#subversion

[crimson-and-clover-1717]

Chauncy’s character assassination of Stede Bonnet in 109 is brutal. I want to explore the imagery and connotations of monster. Typically, we think of monsters as grotesque, ugly and something to be feared. Monsters are deemed anti-normative by the majority who set the standard for what is considered desirable, normative.

Stede has been ‘monstered’ by everyone his whole life. His father others and bullies Stede for being a gender nonconforming boy; Mary cannot understand Stede’s desperate need to ‘break the monotony’ in their marriage; the Revenge crew can’t initially comprehend this new, life-affirming approach to piracy and consider mutiny. To the likes of Nigel Badminton, Stede has been a ‘monster’ since childhood with his gentle, crying, flower-picking ways. Ed is the first person to see beauty and worth in the monster. When Ed attempts finally to shed the costume of toxic masculinity worn as protective armour for so long, he is accused of being a monster too: ‘This…you’ve become’. This. Unnamable. A whatever. All because Ed isn’t performing masculinity to Izzy’s expected standard. Effeminate behaviour will not be tolerated. Emotion outside of anger is weakness.

But this show loves to confound and it confounds well.

In 203, Ed’s mind subverts the trope of the monster into something transcendental. And by doing so rescues his own self from the Kraken-monster imagery that has imprisoned him, the stone falling from his waist, albatross-like.

Because what is more monster than a human-hybrid. A scaly, underwater-breathing, half-man, half-goldfish. Merstede is a monster. An effeminate one. And a beautiful one! Ed reclaims the word from Chauncy, rehabilitates it, and allows the wonder of Stede Bonnet to blaze across his dying consciousness. This enigmatic man, frequently reviled for being unashamedly himself, turned Ed’s world upside down and inside out. Who challenges Ed’s own perceptions of self again, and again, and again. Whose anti-normative qualities are not grotesque, but rather exquisite. This undefinable, miraculous creature who left Blackbeard completely and utterly undone.

Stede mirrors Ed. I am you and you are me. Let’s be anti-normative together. Let’s redefine the trope.

Here be monsters, both.

[minsungincorrectquotes]

Minho: What's for dinner? Jisung: It's a soup-prise! Minho: Is it soup? Jisung: I soup-pose it could be Minho: Your puns are lame Jisung: That's soup-er mean *At dinner* Minho: It's fucking tacos?!?!

[twopoppies]

https://www.tumblr.com/twopoppies/775565357490569217/part-of-me-thinks-sometimes-that-one-of-the-main?source=share

I had thought something similar because Harry loves performing, touring, and making music, and I think he's a workaholic, so it does seem odd that he'd take such a long break, even though he totally deserves it. But I discarded that theory because the last stunt (hussell) happened during his break, and he was seen with Stringer last year.

I wonder what his plans are. I still remember the insta story he posted and then deleted ('why do I like chess?'), and I think a big part of his life is like a chess game. I hope they're winning.

I really think Hussell was to help repair his image after Holivia. It was all the things fans pointed out that made the others seem fake (although they really can't help themselves, and they still follow the same dumb playbook, so it still looks fake to anyone paying attention).

And I think being seen with Stringer is part of the game. Just like when we got that photo in 2015 of Harry at Irving's office. I think it was posted in order to send a message to Simon/Sony/whoever was working against Harry that he had big guns behind him. I don't know what he's thinking or planning, but after giving them three successful albums, winning AOTY, winning three other grammys, winning a bunch of Brits, mounting a hugely successful tour, and generating millions and millions of dollars for everyone, I think he's got some leverage to negotiate with.

I could be totally wrong, and he just likes not working, but it's very unusual for him. The chess post (which, for some reason, I don't have. Can someone please send it to me?) wasn't a mistake, either. It's all a chess game, and I really hope he's winning.

The deleted chess video can be found here.

[spockvarietyhour]

Robert Carlyle as Nicholas Rush in Stargate Universe's "Subversion"

[jareckiworld]

Louise Cherry — Subversion III (acrylic and oil on canvas, 2021)

[tentacion3099]

El Salvador President Nayib Bukele on the USA decay.

[physalian]

How to Subvert Expectations Without Compromising The Story

Whoo boy, is this a contentious topic with the last few blockbuster franchises. To “subvert expectations” is to do the opposite of whatever your audience expects to happen. Your audience expects the story to go a certain way based on the archetypes and tropes your characters follow, the tone you’ve set for your story, and the level of mature themes that tone allows.

It might mean your long-lost princess doesn’t actually reclaim the throne she’s been fighting for. Or the presumed hero (or any of their straight friends) of the story dies halfway through their arcs. The mentor pegged for death actually survives to the end credits. The villain’s plan actually succeeds, or the heroes fail to deactivate the bomb before it explodes. The “will they/won’t they” is never fulfilled.

Supporters of SE argue the following:

It’s refreshing, novel, new, a fun twist on a classic tale

They like that it’s unpredictable and bold

They’re tired of stories fitting within the same wheel ruts of every other story that came before and like to see creativity thrive

It gives audiences something they didn’t even know they wanted

Haters of SE argue this:

It’s only done for drama at the cost of fulfilling character arcs

It’s a cheap gag that only works once and has zero rewatchability with the same impact

Tropes and archetypes have stood the test of time for a reason - to entertain

Plot holes ensue

When expectations are subverted and the story changes in a more positive light (like a beloved character who doesn’t die when we all think they will), the reaction is not nearly as emotionally charged as when the story changes negatively. Thus, the haters have plenty of evidence of bad examples, but minimize the good ones. Good SE is novel, or a pleasant surprise, or a quaint relief. Bad SE trashes the story and spits on the fans and destroys the legacy of the fandom.

What makes a bad subversion?

Like killing any character for shock value, bad SE takes all of the potential of a good story and gambles it for a string of gasps in the movie theater. It exists only to keep the audience on their toes, or because the writer went out of their way to change the direction of their work when fans figured out the mystery too quickly and now *must* prove all the clever sleuths wrong.

So, say your subversion is making the hero lose a tournament arc when they made it all the way to the final round and the entire story is riding on this victory. They may have stumbled along the way and had some near-misses, but they must win. Not just so the audience cheers, but because this is the direction their arc must take to be at all entertaining and fulfilling.

Then they lose, because it’s *novel* and irreparable consequences are reaped in the aftermath. They lose when, by rights, they were either stronger or smarter or faster than their opponent. They lose when the hand of the author rigs the fight against them and everyone notices.

Sure, it’s not at all what audiences expect, but you, writer, your first responsibility to the people consuming your content is to entertain them. So what purpose does this loss serve this character? How does it impact their arc, the themes that surround them, the message of your story?

Even if mainstream audiences don’t care on the surface about themes and motifs, they still know when a story fumbles. It’s not entertaining anymore, it’s not satisfying. Yes, crap happens in reality, but this is fiction. If I wanted to read about some tragic hero’s bitter and unsatisfying demise, I’d read about any losing side in any war ever in a history book. I picked up a fiction book for catharsis.

On the topic of “gritty fantasy/sci-fi anyone can die and no one is safe” – no author has the guts to roll the dice and kill whoever it lands on. Some characters will always have plot armor. Why? Because you wouldn’t have a story otherwise, you’d just have a bloody, gory, depressing reality TV show with hidden cameras.

What makes a good subversion?

Now. What if this character loses the final round of their tournament, but it’s their own fault? Maybe they get too cocky. Maybe it’s perfectly, tragically in character for them to fall on their own sword. Maybe the audience is already primed with the knowledge that this fight will be close, that there might be foul play involved, but still deny that it will happen because that’s the hero, they won’t lose. Until they do.

Then, it’s not the hand of the author, it’s this character’s flaws finally biting them in the ass. It’s still disappointing, no doubt, but then the audience is less mad at the author and more mad at the dumbass character for letting their ego get to their head.

If you write a character who’s entire goal in life is to win that trophy, or reclaim their throne, or get the girl, and they *don’t* do those things, then the “trophy” had better be the friends they made along the way, that they learned it wasn’t the trophy, it was something *better* and even though they lost, they still won. Even when expectations are shredded, the story still has to say something, otherwise the audience just feels like they wasted their time.

A good subversion does not compromise the soul of the narrative. You might kill a fan favorite character or even the hero of the story, but their impact on the characters they leave behind is felt until the very end. The hero might lose her tournament, but she still walks away with wisdom, maturity, and new friends. Heck, sports movies leave the winner of the big game a toss-up more often than not. Audiences know the game is important, but they know the character they’re following is even more important. Doesn’t matter if the *team* loses the battle, so long as the protagonist wins the Character Development war.

Good SE that should be more popular:

The “Trial of threes” – your hero faces three obstacles and usually botches the first two and succeeds on the third attempt. Subvert it by having them win on the first or second, lose all three, or have a secret fourth

Not killing your gays. Just. Don’t do it. That’ll subvert expectations just fine, won’t it?

Let the villain win

Have your hero’s love interest not actually interested in them because they realize they deserve better / Have the hero realize they don’t want the romantic subplot they thought they did

Have the love triangle become a polycule / have the two warring love interests get with each other instead, or both find someone they don’t have to compete for

Mid-redemption villain backslides at the Worst Moment Possible

Hero doesn’t actually have all the MacGuffins necessary at the Worst Moment Possible

Hero is simply wrong, about anything, about important things, about themselves

The character who knows too much still can’t warn their friends in time, but lives instead with the guilt of their failure

The mentor lives and becomes a bitter rival out to maintain their spot at the top of the charts

Kill the hero, and make the villain Regret Everything

More deadbeat missing parents, not just dead parents

Let the hero live long enough to become the villain

—

Why write a crown prince that never becomes king? What’s the point of his story if all he does is remain exactly who he was on page 1 and learns nothing for his efforts? Why write a rookie racer if he spins out in the infield in the big race and ends his story broken and demoralized in a hospital bed? Why should we, the audience, spend time and emotional investment on a story that goes nowhere and says nothing?

Cinderella always gets a happy ending no matter how many iterations her story gets, because she wouldn’t be Cinerella if she remained an abused orphan with no friends. We like predictability, we like puzzling out where we think the story will go based on the crumbs of evidence we pick up along the way, we like interacting with our fiction and patting ourselves on the back when we’re proven right.

Tragedies exist. There’s seven types of stories and the fall from grace is one of them… but audiences can see a tragedy coming from a mile away. Audiences sign up for a tragedy when they pay for the movie ticket. We know, no matter how much we root for that character to make better choices, that their future is doomed. Tragedy is still cathartic.

What’s not cathartic is being bait-and-switched by a writer who laughs and snaps pictures of our horrified faces just so they can say they proved us wrong. Congratulations? Go ahead and write the rookie broken in the hospital bed. I can’t stop you. Just don’t be shocked when no one wants to watch your misery parade march on by.

[cat-appreciator]

There’s a meme that goes “humans are space orcs”, comparing our various abilities (mostly stamina, healing etc) to other species on Earth and extrapolating that compared to aliens we are super-strong war gods. I don’t particularly like it, largely because it smacks of exceptionalism (there’s a strong crossover with the “humans fuck yeah” anthropochauvinist space opera subgenre).

I will grant that, as pursuit predators, our stamina is probably above average (the only other pursuit predators I can think of are wolves, with which humans have a long and productive history (to the point that a human society without dogs is a bizarre anomaly, and the only ones I can think of are in Micronesia for a thousand years or so after the initial settlement of those islands by the Lapita culture)).

So humans are probably remarkable for our stamina and the fact that where you find a human you will also find a dog (which is sometimes extrapolated to “humans are remarkable for our pack bonding in general).

With that introduction out of the way, I think there’s an argument to be made that we are actually space elves, and the real space orcs are sadly extinct:

[l6sadi]

My favorite type of jokes in Dragon Ball (and ones that I don't see many people talking about) are the subversion of the sacred and the ancient.

When it's established that something magnificent and powerful, which is worthy of a lot og respect has existed for centuries, only to be disappointed because it is currently useless or wasn't that big of a deal.

1) The old INMORTAL Phoenix is dead... Oh anyways.

2) Oh right, I threw it in the trash...

3) Goku learns an ancient technique that took Master Roshi 50 years to learn by just watching.

4) The Evil Demon King Piccolo is scare of a rice cooker.

5) The giant snake way of the million of kilometers... and goku just fly cuz he can.

Note: I have a few things to say about this chapter (205). Everything stated in those dialogues also makes me believe that the whole fact that in the manga we never see hell and only see Goku run is part of the joke.

Also this is the only chapter in the entire manga that is completely in color, and it is BEAUTIFUL.

Aaaaand I reach the limit...

[gothicseverance]

The need to recognize black use of gothic tropes.

—African American Gothic

[spockvarietyhour]

Stargate Universe "Subversion"

[jareckiworld]

Louise Cherry — Subversion II (oil on canvas, 2021)

[reality-detective]

What is the process of subversion? 🤔

[tentacion3099]

A beatiful example of the mindset of the dangerous high level useful idiot. Is he right? Regarding the forces that have been unleashed in the last decades...Absolutely. About wanting Order out of Chaos?😎

[fuckyeahmarxismleninism]

The dirty war against Cuba: The sublimation of infamy

By Raúl Antonio Capote

The fake news against Cuba, fabricated and replicated by social networks and the popular and powerful technological platforms of communication, are the vanguard of the attack against the Revolution, they are in charge of inventing and reiterating lies, to destroy the ideological defenses and make us vulnerable.