,” “blockchain,” and “crypto” come to mind -- and the industry discusses them ad nauseum. But what about the tech industry buzzwords that are a little more uncomfortable to talk about? The ones that make headlines but not classroom discussions? What about wage gaps? Sexual harassment? #MeToo? As I prepared for a discussion group that I help lead for BC’s Women Innovators Network, I thought I might try to share what I’ve learned and what has surprised me with our #IS6621 crew.

By this point in your business school careers, you’re all likely well aware of the mythology of Silicon Valley, startups, VC, tech companies, and the like. You’re probably also well aware of its reputation of being an unwelcoming environment for women professionals. Just as a refresher, here are some (slightly jarring) statistics: women own merely 5% of startups, make up just 7% of partners at venture capital firms, have an industry quit rate over twice as high as men’s, and received $56.7 billion less than men in VC funding (you can find more similarly disturbing facts here).

GETTING THERE

Why are these numbers so dismal? Many suggest that it’s simply because not enough girls pursue degrees in tech or entrepreneurial fields, and that they simply aren’t careers that women are interested in or suited for. Similarly, the Arrington Theory states that women are simply more risk-averse than men, making them less likely to become entrepreneurs or seek venture capital funding, thus explaining those dramatic gaps. When those two ideas are combined, it results -- theoretically -- in a proportionally small pool of qualified hires for companies. The tech industry (especially startup companies) is seen as a young, progressive field, succumbing to none of the stereotypes ingrained in traditional Wall Street industries. Its perception is that of a meritocracy, where the best man -- or woman -- wins solely based on their talent and qualification, regardless of their background.

Is this all true? Not really.

While it is accurate that fewer women than men pursue tech degrees, this is not necessarily because an inherent lack of skill or preference. It is possible that the foundations for these disparities originate in childhood and are reinforced over the years as programs push boys and girls in different directions in everything from classes to try to games to play with.

But even if this isn’t the case, and the simple truth is that fewer women pursue these degrees, qualified women are still getting turned away from these types of careers before they even begin. Recruiting sessions often discourage women from applying through environments that alienate and intimidate. Similarly, research has found that women become risk-averse because of stereotypes in a sort of vicious cycle -- when stereotypes are ingrained in women’s minds, they are more likely to conform to them, regardless of individual characteristics.

This doesn’t fully explain, though, the gender disparity in investment funding. Women get asked different questions during funding rounds than men do, affecting their confidence, the types of answers they give and the amount of funding they get. Men get asked promotional questions focusing on the potential for growth and profit, while women get asked preventative questions that emphasize risk minimization and planning for potential losses -- unsurprisingly, people tend to respond with answers that reflect the type of questions they were asked. This means that women spend a disproportionate amount of time defending their ideas without getting the chance to pitch their potential for success.

And the mythology of meritocracy? Not entirely accurate. Even the tech world -- startups especially -- is subject to bias. Like hires like, and especially in companies without a formal HR department or hiring process, founders of companies tend to hire their friends (or people that remind them of their friends). Since most startups are founded by males, this means that far fewer females break into the field.

STAYING THERE

The battle isn’t over even once women make it into the industry. As mentioned before, the quit rate for women is twice that of men’s. Why is the rate so high? Many point anecdotally to differing priorities, an inability to take the pressure of a high-paced workplace, and again, to a simple lack of skill or talent. But research tells a different story -- one of subtle bias, differing standards, compensation issues, and sexual harassment.

It doesn’t immediately make sense that the archetypal tech workplace -- known for flexible work days and nontraditional office spaces -- would be one unwelcoming to women. One would expect, for example, that it would be ideal for mothers that need to attend to their children’s schedules. But in reality, startups are a place that inherent bias can lurk and thrive. Women are frequently judged on their appearance before their skills or achievements. They’re held to higher standards, even to the point of perfectionism. They’re frequently asked to contribute in a way that requires them to be representative of all women, not just themselves. And diversity training programs meant to address the problem can sometimes make things worse by putting forth the notion that such bias is normal and inadvertently confirming it as “OK.”

Besides culminating into a toxic environment, these factors have real, concrete consequences. One is the problem of the wage gap. Though legislation has been introduced to address this, it remains a prevalent problem: it is estimated that it will take 100-217 years to close the wage gap worldwide, and women still make only 82% of what their male counterparts earn. This is often attributed to the idea that women simply choose lower-paying careers or don’t negotiate enough for their salaries -- but this is not necessarily the case. A moving testimony I heard recently from a powerful woman at Google made clear that she had done everything correctly: negotiated her salary, performed highly at her job, spoken up, etc. Yet, ten years into her time at the company, she discovered that men that reported to her were making significantly more than she was. The issue was eventually resolved, but this is not the first (or only) time this type of situation has arisen.

Another real consequence is sexual harassment, as revealed over the past year as #MeToo has taken flight. Seventy-eight percent of women startup founders say they or someone they know has been sexually harassed. The degrees of severity are, of course, varied, from minor annoyances to major assaults. I won’t dwell on this at length, but if you’d like to read further on the topic, some powerful stories can be found here and here.

GOING FORWARD

So what should women and men do going forward to mitigate these problems? What has changed recently, and how far do we still have to go? For one thing, the awareness of the problem has increased dramatically. Since the dawn of #MeToo and other similar movements, people simply talk about the issue more. This has the potential to increase social standards and accountability levels across the board, but raises the issue of desensitization and alienation.

Legislative changes have also furthered the cause. Recent supreme court rulings have overturned precedents that left room for wage discrimination. Additionally, California -- the home of Silicon Valley and arguably the hub of the tech world -- is in the process of passing legislation that requires publicly traded companies with more than six board members to have at least one woman on their board.

But what about some more immediate fixes? I began to wonder if there were any ways groundbreaking technology had the potential to help women with any of the issues described above. Some of what I found had the opposite of the intended effect -- like this story about Amazon’s AI hiring tool that inadvertently discriminated against women. Most of what I found, though, was positive. It was also more low-tech than you might expect.

The most significant common factor in what I found was their role in closing the information gap -- though many of the systemic problems women face in these fields can only be truly resolved in the long term, what we can do in our own lives starts with what we know. For example, online salary tools like Glassdoor have the potential to help close the wage gap by allowing women to see what men in their field are making and negotiate accordingly. Sites like Muse allow women to research company culture and make decisions about the type of environment they want to work in without having to experience harassment first. Even our good old friend Twitter is making a difference by amplifying voices and holding people and companies accountable. Perhaps most significantly, research is showing more and more that  diverse teams simply perform better.

If companies want to stay ahead of the curve, especially in the fast-paced world of tech and entrepreneurship, they’re going to have to start listening to the buzz -- to the research, to the women, to the truth.

[foundcarcosa]

#monthofspreads2 | iv.

the challenge itself is over, yes, but like I said, I’m doing this on my own terms, so... let me live

Focus

(no photo because it’s cloudy outside and therefore dark in here and I didn’t feel like fucking around with indoor lighting. expect this to be a theme with west MI’s shit ass weather)

1. What needs my attention?

Wands King

I laughed because I got a king here and a king for #2 and now I’m imagining duelling monarchs, one with a magic wand and the other with a sword. Not really what you’d call a subtle reading, is it?

I don’t really consider myself a “fiery” person, as such. Which might be what’s being represented in my pulling the Swords king for question #2... since, yeah, I do define myself pretty solidly by my Air tendencies. I don’t feel very... goal-oriented, or leader-ly, or visionary. In my deck, the Wands king is a being wreathed in magical energy, not really substantial in form but arresting in power. I can’t imagine having kinship with the Wands king. “Inspiring others” isn’t a concept I quite comprehend. I can’t even inspire myself.

Well, we shall see what we shall see in the rest of the reading.

2. What am I focusing on instead/ What is distracting me?

Swords King

Well, I mean, why wouldn’t I focus on this? I always have one foot in the door of unreality, it only seemed fair to try to balance it out with as much logical thinking as possible. Maybe it does bore me sometimes, and maybe it doesn’t always serve my best interests, but... meh. I don’t know. It’s what’s expected of me, isn’t it?

I guess you’re right. I don’t really want to become the Swords king.

3. How can I shift my focus?

Chalices 8

Walk on.

I don’t know what mire my cards think I’m trapped in all the time, but apparently I’m still trapped in it. I mean, I say “I don’t know” but what I mean is, I can’t see its boundaries, can’t intuit its nature. I don’t understand what action I’m supposed to be taking; my readings have seemed rather passive so far. It’s an introspective deck, but not a very... energetic one. Kind of like me, I guess.

Well, at any rate, I now have a pretty good U2 song stuck in my head. So.

4-5. What resources can I use to help keep me on track?

Pentacles 5 & Fool 0

Lack and isolation, and the beginning of the journey. This reminds me of Wednesday, really -- the god of the pit and the crossroads, the meeting of beginning and end, insert more mythic tropes I enjoy ad nauseum. 

I am coming to terms with myself as a chronically melancholy individual (*insert Soggy Bottom Boys singing here*). I don’t think it means I’m unhappy, necessarily -- I think it means I’m truthful, and accepting, and becoming less afraid of unhappiness (which takes a lot of the sting out of it, makes it softer, more malleable, more... like the stuff of creation that artists talk about). Maybe that’s part of it.

And, I mean, the Fool is just my card, really. That’s the tarot archetype I really see myself becoming, more than any of the others. He’s the perfect card to wrap this whole thing up, but I can’t really explain how I know that works. Maybe you can see it, whoever’s reading this, if anyone is.

Apparently the Wands king isn’t a creator as much as he is a catalyst, but this is my reading and I’m going to read it in the way that makes sense to me. If I’m ever to be a catalyst to anything, it’s by creation first. If I’m ever going to create again (and I have to believe I will, I have to believe this dry and empty font is just a temporary state), I’ll have to start from the beginning. From the pit.

“... you stop in shock at the words you utter— they are so rusty, so ugly, so meaningless and feeble from being kept in the small cramped dark inside you so long.” Yeah, maybe. But it’d be a beginning.

CONCLUSION

I find it really difficult to focus on anything these days, really, and part of it’s this shit ass fucking weather and part of it’s these emotional anchors dragging me under the earth and part of it’s just plain old human insecurity and stress. But the thing that’s been tearing at me the most is the fact that I feel like I’m forgetting what it is to be a storyteller, a wanderer, a trickster, all the things that I most strongly and passionately -- yes, passionately; I do have passion, but only here -- identify with. It’d be easy to blame the fact that I’ve “settled down”, lifestyle-wise, but I don’t think that’s correct; I think that’s an easy excuse, and an easy scapegoat.

If I am losing touch, then where do I go? Back to the beginning. Where is the beginning? In the first word.

What is the first word? I.

[neni-has-ascended]

The early Disney Princesses are more than You give Them Credit for

(Neni’s Advent Calendar, Day 16)

Older Disney Princesses get a bad rep. There’s absolutely nothing to dispute in that statement. As well-regarded and respected their movies are for their technical achievements and beautiful animation alone, whenever you hear people talk about the actual characters appearing in these movies, especially the protagonists, you will rarely find people lose a nice word about them. Accusations of Snow White, Cinderella and Aurora being anti-feminist characters, teaching little children, regardless of gender, harmful lessons and values, are easy to make and thus a dime a dozen. They’ve been parodied, ridiculed and done off as an archetypal relic of the past century’s culture, by everyone and their mothers, including Disney themselves.

Maybe that’s just the reason Disney have been trying so hard to “modernize” these characters, by rewriting their stories and personalities to the point of being non-recognizable in their recent slew of remakes. 2014′s “Maleficent” and the 2015 version of “Cinderella” come to mind. But do we really need remakes like that? Don’t get me wrong, the original films were clearly products of their time, but the way Disney advertises these reimaginings as “updated” and “feminist” makes it rather clear that the only reason they exist is to please the crowd who’s convinced the original versions of these characters are “harmful” or “badly written” by modern standards. And that’s just not a sentiment I can get behind at all. 

Let me make one thing clear before I continue: I did not grow up with the original three “Disney Princess” movies, and for most of my life, I only knew them from clips that would play in-between Disney Afternoon shows or hear-say. Well, I may have seen Cinderella once, when I was 7, but that was it. I just had no interest in watching those movies. As a child I found older Disney movies to be - as Cinderella would probably put it - “frightfully dull and boring”, and stuck to watching The Little Mermaid and Mulan on VHS.  

However, as my knowledge of aforementioned quote should probably tell you, by now I have actually watched and enjoyed all three of these movies. Quite recently, actually. A combination of a Christmassy need to watch old animated movies, as well as having an on-going Kingdom Hearts BbS fanfiction in the works that will eventually require me to write in-character versions of the three original princesses makes it possible. 

Now, due to how popular culture has indoctrinated me over the years to believe that classic Disney Princesses are flat, uninteresting characters, who only exist to get themselves into a pickle and be saved from it by equally flat, uninteresting princes, making the whole endeavor only worth the watch for the beauty of its animation, I didn’t expect much when I absentmindedly put on the original version of Cinderella on Netflix one night before going to bed. In the end, I was blown away. Cinderella... was nothing like what I was led to believe she would be. I’d been promised a barbie doll who spends her life doing nothing but enduring being bossed around by cartoonishly evil villains with a dumb smile and dreaming of being mother to a nuclear family until Prince Charming comes and sweeps her away with no effort at all. Instead, what I found was a snarky, spirited girl, who is quite aware of the abuse she’s being put through and holds a healthy amount of loathing and spite for her abusers (Stockholm syndrome clearly hasn’t gotten ahold of this one, it didn’t), yet endures it because she’s waiting for a good opportunity to free herself from this lousy situation without ending up homeless and starving on the streets. The term “prince” is only mentioned once by her, in passing, until long after she’s actually met the guy, and meeting him was never her goal when she tried to get to that ball. She just wanted to defy Lady Tremaine for once in her life by going out and partying, because she felt like it. No other reason. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

What I’m trying to get across here is: My first encounter with the actual movie Cinderella made me wonder, how much of what we take for granted about these old “Princess Movies” due to how they’re represented in popular culture is actually accurate, and how much of it is just flanderization and simplification, making an aggregation of smaller flaws in otherwise great movies appear much bigger and more damning than they actually are? Maybe these movies are a whole lot less regressive than we often give them credit for. I’m not necessarily saying they’re “progressive”, heaven’s no, but in some ways, I found the 1950 version of Cinderella’s character to be a lot more independent and strong than her 2015 version, which is claimed to be the “feminist” one, and the less said about what “Maleficent” does to... pretty much every single female character from the original movie, the better. 

So, here I am. I already had strong opinions on the three original princess movies after watching them this month, and watching “Maleficent” was the final straw. In honor of this season’s tendency to replay the corniest of fairy-tale movies ad-nauseum and my own love for corny fairy-tales, I’m gonna take a quick look at the three original Disney Princesses within the context of their movies and see how well they - in my honest opinion - still hold up by today’s standards. Where applicable, I’ll talk a little about the remakes as well. Well then, let’s go!

Snow White (1937)

This is the least defendable movie of the bunch, but for the probably most respectable reasons. 

I mean, let’s face it, this was Walt Disney’s - and actually, anyone’s, period - first go at a feature length animated movie, and despite how stunningly beautiful a film it still is, BOY, it shows. The whole film, from start to length, feels a lot like an overly long Silly Symphonies short with a monstrous budget, which is basically what it was. These people didn’t know how to make an animated feature film yet, so they used the next best experience they had as a model, and while it worked in their favor, its natural consequence is that Snow White’s character basically just feels like an extension of the female animation eye candy from their previous shorts, such as “The goddess of spring”. The fact that she’s constantly referred to as “beautiful” in a way that makes her sound sexually eligible, despite being 14 years old and acting like it is more than just questionable as well, to say the least. However, if there’s one good thing I can say about Snow White, it’s that she’s not quite as passive as she’s made out to be.

Now, her initial reaction to almost being assassinated, then asked to run and live in the forest is shock and trauma, as to be expected of a 14 years old girl who was just almost assassinated, then cast into the woods. People make fun of the “OMG THE TREEEES” scene, but fact is, if you were 14 and this shit happened to you, wouldn’t YOU act paranoid for the next couple of hours after? It’s “self-preservation instinct”. Nothing about how she broke down in that scene was wimpy or unrealistic. In fact, the way how she picked herself right back up after the initial scare had passed and cheered herself up without the help of another human being (animals to pet are another story) is quite impressive. As soon as Snow White has her bearings back in order, she gets up and, quite intelligently, decides to go and look for lodging. That’s right, she doesn’t just sit there and wait for someone to come and save her. She stands up and goes “Well, I guess stepmom’s lost it. Welp, time to go and get my own place.”

And what does she do once she finds a cottage that could possibly offer lodging to her, but sees that there’s nobody home? She immediately starts to plan on how to receive permission to stay, basically doing the math on how to pay the rent. She takes the initiative. Nobody invited her in, she decided for herself “I’m gonna make myself so useful around here, they’ll have no choice but to give me a room!” Again, impressive for such a very play-minded 14 years old. She clearly knows how to take care of herself. Now, when it comes to “stranger danger”, she clearly still has a couple of things to learn, but without a functioning set of parents to tell her to not accept candy from strange old people in a van, really, who can blame her?

Then there’s the issue of the prince. He’s clearly quite a bit older than her and the implied marriage between the two of them... Let’s just say I REALLY hope they waited at least three, four years with that. Then again, these were the middle ages, so... oh well. 

However, in general, the relationship between the two isn’t handled too badly. Sure, the prince is pretty much a prop, an item for Snow White to acquire at the end of her struggle to survive (a theme we’ll see repeated in Cinderella), but despite us only seeing one scene of her singing together with him in the start of the movie, the way she talks about him for the rest of the movie (and the way the narration goes) strongly implies the two of them met more often than that. For all we know, they’d been meeting up in the courtyard like that for a couple of weeks already by the time Snow White has to run off. Basically, it can be assumed, those two already knew each other well enough and even considered each other properly boyfriend and girlfriend by the time the Prince appears in the end to kiss her awake, which makes the fact that he kisses her awake in first place a lot less creepy, especially compared to the original fairy tale. This isn’t a stranger coming in to claim a pretty price; It’s a concerned boyfriend learning that his M.I.A. girlfriend might possibly have been murdered by her crazy mother and hurrying to her dying bed to see her one more time. Again, this doesn’t change anything about the obvious creepy age gap between the two of them, but if I’d seen this movie as a kid, I wouldn’t have taken “Awww, being kissed by a stranger and then taken away to be married by him is soooo romantic!” from it. I would have taken “Awww, it’s nice to know that there was a loved one out there who cared enough about her to come and save her even when it seemed too late.” from it. 

If Disney decides to remake this movie, I guess I’d wish for them to do three, and ONLY three things to change the story: 

A) Age up Snow White by at least two years, 

B) Put more emphasis on her already present resourcefulness and craftiness, and

B) Add more scenes in the beginning to make it 100% clear that she and the prince have been an item for a long time, eliminating the creepiness of a possible stranger kissing her entirely. 

I don’t think there’s really much else you can do, without ditching the source material. I mean, let’s be honest, you’re kinda confined in what you can do when working with Grim’s Fairy Tales, but for that this movie isn’t doing too badly.

Alternately, a movie about the Evil Queen could be done and would make a LOT more sense than a movie about “Maleficent”. More on that in the last section. 

Cinderella (1950)

This movie is the one I think is most unfairly judged as “anti-feminist”, because pretty much every single piece I read claiming that Cinderella is a passive, docile character waiting to be saved by a prince... Let’s just say I doubt these people have ever actually watched the movie in first place. That, or they’re mixing it up with the other two.

Snow White was waiting for her boyfriend prince to come and help her out.

Aurora laid asleep, waiting for her prince to come and help her out.

Cinderella? Cinderella isn’t waiting for anyone. Cinderella is constantly looking for her chance. 

As I’ve said before, if you actually watch the movie, you’ll quickly realize that “finding a prince” and getting married is never a concern of Cinderella’s. All she dreams of is leading a happy life. What kind of life that is isn’t specified, but it probably involves a whole lot less Lady Tremaine, Anastasia and Drisella, and a whole lot more me-time for Cinderella. Cinderella is far from docile and complacent in her situation. From the first scene we hear her speak, she’s snarling at the clock-tower dragging her out of bed when she’d rather avoid avoid it, snarking at Tremaine and her daughters behind their backs non-stop and defying their orders by keeping the mice they clearly want dead as her friends and pets. The very first thing she talks about is having a dream and wanting it to come true, and the movie let’s little doubt that said dream is all about escaping her abusers at the first realistic chance she gets. But she doesn’t just dream; she’s realistic. She has foresight. When Lady Tremaine insists she can’t go to the ball, she sets out to defy her stepmother  by playing the “Your orders are not above the king’s” card. She handles her chores in record time, only to prove to Tremaine that she can’t stop her from going, and when ultimately she lacks the time to finish her dress, Cinderella is rewarded for a previous act of defiance - saving the household mice and treating them kindly - by having them finish her dress for her. Basically: Everything Cinderella gets, she earned. She isn’t just sitting down, waiting around to be saved. She works hard and stays good to her friends, even in her shitty situation, and her friends stand by her in return, aiding her in her attempts to defy her abusers. The Fairy Godmother, too, isn’t just a random stroke of luck. She even says so herself: The aid she receives from the fairy is a reward for Cinderella’s unfaltering belief in a better future, which she held onto despite all of the abuse. It’s an empowering message, about how by not lowering yourself to the level of those who wrong you and staying true to your own ideals, you can ultimately succeed with the aid of those whose trust you earned. Cinderella gets to go to the ball not because she’s pretty and cute and we’re supposed to root for her, but because she deserved it. Ultimately, Hard work pays off.

Oh, but let’s not forget what the ball was really about: Cinderella wants to go out and party. That’s all there is to it. No prince involved. In fact, when she actually does get to go, and some guy asks her to dance with her, she doesn’t even realize that guy is the prince until way, waaaay later. To her, she’s just out at a dance after one hard day of work, having the time of her life, when suddenly a hot guy walks up to her and asks to hang out. They hang out, talk and, whoa, the hot guy is super nice, too! Totally her type! Talk about one awesome party! Now, I’m asexual myself, so I don’t know what it’s like to immediately crush on someone the first moment you see them, but I’d imagine that for many people, an experience like that at a party is quite relatable. The point of the scene isn’t that Prince Charming is saving Cinderella, the point is that she’s out, having fun, like she’s dreamed of doing for so long. All those years of hanging in there are finally paying off. She’s successfully defied Lady Tremaine and managed to have an awesome night. The fact that she developed a huge crush on the guy she danced with is more or less just a side effect.

Talking of the prince, again, if anyone is a flat character, it’s him. Again, he’s a prop, someone who exists as an ultimate reward for Cinderella’s hard work - and, most importantly, not the other way around! Cinderella isn’t the prize to be conquered here. The prince is. He is her reward for defying Lady Tremaine and managing to escape her abuse. In the climax of the movie, against all odds, it’s not the prince who saves Cinderella: Cinderella saves herself. She stands by the door, tries to pry it open with all her mind, and, finally, hatches a plan to free herself from the room she is locked in with the help of one of the friends she’s earned herself with her kindness. That’s all her. If she hadn’t acted that moment, thought about it and figured out what to do to save herself, she’d never have been able to leave the room in time. But she did. She saved herself, and the  help she received, she received from the people who’s trust she’s earned with honest effort.  My single complaint with the movie is that she ends up marrying the prince after their first, maybe second date, but, again, that comes with the source material. Let’s just give the guy the benefit of the doubt and hope the marriage doesn’t fall apart. Cindy definitely earned it.

When I was 1950′s Cinderella, I don’t see a helpless girl who is swept off her feet by a knight in shining armor. I see a resourceful, intelligent young woman, who waits for the perfect moment to escape her abusers, earns it, and then takes it, not allowing anything or anyone to stop her. I see nothing anti-feminist in this. Both, Cinderella and her abusers are female. The prince is a prop. She never interacts with any other male humans. The male mice help her because she’s saved them and kept them alive first. There are no male power-fantasies at play here, and even if Cinderella is a very traditionally feminine character, what’s so bad about that? I am a woman who loves BOTH traditional and non-traditional femininity. Cinderella has her well-deserved place in this world. This is a movie that I’d show to children without a second thought, right next to things like Steven Universe. Any kind of femininity that doesn’t rely on non-agency should be celebrated, me-thinks. 

That’s why I absolutely don’t understand why Disney felt the need to remake this movie. 

I’m... conflicted on the 2015 remake... Actually, I took notes while watching it today. Lemme share them with you as they are, alright?

The start is good, thanks for expanding on this.

CGI mice are cute, thanks for not cutting the mice

Slow progression into abuse which makes sense with the original movie and could easily be in-continuity with it, good

An actual motivation for Lady Tremaine which makes sense, yes, very good

the first act was awesome.

where is Cinderella's snark?

Seriously, why isn’t she snarking? That was the best thing about her.

Oh gosh, they made Drisella and Anastasia even MORE cartoonishly evil

Too much talking, 

too much prince, 

WHY CAST HELENA BONHAM CARTER AS THE FAIRY???

what are you smoking

The slapstick wasn’t needed. At all.

why is the grand duke evil, 

She's NOT more proactive

Too much prince angst. king didn’t need to die

Seriously, Why make the Grand Duke evil? SHE DOESN'T EVEN TRY TO FIGHT GOSH IN THE ORIGINAL SHE CAME UP WITH THE PLAN THAT SAVED HER HERSELF

SINGING???? REALLY???

In the original version, she saves herself with the help of the mice. Here, SHE'S SAVED BY THE FRIGGIN' PRINCE GOSH. FEMINISM??

All she is more angry at Lady Tremaine??

"I forgive you. Guards, banish the bitch."

Have courage, kindness and VINDICATION

THE FIRST ACT MADE SO MUCH SENSE AND WAS SO GOOD THO. THANKS FOR THE CGI MICE GOOD

...Ahem. 

So yeah, as you can read out of this, I would have much preferred this movie if it had just been a prequel short to the original film, as which it would have made a lot of sense and would have been beautiful. The moment Cinderella met the prince in the woods, everything kind of fell apart, since from that moment on, going to the ball became about the prince, totally undermining what made her decision to go there such a great show of self-agency in the original. Also, the chances to the climax were bullshit. She ended up having on part in her own rescue, nope, this time it really was the prince who saved her. I did not appreciate that at all. With that change they broke what didn’t need to be fixed. Was it so hard to just write the dog back in and have the climax go more similar to the original? *sigh*

Pro-tip Disney: When you try to make your properties my feminist, try to not go about that by breaking the feminism already present in them. Thank you very much.

But, oh well, at least this remake still had artistic merit to it and didn’t break the original completely. That’s more than I can say for the reimagining of...

Sleeping Beauty (1959)

Aurora is not this movie’s saving grace. Nope, not by a long shot. 

The fairies are. All of them. Especially Maleficent.

Let’s get right into it, this is the only of the three movies where it isn’t the prince who’s the prop, but the Princess. Aurora isn’t an interesting character at all, she’s basically a female version of the prince from Cinderella. She exists as a prize for not just the prince, but the entire Kingdom to celebrate the defeat of Maleficent, and while that may sound troubling, there’s a reason why this movie definitely does not simply have a bias against its female character, and that reason is every single female character not named Aurora. 

Yeah yeah. I can’t defend Aurora herself. Call this cheating. But really, neither Aurora, nor Phillip even get the majority of the screen time in the movie. They’re not the real protagonists here. Nope, the movie is REALLY about is the struggle of three brave fairies, Flora, Fauna and Merryweather, to put an end to the tyranny of the mighty, vindictive fairy Maleficent. Phillip’s story of reuniting with Aurora is a side-note compared to that.

The fairies are the reason this movie, THIS MOVIE, of all things, passes the Bechdel test. Let that sink in. Flora, Fauna and Merryweather make the movie. For the sake of defeating Maleficent’s curse, they have to give up their upper-class, immortal lives with the ability to magick up anything they want out of thin air, and learn to live as mortals instead, something they still are shown having trouble with sixteen years after the fact. It’s an interesting take on the traditional fairy godmother, and one I’m surprised hasn’t received more attention. It certainly helps that all three of them have such strong personalities and often clash. Especially the running gag of Flora and Merryweather  both wanting to dress Aurora in their signature colors kept bringing a smile to my face. Flora is level-headed and strict, Merryweather is a worrier who is blunt and doesn’t always think her actions through, Fauna is sweet and reliable, but also a little slow when it comes to some things. I really enjoyed every scene with those three on screen, especially Merryweather’s reactions to her friends’ antics were gold. I often found myself laughing out loud, something many modern movies don’t manage to make me do. I’m sure, if I’d seen this movie as a kid, I would have come away forgetting about Aurora pretty quickly, but the fairies would have won my heart. Especially Merryweather. God, she’s amazing. I want her to be my friend and talk trash about politics with her. Though, she’d probably find my love for the color pink disturbing... 

These three fairies are the true heroes of the movie, and their story isn’t about finding love and getting married. That’s never even remotely an issue. No, their story is about defeating one of their own, a fairy much stronger than them, first by outsmarting her, then by using the things she scoffs at against her. They’re pretty traditional heroes in that way, and I like it.Now, Phillip is a pretty cool hero too, but let’s face it. He’s basically the prince from Snow White again, except with more personality and more of a part in actually saving the girl. I’ll be honest, I probably liked this movie best out of the three, but it was definitely not because of Aurora and Phillip. It was all thanks to the fairies. 

You know who that also includes? That’s right, Maleficent!

Oh my god, Maleficent. She’s just... Just such a perfect villain. Everything about her just oozes power. She’s like a force of nature. Someone who’s enjoys and relishes her own spitefulness and vindictiveness to the utmost. You love to hate her, but you love her for how much you hate her. She’s animated beautifully, and evokes fear every time she’s on screen. Truly the Mistress of all evil. Of course, she’s not exactly a relatable character, but she really doesn’t need to be. Not every person in the world is relatable. Some are just insane, and Maleficent is that kind of person. Unlike the Evil Queen, her motivation isn’t even a traditionally “feminine” one. She’s not just vain or a woman scorned, heck, it’s not even the traditional male motivation of world-domination. Nope, she’s just a really, really vindictive person with a lot of power who enjoys causing suffering.Basically, she’s Vladimir Putin as a fairy, except somehow even scarrier. That’s just amazing. It’s enjoyable to see her scheme and act like a lunatic, and it’s just as enjoyable to watch her get taken down in the end. Fauna, Flora and Merryweather may make the movie, but Maleficent puts the cherry on its top. She completes the package. A delightfully magical package.

The fairies were the best part about the original movie. So why did Disney decide TO MAKE A TERRIBLE MOVIE ABOUT THEM THAT RUINS EVERYTHING THAT MADE THEM AWESOME?

Why.

WHy wOuld yoU do THAT!?

Not only did they manage to waste a perfectly good life action representation of Maleficent (the few scenes in which she’s actually allowed to BE the actual Maleficent, rather than the diet version the rest of the movie ran with, Angelina Jolie really nails the role. It makes the rest of the movie even more painful.), they also took pretty much every single character from the original and turned them into unlikable assholes, INCLUDING the fairies. 

Oh, Merryweather, what have they done to you, my dear. Please, forgive those foolish mortals, for they know not what they’re doing...

The first and immediate problem is that the entire movie is built on a fallacy: The idea that Maleficent was never given a motivation and thus needed one. That is, of course, bullshit. She already had a perfectly good motivation. Being a vindictive person. Believe it or not, there ARE people like that in the world. Denying that reality doesn’t make your movie any “darker”, it makes it more childish. Oh, but of course, the movie doesn’t deny that reality, it just makes OTHER characters evil and vindictive instead! How silly of me! Yeah, let’s rewrite the strong, powerful female villain who does what she does for no other reason than that she can into a poor, hurt puppy, who’s entire world-view was shaped by a man and an implied fantasy-rape, and also make her an all-loving mother-figure at it, the OLDEST female archetype in the book, then call that “progressive”! Ahahahahahahahaha. Meanwhile, they demonized the entirety of Aurora’s Kingdom by going with the old “Hoomans R evul” trope, which has been tired and overused since back in the 90s, then they rewrote some of the most interesting and fun female characters in early Disney film to become a trio of bumbling buffoons, incapable of tying their own shoes instead. OH AND THEY MADE MERRYWEATHER DUMB. THAT DESERVES SHOUTING. YOU CAN’T MAKE MY MERRYWEATHER DUMB, YOU MONSTERS.

The plot they came up with didn’t even make sense within itself. If Maleficent had a personal beef with Stephan because he was her ex, then why did she curse Aurora, and not him? Why do the three fairies listen to the king of they’re part of a different Kingdom? Why are the mores called a “Kingdom” if they’re outright stated to be a direct democracy? Why does Aurora become queen of the mores in the end when the mores are a direct democracy? Why did you go for the same friggin’ plot-twist as Frozen, when Maleficent is most definitely NOT the same character as Elsa? Why didn’t she go get her wings back much earlier if it was as easy as just sticking them on again? Why do the three fairies already consider Maleficent evil before the christening incident, if that was LITERALLY the first truly vindictive thing she’s done? WHY would you cut off the fairies’ gifts at the second one like the original movie, but then have Maleficent HERSELF weaken the curse, rendering the final fairy’s gift unnecessary?? Why were the three fairies still in the movie at all if you basically turned Maleficent into a composite character of herself AND THEM in the first place?? Why would you disgrace your own classic movie by having Aurora herself claim that the original movie is bullshit and THIS, lo and behold, is the true, canon story now? F**k this movie with all the forces of hell!

The worst thing about this whole fiasko is that a movie like that CAN work. It can work, with pretty much any female villain OTHER than Maleficent. This could have worked with the Evil Queen from Snow White. This could have worked with Lady Tremaine. Heck, this story would have worked A LOT with Mother Gothel from Tangled/Rapunzel. In fact, the whole thing was written like it was meant for Mother Gothel! For your information, in the original fairy tale, Gothel was a fairy who stole Rapunzel out of revenge for her parents stealing from her garden. She’s never described as ‘evil’ in the source material, she’s just a villain by virtue of her method of punishing the thieves. A plot-line like the one in “Maleficent” would have made a LOT more sense for Gothel, heck, even if you went with the Disney-version of Gothel a movie like this would still have made more sense for her than for Maleficent. So, why the hell did they do this movie with the one female villain with which it does NOT work?

Not everything can be turned into “Wicked”, Disney. Not everything is meant to be “Wicked”. You’ve had your go at “Wicked” with Frozen. Now, LET IT GO. 

This movie is terrible. It’s not progressive, not feminist, and least of all a respectful take on its source material. It’s everything that’s wrong with Hollywood remake culture.The original movie wasn’t a cornerstone of feminist media, but its female characters were sure a heck of a load better than the characters in this glorified fanfic. 

Anyway, what I’m trying to say here is: Disney. Stop hating your own Princess Movies. Some healthy self-awareness and a will to improve is good, but what you’ve been doing has been downright delusional. Your protrayal of female characters was never as incredibly terribad as you seem to believe it was. Take some pride in what you’ve done and strife to do even better in the future, without defiling your old work for the sake of being “progressshiiivvvvvv” (without actually being progressive.) If people want Disney Princess movies that feature the princesses (and queens) doing non-traditionally feminine things, there’s Tangled, Frozen and The Princess and the Frog, and the list is ever-expanding. We don’t need to go back and try to erase and rewrite the history that lead Disney to where it is now. That history is part of why they got to where they are now.

Don’t demonize the past. Look at it with the same critical eye you look at the present with, and then learn from it. Honor it and be thankful for what it can teach you. 

  (See the other entries into my Advent Calendar Series HERE. )