#so just say that instead of devaluing the way we as humans interact with and love art.

[love-rats]

i am quickly becoming sick of the new 'media consumption' phenomenon. like congratulations we invented another swagless phrase

[simpforsix]

watching community for the first time and every time abed is on screen i am filled with so much joy. 

as an autistic person i so rarely see myself represented on screen. i knew about the background of abed’s character before, how he was written by dan harmon who found out he was autistic because of writing his character. but i didn’t expect to feel so seen. 

usually i have to seek out autistic rep, like when i watched heartbreak high after seeing clips and analysis of their autistic character quinni (who was also amazing rep and made me feel seen). i have to seek it out so i know what to avoid, like the good doctor or pretty much any autistic character popular amongst allistics who think autism speaks is a good organization. so many characters i’ve seen lauded as good autistic rep have been hurtful, stereotypical, or just don’t represent my experiences, even if they are good representation. in a sitcom, especially from the era of community, i don’t expect to see good representation. i expect to see characters like sheldon cooper, who are autistic-coded in a way meant to mock autistic people and reinforce stereotypes, and who feel foreign to me.

but abed? holy shit, i was not expecting to almost cry about him when i first saw him. he is so clearly and unapologetically autistic in a way i wish i could be. he’s blunt, he doesn’t always get jokes, he’s awkward, and he’s so much like me. the way he observes others and picks up their mannerisms in ways allistics can’t comprehend is so relatable. the way he runs through different scenarios to learn how to act and react is exactly what i do before pretty much any social interaction. and the way he relates everything back to his special interests? i’ve never seen that side of autism represented on screen. i do that so much, and for so long i thought i was just rude or weird, when in fact i was just autistic and that’s how i relate to and understand the world. abed sees the world through his autism. it impacts every aspect of his character.

(also his special interest in inspector spacetime is literally me with my special interest in doctor who)

he’s also not the typical savant we see in media! i’m so tired of those depictions, since they make me feel like a failure. i failed most of my classes because of i’m autistic. i can’t handle all the homework or exams, and i can’t analyse things in a neurotypical way which often means allistics give me lower marks. but even though i’m not academically gifted, i’m still smart, and some of that is because i’m autistic. i’m really good at logical analysis, at music, and i know so much about my special interests. and it’s the same thing with abed! he’s not some academic genius who was a child prodigy and aces every class. but, like me and the other autistic people i know, he’s smart in other ways. he’s good at analysing people, at filmmaking, and is also super knowledgeable about his special interests. his value goes beyond his intelligence, unlike so many savant caricatures who are only used as human supercomputers. 

i also love the way he interacts with the other characters. they’re all weird in their own way, and abed doesn’t stick out. sure, he’s awkward and sometimes says the wrong thing, but he’s not devalued for that. i don’t like how he’s sometimes mocked for autistic traits, but luckily it’s few and far between and not triggering like other media has been for me. the other characters also stand up for him, like jeff getting into a fight during the christmas ep in season one, instead of laughing along. he’s also not treated like some poor child in need of saving by the allistics. autistic people are so frequently infantilized, and most media only encourages that. they also directly challenge that notion in the show, with the other characters worrying about abed’s sex life only for it to be revealed that abed fucks. 

his friendship (or romance) with troy is especially great. as an autistic person, i’m so tired of being expected to change so that people like me. because people do like me, autistic traits and all. a real friend, like troy, will listen to your infodumps. they’ll engage with your interests, and they’ll support you even when you have less socially acceptable traits, like a fear of change. they get to be super nerdy and weird and they don’t judge each other, because they’re being nerdy and weird together. like abed, i found it really hard to make friends, and i still only have a small group of friends, but i prefer it that way. the group wouldn’t be the same in his absence, because he brings value as a character. 

i appreciate abed’s awkwardness, the way he doesn’t dampen his autistic traits for the comfort of others. he doesn’t have some “character growth” arc where he learns to be more allistic. his autism isn’t a character flaw, it’s just another aspect of who he is. 

i also think it’s important to note that abed being arabic and muslim breaks stereotypes about autistic people. it is only recently that our wider society has begun discussing the lack of diversity in autism representation and it’s impacts. most autistic characters are cishet white men. this is based in the notion that the majority of autistic people are cishet white men, which comes from the history of only testing on cishet white boys and creating the diagnostic tools based on them. autism can present differently outside of that group, and it also creates bias in diagnosis. even though abed is still a cis man, being a poc breaks down the stereotype of white men being the only ones with autism. he also offers representation to a wider group of people, even now. while i’ve seen a bit more rep for autistic white women, the rep for autistic poc (especially woc) remains fairly nonexistent. 

on the topic of canon, i personally think abed is canonically autistic. it’s referenced a couple of times in the show, though it isn’t directly confirmed or denied. but considering dan harmon’s story, i think it’s clear that the autistic-coding is intentional. a character doesn’t have to outright say the words “i am autistic” for it to be canon. he has so many autistic traits that it is undeniable, and with dan harmon writing him i think it’s safe to say that he’s canonically autistic. keep in mind that this is my personal opinion and that other autistic people may have other opinions, all of which are valid. the debate of canon is complicated and everyone has different definitions. 

i wish there were more characters like abed. characters who are impacted by being autistic yet exist beyond that. characters who speak to an autistic audience, who are written by autistic people. autistic characters who are diverse, who are likeable, who are smart, who are capable.

seeing abed made me so emotional. i want more autistic characters who make me feel seen. i want more autistic characters who make me feel human.

[nobodyfamousposts]

Any Tikki/Plagg salt?

So I'm taking this to mean you are asking if I have salt about Tikki and Plagg.

Here's the main central issue: Why are the kwamis even necessary? I mean this narratively. What purpose do they serve to the story that couldn't be accomplished without them?

When I was originally introduced to the show and the concept behind it, I thought Plagg and Tikki were going to be the Wise Mentors/Wise Animal Mentors for the heroes. The ones who offer the "moral of the story", give advice to their respective chosen, and...y'know...train them. Prepare them. Give them some lore and history of how things worked for them in the past as well as info on what they are, what their powers are, and what they're up against.

We got a little of that with Tikki offering lessons and advice, but the advice is minimal and comes few and far between for what should be warranted by the situations they face. Tikki had no problem with judging and admonishing Marinette for things, but Tikki has done very little to actually help guide Marinette on the "right" decisions she seems to want Marinette to take. She did reprimand Marinette for selfish use of her Lucky Charm in Bubbler and trying to help Juleka in a dishonest way in Reflekta, but she didn't really come up with other options for her or offer any real advice or input other than telling Marinette that she disapproves.

With Plagg, we didn't get that at all. Sure, he's made catty comments on Adrien's behavior such as in Copycat and Desperada, but since Adrien "is perfect" and thus never needs to learn a lesson, Plagg never needs to be the mouthpiece for the episode's moral. This also cements Plagg as the lazy and "fun" kwami in contrast to Tikki—which would work if we had more consistent interaction between the two to highlight that comparison.

The only purpose the kwamis seem to have is to 1) be the cute mascot characters for the series and 2) have someone for Marinette and Adrien to talk to and play off of—the second of which is specifically notable in the case of Plagg, who is ultimately the only thing about any of Adrien's scenes when he's not Chat Noir that makes them entertaining or interesting to watch.

This is especially noteworthy as the writers clearly struggle with the "show, don't tell" philosophy of writing, and the kwamis are prime tools to try to get around that little issue without putting in any actual effort because Miraculous has all the subtlety of a brick to the face. Why SHOW the Main Duo falling in love over time through their interactions and slowly growing closeness and relationship building among all four sides of the love square that is touted as the main draw of the series in the first place...when they can just have the two be cringingly awkward around one another and chuck in a magical plot device I mean mouthpiece I mean kwami for the heroes to expound on their "unrequited love" to?

Also, much like many things in this series, everything about the kwamis from their powers to their natures to their personalities are contradictory and confusing. For all powerful beings who serve as the focus of the plot as well as the plot device around which the series is supposed to revolve, they are demoted both narratively and in the story itself.

If they HAVE any personality, it's that of children. Children who don't understand the world, don't understand people, don't actually actually embody the concepts of which they are supposed to be centered around, and quite frankly don't seem to have any business having the level of power they seem to have given the complete lack of control they display they actually have over it. These ancient beings—OLDER than the universe, who should at least have SOME idea of how their own powers work or at least what the leaking from people's eyes means but honestly come off as the biggest threat to everyone around them through sheer callousness and ignorance.

It's the same issue with Adrien that if this individual is supposed to be the moral mouthpiece for the writers, one would think they would have more maturity, especially as ancient all powerful beings that they are who predate humanity. It could be argued that it's a result of them being trapped in the Miracle Box for so long, but that still doesn't account for all the time they existed BEFORE being put in the Box or the times they were taken out and used after it was made. Nor does it account for why they all seem to have a childish mob mentality.

It'd make sense if their childishness served a purpose in a narrative sense—like haivng them actually learn about the world and get some growth of their own, but that doesn't happen. And if two or more kamis appear on screen together, they seem to revert to the same personality.

As it stands, all of this really countermines the idea that the kwamis are supposed to be the guides or go-to figures for morals and lessons for our main heroes or even the temporary heroes. It'd be one thing if their morals were just "different" due to being active at different ages and time frames. That would explain some discrepancy. But the writers don't use that and all the kwamis pretty much act the same.

Then comes the OTHER narrative issue that as soon as Fu and the Order of the Guardians officially enter the picture, the idea of kwamis being guides or mentors for the heroes is made completely moot. And it says something when a guy who never completed the test to become a true Guardian and whom was ultimately responsible for the entire Order being destroyed made for a better mentor figure than the kwamis whose power is supposed to be running the show.

It would be one thing if it ultimately became a sort of reversal where Marinette's time with the kwamis makes her reevaluate their roles and look at Tikki in a new way as someone who ISN'T perfect and who CAN be wrong. But the show still has Marinette looking to Tikki for answers in a way that gives me the same impression as if she was looking for life guidance from Manon.

Other than giving credence to the "5 minute time limit" and some "missing kwami/can't transform" shenanigans, removing the kwamis really wouldn't lose anything narratively from the show.

...well, other than what entertainment there can be had from Adrien's scenes secondary to Plagg's involvement in them.

So, tl;dr, my biggest salt about the kwamis boils down to:

They have little purpose narratively.

Anything they could do is devalued by the presence of others that perform their roles and explain or use their abilities better than they can.

For ancient beings with immense lore and involvement in history, they don't do much to expand on that.

For moral mouthpieces, they don't do much to actually HELP their holders.

In and of themselves, they are used by the writers in such a way that they end up limiting the ability of the narrative to tell a good story instead of adding it.

[yellowocaballero]

I know next to nothing abt utena but I. I kinda am extremely curious abt the utena vs mcu comparative analysis? if you feel like sharing lmao absolutely no worries if not

I love all of you because I will post obviously bait and someone will always indulge me in asking about it. NO I don’t want to unprompted just start rambling about my opinions, YES I will share them though. I will make this as short as possible because I can talk about Utena all day. I will add a disclaimer that I don’t super like the MCU so I’m very sorry to any MCU fans, Winter Soldier was good. Slight, vague spoilers for Utena ahead. 

TL;DR: MCU is constantly selling feminism in the form of palatable #bossbabes and Strong Female Characters, while Utena’s form of feminism is a more systematic and nuanced interview of how the patriarchy limits, exploits, and controls women. It posits that a woman CANNOT be a #bossbabe while she’s within that system, and only by leaving it can she find independence and identity. MCU is sponsored by the Air Force.

So for the uninitiated, Utena is a magical girl anime that I’ve been jokingly calling Evangelion: For Her. It deconstructs magical girl anime and fairy tales, and critically examines Japanese society, the patriarchy, heteronormative culture, and IN MY OPINION boarding schools. It deals with themes of trauma, toxic relationships, toxic masculinity, gender non-conformity, queerness, abuse, maturity, coming of age, gender roles, memory, and narrative. 

I’ve joked recently that Tumblr would find Utena problematic if it actually talked about the show beyond the killer aesthetic and sword lesbians. Every female character in it is obsessed with men. Most of them are in abusive, or at least toxic, relationships. It has several gender nonconforming, queer women, who view gender nonconformity as adopting the role of a man in society and thereby idealizing/controlling/abusing women, as men do. Every character is a hugely complicated person who hurts others. Men control women and women are either subservient and controlled by men, or they use their position of assumed subservience to manipulate men, or they attempt to regain power by taking the role of men. 

On the flip side. Utena demonstrates how every character is turned into this through the rigid and restrictive nature of (it’s Japanese, so Japanese, although it’s broadly applicable) society. Women who do not fit into these pre-set molds are punished and ostracized. Young boys are groomed by older men in order to fit these abusive molds, and otherwise well meaning men hurt women because they are not taught how to interact with women in healthy ways. The show is basically about how society takes the genuine need for love, intimacy, and human connection among children and beats them into societally accepted molds that keep power in the hands of powerful men. The patriarchy is ultimately a tool of powerful men that abuses and controls both men and women. Ever hear of no ethical consumption under capitalism? Try no ethical love under the patriarchy! 

So, no, Utena doesn’t really have a lot of ‘strong female characters’. But that’s really kind of the point - how can a woman be strong in this system? When a woman tries to gain strength, does she just try to imitate masculine values that we’re brainwashed into perceiving as strength? Is masculinity healthy? Can Utena really be gnc, or will a gnc woman never be accepted as a man by a society that profits off the victimization of women?

I’m not asking the MCU to analyze all of this, because they’re blockbuster movies and I don’t want or need them to get #deep. However, superhero movies will never look at the systematic and societal structures that build heroes and villains so long as the nature of superheroes inherently hinges upon the ‘Great Man’ system (basically an obsession with heroes and salvation through singular men instead of communities and movements). The MCU Spider-Man movies were so frustrating about this: it goes through the effort of saying that capitalism and injustice created the Vulture, but all that does is make a sympathetic villain - it never goes so far as to say that Peter is being fed into this system (by Tony Stark) like meat into a meat grinder that continues to prioritize the special over the collective. I don’t even need to get into Far From Home. The MCU constantly acknowledges these injustices (the way it acknowledges that the Air Force in Captain Marvel is sexist and racist) but it twists around that acknowledgement into assertion that superheroes and good guys CAN exist in this unjust system, and that they can utilize the power of this unjust system in order to provide salvation. Utena has Japanese Buddhist roots over this Christian ideal of the saviour/messiah: it encourages saving ourselves, and says that we cannot be saved by others, only aided and guided in that journey. 

Captain Marvel cannot be a ‘feminist’ film, no matter how much it celebrates Carol for embracing her individuality and autonomy in a discriminatory system, so long as Carol remains within that system. In contrast, the only way that Utena was able to live in gay happiness with Anthy was by rejecting the patriarchy, structure, and society completely. Carol is a shining, premier, ‘ideal’ example of a woman in the Air Force - tough and independent yet obedient and responsible to her system. Utena is also masc and gnc, but it actually explores how performing that masculinity isn’t a repudiation of the system, it’s just striving to attain status as the oppressor instead of the oppressed (absolutely crucial note that Utena doesn’t strive to be a man, she strives for masculinity). The #girlbosses in Black Panther are characterized by their complete and total loyalty and lack of ambition to authoritarian male figures and autocratic systems (Black Panther is really good and I like it a lot, this isn’t a criticism). Judi in Utena is also completely obedient and loyal to the male-dominated structure of the Student Council, but it’s shown as preventing her from accepting her lesbianism and pursing her desires. Black Widow, #girlboss extraordinaire, is devalued as a woman through her infertility and this is completely played straight and uncritically in a move that’s stunningly 1970s. Nanami in Utena (metaphorically) is confronted with her perceived lack of suitability for maternal life - and how the reason why she’s desperate for this is because it’s the promised unconditional love she never received. This isn’t even getting into the men - Tony Stark using tools of war to end war, which is an oxymoron. Peter Parker’s divorce from his working class roots into mindless imitation of authoritarian paternal figures and him literally being handed the cutsey drone strikes. Women in the MCU are ‘cool’, women in Utena are complex, flawed, and nuanced. 

We know the MCU isn’t woke. I don’t want it to be woke. But it keeps on pretending to try and it’s frustrating me. It continually just gets enough there to make me think about it and give the shiny sheen of that feminism while refusing to engage meaningfully with what they’re doing. I’d rather they didn’t try at all, because they consistently raise the question (hey it’s fucked up that the working class is getting screwed over and the Vulture’s doing what he’s doing for a reason!) and then refuse to answer it authentically or genuinely (but he’s evil so we don’t gotta touch that). I’m not gonna use the word pandering, but...that #girlboss shot in Endgame, come on...

Utena meaningfully treats the women as women who Live In A Society, and how that fucks them up, and how the only way they can be free is if they realize there’s no wizard behind the curtain, recognize the injustices, and repudiate the game. MCU says that a woman can be liberated and strong if she achieves specialness and strength within the system - if she ‘wins’ the game. But women don’t win this game. That’s the point of the game. Because when women win, men perceive themselves as losing, and that’s unacceptable. Captain Marvel and the MCU is a consolation prize for what women are consistently denied: complex and flawed characterizations. 

I’m normally uninterested by #feminism but Utena gets it. Thanks for the ask! 

[algumaideia]

Tyson isn’t dumb

Tyson is one of my favorite characters in the Riordanverse, I loved him since his first appearance, he was so sweet and kind. And I really dislike the way he was treated by the books and sometimes by the fandom. So, this post is kind of my love letter to him.

Tyson is a guy who passed through a lot of stuff. He was homeless and orphan, as far as we know the first time he received a formal education was when he attended the same school Percy was going. He was attacked by monsters that lived nearby and had no friends. When he got to camp half-blood he was mocked, avoided and excluded. The only two people who were nice to him were Percy and Beckendorf, and Percy felt ashamed for being related to Tyson (I think this was the only time I got mad with Percy). He passed through a life/death situation, his own kind said he wasn’t a good cyclops, he saw his childhood hero disappoint him, he fought wars, he felt devalued by his father during the fights in the Last Olympian, he lost Beckendorf the first person to be nice to him in camp half-blood, he saw his brother, his first (and for some time only) friend disappear and for months had no information about him. Tyson suffered a lot, for a long time he had no one to offer kindness, love, and affection to him.

He could be an angry, spiteful, full of hatred and revenge person, but he is not and that’s why I like him so much. Tyson is an easygoing, happy, kind, gentle, compassionate, nice, and loving being. He has a strong sense of right and wrong. And the thing is that he chooses every time to be like that. People, Tyson tries hard like no one else in the series to be the best version of himself every time. He is always kind and gentle, he is always trying to do not let his negative emotions affect how he interacts with people, I think the only time he did so was if Briares disappointed him. He passed through horrible experiences, but he continues to be amazed and feel delight by life. He is capable of feeling genuine joy by the little things. And this is so amazing. The strength he has to do that all time is something so incredible.

Now let’s talk about the post’s title, Tyson isn’t dumb.

You know he remembers me a lot of Kronk, they are both seemed as not intelligent by people because they are happy, easygoing, kind and gentle. Which is so unfair because Kronk has an incredible memory, an amazing knowledge about nature, can speak squirrel and is really good at multitasking. Anyway, I’ll analyze the reason why Tyson is seen as dumb by Percy, the other character, the fandom and why they are wrong.

He uses simple words. And again, Tyson grew up in the streets and he only had one year of formal educations. Of course, he is not going to have a large vocabulary. Other thing is when he calls Chiron pony and says fish pony. Let’s try to see this by his perspective: Tyson was mistreated by Annabeth, then saw his first and only friend be attacked by a monster and be in mortal danger. It was a difficult situation and now he is in a place where he isn’t really welcomed. But then he sees something that he really likes, a pony! He gets really happy, yes there is a human body connected to the body, but he doesn’t care about the human part. What he likes are ponies. The guy says he is a centaur, but who cares about it? Not Tyson. He likes ponies, and in front of him there is a pony. A light in the end of the dark tunnel. It wasn’t him being dumb, he was just trying to feel better and therefore focusing in what makes him feel better.

 A not good understanding of social situations. Tyson didn’t understand that people were mocking him in Sea of Monsters. And you know why? It is because Tyson has an intellectual disability. This isn’t a headcanon. Tyson acts more like a neurodivergent person than Percy. It is not him being childish or naive, it is his intellectual disability. It is not a flaw. It is not his fault, what happens is that the people around him do not offer any support with this symptom of his disability. He has a problem about reading social situations, everyone knows what but no one tries to explain things to him or help him understand what is happening. 

Peanut butter. It is interesting that Tyson chose that as his war cry. Because again he has the ability to feel joy and be amazed by little things. So he is at his really bad situation, a war, such a horrible experience to anyone, and he decides that his war cry will be a good thing, something that makes him feel happy. If you people can realize that Leo uses jokes as a coping mechanism, why can’t you see that Tyson does the same? When he is experiencing a terrible situation instead of feeling bad and miserable he decides to focus and little and simple things that make him feel happy.

His appearance. Tyson isn’t good-looking, a lot of times is seen wearing not appropriate clothes and with his mouth dirty of food. And yeah of course he is like that, he grew up in the streets!!! Do you think he had someone to taught him good manners? To taught him about fashion? The boy learned basically everything by himself.

His childish personality and “simple” way he sees the world. First Tyson is a child, he is a really young cyclops, he is younger than Percy. Second, he has a strong sense of right and wrong, which is common trait in autistic people, and just because he continued with a strong moral view of the world through the series it doesn’t mean he can’t understand the complexity of the situations. Other thing is how he plays a lot or is happy all the time. Again, he isn’t good reading social situation, it is not his fault if he wants to be happy whenever he can, and it happens that a people are feeling bad when he does that. He is always super cheerful when he talks and for some reason this is seem as a lack of intelligence. Why the boy being excited to do things he likes is seem as flaw? 

Can we talk about how he is written as a burden to Percy sometimes? How the text tells us how difficult it is to Percy to have an intellectual disabled brother, how that makes his life harder. Or how he is used as a comic relief? The traits that makes him neurodivergent are always being used as a joke. 

You know I dislike so much how it is always a surprise to everyone the fact that he is smart, he understands the gravity of the situations, it makes me so mad. Just because he is happy and appreciates little things people assume all the time that he isn’t smart.

Tyson deserves more love and respect. He is a sweetheart like no one in the series not because he is dumb, or didn’t pass through traumatic experiences, but because he chooses to be.

Unfortunately, I’m not very good with writing texts, so I wasn’t able to live up to Tyson.

Best regards,

Me.

Ps. There are people who talk about how bad it is that Annabeth diminishes Percy intelligence all the time, but where are the people acknowledging that Ella only sees Tyson as a strong and cute guy? She also seems to see him as not smart like everyone else. It is so sad.

[beepbeepbobop]

Back again.

I was telling my friend (who isn’t a Baccano! fan, but listens to me ramble) about my take on immortals and Czeslaw, and I don’t know where to put it, so!  It goes here.  As a warning, this is mostly me rambling and probably treads ground that has been talked about a lot in the past, but I hope it’s interesting anyway.

(This and the Infinity Train post is not a sign that I’m going to be more active in the future.  Social media and the prospect of interacting with other people’s posts still make me anxious.  Maybe one day.)

So!  The first thing to keep in mind is that change is a major theme in Baccano!.  No one is incapable of changing, but people have different relationships with it depending on who they are.  Czes can't believe that he has changed seventy years after Isaac & Miria stealing him despite clear evidence that he has.  Meanwhile, Nile actively resists change:  His greatest fear after becoming immortal was that he would become desensitized to the loss of human life and begin to devalue it, so he spent decades fighting in active war zones so that he'd never forget the reality of death.  This backfired, and instead left him inured to loss of life...but it's clear that he doesn't want to be this way?  Realizing that he's gotten to the point where his expression doesn't even change if someone dies is devastating for him.  Chane is the opposite:  While it's absolutely for the best that she stops being a hitwoman and killing machine for her father, softening up is terrifying to her because then she can't serve her father the way she wants to.   Czes is on the opposite end of the spectrum, because he wants to be better because he thinks he's a bad person (later on, he decides that he's the only bad person left in the world.  Sir.), but can't recognize it because he doesn't feel different.

And...this is pertinent to the older immortals in particular - I'd argue even moreso than with the younger ones.  Aside from the fact that the Elixir literally stops you from changing in the sense of age or injury...it also has to place inhibitors on your brain.  Your brain is, after all, a physical part of your body!  There are some....weird aspects about immortality that no one is able to figure out (for example, immortals can give birth; someone also pointed out that there are no examples of crying in reverse even though that's also a part of your body), but it's still safe to say that the brain doesn't age either because then...then a lot of the cast would be catatonic from Alzheimer's.  Even without that, the human body can only retain so many memories.  If an immortal's brain had the ability to deteriorate over time or overload based off of the amount of memories it contains....well, I don't think any of the older immortals would be able to function.  Szilard definitely wouldn't be able to function (and neither would Firo after he devours Szilard) because Szilard has the memories of over a dozen people running around in his brain.  Which brings me to my next point:  If an immortal's brain functioned like a human's, devouring would not work as a concept.  One of the hallmarks of being immortal is gaining other people's memories.  Imagine the strain that would cause.  And yet, it doesn't seem to be a problem!  The chief worry of those who have devoured other immortals is worrying that having the memories of the other person might change you consciously or subconsciously.  This is Firo's concern over devouring Szilard.

So...the fact that the brain doesn't physically grow older or change (with some leniency given because real world science sure is iffy here)...feels relevant because, mn...

Many of the older immortals feel stagnant, or stuck in time.  Firstly, if the immortals changed at the same pace as a human being, I don't think most of them would be recognizable from one era to the other.  And yet, they are!  The Victor Talbot of the 1700s is clearly the same person as the Victor Talbot of the 1930s, albeit with alterations (because what kind of person would stay exactly the same after centuries?).  The answer to that question is Elmer, by the way.  Everyone comments on how he acts just like the Elmer they remember back in the day.  But Elmer is a special case, seeing as he's our local empty shell and probable sociopath (not that he has ASPD!  ASPD, sociopathy and psychopathy all present and function entirely differently from each other, which makes it....strange that they're lumped under the same umbrella - but that's another matter).  Secondly, immortals...Uhm, they all handle grief horribly, and seem to feel stuck in the past?  Maiza, for instance, acts starkly different from his past as a rebellious noble-boy gang member, but he's never forgiven himself for giving Gretto the information that led to his death.  (Gretto being his brother.)  Huey's overarching goal is to bring his dead girlfriend back to life, and he's been working towards this goal for centuries.  Sylvie, who admittedly was not an immortal when Gretto died, held off on drinking the Elixir until she was all grown up, then set out to finding Szilard to take revenge on him for killing the boy she had run away with.  This lasted for, you guessed it, centuries.

This isn't to say that immortals don't change, or even that they don't change drastically.  I mentioned Nile, who became inured to death after fighting in war for decades.  Czes went from a trusting, innocent child to someone paranoid and self-centered enough to try and get an entire train car's worth of people killed for his own safety to someone who wants to be a good person, but thinks he never will be and that there's something fundamentally wrong with him.  But changing appears to be very, very difficult, and happens over an extended period of time in response to extreme situations.

And...this is particularly relevant to Czes (who keeps coming up as an example because he's the main person I'm thinking about with this tangent) because....it arguably hits him harder than any of the others due to being a child.  Only the best decisions were made aboard the Advenna Avis, which includes letting the eight year old drink the immortality elixir.  But...mn.  It's one thing to be perpetually in your thirties, or twenties, or sixties, and another altogether to perpetually be eight years old.  Czes can't truly 'grow up' even though he has more life experience than most adults combined, and it shows in his extreme emotional reactions, his self-centeredness, ect.  There's a certain misconception about anime-only fans that he's an adult in a child's body, but I think it's easier to tell in the light novels that that's not the case, especially since you see what he's like back before the Advenna Avis.  (He is shy.  Very shy.  Did nothing wrong ever.)  Also, the fact that SAMPLE goes, "Yes!  The perfect sacrifice!" when they specifically take a child to target emphasizes this.  It's not proof - I'm pretty sure that SAMPLE would focus on his physical age as an 'eternal child', and may or may not have the resources to analyze him and go, "This boy is still eight years old in his head," - , but it hammers the point home.

Then...mn.  One thing that's stuck out to me ever since the start is how long Czes was with Fermet.  There's such a thing as learned helplessness, and it's not like Czes had anywhere to go, so that's not what is odd to me...especially when Fermet is known for manipulating people, and could definitely seed the idea that Czes can't go anywhere.  More than physical proximity, I think about how long Czes believed in Fermet.  It's explicitly stated that Czes absorbing Fermet's memories is what made him realize that - oh, Fermet was just sadistic and everything he said was an excuse.  And...I think this is both an example of being controlled in many respects, and....another example of an immortal being stuck in the past - but in a very, very different way.

First off, learning that the people you look up to want to harm you is...difficult at best, especially when you're younger?  But being mentally 'stuck' at a certain age would make things worse, because Czes is perpetually an age where it's natural to depend on a parental figure, and at an age where the brain isn't equipped to make those kinds of calls or realizations.  There's also the matter of cognitive dissonance!  Cognitive dissonance means a lot of things, but essentially, it's the idea that you have two conflicting beliefs, but the actions you take can retroactively alter your beliefs/place emphasis on one more than the other, as the mind is predisposed to reduce dissonance.  I...take issue with how cognitive dissonance is interpreted because many examples don't account for the beliefs or opinions not being equal in the first place, but that's not the point.  The point is that, as a child, the impulse to reduce dissonance is present while also being played against difficulty reading intentions, perceiving the world outside of yourself, and thinking critically.  (For what it's worth, abusers also tend to discourage critical thinking because it damages their narrative, which would also play a part.)   So, for example...

Say that, theoretically, Czes was yelled at every time he questions the idea that Fermet's intentions are right, or that maybe Fermet doesn't have his best interests in mind.  (Czes is insightful, and they lived with each other for a long time, so this probably happened at least once unless the text directly contradicts me.)  This is tame compared to the things we know about his time with Fermet, but ignore that.  The desire to not be yelled at would lead him to hurriedly agree later on, and cognitive dissonance means that you're inclined to try to make your beliefs agree with your actions.  In other words, the more he plays along, the more his brain tells him that he definitely believes this, and it makes perfect sense to!  Fermet has shown that he cares about him, and took him in after his grandfather died, so of course.  It only makes sense.  And it's even harder for him to bridge the gap to a different conclusion because of how difficult it seems to be for immortals to change.  It's only when Czes devours Fermet (or...or at least gets his memories) that everything snaps into place, because he can't reconcile that no matter how hard he tries (coincidentally, this also happens when he gets memories of being an adult, and while I seriously doubt that Czes went through Fermet's memories willingly, it kind of hammers my point about how difficult being eternally young would make things).  So of course he snaps as hard as he does.  It'd be kind of amazing if he didn't, honestly.

TLDR:  Being immortal made it even harder for him to recognize or comprehend his trauma.  Sorry for that.

[childofaura]

I know I’m late making a Trollhunters movie post but (SPOILERS)

I wanna talk about the elephant in the room with the movie’s ending. And how much it left a wrong taste in my mouth (like the ending of the Trollhunters show did).

So in my overall post about the movie, I mentioned how the ending where Jim rewrites the past events so that Toby is the Trollhunter REALLY bugged me. Because that meant that every relationship that Jim built up has now collapsed, but also diminishes his relationships with other characters while... you guessed it, pretending like his relationship with Claire is the MOSTEST IMPORTANTEST RELATIONSHIP YOU GAIZ so he takes great care to make sure he sets all that garbage properly in motion while disregarding his other important friends and family. I need to say that when you have a series that spends so long developing dynamics, story points, and relationships that are apparently as fragile as a gossamer thread, then you introduce time travel at the last minute to rewrite history, it feels like you’re devaluing all the work that previous writers had to do to create these stories and relationships. Like yes, you can do time-travel rewrites the RIGHT way, but this just made me mad.

So here’s all of the things that I felt were wrong about Jim rewriting the past like that, and all of his relationships with other characters that will now not happen or not be the same:

1. Blinky.

 Despite Blinky’s heartfelt emotions about seeing Jim as his son, despite the fact that the moment Blinky heard that Jim’s father left him he decided, “Is nobody going to raise this boy properly? Well I think I will!”, despite how much time and effort and love Blinky put into properly training Jim and spending time with him... Now that Toby’s going to be the Trollhunter, that’s all not gonna happen. Blinky will have no reason to invest any time into a mentor/father relationship with Jim because he’s not the one who needs to be trained. Someone might argue, “Well I’m sure Blinky would still feel the same and fall into the father figure role if Jim’s the sidekick!” Let me ask you: Did Blinky ever establish the same type of relationship with Toby when he was a sidekick, the literal orphan Toby with no parents and no father figure in his life either?

No. The most they have is a friendly relationship.

And the same thing will happen to Jim, because there will be nothing special to see in him when he’s not the Trollhunter.

And the thing that pisses me off about this is that Jim still makes the effort to get back into a relationship with Claire over becoming the Trollhunter again so that Blinky will not lose him as a son.

2. Strickler

You can argue that Strickler did not have as much of an influence like Blinky did, but Strickler still became an important figure in Jim’s life as a guiding figure. Them showing Jim inviting Strickler to have dinner with his mom doesn’t feel plausible because the whole point of Strickler’s conflict with his feelings for Barbara was that he develops feelings for her, and feels guilty that he lies about who he is and putting her in danger; this isn’t gonna happen with Jim not being the Trollhunter because Strickler will have no reason to spend so much time around Barbara and Jim. Plus, that scene of him and Barbara having dinner feels... insincere, I guess? Because at that point there’s no feelings for her established and he’s still at the point of plotting the Killahead Bridge project. The part in the first season of Trollhunters where he tells Jim to pass his number to Jim’s mom didn’t have any romantic connotations, he was just playing the part of the teacher concerned with his student’s wellbeing and checking in on his home situation. Then Barbara hints at being interested in him after he bails Jim and Toby out of the museum situation where she flirts with him; at that point he uses that to his advantage to be invited to dinner. It’s GRADUAL BUILDUP THROUGH CONSTANT INTERACTION. One dinner date isn’t gonna re-establish all that.

Oh, and also Strickler will have no reason to care for Jim’s safety as much because Jim won’t be the one in constant danger like he was in the show.

3. Draal

THIS ONE BOTHERS ME THE MOST. OR AT LEAST IS ONE OF THE ONES THAT BOTHERS ME THE MOST. BESIDES BLINKY AT LEAST.

With Toby as the Trollhunter, Draal is now going to direct all his anger at HIM. Who is Toby going to face in the arena (granted provided that he does the same thing as Jim in standing up against Steve which... I would highly doubt that he would given that he was the first to say, “Ignore Steve and let him bully Eli so we don’t get targeted)? Draal. Who is going to be living in his house after losing the fight (Which we can agree that, as much as I love Toby and think he needs his moments to shine, he doesn’t have any pre-existing skills like Jim to be able to fight)? Draal. Who will be constantly spending time training him and talking to him about his human problems? DRAAL.

Draal has basically ignored Toby in the show because all his time lies in training the boy who inherited his father’s mantle. Can you honestly tell me that Jim will still have his brothers-in-arms relationship with Draal if he’s the sidekick?

4. Steve and Eli

Did you guys notice that in the scene where Toby and Jim are walking by Steve and Eli, neither one of them stopped Steve from shoving Eli in a locker? That “One hit and you will be changed forever” moment isn’t gonna happen now! That was supposed to be the pivotal character moment where Jim finds the strength to fight instead of passively laying down! And neither one of them stopped it!

Again, Jim has essentially forsaken all of these (and more!) relationships with other characters, but at the same time decides to treat his relationship with Claire like it’s top priority. It’s an insult to the previous work done in the show.

[qqueenofhades]

Do you think the technology/internet/broad access revolution we are in will change things for POC, queer people, racism, etc?

I think it's obvious that it already has? If you're asking whether technology/social media will change things re: marginalised people for the better, the jury is still out, and we're at a critical tipping point (both in America, but also worldwide) as to whether empirical reality, critical nuance, and acceptance of facts that don't fit your preferred worldview are going to have any continuing relevance to our political and social systems whatsoever. The internet has done a lot of good things, but the instant social media became a place where a) competing ideological narratives and outright fake news were all treated as equally valid, as long as it drove traffic and made money, and b) the owners of these platforms absolved their duty to control them with a shrug of "free speech," we were destined to go down this path, where we all inhabit custom-made information universes where we only ever interact with like-minded people, any critique becomes a sign of insufficient loyalty to The Cause, and collective civic responsibility no longer exists, but is instead replaced by downright sociopathic ultra-libertarian selfishness packaged as "individual freedom." (Just witness how some people have behaved during Covid, refusing even the slightest restrictions, even if making sacrifices would help save other, less fortunate people.) Not to sound like a grumpy old woman, but I think the impact on the real world was truly devastating and, in the short term at least, genuinely irreparable.

The internet has done us the service of connecting and empowering marginalised people who would never have met each other otherwise, providing the entirety of human knowledge at the touch of a button, raising visibility, and so forth. However, we are at an absolute crisis point of whether we're going to let people behave, act, legislate (and try to legislate for others) according to their preferred Facebook feed-version of reality, because see again: the monetization of information, no matter what kind of information, was always going to lead to this. We are just now realizing the devastating consequences of large segments of society walking around in their own personal universes and simply rejecting tenets of empirical reality that do not conform to their own ideology. The problem is, when a lot of people (on both the extreme right and the extreme left) live in lulu-land because of what they consume online, it inevitably affects everyone else. Social media makes it incredibly and poisonously easy to enter an entire information ecosystem that reinforces itself, therefore self-justifying itself in an entire universe of total bullshit, and once people get into that echo chamber, it is very hard (albeit not impossible) to get out.

So, you say. This all sounds awfully pessimistic. What would I do about it? Well, this is the part where I have to say that while I have ideas, and they're things I try to do for myself, it's not anything I can pull off alone. I have talked at length about how the humanities (and their attendant critical thinking skills) have been repeatedly, deliberately, and extensively devalued in late capitalism, precisely because they a) don't generate Production For The Machine and b) encourage people to ask awkward questions about power and control. As long as people aren't explicitly taught how to push back on this stuff, or aren't able to reject something -- even if it fits with their Ideology -- because it isn't true, we're going to be stuck in this mess. I'm not optimistic that legislative efforts against Big Tech will have any effect. I'm glad that at least we saw, however completely terrible it was/is, the stark result of alternate-universe grievance politics on January 6, and in the conservative media loudmouths dogpiling on the Covid vaccine as an attempted way to hurt those liberal sissies who believe in science. It's no coincidence that the states with the lowest vaccination rates are deep-red Trump-supporting southern states. It's only now, as the pandemic resurges in those exact places, that (once more out of expediency) the conservative "news" is finally, tepidly endorsing the idea that huh, maybe you should get vaccinated.

Anyway. The relentless monetization of social media at the expense of any kind of moderation for hate speech, the encouragement that you can post anything you want and never face any consequences Because Free Speech, and the way that we have all seen the vast and horrifically ugly prejudices that the social media universe has both exposed and cultivated anew... it's all pretty much a giant shitburger, if you ask me. I don't know how to quickly fix it. It's way too easy to exist in a bubble, to horrifically bully strangers you will never meet, and to have real and terribly detrimental consequences on our offline lives as a result. The internet obviously isn't going away, but if we don't seriously grapple with the kind of anti-citizens it's made us, I'm not sure what's going to happen, or if it's anything we should want.

I would like to think that we will slowly learn to use this awesome power more responsibly, and reverse some of the incredible damage that has been done, but if that does happen, it'll come when we've already hit rock bottom. Again, it has done good things: the worldwide protests after George Floyd's death, for example, would have been completely impossible without modern technology, in any number of ways. But if it's going to be a concrete social good for all of us, let alone the most vulnerable among us, we have so very far to go, and the global systems in place have absolutely no interest in enabling a reversal of the current trends. So. We will see, but I'm not too hopeful.

[jinxquickfoot]

TFATWS Script Notes

Ok, so while I genuinely enjoyed so much of TFATWS, I have...thoughts. And as a few people have asked me about said thoughts, and said thoughts have been living rent free in my head since the show ended, I’ve made this stupidly long post. (For context, my day job is as a script reader and editor, so here are my TFATWS script notes for anyone kind enough/crazy enough to read them.) And...here we go. 

1) More World-Building

This is a common compliant I’ve seen about the show, and it’s a fair one. While we hear a lot about people being displaced after the Blip and the problems that’s causing, we never really get to see it. Firstly, this is such a wasted opportunity to finally show us some of more of the post-Blip chaos, which is a super interesting world that they didn’t really dive into. Secondly, we would identify more with Karli if we saw what and who she was fighting for instead of just being told about it. You could also add in the woman who dies who was so apparently important to Karli and her community but doesn’t get any screen time while she’s alive, which means we feel very distant from Karli with this loss, when we could feel closer to her. This feels like Karli’s Yinsen or Erskine and we didn’t even get to meet her.

While it was nice that we got an entire first episode dedicated to setting up Sam and Bucky’s arc, that did not need an entire episode of screen time - they don’t even interact until episode 2. Make the opening exposition more succinct, and leave room to set up, if not Karli, then at least the world and the stakes that she’s fighting for.

2) Reveal Sharon is The Power Broker in Episode 3

I know a lot of people didn’t like Sharon as the Power Broker at all, so bear with me, because I like the idea behind this at least - that Sharon has become so jaded after the events of Civil War that she’s turned to crime and has given up on the idea of heroes. As Sam is currently trying to figure out his own ideology and what the shield means to him throughout the series, and he’s already got Zemo pushing his thoughts on him, this would be another challenge for Sam to overcome. Maybe that’s what they were going for, but it’s ruined when they don’t reveal why Sharon is doing what she’s doing and instead save it up for a cheap twist in Episode 6. Most of us picked that Sharon was the Power Broker anyway and it had very little effect on the plot to the point where she felt tacked on as a poorly done set-up for Season 2.

So bring it out that info in Episode 3. It would have been a better twist in that episode, and would have made Sam even more unsure of the right path seeing a former ally as now a potential antagonist. You could also have Sam trying and failing to bring Sharon around by promising her a pardon, which she turns down, making him even more unsure of himself. And then, instead of her feeling tacked on in the last episode, she can come through and help them save the day, revealing that Sam did get through to her after all, the way he always does - empathy and understanding.

3) Wrap up John Walker in episode 5

Walker in the sixth episode was just…weird. They clearly set up him as an added obstacle for Sam and Bucky and then he was their…ally? After killing a man and clearly going for a kill on Sam when they were fighting over the shield? And as cool as that shield construction teaser was, it didn’t pay off, and John Walker did not deserve a redemption arc. So cut the shield scene, and cut Walker out of the final sequence, which would leave more room for Sam and Bucky to actually team up in that final battle. For a show that’s meant to be about their relationship, there was a very little payoff of showing them working together in the final takedown of the Flag-Smashers. Then bring in Madame Hydra and US Agent in a post credits scene for a Season 2 set-up.

4) Bring in Torres as the new Falcon in Episode 6

That’s it, that’s the note. This show definitely suffers from trying to set up too much for later seasons or other Marvel properties. If you’re going to set up Torres as the new Falcon in Episode 5, give it to us in Episode 6. Don’t devalue the show we’re watching for the sake of future content.

5) Have the Flagsmashers turn against Karli

This was such an obvious route that they seemed to be going for, so it kind of amazed me that they didn’t do it. Karli starts off as a Robin Hood-style figure who turns villain, and it’s so clear her followers are starting to doubt her - and her followers should be doubting her. One of their number died, Karli’s threatening to kill hostages, it’s so clear they’re no longer the good guys. So have them back down and abandon her when she goes too far, which leads us into -

6) Have Karli sacrifice herself

Zemo shouldn’t have been proven right. Because he was partially right, and Karli was partially right, and this show should have been about Sam trying to work out the balance between them and figure out what he thought was right, which is what the entire Captain America corner of Marvel has been about. Instead of having Karli go totally evil in her final seconds and trying to kill Sam,  give her the clarity that no one is going to listen to her except if she becomes a symbol. Because people listen to and follow symbols - that’s been a major theme in this show already - and that becomes easier to do if they’re dead. Look at Steve Rogers. Her friend even refers to her as the next Captain America - the seed for this has long been planted.

Karli wants to do good but also recognises the harm she causes. Sam tries to talk her down (I’m imagining he’s put down the shield at this point to talk to her, so they can talk as human beings and not symbols), but at the crucial point she raises her gun with the apparent intent to shoot Sam, causing her to get shot instead. Her death still inspires Sam’s speech and gets her cause won, but it feels more earned and tragic because now it really is a sacrifice - one that maybe didn’t need to be made if she and others like her were listened to in the first place. It also comes with the interesting idea that both Karli and Steve have now sacrificed themselves to win a war, while Sam is still living which, as a certain Washington put it: “Dying is easy young man; living is harder.” Sam choosing to live and fight as Captain America despite knowing the hardships that come with separates him from both Steve and Karli, setting him up to be a new kind of Cap.

I’m so attached to this idea that I have three ideas for who could end up killing her

a) Have it be Sharon

In this version, Sharon embodies a more grey area that Sam would struggle with, and killing a young girl to save a friend would definitely fall into said grey area. Also, Sharon still gets her pardon, but for “eliminating the dangerous terrorist Karli Morgenthau” which…you get it.

b) Have it be Torres

So we’ve established Torres is there as the new Falcon, and all he sees is Sam about to die and takes the shot, only to realize what he’s done when it’s too late. This would add to the price of Karli’s death and be something for Torres to wrestle with in later seasons. Bonus points for one of Karli’s last acts being forgiving Torres.

c) Have it be a faceless law enforcer

This one is the most on the nose, but there’s something in the idea of the government thinking Sam still needs ‘backup’ when really they just make things worse, and Karli letting herself get killed by the system in order to improve it. These are just my opinions - doesn’t mean I’m right all or that all of these would work! But I do think it’s fair to say that the show mostly worked, but it wasn’t a home run, and this is just my script editor brain yelling at me about how they might have got there. (P.S. If this is interesting to anyone except me I have a Iron Man 3 and Age of Ultron one ready to go)

[uwunnie]

Hello, everyone.

To recap: There are new fans, and old fans as well as recently turned fans, who truly believe you have to choose Monsta X or Wonho otherwise you’re not a “real” fan. It has reached a point where toxic idiocy is spewed all over Twitter — not really that surprising, but still very annoying — and it has now reached Tumblr; the one place I felt was pretty neutral.

Initially, I wasn’t going to say anything because I felt like it’d only add to the drama. However, as time passes, I see the fandom heading into a direction that is very...well, doomed. Of course, this is merely my opinion and I don’t really expect anyone to hold it to a high regard because I am not God, nor do I believe I am a God-like figure. However, I do think I can still state my opinion upon the matter and try to shed some knowledge that may be utilized positively.

Before I begin, I’m going to try and insert a ‘Read More,’ but should I not be able to make it to a laptop in time before my patience completely disappears, I will tw it as a “long post.” If you dislike long posts and don’t have them filtered, though, and this pops up on your dash and annoys you — I apologize, kinda.

Anyways, let’s go.

—

I don’t really know what happened. Or well, I do, unfortunately.

In the beginning, Monbebes stuck together. We all came together and showed our support as a united body of like-minded individuals who shared their love and support for Monsta X — whether they were seven or individual.

Things went well. Petitions were signed. Billboards were funded. Zoo’s were created.

But at some point, Monbebes began idolizing other Monbebes — and I don’t mean looking up to sensible fans, but ones who are problematic.

Allow to me to repeat this to avoid misunderstandings: It’s okay to look up to fans who are NOT problematic. It really is — be friends with them, aspire to be more like them, I don’t care; do you so long as it’s positive.

But....but....to choose problematic fans to look up to? To choose ones who are known to fetishize a culture? To choose ones who are known, and praised, to fetishize sexualities? To choose ones who provide false hope in exchange for clout while simultaneously invading REAL people’s lives?

Yeah, that’s where everything went wrong.

The wrong people built platforms and their voices were, inevitably, elevated. Everyone began dividing and forming cliques in the name of “unity.” Everyone began losing sight of the big picture — the big picture being a positive resolution.

People stated they wanted a positive outcome, but only if it was on their terms.

Greed. Greed. Greed.

Selfishness replaced selflessness.

Various Monbebes began inserting themselves into the narrative as if it was their own personal emotions that mattered more than Monsta X’s — and that’s not to devalue anyone’s feelings, but I mean...it’s the boys who were directly affected by what happened.

Wonho was the one who had to receive backlash for past events that don’t equate his worth.

Shownu’s voice was silenced despite being a victim to sexually implicit lies and harassment.

Minhyuk sacrificed his own emotions and began keeping hardships to himself.

Kihyun was forced into voicing over his friend’s song lyrics, and is also continually made fun of despite him speaking out and asking fans to not refer to him as “small” and “tiny.”

Hyungwon received, and continues to bear, backlash because certain fans think he’s a liar and also like to criticize him for being “lazy” as if the dude doesn’t work his ass off every day.

Jooheon’s mental health issues were pushed under the rug by many people within the fandom and as soon as he returned, various fans demanded he work more — try harder, be louder and more energetic.

Changkyun’s emotions were disregarded — many fans stating he has an “attitude problem” and seems cold despite the dude literally trying to make everyone around him happy and also sticking up for Monbebes.

Monsta X, regardless of the number, were all continuously pushed past their limits; treated as machines and play-things rather than human beings.

And this is only what has been shown to us. Think about everything that’s transpired that we haven’t seen.

—

I understand that those months were hard, I really do. I was right there with everyone not getting any sleep and trying to balance school, work, projects, etc. I understand it was very emotionally upsetting and I am not devaluing anyone’s feelings because I know it was hard.

But a line has to be drawn.

There has to be a realization that it is Monsta X who has endured the worst of the entire situation. It is not fair to say that the fans had it worse when MX’s actual jobs, lives, health, and futures were all tampered with, endangered, and victimized.

And to top it off — as positive of a resolution that could be made in the situation has been met and people continue to complain.

I understand it may not be ideal — everyone wanted them to come together as seven again and I know how disheartening it is that that isn’t an option right now, but...they’re still here.

Wonho get’s to continue with his career. He can still interact and talk to us. He can do what he wants — I mean, the dude literally has a whole Instagram account to himself when it took a year or two, maybe more, just for SSE to give MX personal cell phones.

The six active members get to continue as well. They released an album that is more than likely going to be nominated for a golden disc award and they’re all, seemingly, recovering. They’ve been able to vacation and from the looks of it, the company is going a little easier on them with their schedules — in a way.

In other words: All seven of them are content.

And for the fandom, we still get to see them. We get to listen to their voices and see their faces. We get to interact with them and watch new shows, etc.

They’re still here — and honestly? It’s a miracle.

Do you know how hard it is for a people to continue considering what transpired? How unusual it is for an artist to be able to overcome legal battles that usually deem unfavorable in the position he was in?

I’ve been in the Kpop fandom for nearly 12 or 13 years now and this is the first time I’ve ever seen legal cases turn out okay for an idol.

History was made and a positive resolution was met, but yet — hardly anyone wants to celebrate.

Instead, a big chunk of the fandom now wants to dive into more drama — separate Monbebes and Wenees from each other and build more cliques.

Say stupid shit like “you’re not a real fan if you only support Monsta X” and “you’re not a real fan if you only support Wonho.”

“Wenees are superior.”

“Monbebes are superior.”

“Wenees love Wonho!”

“Monbebes love Monsta X, and Monsta X only!”

“Let’s listen to boycottbebes!”

“Let’s listen to problematic tarotbebes!”

“Let’s listen to akgaes!”

Just...shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut. Up.

—

I hate to break it to everyone who believes the quotes above, but we are all the same.

Monbebes are Wenees, and Wenees are Monbebes.

There is no competition.

There is no Monsta X without Hoseok, and there is no Hoseok without Monsta X.

—

You cannot hate the root and only love the flower just like you cannot hate the flower and be fascinated by its roots. In the same regard, a leaf cannot hate another upon the stem because to do so would be the leaf despising itself.

—

TL;DR: Stop the fan wars before you ruin damn near six years of love and (relatively abundant) peace.

[wanna-b-poet31]

A (maybe) 4-part meta on Good Omens: Part 1: Aziraphale’s Abuse and Trauma

SOOOOO I promised myself I wouldn’t get too obsessed with Good Omens but I’ve got some meta-thoughts. 

So, it’s no secret that abuse is prevalent in Good Omens, but the methods of abuse are interesting ultimately working as a catalyst for how Crowley and Aziraphale interact with humans, Heaven, Hell, and each other. 

Several of the characters we see in Good Omens are traumatized by the time we meet them, although some more than others. For example, Newt, for what little we see him is clearly ostracized by everyone around him and he shows signs of trauma via isolation. Until the end of the world, it’s heavily implied that he’s bullied, if not dismissed from the rest of the world due to his explosive tendencies with computers. He’s not shown to have healthy coping skills with the isolation, and although it is ultimately good he doesn’t get his job, and works with Shadwell, and meets Anathema, but he’s unable to express himself in a healthy way or handle his past.  Similarly, due to the stress of saving the world, Anathema is traumatized by the expectations of her family, of being a “descendant” of Agnes Nutters.  

But, both begin recovery journeys by beginning to assert their own needs and well-being. Newt begins forming real, relationships and coping with his loneliness by making friends and Anathema defies her family’s obligation by burning the letters. Overall, it’s a straightforward approach to begin recovering from traumatic events. 

However, Crowley and Aziraphale do not have quite as straightforward a narrative. 

Heaven is unbending. It is clear to both of them that God and her representatives punish independence, asking questions, and having any defined version of a “self”. 

Look at the photo below. It’s an environment that (per my last post) is cold, abusive, and really, isn’t a functional space. Nothing can get done reasonably in here. There aren’t any personal touches and it makes the space devoid of any sense of home. AND THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE HEAVEN, land of milk and honey Heaven. It’s not just bland, it’s much more insidious than that. It’s false transparency, a “nothing to see here” mask that the angels use to belittle, attack, and intimidate each other. 

Then there’s the messy business of the dogmatism Heaven follows that affects Aziraphale throughout the series. We see it first in the garden that questions (a la Crowley) lead to abandonment. The fear of falling, of knowingly being discarded by people/entities that supposedly love one another is a violent space to grow up in and incentivizes the remaining angels to keep their head down and not question actions that are clearly wrong. It is Crowley who asks why it would be okay to kill kids (because it’s clearly wrong) to which Aziraphale responds: “I’m not consulted about policy decisions”. It’s clear that 1000 year after the garden he’s internalizing his conditioning. 

His behavior, especially coming from THE angel who gave away his flaming sword without any hesitation and then LIED to God about it, shows that he clearly knows right from wrong is jarring. But, it’s unsurprising, given the abusive place he is attached to. Heaven’s love for him is conditional and wholly dependant on him being able to do as he’s told, not what might be right. 

It’s also clear that Aziraphale is being abused during the events of the series. While not always physically violent (although I’ll get to that in a second), he is continuously belittled and degraded. 

Take a look at Heaven’s least favorite Asshole: Gabriel

When we are introduced to Gabriel the first few things out of his mouth are insults. Although we’ve had Aziraphale for only like 5 seconds and we already can tell how passionate he is about food. Aziraphale is eating sushi, presumably a favorite food given his familiarity with the chef, and taking some time for himself, and like a good family member offers some to his “fellow”, his “ally”, an entity who supposedly had his back. When the food is refused, it’s presented with a dismissive tone and called “gross matter” that would “sully” his body.  This is is a smack in the face to Aziraphale and he quickly lies, saying he’s only eating to keep up appearances. This shutdown of interests and likes pushes Aziraphale to be like Newt, ostracized from people who are supposed to be his friends. Then, like Anathema, his exposure to the “great plan” and what is expected of an angel is villanizes his interests, causing him to feel shame and associate his individuality and sense of the self with “wrong” or “broken”. 

This differs greatly from how Crowley and Aziraphale meet. Although we see Crowley tempt eve, they talk to each other as equals and Crowley does the one thing Heaven has never done -- tell him he’s doing a good job. There is no harm in eating or enjoying eating but he’s being treated like he’s committing some kind of sin. Crowley, in contrast, reaffirms Aziraphale’s actions and helps relieve his concerns. Gabriel, instead, aggravates his anxiety.

Then, we see Gabriel do one of the more insidious discreditings of Aziraphale’s sense of self at the bookstore.  Whereas Crowley is able to tell when there are new books in the shop and knows that losing the shop is a significant loss for Aziraphale, Gabriel can’t be bothered (more on that at the end). At some level, it’s his disdain for humanity that makes him indifferent at best about the bookstore. But, his disregard for Aziraphale’s livelihood, something that is a clear point of pride and joy, is belittling. He is demanding that Aziraphale drop everything he loves to fight the great war, and while asking to fight is not intrinsically abusive (Crowley too asks Azi to join him and fight), the dynamic is not of equals with the same motivations, rather it is clearly meant to be talking down to Aziraphale. Gabriel sees no value in the shop or his “brother” and if he can’t see it there must not be any. The blow to Aziraphale’s emotional state is apparent in the grimace he gives the two angels. 

Even when Aziraphale, (who does his best to uphold what he has been conditioned to be “right” and after many millennia has grown to trust Gabriel despite no reciprocation) DOES go to Heaven with a plan, news about where the anti-christ is and how to stop it, or push him to be neither satan no saint, he’s met with more belittlement. None of the angels at the meeting believe that Aziraphale can accomplish his goals, but worst than that, none of them are willing to give him the support he needs to achieve his goal. Sure they don’t smite him where he stands for purposing an alternative to the end of the world, but that’s not the same as being a support system he can rely on. He can’t even voice here the reasons why he cares so deeply about Earth or why they may be wrong. He is not their equals in their eyes. 

You can also see it at the park when Gabriel and Aziraphale are running, and Gabriel punches his stomach, telling our adorable angel he needs to lose the gut, devaluing Aziraphale’s worth further. Even the face he makes in the gif below is filled with condescension. He’s not taking Aziraphale, or Aziraphale’s concerns seriously. 

Which brings me to the final nail in Heaven’s abusive coffin via Gabriel. The intended violence of his “sentence” is meant to, like the fall, strike the fear of abandonment, disownment, and death into Aziraphale. There is no scenario (except the one we see) where Aziraphale is meant to make it out of Heaven alive. 

After Armaggeddon’t Gabriel, who knows Aziraphale’s intentions of diverting the apocalypse, if perhaps not the rationale, is pleased to belittle the restrained Aziraphale. There is legit joy in his face when they force Aziraphale to walk into the hellfire. 

In the above gif, you can see that not only is he being verbally abusive, throwing ill-intent insults at Aziraphale, but that he fully expects the fire to kill his supposed brother and PLEASED about it.  

LET ME REPEAT THAT. The place/people who Aziraphale is supposed to love, trust, and be loyal to are ready, and happy to, drop him at a moment’s notice. At this point, considering the layers of abuse already outlined, Aziraphale’s insistence that he can’t be on Crowley’s side because Heaven wouldn’t like it is symptomatic of someone who is longing for a genuine, honest connection and has been “raised” to believe that is Heaven, no questions allowed.   

this is not to say Heaven isn’t above physical abuse towards Aziraphale.

I’ve seen some excellent metas floating around dissecting the Crowley vs. Aziraphale  and the Angel’s vs. Aziraphale “intimidation” (although I can’t find them now, please @ them if you know them) and the bottom line is that Aziraphale is terrified by Uriel and her legion of Angels much more than Crowley ever could. Aziraphale is damn well aware of how violent the angels who aren’t even touching him can be vs. his calm response to Crowley pushing him against a wall. 

Which brings me back to Crowley and Aziraphale. Although I can (and will) do another one of these on Crowley, and dive deeper into the implications of their relationship and the closure they need/got by being on their own side. I want to take a second to articulate just how much Crowley does not (try) to do be this way to Aziraphale. 

I maintain that Crowley, is aware of Heaven’s abusive tendencies due to his fall and the subsequent fear that must have caused other angels, I do not think he’s aware of the levels of mental, verbal, and emotional abuse that heaven throws Aziraphale specifically. The way Aziraphale talks up heaven, you’d suspect he was getting awards left and right, or at least some semblance of respect. But no. In stark contrast to Gabriel, Crowley will entertain Aziraphale’s interests/passions like food and books even if they aren’t something he indulges in often himself. Whereas I said earlier Gabriel dismissed the bookshop and presupposed it was something Aziraphale would be able to drop like a rock, Crowley KNOWS that Aziraphale cares so deeply for his books, his food, and his identity as an angel, that losing any of them would be unbearable. Although Crowley pushes and sometimes goes too fast for Aziraphale, he’s not approaching Aziraphale in bad faith. 

Of the 10 observed historical meetings, we see Crowley initiate at least 6 of them (it could be said the Victorian meeting is also Crowley’s doing, but the jury is out about who called that particular meeting as Aziraphale walks toward Crowley first in that scene). We also see Crowley go out of his way to do things that make the Angel comfortable and does not once break his trust. Although he storms out 3 times in the show, he always uses it as breathing room, before once again seeking Aziraphale out, and doing his best to work on their relationship AS EQUALS. Their dynamic (Which I’ll go into more later) is not on uneven footing, and both parties treat the other with a kindness neither of them is offered by their respective worlds.  

TLDR: Crowley’s love for Aziraphale helps heal him from the abuses of Heaven

Thanks for coming to my tedtalk

[lo-lynx]

Dangerous women in His Dark Materials

CW: Sexism, racism

Spoiler warning: spoilers for all of the His Dark Materials book series. Extremely tiny spoiler for The Secret Commonwealth.

In the opening pages of Northern Lights, we meet our heroine Lyra Silvertongue as she sneaks through the collage where she has grown up, to get access to a forbidden room. Her daemon Pan chides her to behave herself, which she, of course, does not listen to; as the lovely hosts of the podcast Girls Gone Canon are fond of saying when anyone says ���Lyra, no”, her immediate response is “LYRA YES” (look, I tried to find a specific episode where they say this so I could reference that, but even though I love their podcast I didn’t want to relisten to hours of the podcast just to find that). In many ways, Lyra is perhaps the very definition of the word “willful”. Another early example that the reader gets of her willfulness is in the second chapter of Northern Lights when Lyra’s relationship to the scholars of Jordan Collage is described: “(…) they were men who had been around her all her life, taught her, chastised her, given her little presents, chased her away from the fruit trees in the Garden (…)” (Pullman 2011a, 19). That last part about chasing her away from the fruit trees in the Garden is particularly interesting since it clearly connects Lyra to Eve and the Garden of Even. Later in the story, we find out that Lyra is prophesised to play a sort of Eve 2.0 role, something the Magisterium dreads (Pullman 2011c, 68). I’ve previously written about the power relations in His Dark Materials and their connection to gender and sexuality here. In this essay I want to continue on a similar track, by analysing femininity and female sexuality specifically, and the Magisterium’s view on them.

But before we get into all of that, I want to return to our dear Lyra. When the reader is first introduced to her, she’s disobeying rules, and this is, of course, a theme that continues through the series. Throughout the books, she is constantly doing things she’s not supposed to do, no matter what the adults or institutions around her say. She is at different times described as “half-wild, half-civilised”, “fierce and stubborn”, and having “some nerve” (Pullman 2011a, 19 & 120; Pullman 2011b, 202). Now, this portrayal of a half-wild young girl sounds very similar to the idea of the “willful girl” that Sara Ahmed describes (2017). Ahmed writes that wilful girls show up in all sort of fiction, and one specific example that she gives is the Grimm story called The Willful Child. Ahmed quotes the story in her text, and since I think it is very illustrative of the point both she and I try to make I will do so as well:

Once upon a time there was a child who was willful, and would not do as her mother wished. For this reason God had no pleasure in her, and let her become ill, and no doctor could do her any good, and in a short time she lay on her death-bed. When she had been lowered into her grave, and the earth was spread over her, all at once her arm came out again, and stretched upwards, and when they had put it in and spread fresh earth over, it was all to no purpose, for the arm always came out again. Then the mother herself was obligated to go to the grave, and strike the arm with a rod, and when she had done that, it was drawn in, and then at last the child had rest beneath the ground. (Grimm & Grimm 1884, 125. Quoted in Ahmed 2017, 66)

As Ahmed points out, it is only when the willful child gives up her own will that she can become at peace. Furthermore, Ahmed writes:

Note that the rod, as that which embodies the will of the parent, of the sovereign, is not deemed willful. The rod becomes the means to eliminate willfulness from the child. One form of will judges the other wills as willful wills. One form of will assumes the right to eliminate the others. (Ahmed 2017, 67)

Now, if this doesn’t describe Lyra’s story, I don’t know what does. Ahmed also notes that willfulness is generally a trait which is assigned to girls, while boys are described as “strong-willed” instead, a more positive trait (ibid, 68). This is because girls are generally not supposed to have wills of their own. However, it’s not just girls who are not supposed to have wills of their own, of course. Ahmed also notes that a similar framing was used to describe enslaved and colonised people, who were often positioned as children, and was supposed to obey their master (ibid, 80). Continuing with the theme of the strong arm who breaks expectations, Ahmed references the famous speech Ain’t I a Woman by Sojourner Truth (ibid, 87). For those who don’t know, Sojourner Truth was a former enslaved black woman and abolitionist who in 1851 held a speech at a women’s convention in Ohio (there exist several performances of this speech that you can find online, I would especially recommend this one by Kerry Washington and this one by Alfre Woodard). There she criticised those who said that women should not have rights because they were the so-called weaker sex. It is said that during her speech, she bared her right arm to show her muscles and pointed out that as a formerly enslaved person she was hardly weak. I’ll return to this speech later, but here I’ll just reiterate the point that Ahmed makes: “The arms of the slave belonged to the master, as did the slaves, as the ones who were not supposed to have a will of their own.” (ibid, 87). This, I think, is a point that becomes clear throughout the His Dark Materials. The powerful claim the right to override the will of the marginalised, be it women, people of colour, or other groups. In previous essays, I have written about how this becomes clear with the illusions to eugenics, etc in the series, so I will leave that here for now. But it is important to remember how race and class interact with gender, and I think that if Lyra didn’t have white privilege and class privilege, she would have a much harder time getting away with being so willful.

Now, Ahmed notes in her text, that all of these stories in literature about willful girls really go back to the “first” willful woman, Eve (Ahmed 2017, 70). These other stories:

(…) becomes a thread in the weave of the stories of willful: returning us to Genesis, to the story of the beginning, to Eve’s willful wantonness as behind the fall from Grace. The wilfulness of women relates here not only to disobedience but to desire: the strength of her desire becoming a weakness of her will. (ibid)

Here we see another twist of the willful woman; the woman whose desires overpower her self-control. Having returned to Eve, which I previously noted is deeply connected to Lyra since she’s considered an Eve 2.0 of sorts, it feels necessary to look at how the Magisterium of Lyra’s world sees Eve. The Church in Lyra’s world (in a parallel to our own) teaches that when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of knowledge in the garden of Eden, their daemons settled, and they start experiencing shame over their bodies (Pullman 2011a, 370). That is of course also the moment sin comes into the world, and the first humans are cast out of the Garden. I’ve previously written about how this has led to the Church wanting to control sexuality and sin (both in our world and Lyra’s world). If possible, they would eradicate sin from the world altogether. As Mrs. Coulter puts it in The Amber Spyglass: “If they could, they’d go back to the garden of Eden and kill Eve before she was tempted.” (Pullman 2011c, 205). The church here puts the blame for humanity’s sinfulness on the first woman, and much like in our world, I would argue that this has been transferred upon women as a whole. As for instance, Yolanda Betata Martín has written, in the middle ages, the church would generally describe female sexuality as particularly sinful, if not outright demonic (for instance by linking it to witchcraft). She writes:

First, the sexuality is perceived as an activity linked exclusively to reproduction and no to sexual pleasure. Second, female sexuality is projected symbolically as a phenomenon endowed with negative connotations and even destructive defined in terms of greed, insatiability and animality. Both beliefs are based more immediate ideological patristic discourse, i.e., in a Discourse of biblical inspiration that projects an image of women deeply misogynist based on the biblical figure of Eve and her role in the Edenic fall. (…) The Discourse gives patristic principles of rationality, morality and intellectuality to men so that women are defined, following the principle of otherness, as irrational, immoral and visceral. This view of feminine nature, supported ideologically on the supposed natural inferiority of women under the Edenic fall, is radicalized throughout the Middle Ages and especially from the thirteenth century. (ibid, 48)

Women are, therefore, simultaneously seen as potentially dangerous and inferior. Sounds familiar? This, I would argue, is not just how Lyra, but perhaps, even more, her mother Mrs. Coulter, is seen by the Magisterium in His Dark Materials.

Now, I’ve pointed out how Lyra most of the time outright goes against the wishes of the adults around her (with some notable exceptions of course, she is Lyra Silvertongue after all, and can be really sneaky). Mrs. Coulter, on the other hand, usually plays into the perception people have of her. In a world where she can only hold a limited amount of official power (she can’t become a priest in the church, and rise in the ranks in that way, for instance), she has been forced to rely on other means (Pullman 2011a, 372). In this patriarchal world it is quite clear that women are generally devalued, I mean, just look at the disdainful way Lyra describes female scholars at the beginning of Northern Lights (ibid, 71). Lyra is however transfixed by Mrs. Coulter’s charms, and to the reader who already knows how she kidnaps children, it is clear that these charms are dangerous too. But to Lyra, and quite a few other people in the story, they are not obviously sinister. Later, in The Amber Spyglass, Mrs. Coulter uses these same charms to trick Metatron (Pullman 2011c, 405). She seduces him, while simultaneously portraying herself as a weak woman. As a reader, you definitely realise by this point, that the Magisterium is right in fearing both Lyra and Mrs. Coulter. To quote Sojourner Truth (see, I said we’d return to her!):

Then that little man in black there, he says women can't have as much rights as men, 'cause Christ wasn't a woman! Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him.

If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back, and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them. (Truth 1851. Quoted in Women’s Rights National History Park n.d.)

Yes, these women will turn the world right-side-up again. They’ll create a world (more) free from religious control, and with more equality.

I want to note, that when Lyra sees the female scholar Dame Hannah Relf again, at the end of The Amber Spyglass, she thinks that Dame Hannah is much more clever, interesting, and kind than she thought before (Pullman 2011c, 515). Perhaps Lyra has just grown up, perhaps she has learned to value women more, I’m not sure. However, Lyra definitely has changed. Later in the same chapter, she is described as defiant but lost by Dame Hannah. I don’t quite have the space to go into Lyra’s changing character later in her life, mainly in The Secret Commonwealth, here but perhaps that’ll be a separate essay one day. However, I think it’s quite clear that Lyra has lost some of her wilfulness and daring (not all of it though). And, if she is to save the world again, then she must regain that. Perhaps that is part of Pullman’s message to his readers; be critical of authorities, be brave, be willful.

As we’ve seen throughout this essay, the patriarchal society in Lyra’s world is fearful of willful girls and women. This fear goes all the way back to their hatred and fear of Eve, and their resentment of her being responsible for humanity’s expulsion from the garden of Eden. As Sojourner Truth puts it, they’ve seen that women are strong enough to turn the world upside down. Therefore women, and their sexuality, must be controlled. It must be demonised, and women must be seen as inferior as to not get too much power. In a way, the Church’s fear is proven correct by the story; the women of the story are able to change the world again. This time to turn it right-side-up.

References

Ahmed, Sara. 2017. Living a Feminist Life. Durham: Durham University Press.

Beteta Martín, Yolanda. 2013. “THE SERVANTS OF THE DEVIL. THE DEMONIZATION OF FEMALE SEXUALITY IN THE MEDIEVAL PATRISTIC DISCOURSE.” Journal of Research in Gender Studies Volume, 3:2, 2013, 48–66.

Pullman, Philip. 2011a. Northern Lights. London: Scholastic.

Pullman, Philip. 2011b. The Subtle Knife. London: Scholastic.

Pullman, Philip. 2011c. The Amber Spyglass. London: Scholastic

Women’s Rights National History Park. n.d. “Sojourner Truth: Ain't I A Woman?” National Park Service. Accessed March 22, 2020. https://www.nps.gov/articles/sojourner-truth.htm

[peerless-soshi]

It’s truly unbelievable how much Lan Wangji has grown on me as time went on.

I wouldn’t say that I hated him but I didn’t like him either, and I was slightly annoyed by him. Look, I know those cold, unapproachable and extremely handsome fictional guys who treat their love interests like total idiots. Everything they do is perfect, girls drool even though a date with someone like Lan Wangji would be as funny as a funeral. I was thinking... who would fall for this? Seriously? What's more, him taking Wei Wuxian to Gusu against his will was a big red light for me. But fine, cold and beautiful guys is a popular trope... 

It's all true until we get to know more about Lan Wangji. Then... A role model? Mr. Perfect? Only because people around him choose to take him this way. In fact, Lan Wangji is one big social potato who stays silent not because he’s too cool for you but because he has no idea how to join a conversation. He struggles with speaking his mind, secretly wants to write on walls but is too much of a good boy and prefers to fake his own death than admit he has a crush. This is when we, as readers, realize that everyone believes LWJ is a young prodigy while he’s only an introvert that really wants to go home and read some books. And suddenly, LWJ is not so unapproachable anymore, but rather relatable on some spiritual level? His colleagues avoid him because LWJ’s cold expression is read as distant, even rude, and WWX is pretty much the only one who treats him like a human being. The scenes with drunk LWJ portray pretty well that he truly wants to have fun with others. He just doesn't know how. At the same time, WWX never devaluates LWJ’s talent (aka the reason LWJ is seen as distant). WWX fully acknowledges it, but doesn’t let it affect his own self-value, instead putting LWJ in the “you’re a top student, me and JC are top students, we should go out together” group. He is probably the first person ever that acted at ease around him and wasn’t afraid to laugh. For LWJ, it had to be both pleasant - as every human, he needed company - and scary because as every introvert, he didn’t know how to handle social interactions. 

I also like the way WWX deals with LWJ’s nature. I mean, sure, WWX is a very flawed person and he makes more mistakes than there are stars on the sky. Getting into a quiet person’s bed may not be the best idea, but let’s respect the circumstances and the fact that WWX really wasn’t sure what to expect from older LWJ. He made some bad decisions but the general path he chooses with LWJ is amazing; he sometimes pushes him forward, saying that smiling more will make people like him, but it’s only because WWX understands better than anyone else that LWJ’s seriousness deters people. WWX fights with LWJ’s introvert nature when it’s getting troublesome for the quality of his life, but he’s also aware of LWJ’s borders and usually tries to avoid uncomfortable situations (at least after he notices that LWJ is on his side...). Let’s take questioning people in the towns as an example. WWX always takes it on as he knows LWJ doesn’t feel good with strangers. But what’s more, he never tries to “teach” him or change LWJ in any way. No, they split up their responsibilities - WWX makes it very clear that he has other talents than LWJ and should take care of other stuff while LWJ can do what is the best for him. That’s all right. 

So yeah, LWJ went from an ideal love interest with no flaw to an example that nobody must perfect to be perfect to somebody. And so I went from disliking him to loving LWJ with all my heart.

[teamoliv-archive]

I don’t have much for unpopular opinions, but I’ll try this instead: what’s your take on the whole situation regarding RWBY and their recent decisions in the latest season? (Frcstbxte)

send me controversial or unpopular opinions and I’ll tell you if I agree or disagree 🐸 ☕️

Hoo boy. People are going to unfollow me for this one guaranteed due to how may super strong opinions people have about this. This one’s getting a cut to avoid drama.

I do want to stress that I don’t want to devalue or invalidate anyone’s complaints regarding the show. Enjoyment is a highly personal thing and if you’re frustrated, upset, disappointed, or otherwise had negative feelings don’t let this convince you that you’re not allowed to feel the way you do about the volume.. My gripes are more on the mechanical and storytelling aspects of things and with the arguments used to criticize the volume. I only hope I can make my case on why the commonly complained about parts of the show don’t warrant the vitriol in my opinion. I likely won’t convince too many people, but I’d like to make my case here anyway.

I honestly believe a lot of the complaints about the latest season from a writing standpoint are short-sighted, lack scope, and/or just miss the point of what we’re looking at. From an overall storytelling perspective this was definitely the most well put together season the show has had so far and a lot of the complaints only address individual concerns that some fans had regarding things not happening the way they wanted to without a regard for the overall plot. This is why I think a lot of the complaints don’t measure up and where my actual gripes with the part lie.

1. Theme

You cannot consider yourself to have analyzed a work without first looking at its overall theme. RWBY’s structure doubles up on this as not only does the show as a whole have its overarching themes and plot, but each individual volume has their own to deal with as well. Here the theme is trust, as directly stated in the opening lyrics and it’s a common source of problems and solutions throughout the the show. 

From an overarching standpoint, we have Salem doing her darnedest to break apart any alliances that could be formed against her. I do not believe this is because she fears humanity in terms of tactical numbers. This simply isn’t that kind of show. The writers have said in interviews that they take most of their story and theme cues from the magical girl genre. You know, the same “love and friendship conquers all” magical girl genre that all those shows not named Madoka Magicka use as the basis for their protagonists. The silver eye power seems fueled by that exact sentiment and I think that’s going to be a huge factor close to the end. This is not a setting where pragmatism and strategic thinking will carry the day- keep that in mind.

2. RWBY vs. Ironwood

This is the part everyone’s been talking about and I think a lot of the hard-line side-taking in either direction is missing the point entirely. This conflict was always going to happen and both sides have fault to bear.

The two sides can be seen as having their own character arcs on a macro scale. Individual character motivations weren’t nearly as important as they were in previous volumes and it helps to see them mostly through the lens of Ruby and Ironwood. The basic core of the problem throughout the series is this, Team RWBY has decided to go along with Ironwood’s plan for lack of one themselves, but don’t trust him with the whole truth until they know how he’ll react to it. This is a man with an army and a paranoid streak after all. This, of course, is a decision that winds up instrumental in triggering Ironwood’s paranoid shitstorm later in the volume.

That said, I don’t believe the problem is Ruby’s decision making- It’s the narrative. The whole reason this comes across as weird and contrived is that we are never told the reason Ruby and co. don’t trust Ironwood with the information from the lamp. By all accounts up until this point there was no visible reason for them to do so and we’re simply never told WHY. Answering this simple question would have made the entire rest of the narrative make a lot more sense were she just given a believable reason to hold the info back, let alone any reason at all.

Now let’s bounce back to Ironwood. I’m going to just go out and say I grew tired of the “Ironwood did no wrong.” discourse pretty quickly because, again, people are missing the point. For this one, we have to look back into the theme- trust. When Ironwood has his breakdown, he not only turns his back on Ruby and her team for lying to him, but he goes right into his martial law plan also betraying the trust of the council, Robyn, and the people of Mantle who are now going to be sacrificed for the sake of salvaging his original plan. Despite Ruby and co’s actions making the situation worse, we aren’t meant to see Ironwood’s new solution as a better alternative purely on the moral cost of what he’s doing. This is what is called in screenwriting the “Moral Line” defined as a vision of right and wrong as told through the protagonists. We’re meant to sympathize with Ruby owning up to lying to Ironwood and trying to move forward despite the setbacks, not cheer for Ironwood calling them out and forcing out a more pragmatic path.

To me, I think this stems from a common sentiment shared in a lot of popular media and deconstruction of tropes that idealism is a naive and childish flaw and that proper strategic logic is what solves problems. Again, I predict that due to the genre inspirations of this story, this won’t be the case at all. Ironwood is going to fail because he turned his back on moral idealism, trust, and friendship in favor of planning and decisive action no matter the cost, not despite it. Harriet summarized the entire philosophy well during her fight with Ruby:

“It’s not excessive if it’s necessary!”

This line feels, to me, like a reflection of everything that Team RWBY is now fighting against and we should be able to understand as an audience from a moral standpoint why this is the way it is.

As a small aside, let’s cap this off with the RWBY vs. ACE-Ops fight. A lot of people called foul because the ACE-Ops lost and I just don’t understand why. The moment the fight started, I knew what the outcome was going to be purely because the story as it was set up simply couldn’t progress otherwise. Much like Mercury and Emerald in volume 5, RWBY matching and defeating the ACE-Ops shows the progression of the main characters. Them choosing to fight also shows RWBY the final stakes moving forward and symbolically shows them that the might of the entire Atlas army is now their enemy moving forward. 

With this in mind, I want to go back to Ironwood’s martial law plan and defend some aspects of his character that should be. Up until the point of Ironwood’s breakdown it was seriously and soberly treated as a last resort option with a clear understanding by Ironwood, Winter, and the ACE-Ops that they knew exactly what was it was going to imply. This does not make them evil and it’s important to understand that. However the Tin Man needs a heart and this brings us to Ironwood’s fatal flaw. The real bad decision was that the martial law plan was enacted despite already having the unity of the people of Mantle behind them. He lost far more than the stands to gain with his decision, thinking only from a tactical and strategic standpoint regardless of what he has to sacrifice to get there. Those sacrifices have already all but left him facing Salem alone. If he survives next volume, I’ll be surprised.

3. Qrow and Clover

For a few moments, I do want to discuss Clover and Qrow’s dynamic because it’s very important to Qrow’s story throughout the part. Regardless of how you choose to interpret their exchanges, the important takeaway here is that for the first time in possibly decades Qrow had a friend he can talk to as an equal and not have Ozpin’s plans or a generational gap in the way. 

Ever since we were introduced to Qrow, he’s shown himself to be a dysfunctional loner who is only just recently trying to seriously pick himself back up off his feet. I believe the fact that he was finally shown that he can actually have friends is a huge factor in this. His life has always been dominated by his feelings and doomsaying. He spends every interaction waiting for the other shoe to drop and uses his own semblance as an excuse to perpetuate that worldview.

And this is why I think Qrow’s fight with Clover makes total sense to have happened. He’s one of Oz’s main team and also has a fatal flaw.

The cowardly lion needed courage and he died for his cowardice.

The tin man needs a heart and lost all his allies in the pursuit of his goals.

The scarecrow needs a brain and his emotional decision-making cost him his friend’s life.

This is a genuine tragedy, literary-speaking in fact. Qrow’s awful situation was one of his own making and he knows it, but I can’t imagine him doing anything else. One thing that I’ve seen throughout the show about Qrow is that he’s never given up trying to stop Salem- he’s an idealist like Ruby and in my opinion has been subverting the mentor archetype beautifully. However, every time he’s made a major decision in the series, he’s done it on an emotional or practical level. No real thinking ever goes into what he does. When Clover calmly announces to Qrow what was just ordered and Robyn summarily attacks him, his first instinct is to try and stop the fight.

I’m going to break here to discuss Robyn’s actions at this moment- another common complaint. Would we really expect someone like her to have done anything different with the news that the city she’s worked so hard to work with all those years was just cast aside? This would have been seen to anyone in her position as nothing less than a double-cross given how just a few hours ago everything for the evacuation was moving apace. From a characters standpoint, I don’t get why anyone would fault Robyn for being furious at this aside from “It’s not the smart thing to do right now.” No, it’s not, but I’m also very tired of seeing people complain about characters making non-optimal decisions. Not everyone things with perfect logic, strategy, or sense at every given moment. This is a perfectly human response to finding out your loved ones were just given a death sentence. She lashed out at Clover over lack of Ironwood face to punch.

With this in mind, Qrow’s decision to fight Clover is a bit more personal. He’s treating it more or less the same way that he treated Raven joining with Cinder a few parts ago. Qrow is clearly very much against the idea of leaving what’s left of Mantle to die and now has a lot of aggression to take out seeing how calmly and without complaint Clover takes the order. The only friend Qrow’s had in a long time chose his duty over him and he doesn’t know how to take that- so they fight. It’s safe to assume that Qrow is likely in a highly emotional state and, as we’ve established before, not thinking about what he’s doing. Robyn is passed out in the wreckage, Tyrian is left unattended, and they’re miles away from any real contact from anyone. Bluntly, he screwed up, he screwed up big time, but his character leads me to believe he wouldn’t really have done anything else.

Then we see Qrow in engage in a little something we in the literary community call “seriously fucking up.” In the heat of the moment, he decides to trust Tyrian at his word and it ends about as well as to be expected. Qrow made a mistake, one of the biggest mistakes in the entire series and one that looks plainly obvious and avoidable to the audience, but only when you consider it through the lens of someone who’s making calm and rational decisions. Yes, Qrow fucked up, I’m not defending his decision making; I’m defending the scene and why that faulty decision making was the only thing that could really happen. 

4. Winter and Penny

The biggest complaint regarding these two is Penny leaving Winter behind at the end of the part. Frankly, for this one I’ve got nothing so I’m not going to pretend I have an answer to the complaints. Much like Ruby early on, the show just outright refuses to give us the reason she left. Winter getting the maiden powers might have been part of the plan, but I don’t think Ironwood would be so inflexible as to not settle for Penny getting it instead. The only thing I can imagine that could be going through her head is that she still wants to try and save Mantle and live up to her title, trusting Winter can handle herself. However, again like with Ruby, I don’t believe that the character is to blame here, but the narrative just refusing to give us an explanation and leaving us to sit there in frustrated confusion. We might get it next part, but I don’t like that...

5. Can I Talk About Watts Now?

With that out of the way, I do have one really bizarre complaint regarding the part that no one else seems to talk talk about.

I am very disappointed with Watts. This is mostly just be griping about lost potential so bear with a small rant.

There was a lot of setup regarding Watts as a threat and when he got the codes. We’re told that given time he could control literally all of Atlas (because apparently two-factor authentication and dead man’s switches don’t exist but that’s a logical gripe for another day). My question is why this wasn’t capitalized on. I wanted a repeat of the mechanical soldiers turning on the Vale citizens. We could have had automated vehicles wreaking havoc, fights between people and robots, and all sorts of fun stuff. You can argue that Watts was distracted by Ironwood’s trap and didn’t have the time to really cut loose and I’ll accept that, but I just wish we could have seen more. Any Watts RPers out there who want some ideas, you’re free to steal this one.

[brightlotusmoon]

A plea to 'Autism Moms' to listen to us instead of devaluing us.

This was a comment in Facebook thread in response to a mother who tried to be a martyr and make her daughter's autism all about her.

"Unfortunately, the problem with attempting to reassure us with 'not all allistic parents' is that the reassurance is largely empty. It's happened to us, many times.

Saying you're not like that doesn't negate that it has and does happen to us. This toxicity is everywhere (not just when I protested Vaxxed, but everywhere, even at seemingly "benign" autism charity events), and whether you consider yourself part of that toxicity or not, it doesn't negate the fact that it's there and it happens.

A culture of violence against autistics (autistic adults in this case) pretty much has normalized allistic hate against us, even on a societal level. It goes down every single facet of life, at home, at school, in the doctor's office, because people don't see autistic people being of value because they don't say they hate autism but pretty much prove through their behavior how normalized it is to hate autistics for existing. It leads to worse life outcomes for us. Trying to posture yourself as being different doesn't deny the fact that it's happened to us and it happens to us in a systemic pattern because we're being talked over and denounced as the authority of our own existence on a pretty much daily basis.

And saying you're different also doesn't mean that you don't need to examine your beliefs and ideas from time to time to make sure you're not endorsing the same ideas even subtly. That's the difference.

Many people are saying for the allistic parents to listen, and trying to double down with defensiveness isn't getting you to be a better ally. People are giving you grief because we presume you competent of learning to do better. That's the difference. If you had no potential, we would definitely give up on you. A lot of the allistic parents don't seem to grasp that. We want you to do better because we know you're capable of doing better and won't resort on doing pity, giving up, and infantilizing people that are capable of better (so many people have given up on us and we're not here to return the favor, because we want to have a culture of presuming competence, so that people presume competence of us, and people presume competence of all people so they are held accountable at the same time. It makes for a better world that is more inhabitable to all of us). We want allistic people to do better because we love you and don't want you to have to fall into the same 50 pitfalls our parents fell into. We're trying to save you the same trouble and utilizing our own energy to help you on your journey.

You said that you had to do certain things to advocate for your kid such as focusing more on the dichotomy of the negative as a way to get supports? I agree that it's screwed up and oftentimes teaches parents to not focus on a kid's strengths. But, outside of where that kid needs supports, be sure to not drag that dichotomy idea home with you. And not have it bolstered by other allistic parents who can't see past the doom and gloom "autism bewareness" ideas. I agree it's screwed up but I get why they do that. Even people who interact with me all the time don't seem to get that functioning isn't always the same from day to day. I figure it's more along the lines of "plan for the worst and hope for the best" type of method.

To be honest, so many of us have dealt with so much hate for no good reason at all, and it seems so many people think they're being bashed for being an allistic parent, when in general people consider the allistic account more credible by default than autistic ones? The unfortunate thing about being autistic in today's world is that so many of us are bashed for just existing. How dare we draw breath in this cruel world? Daily we get called an epidemic, a tsunami, some kind of zombie mechanism that isn't really human (or being deemed worthy of being considered human) and that isn't worthy of love and acceptance that other kids take for granted. We get told that our existence is why mommy is sad because she thought she was entitled to an NT child to live vicariously through. The dynamic is really shitty. Do whatever you can to not endorse this pattern. Part of where that starts is taking a step back and realizing to not hog the mic in the narrative that is the autistic existence if you are not autistic yourself. And listen. If your behavior is different from the people who give us hate, it will show through your pattern of behavior, not from spending hours trying to convince us that you're not that kind of person.

Do realize we're just trying to do the right thing and we're trying to leave coins and mushrooms along the trail to help you level up. It may not come out in the most finessed way because so many of us have atypical language development and some of us don't even think in words, nonetheless haven't given the opportunity to having adequate time to learn to advocate for ourselves before something traumatic and disastrous happens, but we're trying. When it comes time, your kid will be one of us. We will welcome them into our community."

[suechoiart]

Captain Marvel (2019) and Demolition Man (1993)

I am marinating the portions of Dada’s Boys that I’ve read over the weekend. In the meantime, I wanted to practice some writing and ramble about two movies I’ve watched over the weekend.

Captain Marvel (2019), and

Demolition Man (1993) 

((If anyone has a high-res copy of the poster...I’d be eternally grateful)) 

Incoherent rambling ahead

Summary: Captain Marvel wasn’t a good  great movie (it was a fine movie); Carol Danvers is pretty cool but very similar to Cpt America’s character; looking forward to the second half of Infinity War; Demolition Man does a *lot* of things a *lot* better than Captain Marvel. Was Captain Marvel feminist? Lessons from good action movies. 

I don’t explicitly mention plot points but /educated readers/ could probably deduce some spoilers both movies. (I’m being sarcastic. I definitely mention movie details without any regard to spoilers.) 

I have a soft spot for both Marvel Studio movies and fun, cheesy, action flicks. I love the behemoth that MCU has become, something they could not have known when Iron Man was created 10 years ago... and I love the purity of action films - of good guys ‘beating up’ bad guys - and the heart actors and directors bring to it shown in movies like Die Hard. Some of the Marvel movies are right in that spot - and their strength shines more in the ‘character interaction’ department; whereas pure-action-comedy movies like Jackie Chan’s Hong Kong productions and The Matrix have great characters but the action sequences, where the actors themselves have to train at significant amounts, shine the most. 

The more I think about Captain Marvel, honestly the more disappointed I am. Frankly for the big breaking International Women’s Day release it was not rich enough. I thought Black Panther had done marvelously (I still tear up thinking about the themes of disaphora in BP), nor was a pure comedic genius like Thor: Ragnorak .... It was a very, very, very average Marvel film. The first Ant Man is better than CM; the second Ant Man is not as good as CM. 

Which is to say that CM is not a bad film, but unfortunately disappointing for what it was ‘supposed to be.’ I don’t feel bad thinking this way, because BP was a great success in my heart; it spoke to a universal theme while championing a targeted audience (of race and origin). As I am an immigrant, although I cannot associate with Black History Month, I can still relate to it deeply in terms of diasphora and displacement. (Wakanda forever!)

I’m urged to clarify again that CM was not a bad movie, but I think it failed because it placated a lot of the villains and conflict in favor of ~Carol Danvers~. 

So, good parts of CM: Carol Danvers is pretty darn awesome. I really think that she brings hope to the Avengers, -- she symbolizes what the humans have better than any of the outer-Earth lives that are out their in the MCU: she gets back up. No matter what she’s told, whom she’s told by... She always gets back up. I did tear up here. I really did like that notion that she, and her humanity, is how the Avengers will win. 

So.... That falls pale in her co-cast:

Nick Fury, who spends 75% of screentime cooing over a cat, and apparently too young to be the badass Fury that we know and love;

Kree mentor who tells her “u ahve 2 much emoshuns 2 be a gr8 kree” 

Best friend whose character is only to tell Carol how great she is 

Cat, saves the day probably more than she does 

Somewhere between those lackluster sidekicks and Carol Danvers’ overpowered ‘superpower’ ... You basically get women are cool and funny and get over it as the central theme of the movie. 

I think the “Carol Danvers gets back up” is problematic, because I read it in a very gender-neutral language (see above: I’m framing that as the HUMANITY’S reason to win, not WOMEN’s) -- potentially because this movie is situated in a world where the Avengers lost half of total lives in the universe... But also because the wOmyN aRe StRonG idea was so, SO obtuse, especially as response to CD’s Kree mentor (played by Jude Law) -- who, again, emphasizes how much weak Carol is because she lets emotions control her. Except it’s not about emotions. Emotions are not why Carol Danvers gains strength! (It’s her humanity!)  

I think the emotion thing *could have* worked, had Carol not been very, I’d say extremely level-headed in spite of a lot of the weird stuff that happened through the movie. She never broke down, never threw a tantrum.... She was just a very secure person with a sense of humor that Fury even enjoyed. 

So then, what was Jude Law even talking about? I find the “emotional is bad, logical is good” construct very gendered and extremely problematic, especially in our political/internet-driven social climate. In words of misogynists and keyboard warriors(who tend to be young males), being logical and rational is obviously superior; and emotional bad; and as a consequence many women (or emotional men) suffer through invalidation of their experiences. When Carol Danvers, as seen in the film, does *not* have issues controlling her emotions.... why does he even say that? Why is that even written in the script? 

In short, .... Considering that this is supposedly Marvel’s stake on feminism (yikes, it didn’t even register to me as feminst) ... I have to borrow the words of this great Mashable article by Jess Joho: 

The only thing that feels truly retro about Captain Marvel's '90s setting is its shallow take on feminism that we should be moving away from, not using as a crutch. It's not just that so many of the movie's heavy-handed Feminist Moments come across as disingenuous. Those moments also tap into an old conceit of equality as a sort of revenge fantasy, mixed with the undertone of a battle of the sexes. [...]  The feminist-ish sentiment of "girls are just as good as boys" defines and measures women's empowerment as it compares to men. Consequently, it devalues and trivializes feminine power in its own right.

... so considering that this is, the first and only solo female movie in MCU...... They really, really could have done better. I hate to say this but (because MCU > DCEU), ...... Wonder Women did it a LOT better. 

Onto Demolition Man. It’s past my bedtime so I’m going to just rush through random thoughts via bullet points: 

Wesley. Snipes. (Probably doesn’t help that Blade is also one of my favorite movies.) 

Sylvester Stalone was great in this movie. He had great form in all of the shots he was in. Commandeered every scene. 

ALL OF THE CHARACTERS! They were so lively. Everyone had motivations that drove them, instead of being basically houseplants that can drive spaceships (ahem...CM...) 

I definitely have another soft spot for movies with ridiculous plots. “LAPD gets cryofrozen as a criminal for failing to save citizens, but in tern DEMOLITION MAN-ing an entire complex throughout his career. When big bad evil Wesley Snipes gets parole, only one man can stop him --- the very Sylvester Stalone, The Demolition Man, who put him in jail!” “oh and this is a weird 2023 where you have to pay fines for cussing.” 

Oddly enough this movie has a great example of ‘secure heterosexual male protagonist’ and ‘female love interest with her own motivations’.. They actually agree to (CONSENT TO!) make love, and she starts and finishes in her own terms. 

Sylvester Stalone’s character is actually very caring and understands his role in the world he wakes up to; he is not at all gross (”back in my day” is never said) and he understands his position as a guest to all of this, while asserting his own views of morality onto the world. 

Also I’m very upset that this movie achieved themes of displacement, utopia, and “who is the real bad guy?!” a lot, LOT, better than CM. 

Denis Leary plays the rebel in the movie and also made this music video, which actually aligns a lot with my thesis interests (masculinity, prescribed notions of American life, suburbs....) 

I just have to reiterate again that (1) Sylvester Stalone did not have to prove his masculinity to anyone, but his humanity is acknowledged by even the heroine in this character - (2) why must women still be *acknowledged* by man of our competence in 2019!?

OH, this movie makes SO MUCH BETTER 90s REFERENCES THAN CAPTAIN MARVEL!!! This is important. Captain Marvel makes 90s references as much as it nods to feminism. There’s a Blockbuster. And a Radioshack. Do they even realize those stuck around into the 2000s? 

To conclude... I understand the constraints put onto Captain Marvel, sandwiched between freaking Infinity War 1 and Infinity War 2. But had Marvel Studios not learned their lesson from the tragedy of Age of Ultron? Even Joss Whedon, who arguably is a very well accomplished director, could not make AoU work. It was not a good movie. And he freaking set up the entire Avengers franchise! 

I can’t know what lead to the underwhelming result that is Captain Marvel, but it is not a great product to stand on its own. 

DEMOLITION MAN IS STILL RELEVANT! Captain Marvel will still only be relevant in the future if we don’t, as a society, move on from “girls can do anything boys can do” mentality.