#the classical elements theme is still there but it isn't as all-consuming as it was in this first draft

[world-of-eibon]

hahaha, the new Eibon Map is so large, I can't even upload it to tumblr! Discord can't handle its file size, nor can google, wonder where I could possibly host the image? Oh well, here's the old map with the incorrect hex sizes and with the Far East/Jinwa and Kihara on the map before they were split off into their own continents seperate from Eibon.

[hamliet]

Saw an argument questioning why Wuthering Heights is taught in school since it's a racist book with harmful stereotypes where the villain is a dark skinned man who wrecks havoc in the lives of civilized white people. Now correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that the exact opposite of what the book is doing? I mean not only is Heathcliff not the villain but there's no 'good' people in the book? Everyone is despicable (pretty much) and the book also shows how people's attitude towards Heathcliff changes once he gets rich and becomes a 'gentleman', and how the toxic environment of Wuthering Heights changes a seemingly sweet-natured girl like Isabella for the worse. Also, in the second generation, Hareton, the white boy is the 'savage' and Linton who is Heathcliff's son is the 'gentleman', so again and again it seems like Emily's point is that it's not people's skin color that makes them, but the environment and the way they're treated. But like that discussion had so many people agreeing that I'm questioning my own understanding 😭

(I do get why some people don't like that both Heathcliff and Linton die and the property is returned to the two white families. But also, in a literal sense, he does get his revenge against the two white guys who did him wrong but young Cathy and Hareton had no part in Heathcliff's suffering and they both did develop and became better individuals something which Heathcliff and Catherine failed to do, partly because of their circumstances and partly because they're Heathcliff and Catherine. I'm talking a lot of nonsense but what I'm trying to say is no-one defeats Heathcliff, Heathcliff defeats himself by blindly running after revenge)

Yeah lmao. That's misreading at its unfinest. It's also, frankly, simplistic and anti-intellectual, and to quote what I reblogged yesterday, fundamentally a conservative argument instead of a progressive one.

Heathcliff is human.

That's kinda the point. Heathcliff gets dehumanized by everyone around him, so he becomes Lord Byron basically, which is a human reaction. Like, not everyone reacts to abuse (including racism) in a positive way, and not every story has to be a morality tale. Wuthering Heights is dark and gothic, more tragic than fairy tale. It also never pretends to be anything it isn't.

Anyways, the attitude that because Heathcliff is not a good person means that he's a racist caricature is not actually progressive. That's delving into another racist trope--the idea that the color of a character's skin determines how they can be portrayed.

Heathcliff is a person. Well. He's a character. But he's very, very human, and that's what makes the character so controversial and resonate so deeply centuries later. Readers are intended to wrestle with the novel's themes, with their empathy for the characters and with their horror. Ironically, these kinda of stories are, imo, far more likely to provoke actual progressive personal growth in a reader than a modern YA story that uses characters as tokens.

Look, I'm not out here trying to argue that there's nothing to critique in the classics, or even that someone can't be triggered by this issue and its portrayal in this particular novel. It's still a 19th century English novel. Was it progressive for its time in a lot of ways? Kinda. Was it still a product of its time, though? Yes, absolutely. (So are we all.) Are there elements to criticize regarding its portrayal of race, among other social issues? There definitely are.

To repeat myself, there's plenty to be critiqued. However, to argue that the entire book shouldn't be taught based on this is... no. It's a bad conclusion, and it's a dangerous argument.

The critical thinking skills are so lacking that it's alarming and reflective of the ouroboros of society: the serpent consuming its tail, young people who think they're being very progressive but who are actually just wrapping around to become the exact thing they purport to preach against.

Literature is an art meant to reflect the messiness of humanity. Wuthering Heights is so well-known because it does that very well for a lot of people. Not everyone, but that's okay. If you remove the messiness, you don't have humanity. If you blunt the pain, you're not being honest. If you're not being honest, you're perpetuating the problem.

[mdhwrites]

I think you said once that Hexside and the "love interest" aspect of the show didn't contribute to the main plot at all.

So, what do you think a toh would be like if those were taken out? Like a toh without S1 and a third of S2?

You would end up with not TOH. And also with a show that probably did middling numbers at best because... Hexide presents a really big Catch 22 for the show. On the one hand, it has nothing to do with plot, narrative and tangentially at best works with the themes long term even if there are term moments that function. On the other hand, it is EASILY the best part of the show with most of the iconic moments in it, even if you're not a Lumity shipper, some of the best character moments, the only character even arguably a real arc (and frankly I still argue that Amity's arc is poorly done. Lumity isn't rushed because Amity's character was rushed and gutted.), and some of the clearer morals of the show. Because TOH's adventure element is where the plot is but it also gives zero fucks about that adventure element. Its villains are consistently incredibly weak and one note, often sharing the same note. The fights are mostly boring. Even the well animated ones have minimal good choreography or interesting elements going on with them and very rarely real emotional or characters stakes. The best fights of the series are easily Eclipse Lake and Covention and... That's about it. One of the things that helps those two fights admittedly is that not everything is energy blasts and vines in them and even then, Eclipse Lake isn't exactly clearing a high bar as far as choreography goes and its still lacking personality since one of the most memorable moments is Amity, graceful nerd Amity, sucker punching Hunter with a spiked gauntlet. Otherwise, the magic and world building is incredibly inconsistent. The characters are pointedly not interested in adventures, only Luz is so every adventure would be an argument and would get old fast. You'd probably get more episodes moralizing at you for their structure so I hope you liked Really Small Problems and Once Upon a Swap because that's likely what you'd get more of.

Actually, roll back a second because this IS important. One of the subversions of TOH is that classic question in fantasy of "Why is everyone going and getting themselves almost killed?" Eda and King embody that. It's explicit in S2 when Eda is trying to respect that King and Luz are kids but it's there in S1 too. In the second episode even when they consider Luz a fool because they see such little promise in the world that they don't interact with it. Which, you know, for a show is kind of a problem when two thirds of your main cast are lazy assholes who have to be bribed in someway to do fucking ANYTHING besides their mundane routine. It's part of why TOH fails so hard as an adventure show because they go on SO FEW ADVENTURES. It's also part of why Willow and Gus, who are enthusiastic and active, are inciters so much in S1 with three different episodes not being about them but them being the direct catalyst for those episodes because SOMETHING needs to get these fuckers to do ANYTHING. (Escaping Palisman, Covention and Really Small Problems for those curious. There may be more but those were three I could immediately think of.) And then there's the fact that as even you pointed out: You remove Hexide and you lose a LOOOT of the show. For something not actually important to the plot, it does consume at least a third of the show. Even the better adventure episodes usually were more about Hexide characters like Lost in Language or Adventure in the Elements, though calling that one adventure is admittedly a bit of a stretch. Like Hexide is so wrapped in everything going on, despite having little impact, it's hard to actually say what the show would look like without it.

Like I've made a lot of inflammatory statements but that's simply going off of what is in the show. These writers are not equipped to do an adventure show. Frankly, I wonder what show they would specialize best in due to the general issues with TOH, as its not like all the Hexide episodes are exactly bangers, but there is at least more joy and obvious interest in Amity and Romance. Which is also what would make it so that if you want TOH to have failed harder ratings wise... Take out Hexide. There's a lot of gay teenagers who watched the show after all. A lot of people wouldn't even talk about the show thought without Amity. Without there being such a forward facing, gay couple. Hell, take out Hexide and even Raeda becomes more awkward and Huntlow just doesn't happen. In fact, you lose a lot of your representation, admittedly just because the cast would be closer to a manageable size.

This is why I don't try to pretend that TOH could be magically rewritten and fixed. I don't pretend that a reboot would cause some magically perfect show to form from the aether now. TOH's identity crises, its fluff, its mishandling of things while being so confident about all these elements definitely needing to be here, to the point where they make up a FUCKING THIRD of the final season even, is part of what is identifiably TOH. You cannot cut out Hexide without a fundamentally different show.

And admittedly, probably just a really bad one. After all, Eda and King are not the Plantars. They aren't a part of a community that can get them to do things, they don't have their own real desires to motivate them and they don't have a real interest in the world outside their door. They're the cool kids who say they're so much better than everyone else and that their lives are so much better when really they do only lean against walls looking cool all day because acting like you're better than everything means you have nothing to fucking do.

Which, frankly, is a good metaphor for a lot of the show. Especially anything not to do with Hexide.

[thebluelemontree]

I didn't really realize how narrowminded a certain segment of tumbler is. What work of fiction would they consider as not problematic. According to them then Emma, Sense & Sensibility, Little Women or Jane Eyre will be considered problematic (15+ age gaps). And those are considered as classic works of literature, written by moral women (both Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte were daughters of preachers) which isn't even as dark as ASOIAF/GOT.

I did some googling, and I hate to break it to you, but you can pretty easily find pieces on why all those classic works of literature are problematic.  That’s fine, though.  That isn’t actually the problem.  We shouldn’t leave classics unexamined because they have achieved a certain status in literature.  It was mostly “can this book still be considered feminist in our time?”  Nothing about age gaps, though maybe it’s an issue for some readers out there, idk.  Some of the takes were good, and some were stupid; however, I didn’t read anything that went as far to say that these works are actually bad for us and you suck if you enjoy them (thank god).  I have no issue with pointing out things that are problematic for analysis purposes, whether I agree with it or not.  Interrogating and being reflective of media is generally good advice, but no one is obligated to approach everything they enjoy that way.  “Let a bitch live” is also good advice too.  I think where things go off the rails is when stuff like this happens:

Believing and encouraging others to believe that problematic art is automatically bad art from a bad person/artist.  I mean, it doesn’t make it automatically good either, but that’s a whole other discussion.

Believing and encouraging others to believe that the media you enjoy is a window into your soul or a statement of your politics.  You don’t want other people on social media to think you’re a terrible person, do you?      

That we should demand and consume art only by artists that send the correct moral or ideological messages as if this is the only reason to make art or its primary purpose.  

Not being able to tell the difference between media that, for example, shows the negative consequences of misogyny and misogynistic media.

Believing and encouraging others to believe that problematic characters and themes are insurmountable issues that the narrative cannot work through to a positive conclusion (i.e., the redemption arc discourse)  If it does, then it’s bad art because it sends the wrong message.

Pointing to the problematic elements in the service of an anti crusade.  This goes beyond just explaining your reasons for not liking something or having a squick.  This is where people on Tumblr can be really gross and dishonest.  It’s dishonest when people dress themselves up in concern for serious real-life issues like abuse and victims of abuse.  They can use progressive or activist rhetoric to sound like they have nothing but the purest and noblest of intentions.  But what they actually care about and their real goal is to deter people from enjoying things they don’t like for pretty shallow reasons.  Just read a bit more of their blog, and they’re usually:  A) a stan with such strong personal headcanons that they hate anyone or anything that violates those headcanons.  B) they are a soldier in an active ship war.  I mean, it’s not always about that, but it’s not hard to figure out when it is really about that.   

I’m going to be 40 this year, and I’ve been on Tumblr for ~ 3 years.  I sure as hell did not expect to see a rigid purity culture embraced by younger people who also think of themselves as progressive and inclusive.  It feels bizarre and so different from my teenage/early adulthood experience.  I’m not saying we never had any misguided beliefs because we totally did.  But I know we enjoyed problematic things because they were usually cool, dangerous, and exciting knowing full well what we were doing and getting into.  Maybe we didn’t always notice all the things we should have, and perhaps we weren’t all that critical, but I think we turned out okay all the same.  I mean, if I had said to one of my friends “you know that thing we liked because the main characters had such a great story and chemistry?  Well, we should actually hate it because there was an age gap and that makes it an inherently abusive power dynamic” they would have looked at me like I had.  Lost. My. Damn. Mind.  Thank God social media wasn’t really a thing then and shitty fandom discourse wasn’t so constant and prevalent.  Depending on the people you follow, it’s really easy to get stuck in an echo chamber of purity wank, anti culture, and bad takes at a point in your life when you’re trying to figure out your adult identity by comparing yourself to the people around you.  

That’s when we need real friends, in RL or online, who will be honest with us when we’re trippin’.  I really hope some of these people have a real good friend that will look at their Tumblr one day and be like:  “Dude, wtf?  What is this?  ‘Age gaps between fictional characters are inherently abusive power imbalances, and you are an abuse apologist if you think they’re okay.’  Is this what you do for fun?  Okay, you’re coming with me.  We’re going to get out of the house, go do some normal young people shit, and learn how to relate to other human beings again.” XD