#sustainable development essay | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

scribeofmorpheus · 16 days ago

Text

Dragon Age Veilguard: Love, Wisdom and Pride

A very long Dragon Age post!

Warnings for: Veilguard Spoilers, Solavellan spoilers.

Okay, so I will preface this by saying that this ‘analysis’ primarily focuses on Solas’ arc; both romanced and unromanced. It isn’t intended to be a romanticised analysis, though it is very much enamoured with how a romanced Solas and his relationship with Lavellan foils (and informs my reading/reception of) that of Solas and Mythal’s relationship in Veilguard. There is a relationship I will address that I feel does parallel Solas and Mythal! Scroll down to “Reading Between the Lines” if you wanna skip my little intro below. Spoilers follow.

Truth be told, I wasn’t ever expecting much in terms of actually getting a sequel to Inquisition. The game dev market went through a tumultuous reshuffle before the remake madness breathed life back into many studios. Bioware game sequels (Mass Effect Andromeda) were underwhelming and not as fleshed out since the EA acquisition. I absolutely believe Bioware would have been shunted had Mass Effect Legendary Edition not been so successful. EA’s reputation was always lacklustre and underhanded, but laying off or losing several head writers attached to Bioware with almost two decades of work under their belts was the biggest red flag. Trevor Morris not being asked to return in exchange for a ‘bigger name’ was also a grave warning that returning to the atmosphere, ambience and world of Thedas that we knew was getting further and further away from a plausible reality. And on top of that, there’s the fact Solas was never intended as a romance interest during early development of Inquisition.

Solavellan seemed doomed!

Despite this, I still held out hope for a sequel, but I feared we’d always be in permanent Solavellan/developmental hell. Heck, I’m still waiting for a Beyond Good and Evil sequel—the game released in 2003! So, actually witnessing people play Veilguard, seeing reactions to it, seeing memes and gifs and essay pieces (like this one), it’s like my community has awoken again, and I never thought I’d see the day. Yet I am not blind to the fact we were robbed of so much potential. I knew thing’s wouldn’t live up to re-emerging expectations when Dragon Age: Dreadwolf was rebranded to Veilguard—the shift seemed to imply less of a primary focus on Solas (and apparently, according to the artbook, the early concept art proves this implication correct).

Things seemed even more dire when the devs revealed there was no tapestry mechanic. I had only one hope: that with the Inquisitor’s confirmed return, we’d get at least some form of catharsis for our Inquisitors (Lavellans and otherwise), if we couldn’t get the conclusions to so many storylines present in each of our worldstates. My main fear was that they’d go the clichéd Ultimate Sacrifice route (which happens anyway, but in a way that makes thematic sense given the stakes and heavily blighted worldstate).

Suffice it to say, there was a lot of evidence that Veilguard would disappoint me in the end. But it hasn’t. It hasn’t lived up to the many expectations and marks of excellence that the Dragon Age world built itself into with the first three entries, that’s for sure, but I am also just so deprived of conclusions, of endings (whether it be because TV doesn’t exist in a sustainable format anymore or that comicbook movies are made with a sequel in mind, never letting anything just “Exit Stage Left” gracefully; or the fact we live in a regurgitating content cycle with late-stage-capitalism where anything remotely profitable gets turned into a caricature of itself: Squid Game, Star Wars, etc.). The cycle is so exhaustive that I am actually at a point where I can say I am content with the ending we were given (on a Solas/Solavellan front), Veilguard gave me relief, and beautiful, achy pain to boot. Though I would absolutely be disappointed by both the "non-romanced Solas" endings, given that Solas winds up either "dying alone, forever" or turns to Tyranny.

Now onto the actual review of that Solavellan ending, Mythal and themes of Love!

Note: I have only gotten the ‘best’ ending in my first playthrough, but I also thought the consequences of not maxing factions would be more… dire? Another note, pls, if your romanced Inky swore to stop Solas, how does that ending differ, if at all? Let me know, I’m dying here!

Sidenote: I’m working on writing another review about my views on the ‘sanitised’ worldstate, the new companions (and why I think Varric was the wrong choice to have as an advisor in the game, given that the Inquisitor or Morrigan would have been more impactful; and not to mention that Cole or Briala should have been companions), removal of the tapestry and what it means for the future of stories in Thedas (The Story We Lost is such a poignant compilation of the sheer volumes of lost lore and depth that I honestly think I won’t go as in-depth on that review as this one), and why I think Veilguard is my final entry into Dragon Age.

Reading Between the Lines: What Pride Hath Wrought

One thing is for sure, Trick Weekes flourishes when writing within the ambiguities and complexities of meaning. This makes every word uttered by Solas so great to dissect, he's a god of lies not because he 'lies' but because he's so careful with how he phrases things, what he holds back, and what he reveals.

For instance, the famous Trespasser exchange where Solas mocks his own follies with sarcasm by saying:

“What is the old Dalish curse? May the Dread Wolf Take you.”

Then a softer, more saddened and beaten-down Lavellan replies:

“And so he did.”

This irks him. Because he then realises in that moment that he absolutely did take advantage, but for some reason he frames it around sex rather than power because that’s easier to address than the latter. And he rejects the notion, even though he brought up the expression he knows to mean nothing close to a sexual inuendo for being ‘taken’, and yet he has the gall to try and derail the conversation by pivoting and saying:

“I would not lay with you under false pretences.”

When I first had this dialogue exchange, I was baffled, because did this mean that there was another meaning to ‘Dread Wolf take you’ that Dalish clans lost through the years, or was it more of a self-deprecating joke Solas had with himself because he, the Dread Wolf, romanced (took) a Dalish Inquisitor (away from her people’s beliefs, histories, past), and he found irony in the saying?

On the surface, “wouldn’t lay with you under false pretences” could simply mean “we didn’t sleep together” or “we did sleep together, but I wasn’t taking advantage as the Dread Wolf, I was simply Solas in your presence”. But I have recently thought of a more… ambiguous reading. Lay could have been used in a milder, more vulnerable way; to mean to be at peace, to be completely vulnerable, as if to sleep. In that sense, the phrasing becomes: “I could not be at peace with you because I was living a half-truth”.

I absolutely think the moment he feels he is truly beyond hope is when we see his expression of abject horror as Lavellan shouts: “I would have had you trust me!”. He realises then that he did fuck up, he did take the choice away from her because he thought he knew better, him and his pride led to a decision that hurt someone close to him, and he could finally see how wrong he was, how alike the entire situation became to Mythal’s treatment of him. Especially if Lavellan asks to go with him. Because he can see that despite the hurt, the lies and the betrayal on his part, Lavellan still wishing to join him draws too close to his first regret: following Mythal.

Whether he likes it or not, Solas’ love which could burn like a bonfire was directed at a powerful woman—a Herald, an Inquisitor—and inspite of her greatness of character, it still shaped her into someone willing to follow him on his dinanshiral out of love, much like he left the Fade and took physical form for Mythal. So now whenever I hear Lavellan shout “Var lath vir suledin”, Solas replying with “I wish it could, Vhenan,” changes drastically with the Mythal reveal, knowing he always walks away from the Inquisitor in Trespasser.

“I wish it could, Vhenan” sounds heavily like: “You would regret me, as I regret Mythal, and I cannot bear for that to happen us.” More poetically, it could read as: “I wish our love could overcome a duty that has lasted an incomprehensible amount of time, I wish I could change my nature, but then I’d be twisted into a demon, like the spirit of Wisdom in the Dales; and yet again, I would become your regret.” These two readings are very, very romantic. Realistically, given what we know of his kinship with Felassan, and how they were comrades and friends for centuries (“A story unfinished. His back turned!”), and given what we know of the complexity of Mythal’s will that presides over the creation of his very being, and yet he was still able to muster the strength to kill a fragment of her to fulfil his mission, “I wish it could” was most probably a lament: “Do not ask me to hurt one of the two women I’ve loved on this journey, because if it ever came to it…” he would.

Knowing what I know of Solas, of how he was able to convince himself that Varric’s death (avoidable as it was) was just another necessary step, that it was just another sacrifice, another loss that would be worth something only if he completed his ritual, I have no doubt that Solas would also be able to rationalise hurting Lavellan (which is why in his mind, turning away from her, breaking her heart, leaving with no explanation and aiding her in Trespasser so she could live whatever few years remained in “relative peace” is actually an act of preserving that love). I partially think the reason he reveals the truth in Trespasser (especially for a romanced Lavellan) is in the hopes his ‘truths’ will push her away. But on a deeper note, I think he also thinks of it as some twisted form of repaying her for loving him to the point that he could have almost forgotten what it was to be the Dread Wolf, to just be with her as Solas, that night at Crestwood. Maybe his harsh truths would push her to the point where she’d give up her love for Solas, now that she knew he was the Dread Wolf, freeing her from the shackles of their love. He’s very self-flagellating, all about self-sacrifice for the ultimate goal, the ends always justify the means, he will endure any pain and punishment as long as Arlathan returns in the end.

What is his love of a mortal compared to the despair and loss of an entire empire? Solas views himself as selfish for falling for her, and that nearly broke him, if he was selfish enough to leave the dream of Arlathan behind for her, what would that do to his spirit then?

In his way of thinking, perhaps telling the Inquisitor the truth is a way out, a rationale they can use to justify stopping him or to make it easier to hate him as the Dread Wolf rather than love him as Solas (someone he hasn’t been in so long).

‘Masking’ as the Dread Wolf

During Trespasser, the Inquisitor has every right to despise Solas after all they’ve learned, and I think he half reveals the truth as a tactic so the Inquisitor can have an excuse to hate him, to be driven to anger and have less pull over his choices, once they learn the truth. Solas is particularly skilled at making other’s play the role that makes his own choices seem inevitable, he orchestrates a lot of events to play out in a manner where it's easier for him to talk himself into bringing down the veil.

He goads Elgar’nan to anger easily. He inspires the spirits to fight for him to the death as a necessary distraction during the war. He absolutely allows the Inquisitor to speak to him one last time so he can offer insight, yes, but also so he can easily frame his actions as just and inevitable. But, Oh boy does he get in for a shock if the Inquisitor shows empathy towards him, it scares him because he’s become accustomed to being seen only as the Dread Wolf. To be understood? That gives way to remorse. And remorse gives way to doubt. And he cannot doubt his purpose, twisted as it is, it is all he has left of his former self. Without it he would most likely change into something different. Someone he doesn’t recognise.

This fear intensifies more so if a romanced Lavellan asks to go with him, and in that case, he takes command and distances himself away (rejecting the help of someone close to him; the chance for a possible betrayal; the chance at another Felassan or Mythal [x]; the chance to twist Lavellan outside of her purpose, in this case, the purpose would be love/empathy) but not without showing remorse at having sacrificed yet another relationship for his crusade.

“Ir abelas.”

Sorrow for what cannot be is at the heart of why the Solavellan romance is so powerful, especially because even though both Solas and Lavellan love each other passionately, love alone cannot be enough when faced with regrets. Love would ultimately be stifled. Corrupted into something else over time. And so, for Solas, having loved and lost tragically is better than having loved and corrupted.

He will not do to Lavellan what was done to him, even if it is her choice, because she knows so little, her naivete cannot close the distance of a millenia’s old sea, and it would hurt him immensely to take advantage of her kind heart [x].

By leaving, he keeps her heart pure. And the yearning! Knowing the love is there, but on its own it cannot be invulnerable to corruption, so it is better to lose it than twist it. Ugh! Him leaving Lavellan is the ultimate show of love! IT IS A WISE DECISION. A rare glimpse into pure wisdom. Which is why he kneels beside Lavellan in Trespasser, he does not “Stand Tall” in the face of Wisdom’s heart. He kneels beside her. And when he stands tall again, he is Solas once more, filled with regret, and once through the eluvian, he returns to masking as the Dread Wolf.

Sidenote: It’s especially confounding that Veilguard allows Rook to push the Inquisitor to save or stop him after you’ve reached act 2 despite your world state choice (I think this was done in case they feared the Inquisitor wouldn’t stand by Solas after everything he was revealed to be responsible for in Veilguard, however it doesn’t work because the Inquisitor wasn’t an advisor, Rook never told them what they learned from the wolf statues, so having a stranger hold the ability to make Lavellan keep her promise or not rings hollow). Personally, I wish the Inquisitor’s presence had more weight in the non-Solavellan endings, too. I wish the Inquisitor could end up being the last friend/former love that Solas destroys (if you don’t collect the wolf statues) which then prompts Rook to fight him because Solas’ last tie to empathy failed to redeem him, that the Inquisitor falling is the last straw and Solas snaps, choosing to be a villain in the hopes of being stopped because he can’t stop himself, and not the ‘I am a God’ ending they gave us. Same for if your Inquisitor vows to stop him. I also wish the Inquisitor was the one to do the wolf statue missions. Would have been a nice secondary protagonist mission like the switching perspectives between Kratos and Atreus in GOW: Ragnarök (the old guard and the new; Inquisitor and Rook). I would have loved if they dedicated more dialogue to Inquisition days too, which is why I think Cole should have been a companion (if he wasn’t recruited, he could simply be a compassion spirit that ‘follows’ the greatest pain in the Fade that yearns to be healed, giving a compassionate viewpoint to Solas’ folly; recruited Spirit Cole could have a greater connection to Solas than even Varric, seeing as Cole was most likely a literal representation of Solas rewriting his own history by preventing a spirit from becoming too ‘real’; Human Cole would have a deeper connection to the world of Thedas, and could have been a great tool to prove how change was inevitable, not always a bad thing, and inevitably out of even Solas’ control. But alas, we live with what we are given! Even Imshael could have served in this role! Spirit/Demon of choice and it wasn’t incorporated into the game that supposedly asks you to make the greatest world-changing choice ever; redeem the Dread Wolf or end the age of the Evanuris entirely?!

Now onto the next segment: I want to talk about Solas’ regrets and how I read the ‘love story’ between Solas and Mythal, and why Lavellan (and what she represented) wasn’t enough to get through to him (and that’s a very believable thing, that’s what makes their love both tragic and epic!).

The High Price of Redemption

A romanced Lavellan has the most agency to see through his guises, if she resolves to save him, but even she cannot undo the shackles that still bind him to Mythal—the binds that twisted Wisdom so far from its purpose it became Pride, even when he burned (Mythal) from his face. (Likewise, A close friend Inquisitor who promises to save him is most likely a parallel to Felassan, again, they cannot undo the shackles of regret either.) I fully believe the vallaslin had a deeper magic than simply marking one as being committed/devoted to an Evanuris, I think it linked them magically, and since Solas was the first to burn the vallaslin away, he probably wasn’t as good at severing the link on himself as he was for other elvhen, so maybe a part of Mythal’s will still lingers in him, twisting him to Pride still.

In Veilguard’s final confrontation, I love the intention of showing how Lavellan approaches Solas slowly, as she doesn’t know who she’ll be faced with up those steps, Dread Wolf or Solas. But when she speaks to him, trying to get him to change his mind yet again, forgiving him for his wrongs, we are reassured that Wisdom hasn’t been completely consumed by Pride despite everything we’ve witnessed in the game because he bows his head at her in reverence as he apologises.

He shows humility towards her. He elevates her and her enduring love as worthy of his respect, but he does not consider himself worthy of hers. Thus, Lavellan pries open the door to acceptance but his heart is still not enough. Which is why love alone cannot turn the tide. He’s too broken to accept it. He doesn’t think he deserves it, so the only way out is through; to continue the ritual, to prove he was right. The shackles persist. Varric’s death weighs on his conscience now more than ever. Possibly members of Rook’s team too if they died on his crusade. But he is vulnerable enough for Morrigan to approach, and now Rook can use Mythal’s essence to make the final push. The only way he could be with Lavellan, the only way he could atone for the past and shed the weight of his armour (his crushing duty to the Elvhenan) is as Wisdom, fully restored, unbound by mistakes.

“Ar lasa mala revas.” He could only find absolution once Mythal (the angered and more brash essence of Mythal, the one unchanged by Flemeth and all the human women’s lives she’s been shaped by, but the closest iteration to that of Mythal in Arlathan, the version that he perceives as having every right to be angry at him for turning his back on her, for not going that last final stretch with her and subsequently, not being by her side when she died) severed the final connection: facing his regrets, showing humility and apologizing, while not taking away the blame but sharing it.

What is Benevolence without Wisdom if not Hubris?

We know Elgar’nan was twisted to Tyranny during the war, and I saw a post somewhere where someone wondered what led to his corruption, and what he was before (leadership/command). Likewise, Mythal was not above corruption.

So far, I’ve seen a lot of takes on Solas’ ties to Mythal, the power dynamic of being a student/disciple enamoured (could be romantic) with the benevolence of Mythal, but not how Mythal’s purpose was possibly also twisted towards hubris the moment she asked Wisdom to turn physical and build weapons from its knowledge, twisting it to Pride. Without Elgar’nan’s tyranny to rally against after the war with the Titans, Mythal would most likely turn a similar route, seeing her ruling as “necessary” for the people: “If not me then who?”. And that is a very short stop and quick drop to “I am your all-powerful ruler, I liberated you, and only I can guide the way”. Benevolence twisted by hubris can easily turn to Tyranny too, only one more subtle, a kind of cultish indoctrination compared to violent subjugation. If Solas had not turned his back on Mythal when she chose to be Evanuris (a god over her people) then they most likely would have made the worst (best) pair in the Evanuris. Pride is the Seventh Deadliest Sin. But imagine Pride next to Godhood?! That is frightening. So, when Solas burns the vallaslin, walks away and works against the Evanuris, I believe that he also inadvertently stops Mythal from becoming a corrupted version of herself. The sorrow at having lost her closest confidant and “love” grounds her, keeps her saintly in Solas’ mind, and in some ways, perhaps saves the Elvhen empire from a worse fate than him erecting the veil to begin with. But neither of them ever consider this. And I think that sort of self-blindness perfectly encapsulates how flawed both Mythal and Solas are. Now onto love.

Solas and Mythal – a Love too complex to simply classify as mortal ‘Love’.

There’s no doubt Mythal and Solas shared a deep bond, one that definitely had love in it, when we hear Mythal calling him ‘love’, without the possessive ‘my’ in front of it, it’s easy to misconstrue what type of love they share. A small nitpick, but like a thorn, it applies sometimes just enough pressure to change a perspective. Not calling Solas “My love” but instead choosing to simply use “love” works within those wonderful ambiguities/complexities that Weekes thrives in.

If one started out as a spirit, it’s safe to say concepts like familial bonds, romantic bonds, and blood ties mean little to nothing. There is no one type of love and there is every kind of love all at once. It is only once physical bodies are introduced, that physical touch, the ability to stab someone in the back, to kiss out of affection, to hug out of empathy, to strike out of anger, that love now becomes this twisted thing too. There are no spirits of love because spirits always possessed love, but there are demons of Desire (Gluttony) and of Rage (love denied).

I believe, from GDL’s acting skills, his soft whisper, his almost submissive smallness in the breadth of Mythal’s already soft voice, that Solas was in love with Mythal, devoted as a student, beguiled by her benevolence, content even in her shadow, and possibly star-struck. He was in love with someone who doesn’t have the possibility to love him back the same, it is not in her nature to love those beneath her in the same intensity that those who look up to her do. It’s like a priest being in love with God. The priest can devote themselves, sacrifice everything, but a God will always love their flock equally, but they can still play favourites.

Benevolence cannot be enamoured with Wisdom because to be truly benevolent they must possess Wisdom but there is also Pride to be had in walking beside benevolence, but they can never be on equal footing. Likewise, Solas’ love is not reciprocated entirely by Mythal, but she does love him back in her own way. While Mythal is definetly Solas’ first love, layered and complex, it is also strangled by regrets and twisted by uneven scales of power. It would never be a nurturing love, only a consuming kind.

When he speaks of Mythal during the Solavellan ending, he calls her his “oldest friend”, much like what Mythal says, (paraphrasing) “would you have me be angry at my oldest companion whose experienced so much with me”. Because friendship is perhaps the easiest way to describe their companionship. They went through many iterations, one certainly holding romantic tensions (specifically from younger Solas), but ultimately, with that much time shared, kinship/friendship becomes the easiest to surmise. You can love your friends, fall in love with them, fall out of love with them, only to love them again, be disappointed in them, etc.

Media today is flushed with romance as a linchpin for driving a hero to make dire choices, and that has warped our perception of how a platonic/non-romance-based relationship can be all-consuming, and sometimes more impassioned than strict romance. But, to make it easier for people to understand Solas’ motivations, it's easier to see their love in the light Taash sees it (an unreliable, somewhat “still juvenile” narrator, in that they are still growing into themselves and their culture and the world): “They were doing it”.

However, Bellara, a companion whose entire companion story is linked to her strong, deeply character-driving relationship with her brother (platonic love) refutes that reading by saying (paraphrasing here): “We don’t know if their ‘love’ is the same type of love we tend to think of in a masculine and feminine relationship.”

Felassan’s letter after the Mythal Dragon fight alludes to Solas having been in love with Mythal, but nothing about how she felt. This is why I consider the Solas/Mythal relationship to be more of a one-sided romantic love, but a requited ‘love’ relationship for them both.

A parallel I find so compelling: Solas and Mythal vs Briala and Celene. Solas and Briala both hold deep emotions for people in great power with the ability to end a tyrannical cycle of subjugation, enslavement and classism, yet for both of these ruler’s charisma and well-meaning intent, they often are swayed to side with tyranny. For Mythal, that was Elgarnan, the Evanuris who made all the other’s worse tyrants; as well as her own hubris for believing her presence alone could dampen the ravenous hunger for power that the rest of the Evanuris held at the small prospect of leading the Elvhen in a time of confusion (being a North Star is hard when all the other lights around you aim to blind the flock into submission). For Celene, this is more about the nuances of retaining favour, pull and power over other noble families, their backing (be it financial, political or simply cut-throat), and their support so she can be the ‘lesser of two evils’ compared to Gaspard’s warmongering personality and Florianne simply being a puppet with no backbone. Both Briala and Solas are turned to pawns despite their immense strength and compassion for their respective elven plights; Briala is rendered a fangless lion (for lack of a better metaphor) if she is reunited with Celene, whereas if she is chosen to puppet Gaspard, there’s every likelihood her story could parallel a ‘power-mad’ Solas if he’d been tethered to Rage (at betrayal) and not Regret (at having not rejected Mythal when she asked him to take a physical body) throughout his tenure as the Dread Wolf.

Solas and Lavellan – a Heart that was never intended to be Given/Taken

Now I will compare the lack of possessives in front of Mythal’s “love” to Solas declaring Lavellan as ‘Vhenan’ and then ‘Ar lath, ma Vhenan’ vs ‘Ar lath ma vhenan'; again, the coma is the thorn, the pause that shapes the quiet unsaid things we can deduce. In the Trespasser cutscene DGL puts the pause after “Ar lath”, even though the subtitles construct the sentence with Vhenan as a proper noun since it’s a nickname often used by Solas: “Ar lath ma, Vhenan”. But I believe Solas actually says “Ar lath, ma Vhenan”.

With “Ar lath, ma Vhenan” the stressor is after the pause, so the line reads: “I love [you], my heart.” And with “Ar lath ma, Vhenan” it makes even less structural sense but can be inferred to mean: “I love you, Heart”.

The possessiveness of “My” is what definitively differentiates the love Solas feels for Lavellan as one more of the romantic side, it is a love of yearning and desire and a wish to have one last good thing that is pure and incorruptible. The one thing he had left to give. His heart. But that does not mean his heart is enough! The rest of him is still bound to the love of Mythal that was twisted through the ages. That changed him. And given how Pride often comes before a fall, I absolutely understand why Solas is actually very brash and ill-considering when he’s romancing Lavellan (“The kiss was ill-considered”/”It would be kinder in the long run”/”I wanted to show you what you mean to me”). He's on a precarious cliff during Inquisition. His first plan failed. He's allowed ancient elvhen magic to fall into a blighted Tevinter magister's hands. Literally everything the Inquisition did could have been for nought if the Mark had fallen to the wrong person. Things could have easily fallen apart for Solas too, so why not indulge in something trifling and fleeting? Execpt it wasn't trifling. Nor was it fleeting. And when he saw that the fall could potentially not happen, that the Inquisitor could do it, save Thedas and retrieve the orb, he was struck by the gravity of his brashness, of letting impulses control him instead of acting according to a plan. But it was too late. They'd both fallen for each other.

Solas didn’t expect to form entanglements within the Inquisition. He was committed. He was angry at the world, “walking through a sea of tranquil”, called flat-ear by the Dalish that later chased him from their village when he proved he was the Dread Wolf. He was despised by people who looked like him. Spirits were constantly being abused and turned into demons. People erected monuments to heroes who slew demons. Mages were caged. Elves were subjugated. The empire fell. Humans razed the lands with their wars and petty squabbles of succession. The darkspawn tainted the land. The dwarves would never dream. Solas awoke to the worst possible fate; in his eyes, it was all his fault.

So when he kisses Lavellan in the Fade, impulsively, he isn’t kissing her there because it is less ‘real’ than if they kissed while she was awake, it makes it so much more real. He’s kissing her in the space where he is most himself. Where he can shed the body he was forced to build and trap himself within, the body of Pride. He is acting on the impulses of an enlivened Wisdom spirit that does not consider tomorrow, for the first time in a long time. It isn’t a long game with Lavellan, like so much of his life has been about always thinking to the future, always considering the outcome, machinating, scheming, the wiles and woes of every trickster god in mythology. It’s being in the moment with her that is all-consuming. It lowers his guard, leaves him vulnerable, and when she enquires about the Fade or spirits or histories, he gets to be useful as pure Wisdom again.

Lavellan challenging him when he first shows animosity or irritation towards the Dalish (a prideful act), and then him being taken aback when she explains that maybe the Dalish could be shown another way (making him consider her words, being given a morsel of wisdom back, reminding him of his old self), these are all small moments where Solas can begin to see springs of hope in the broken world. And that’s terrifying. It means he’s destroying not just himself, but the memory of Mythal and Arlathan too, all for the love of a woman who fell for an apostate.

The best, most genuine unmasking of Solas for me is during Wicked Hearts, when he’s tipsy on wine, has no inhibitions, and revels in the intrigue, the gossip, the dancing, the music (something we now know is important enough to have an entire music room in the Lighthouse), the sex! He is at his most relaxed, and then he asks Lavellan to dance, not caring about how it would look for the “Inquisitor’s serving man, Solas” to be intimate in a fucking Orlesian palace with the Herald of Andraste, right after stopping an assassination attempt! He finds comfort in the world of Thedas at that moment. Something he rarely shows so outright.

When he takes Lavellan to Crestwood to confess, I believe removing her vallaslin wasn’t entirely just for her, it wasn’t just to free her from slave markings or to simply reveal a form of a truth he wanted to tell her, it was to resolve himself of what his first purpose was supposed to be, what she distracted him from. Removing the vallaslin had been something he’d done for the slaves of Arlathan, it was what earned him the mantle of Dread Wolf. When he removes Lavellan’s vallaslin, he resets.

Thedas cannot allow Wisdom to truly exist without fear of corruption to Pride, Thedas the world he was responsible for shaping, literally the Maker of the Veil, and he falls for a woman Heralded as Andraste’s Chosen One, Mythal’s incarnation in the South. The irony. The cruel, cruel irony. The Inquisition is tied to his past, every Andrastian he meets, every Dalish person with vallaslin on their face, every slave or city elf. Tevinter worshiping the dragons that still have the essences of the Old Gods. His heart alone cannot withstand all of the punishing, gruelling, oppressive weight that is Thedas. Even for Lavellan. So he frames their romance as this tragic, short-lived tale that was beautiful but ultimately destined to end. He expects it to pass for her, she’s mortal after all. But he also leaves his heart with her, literally giving her power over the last uncorrupted part of himself. Think Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann at the end of World’s End, but metaphorically. He gives her his heart to safe keep as he goes on a journey that could corrupt a heart, turn it cold and bitter, destroy it.

Ar lasa mala revas. You are free.

He frees his heart.

Lets it go.

Twice!

So only once he is relinquished of his regrets, once Mythal does the same for him, only then is there “Nothing left except their love”. Because Lavellan still held his heart there was still something left after. Something beyond despair and regret and loss. He had given his heart to her to safekeep. And she did. Lavellan returns his heart to him when he is freed. What Mythal had to break so Solas could heal right again (like a bone), Lavellan casts a splint around so it can be set and heal properly. This is the difference between Mythal’s love and Lavellan’s. Both Mythal’s love and forgiveness broke him, but Lavellan’s love gives him the strength to Stand Tall one last time.

Solas, before Pride alone, as Wisdom (perhaps Solas always meant both Standing Tall and Wisdom, for Wisdom can grant one pride to stand tall for what they believe in), finds contentment with the rare and marvellous spirit that endured (his Vhenan). Wisdom endured because of humanity, something benevolence is beyond.

Bellanaris

When Lavellan offers to go with him, to continue on the dinanshiral that she already considers herself a part of, Solas is legitimately taken aback. His expression is soft yet full of disbelief and awe. He actually stops walking a few frames before Lavellan says this, as if hoping Lavellan would say something to him!

And then she basically proposes to him! “Bellanaris!” I absolutely adore the fact that Lavellan promises them eternity. A vow as sacred as a death right, as protected as an ancient, elvhen, undisturbed burial ground in the face of Orlesian colonialisation. They endured and now they will have an eternity. For once, we have an elvish tale that is not a curse, it is a love story with reunion at its core, where both elves reclaim something precious that was denied them.

Lastly, i am absolutely frothing at the mouth that Solas and Lavellan primarily speak in elvish! And even more feral at the fact Solas does not try to talk her out of joining him (because this sweet talker very well could!). He simply tells her where he is going is terrible. And she shuts that shit down immediately. No repeat of Trespasser. She's standing beside him, the South has all but fallen, whatever ties yet survive are strained, and she has fought the good fight for 8 years. I think the Inquisitor was about ready to leave Thedas behind.

The last decisions Solas makes are of his own volition. Entering the Fade for atonement. Stepping into the Fade with Lavellan (It was confirmed by Weekes that Lavellan’s presence in the Fade prison would fundamentally change it in a way we haven’t seen!). Thanking Rook for giving him one last shot at getting happiness. All his own!

This is the look of a man finally reunited with his wife! So much emotion in ONE frame. God! There’s never been a character like him. A love story like theirs! I’m so happy I got to see this ending. Full circle!

P.S. If you read this far, woah nelly! That’s crayyzeee, so here are some more great pieces: Why it was important for Lavellan to kneel for Solas as he knelt for her in Trespasser in the Solavellan ending [x], and here’s a great deep-dive on Solas as a spirit of Wisdom [x].

#dav #dav spoilers #solas #solas x lavellan #solavellan #mythal #datv spoilers #dragon age veilguard #veilguard spoilers #dragon age #dragon age veilguard spoilers #the dread wolf finally took her #his war has ended #their love may endure for eternity

494 notes · View notes

opencommunion · 11 months ago

Text

"There is an inherit bias towards 'Israel' that sustains the continual colonization of Palestine. Christian theologians, in few cases consciously but in most cases subconsciously, keep using a 'biblical' language and producing 'theological' concepts whose 'Sitz im Leben' is blunt colonialism. They might do this 'innocently' because their minds are occupied with the Bible on the one hand and with a Western cultural narrative on the other.

For Palestinians, including the Palestinian Christian community, Palestine is a real land with real people; it is our homeland. For Christians in the West, Palestine is an imagined land, a land that they know mainly from the Bible. It has little if anything to do with the real Palestine. When Christian pilgrims visit Palestine, they want to reinvent the Holy Land of the Bible. They are excited about how the Bible comes alive in Palestine. Nineteenth-century archaeologists, while digging in Palestine, were looking for the Bible. This is true also for theologians. When Christian theologians write about Palestine, their minds are occupied with the Bible and a Western dominant narrative. They write about the Land as if it exists in a vacuum; they strip it from its socio-political context, from its real people, and they rarely think about how such a theology has been and is being used to enhance settler colonialism. These occupied minds reinforce the continuing occupation of Palestine. Here, I’m not talking about evangelical theologians or Christian Zionists alone, but I’m concerned about those who are well-regarded, mainline, and accomplished theologians of many denominations. In the last seventy years, many theological concepts were developed and occupied the minds of several generations of theologians worldwide. Many of these concepts might have been well intended at some point, but they mean something totally different in the current context of occupied Palestine. Theologians in their naiveté are still using a language and concepts that support current Israeli settler colonialism. ... It is incomprehensible to me when the occupation of Palestinian land is not seen as part of modern European colonial history, but as part of biblical and thus salvation history. It is very disturbing when theologians ignore the ways in which biblical ideology is used as a political claim with major colonial consequences. ... Christian theologians have been playing, consciously or subconsciously, a major role in aiding the ongoing colonization of Palestinian land and people. The land theology was one of the theological tools used for Palestinian dispossession and oppression. Christian theologians failed to see that the promised land is but the confiscated land."

Mitri Raheb, "The Occupation of Theological Minds: The End of Innocence," in Resisting Occupation: A Global Struggle for Liberation (2022)

The main terms Raheb critiques in this essay are "the Temple Mount" and "the Promised Land" (or simply "the Land"). He also touches on the conflation of the biblical Israel and theological concepts of Israel with the state of Israel, the ethnonationalist notion of “God's chosen people," and the narrative that Joshua's conquest of Canaan was divinely ordained and salvatory. He identifies in these concepts an overarching "theology of conquest" that also informs other European settler colonial projects.

#palestine #zionism #colonialism #theology

691 notes · View notes

nenelonomh · 8 months ago

Text

45:15 pomodoro ~ study technique

the pomodoro technique was developed in the late 1980's by francesco cirillo, who was a university student at the time. here’s how it came about:

struggling to focus. cirillo found himself struggling to focus on his studies and complete assignments. feeling overwhelmed, he sought a way to improve his productivity and concentration.

the tomato timer. inspired by a kitchen timer shaped like a tomato (known as “pomodoro” in italian), cirillo decided to experiment with time management methods. he set a two-minute timer for himself and challenged himself to stay focused for just two minutes.

twenty-five-minute work intervals. building on this idea, cirillo refined the technique. he divided his work into twenty-five-minute intervals, which he called “pomodoros”. during each pomodoro, he worked diligently on a task without distractions.

short breaks. after each twenty-five-minute work interval, cirillo took a five-minute break. these breaks allowed him to recharge and maintain focus.

longer breaks. after completing four pomodoros (a total of one-hundred minutes), he rewarded himself with a longer break of fifteen to thirty minutes. this cycle helped him manage his time effectively.

some challenges that people face with the pomodoro timer include: facing interruptions and distractions, task switching, ridgity, ignoring breaks, perfectionism and fatigue.

this is why some students choose to partake in a 45:15 pomodoro, as it allows them to spend more time on their tasks, and then they can enjoy a longer break.

longer intervals allow for deep focus. some students find it difficult to switch tasks every twenty-five-minutes, preferring to immerse themselves in a topic for a longer period.

certain academic tasks, such as extended essays, research and programming, require sustained attention. longer pomodoros accommodate this better.

it's important to remember that everyone has different levels of focus and a unique productivity rhythm. it's important to test out different structures and strategies and learn what works best with your natural flow.

❤️ joanne

(images are from pinterest)

161 notes · View notes

hms-no-fun · 10 days ago

Note

Hi! I just read your post about your opinion on "AI" and I really liked it. If it's no bother, what's your opinion on people who use it for studying? Like writing essays, solving problems and stuff like that?

I haven't been a fan of AI from the beginning and I've heard that you shouldn't ask it for anything because then you help it develop. But I don't know how to explain that to friends and classmates or even if it's true anymore. Because I've seen some of the prompts it can come up with and they're not bad and I've heard people say that the summaries AI makes are really good and I just... I dunno. I'm at a loss

Sorry if this is a lot or something you simply don't want to reply to. You made really good points when talking about AI and I really liked it and this has been weighing on me for a while :)

on a base level, i don't really have a strongly articulated opinion on the subject because i don't use AI, and i'm 35 so i'm not in school anymore and i don't have a ton of college-aged friends either. i have little exposure to the people who use AI in this way nor to the people who have to deal with AI being used in this way, so my perspective here is totally hypothetical and unscientific.

what i was getting at in my original AI post was a general macroeconomic point about how all of the supposed efficiency gains of AI are an extension of the tech CEO's dislike of paying and/or giving credit to anyone they deem less skilled or intelligent than them. that it's conspicuous how AI conveniently falls into place after many decades of devaluing and deskilling creative/artistic labor industries. historically, for a lot of artists the most frequently available & highest paying gigs were in advertising. i can't speak to the specifics when it comes to visual art or written copy, but i *can* say that when i worked in the oklahoma film industry, the most coveted jobs were always the commercials. great pay for relatively less work, with none of the complications that often arise working on amateur productions. not to mention they were union gigs, a rare enough thing in a right to work state, so anyone trying to make a career out of film work wanting to bank their union hours to qualify for IATSE membership always had their ears to the ground for an opening. which didn't come often because, as you might expect, anyone who *got* one of those jobs aimed to keep it as long as possible. who could blame em, either? one person i met who managed to get consistent ad work said they could afford to work all of two or three months a year, so they could spend the rest of their time doing low-budget productions and (occasionally) student films.

there was a time when this was the standard for the film industry, even in LA; you expected to work 3 to 5 shows a year (exact number's hard to estimate because production schedules vary wildly between ads, films, and tv shows) for six to eight months if not less, so you'd have your bills well covered through the lean periods and be able to recover from what is an enormously taxing job both physically and emotionally. this was never true for EVERYONE, film work's always been a hustle and making a career of it is often a luck-based crapshoot, but generally that was the model and for a lot of folks it worked. it meant more time to practice their skills on the job, sustainably building expertise and domain knowledge that they could then pass down to future newcomers. anything that removes such opportunities decreases the amount of practice workers get, and any increased demand on their time makes them significantly more likely to burn out of the industry early. lower pay, shorter shoots, busier schedules, these aren't just bad for individual workers but for the entire industry, and that includes the robust and well-funded advertising industry.

well, anyway, this year's coca-cola christmas ad was made with AI. they had maybe one person on quality control using an adobe aftereffects mask to add in the coke branding. this is the ultimate intended use-case for AI. it required the expertise of zero unionized labor, and worst of all the end result is largely indistinguishable from the alternative. you'll often see folks despair at this verisimilitude, particularly when a study comes out that shows (for instance) people can't tell the difference between real poetry and chat gpt generated poetry. i despair as well, but for different reasons. i despair that production of ads is a better source of income and experience for film workers than traditional movies or television. i despair that this technology is fulfilling an age-old promise about the disposability of artistic labor. poetry is not particularly valued by our society, is rarely taught to people beyond a beginner's gloss on meter and rhyme. "my name is sarah zedig and i'm here to say, i'm sick of this AI in a major way" type shit. end a post with the line "i so just wish that it would go away and never come back again!" and then the haiku bot swoops in and says, oh, 5/7/5 you say? that is technically a haiku! and then you put a haiku-making minigame in your crowd-pleasing japanese nationalist open world chanbara simulator, because making a haiku is basically a matter of selecting one from 27 possible phrase combinations. wait, what do you mean the actual rules of haiku are more elastic and subjective than that? that's not what my english teacher said in sixth grade!

AI is able to slip in and surprise us with its ability to mimic human-produced art because we already treat most human-produced art like mechanical surplus of little to no value. ours is a culture of wikipedia-level knowledge, where you have every incentive to learn a lot of facts about something so that you can sufficiently pretend to have actually experienced it. but this is not to say that humans would be better able to tell the difference between human produced and AI produced poetry if they were more educated about poetry! the primary disconnect here is economic. Poets already couldn't make a fucking living making poetry, and now any old schmuck can plug a prompt into chatgpt and say they wrote a sonnet. even though they always had the ability to sit down and write a sonnet!

boosters love to make hay about "deskilling" and "democratizing" and "making accessible" these supposedly gatekept realms of supposedly bourgeois expression, but what they're really saying (whether they know it or not) is that skill and training have no value anymore. and they have been saying this since long before AI as we know it now existed! creative labor is the backbone of so much of our world, and yet it is commonly accepted as a poverty profession. i grew up reading books and watching movies based on books and hearing endless conversation about books and yet when i told my family "i want to be a writer" they said "that's a great way to die homeless." like, this is where the conversation about AI's impact starts. we already have a culture that simultaneously NEEDS the products of artistic labor, yet vilifies and denigrates the workers who perform that labor. folks see a comic panel or a corporate logo or a modern art piece and say "my kid could do that," because they don't perceive the decades of training, practice, networking, and experimentation that resulted in the finished product. these folks do not understand that just because the labor of art is often invisible doesn't mean it isn't work.

i think this entire conversation is backwards. in an ideal world, none of this matters. human labor should not be valued over machine labor because it inherently possesses an aura of human-ness. art made by humans isn't better than AI generated art on qualitative grounds. art is subjective. you're not wrong to find beauty in an AI image if the image is beautiful. to my mind, the value of human artistic labor comes down to the simple fact that the world is better when human beings make art. the world is better when we have the time and freedom to experiment, to play, to practice, to develop and refine our skills to no particular end except whatever arbitrary goal we set for ourselves. the world is better when people collaborate on a film set to solve problems that arise organically out of the conditions of shooting on a live location. what i see AI being used for is removing as many opportunities for human creativity as possible and replacing them with statistical averages of prior human creativity. this passes muster because art is a product that exists to turn a profit. because publicly traded companies have a legal responsibility to their shareholders to take every opportunity to turn a profit regardless of how obviously bad for people those opportunities might be.

that common sense says writing poetry, writing prose, writing anything is primarily about reaching the end of the line, about having written something, IS the problem. i've been going through the many unfinished novels i wrote in high school lately, literally hundreds of thousands of words that i shared with maybe a dozen people and probably never will again. what value do those words have? was writing them a waste of time since i never posted them, never finished them, never turned a profit off them? no! what i've learned going back through those old drafts is that i'm only the writer i am today BECAUSE i put so many hours into writing generic grimdark fantasy stories and bizarrely complicated werewolf mythologies.

you know i used to do open mics? we had a poetry group that met once a month at a local cafe in college. each night we'd start by asking five words from the audience, then inviting everyone to compose a poem using those words in 10 to 15 minutes. whoever wanted to could read their poem, and whoever got the most applause won a free drink from the cafe. then we'd spend the rest of the night having folks sign up to come and read whatever. sometimes you'd get heartfelt poems about personal experiences, sometimes you'd get ambitious soundcloud rappers, sometimes you'd get a frat guy taking the piss, sometimes you'd get a mousy autist just doing their best. i don't know that any of the poetry i wrote back then has particular value today, but i don't really care. the point of it was the experience in that moment. the experience of composing something on the fly, or having something you wrote a couple days ago, then standing up and reading it. the value was in the performance itself, in the momentary synthesis between me and the audience. i found out then that i was pretty good at making people cry, and i could not have had that experience in any other venue. i could not have felt it so viscerally had i just posted it online. and i cannot wrap up that experience and give it to you, because it only existed then.

i think more people would write poetry if they had more hours in a day to spare for frivolities, if there existed more spaces where small groups could organize open mics, if transit made those spaces more widely accessible, if everyone made enough money that they weren't burned the fuck out and not in the mood to go to an open mic tonight, if we saw poetry as a mode of personal reflection which was as much about the experience of having written it as anything else. this is the case for all the arts. right now, the only people who can afford to make a living doing art are already wealthy, because art doesn't pay well. this leads to brain drain and overall lowering quality standards, because the suburban petty bouge middle class largely do not experience the world as it materially exists for the rest of us. i often feel that many tech CEOs want to be remembered the way andy warhol is remembered. they want to be loved and worshipped not just for business acumen but for aesthetic value, they want to get the kind of credit that artists get-- because despite the fact that artists don't get paid shit, they also frequently get told by people "your work changed my life." how is it that a working class person with little to no education can write a story that isn't just liked but celebrated, that hundreds or thousands of people imprint on, that leaves a mark on culture you can't quantify or predict or recreate? this is AI's primary use-case, to "democratize" art in such a way that hacks no longer have to work as hard to pretend to be good at what they do. i mean, hell, i have to imagine every rich person with an autobiography in the works is absolutely THRILLED that they no longer have to pay a ghost writer!

so, circling back around to the meat of your question. as far as telling people not to use AI because "you're just helping to train it," that ship has long since sailed. getting mad at individuals for using AI right now is about as futile as getting mad at individuals for not masking-- yes, obviously they should wear a mask and write their own essays, but to say this is simply a matter of millions of individuals making the same bad but unrelated choice over and over is neoliberal hogwash. people stopped masking because they were told to stop masking by a government in league with corporate interests which had every incentive to break every avenue of solidarity that emerged in 2020. they politicized masks, calling them "the scarlet letter of [the] pandemic". biden himself insisted this was "a pandemic of the unvaccinated", helpfully communicating to the public that if you're vaccinated, you don't need to mask. all those high case numbers and death counts? those only happen to the bad people.

now you have CEOs and politicians and credulous media outlets and droves of grift-hungry influencers hard selling the benefits of AI in everything everywhere all the time. companies have bent over backwards to incorporate AI despite ethics and security worries because they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, and everyone with money is calling this the next big thing. in short, companies are following the money, because that's what companies do. they, in turn, are telling their customers what tools to use and how. so of course lots of people are using AI for things they probably shouldn't. why wouldn't they? "the high school/college essay" as such has been quantized and stripmined by an education system dominated by test scores over comprehension. it is SUPPOSED to be an exercise in articulating ideas, to teach the student how to argue persuasively. the final work has little to no value, because the point is the process. but when you've got a system that lives and dies by its grades, within which teachers are given increasingly more work to do, less time to do it in, and a much worse paycheck for their trouble, the essay increasingly becomes a simple pass/fail gauntlet to match the expected pace set by the simple, clean, readily gradable multiple choice quiz. in an education system where the stakes for students are higher than they've ever been, within which you are increasingly expected to do more work in less time with lower-quality guidance from your overworked teachers, there is every incentive to get chatgpt to write your essay for you.

do you see what i'm saying? we can argue all day about the shoulds here. of course i think it's better when people write their own essays, do their own research, personally read the assigned readings. but cheating has always been a problem. a lot of these same fears were aired over the rising popularity of cliffs notes in the 90s and 2000s! the real problem here is systemic. it's economic. i would have very little issue with the output of AI if existing conditions were not already so precarious. but then, if the conditions were different, AI as we know it likely would not exist. it emerges today as the last gasp of a tech industry that has been floundering for a reason to exist ever since the smart phone dominated the market. they tried crypto. they tried the metaverse. now they're going all-in on AI because it's a perfect storm of shareholder-friendly buzzwords and the unscientific technomythology that's been sold to laymen by credulous press sycophants for decades. It slots right into this niche where the last of our vestigial respect for "the artist" once existed. it is the ultimate expression of capitalist realism, finally at long last doing away with the notion that the suits at disney could never in their wildest dreams come up with something half as cool as the average queer fanfic writer. now they've got a program that can plagiarize that fanfic (along with a dozen others) for them, laundering the theft through a layer of transformation which perhaps mirrors how the tech industry often exploits open source software to the detriment of the open source community. the catastrophe of AI is that it's the fulfillment of a promise that certainly predates computers at the very least.

so, i don't really know what to tell someone who uses AI for their work. if i was talking to a student, i'd say that relying chatgpt is really gonna screw you over when it comes time take the SAT or ACT, and you have to write an essay from scratch by hand in a monitored environment-- but like, i also think the ACT and SAT and probably all the other standardized tests shouldn't exist? or at the very least ought to be severely devalued, since prep for those tests often sabotages the integrity of actual classroom education. although, i guess at this point the only way forward for education (that isn't getting on both knees and deep-throating big tech) is more real-time in-class monitored essay writing, which honestly might be better for all parties anyway. of course that does nothing to address research essays you can't write in a single class session. to someone who uses AI for research, i'd probably say the same thing as i would to someone who uses wikipedia: it's a fine enough place to start, but don't cite it. click through links, find sources, make sure what you're reading is real, don't rely on someone else's generalization. know that chatgpt is likely not pulling information from a discrete database of individual files that it compartmentalizes the way you might expect, but rather is a statistical average of a broad dataset about which it cannot have an opinion or interpretation. sometimes it will link you to real information, but just as often it will invent information from whole cloth. honestly, the more i talk it out, the more i realize all this advice is basically identical to the advice adults were giving me in the early 2000s.

which really does cement for me that the crisis AI is causing in education isn't new and did not come from nowhere. before chatgpt, students were hiring freelancers on fiverr. i already mentioned cliffs notes. i never used any of these in college, but i'll also freely admit that i rarely did all my assigned reading. i was the "always raises her hand" bitch, and every once in a while i'd get other students who were always dead silent in class asking me how i found the time to get the reading done. i'd tell them, i don't. i read the beginning, i read the ending, and then i skim the middle. whenever a word or phrase jumps out at me, i make a note of it. that way, when the professor asks a question in class, i have exactly enough specific pieces of information at hand to give the impression of having done the reading. and then i told them that i learned how to do this from the very same professor that was teaching that class. the thing is, it's not like i learned nothing from this process. i retained quite a lot of information from those readings! this is, broadly, a skill that emerges from years of writing and reading essays. but then you take a step back and remember that for most college students (who are not pursuing any kind of arts degree), this skillset is relevant to an astonishingly minimal proportion of their overall course load. college as it exists right now is treated as a jobs training program, within which "the essay" is a relic of an outdated institution that highly valued a generalist liberal education where today absolute specialization seems more the norm. so AI comes in as the coup de gras to that old institution. artists like myself may not have the constitution for the kind of work that colleges now exist to funnel you into, but those folks who've never put a day's thought into the work of making art can now have a computer generate something at least as good at a glance as basically anything i could make. as far as the market is concerned, that's all that matters. the contents of an artwork, what it means to its creator, the historic currents it emerges out of, these are all technicalities that the broad public has been well trained not to give a shit about most of the time. what matters is the commodity and the economic activity it exists to generate.

but i think at the end of the day, folks largely want to pay for art made by human beings. that it's so hard for a human being to make a living creating and selling art is a question far older than AI, and whose answer hasn't changed. pay workers more. drastically lower rents. build more affordable housing. make healthcare free. make education free. massively expand public transit. it is simply impossible to overstate how much these things alone would change the conversation about AI, because it would change the conversation about everything. SO MUCH of the dominance of capital in our lives comes down to our reliance on cars for transit (time to get a loan and pay for insurance), our reliance on jobs for health insurance (can't quit for moral reasons if it's paying for your insulin), etc etc etc. many of AI's uses are borne out of economic precarity and a ruling class desperate to vacuum up every loose penny they can find. all those billionaires running around making awful choices for the rest of us? they stole those billions. that is where our security went. that is why everything is falling apart, because the only option remaining to *every* institutional element of society is to go all-in on the profit motive. tax these motherfuckers and re-institute public arts funding. hey, did you know the us government used to give out grants to artists? did you know we used to have public broadcast networks where you could make programs that were shown to your local community? why the hell aren't there public youtube clones? why aren't there public transit apps? why aren't we CONSTANTLY talking about nationalizing these abusive fucking industries that are falling over themselves to integrate AI because their entire modus operandi is increasing profits regardless of product quality?

these are the questions i ask myself when i think about solutions to the AI problem. tech needs to be regulated, the monopolies need breaking up, but that's not enough. AI is a symptom of a much deeper illness whose treatment requires systemic solutions. and while i'm frustrated when i see people rely on AI for their work, or otherwise denigrate artists who feel AI has devalued their field, on some level i can't blame them. they are only doing what they've been told to do. all of which merely strengthens my belief in the necessity of an equitable socialist future (itself barely step zero in the long path towards a communist future, and even that would only be a few steps on the even longer path to a properly anarchist future). improve the material conditions and you weaken the dominance of capitalist realism, however minutely. and while there are plenty of reasons to despair at the likelihood of such a future given a second trump presidency, i always try to remember that socialist policies are very popular and a *lot* of that popularity emerged during the first trump administration. the only wrong answer here is to assume that losing an election is the same thing as losing a war, that our inability to put the genie back in its bottle means we can't see our own wishes granted.

i dunno if i answered your question but i sure did say a lot of stuff, didn't i?

#sarahposts #ai #ai art #chatgpt #llm #genai #capitalism #unions #labor #workers rights #capitalist realism #longpost

89 notes · View notes

familyabolisher · 1 year ago

Note

hi! i'm a follower, & i enjoy reading your posts and essays. in your recent post about the anti-intellectualism kerfuffle on tumblr, you said, "Part of my communism means believing in the abolition of the university; this is not an ‘anti-intellectual’ position but a straightforwardly materialist one."

i haven't heard of university abolition before, and if you are willing, i would like to hear what it's about. what is the university abolitionist image of a better alternative to universities? should learning still be centralized?

thanks for your consideration. :)

University abolition, as with any other form of abolition worth its salt, understands the role played by the institution of the university under capitalism in sustaining the conditions of capitalist-imperialist hegemony, analyses the institution accordingly, and recognises that the practices that the university purports to represent (that of intellectual production, the sharing and developing of knowledge) will undergo a fundamental overhaul and reconstitution under communism. This means looking at the university not merely as an organic institution wherein we study and develop ideas, but asking what ideas are developed and legitimised, and who is afforded the opportunity to do so, and why the university exists in the first place; we are taking a materialist rather than idealist approach.

Simply put, the role of the university is to restrict access to knowledge and knowledge production, and to ensure the continuance of class divides and hierarchised labour. These restrictions come about in a vast number of ways; the most immediately obvious is the fact that one must meet a certain set of criteria in order to qualify for entrance in the first place, and this criteria tends to require compliance with the schooling system (itself another such arm of capitalist governance), a certain amount of wealth (and/or a willingness to accrue debt), and an ability to demonstrate methods of intellectual engagement compliant with the standard of the academy. Obviously, there are massive overlaps in this set of criteria; those who come from wealthier backgrounds are more likely to have had a good education and thus can better demonstrate normative intellectual engagement, those who can demonstrate that engagement have probably complied with the schooling system, and so on. The logic behind the existence of private schools is the idea that sufficient wealth can near-enough secure your child's entry into the university and therefore entry into the wealthier classes as an adult, with the most prestigious institutions overrun by students from privately educated backgrounds. Already, you can see how this is a tactic that filters out people from marginalised backgrounds; if you’re too poor, too un[der]educated, too disabled, not white enough, &c. &c., your chances of admittance into higher education grow slimmer and slimmer.

Access to the university affords access to knowledge; most literally through institutional access to books, papers, libraries, but also through participation in lectures and seminars, reading lists, first-hand contact with active academics, the opportunity to produce work and receive feedback on it, the opportunity to develop your own ideas in a socially legitimised sphere. As I explained above, who is afforded access to such knowledge is stratified and limited; the institution is hostile to anyone deemed socially disposable under capitalism. Access to the university also affords access to a university degree, with which you can continue down the research path (and thus participate in the cycle of radical knowledge-production being absorbed and defanged by the academy, and water down your own ideas to make them palatable to institutions which tend to balk at anything with serious Marxist commitments), or gain entry to better-paid, more stable, more prestigious jobs than those which people without degrees are most often relegated to. In this sense, the people who are more likely to be able to meet the access criteria for the university and then successfully participate in it are able to retain their class position (or else promulgate the myth of social mobility as a solution to mass impoverishment) and thus gain a vested interest in maintaining the conditions of hegemony. Those who gain entry into the middle class have done so after undergoing a process of stratification according to means; which is to say, class, race, [dis]ability; and tend to lose interest in defending a politic which seeks to destabilise their relatively privileged position in the pecking order.

Success in a research career, too, depends upon liberties afforded by wealth; can you afford to go to all these conferences, do low-paid and insecure teaching work in the university, churn out research, and support yourself through a postgrad degree without going insane? Not if you don’t have independent means. In the UK, the gap between undergrad and masters funding is absolutely wild—obviously there are scholarships afforded to a limited number of people (another access barrier—the whole institution runs on the myth of artificial scarcity), but broadly speaking, it’s pretty much impossible to put yourself through an MA with just the money you get from SFE unless you work a lot on the side to pay your bills (this is what I tried to do; I went insane and dropped out, lmfao) or have independent wealth. Establishing oneself as an ‘academic’ is simply easier when you have financial security. In this way, the people who make it to the very top of academia (the MAs, the PhDs) tend to be people who come from privileged backgrounds; people who are less likely to challenge hegemony, who will maintain the essential conditions by which the university sustains itself, which is to say the conditions of social stratification. These people often tend to hold reactionary positions on class—the people who are outraged at how little a stipend postgrad students get tend not to think twice about the university’s cleaners being paid minimum wage, or think of working-class jobs as shameful failstates from which their academic qualifications have allowed them to escape (how many people have you heard get absolutely aghast at the thought of ‘[person with a BA/MA/PhD] working a typically working-class job’?). Academic success tends to engender buying into the mythology of academia as a class stratifier and class stratification as indicative of one’s value, even amongst people who probably call themselves academic Marxists.

Universities are also tangible forces of counterinsurgency. I live in the UK, where universities are huge drivers of gentrification; university towns and cities will welcome mass student populations, usually from predominantly middle-class backgrounds and often coming to cities with significant working-class and immigrant communities, neighbourhoods formerly home to those communities will be effectively cleaned out so that students can live there, and the whole character of the neighbourhood changes to accommodate people from well-off backgrounds who harbour classist, racist feelings towards the locals & who will assimilate into the salaried middle-class once they graduate. More liberally-oriented universities will tend to espouse putatively progressive positions whilst making no effort to forge a relationship with grassroots movements happening on the streets of the city they’re set up in; student politics absorbs anyone with even slightly radical inclinations whilst accomplishing approximately fuck-all save for setting a few people off on the NGO track; like, the institution defangs radical potential whilst contributing to the class stratification of the city it’s set up in.

This is without even touching on the role played by the university in maintaining conditions of imperialism and neocolonialism, both through academic output regarding colonised regions (from ‘Oriental studies’ to the proliferation of white academics who specialise in ‘Africa’ to the use of the Global South as something of a playground for white Global North academics to conduct their research to the history of epistemologies such as race science as transparently fortifying and legitimating the imperialist order) and through material means of restricting access to and production of knowledge based on country of origin (universities in the Global South are significantly limited in what academic output they can access compared to those in the Global North; engagement with Global North academia relies on the ability to move freely, something that is restricted by one’s passport; language barriers and the primacy of English in the Global North academy) keeping knowledge production in the Global South dependent on the hegemony of the North. Syed Farid Alatas has termed this ‘academic dependency,’ as a corollary to dependency theory; academia in the GS is shaped by the material dependence it has on the West, which in turn restricts the kind of academic work that can be undertaken in the first place. Ultimately, all institutions under capitalism must ultimately reroute back to the conditions that favour capitalism, and the university is not an exception.

This is just a very brief overview of an expansive topic; I would recommend going away and examining in greater detail the role played by the university under capitalism, and what the institution filters out, and why. What sort of research gets funding? What sort of knowledge gains social legitimacy? What can the university absorb and what must it reject? Who is producing knowledge and to whom are they accountable? etc.

#ask

514 notes · View notes

p6to · 5 months ago

Text

What the fuck is going on?

I was in the process of typing out several essays worth of thoughts in the tags of @tsarinablogs's lestappen 2024 manifesto, because what else is new. Since I am uncannily similar to Max in all aspects of his public persona (except his driving abilities and his apparent need to come out as bisexual in every third interview), including the 'tism allegations and the certified "parent has a very weird sense of seeing their child as their own person" experience, in this essay I will be yapping about Screwderia Ferrari, shady business and of course: Charles Leclerc.

Charles has given his life and a large part of his career in f1 to Ferrari, leading to six wins, including his own home race Monaco and Ferrari's home race Monza, but also ten gazillion strategy fuck ups and now a (likely) second failed championship battle.

How much is too much for a person to handle?

Ferrari has not won a championship since Kimi Räikkönen in 2007. That much was known when Charles went through the ranks in the Ferrari Driver Academy, so he knew they were not suddenly going to dominate the way Red Bull did the last few years and Mercedes before them. He still had faith in them, made promises about his achievements to his dying father when he must have known that they might be impossible to ever reach.

His devotion and his talent have made him into an (almost) religious figure to the tifosi. Charles Leclerc is Ferrari, and Ferrari is Charles Leclerc.

Or is it?

Time and time again, we have witnessed Charles getting fucked over in favour of his teammate (see "it looks like they're going to sacrifice Leclerc" - George, or the entirety of the SF-23, maybe even today). While a team principal and a good number of other employees were fired in 2022 because things were going horrible and Charles insisted on it, and things were looking better when competent personnel and even Lewis Hamilton were signed by Fred Vasseur, it seems like the actual problem is still there.

Based on what we saw with the Barcelona upgrades and Carlos' interviews, we may have to expect the car to be developed to suit Carlos' understeer-y preference once again, which is wild considering that he is a driver who is leaving at the end of the year, has been outperformed by Charles pretty consistently over the time they were teammates, and has shown very clearly (alone this season!) that he is (in the words of a friend) not driving for Ferrari but for Carlos.

How can it be that Charles has mechanical and technical problems every second race weekend, while his teammate does not, and not only does nobody from the team leadership say anything about it but they also let Carlos downplay Charles' very severe brake issues in Bahrain?

Silverstone has marked the third race this season where Charles did not score points due to either inherent issues of the car (tire warm up in qualifying), mechanical issues (engine), damage (front wing in Austria) AND very questionable strategy calls. Three races of the twelve that have passed is 25%, a figure that is much too high for any top team, let alone Ferrari who were very close to catching up to Red Bull in the WCC just four races ago.

Of course, problems in car development and maybe even a higher lack of reliability in mechanical parts can happen to any team. However, we will now come to the area where I see the biggest problem.

This entire triple header, Fred Vasseur has been giving unacceptable statements about BOTH of his drivers. In Barcelona, he downplayed the issue between Charles and Carlos at the start, positioning himself directly against the driver he should be supporting since he was objectively (data-supported) correct. In Austria, Sky Sports had to make him watch the moment Charles sustained the damage to his front wing, because he could not be bothered to watch it during the actual race.

And now in Silverstone, he blamed both Carlos and Charles for not performing miracles with this shitshow of a tractor during qualifying, let his drivers be fed different information regarding the incoming rain leading to one of them making the wrong tire choice, ruining his race, and then had the audacity to lie about that and Charles position during this incident, making it look like he was still behind Lance when he had actually already overtaken him and was now behind Carlos after starting four places behind him, EVEN THOUGH there were radio transcripts and of course the fucking broadcast that showed the truth.

Us Chirlies have to preface our posts about conspiracy theories with statements about tinfoil hats and "for legal reasons this is a joke", but I will not do this here.

I fully believe that there is shady business going on at Ferrari, including but not limited to potential blackmailing, software sabotage and bribery. I will not pin these onto specific people/groups, because there are too many options. I also think that there is shady business going on at every team, but not to this extent.

The way things are going, with Charles already being on an actually not so subtle PR warpath, I expect some form of news in the next three weeks, including either announcements about people being fired or a Charles-to-Red Bull announcement, although Charles to Mercedes would not surprise me either.

Merc fans joined in on criticising Fred yesterday, and hardcore Max fans are saying Charles should leave Ferrari and join Max at Red Bull. This issue has breached containment, as it should.

Either things are changing at Ferrari or Charles will be exchanging Ferrari for a different team. There is no other solution.

(You have made it to the bottom of this yap-fest. Congratulations! I wish you a very nice day/week/month/year/life without Ferrari-like fuck ups and thank you for reading my stuff :) )

98 notes · View notes

theromanticscrooge · 11 months ago

Text

Lord Boxman, the Lonely Tyrant of Boxmore

youtube

Note: I've been wanting to return to writing beefy character essays for awhile and I was finally able to start back up after rewatching O.K. K.O.

Lord Boxman started out wanting to build a robot army strong enough to defeat POINT. Look at his early interactions with his first sapient robot Mr. Logic. This was his original business partner; someone he 'invented' to help fill in what gaps and blind spots he might have. Someone he wanted active feedback and suggestions from. Boxman himself was a lot more open-minded, patient, and collaborative at this point in time. He immediately called Mr. Logic his 'best friend' and treated him with warm, open affection.

Mr. Logic advised Boxman that he shouldn't immediately jump at his goal because he didn't yet have the manpower or resources to pose a legitimate threat. Instead, Mr. Logic proposed using Boxman's inventing abilities to tweak and improve upon his current inventions, to sell these inventions to other villains, and build a villain supply chain store. With time, hard work, and concentrated efforts, Boxman would eventually have the resources and power to successfully launch an attack later. It was a big-picture, long-haul plan. The Mr. Logic-Boxman team led to building the main Boxmore company headquarters and establishing Boxman as a trusted robot minion supplier.

Unfortunately, Boxman isn't a big-picture man. He didn't stop to consider that heroes could also start up and maintain a hero supply chain. Suddenly, POINT wasn't an abstract, 'someday' goal-post anymore. The heroes were right in Boxman's backyard with the presence of Mr. Gar and the developing Lakewood Plaza Turbo. Boxman thought he had ample time to become an indomitable powerhouse, but if the heroes had the same advantage, he'd never be able to catch up and had to address that problem now. When Mr. Logic said to "ignore Lakewood Plaza," Boxman was too lost in himself to listen. He felt threatened and intimidated enough that it stoked his insecurities and anxieties.

When Mr. Logic ventured out to investigate Lakewood Plaza, it could be seen as someone talking to the "other" that their parent, friends, or whomever painted with broad strokes and demonized. Boxman told Mr. Logic that his role was to fill in the "logical inconsistencies" with his plans, but he never asked Mr. Logic what he wanted to do with his life. With Boxman, everything was tailored to realizing Boxman's dreams and ambitions. When Mr. Logic spoke to Mr. Gar, it was a partly about what the Plaza was for and what Mr. Gar hoped for the future with the other part inviting Mr. Logic to share his plans for the future; plans about and for himself, not just the sustainability of Boxmore.

After Mr. Logic had his perspective broadened and returned to Boxmore wanting something fundamentally different from Boxman's new "Destroy the Plaza!" direction, it was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. Boxman was already knee-deep in plans to stop this new existential threat; to have full control over his environment and his life. When Mr. Logic challenged Boxman's worldview, Boxman saw it as a challenge to him personally. Seriously considering Mr. Logic's arguments here meant that Boxman would have to self-reflect in a way he wasn't equipped to. So if Boxman had to shave down Mr. Logic's personhood to a black and white concept of "obstacle in my way" to safeguard his ego, that's what needed to be done.

GIF by zevzevarainai

The episode "Lad & Logic" is a fantastic launchpad to unpacking Boxman's screwed-up dynamic with his other children. His creator-robot minion dynamic is an allegory for an emotionally abusive parent that sees their children as extensions of themselves rather than full, autonomous beings with their own wants and desires. Mr. Logic was fully self-actualized and wanted something different than Boxman. Despite what he said out loud, Boxman knew that Mr. Logic was on even footing with him. Everything came down to power dynamics. So, when Boxman invented his next set of robots, he opted to be their "parent" because of the power imbalance he could exploit.

Shannon, Darrell, Raymond, and others strictly and obediently follow their father's wishes because they were deliberately conditioned and threatened to. Boxman pits them against each other to vie for his favor. The only TV they're allowed to watch at home are movies he carefully filmed to reinforce his "father knows best" agenda. It's similar to strict Christian parents banning their kids from watching certain shows or reading certain books because they may contain "undesirable" properties. Anything that encourages their child to question Christianity or endorses more critical thinking about their household values period is a threat to their authority and maintaining a "functional" household.

While Darrell, Shannon, and Raymond seem satisfied with their lives, unconditionally love their father, and gleefully attack the plaza, every time Boxman threatens them with the "furnace" or yells at them for failing, it's an exaggerated, blunt example of bad parenting. The "furnace" is a catch-all punishment for not being able to meet or exceed Boxman's expectations with anything and everything. He leaves some amount of ambiguity in his demands so that he can tug the proverbial leash every time he feels he needs to.

Granted, it's important to look at everything that led up to Lord Cowboy Darrell. Boxman's most egregious display of favoritism was when he built Boxman Jr. and refused to acknowledge how stung Darrell was. He kept pushing how much stronger, more competent, and better Boxman Jr. was overall. Generally, Darrell's respective relationships with Shannon and Raymond were strong enough to buffer against Boxman's picking favorites tactic. They'll fight each other for Dad's affection, but there was always an implicit understanding that they had each other's backs under normal circumstances. Jr. is different in that he had no significant relationship with his other siblings, only Boxman. And Boxman blatantly showered the newest addition with praise and affection the others never received.

Pushed to his limit, Darrell took matters into his own hands and staged an effective coup d'etat against Boxman. Through his disillusionment with his father, Darrell stepped up and became the focused, tight-knuckled business operator that Boxman could never be. Boxman tried to fill the mold that Mr. Logic helped him create and focus on appeasing his board of directors. But his all-consuming obsession with destroying the Plaza was always his true life's goal and work. This was such a core part of his character that he was miserable and hollow if he gave up on that goal. In contrast, Darrell can follow orders and do what needs to be done with whatever task he's given. The result of Lord Cowboy Darrell was one potential future of Darrell as a self-actualized villain without Boxman putting him down and actively demoralizing him.

After K.O. convinces Boxman to talk to Darrell and tell him he's proud of his achievements, it leads to the pivotal moment that Boxman couldn't give Mr. Logic. For once, Boxman looked at one of his kids and saw them as a separate, autonomous being rather than an extension of him. For that brief moment, he placed Darrell on equal footing. Darrell took over Boxmore partly out of spite but also out of an earnest interest in following in Boxman's footsteps. Without Boxman, he's a better Boxman; with Boxman, he's a co-conspirator that's as eager to destroy the Plaza as Boxman is.

GIF by the-green-sailor

Enter Professor Venomous. In stark contrast to Lord Boxman, Professor Venomous and Fink call themselves "boss" and "minion" respectively but it's really a father-daughter relationship. Venomous makes a point of bringing Fink along to important events or letting her tag along where relevant. He brings along what extras are needed to accommodate Fink whether it's a high chair, crayons, or even glorbs for a high-powered attack on some heroes. At their best, Venomous makes a point to talk to Fink on her level and she speaks very highly of what kind, affectionate gestures he does for her. Where Venomous trips up is discipline. Fink can do whatever she wants. Babysitters are run over by her reckless energy and disregard for other people that aren't Venomous. Any sign of a complaint or a tantrum is pacified with an expensive gift. When Venomous starts getting overwhelmed, the gifts replace all usual attempts at parenting or communication period.

After re-watching O.K. K.O. recently knowing that Professor Venomous was K.O.'s biological father from the jump, perhaps the "boss" and "minion" labels were Venomous' coping mechanism for knowing he abandoned one of his kids. It was easier to interact with and care for Fink as long as she was his "minion." That's a different enough relationship that he can compartmentalize it and distance it from what guilt or regrets he had from his past as Laser Blast.

When Boxman became business partners with Professor Venomous, it led to obvious shifts in his approach to parenting. After his night out with Venomous and Darrell and Shannon babysitting, he gave them T-shirts as rewards for their efforts. No pushes at playing favorites or nitpicking for once.

GIF by loser-jpg

With Professor Venomous in the picture, Boxman finally had the business partner he wanted and needed. While Mr. Logic's approach worked beautifully for kickstarting Boxmore, Boxman needed Venomous to cultivate it into exactly what he wanted vs what it was when tied to a board of directors. For a short time, Boxman and Venomous were building a blended family that was more successful together than separately. Boxman encouraged exercises and attempts towards Fink and Darrell getting along better. The Boxbots all received personalized upgrades from Venomous to improve and augment what weaponry or abilities they had. Fink now had access to what 'toys' Boxman could invent that were several grades above what Venomous could just buy. In short, Boxman dating Venomous led to him becoming a more proactive parent in a surprisingly organic way.

Venemous' intense self-destructive and literally destructive stint as Shadowy Venomous further elucidated what impact he had on Boxman. When Boxman had to step up as the responsible parent, the first problem he addressed with Venomous was how he'd been failing Fink recently with the "You missed Fink's recorder recital" comment. He was also emotionally strong enough to realize that Venomous was causing enough problems in the household that things had reached a boiling point and he had to leave. Breaking up would be emotionally devastating for him but Boxman was prioritizing the emotional well-being of his house and kids overall.

Even the devastating scene where Boxman leaves his kids to go off on an ambiguous "finding myself" quest was meaningful improvement on his part. Similarly to his confrontation with Lord Cowboy Darrell but with all of his kids this time, Boxman told them that they didn't need him. He was cutting the dependent and toxic grip on his apron strings. The Box kids are resilient and capable enough that they could carve out their own path.

There's a quote that Boxman brings up in another episode: "I'm a villain. I'm not a monster." In context, the quote was a punchline for a dark joke about Boxman potentially being a cannibal. Though, it interestingly applies when looking at Boxman's actions during his confrontations with Shadowy Venomous. Shadowy was the kind of monstrous villain that wanted mindless destruction and to see the world burn. Seeing the absolute lowest his partner could reach led to Boxman establishing what lines he wouldn't cross.

He wants to destroy the Plaza, not the world, and a pretty face isn't enough to convince him otherwise when he finds the self-assurance and confidence he needed. It's the pique of his character development as a father. While there is a lot more room for exploring this part of Boxman's character, there's enough substantial story here that it's an interesting look at a "bad dad" that was actively working on becoming better. Boxman and Venomous get back together later but only after Venomous proves that he's working through his bigger issues in a meaningful way with real, tangible results.

Over the last several years, there have been several stories tackling generational trauma that include parents realizing their failings and working on course-correcting with those failings. This has been a point of contention about a recurring to the point of tired stories in recent Pixar animated movies and the core of what made Everything, Everywhere, All at Once the powerhouse that it is. It's not too far of a reach to include Boxman as another one of these stories or even a decent starting place for digging into stories or characters dealing with generational trauma.

In Boxman's case, he could be seen as an example of an insecure parent that uses their role as a parent to reassure themselves in a constantly changing, unpredictable world. He only starts to get better when he starts changing and adapting to fit into that unpredictable world rather than trying to make his little corner of the world continue to conform to just him alone.

#ok ko #ok ko let's be heroes #ok ko lord boxman #lord boxman #lord boxman character analysis #character analysis #character essay #professor venomous #voxman #Youtube

76 notes · View notes

agrocomp0sites · 5 months ago

Text

Sustainable Development

Outline Headings Sub-Headings Introduction Definition of Sustainable Development Importance of Sustainable Development Global Impact Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Overview of SDGs Importance of SDGs Economic Aspect of Sustainable Development Economic Growth and Sustainability Green Economy Environmental Aspect of Sustainable Development Conservation of Natural Resources Climate…

0 notes

blessingmaxxer · 3 months ago

Text

My response to @mywitchyblog!

"Thank you for your response! I definitely have a deeper understanding of your perspective. I will make sure to answer your direct questions within your argument as soon as possible, as well as also clarify/highlight some of the points I made in my argument." - my initial response to your post

My stance: Race-changing is often (if not always) disrespectful and you shouldn't need to race-change to care about or try to understand another race

With that being said, I'll start again!

To answer your question about mixed people race-changing, I don't see why one would need to? Are you not those races??

Anyway, the practice of reality shifting, wherein individuals immerse themselves in alternate realities or dimensions, includes the controversial activity of race changing. You argue that race changing allows for profound personal growth, empathy development, and cultural competence. However, critics express concerns about cultural appropriation, racial fetishization, and racism. This essay critically examines the arguments for race changing in reality shifting, addressing its ethical implications and assessing the validity of its claimed benefits.

You and some others describe the practice as a deeply immersive experience that extends beyond physical transformation, including emotional and cultural integration. You say that this immersive experience fosters empathy and a nuanced understanding of different racial identities. However, this perspective oversimplifies the implications of embodying an entirely different racial identity, especially considering that race-changing practitioners can opt in and out of their new identities at will—a privilege not afforded to real individuals facing racial discrimination. Those who do so will always do it in a cavalier manner, since they can easily discard all social implications and conventions that exist. Vacationing to a life of discrimination is truly disheartening and fetishizing to see.

"Just wanting see" what the hell that is discrimination is like is backwards. What could be so interesting about a different race that you have to become it? If you strip every argument down, it will always lead to someone not fully respecting other races is-- They don't see it as something to be held in regard if they can easily cross that boundary.

While you claim that race changing enhances empathy by allowing individuals to experience life from a different racial perspective, this argument has limitations. Experiencing racial identity through shifting lacks the permanence and systemic context that characterize real-life racial experiences. Even if you shift to a new race, you will never inherit the deep-rooted understanding of what it means to be that race. Visiting another country does not make you automatically or intrinsically a part of it's culture for the virtue of you being there, and having a willingness to "learn", does not automatically translate to a willingness to be respectful of that culture or identity.

Shifters may encounter only a superficial or selective aspect of racial identity without enduring the lifelong societal challenges and discrimination that individuals of that race face. Thus, the empathy developed through such a practice might be more akin to a simulated experience rather than a genuine understanding of racial adversity.

Furthermore, while race changing might lead to personal reflection, the capacity for self-reflection does not naturally translate into a deeper or more accurate understanding of racial issues. Genuine empathy and social justice awareness require sustained engagement with real-world issues and communities, not merely temporary immersion in alternate realities.

Shifting for a few months or years does not an empathetic person make, or give you true understanding of an identity. What do you expect, you have someone call you a slur and suddenly you become a better and more understanding person, ready to fight discrimination every which way? Multiverse or not, that's not how people work.

You acknowledge that race changing can be seen as a form of cultural appropriation. That is because it is. Assuming a different racial identity, especially for temporary and frivolous purposes, does, in fact, trivialize and commodify the lived experiences of those races. You don't want it to be that way, but it is. You counter that shifters can engage with new cultures deeply and respectfully, integrating themselves fully into their desired identities.

Nevertheless, this perspective fails to address the fundamental issue that race changing involves choosing and discarding identities at will, an act that lacks the permanence and societal impact associated with real racial experiences. The practice risks perpetuating the notion that racial identities are interchangeable and can be explored without the enduring consequences of systemic racism, ergo, discarding the meaningfulness of these people and experiences.

Additionally, the ability to "opt out" of a racial identity undermines the reality of living with that identity, potentially reducing it to a mere fantasy or experiment, which for an incomprehensible amount of people, it is not.

The concern of racial fetishization is pertinent, as race changing might encourage the objectification or exoticization of racial identities. I argue that focusing on racial characteristics for personal or imaginative exploration can reinforce stereotypes and reduce complex identities to superficial traits.

You assert that the immersive nature of race changing fosters genuine cultural engagement and empathy. However, the risk of fetishization remains significant, particularly if the practice involves an emphasis on stereotypical or desirable aspects of a racial identity while neglecting its broader, more complex reality. It doesn't go away because you think there's very little evidence or weight to it. Effective engagement with racial identities requires more than temporary immersion; it demands a deep and respectful understanding of the lived experiences and systemic challenges faced by individuals of that race.

The argument that race changing is inherently centers on the notion that it minimizes the real struggles faced by marginalized racial groups. I believe that such practices can perpetuate harmful stereotypes and disregard the reality of racial oppression. Those who race-change often operate from a place of privilege, like a rich person pretending to be poor for the fun of it or the aesthetic.

Just as someone would rightfully side-eye said rich person, people of color have every right to side-eye race-changers, and people who enthusiastically support it (as you've said, people have the right to be offended; that's because it makes sense to be).

To address these concerns, it is essential for practitioners of race changing to engage critically with their motivations and the broader implications of their practice. Effective empathy and anti-racism require MORE than temporary experiences; they necessitate a sustained commitment to understanding and addressing real-world racial issues.

Having that "as long as we aren't weird about it, we can do it" mentality is a coverup; there's no way to be not weird about it, if you're already willing to cross that boundary. You can't say, "Oh, black people... Cool, cool... Let me see what that's like, looks interesting," and it not be weird. Race isn't a fashion that you can try on and discard later. It's not a enriching activity you can do with the family. It's a real and tangible identity that one random person on the internet can't just grapple or tackle on a whim, or even with careful thought.

In short, race changing in reality shifting may offer some insights into different racial perspectives, it also raises significant ethical concerns. The practice risks trivializing real racial experiences, reinforcing stereotypes, and perpetuating a superficial understanding of racial issues. For a meaningful engagement with racial diversity and empathy, it is crucial to approach these issues with a commitment to real-world understanding and systemic change, rather than relying on temporary, simulated experiences. Critical reflection and genuine engagement with racial communities (outside of reality shifting) are essential for fostering a deeper and more accurate understanding of racial identity and systemic inequality.

Thank you for your time.

#ubiquitous-icon 🩶#law of assumption #affirmations #neville goddard #manifesting #reality shifting #loassumption #shiftblr #manifestation #race changing

29 notes · View notes

mnemyo · 6 months ago

Text

a VERY long essay on V’s Day 7 Visual Novels as a Rika lover

while rika is an extreme version of this, to many mentally ill people “unconditional love” comes off as very burdening, especially for a character like rika who everyone who ever “loved” her before always had a lot of expectations for her to fufill. On a less character defined level,

V’s “unconditional love” is also a trap of sorts, in his story rika describes the “darkness” in herself. you see, if you dont show rika affection whatsoever she doesn’t tell you the root of her ideology, however, if you side with her in the rika vn sequences she tells you the story of her darkness and light (im aware she explains some of it even if you reject her but there is more when you embrace and sympathize with her) basically her analogy is

her darkness is not inherently born in her, her darkness is the trauma and negative feelings others inflicted onto her in her upbringing.

the darkness used to externally present as tears (sadness) until people responded to that, too, with more darkness.

In response to that darkness, she developed severe anthropophobia (fear of humans) until she was able to suppress her phobia by finding a way to suppress her crying. her tears stopped coming out but they were still there behind her smile, just welling up on the inside until she was so full of tears. the body needed to expel tears because there was no more space

unfortunately, the way the excess tears came out wasn’t by the physical tears coming out, rather, through extinguishing her own darkness (harming others, abused becomes the abuser) she lists these things that would expel tears: cry, yell, and do something others would hate.

(at this point you can comment on how you think she’d be pretty when she’s finally able to cry and notably rika is grateful but comments that the mc, too, looks like shes going to cry, this shows the scene is meant to be in a sympathetic lens)

continuing her ideology she says one day she found a devil swimming in the tears inside her.

the devil whispered to her her incecurities: that she was unlovable, that her fiancée secretly hated her, that she was worthless.

This caused her to cling further to V (her fiancée) because the ‘devil’ was sustained by her tears, and she desperately wanted to kill that devil by drying her tears. V has an obsessive ideology with loving someone like the sun, drying all of someone’s tears and vanquishing the devil inside them, an unconditional all encompassing love.

while V encompassed her in this love, she had a realization that this devil that kept telling her she was worthless and unlovable, was actually herself, the herself that was deeply hurt in her childhood and was alone for so long. immediately she became terrified, terrified of this man who so devotedly wanted to kill her devil she asked him to spare the devil, to stop this sun like love that would one day reduce her to nothingness but he refused, so she ran away to start a cult of people, like her, so filled with darkness.

she actually comments at this point that she wont save those in agony through freedom and charity (the way she tried to get mentally better before, by starting a charity organization) and that not everyone can be saved by freedom and charity, rather need fear and salvation.

another interesting thing is that she says V will never be right in rejecting her ideology UNLESS he sacrifices himself to blind her with his light, in which case she would lose everything (this happens in another route where he dies for her and she permanently enters a catatonic hollow-to-life state where she can’t even talk and is sent to a mental hospital abroad because no one can take care of her other than a specialist) she ends this conversation by posing the mc a question. when she one day has to make the decision (this conversation happens during v’s route where you get together with him) the decision being independence (what she chose) or stableness (v’s all consuming light)

there within hides the reason why the game says v’s all consuming, sun like love is negative. theres 2 reasons

1. his all consuming unconditional love is self-sacrifical and is thusly even more burdensome

2. this also expands on part 1, this love is stable but also causes a deep codependency, even if V did “fix her” who would she be? she only knew herself as consumed by darkness before but who would she be after? a product of v? v’s wife? she wouldn’t be able to recognize herself

she also states that to her love is both light and devil, love being described by her as the duality of trust + healing but also obsession and possession. she then states that v’s love doesn’t contain any obsession (while sounding negative a light version of obsession in a relationship is a good thing, think your thoughts being filled by your loved one and with possession theres jealousy and a desire for them to stay with you) without those two aspects the love is only light and endless undeserved trust is a bad thing and too much healing doesn’t let one take time to process each stage of a deep set wound, healing is meant to be a full process and sometimes there needs to be pauses in the process to *be able* to mentally process

another thing rika comments is that v wants her to torture herself which is what starts her explaining her darkness ideology, even commenting that no one ever asked her about her darkness before

this is concerning because if no one asked her about this before that includes v that means v knew next to nothing about all her trauma (theres a lot)

non conclusive list of rikas trauma:

- shes an orphan abandoned by her parents

- she was adopted by a abusive religious family and was abused and even implied sa by their priest (i’ll get back to this in a second)

- when she ran away from her adoptive family she went to a lot of trouble to find her biological family, not her parents rather her step-parents (this doesn’t really make sense as a statement but thats what she states, probably makes more sense in og korean) and said step parents also abused her!

- she was also bullied in school for being a not cheerful girl

she states to all this trauma that she didn’t even know there was light in the world, since all she’s known was darkness, that she thought she was born to be tormented and tortured or she wouldn’t have a purpose to live

now going back to the catholic priest abuse, this is most likely why she sees herself as the devil and why devil isn’t an inherently bad thing to her.

all this really to say that while a lot of what rika did is inexcusable like man after that whole life she lived + when she ran away to start a cult V instead of telling her friends and cousin she was mentally ill the entire time she’s known them he tell them that she killed herself! because he is so dead set on “shouldering the pain he caused on his own” he socially isolates the only other people who can show her light, ESPECIALLY since rika comments that the RFA all have their own darkness.

Thank you if you’ve read this far! I have a lot of thoughts about Rika my friends are sick of me. This is not to say any of rikas actions aren’t bad by any means but I think she’s a wonderfully complex character that i find easy to sympathize with and for any fellow Rika lovers (or someone who just wants to understand rika more) I would recommend reading the day 7 vn’s in her own words, she says more details if you side with her more.

#mystic messenger #rika mystic messenger #rika mysme #mysmes #mysme #rika kim #please give rika more love #this woman consumes my every waking moment

26 notes · View notes

dailyanarchistposts · 2 months ago

Text

Queer autonomous zones and participatory publics

Bobby Noble points to ‘the simultaneity of the relations between gendered embodi- ment, sex play, and racialization inside homonormative communities, neighbour- hoods and venues for cultural production’ (Noble, 2009). Similar critiques of the queer community have been taken up by Gay Shame anarchist activists organizing in the late 1990s. In That’s Revolting! Matt/Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore docu- ments their personal experience in Gay Shame collectives in San Francisco and New York City. ‘Gay Shame emerged to create a radical alternative to the confor- mity of gay neighbourhoods, bars, and institutions – most clearly symbolized by Gay Pride’ (Sycamore, 2004: 238). Gay Shame is ‘mostly anarchist leaning’ (2004: 239), and organizes gatherings, events and direct action protests against capitalism and intersecting oppressions. A San Francisco flyer asks, ‘Are you choking on the vomit of consumerist ‘gay pride’?’ (2004: 239). Another poster entitled ‘Gay pride, my ass: It’s all about gay shame’ (2004: 240) announces an ‘autonomous space’ (2004: 240) outdoors on Tire Beach with performances, art-making, bands, instal- lations, DJs, food, kidspace, and ‘politics and play’ (2004: 240). The event hosted ‘speakers on issues including San Francisco gentrification and the US colonization of the Puerto Rican island of Vieques, as well as prison, youth, and trans activism’ (2004: 241). The range of issues and events in the ‘autonomous space’ point to a very different kind of sprawling, engaged public than Berlant and Warner’s indoor, circumscribed, queer counterpublic. ‘We encouraged people to participate in cre- ating their own radical queer space, and people argued about political issues, painted, poured concrete and made a mosaic, dyed hair, and mudwrestled naked’ (Sycamore, 2004: 241). Participation is a key element in the formation of a ‘Queer autonomous space’ (2004: 237) or zone, as are multiplicities of political focus (Puerto Rico, kids, youth, prisons, trans people, art production, gentrifica- tion and so on) and an over-arching anti-capitalist practice that includes free entrance, barter and trade, dressing to ‘ragged excess’ (2004: 240), and the provi- sion of ‘free food, T-shirts and various other gifts’ (2004: 241).

Queer autonomous zones thus are open-ended spaces in which participation of all comers is encouraged through a direct (rather than liberal) democracy model. They are facilitated via engagement with a multiplicity of intersectional anti- oppression politics. Interactions in queer autonomous spaces develop sustainable social relations and value-practices, based on mutual respect, consent, sexual lib- eration, and non-normativity, in which people engage in open-ended processes of developing alternative ways of being, feeling, thinking, engaging, acting and becoming-liberated. The question is – what’s next? How do we continue to expand our movements and theorizing to extend the becoming-liberated of queer?

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments, Jamie Heckert for encour- agement and patience with my process, and Sydney Neuman for engaged proofreading.

References

Berlant L and Freeman E (1992) Queer nationality. Boundary 2 19(1): 149–180.

Berlant L and Warner M (2000) Sex in public. In: Berlant L (ed.) Intimacy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 311–330.

Bordo S (1990) Reading the slender body. In: Jacobus M, Fox Keller E, Shuttleworth S (eds) Body/Politics: Women and the Discourses of Science. New York: Routledge, 83–112. Castiglia C (2000) Sex panics, sex publics, sex memories. Boundary 2 27(2): 149–175. Corber RJ, Valocchi S (eds) (2003) Queer Studies: An Interdisciplinary Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Crimp D (2002) Mario montez, for shame. In: Barber SM, Clark DL (eds) Regarding Sedgwick: Essays on Queer Culture and Critical Theory. New York: Routledge, 57–70.

Deleuze G and Guattari F (1983) Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia Vol. 1. 1972. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

DeLuca KM (1999) Unruly arguments: The body rhetoric of EarthFirst!, act up, and queer nation. Argumentation and Advocacy 36(Summer): 9–21.

Duncan N (1996) Renegotiating gender and sexuality in public and private spaces. In: Duncan N (ed.) Body Space: Destabilizing Geographies of Gender and Sexuality. New York: Routledge, 125–143.

Dyer R (2006) Stereotyping. In: Durham MG, Kellner DM (eds) Media and Cultural Studies KeyWorks. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 353–365.

Heckert J (2004) Sexuality/identity/politics. In: Purkis J, Bowen J (eds) Changing Anarchism. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 101–116.

Hennessy R (1994–95) Queer visibility in commodity culture. Cultural Critique 29(Winter): 31–76.

Jeppesen S and Visser L (Leahfish) (1996) Projectile: Stories about Puking. Toronto: self- published.

Les Panthe‘ res Roses (2004) Operation ‘‘Pepto-bismol SVP!’’ URL (accessed 12 July 2008): http:/lespantheresroses.org.

McCall L (2005) The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30(3): 1771–1800.

Noble B (2009) Trans-Culture in the (White) City: Taking a Pass on a Queer Neighbourhood. URL (accessed 8 May 2009): http:/nomorepotlucks.org/article/ego/ trans-culture-white-city-taking-pass-queer-neighbourhood.

Sullivan N (2003) A Critical Introduction to Queer Theory. New York: New York University Press.

Sycamore M, Berstein M (eds) (2004) That’s Revolting! Queer Strategies for Resisting Assimilation. Brooklyn, NY: Soft Skull.

Vade D (2005) Expanding gender and expanding the law: Toward a social and legal con- ceptualization of gender that is more inclusive of transgender people. Michigan Journal of Gender and Law 11: 253–316.

Warner M (2002) Publics and Counterpublics. New York: Zone Books.

On the Author

Sandra Jeppesen is an activist, writer, and Assistant Professor in Communication Studies at Concordia University, Montreal, Canada. Her research is in guerrilla texts and autonomous media, including analysis of discourses produced through anti-poverty activism, anti-colonial no-border activism, radical feminist and queer collectives, anti-racist pedagogies, and other social movement texts. Address: Communication Studies Department, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke Street West, CJ 3.230, 3rd Floor, Montreal, Canada H4B 1R6.

[1] Following Vade’s important article (2005) advocating the ‘Gender Galaxy’ which reveals the falsity of the gender/sex divide and the negative legal impact of this distinction on trans people, I am using the term ‘gender’ to be comprehensive.

[2] In the USA this is particularly true. In Canada same-sex marriage and human rights are protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and immigration processes are begin- ning to include same-sex partners in sponsorship claims, as well as considering persecution for sexuality as a basis for refugee claims. These processes however remain heteronorma- tive. I’d like to thank Melissa White for sharing her insights and research on this issue.

13 notes · View notes

khofiecloud · 2 months ago

Text

how to preserve your mental health at school

School is probably one of the most mentally taxing things a teen can go through. It certainly is mine. With the pressure to be the best, to get ahead, and to generally succeed, it's hard to not be affected. The mental strain is unavoidable, and I struggled with it for most of my school years, but over time that has led me to find tips that could help anyone going through this cope.

There are a few signs that can tell you whether or not you are being severely affected. You might be unmotivated and apathetic throughout the school day, and just because of school itself. You might feel like crying in school during the whole day and every day. Reasons can range from academic pressure to bullying and social ostracization to feeling inferior to your over achieving classmates.(If it's bullying, please tell someone who can help you) But here's some tips that might help based on what I learned from experience:

Find a piece of comfort (that you can come back to whenever you feel bad) .It can be a show, anime, song , movie, fanfic, manga , book, food, piece of clothing, or really just about anything (my recs are saiki k, ghibli songs and movies) . It’s best to have multiple just in case you get too used to 1 of them.

Get a support system: the way you can get this may differ based on your specific problem but here’s some ideas : make new friends offline or online (best app is slowly) and strengthen your existing relationships with friends and family.

Find a 3rd place which is not electronic: A third place is any public area away from homes and school/work ,where people meet and interact in an open environment. But the real challenge is not making your 3rd place your device .It's hard but here are some ideas for a 3rd place : libraries, arcades, gym, yoga place, sport club, skateparks, playgrounds, parks, coffee shops and cafes, bodegas. Make sure to choose a place where you feel comfortable.

Get enough sleep: being tired will just make you feel so much worse. Never underestimate the power of a good night's sleep. Just to make it extra too, listen to some calming music, light candles and wear your fanciest sleepwear.

Put your mind on other things and focus on finding things that'll make you proud of yourself: You could get new hobbies, especially creative ones since those allow you to express yourself easily. Some examples are crocheting, embroidery, drawing, painting, sculpting, pottery, dancing, writing music, performance art and writing (stories, poetry, essays)

Take a leap of faith: create or design something based on your interests and skills and share it with the world. This can develop into being your own personal extracurricular activity. It might be scary but that's what makes it so rewarding in the end.

1) Video editing : post videos on your favorite subject and post on tiktok or youtube 2) Fashion and Photography : take pictures of yourself wearing cute clothes (or just your fav ones) and post them on your social media 3) Painting and Sustainability : paint an exhibit and display it in public 4) Volunteering and Social Media: make and run the official Instagram account of a local business 5) Gaming : make a game on roblox 6) Reading: start a book review blog These are just a few pretty ambitious ideas. You don’t have to follow these. Create your own project, it all depends on who you are. Take the best out of all of you (pieces of your soul) and create a masterpiece. If you don't have any interests (post on tips coming soon) just make something out of your skills . Make sure to only take on a project if you have time and resources.

Lastly, this is a tip I got from Quora. It’s to make a slow nights document. You can write this down on paper or open a doc and write down your comforts, favorite movie, favorite art pieces, places you’d like to go in the future, what you think your life will be in 10 years and so on. Just write things that will make you you.

School can make you feel drained, insecure and hurt for so many reasons. It may end up in you being numb and apathetic. In most cases, the problems you have can’t be solved by just forcing yourself to look at the bright side or forcing yourself to avoid or ignore them. They are real issues. And when asking for tips on the internet isn’t enough, I hope this post will help you. It probably didn’t solve all your problems, but I hope it showed you a way to go. Thank you for reading and Good Luck

14 notes · View notes

plaguery · 1 month ago

Text

long post time

im not really in the mood to write a solid essay with a structured thesis i just kind of want to infodump and explore the subject as i write. unfortunately for everyone but me and a select damned few this will be about zenos but it will also be about my wol/the concept of the wol in general (there will be a perhaps strange interplay between the two because i feel like siv really highlights my commentary on the concept of the wol but i still recognize that shes her own character)

so.

i scrapped together a basic idea for my wol quite a while before i even played the game myself. my friends were heavily into it and i wanted to join the crowd despite not having wifi at the time to even download the game. i used what little guidance they gave me of researching the ffxiv races and the seventh umbral calamity to throw something together. core idea: femroe from a village, specialized in funerary traditions, born to a former pirate, largely raised by her aunt, propelled into adventuring after her aunt dies and her shitty pink catboyfriend breaks up with her.

as i played the game, i developed her backstory more and got clearer on specific details and locations. but even into heavensward and cumulative weeks of gameplay, for the life of me i could not get a grasp on her character. the non playable characters were rich and i enjoyed following them around, albeit mildly, and so i continued to power through, aiming for the later expansions with promised quality. i struggled to connect to the game by story or premise. often, i felt confused, baffled, or humored by contrived plot lines and conflicting messages.

straddling this line of willing reluctance to move further, to fully engage and give in to the "fantasy" of the game--one which posits that ultimate hope of a select few can rally together a world on the brink--i began to understand my wol to be as willingly reluctant as myself, the player, in her adventures. she still felt intrinsically vague to me. her purpose was as missing as mine was, more a waiting, an expectation of change as reliable as a roll of the dice, the turning of the cards. i couldn't call her bluff, because she simply didnt have one.

as the player, i was enriched through learning the mechanics of the game, progressing in skill, and with every mark of achievement: ever the more able to level our foes. where i couldn't find enjoyment with the story or premise, i was able to sustain my efforts forward through enjoyment with digital battle. it was not until that particularly rainy nightfall in doma, with the foiled assassination of our newest enemy, that i finally felt a "click" with the story. we were purposefully kept alive, for a second time, by an opponent embroiled in the philosophy of violence for violence's sake. driven forward by the promise of enjoyment with our digital battles.

the warrior of light, for all intents and purposes, is a template character. they exist for the player to insert a character of their own design, one that the developers cannot predict or reasonably accommodate with the mass of players who log on everyday. this character can then essentially be anything or anyone. with any background, any motive, any connection and viewpoint to and of this world. but in their limitless potentiality, they must also be a kind of nothingness, a malleable emptiness, at least to function as the playable template required for the main scenario quests to move forward.

but our template is united by certain factors. as a mmorpg, the idea of community is interwoven throughout the fabric of the game, a rallying cry of unison behind our light parties, our trials, and our companies. we are members of guilds, associations, military factions. whatever drives us forth, we are strung forward by violence, battles won and lost, tempering our skills both literally and digitally to rise to each occasion. and no matter our motive, our history, or the alliances of our hearts, it is unmistakable that the warrior of light is hailed as a hero.

against our warrior of light, zenos makes sense to me as a literary foil, unique in what exactly he contrasts and reflects. he is as much a means to the end as the warrior of light, a plot device of villain and hero. he lacks character outside of vague philosophical ideals in an embrace of bloodshed, the temptation of meaning through ultimate pursuit. without the bonds that our warrior of light holds in contrast to him, his meaning can only be found in his lone design. with the actions he must take in his role, no matter his motive, his history, or any alliance of his heart, it is unmistakable that he is reviled as a villain.

this aspect of emptiness to him, i feel, is not fully engaged with until endwalker, but he constantly calls into question this relation to violence, its purpose and meaning, and the power of physical (in the player's case, digital) attainment.

after zenos left us to grow in strength for the second time and we find ourselves the inspiration for yet another rally of the citizenry, my wol finally began to make sense to me. i saw the idea of the bluff itself in her, that her willing reluctance, this paradoxical hollow, was what made her her. admittedly, this was partly reflecting my own disconnect to the game so far onto her, but it was also a championing of what kept me in the first place, the value that i found as a player in leveling my jobs and completing the duties and trials that first scared me as an amateur gamer. to play a game, even if you don't find worth in the story, you can typically look to satisfaction in the gameplay. if you don't find it, the sensible action would be to stop playing and move on. but you made it this far. again, cumulative weeks of gameplay, and i made it this far.

siv, my wol, was born to death and violence, inheriting a funerary position from her father and a disgraced pirate's vengeance from her mother.

"She had ever been cold, distant, untouchable. To be a symbol, something separated from life into the ideal, was her most natural state of being. Less a person than a personification of the care and cruelty of death all set adrift into the cask of a body, struggling to mold itself against the flesh, clumsily adopting habits and gestures and preferences."

she exists in tandem with her creation as a warrior of light, a template, an idea more than a character with unique traits that solidify fantasy into something resembling reality. if not for some strike of fate, she could have ended up on the other side, the villain seeking nothing but violence, perfected. and for a time, there was quite a villainous life she led, massacring others alongside her mother.

"Morality meant as little as the rest of her life. Morality was another meaningless, inscrutable gesture of the world. There was no right or wrong to her violence at sea and yet, something was still amiss. It was not enough. Nothing could be enough."

but still, even later as hero, she follows violence.

zenos eventually asks an interesting question of jullus in endwalker,

"Would you be 'happier' had I a 'good reason'? [...] If my motives met with your approval, would you no longer resent the outcome?"

to probe these questions further: what exactly makes zenos' violence villainous? what exactly makes the warrior of light's violence heroic? do their motives, histories, and alliances inform these delineations and where exactly do we draw the line? is there and can there be an exact line?

i wanted a warrior of light who indirectly asked these same questions back; a character, who perhaps had no right being a hero, thrust into the role. would people be disappointed to find out that their hero lacked 'good reasons' for her acts of liberation and protection, large and small? would they resent her, knowing that she feels no intrinsic sense of right or wrong?

what do we make of a story where both hero and villain are hollow?

"These people are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever." (Jude 1:12 & 13, NIV)

"In that transcendent moment, what was it that I sought in you? And what was it that you sought in me?"

"Never have I understood those around me. Understood their obsessions. Besieged by their banality, the world was a mire of tedium and trivialities. [...] What of you, my mirror?"

accounting for the blankness of the warrior of light, zenos and wol look to each other as personified void trying to find the light. in absence of a clear, defined character to examine, zenos is left to address the player's shared thrill of combat with him and conclude their sameness in this respect.

by this point in time, my wol, siv, has changed much from her beginnings. directly, she has been changed by the people around her and has come to understand a purpose for herself. her hollowness serves her, her ability to take and accept an abundance of unanswerable questions without limits allows her to brighten the path for others.

siv, through all the trials, found fulfillment.

zenos, through his mirror, found understanding.

and in the mirror, siv finds an acceptance, a peace, a resolution that she, as the warrior of light, was able to reach even the most unreachable of places.

#i know im not connecting everything in the best way and i wasnt looking to answer everything in the first place but.#i just wanted to express something about The Themes. a little bit of my metanarrative thoughts without being too crazy about it i promise #ffxiv #siv sessrúmnir #zenos yae galvus #zenos viator galvus #zenoswol #...sorry #long post

6 notes · View notes