#since they were the basis on how i try to portray them

[skaruresonic]

Silent Hill 2 critically examines and challenges many of our presupposed notions of gender roles, marriage, and the nuclear family unit. The game would not resonate as hard as it does if James and Mary were not married, because marriage carries with it a heavy emotional and cultural baggage.

In this post, I'm going to talk about cultural misogyny, how it's woven into the narrative. Apologies if it's not very well-structured, since I'll be offering my thoughts on an off-the-cuff basis.

The misogyny SH2 explores is a lot subtler and more structural in nature than is portrayed in the remake. While the remake is more blatant and not nearly critical enough of its portrayal of James as a more stereotypical hero, the original attacks the very premise that it's necessarily "wrong" for a woman to lose her worth via a loss of physical beauty, and that a man needs to perform the role of "protector" at the cost of being considered a failure.

To that end, I think some vital nuance is lost when the remake recharacterizes James as a more typical rugged Stronk Man, stoic and impatient, egotistical, and way more prone to violence than his original counterpart.

Original!James runs from his problems whenever possible. What's more, his cowardice serves a thematic purpose of showing us that even well-intentioned "nice guys" can be misogynistic. Because, again, the misogynistic framework that upholds Western constructs of marriage and family is structural, not individual.

James cannot meet any of the girls or women he meets in the eye whenever they castigate him. This in and of itself challenges the notion that James ought to be "in charge" of any of them.

Maria's emasculation starts early, and it doesn't really let up, resulting in James' mixed feelings of arousal and repulsion.

Angela, likewise, rejects being considered an object of pity, for pity implies condescension. James cannot save her by white-knighting her problems.

James initially feels compelled to "protect" Laura as a presumed damsel in distress when, ironically enough, she's the safest of anyone in Silent Hill. In fact, she places James in the position of "damsel in distress" by locking him in a room full of monsters.

This is a game where the women lead and James follows: a gendered frustration embodied by Pyramid Head, who cannot be placated, only fled.

It's no coincidence that most of the monsters you encounter are feminine in nature - rather helpless, sickly, and pathetic at that - while the one monster you cannot beat into submission is an intense expression of hypermasculinity.

Unlike James, whose emotions render him "less than" in the eyes of a patriarchal culture, Pyramid Head is stoic and never speaks. Pyramid Head is powerful and virile. Pyramid Head does not succumb to grief or suffer feelings of guilt for his misdeeds. Pyramid Head is a lone wolf that relies on no one else. Pyramid Head is "strong" enough to carry the psychological burden represented by the Great Knife with ease.

Although some degree of sexual frustration does factor in here, it's not the only message Team Silent were trying to impart via the monster dynamics. Pyramid Head is repeatedly seen dominating and subjugating the more "feminine" monsters. It doesn't take much onion-peeling here to see that James is harboring some subconscious grudges over his "failings" to meet society's standards of what a man is supposed to be like.

He isn't strong: he can't open a fridge without Maria's help. He isn't powerful: reading all the medical textbooks he could didn't save Mary. He isn't courageous: he can hardly look Maria or Angela in the eye when they force him to confront uncomfortable truths. He isn't, even, particularly respected at times: Laura locks him in a room just to laugh at him. The only person he has a leg up on is Eddie, but after a brutal shootout in a literal meat locker: one of the many implications being that this kind of pressure to be considered "real men" can potentially turn human beings into butchers for a sliver of domination.

For all intents and purposes, James is a "failed" man, just as Mary is a "failed" woman. By falling ill and losing her sexual allure, she failed to meet the culturally-ingrained expectations of a wife.

It's worth noting that both Mary and James hold these expectations and biases without realizing it. It's simply more obvious in James' psyche because we see the manifestations firsthand.

But Mary holds these values to be self-evident, too, when she laments that between the disease and the drugs, she looks "like a monster." Because patriarchy has taught her that a woman's worth lies in her looks, she laments the loss of her beauty to disease; she becomes worthless, "undeserving" of flowers (that is to say, basic decency on her husband's part).

She even laments being "ugly" and "disgusting" James in her last letter to him, as if she's failed him somehow through contracting an illness she never asked for.

Although the statistic that men divorce their wives if their wives fall ill is not necessarily true, it is true that women, as the presumed caretakers of the family, tend to survive at rates less than men if they do fall terminally ill due to a lack of support system.

We further see the mother's failure when Angela admits that her own mother said she (Angela) deserved her rape at her father's hands.

Furthermore, these gendered themes are expressed through the game's treatment of Maria. As a sentient entity born from James' selfish wishes, Maria lies trapped in an existentially horrifying state: objectification.

It's interesting that Maria professes interests and dislikes in Born from a Wish and early in Letter From Silent Heaven - in the former, she confesses that she's not much for literature, and in the latter, she opines "I hate bowling" - but slowly loses her individuality as time goes on. In addition, Maria stops insisting she's "real" and starts insisting that she can be whatever James wants her to be.

Eventually, she assumes Mary's voice and face (despite James having already noted that she bears an uncanny resemblance to Mary because of her face and voice) out of a false hope that doing so will ingratiate her to a man who doesn't want her.

Maria does not live for herself but owes her existence to a man. She becomes anything James needs her to be: a lesson taught when she dies; bait on a hook when she attempts to seduce him; even a version of his dead wife that will "never yell at [him] or make [him] feel bad." She bears Mary's face and voice, but not much else. Her thoughts and feelings ultimately do not matter because she is "not Mary."

Maria is treated like an object, despite being flesh and blood, and she has internalized this, displaying an unnerving willingness to contort herself in whatever shape necessary to keep James, for, again, without James she would not exist. When James states that he no longer needs her, she cries, "How can you throw me away?"

All of these things form the overarching reason why the renewed prioritization of combat disturbs me. It's almost like the remake is saying that violence is justified, but more specifically, the kind of gendered violence that culminated in James smothering his terminally-ill wife. Making combat "satisfying" defeats the point that combat shouldn't be a reward for violence.

Making the monsters extra aggressive so that combat is "provoked" and therefore justified, in fact, hits uncomfortably close to the nerve of "she brought it on herself." The idea that Mannequins now bumrush you when in the original, they only moved once perceived, allows the player to ignore how James must go out of his way to commit violence.

James, likewise, going "You're not here anymore" in the In Water ending does not bode well for his respect for Mary as a person, if he thinks his duty to her memory stops the moment her heart does.

In addition, Remake!James is more egotistical and entitled than Original!James.

While this may not inherently be a problem, I feel this has the potential to have audiences let James off the hook in a sort of Calvinist way. By dismissing his poor judgment and misdeeds as a result of his gender. "Oh, he was always an asshole, he deserves whatever he gets," rather than the more salient question, "What would we do in his situation? How could we restructure the ways we think about marriage, family, and gender roles so that the vulnerable don't slip through the cracks?"

As I've noted in previous posts, Remake!James' speech patterns reflect a more self-centered nature. When he tells Angela that his goal is to find Mary following Angela's emotional breakdown, he frames it as though Mary is his possession:

Notice how his priority is protecting his self-image as a good person and not in comforting Angela or trying to defuse the situation, like in the original.

Remake!James be like "Listen here, you audacious bitch, I don't know who you think I am, but I'm #notlikeallmen. I just want to get my wife back. 😤"

[yuerikoko]

I think I now get where all the Angela hate (and mischaracterization) came from

(Posting another ramble dedicated to my beloved yay)

I might sound like I’m beating a dead horse here since the Angela hate has died down as of recently but I still can’t help but wonder why she had received that much hate in the first place. What warranted her to get this much hate even until recently, whereas other characters who are written similarly to her, or have done much worse, are not as actively hated? Where did the popular fanon conception of her— one that portrayed her as an abuser, stalker and even r wordist at one point— also come from?

After some thinking and also me having known this fandom for 3 years up to this point, I think(?) I was finally able to trace where all this hate came from and where the infamous fanon version of her came to be.

CW: spoilers for WE and mentions of abuse/stalking/sexual assault and other potentially triggering themes. Please proceed with caution.

Also note: I do not intend to harass or call anyone out with this. Therefore, I will not be naming any names (if any) nor will I mention any works that can be triggering. This is simply a meta analysis trying to dissect a character’s fan reception, and while I may give my own thoughts somewhere down the line, I will also try to be as objective as possible with my observations.

0. Pre-C42

Before C42 came out, Angela did not receive as much hate. She wasn’t as popular as Jack or Elliot either, yet people didn’t have a reason to hate her at all prior to IPS. It was likely because she didn’t have much to remember her by other than being “Lars’s wife” or the S3 coroner, either due to the fact that she doesn’t have as much screen time as compared to other characters, or simply doesn’t have anything that makes her stick out as a character or as iconic as others in the team (e.g. Jack, Elliot and Marina for their designs, Lars, Carmen and Elliot for their attitudes towards the team and other people around them in general).

This, however, will be a topic of discussion again in a while, so please keep this in mind as we move on to the next point in this analysis.

1. The aftermath of C42 and C56

This seems to be the starting point of this whole hullabaloo, and understandably so. Angela had just murdered someone, betrayed us, and tried to frame other people for it (C42) and of course, people were upset about it, yet there were still those who had hope for her and tried to sympathize with her. And then came C56, where she returned, but as a colder, more aggressive version of herself that has pledged loyalty to SOMBRA and was willing to carry out their orders so dutifully that she was willing to plant a bomb. This, of course, likely fueled the hate and people had more of a reason to hate her when she made fun of Dupont’s death. Although one take in particular did stand out to me (and not in a good way):

The idea that she doesn’t genuinely love Lars.

Yes, I do understand that this is a very old take from 2016 and things may change from there, but I would just like to highlight how dangerous it is to perceive characters this way. Takes like these erase the complexities of her writing and essentially reduce her— someone who has had to make a lot of hard decisions to even be with Lars, which became the basis of the person she was up to that point— into a nothing more than a caricature of how people think morally gray characters should be based on whether or not they are deemed “good” or “bad” in the traditional sense.

I also do think certain plot holes in PS’s handling of her character in the final case also contributed to it. It felt ridiculous to see how a character whose most defining trait is being family oriented suddenly turned cold and bitter towards her old team, unhesitatingly claiming that they were enemies now as if their previous friendships did not matter. Maybe this was where the idea that she’s manipulative and/or possessive came from: since she was still clinging onto Lars and the triplets (that her literal last wish was to see them again) while showing this lack of compassion that would be unnatural to her past self.

With that said, the fact that she wasn’t as memorable as a main character but was more iconic as a traitor/antagonist did contribute to mixed opinions from the fandom back then. While a lot of people seemed to be mad at the things she’s done, there were some who thought it made her more interesting as a character. I guess it depends on subjective interpretation in this case, though unfortunately, back when WE first came out, many people fell into the mindset of black-and-white morality, and end up hamfisting complex and nuanced characters into extremes based on whether or not they like them.

2. Fanon/“Yandere” Angela

Following the events of WE, this seems to be a very common fandom perception of her. This subject is somewhat hard to accurately put into words, but I will try my best to give my analysis and thoughts on it, so please correct me if I get something wrong.

For those who don’t know, this is what a yandere is supposedly defined as:

TL;DR: yanderes are known to be violent, possessive and obsessed with a particular love interest. This may even go to the extent of hurting any potential “rivals” or even their love interests themselves.

If you have been in the fandom long enough, and especially if you’re into WE or Angela, you might find that there have been numerous fanfics that described her this way: as an absolutely horrible person who abuses and even stalks Lars in some, along with getting upset when others get close to him.

It may have originated from Wattpad, where there were two fics (afaik) focused on the concept of Angela being a yandere in itself. This, and considering the fact that there is barely any fan material of Angela (most especially fics) and that almost every fic that has her in it at the time either has her play an antagonistic role or use her as a plot device (usually for other ships to happen) may have contributed to the whole idea of her being a “yandere” that was almost universally accepted as the basis of her character in fics.

There is also that perceived manipulation and “sociopathy” from earlier that may have contributed to the idea of yandere Angela. A common fandom perception of her is that Angela has a warped idea of what love is and ends up displaying unhealthy/dangerous behaviors towards Lars as a result of her obsession (which she perceives as “love”). And as a result, she ends up resorting to actual criminal behavior in some of these fics: stalking Lars, physically abusing him and in one extreme case, even raped him. (Disclaimer: I will not be naming any of these fics since I do not condone hate or harassment towards the authors, nor do I want to further trigger anyone reading this by openly naming said content.)

This may have also been a big factor in contributing to Angela hate as the normalization of this depiction of her has led to people almost unanimously accepting this as her actual character.

I would like to say that I very much disagree with this take on her character. While yes, it is true that Angela does have questionable morality (e.g. she understands that what SOMBRA did to children is wrong and actively condemns it, yet was willing to blow up the Bureau hq knowing that Elliot and Sanjay are inside), her love for Lars seems to be genuine and even healthy for the most part. Time and time again, she has shown that she really loves him— hell, her laptop password even has his name on it.

3. Popularization of these misconceptions

As these fics were the only depiction of Angela in the fandom for a time, they are, by far, the most infamous depiction of her. This, along with the “I hate her because she’s a bad person and did bad things” majority, has then led to her getting this much hate from the fandom.

Moreover, there was a time in 2023 where there’s an influx in WE-centered fics, and that also resulted in most of the anti-Angela fics for the most part. This may explain the more recent hate directed towards her as compared to characters from other seasons.

Conclusion

Much of the hate towards Angela in particular stems from both severe misinterpretation of canon events and her character’s actions/intentions, and this version of her being extremely popularized to the point where people treated it like it’s actually her. The former mostly applies to around the time WE was still ongoing to after it ended (2016-2017 ish) while the latter could explain the more recent hate. Fortunately, it seems as though more people have the media literacy to read along the nuances of her character and understand her intentions before forming an opinion.

Anyways this was A LOT— probably even longer than the Carmen/Angela post but I’ve been thinking about this for just as long (there was a time I was afraid to admit I liked her because of how hated she was). Thank you for listening to my TED Talk, I guess.

[senka-mesecine]

Please. Barnes is jealous that the reader is talking to another soldier. (sorry if my english is wrong)

I Oughta Be God.

Robert Barnes x Reader.

-

wonderful gif by @woman-with-no-name

-

-"You done waxin' poetic with that boy?"-

-"Sir?"-

-"Waxin' poetic. You just about done?"-

Sergeant Barnes's voice halts you mid stride and you stop to look at him, unable to immediately process what it was he meant only for it to hit you like a stray bullet; You did the unthinkable and supposedly broke all conduct protocol. You took the effort to show some human empathy towards one of the short timers whose toes literally threatened to decay inside of his own boots due to the long marches and the potent cocktail of near constant humidity. One thing these men needed was some kindness and you intended to show it to them to maintain some vestige of humanity among the ranks, wanting to lead by quiet day-to-day example, deciding to stand your ground on the matter. This was a question of morale. -"Tropical ulcer. Jungle rot."- You explain matter-of-factly, hugging your equipment close to your chest almost as a shield of sorts, introspective enough to confess to yourself that the man frightened you even while he was there indulging in the seemingly unassuming hobby of sitting down, playing cards with a couple of his eerily silent men, heads kept down, like he slightly frightened them too. -"I have to talk to him about it, sir. I'm sorry. The nature of it is purely informative."- You add, portraying the blunt banality of the topic. People around here needed to understand the illnesses they suffered from and how to prevent them from happening again in the future. It was literally your job, outside of helping them, to explain deterrent measures.

Sergeant Barnes didn't seem to agree.

-"Y'need to be treatin' him and makin' sure his toes don't go fallin' off and stickin' to his goddamn boots like paste. Not talkin'. Ain' no talkin' gonna fix him now."-

His heavy drawl is there laced with ample sarcasm dripping through like poison almost like he intended to imply your patient was done for, long since dead already, written off and that there was no helping him; now that --- it pushes your buttons hard and even though you knew he cared for his men in his own strange way, the callous way he talked about potential harm reeked of unnecessary cruelty. You tended to let a great many wry remarks around camp go in through one ear and out the other, but however calm you intended to be, you decide to cut the crap for lack of a better word. -"I didn't realize speaking to the men on base is against regulations or forbidden, sir, all due respect."- You retort, calmly --- as calmly and as kindly as you could so the point would be more poignant, not blurred by a freakout. Barnes gives you a look. Strange and half lidded that could almost be translated as sure is if I say it is. A deck of playing cards still in his hands, you gulp, feeling the need to clarify yourself once he says nothing more, minding his game instead, for the moment anyway. His sudden silences tended to make you nervous. Was impossible to know what he was thinking. -"I'm talking to you right now, sir, aren't I?"- You ask, trying to alleviate the tension; if the rules were the same for everyone technically you were wasting valuable time going back and forth that you could've been spent preparing Morepenicillin, Metronidazole and a general cocktail of anti-fungal antibiotics for that poor private's foot.

-"I own your ass out here. You belong to me, beaut."-

He shoots back suddenly, focusing his gaze back at you.

Your breath hitches.

Was nothing new, Barnes telling people he owns them, flat out.

He did it on a near daily basis, in fact.

When he says it to you, though ---

Beaut. The general scrambled nature of your brain right about now allows you to process that he's called you beaut ten seconds later than the actual moniker was uttered, leaving your mind in chaos as you tried to quickly deduce and decide if he was mocking you, being sarcastic again, trying to put you down or ---

The men seated around him around him are as silent as the grave. No snickering.

They weren't even looking at you, hyperfocused on their respective stacks instead.

-"I'm the only one y'all should be talkin' to and that includes you more than anyone."-

Barnes assesses himself and for some reason you find yourself tongue tied, unsure what to say to that without directly arguing with your superior, your better instinct overshadowed by some chemical in your brain that irrationally made you weigh the idea. Resent it yet weigh it. The idea of only ever talking to Barnes. You legs cannot move from where you were standing. You felt that you could only really move if he told you. He tilts his head, lips pressed into a hard line, setting down his cards on the table from the box he was seated on. Full House. Suddenly, the load of medications, needles and syringes you were carrying, having felt weightless a moment ago feels as heavy as a boulder in your arms now. What was this conversation even? -"I oughta be God to you."- He looks straight at you then and you could swear your legs were on the verge of crumbling from underneath you. The company of men around him falling into such a deep state of general quietude you could practically hear them all breathe around a makeshift table of beer cans, ashtrays and cigarette buds. Unwittingly and intrusively you imagine Barnes as a shadow looming over the jungle perimeters like God himself, swallowing you whole, finding a rare mercy when he nods his head wordlessly, giving you dismissal. Only then do you feel your legs move. Once he allows them to. His command that you spare your words only for him seemed non-enforceable but he nonetheless gives the order with such quiet gravitas you believe it to be.

Almost like a sort of magic.

-"Understood, sir."-

You mutter, getting the hell on out of his presence as fast as you could.

Fearing you could get burned if you stayed.

W --- what was that?

Did he really give you a direct order to never speak to anyone but him ever again?

[springlockedfool]

What are your thoughts on canon william?

Okay, TEXT WALL UNDER THE CUT. But before we get into that, I want to say one important thing: I firmly believe all interpretations of William Afton can be valid. Hands down. While I will be speaking about the broader ones I disagree with, it's only because you asked my opinion, and I don't mind how people choose to portray him in their own media.

I know a lot of folks like to try and stick to canon only and use passages from the books to justify his behavior and motivations, but the problem with that (in my eyes) is that they're not consistent (the books, not the people). One of my big pet peeves is the assertion that William is not impulsive/doesn't feel compulsions and that he is some mastermind.

That is simply not true. We see multiple examples of William being incredibly impulsive to the point of his own detriment, and that he may very well suffer from compulsions. The most obvious example being his continued killing sprees after he has been outed in the community as the most likely suspect.

If you want to use the novel trilogy for the basis of 'canon' William, I'll point to a few moments in them.

Firstly, lingering in Hurricane under a false identity. Consider how much effort he would have to put into becoming this new person, how he would have to adjust his mannerisms, schedule, habits, appearance and more. This was not, in my mind, some calculated maneuver he made.

Sure, it would take cunning and diligence, but you have to remember the reason behind his decision to do it. William Afton could not control his need to kill, at least not very well. Some point to him caring more about experiments, but that isn't true either, because as 'Dave Miller' in TSE, he clearly states that he stays with the children's souls for whatever reason.

He reiterates this fact in TFC, wherein he adopts yet another facade this one being the 'I'm so superior I'm a mad scientist' one, and he dismisses his previous behavior as borderline delusional. There's no denying that he's intelligent, yes, but he is a slave to his whims in the end, always.

William's impulsiveness can be seen in both the books and the games.

Midnight Motorist, obviously pretty unhinged behavior and implied to potentially be the same night he killed Charlie (another impulsive act, one of opportunity).

His visit to the FNAF 2 facility, where he cannot help but tinker with the animatronics and kill again, despite the danger of capture or harm. William did not even stick around here for long, he just killed and left. Because it's all he really cared about.

Accosting the teens in the novel trilogy. William is very much outnumbered, and the animatronics recognize him as their murderer since he is not in the spring bonnie suit most of the time. Even though the others are just a bunch of teens, he's only one man. And still, he couldn't stop himself from kidnapping one.

In what world does a super genius mastermind look at this situation and think "Ah, I have the advantage here"? You can argue that it was hubris, which it definitely was, but it certainly wasn't the work of some genius.

Not to mention the absolutely baffling decision to send in his resume to the very same damn cop who arrested him back in the day, even if he had lost some weight, Clay very clearly recognized him immediately.

I could go on and on about this but in conclusion, William Afton is absolutely impulsive, may suffer from a compulsion to kill akin to other serial killers that would be to his own disadvantage because he cannot stop himself, and the only real experiments he ever ran that we know of were not at all that ingenious.

The nightmare gas facility and the scooper are probably the most advanced ones we ever see, and even then, it's not like these ideas are carefully calculated steps of precision. Mans made animatronics that would swipe children and then kept them underground to poison the air and see what happened.

Being the only animatronic rental service around, there's no way parents wouldn't start catching on had it gone on long enough. Zero chance. And there would've been even less chance that he could have continued it indefinitely.

So, in my opinion, William Afton is far more pathetic, cowardly, impulsive and self conscious than most folks seem to think. I'm gonna end that here so I don't keep rambling, although I could for hours, bah.

[sweetpapercroissant]

When I think about s13-15 I can’t help but feel that Dabb was simply not interested in telling Sam&Dean’s story (anymore) (if he ever was). s12 is a little rocky regarding this too, but it’s still unmistakable that they’re the protagonists, this story is their story. But it’s evident from the start of s13 that he’s not willing to put in that effort anymore.

He introduces Jack and the rest of the season is focused on him, one way or the other. Even the mytharc of the season is about him, from being trapped in the apocalypse world, making a place for himself with the hunters, trying to figure out who he is. And meanwhile the actual protagonists of the show are…..running around chasing leads but actually accomplishing very little. They take turns being sad, make a few speeches but don’t really do anything. They are not the ones who move the story.

He downplays (if not outright erases) all of the older characters’ intelligence to make them fit the story and doesn’t bother with consistent growth/arc for any of them. He beats and forces them to fit the shape he’s cut out for them to portray in his story instead of understanding them: who they were, how they grew and where they are now and logically advancing their story from that point. He makes them regress or progress on a moment’s notice on an episode-to-episode basis and ignores any preceding canonical events when it suits him.

It’s most noticeable with Dean but he also takes away from Sam and Cas’ characters till they’re almost unrecognisable, bearing only the most superficial of similarities with the characters we have grown to love over 10+ seasons. But at the same time he also relies on this very love to keep the viewers watching, since the plot itself is barely held together by retcons or sudden personality changes/loss of logical reasoning in the characters.

There have been discussions on how, as the show goes on the themes (even the genre) change and how vastly different the later seasons are compared to the earlier ones and while that’s true, there is still some coherence to those changes-a graphical line changing direction erratically perhaps, but a line nonetheless-as the story progresses….upto s12. Forward of that Dabb just-tears the graph to pieces and handpicks a few of them to nail to the wall.

He twists the characters, their history, their personalities, the themes and events of the story and it’s very heart to fit the show he wants to make instead of adapting his writing to the show that he’s actually been handed the reins to. And it’s tiring honestly.

I do believe that when a character behaves in a manner you find ooc, it can be interesting to think about why they may act that way instead of immediately blaming the writing, even if the writing may actually be the issue, because I think it can make for a more entertaining narrative sometimes, and because no one always acts true to who they are. It’s the point of being human. But that can only be applied to particular moments and decisions or behaviour concerning a certain element of the story (another character, an event etc). If your audience can barely recognise any of the characters, there’s only the writing to blame.

[dailyanarchistposts]

In India as elsewhere, anarchist thought is widely misunderstood. As Bhagat Singh, one of the few Indian revolutionaries who had explicit anarchist leanings, put it: “The people are scared of the word anarchism. The word anarchism has been abused so much that even in India revolutionaries have been called anarchist to make them unpopular.”

How and why the anarchist tradition came to be comprehensively sidelined in India is not entirely clear. The fact is that very few left leaders, writers or activists in India think of themselves as anarchists. And yet it seems to me that many of them have drawn inspiration from anarchist thought in one way or another, and that we would greatly benefit from a more explicit recognition of this anarchist influence – actual and potential.

There are varieties of anarchist thought (some are pretty weird), just as there are varieties of socialist thought; my concern here is with what one might call cooperative anarchism or libertarian socialism. This is more or less the opposite of what anarchism is often claimed to mean by those whose aim, as Bhagat Singh put it, is to make revolutionaries unpopular. This aim is typically achieved by portraying anarchists as impulsive bomb-throwers who want to destroy the state through violent means.[1] Resistance to state authority and oppression is certainly one of the core principles of anarchism. It is also true that many anarchists believe in the possibility of a state-less society, and perhaps even in the need for a violent overthrow of the state. But anarchist thought certainly does not start from there. In fact, as Chomsky has argued, it is even possible for a committed anarchist to lend temporary support to some state institutions vis-à-vis other centres of power: “In today’s world, I think, the goals of a committed anarchist should be to defend some state institutions from the attack against them, while trying at the same time to pry them open to more meaningful public participation – and ultimately, to dismantle them in a much more free society, if the appropriate circumstances can be achieved.”[2]

If anarchist thought does not begin with the idea of a state-less society, let alone the violent overthrow of the state, where does it start from? It starts, I believe, from the same point as these lectures – a deep suspicion of all authority and a principled opposition to the concentration of power, whether it is the power of the state, the corporation, the church, the landlord or the head of a family. As Chomsky argues, this does not mean that all authority and power is illegitimate, but it does mean that if it cannot be justified, it must be dismantled.

Some people believe, against all evidence, that power becomes harmless if it is exercised on behalf of the working class. This is the basis of the hope that a “dictatorship of the proletariat” would pave the way for the withering away of the state and a state-less society. The dangers of this idea were exposed early on by anarchist thinkers such as Michael Bakunin, a contemporary of Karl Marx, who said: “I wonder how Marx fails to see that… the establishment of such a dictatorship would be enough to kill the revolution and distort all popular movements”.

The fact that anarchist thinkers predicted with great clarity what would happen in societies based on an apparent dictatorship of the proletariat is not the least reason why it is worth paying more attenion to them. Similarly, anarchist thought can help us to develop a healthy suspicion of various forms of vanguardism, including the notion that left intellectuals are the vanguard of the proletariat. This notion is of course a terrific deal for intellectuals, since it puts them in command. Vanguardism found a fertile soil in India with its long tradition of Brahminism, guru worship, and deference to authority in general. It is at variance with the spirit of anarchism, which includes a basic faith in people’s ability to take charge of their own lives and struggles.

Indeed, anarchist thought and libertarian socialism are not limited to a fundamental critique of power and authority – far from it. They also build on constructive ideas about social relations and economic organization, including voluntary association, mutual aid, self-management, and the principle of federation. The basic idea is that a good society would consist, as John Dewey put it, of “… free human beings associated with one another on terms of equality”.

One of the most eloquent exponents of the power of free association and voluntary cooperation was Peter Kropotkin, the 19th-century anarchist and author of Mutual Aid. A zoologist and geographer by profession, Kropotkin spent many years in Siberia, where he observed countless examples of mutual aid among animals. Just to give one example, he observed how, just before the winter, large numbers of deer would gather from hundreds of miles around and congregate at the precise point of a river (the Amur) where it was narrow enough for a large herd to be able to cross it safely and reach greener pastures on the other side.[3] He concluded that cooperative behaviour is a plausible outcome of biological evolution – an idea that is being rediscovered today by evolutionary biologists and game theorists.

Kropotkin went on to study cooperation in human societies (which involves much more than biological evolution) and documented in great detail how mutual aid played a pervasive role at all stages of human history, despite being often repressed by the privileged and powerful. More than a hundred years after the publication of Mutual Aid, we have many more examples of human activities and institutions based on principles of voluntary association and mutual aid. Anarchist principles of political action have played an important role in the international peace movement, the environmental movement, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Arab Spring, the Chiapas uprising, the World Social Forum and the right to information movement in India. There have been vibrant experiments with workers’ cooperatives and self-management in Spain, Argentina, and Kerala, and also other examples of economic applications of anarchist principles such as the free software movement. In India, the social organization of many tribal communities is still based on a strong tradition of mutual aid and participatory democracy, evident for instance in institutions like exchange labour and Gram Sabhas.

Even the edifice of electoral democracy rests on a simple act of mutual aid, namely participation in elections: voting does not involve any personal gain for anyone, since a single person’s vote cannot influence the outcome of elections, and yet most people do vote, often losing a day’s wages and braving long queues, harsh weather or even physical danger. Without mutual cooperation, there would be no democracy, even in the most elementary form of electoral democracy. As this example illustrates, mutual cooperation does not necessarily require altruism or self-sacrifice; it can also build on simple habits of thought (specifically, habits of sociability and public-spiritedness) that an enlightened society should be able to foster.

Coming back to the left tradition in India, elements of anarchist thought can be found in one form or another in the life and writings of many Indian thinkers, even if they never thought of themselves as anarchists, and indeed were not anarchists. I have already mentioned Bhagat Singh, who had clear anarchist sympathies. Just to give one or two other examples, Ambedkar was not an anarchist by any means and yet we can find traces of anarchist thought in his writings, for instance his notion of democracy as a “mode of associated living” based on “liberty, equality and fraternity”. I think that many anarchists would also be proud of Periyar, who taught people to resist the oppression of caste, patriarchy and religion and have faith in themselves. Even some leading Marxist thinkers belong here: for instance, Ashok Rudra’s critique of “the intelligentsia as a ruling class” has some affinity with Chomsky’s analysis of the role of intellectuals in the modern world. Also within the Marxist tradition, here is something K. Balagopal (one of India’s most committed and thoughtful left activists) wrote around the end of his lifelong engagement with a variety of popular struggles:

“What seems to be required are ‘localised’ (both spatially and socially) movements that are specific enough to bring out the full potential and engender the full self-realisation of various oppressed groups, subsequently federated into a wider movement that can (in a free and democratic way) channelise the aroused energies into a broad movement. This is quite different from the Leninist notion of a single vanguard party that would centralise all knowledge within itself and direct (top down) the struggles of the suppressed masses. In such an effort, the suppressed masses would not even be half awakened to their potential. Even if such a party were to claim that it learns from the people, and even if [it] were to honestly try to do so, the very strategy would be inadequate. If there can at all be a single ‘party’ which would lead a movement for social transformation, it can only be a federally structured organisation, whose free and equal units would be the political units, centred on the self-directed struggles of various sections of the deprived.”[4]

This sounds to me like anarchist thought par excellence. As I have illustrated earlier, anarchist principles are alive not just in Indian political thought but also in social life and popular movements. None of this is to say that the time has come to embrace anarchism (or libertarian socialism) and give up other schools of thought. But greater openness to anarchist ideas would certainly bring some fresh air. For instance, I believe that anarchist thought could help us to think more clearly about the relation between caste and class, beware of all authoritarianism, enlarge our understanding of democracy, and open our eyes to the workings of power (for instance, patriarchy and caste discrimination) within our own movements. Last but not least, anarchist thought can inspire us to change the world without waiting for state power, and give us confidence that democratic struggles here and now can be, as Bakunin put it, “the living seeds of the new society which is to replace the old world”.

[1] Bhagat Singh did throw a bomb once (in the chamber of the Central Legislative Assembly), but it was little more than a firecracker and the gesture was largely symbolic. There were no casualties.

[2] Chomsky (1996), Powers and Prospects: Reflections on Human Nature and the Social Order (London: Pluto), p. 75. This statement must be read in the light of the distinction Chomsky makes between “goals” and “visions” (p. 70): “By visions, I mean the conception of a future society that animates what we actually do, a society in which a decent human being might want to live. By goals, I mean the choices and tasks that are within reach, that we will pursue one way or another guided by a vision that may be distant and hazy.”

[3] Kropotkin, Peter (1902), Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (London: Heinemann), Chapter 2.

[4] Balagopal, K. (2011), “Popular Struggles: Some Questions for Communist Theory and Practice”, in Ear to the Ground (New Delhi: Navayana), p. 375.

[rachthepoet]

Satellite Analysis

There's always one song from an artist's release that their following chooses to adopt as their own, and Satellite quickly became the said embraced, and it's not hard to puzzle together why that is. Musically, it's atmospheric and pleasing to the ears, and the shifts in intensity offer stompin' dance breaks. It's impossible to not shimmy your shoulders when listening — believe me, I've tried. Distinct from the danceability, though, is a tenderness so dear that it flies under the radar. And maybe not so separated, as the production and music even aid it when listened closely.

As a song, it delves into the complexities of a relationship where communication and connection seem to be drifting apart. Painting a picture of someone trying to reach out to another, for they're no longer in each others' lives. It's a longing for dialogue and reconnection as the emotional distance is ever highlighted through extended metaphor. It takes the simplistic human desire and nature for companionship and dips it into an intoxicating otherworldly basis.

Here's a deep dive into Harry Styles' Satellite, from a poet.

Satellite, A Metaphor 🛰️

Felt like Augustus Waters typing that just now. Anywho. The song orbits around an extended metaphor, with a symbol strong enough to stand alone at the heart. The Satellite. And understanding it all thoroughly is the key to understanding this piece in all its wonder.

First, let's talk about the symbol itself. A satellite is, by dictionary definition, an artificial body placed in orbit around the earth, moon, or another planet to collect information or for communication. In this scenario, the satellite is an extension of the speaker as the speaker has become much like the satellite itself. Got it? And I feel like it's relevant to mention how the relationship between a satellite and the object it is orbiting is often a give-and-take dynamic. The satellite will send signals to the object and the object keeps the satellite connected. And, when there's a disconnection — a break in the two's casual communication — there's a need for recalibration — seeking that connection with the other person again.

Now, time for the grandiose metaphor at play. The feeling being portrayed is one of being stuck in perpetual orbit — close yet distant, constantly revolving around the person they care about without being able to connect. A distinct emotional distance carries on through the whole song, and there's not a clear resolution — which is something I actually prefer, for that's not how things truly are. Sometimes one is just stuck in perpetual orbit. He utilizes the celestial to explore themes of longing, unrequited dynamics, and the struggle to maintain connection when life pulls people in different directions. But, even in this melancholia, there's a balance with an added sense of hopefulness, for he remains present and waiting.

Lyric Pull Apart

[VERSE 1] You got a new life Am I bothering you? Do you wanna talk? We share the last line Then we drink the wall 'til we wanna talk

In the very first line, You got a new life, which straight away addresses that a significant shift has taken place. The receiver's day-to-day schedule differs from what it used to be, and, as I find he likes to do within his writing, this can be taken literally and metaphorically. In the literal sense, they are busier, have more activities or responsibilities than previously, etcetera. Yet, metaphorically, the receiver's perspective on things has changed significantly since the last time the two were close (emotionally, physically, or both).

Then, from the second line onward, he's already tip-toeing around the desire to start a conversation, spark a connection, and initiate this recalibration. Yet, due to his insecurities, there's an underlying fear of being a bother to them — unsure if they share the same desire for rectification — but still asks if they can speak.

Issues in communication are present consistently in his catalog of pieces, whether in relationship to the self or within relationships. I find this essential to explore, the patterns in someone's work and the evolution. Each time it has been referenced in the past, the representation surfaced in two ways: (i) a general resistance to communicate/refusing to take the blame for issues sprawled in front of him; (ii) waiting for a conversation to begin without doing anything himself to initiate it. But, things are different now. And this is a common theme across the "Harry's House" album, where lots of his old themes are present but have evolved to something more reflective and mature. Now, he's initiating, inviting the person to connect with him after time estranged. Stepping over that fear and continuing to try. Do you wanna talk? Because I really want to! I do!

The last two lines, We share the last line / Then we drink the wall 'til we wanna talk, are where, admittedly, I got a bit muddled at first. I concluded that we're in the midst of another literal and metaphorical situation, where it can be taken both ways with upheld substance, much like the nature of the first line. Literally, also known as prominent drug/alcohol references, it would make sense. There's this pre-determined need to not be sober when reopening communication, perhaps to be more honest and open to the more difficult things that could come. They need to remove some of the tension built up. In this case, drinking the wall leads to a wine rack. The other option is spinning yourself into the more abstract, with Then we drink the wall 'til we wanna talk being another variation on breaking down the walls. Walls and tension have been built up, and they need to evaporate it sip by sip.

Also, an additional sentiment is that We share the last line could be referring to the line preceding inside this very song. The line that comes before that ending couplet is: Am I bothering you? Do you wanna talk? And I love the idea of referencing a song inside said song. Feels like a lite version of a matryoshka doll. Anyway. Since "we" is used here, there can be an assumed sense of mutuality where both wish to communicate (another difference and progression from themes in previous albums, interesting to note). So, they share the last line, Do you wanna talk?, as that's the initiation for said communication.

[PRE-CHORUS] I go 'round and 'round Satellite

This is where that grandiose metaphor comes in. The speaker compares himself to a satellite going around and around a planet, which in turn is someone he considers his world or a big center of gravity to his life, even after their connection has broken. The purpose of the artificial satellite is communication, but it's kept at a perfect distance from the body around which it orbits — the receiver needs their space, so he's quite literally giving them space. Even in the metaphors residing in space, you have to smile at wordplay.

Additionally, the phrasing I go 'round and 'round represents the satellite's orbit pattern, but I theorize there's a second connotation alluding to repetitiveness. He spins 'round and 'round over and over, letting himself be known, but the other person won't open the door. And it wouldn't be the first time in "Harry's House" that there was a cyclical ideation, soon to be seen in the song Boyfriends that follows directly after.

[CHORUS] Spinnin' out, waitin' for ya to pull me in I can see you're lonely down there Don't you know that I am right here? Spinnin' out, waitin' for ya to pull me in I can see you're lonely down there Don't you know that I am right here?

He's spinning out in orbit and waits, Waitin' for ya to pull me in, and that's all he can do. All that can be done is to circle around the person and quietly observe them. And one of these observations that he makes is that the person is lonely, I can see you're lonely down there. There are many conclusions one can come to to fathom the reasoning behind this, but, to remain within the context of the song -- he believes they're lonely in terms of them being left alone to think about their thoughts, thoughts they previously shared with him in moments of emotional intimacy. The said emotional intimacy he's orbiting around, trying to recalibrate and bring back connection. He desperately wants to be a part of these conversations again. Even deeper, the isolated down there phrasing could be a play on the common saying of someone feeling down, which can contribute to an emotional shutout, which then, further, contributes to the disconnection.

Don't you know that I am right here? is the core question of the piece. The speaker has made it clear that this orbiting is done with his own will, but there's also frustration, wondering how long he can go on in this cyclical desperation to reconnect. There's melancholy and desperation as he observes the other meticulously, and sees they're lonely. But he's always been there, and they either don't realize or refuse to. Therefore, it leads him to a moment of pondering, wondering: Don't you know that I'm here for you? To communicate and help you through? I can see you're lonely down there, but I'm here with open arms, so you don't have to be anymore. I'm waiting for your green light to eliminate this tense space between us.

And that leads perfectly to the double meaning of Spinnin' out: the more colloquial meaning is another way to express that someone is panicking, which could be an emotion surfaced because of this distance and space between. Then, if one wants to dive deeper, you bring in the following Waitin' for ya to pull me in, which can have an accompanying meaning of gravity to tie in with the celestial theme — he's waiting for them to take him by the hand, both metaphorically and literally, and show reciprocation in the desire for reconnection.

[VERSE 2] I'm in a L.A. mood I don't wanna talk to you She said, "Give me a day or two"

The second verse and the first are opposites, and that's interesting. And, in my guesses, there are two separate readings possible, and depends on perspective. Whether you read it from the speaker's mouth or the receiver's.

Starting with the latter, this second verse is a response. And it shouldn't be lost how the length is shorter and more brief. When considering this being from the receiver to the speaker, it comes off as dismissive. A shutdown of the hand of the speaker's reaching out, as the receiver quickly asks for more space and time, Give me a day or two, with a brief explanation, I'm in a L.A. mood, while sneaking in the real intention in this stalling, I don't wanna talk to you. Though he's constantly open to reconnection, the other is not.

Now, if there's no perspective change, the speaker's reverting back to old habits in reaction to frustration. A prime example of the reaction to the action, or in this case nonaction, is how he regresses back to his struggle with communication and says in the most obvious manner: I don't wanna talk to you. It's a bit jarring after the song thus far shows a desire, almost desperation, for communication. But there's some more reasoning, and it lies in the line before, I'm in a L.A. mood. He's using the phrase to embody the professional and work mood and mindset, and how one usually compartmentalizes work and private life. I'm shoving it into the back of my mind for now, which could also provoke a bad mood as well. Followed then with She said, "Give me a day or two", maybe either bringing in the other perspective briefly or just an encouragement to keep himself focused for another day or two. A bit of a sloppy interpretation, but one nonetheless, and I hope it all made sense as I tried to verbalize it.

[PRE-CHORUS AND CHORUS REPETITION]

[BRIDGE] Right here, right here Spinnin' out, waitin' for ya I'm here, right here Wishin' I could be there for ya Be there for ya Be there for ya, for ya For ya Be there for ya

The beloved bridge, and very much well-loved by myself, as well. What began as an easy, swaying, otherworldly melody has now built up to an explosion of emotions expressed. The frustration amplifies, as he keeps being turned away again and again. As the speaker waits for them to see him and listen, the receiver doesn't seem to be able to reciprocate. Though his care for them remains genuine and prominent, the impatience courses vigorously. All his frustration builds up from the first verse and progresses through the piece, leading up to right now, the bridge we all love, as he lets it all out. He yells. He cries louder. He's right there.

This is the visual I get in my hand. A ghostly figure of the speaker in front of the receiver, with his hand on their shoulders, but they're unable to feel his touch. But he's trying to shake them, and trying to make them see again and again that he's right here. I'm here, right here sounds comforting, like he's trying to give solace to his other. I'm here. You're not alone, you don't need to be lonely. Then, he continues on to say Wishin' I could be there for ya which illustrates the emotional distance and physical distance simultaneously, as he cries out that extra mile about how he just wishes so deeply he could be there for them.

Satellite is grounding your partner while floating in their gravity, waiting for them to pull you in and let you be there for them. It makes me think of long nights, at the end of summer, when you lay outside on a picnic blanket and finally bear your soul out to someone under the stars to the soundtracks of the season. The music makes you feel like you’re floating into another place and time. It’s like a cacophony, the musicality of the song reflecting Harry’s exasperation. Whirring guitars, sun-dappled synths, and even cymbals bloom all over the song, and it all sticks with you for a long time.

dedicated to this anon and this anon <3

Thank you for reading, you’re absolutely incredible! If there are any songs you’d like me to make an analysis of, please send your request to my inbox! along with any questions or insights you might have yourself!

[slugtranslation-hypmic]

Hey Slug! I've been baffled over this for a while now and realized I could just ask you for your opinion. Names. Specifically, Hypmic characters mostly using first names to address each other. I- I'm obviously not all that familiar with Japanese traditions, I'm just the usual anime nerd, but I thought I had a grasp on how people use names over there by now and Hypmic is kinda confusing me? Why do they all use first names to address each other? But sometimes people still use last names??

Short answer: Because, for the most part, the people talking to each other are close friends in casual settings.

Long answer: Using first names vs last names has to do with the level of emotional distance between speaker and listener. Regardless of language, we all adjust the level of formality we speak at depending on whether we're talking to close friends, acquaintances, strangers, or authority figures. It's not socially appropriate to present yourself as best buds with your boss or teacher. Similarly, you might jokingly call a close pal a bitch, but this level of closeness would be inappropriate for a coworker. In Japanese, emotional distance is more strictly codified than in English via varying degrees of polite language, name honorifics, and first name vs last name, but the basic idea involved isn't especially different from English. Most of the people we talk to on a day-to-day basis are classmates and coworkers. If you speak Japanese in your work or school setting, you'll likely use last names for the classmates and coworkers you don't know especially well ("Yamamoto-kun's the guy I sit next to in math, but we don't hang out after school or anything." "Satou-san and I both have the opening shift on Tuesdays, and I chat with her whenever we're on break at the same time. But we don't text outside of work or anything." These kinds of people.) because you have a sense of emotional distance from them. For those you feel closer to and would consider a friend, one way of indicating that closeness is by using their first names. For really close friends or romantic partners, you can drop honorifics altogether to indicate that you feel super, super close to them. (As a side note, some people aren't comfortable doing this at all and still refer to best friends and romantic partners with honorifics. That's largely a matter of personality.) We see Hypmic characters doing this for their classmates and coworkers in rare instances of classroom or workplace scenes, but the majority of Hypmic takes place outside of these settings. Since each team is comprised of close pals hanging out, there's no need to put up a barrier of emotional distance. Some notable exceptions:

The characters who were once close pals but have since had falling outs still largely use first names for one another sans honorifics. This is meant as a deliberate insult, since they're no longer close enough for this lack of distance to be acceptable. Sound confusing? Let's go back to the bitch example for a minute. Calling your best friend a bitch? Probably fine. Calling someone you had a fight with a bitch? Yeaaaah, no, that doesn't fly. Same deal here.

Even when they're friends in TDD, Ichirou still calls Samatoki "Samatoki-san" because he treats Samatoki like an older, respected figure. He doesn't want to try and portray himself as on Samatoki's level. The "-san" is dropped after their fallout because he no longer looks up to Samatoki.

Jirou and Saburou call Ichirou various affectionate derivatives of "oniisan" or "aniki" instead of his first name. "Aniki" is a matter of respect, but "Ichi-nii" and "niichan" are more about social custom than respect for Ichirou based on his individual merits. Even if you're an English speaker who feels very close to your parents, you probably aren't on a first-name basis with them due to social customs. It's the same idea here. Japanese-speaking siblings can be super close to one another and still use variants of oniisan/oneesan even while otherwise speaking to their sibling like a close friend. Many other languages share similar customs.

Ditto for Nemu calling Samatoki "oniichan."

Ramuda calls almost everyone by their first name (usually without honorifics or with overly familiar honorifics) in a way that is socially inappropriate. He's stating that he feels very, very close to the listener, regardless of whatever the listener thinks. This is in line with Ramuda's extremely outgoing persona and the "everyone's idol" trope. He gives his love to EVERYONE! He's best buds with EVERYONE! But plenty of people (rightfully) find it off-putting or boundary smashing. It's another example of the way Ramuda breaks social conventions, especially in a cute or childish way. Like "Oops, tee-hee! I'm just too young and adorable to know better! I just wanna be your friend :3"

Even when they were close friends, Jakurai never called Ramuda by his first name. He instead uses "Amemura-kun" (as an aside, Jakurai attaches "-kun" to most of the cast members' names because they're a fair deal younger than him. It's not demeaning. It actually conveys some degree of warmth) which leaves some measure of distance between them at all times. It's not explicitly stated exactly why he does this. It's reasonable to assume TDD!Jakurai has some reservations about getting close to Ramuda, although it's debatable whether this is due to suspicion about Ramuda's behavior, trauma from his fight with Hitoya, or simply an attempt to establish socially acceptable distance because Ramuda utterly fails to do so. (Also, I think Jakurai might combust into a ball of embarrassed flames if he tries, but that's neither here nor there.)

Very, very significantly, Doppo and Hifumi never refer to Jakurai by name, instead using some variant of "sensei." They mean this in a good way--they respect him a lot--but as Jakurai occasionally comments on, this creates a sense of distance between them that he doesn't like. He wants to be treated like an equal instead of being placed on a slight pedestal above his other two friends.

Since I'm talking about honorifics here too, Juushi calls Hitoya and Kuukou "Hitoya-san" and "Kuukou-san" even when they don't return the favor. Like I mentioned previously, this strikes me as a matter of personality. It's not that Hitoya and Kuukou disrespect Juushi or that Juushi doesn't consider them to be close friends, but he's just a bit shier than either of them. Well, it's not hard to be shier than Hitoya and Kuukou...

Rei is on a first-name basis with Ichijiku in an effort to be rude with her. She presumably does not want him to call her "Ichijiku-chan," but Rei most certainly does not care.

Nemu is also on a first-name basis with Ichijiku (Ichijiku-san), which I'm chalking up to the fact that she and Ichijiku do seem to be close outside of work.

Also, when characters talk about someone they don't know well, they usually use first and last name without honorific. That's pretty similar to English conventions, too. "Hey, you know that comedian Sasara Nurude?" "Hey, you know that actor Jack Black?" Same deal.

[team-magma-official]

Have you tweaked the character from canon? If so, what did you tweak?

//I am perfectly aware of the rabbit hole I am opening by asking this. I'm opening it on purpose.

[canon questionnaire]

ohoho, an enabler. i take every opportunity i can to talk worldbuilding and canon divergence in-character so this is great actually. may your harvest be bountiful or something. thank you!

this is probably going to be incredibly long-winded and ramble-y, so bear with me. i love talking about this guy.

to start, i completely threw out the "expand the land" bit. that's goofy. not as bad as archie's thing, but still. and that's the main thing--rse-era maxie does NOT give you much to work with in terms of character.

however, the stuff that is there is... interesting i guess? and i started with that for the basis of the personality he has in both my fic and this blog. first off, he's the antagonist you have the most contact with once he's introduced. you have to battle him the first three times you meet him, before ever having to battle archie. second, he has some great lines during the climax--pointing out to the player his own hypocrisy when he criticizes archie has stuck with me since i was literally ten years old. he's convinced he can't actually do anything about groudon and kyogre fighting, but he also doesn't just give up.

and he and archie both do try to help in what way they can. they don't accomplish anything, but they do try.

and THEN there's the way he was portrayed in oras, which i also pulled from despite the fic and blog being based on emerald. in oras, he acknowledges his role as the antagonist in the player's story, and leans fully into it. he's pretty clearly having a good time throughout the story and seems genuinely fond of the player, acknowledging their talent and explaining his plan to them when you meet him at chimney. he even has a speech in seafloor cavern about how it's silly but he wanted the player to be there to witness his moment of triumph--and it's worth noting that archie does NOT have an equivalent moment. oras maxie is much friendlier and more open than people give him credit for in my opinion.

so let's get into the stuff i extrapolated from all that.

in the fic, he works as an archivist in mauville, which is how he has access to information on how to wake up groudon without causing her to rampage. he's very intelligent--my friend, the mod of @official-team-magma, jokes that he's high intelligence, low wisdom. he's affable and energetic but kind of hotheaded and impulsive. i struggled with untreated adhd for most of my life, so he does too because i need the representation. he's friendly with may to the point of trying to recruit her to team magma and being open with the fact that he and his team aren't a danger to her (she's from johto and used to team rocket). he's not comfortable being perceived as threatening, especially not to a young and anxious immigrant woman who's just trying to do what she thinks is right. he's still friends with shelly and speaks highly of her despite them being on opposite sides of a conflict now. he's a safe driver.

i said once on main that if maxie asher had a d&d class, he'd be a paladin. part of the backstory for hoenn in this fic/blog is that it was almost colonized by kanto back in the early 1800s, like johto and sinnoh were. the kantans landed in the eastern islands, and when they started aggressively pushing west, the native hoennic people (including the draconids, who do exist in this continuity) pushed back. a war broke out, and only ended once someone gained groudon's favor and partnered with her.

in the present, there's no war going on, at least not in the traditional sense. but maxie's definitely trying to gain groudon's partnership to grant himself legitimacy for what he wants to accomplish--the idea being that if he has her on his side, people will listen to him.

as for what he's doing with that favor, i guess we'll see!

[ghostietea]

I waffle between thinking the fandom is misinterpreting things and thinking it's a writing fault but I find the way people talk about furubana Akito so so odd.

"Akito's family outside the zodiac would be mad at her because of the domestic abuse" WRONG Akito's family outside the zodiac got upset because she came out as a girl and said they couldn't lock a human person in kitty cat jail anymore. The idea that Akito is some poor baby who has suffered enough because the whole Sohma clan is being mean to her and her son because of the horrible shit she did in just Does Not line up with og Furuba. The family outside the zodiac did not unanimously hate Akito for being abusive she was actively encouraged and enabled to act that way and at the end of Furuba she receives pushback for trying to change things for the better! Outside the ex-cursed Akito would be a pariah for actively pushing back against tradition and bringing about the end of the curse and be accused of destroying the family or something NOT for the way she was literally conditioned from birth to behave by that very family. Take the old maid who, I feel like, should be treated not as a single evil advisor corrupting Akito (especially since she herself has been conditioned by the larger Sohma culture), but as a representative of the Sohma clan system and attitudes of its' more traditional members. With this angle, I think we can use the way she sees Akito as a good estimate of how Akito is widely seen and she, at the end, explicitly states displeasure in Akito changing for the better because she's going against the family's corrupt values.

Now, there's two ways to take Furubana Akito: 1. Akito's guilt is being weaponized against her by people that don't like the changes she made so they can hurt her without retaliation, something which lines up with the reading of the Sohma clan as cultish if not an outright cult, encouraging people to do horrible things and then using their guilt against them is a very common cult control tactic and one that has basis in the series as characters' guilt repeatedly factors into keeping them in line. We also have the fact that the faceless people who hate Akito are grouped together with Ren, and in og Furuba Ren's supporters were more critical of Akito so it lines up that they may be in league with her. You could potentially see this as an extension of Ren trying to render Akito unwilling to fight back against her abuser.

However, the reading that the fandom seems to take (and the ones I think was probably intended) is that Akito is legitimately being hurt as a response to her bad actions which... Doesn't sit right with me if that's the intention. In a way I can see why Takaya might have done it: creating stand ins for people in the audience that hate Akito being reformed, faceless people who were not her victims but still want her to be punished and suffer forever but I honestly think it cheapens Akito's original arc in favor of taking a shot at bad faith readers. Part of what is powerful about og endgame Akito is that she is defying the will of the system that used her as its weapon even though she knows she'll face disapproval and will not win back the zodiac as a reward. She is going against everything she's ever been taught because it's the right thing to do knowing it's going to be hard. She is pushing back against those who want her to be the horrible person she was before, switching the script to have her detractors all be people mad at her for that bad stuff doesn't hit. Portraying Akito as someone who's just so put down by people mad at her for the bad stuff she did and centering discussion on why she's good now on her being a good mom while ignoring a major facet of her reformation that helped show her character does her a disservice.

[lieutenant-teach]

Loki season 2 review (critical)

As usually, I’m late to the party, but the thoughts about the 2nd season have been bugging me since October 2023. Finally I organize my impressions that kept my brain working during cooking my breakfast almost every morning.

Plot

Frankly, too much quasi-sciency BS. Smth smth time loop smth smth. I just let all ‘explanations’ and ‘theoretical basis’ past my ears. Grasped the main events, not going deep into everything Ouroboros was explaining on screen. Getting my brain broken again trying to understand the logic of smth the creatives themselves didn’t bother to clear up in the writers’ room? No, thank you. Been there during ‘Avengers Endgame’, didn’t like it.

Loki

Loki becomes the main character in his own series! At last! /s Seriously, how low the fucking bar should be that the fans are glorifying the series for an absolutely natural thing – the title character, promoted everywhere as the main character, actually being the main character. And sometimes he even looked and sounded as OG Loki! Wow! \s Again, how low our expectations were so that a lot of us are happy to see these crumbs. The stupid beige suit is still on. My comments about his new costume in the finale are here.

Loki torturing Brad who’s being in the same position as he was only little time ago, and doing it with no qualms whatsoever… insisting he uses his number instead of a name… Using numbers instead of names washes away personalities, it’s a famous fascistic instrument to not see a group \ groups of people as humans. I immediately compared this situation with ‘Star Wars: The Clone Wars’ series. All good guys use names that the clones picked up for themselves (like ‘Cody’ instead of ‘CC-2224’ or ‘Rex’ instead of ‘CT-7567). Those who insist on calling them designated numbers are villains of the story. It’s obvious and natural. What’s wrong with the ‘Loki’ series creatives?

And, of course, no happy ending for Loki! Alone forever on a throne he never wanted. Actually, I didn’t understand if he could move from there. I read fans saying ‘he can travel through all time and space now’, but I didn’t find any creators’ comments about it, and the series never confirm so either.

Sylvie

How fucking annoying she was!

Seriously, this season changed my perception of Sylvie to the worse. When I watched the 1st season, I had no feelings about her. She didn’t strike me as a very interesting character, and the romance was awkward and not touching (I’m not even diving into idiotic ‘self-love’ metaphor and overall incestuous vibe).

But since s.2 ep.3 she was grating on my nerves everytime she appeared on screen. She’s absolutely incapable of realizing and owning her mistakes, pushing the blame on everyone around her. For example, in ep.3 she changes her mind about murdering Timely, but immediately says to Loki ‘Don’t make me regret this’. Lady, it was your decision! Yours and yours alone! Seriously, how did the creatives imagine her train of thoughts? ‘I do smth, but there’s Loki in the room, so if anything goes bad because of my decision, I’ll blame it on him’? Ah, yes, it did work in s.1 ep.6, when everyone in- and out-of-universe started to blame Loki on the freeing of the Multiverse.

She’s portrayed as an insolent selfish and self-centered brat. But what is worse, the creators thought they were writing her as being actually right! Like, when she and Loki talk in the bar in ep.5, she blames Loki for being selfish. I suffered rewatching this moment. Yes, he wants his friends back. But she – she is willing to go on heads of countless people to get what she wants, as she did in s.1 ep.6, the most vivid example. Destroying the Multiverse for her personal revenge (don’t get fooled by her non-existent ‘crusade for freedom’, as the creatives started to backpedal in interviews)? Why not! Does Loki want to keep his friends at this cost? She acts all selfish – but she is right in her selfishness, and Loki is wrong?

Generally, I’d say she isn’t needed in season 2. You remove her, and nothing would change. No her own arc – we had smth akin to the beginning of it in ep.3, but next episode it was forgotten.

Mobius

At last I see Mobius as he was intended to be in regards to Loki! There’s a huge dissonance between his behavior towards Loki in season 1 and season 2. Now he actually acts as if he likes Loki, as he was always promoted to do. My general feeling was much more positive. If we forget everything that happened in season 1, I’d say ‘yes, they are friends’.

I’m not diving into nature of fascism that is represented by Mobius and the TVA, more was said by other fans.

Ouroboros

I liked him most. At least he’s funny and doesn’t mistreat Loki – and that’s a lot for this series. But what I enjoyed most – fan theories about him. When he was announced first, I read wonderful ideas that he could be a Loki variant. Ouroboros as a snake biting its tail takes its roots in Norse mythology where Jormungandr, Loki’s son, is a huge snake encircling the Earth. Ouroboros as a Loki variant or a Loki’s son from another timeline would be a real homage to the myths and a really cool and unexpected decision opening up lots of plot and character development possibilities.

But of course, the creatives had no idea about this connection. I doubt they know who Jormungandr is at all, much less any symbolism derived from that.

Casey and B-15

Frankly, I don’t understand why Casey is paid that much attention. I only remember him appearing in s.1 ep.1 not knowing what ‘fish’ was and Loki threatening him. Suddenly he’s Loki’s friend and even given a backstory.

B-15 is Verity Willis. Fuck the comics, apparently. No truth powers, not Loki’s best friend. What’s the point, then? Ah, silly me, a cool Easter egg, of course. Again, just as in case with Mobius, a huge shift of personality between seasons. What bothered me is that she continues using her number instead of her actual name in the end of ep.6. At least the creatives could’ve given her a new name if in-universe she couldn’t associate herself with ‘Verity’ anymore. As in ‘TCW’ we have ‘Fives’ who derived his name from his number ‘CT-5555’, B-15 could be ‘Beenie’ or ‘Bea’ or smth.

In conclusion

A skin-crawling beige swamp of intriguing details to pick apart, some great philosophical ideas that could’ve been explored, and mess in the writers’ heads, with some hummocks of disdain to Loki and stumps of slaughtered worldbuilding.

But I don’t care much, sitting on a cozy beach of good Loki fanfiction and sipping ‘good Loki characterization’ plots in the warmth of ficwriters’ love for him.

[skaruresonic]

My memory on the topic is foggy. How was Shadow supposed to cure Maria?

I'm not fully understanding the relation between Shadow being the ultimate lifeform and Gerald finding a cure for Maria's illness

Okay so Shadow is the perfect being. What does that have to do with Maria's sickness?

Idk. She's dying from anime mom disease. That's all the series needs you to know.

I don't particularly remember the games specifying how Shadow would cure her. Ironic, because now that the third film is coming out, people are trying to shock normies by portraying NIDS as "space AIDS," which is just tasteless, and probably a big part of the reason why SoJ quietly shied away from labeling Maria's disease in subsequent years.

"The fictional disease is described in the guide as fatal and which renders its victims physically weak, a symptom that worsens until eventual death." First of all, Maria must have been the other weapon of mass destruction being developed aboard the ARK if this is her nerfed version. Girl is terminally ill and can not only keep up with Shadow with only a little shortness of breath to show for it, but can also destroy robots through the patented 'botnik family bitch-slap.

Second... a disease that weakens people? You mean like cancer? You mean like chronic anemia? You mean like pretty much any disease ever, because fighting disease consumes large amounts of energy? Wow, this is so reminiscent of AIDS. Truly, my third eye has been blown wide open.

Maria essentially has, for lack of a better term, Mary Shepherd-Sunderland Syndrome. You're not supposed to delve too closely into the details because that's not the point.

No lie, the last time I took a hiatus from listening to Castlesuperbeast was because a fan wrote to Pat and Woolie about the third film, describing NIDS as "space AIDS" and Shadow as "canonically immune to HIV."

The two of them proceeded to make homophobic Sonadow jokes.

Love those guys, but every now and again I receive a harsh reminder that they're normies. As with all normies who are irony-poisoned, their Sonic takes are so rancid. It's like a switch gets flipped in their brains and suddenly they have to slag off the series.

You might argue that both NIDS and WMDs are too topical for a Sonic game, but the reason I get heated about mocking the former and not the latter is because we haven't all perished in nuclear war yet. The mass hysteria over WMD development ultimately amounted to George W. Bush blowing hot air.

However, entire generations of queer people were systematically killed through the government's negligent response to the AIDS crisis. It is beyond disrespectful to describe Maria's condition as "space AIDS" just to shock normies into thinking SA2 is Deep and Dark(tm), precisely because fuckwads are going to make jokes like this on the basis that lol funny blue cartoon hedgehogs shouldn't tackle serious topics. Shame on them.

...Anyway.

---

I'm not fully understanding the relation between Shadow being the ultimate lifeform and Gerald finding a cure for Maria's illness

Since the morpheme "neuro-" features in NIDS, it's probably safe to say the condition is genetic in nature. And because Shadow's new Parasite Eve schtick is being explored in SxS Gens, the cure likely has something to do with gene manipulation.

While I wouldn't like it to be explicitly named in the games - nor call it canon because there's zero evidence - if you forced me to come up with an explanation, I would also call stem cells a candidate. Savior siblings of children with cancer are often conceived with the intent to harvest the stem cells of the umbilical cord.

[esprei]

have recently learned there's a bit more hate around trainwreckshipping than i was aware of so i guess i just wanted to talk about it a bit and give my two cents on the ship, how i see it and i guess my perspective on things. i've kind of always wanted to talk about it, but i just haven't been brave enough until now haha (sorry, i am not super eloquent when it comes to writing things like this so my apologies) ((also throwing it under a cut because it may get long and might also include some slightly sad-ish things so i don't want to just throw that in everyone's face you know))

----

i think i'll just preface things by saying i've always totally understood why trainwreckshipping has gotten so much flack since its inception. or hate, because maybe flack just isn't strong enough of a word. but i do understand. there were mischaracterizations of emmet by portraying him as violent to volo because it was assumed that volo was directly responsible for ingo's disappearance. i was guilty of it. suuuuuper guilty. and i can understand why that put the ship in such a position for many people. toxic, unhealthy, etc. but... i think what i'm a bit confused on i guess is the fact that it's still viewed so much this way to this day. viewed as one of the worst ships because of how toxic it is. how unhealthy it is. all because it started that way in fanon only. but you know, from a canon standpoint, it has nothing. nothing at all. so really, this ship could be anything because it's based in fanon only. no canon interactions of emmet and volo exist yet. there is no official basis on how these characters would interact with each other. and yes, while there were misunderstandings of both characters early on, that certainly doesn't mean it's still that way today. that doesn't mean that people haven't studied and looked at these two characters a little closer to understand them better and to try and make them more realistic to their canon portrayals. to make more accurate depictions of these characters and how that fits in to a healthier perspective with them. i dunno. it just kinda baffles me that with the variety of trainwreckshipping content out there now, some still call it toxic and unhealthy as if we're perpetually stuck in that time period of when it was. like it's not allowed to be anything but that ever just because it started that way. and what makes me the saddest about it all is now seeing so many friends and people in the community of the ship start to get disheartened and discouraged from enjoying something they really actually enjoy because there's still such a bad stigma to the ship. personally for a long time i've just ignored that stigma because i try not to let that stuff drag me down. but i will admit that yes, it has made me more reluctant to post any art i do of it. i've definitely had my periods where i've questioned uploading my emmet/volo art, usually as wholesome as it is, because it does have such a dark cloud around it fandom wise. it's why i made my side blog, in fact. because i just didn't feel very comfortable uploading mostly emmet/volo art here to my main because so many people dislike it or outright hate it.

and in regards to the ship itself, i think i've always thought of it in a slightly different way than most. not so much enemies to lovers but rather through the lens of how volo might could change, be redeemed, see the how his actions in the past inadvertently affected others (and by that I mean his involvement in opening the rift... like yes, that could be what caused ingo to be sent to hisui, but we don't know that for sure... and even if that was the case, volo didn't do it specifically to target ingo. volo was only ever interested in trying to get to arceus and build a better world in his vision).

or how volo could look at emmet after getting to know him and potentially see the beauty and value of the current world through him. you know, seeing someone like emmet and admiring that he can still find a reason to smile and be kind despite all of the pain and suffering he must have gone through since ingo's disappearance. volo starting to see a different perspective than he did before (aka wanting to build a new world because the current one was too full of pain and suffering) because of emmet. i dunno. that's just me personally. because since actually looking more at volo's character and his dialogue in game i've been real interested in redemption paths for him. exploring those possibilities. i just enjoy exploring said possibilities mostly through the dynamic i have in my head for him and emmet because it's fun. it interests me. i see cool potential in it. i enjoy it a lot. and while i don't think i ever portray volo super accurately, or even emmet for that matter, i still think i've come a long way since first finishing pla and ever looking at emmet/volo interactions. but regardless of all of that, that's the beauty of a ship of this nature. a ship that has absolutely no basis in canon. because it really can be anything you want it to be. it can be enemies to lovers, it can be more wholesome, it can be whatever. it's not locked into a specific dynamic because the characters have never officially met each other, let alone had a conversation. and even if that were the case... AUs are still a thing. :D

anyway that's pretty much all i had. just wanted to talk about it a bit because i've seen a recent uptick in people mentioning all of the hate and dislike for the ship etc and i dunno. i enjoy the ship a lot. it's just sad to see that there's still so much hate around it even though a lot of the content now is not like how it originally started. not from what i've seen, at least.

and while i don't expect anyone who hates it to ever warm up to it, i just wish it could be understood that the more toxic, unhealthy dynamic is not the basis of anymore. there are healthier portrayals of it now.

[multicolour-ink]

♡ for Mia and Pio???

Headcanon meme

♡ - romantic

Ooohhh hohoho 🤭 I could gush about Mia and Pio's romance for HOURS, and I still don't think it would be enough to get out in this ask! But I'll try and keep it focused on the overall aspect of their relationship.

Please note this will not be so much a headcanon, and more an interpretation that I am going by in my own series.

I also found a website that talks about the 7 styles of love ^^

- The main basis of Mia and Pio's relationship is trust and emotional connection. Both of them have been filled with expectations since their earliest days, and when they meet each other, they learn that they can open up to each other more than anyone else.

- At first they started off as friends, but not even long after that the relationship gave way to feelings of desire and lust. They wanted more from this. They wanted, needed, to be together, because they could only be truly happy with each other.

- Pio is a physical lover. He does all the cute little gestures like giving Mia little kisses any chance he gets (leaving for work, walking passed her in the kitchen etc), and letting her snuggle into him during movie night. He just wants this woman to know every day how much he loves her 💕

- Mia is the emotional lover. She was given expectations on what to find in a partner, but always brushed off any suiters as she didn't feel any connection. It was only after she met Pio that this side of her was able to be let out. She feels comfort in his support, and is able to draw out the emotional side of him using her patience and compassion.

I also want to talk about their very intimate moments, as it does play a major part in their romance. But it may be too much for some people so I'll put it under the cut.

- Both Mia and Pio have different outcomes with past dates, but overall had the same outcome; Pio is ultimately a giver, but was taken advantage of when others would expect him to put in the work. Mia was hoping to get something back from her suitors, but never did on account of what she was expected to look for, not who she felt was actually good for her.

- After the two of them met and built a trust with each other, they worked out that there was something they had both been missing. The two were already falling in love, but they had to earn each other's trust. Pio and Mia knew they needed each other to break their own barriers down.

- After finally getting the courage to take it further, the couple knew that this felt right. This felt good.

- Often in my fics I do portray Mia and Pio as being very intimate with each other, and while most of it is just fluff, it is often there to highlight that this couple treasure their intimacy as a core part of their relationship. I'm not saying that every couple needs to have this in order to have a fulfilling relationship (because some couples choose not to) - but for Mia and Pio, they're a couple bonded by desire, love, and assurance. They treasure it and fulfil it when possible.

[hologramcowboy]

Hi there!

I enjoy reading your blog as I find you are very balanced, mature, and provide deeper than surface level exploration of the fandom and the actors.

I've been in this fandom for quite a long time and I've noticed out of all fandoms I've ever enjoyed, the parasocial relationships in this one seem to be the highest and, at times, destructive.

Do you have an opinion on why this is?

Sometimes I just come across things that appear very unhealthy among the fans.

Hi! Thank you so much for this thought provoking question. Ever since I started this blog I’ve been exposed to a lot of facets of fandom that can get quite scary and, at the end of the day, the people behind that lack of balance and hatred usually have their love of a celebrity as a main motivator. In other words, they will crush anything that moves if it contradicts the perfect image of their chosen one. So many fandom wars and conflicts have this at the basis. As if there is only one way to think, one way to be and one way to love.

It’s highly dangerous when people over-identify with a celebrity to the point of veering into erotomania is or other related psychological issues. From what I’ve researched on the behavioural psychology side, mania and similar states only happen when we choose to perceive people in a one sided view instead of appreciating the whole of them (flaws and all).

In the Supernatural fandom specifically, the love bond between the brothers transferred as an image unto Jensen and Jared and made them into iconic characters on their own. This is just my humble opinion, based on research I’ve done but most of fandom over-identifies with the two to the point of blurring the lines of reality. I’ve gotten DMs from people suffering from erotomania, for example.

If we look at hellers we see they so badly need people to validate their orientation that they project something that never was unto two characters that were meant to represent agape love through their connection and nothing more. This over-identification leads them warp reality and it also leads some of them to violent, abusive behaviours, not just towards fellow fans but especially towards the actors themselves. They completely ignore Jensen and Misha’s real life persona and push their agenda to the point of it becoming abusive. I don’t want to generalize, because some are able to enjoy their ships without harming others and while being respectful but I just wanted to give an example.

I know there’s some solid research out there that, simply through its theme, shows like Supernatural can cause/trigger mental issues. So it is my belief that the theme plus the brotherly bond + the chemistry between the leads created a cult like following. Let’s face it, Supernatural never was directorial or acting gold but what it did portray was a love that overcomes all things and deep emotional traumas people could identify with.

The danger of worshipping/admiring/loving anything to the extreme is that that creates a lack of balance in the brain, we no longer see positive and negative aspects but we cave to fantasies and become enslaved by their promise to the point of aggressively rejecting reality. I’ve seen all facets of fandom do this at some point or the other, even I sometimes view Jensen as too perfect and always rebalance my perceptions. What I’m trying to say is that falling into detrimental mental states within fandom can happen to anyone of us and that it would really help if we would talk about it and be open and showed compassion for one another.

This is the reason why I’ve often made posts about the dangers of fanaticism and how loving a celebrity should, never, ever, ever end up affecting your life or wellbeing. People lose sight of who they are, what they are here to offer the world and their goals because they are busy obsessing about how “hot” Danneel is or Jensen or Misha or whoever. It’s come to a point where Jensen fans viciously tear into each other over the silliest things simply because their one sided views keep them trapped in a fantasy.

People actually send hate messages to Jared asking him to end his life and they do this over a ship or their fav. They lose their humanity over an imaginary link they believe they have with their favorites. While it’s true that this happens in all fandoms it’s definitely more prevalent in the Supernatural fandom and, if I were to link it to anything, it would be precisely to the studies that have determined that shows with horror/supernatural themes are triggering for those with mental issues and may even cause mental issues in those who are balanced. I really wish people would write more in books and studies about the negative side of fandom, to bring it into the light and get to the core of it. I’m no expert and this is just my humble opinion based on my behavioural psychology research but one good exercise is this:

Take the celebrity that most makes you feel out of yourself and write on a piece of paper:

-all the qualities they have that make you go crazy

-now take each of those qualities and ask yourself honestly “where and when have I displayed this quality?” Do not stop until you find examples.

Then, if you are feeling extra brave, take another piece of paper, write all the aspects that annoy you or that you hate about said celebrity.

Next, ask yourself “Where in my life have I displayed this trait?” Don’t stop until you find examples.

It’s an extremely humbling exercise that helps rebalance the perceptions of the brain, it helps us realise that all we love about another also exists within us and the same goes for all we hate. No one is always kind, always perfect, we’re all mean sometimes, though we may not admit it to ourselves but, once we do, we activate the executive function of our brain and are able to truly appreciate people for who they are, flaws and all.

My call to action for you is to talk about the toxic things you notice, to express them and bring awareness because most fans are so caught up in their hatred they can’t see reality, they don’t even realise what they are doing. A good example of this are extremely hateful Jenneel stans who send me hate messages while claiming hating is wrong. They are so blind they can’t see that hatred they try to project hatred on me is actually practised by them through the very messages they send.

Another important aspect is boundaries that actors fail to set with fans, Danneel who pretends she ships Destiel just to encourage such fans despite knowing her husband hates Destiel and has said more than once it never existed, Misha who panders to everyone to the point of endangering his costars. It’s all about boundaries. Even Jensen complaining people talk about his personal life ( through that Cliff post), that’s his failure to set boundaries, if you want to be private BE private. There is absolutely nothing stopping these actors from creating healthy boundaries but most pander to whatever craziness the fans come up with despite feeling miserable about it.

I’ll stop here because this post got a mile long but I adore the conversation you started because it is such an important one and I would really love it if someone would write a book about all the fandom issues and how to stay safe and sane while enjoying fandom. Because fandom should be an excuse for joy, creativity and unity, not divisiveness and hatred.

I really hope others chime in and answer your question because it is a deeply important one. Thank you for asking it! 🧡

[anawkwardlady]

(Warning, sleepy rant incoming, proceed at your own risk)

Is it just me me or does wtc just have an allergy to dismantling structural evil. It goes "wow it sucks" but like a lot of stories it never gives a conclusion. Higurashi with how shion is presented as selfish for not "taking responsibility" instead of admitting the family is evil and that their structures of power need to be torn down, instead blaming everything on a secret operation by takano. Like, can't we just accept that the town is a bit fucked up instead of it being some outsider's fault? And accepting the town is fucked doesnt mean ignoring how the goverment fucked over the town, u know?

Without love it cannot be see? Well you can love something and know that it needs to be put down

Umineko to a lesser extent, by sheer virtue of the Ushiromias being blown asunder- but I am still salty about the lion timeline. Like yes we are shown the servants suffering and told to sympathise but there is no conclusion for the servants- only the family, which I guess makes since since the story focuses on the family but it still bothers me. I don't like how the relatives of the kumasawa are portrayed, it reminded me of this one sherlock story we had to read for lit where sherlock says that the poor are gossips and good only for the information they may give. Its more complicated than that but you get the point, they are not afforded the same dignity.

Ciconia is still up in the air cause maybe the narrator is unreliable, or maybe ryukishi is being a centrist, I don't know.

That doesn't mean I dislike wtc... okay I dislike higurashi but that's mostly for other reasons and I still adore rena- but I love umineko and I'm fascinated by it structurally- but I feel like I have to say this to someone or I'll explode

It's not like this problem is unique to wtc, the "return to norm" is the ending to heroes journey in writing, a structural tool that is very widespread and is very easily utilised for centrist storywriting, and I'd go as far as saying the heroes journey is inheritly centrist but I'm too sleep deprived and under qualified to make that argument

(For clarification I'm not saying wtc uses the heroes journey as a basis I'm just saying stories with a centrist basis are common because stories that use the heroes journey are common)

None of this is even probably intentional, but isn't that worse? That centrist thinking is this deeply embedded into the worlds cultural subconscious?

Sorry for the incomprehensible rant, I need to sleep

Okay,

So I don't agree that everything is blamed on Takano. The way the town treated Satoko was very much on them and I believe we were shown how everyone was ridiculous and stuck up on a "We can't be normal to this family because the village is against them therefore I should be against them" mentality and Oryo stubbornness on this. Takano's actions were what they were but she didn't make the locals bully a little girl. I believe we were also shown this during the violent argument Keiichi had with Mion and Rena when they were asking each other what to do with Satoko. Keiichi started blaming Mion for not taking her in, then Rena showed his hypocrisy because he is also pretty well off... and you know whats sad about that : they're all kids fighting about how to save an abused little girl because they're almost all neglected to some point and they can't reach out. Can't really see a better proof that their respective families and the village itself are dysfunctional beside how Takano's plan interacted with it.

And yeah for Umineko the servants were pretty neglected at the end, as you said its because it mostly focuses on the family itself but I get this criticism. I can't say anything about Ciconia, haven't read it. But I also don't think its inherently a return to normal, a lot of them seem to find piece but i'd argue they not unharmed. I think a lot of it is trying to say you have been hurt and still find some kind of balance, which, considering Ryukishi's background I get why he would rather go that route even if it can completely be criticized (I sometimes have some point i'm a bit "meh" about when handling abuse and forgiveness but whatever). I'm not a literary professional tho lol, what do I know about all of that.