#there being multiple sides to a story depending on viewpoint is one thing

[shadowvalkyrie]

I'm always baffled by people who don't have their own Unified Theory of the Universe that they keep constantly adding to.

"No idea how that works." "I don't know anything about that." "I don't understand that."

But... don't you want to find out???

[pattern-recognition]

i was watching random al jazeera videos while eating breakfast and holy shit do I hate nordic social fascism. The crux of the video is an exhortations of Finland's media literacy curriculum in grade schools, but unsurprisingly the entire system is based off a century's old tradition of anti-communism and aggression towards Russia, the typical liberal approach of disguising state propaganda as free-thinking rationality.

"In history class we discussed an air raid that took place during the second world war and thought about how the same incident could be taught differently depending on which side the country had fought on." Yeah Finland, things sure were different on the side you fought on.

"The students are very good at recognizing fake news, for example when news about the war in Ukraine started appearing online. Fins in general have a very high standard of media literacy, we're not easily fooled that's in part because media literacy Is not a new concept for Fins it's been part of the culture for more than a century ever since the nordic nation first gained independence from Russia in 1917. Almost 100 years on, having walled itself off from years of Soviet propaganda, the fight against fake news is still being fought first in the aftermath of Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea and more recently with Putin's invasion of Ukraine in particular concerns about narratives challenging finland's ambition to join NATO."

"There's no one single right way to promote media literacy. There are multiple ways, and different organizations can do the work from their own viewpoints. That way we feel that we can reach much more people than than we would be able to do if it was all done only by us, a governmental office, producing only only materials by the government and telling like the official story."

They outright declare that brazen state-issued propaganda isn't acceptable to neoliberalism's mode of presentation and thus has to be undertaken through more insidious means.

[ihearyou-jikook]

there's a scene in bon voyage s3 e6, when the members were eating and jhope mentioned that tae and jk were sleeping upside down and hugging each other's legs, i found jimin's reaction to the info kinda sus. the scene was overall weird, jimin was sitting down when hobi finished talking, with no apparent indication of standing up, and suddenly they show jimin's reaction and he's like "wae (what)!?!?" but he's standing up, and then another cut to hobi confirming the story, then the camera goes back to jimin who is seated again and says "that's weird". do you think they edited some of the conversation out?

Anon, this moment makes me 😆🤭

Sorry for making you wait. Let's go go go!

(Had too much fun with this one, it is quite long >.<)

Here is a clip of the moment

Cr. Full video here

Let's Quentin Tarantino this. Do I think this was a sus moment? Do I think some of the convo was edited out?

Yes, to both. 👀

JM going from sitting to standing up without us seeing it happen didn't stick out to me too much only because in content like this (Not just BTS content), editors tend to show multiple viewpoints of a moment and I'm guessing JM stood up when we saw the close up of Hobi explaining what he saw. You can also see Hobi's eyes are looking upwards as he's talking.

What gets me tho is JM's initial reaction to Hobi, going eh?! And then needing to clarify what he just heard lol.

Then we cut to JM saying "왜 그래" with that face and that tone.

Side note: I'm not Korean and I'm not fluent in Korean. I have been learning for a while. I'm somewhere between beginner & intermediate and understand that context, tone, and the words used, explain so much when it comes to the Korean language. That's why I wanted to highlight this next part.

Let's talk about the sub-titles here for a moment.

The translator decided to go with "What's wrong?"

This is correct, but it's not the only meaning of those words. "왜 그래" can also mean the following depending on the tone, context, and intonation (rise & fall of voice): "Why is it like that?" "Why are you like that?" "Why are you acting like that?" "What's going on?"

This is a great post about how "왜 그래" can be used.

IMO, JM's tone sounded like it had a bit of a bite behind it. There was no rise in his voice at the end of the words to sound like a curious question. And his face was a little more on the serious side. Again IMO, something like "Why were you like that?" seems more accurate.

He gave off a WTF? vibe.

Back to the question about edited-out parts

I think it's hard to say if anything was edited out right before JM said 왜 그래 but I definitely think the reaction to what JM said was edited out.

There could have been more conversation, but I honestly think there was probably awkward silence after him saying that. 🤣

Because JK & V were both awfully quiet while Hobi was explaining, other than initially asking "Did we?" "Who did it?" There was no laughing, no smiling.

To me, it felt like JK & V were starting to sense JM's unrest with the whole thing and so they decided to stay quiet since an upset Mimi is not what you want to deal with. An upset Mimi is a feisty Mimi.

Look, we always talk about JK being the possessive one but I just think JK is louder about it than JM. There are 2 possessive men in the Jeon-Park Household.

While JK does do some type of skinship with all members, I do think JM enjoys his boyfie privileges. That there are just some things JK doesn't do often with others. And it was probably weird to hear that they were hugging each other's feet especially when JK is sensitive to smells 🤣

Before I go, I have to bring up our president Hobi.

Like, Hobi.

Why do I feel like you're snitching on them to Mimi??

����🤣🤣

That's the funniest part about this moment to me. After bringing up the situation to JK & V, Hobi is literally telling this story to JM.

I love Hobi. I miss him!

Thank you for the ask Anon. 💜💛

For you, Happy Jikook inc...

Cr. Daylight

[aster-ion]

Sylvie x Loki Might Not Happen and Here’s Why

***SPOILERS FOR LOKI TV SHOW***

1.  They are basically siblings

Even though they have different personalities, backstories, and physical appearances, that doesn't change the fact that they are the genetic equivalent of siblings. No matter what Timeline you're looking at, both Sylvie and Loki are the offspring of Laufey and whoever he had children with. We know this because they are Variants of the exact same person, meaning that if either of them were born to someone other than Laufey, they would have been pruned as a baby. And since they weren't, that means they must be just as genetically similar as siblings are.

Because of this, the idea of Sylvie and Loki engaging in any kind of romantic or sexual relationship is extremely disturbing to a lot of fans. It's too big an oversight to brush past, especially when the show has continued to remind us over and over that they are, in fact, both Lokis. Maybe if them being the same person wasn't such a major plot point, it would be easier to ignore the facts, but it is, and that means that Marvel is basically pushing either an incest or selfcest (depending on how you look at it) type relationship. And that’s extremely risque for a corporation as large as Marvel, especially with a character as beloved by fans as Loki. 

2.  It is terrible LGBTQ+ representation

And before anyone says anything, no, it is not because Sylvie is portrayed as female and Loki as male. I've seen a lot of Sylvie x Loki shippers say that the reason people don't like the couple is due to it being one between a male and female, but that's not true. Loki and Sylvie were both confirmed to be bisexual, meaning that they can engage in a relationship with anyone of any gender. It would be completely valid for either of them to pursue romance with someone of a different sex and still be bisexual. No one is arguing against that, and if they are, I definitely do not agree with them.

However, the problem comes in when you take into account Marvel and Disney's (who owns Marvel) long history of queerbaiting. There have been countless times that Disney advertises their "first gay character!" only for it to be a single line of dialogue or a brief shot. Marvel in particular has used the popularity of certain LGBTQ+ ships and headcanons in their fanbase to generate media popularity that they don't actually follow through with in their movies/shows. So when Loki was confirmed to be both genderfluid and bisexual in Episode Three, lots of people felt like they were finally getting a win for representation. 

But those people, myself included, appear to have been let down again. The first two official queer characters had so much potential to go off and be with anyone they wanted, but instead, the show has set them up to be in a romance with each other. Now, this wouldn't be problematic on it's own, but when you take into consideration the questionable nature of their romance from Point One as well as the fact that the show has explicitly referred to it as "twisted," it raises the question of whether or not this is actually good representation. Because the fact is, in one episode the writers went “look, it’s two queer people!” and in the next, they said “their relationship is disgusting and demented.” Marvel’s first bisexual characters being borderline incestuous/selfcestuous does not sit well with me at all.

All of this is made even more confusing when you take into account the background of the Loki crew, most notably, the director Kate Herron. She also directed the Netflix series Sex Education, which has quite a bit of very well done representation of all kinds. So how is she managing to fail so badly on this project? It makes me wonder whether she truly is just losing her touch or if this is all a misdirection. Personally, I'm hoping for the latter.

3.  It does not send the "self love" message people seem to think it does

The writers, director, and cast of Loki have said multiple times that the relationship between Sylvie and Loki is meant to act as a metaphor for self love. And in a way, that makes a lot of sense. Despite creating different identities for themselves over time, they are still ultimately the same person and therefore share a special bond because of it. And there's a lot of potential that can be done with that concept.

Loki is an extremely complex and intriguing character. He has experienced a lot of trauma in his past that has shaped him into the person he is today. And that person is clearly very broken. He has never given away or received any kind of love, with the exception of his mother and possibly his brother, Thor. Other than that, he's had no healthy friendships, romances, or perception of himself. It makes sense for him to be confused by this pull he feels towards Sylvie, who is both alarmingly alike and vastly different from himself.

Something this series does exceptionally well is breaking Loki out of his comfort zone. He is finally forced to see himself from other people's perspectives. It started with the file Mobius showed him in the first episode. Loki was able to view his actions apart from himself, and was hit with the realisation that he had been hurting people, and he didn't like that. 

Loki is also confronted by the existence of the Time Keepers and the TVA, who describe him as an antagonist and nothing more. To them, his role is to make those around him look better, even if that means he repeatedly gets the short end of the stick. Mobius mentions that he disagrees with this and that Loki "can be whoever and whatever he wants, even someone good," adding another layer of depth as to who Loki could be in the future of the series. 

Another huge moment for Loki's character development is while in the Time Loop Prison with Sif. Though he starts out annoyed with the situation and recalls not feeling apologetic when he cut off Sif's hair, the longer he is in the loop, the more he changes. Loki admits things to himself that we have never seen him say aloud, such as the fact that he is a narcissist that craves attention. Sif telling Loki over and over that he deserves to be alone makes Loki question whether or not he believes that to be true, allowing him an introspective moment where he really has to think about who he is. 

Now with all of that being said, I'd like to tie in why this is important to the writing of Loki and Sylvie. They act as a mirror to one another, representing both the flaws and strengths of "what makes a Loki a Loki." For once, Loki gets an honest, unbiased look at himself without layers of expectations or self doubt. On Lamentis, he calls Sylvie "amazing" and praises her for all her accomplishments. That's a huge moment for him because it shows that despite also finding her irritating, he can look past those traits and see someone worth being a hero underneath. And through that realisation, he begins to understand that he can also grow to love himself. That kind of character development for Loki is incredible to watch, and it's the kind of character development I want to see from this series. Unfortunately, them possibly engaging in a romantic relationship will ruin it.

Whenever I'm feeling insecure about myself and my abilities, the solution has never been to look at who I am through a romantic lens. Self love is an entirely different type of love from romantic love, so if the series tries to push this relationship as a romance, it will fail to truly represent the arc that they are trying to show.

4.  Nobody likes it 

This one's a little on the nose, but it's true. Almost no one likes this ship, and more than that, most people actively hate it. Yes, there is a small minority that like Loki and Sylvie together, but there is an overwhelmingly larger group that is disgusted and angry by the fact that the show paired them up.

After Episode 4 aired, I ranted for about an hour and a half with a friend about how much we didn't want them together. My aunt whom I have never texted reached out to me to say that she hated their relationship. My homophobic neighbour came over and told me that she would prefer any other romance to this. Friends that I haven't talked to much since school let out for summer have all agreed that they collectively dislike Loki x Sylvie. This ship has brought people together purely because everyone hates it more than they hate each other.

There is no denying that the general feedback for Loki and Sylvie being a couple has been negative, even if you support them getting together for some reason. So if there are so many people out there who don't like it, I'm confused as to how it would be approved by a team of professionals.

5.  The contradicting information we have gotten so far

Before the release of Episode Four, Kate Herron said that the relationship between Loki and Sylvie was “not necessarily romantic.” During the interview, she continued to refer to them as friends and people who found solace and trust in each other.

However, after Episode Four, the head writer, Michael Waldron, and other members of the crew spoke up about Sylvie and Loki. They said things like “it just felt right that that would be Loki’s first real love story” and “these are two beings of pure chaos that are the same person falling in love with one another.” These kinds of comments very heavily imply something romantic, directly contradicting what Kate Herron said. Even Tom Hiddleston, the actor for Loki, has assessed the situation, highlighting the differing viewpoints. He’s also said before that the end of Episode Four ultimately has Loki getting in his own way. 

Now, this could all just be a misdirection on either side to build suspense for the show, but as of right now, it is entirely unclear who is telling the truth. Though it is more likely that the statements made by Michael Waldron are more accurate (as he is the writer), there is still a slight possibility that Loki x Sylvie won’t happen. I’ll link the articles I’ve found on this topic below so you can read them and decide for yourself. 

Kate Herron Statement - https://www.cbr.com/loki-sylvie-relationship-not-romantic/ 

Michael Waldron Statement - https://www.marvel.com/articles/tv-shows/loki-sylvie-in-love 

Tom Hiddleston Statement - https://thedirect.com/article/loki-tom-hiddleston-sylvie-romance 

6.  It is still salvageable

The odds are not in our favour, I’m afraid. It is highly probable that the show will put Loki and Sylvie in a romantic relationship with each other. Yet there is still a way to salvage it and turn their bond into something incredibly satisfying. Like I mentioned in Point Three, the relationship between Loki and Sylvie has the potential to be incredibly empowering and provide both characters some much-needed growth. And I believe that while unlikely, it can still do that. 

The only mention of them being romantically interested in each other came from Mobius, who at the time was angry, betrayed, and doing anything he could to get Loki to talk. Then, at the end of the episode, right before Loki is about to confess something important to Sylvie, he is pruned. This results in no explicit confirmation from either Loki or Sylvie that they are in love with each other. The audience is left not knowing whether Mobius was correct in his speculations, and honestly, I don’t think Loki knows either.

Loki is no expert on love, as I explained earlier. It is entirely possible that he doesn’t grasp how he feels about Sylvie and defaults to romance because of what Mobius said. There is undoubtedly some sort of deep bond forming between them, and I would love to see that being explored in the next two episodes. I would love to watch Loki’s journey of realising that he doesn’t want anything romantic with Sylvie, and was simply confused by the new things he was feeling towards her. Loki even says “this is new for me” when talking to Sylvie at the end of Episode Four. Him momentarily believing that he wants to be a couple with her then shifting into them becoming friends who help each other grow is still a reality that could happen. And ultimately, I think that would benefit them both as characters as well as strengthen the overall message of the show.

In a show about self love, acceptance of yourself, and figuring out who you want to be, Loki very much needs people who support him. He has that in Mobius already, and now he’s beginning to have it in Sylvie as well. I just hope that it is done in a way that resonates with the audience and subverts expectations, which just cannot be done through some twisted romantic relationship. I’ve spoken to others watching the show and seen people talking online, and everyone seems to agree that Loki and Sylvie work much better as platonic soulmates or found family than a couple. 

Of course, my hopes aren’t that high up. While I’d love for this to happen, I’ve been let down by Marvel before and wouldn’t be surprised if they went for the easy route of pairing characters up rather than dealing with the emotions correctly. Still, I have hope for this series. Everything else about it is wonderful and perfect in every way. It has the potential to become a masterpiece and easily the best thing that Marvel has ever done. However, this romance would ruin it for me and so many others. We already feel incredibly disappointed by Loki x Sylvie being suggested, so I can’t even begin to fathom how people will react if the show makes it canon. I’m begging Marvel to please do better than this. They have a wonderful story to tell and a wonderful team to do it, and I hope from the bottom of my heart that they don’t throw that away. 

[greatqueenanna]

Why Kristoff is a great partner and character.

There are many great male characters in the Disney canon. The Valiant, Pungent, Reindeer King Kristoff Bjogrman, stands among them as one of the best. Kristoff has something special about him that I feel goes unnoticed by many people, simply because Kristoff is a tri-tagonist in the Frozen Franchise. However, I’m here to tell you that there are things about Kristoff that truly make him shine regardless of his smaller role in the overall story. The franchise was never focused on romantic love, but within Kristoff we see a character that exemplifies what a good romantic partner should be like.

Another long one guys, so under the read more we go!

I’ve seen a few posts try and say that Kristoff’s relationship with Anna is unhealthy. However, I want to offer some viewpoints on why I feel this in not the case. According to the Hall Health Center, A healthy relationship is when two people develop a connection based on:

Mutual Respect/Honesty

Playfulness/Fondness

Trust/Support

Separate Identities

Good Communication

Kristoff is able to show all of this to Anna; while not all at once and at the very moment they meet, he does develop these skills and qualities as his and Anna’s relationship flourishes. It is also stated that all of these things take work, and is not something that just happens immediately, and that is ok. Most of these qualities Kristoff is able to show when we first meet him as adult, while others he develops over time with trial and error. As with Anna and Elsa, Kristoff is not perfect, and needed to learn certain lessons to become a better version of himself.

Mutual Respect/Honesty

It is no secret that Kristoff respects Anna’s boundaries and decisions. While he may not agree with some of them, and is vocal about it, he still doesn’t try to force his views or needs. It is always good to be honest with someone, but to not force their hand or treat them like a child. For example -

During Frozen, Kristoff is very vocal about Anna’s decision to marry Hans. He tells her that, honestly, it is a reckless decision. However, he never tries to force her to break up with or change her mind. He just very clearly states his opinion, but never steps over that boundary to try and make decisions for her. This behavior is shown throughout the film, as Kristoff is able to be honest with her on her decisions, but never tries to stop her or force her hand. The only time he directly tries to stop her, is when Anna is getting ready to throw a snowball at Marshmallow, because it directly affects her safety.

Also during Frozen, Kristoff respects Anna’s boundaries by asking Anna for her consent before kissing. He doesn’t force her into a surprise kiss, he asks her first if they could. This shows how Kristoff respects her bodily autonomy, and recognizes her possible trauma from Hans.

In Frozen 2, Kristoff again shows how he respects her decisions.

“You had to go, and of course its always fine.”

In Lost in the Woods, while Kristoff is having a harder time in this film being honest about his feelings (at first) Kristoff reiterates that he always respects Anna’s choices, never trying to force her to think one way or guilt her.

Playfulness/Fondness

Kristoff adores Anna. That, is obvious. He’s playful with her all throughout Frozen, teasing her without out right insulting her. We also know exactly how he feels about Anna as he expresses his love for her in Frozen 2. He finds Anna -

“Incredible”

“Feisty”

“Brave”

He also mentions how she’s his ‘ginger sweetheart’, suggesting that he likes her hair color (in other words, he finds her beautiful).

Also in Frozen 2, we can clearly see that Kristoff and Anna have a loving,  physical relationship. This is a bit of a wacky point to mention considering that this is a children’s film, but the implications are there so I will talk about it. Anna and Kristoff kiss multiple times with both parties being comfortable, and Anna is ready to have a make out session when Elsa and Olaf fall asleep in the sled. This shows how the two of them have enough fondness of one another to be able to be physical.

Trust/Support 

This is a big one, and one of Kristoff’s best qualities. Not only does he support her, as mentioned in the respect section, he shows how he is able to trust her decisions, openly asking her what she needs to do when he rescues her from the rock giants.

“I’m here, what do you need?”

“To get the the dam.”

“You got it!”

Kristoff doesn’t ask her why, he just trusts her judgment. This is clear development from the first film, when he didn’t trust her judgment based on her choice to marry Hans. Then, he gladly helps her up the cliff without a fuss or undermining her strength.

“Help me up.”

“We’ll meet you on the other side.”

His trust for her also grows when he is finally able to come to terms with how he feels. In fact, the scene above demonstrates how when Kristoff finally reflects on his emotions, he is able to be more confident with their relationship and have more trust that Anna knows what she’s doing. 

Kristoff also spends both films and short films giving Anna support. In Frozen, while he at first only cares about Anna’s promise to give him a new sled, he starts to show genuine concern for her. He offers to help her down when she (barely) climbs the mountain, runs to her side when she collapses from Elsa’s blast, and tries to keep her warm when carrying her down to Arendelle. Even in Frozen 2, when he’s unsure about the status of their relationship, he still comes to her aide and helps her during the fire attack, and of course comes rushing to help her with the rock giants. In Olaf’s Frozen Adventure, he sees Anna down and wants to cheer her up, and helps Elsa in Frozen Fever throw a party for her, using every inch of his strength to make sure it doesn't get ruined.

Separate Identities 

Kristoff is not dependent on Anna. While he loves her and wants to be there for her, he has a separate identity and is able to support himself.  He has a life outside of Anna, including his friendship with Sven, his troll family, and his ice business. He is able to leave Anna’s side, for example in Frozen Fever to drop off the Snowgies, and in Forest of Shadows he leaves to talk to the Trolls.

His self esteem is also not dependent on Anna. He openly wears what he wants, proclaiming that he only dress nice for Anna for as long as he’s comfortable, does strange things like talking to Sven, licking a strange sculpture in Olaf’s Frozen Adventure, compliments his stew in the same film even though Elsa and Anna are visibly disgusted, and never takes Anna’s insults in Frozen to heart.

“Nobody wants to be alone. Except maybe you.”

“(Laughs) I’m not alone.”

He states the last comment without any indication that he is being defensive or is offended by the statement. In fact, it doesn't faze him at all. His worries in Frozen 2 about Anna’s feelings are not about his self-esteem, but rather losing her as a partner. Let me better explain this. Kristoff mentality is not this -

“Anna is the only one who will consider me and if I lose her, I will have no one else. I am nothing without her. ”

It is this -

“Anna has become an important part of my life because of how amazing she is, and I don’t want to lose her.”

Yes, he does claim in Lost in the Woods how -

“Who am I, if I’m not your guy?

Where am I, if we’re not together forever?”

But I firmly believe that this has to do with him letting his fear take over, not so much how he actually feels, which I’ll explain more in a bit. Thus, Kristoff is not scared of losing his relationship with Anna because she makes him feel good about himself, he’s afraid of losing her because he genuinely loves having her around in his life. He loves her as a separate person, not as a crutch.

Good Communication 

This is the tricky one, because Kristoff has to develop this skill from trial and error. He doesn't have it already set, however it mostly affects his romantic life. He can pretty much say whatever he wants and what is on his mind to everyone else, and even to Anna before he realizes he loves her.

However, we clearly see that in Frozen 2, Kristoff is having a hard time expressing his desires to Anna. He wants to marry her, he wants to start a family. But what if Anna doesn’t want that? What if they are actually growing apart?

I care about her, but does she care about me?

Because of this fear, he is over explaining and fumbling over his words. Even so much as letting it affect his self-esteem, which he didn’t have a problem with before. As I mentioned many times in other posts, fear is a reoccurring villain in the Frozen Franchise, and it has reared its ugly face in Kristoff’s development as well.

His fear is making him hesitant, clumsy and question his self worth. Even though this really has nothing to do with any sort of dependence on Anna, he is letting his fear make him believe that he needs her to a desperate degree. In fact, he showed in the beginning of the film that he was much more calm about their relationship and had no doubts. It wasn’t until Anna started to focus more on Elsa that he started to grow this irrational fear. It didn’t happen in full blast until he thought Anna left him permanently.

However, after expressing these negative feelings out loud, and not letting them bottle up inside, he was able to see the flaw in his thinking as evident later on. After assisting Anna, he explains that he understands how she felt, and that it didn’t have anything to do with him. As Anna was strong enough to push forward even after losing everything, Kristoff was strong enough to able to put his feelings of self-doubt aside and find the confidence he lost.

“I know, I know, it’s ok. My love is not fragile.”

In just a few words, Kristoff expresses how his love was stronger than his fear, realizing what he already knew: that he is good enough, that him and Anna were fine, and that he was over reacting based on a fragile fear. Then, of course, he is able to tell Anna how he feels without doubt, finally asking her to marry him.

Thus, we know that Kristoff follows the traits of what makes a healthy relationship to a tee. Even though he didn’t have every quality at first, he developed them over time. As every character is flawed in Frozen, and need to make the bad choices first in order to learn, Kristoff needed to experience the same thing to be the best version of himself that he was always capable of. 

[beeblackburn]

Book asks (sorry if these were asked before): 8, 9, 25, 27, 28 and 30.

Thank you, @books-and-doodles! You're in luck, though, I've been asked questions on this book ask before, but not those ones!

cracks knuckles

8. Do you prefer to read first person or third person?

First-person, despite most of my formative influences being multi-POV third-person narratives (hadn't fully sunk into Hobb until after my teenage years), fantasy-wise. Fitz's POV in Realm of the Elderlings was so rich, so rife with unreliableness and idiosyncratic melancholy and sorrow and depression, that any chance of preferring third-person over that was gone.

Hell, I even wrote a bunch of short stories in first-person in my university couses and they kept getting me pretty consistent >80% marks. I used to want to be a third-person epic fantasy writer until I realized I grew downright awkward with writing third-person novel fiction (roleplaying, however, is fine, don't know why). That's fine, I know my preferences now.

Also, the best third-person POV stories end up reading like first-person POV narratives with just an extra distance of perspective. GRRM and Abercrombie and Hobb (via Liveship Traders and Rainwilds Chronicles) are great at that sort of thing, adding in sprinkles of unreliableness, character voice, and intensity to their characters.

9. Are you for or against multiple narrators in the same book?

With the obvious caveat of none of this is worth a damn if you can't write solid characterization: depends on the scope/scale of the story and the vantage points of the sides of an event, really.

If everyone's on the same side, they better have different nuances of ideology and motives on why they're on the same side and make their decisions accordingly. Otherwise, it'll just take away focus on the protagonist who's likely already fleshed out enough by dint of getting the narrative focus. I heard Anthony Ryan fucked up with the succeeding books of Raven's Shadow, after Blood Song, by having POVs that blended together, voice-wise, and no one gave a shit about.

I'd certainly rather get a plurality of perspectives from different sides to avoid an Othered side in a conflict. Hearing different sides, getting different sympathies, is good. It's recognizing humanity in a different side, even if it's against a likeable one. It's tearing and empathizing in the emotionally complex way when you root for multiple sides, but the story's headed towards a conclusion where only one wins and it breaks your heart that not everyone can get a happy ending by dint of them being in opposition with each other.

A Song of Ice and Fire does great work in terms of making multiple sides of a conflict humanized and complex. Davos makes Stannis appear more human when others wouldn't see his better qualities, Ned and Cersei have entirely different perspectives of Robert Baratheon, Theon is a microcosm of how fucked the Starks and the Greyjoys are against him, Tyrion is a shat-down disabled, decent-enough person who has to work for the Lannisters, due to family with a far different viewpoint of his siblings.

That being said, multiple perspectives on different sides can very much go so wrong. Looking at you, first few chapters of Gardens of the Moon, where I didn't give much of a shit about anyone, despite spanning towns and cities and empires across, from village children to soldiers, from wizards to gods, one of the grandest scales ever devised in epic fantasy and I just did not care. Also, Wheel of Time, to a lesser degree. I gave a few shits, but not enough to justify the time-sink I put into that series.

Wait, does this technically mean Erikson is the first author I ever dnf'd, even if I only read the previews? That's a frightening thought, given I didn't even do that for Rothfuss' The Name of the Wind. FUCK.

Thing is, most authors aren't particularly great at insinuating messy humanity or depth out of supporting characters, so that's why I suspect they use multiple narrators to compensate. But I'm hardly against multiple narrators, given my first two favorite series have them. Unless you're a Robin Hobb-grade writer, chances are, your singular narrator's gonna feel thinner or limiting by dint of a single lens on the events involved.

So, if we're going with whether singular or multiple narrators of similar writer skill levels... sure, I'm for them, but I'm very aware of how sour and congesting multiple perspectives can get, and Hobb remains Queen of Characterization, primarily on the strength of her Fitz books, which only had one narrator for six solid books.

25. Do you enjoy concepts in books to be concrete or abstract?

Very likely abstract. I'm more attuned to understanding something through abstraction anyway, and writing that's too grounded or prescriptive can nail down something that would've been better left more ambiguous. It might be why I'm partial`towards fantasy than sci-fi, given the latter's penchant for concreteness and rules and such.

27. Classics or modern literature?

Oh my. Absolutely modern literature. I tried to dig into Shakespeare and Charles Dickins a few times and the language alone felt like hitting my head against a brick alone. Not to mention how white and straight-centric it all was (still is, just to a lesser degree). Granted, that could purely be because Western culture is super dominant in the world, and I hadn't dug into any non-English classics, but still. Nowadays, more marginalized people are given more leeway to have their stuff published and spread around and known. I'm sure there were plenty of people who wrote literature and were inclusive, but were never published and their stories are lost forever now. We just have the advantage of our forebears nowadays.

However. I haven't read that many classics, comparatively. I did read Madame Bovary, The Old Man and the Sea, and a select amount of William Faulkner's works, and I quite liked those enough, even digging the hell out of Faulkner’s Barn Burning, what an amazing moral journey for the page-count. I still need to read Frankenstein, Pride and Prejudice, and Middlemarch alone, so take my opinion on classics with a decent grain of salt. I'm sure there's a reader or two out there who thinks there's a classic or two or ten out there that's really good and inclusive and I'm Boo Boo the Fool.

28. Thoughts on adults reading YA?

I mean. If this book asks game is asking in the sense of thoughts on adults reading something that's too young for them, I've watched Steven Universe, She-Ra and the Princesses of Power, and the first season of Infinity Train recently, while thinking of trying out Adventure Time and Centaurworld nowadays. And read Warrior Cats and Wings of Fire in my adult years a few years ago, while thinking of reading The Princess and the Goblin, Little Lord Fauntleroy, Redwall, and Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH. So. Clearly, I've got no reservations on that sort of thing. Adults should read what they want.

If anything, purely from personal experience, I was systemically scared of and mocked for consuming media for kids by judgmental-ass parents. I was told to watch Titanic and Friends at like 8 years old because it was more "grown-up!" You bet I'm not going to judge anyone for reading something intended for a younger audience and liking/loving it. We former children of abuse and trauma should be allowed to reclaim the joys that were ripped from us without fear or condemnation. And everyone else should read what they want, fuck everyone else.

That being said, I do have a few thoughts on adults reading YA.

1. Do bear in mind you're reading books that are meant for an entirely different demographic. You're not the intended audience, so please don't presume your thoughts of a book will necessarily generalize to what a young adult will and should take away from it. That's hardly a bad thing, in some regards, but do keep some context in mind when evaluating it.

2. Don't judge a demographic standard by a really bad/popular book in it. It's not only judgy, it's cruel to a whole scope of books. I'm not a fan of Twilight or Divergent at all, but Earthsea Cycle, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Speak were formative well-written experiences to me as a teenage (for the latter two) and as an adult (for the former). Hell, I'm tryin to read more Young Adult novels to see what I've been missing.

30. Have you ever written your own book?

Hahaha. No. I've got plans and have two reasonably solid bones for books though, for a start!

1. My dragonrider revolution fantasy, full of gender-nonconforming dipshits in a shitty end-of-middle-ages society (already got some solid details about the protagonist, and the supporting cast) that's going to take a good chunk from Hobb's Farseer trilogy, in terms of premise and interiority of supporting cast, except queerer, and taking a stab at a fantasy revolution story that goes loads more messier.

2. My Croatian supernatural romance post-war travelogue, tentatively titled The Folk Devils of Hrvatska, full of disabled shitty people, asshole invaders, and a goat-devil who the protagonist snarks at, but also wants to fuck? Lots of ruminations about war, the aftereffects and what happens when you have to rebuild from the ashes of destruction and what purpose you make after your losses.

I want to get published, of course, I'll even claw my way to self-publishing, if I must, but I just want to try and actually make it as a writer and try at a dream I thought was impossible for the longest time. If just one person loves it with the fervor I have for these stories, I'll be content and smile.

Now, if someone calls me the next Robin Hobb, I'll fucking die on the spot. That's way too high, but sometimes, you need that ambition to surpass the greats, or else fade in mediocrity. And you'll likely do that anyway if you dream smaller. You have nothing to lose by dreaming bigger. Even the giants got their weak spots you can strike at.

Thanks again, Books! Really appreciate the opportunity to be totally unhinged with opinions. 😉

[salmonthestoryteller]

That Scene

Yes, this is about Roswell New Mexico 02x06. And I will preface by saying that I dislike the scene. That I view certain actions and motivations in it negatively. That I find the consent dubious at best. So if you're looking for someone to defend this scene, this is not the post for you.

Usually when I write meta or thoughts, I write it by trying to understand the viewpoint of the characters involved.  I like to understand how a character got from point A to point B.  And yes, objectively, it’s because the author wanted them to. But I like for things to be logical in my fictional worlds. I like there to be an explanation for why a character behaves the way they do. I like to see cause and effect in the stories I consume. So usually I write meta in an attempt to make sense of the story as it is presented.

I’m not going to do that this time.

This is going to be more a set of bullet points from the viewpoint of a consumer of fiction, a writer, and someone in fandom spaces.

So here we go.

What this is not about. (Yes, I feel the need to precede with that.)

It's not about there being a threesome, or a potential poly relationship, in a work of fiction. I have consumed multiple works with both. My objecting to this specific scenario has nothing to do with that.

It is not about gender.  Believe me, if you genderswap these characters it will not help the situation at all in my eyes. Nor my opinion on the objectionable actions of certain characters.

This is not about ships. I personally am perfectly capable of multishipping, jumping ships, and even being sold on ships I never imagined by good writing.

So what does bother me about this scene?

For starters, a lack of communication of interest in this occurring at all by the parties involved prior to it happening, which made the situation extremely jarring for me as a viewer.

And, no, Alex discussing that he was comfortable touching Maria over a decade prior while living in an abusive household as a teenager definitely doesn't count as "prior interest."

Do you honestly think who you potentially were okay with being touched by ten years ago counts as some kind of consent for them to touch you in the present? Who you were potentially okay with touching you ten days ago doesn't even count for present consent, let alone ten years.

So the lack of any prior conversation before Maria decided to kiss her gay friend and proposition him is very much an issue for me because it seems extremely disrespectful. As a lesbian the last thing I would ever expect to have to do is explain to my straight male friend I've known for years that I don't want to have sex with him. He should be aware of that without my having to explain it. And the same is very much true for Maria's character.

Maria knows Alex is gay. She is very aware of the fact he has no sexual interest in her. I can't even wrap my brain around the concept of why it would ever occur to her to randomly ask her friend for sex in the first place, let alone to kiss or touch him in a sexual way without asking first.

This is all before considering the fact that Alex is injured and currently has no vehicle to leave the premises with. Which means to leave he has to walk all the way home - or at least to the nearest bus if Roswell has dependable public transport - on a leg that is no doubt causing him pain  considering what they just lived through.

If Alex was an injured female with no vehicle to leave with, would you really think it was okay for one of the two people with her to proposition her for sex? Because I wouldn't.  And Alex being a male character doesn't change that for me.

Maria kissing him after asking him to stay comes across very manipulative, and Alex agreeing to stay under the circumstances does not come across as "enthusiastic consent" at all in my eyes.

This is before even bringing in the situation between Maria and Michael. I really wish people would stop saying Maria is his girlfriend in this scene - she definitely is not. She kicked him out between four to six weeks ago and hasn't spoken to him since. They weren't even in a committed relationship at that time. Now? Maria actually has no claim on him at this moment at all. So truthfully, she actually has no right to be kissing him either.

Considering Maria went off on Michael kissing Lindsey in front of her, to the point of bringing it up again when Michael came back to her, how is it okay for her to kiss Michael in front of Alex? How is that not supposed to read as anything but petty and an act of jealousy, considering it occurs in the scene right after Michael addresses how important Alex is to him for the first time in front of her? ("Both of you" meaning Maria is not above Alex in his affections. Which is the first confirmation Maria has that Alex's feelings for Michael are not one sided.)

Then there's the fact that she literally told Michael "No Lindseys" when they were previously getting together, meaning she expected him to be monogamous. So why is she allowed to bring Alex into their sexual relationship?

And why is it okay for her to assume Michael wants her back, with no conversation about why they broke up to begin with? And then request he not only have sex with her, but engage in a threesome before confirming their relationship and with no prior discussion about sexual boundaries or if this is something Michael would even want to participate in?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't we told that Michael allowing Alex constantly back into his life after they broke up was bad? Weren't we told the fact that they kept having sex without communication a red neon sign for an unhealthy relationship? (And honestly, yes, it was, which is why I was fine with them saying that.)

How am I supposed to view Maria and Michael as healthy when she not only does the same thing, but takes it a step further and asks him to have sex with her and his ex he still has feelings for without even talking about why she cut him out of her life for weeks first?

My next problem is the morning after scene for a multitude of reasons.

If Alex's consent was so enthusiastic, why is he written as so upset over the whole thing the next day - to the point of referring to it as "what circle of hell am I in?"

Why does Michael seek out Alex to ask if they've crossed a line if he felt "loved" the previous evening? And considering the show's habit of visual clues, why is he dressed in black as opposed to the soft white shirt of the previous day?

And why does Maria listening in at the window next to her - seeing as she knew Alex had left and wouldn't have known otherwise - not feel a need to check up on the friend who sounds upset when she was the one to ask him into her bed? But instead, stays in bed and demands Michael choose between them right then?

I'm sorry, but all of this comes across as very bad to me. And especially bad for Maria, who ends up reading as jealous, petty, and manipulative.

It's not so great for Michael who seems either dense or insensitive when it comes to Alex's clear unhappiness the next day.

And how am I supposed to view it as anything but Alex being taken advantage of, regardless of how you interpret the original consent, when he ends up alone with neither of the people he shared a bed with the previous evening seeming to give a damn that he's upset?

If I had a hope in hell of any of this being addressed, I would perhaps feel less like somebody shoved in a handful of scenes they wrote while on drugs in the middle of a perfectly normal episode.  Considering you could literally chop both scenes out and nothing would change tells me the scene has absolutely no value as written.

The bottom line is that all these factors were completely ignored and  the scene itself will never even be brought up again because this is CW, and all they wanted was a big sex scene. And that is all it was.

I'm tired of hearing "but it was for comfort."

Considering I didn't see Maria having random sex with Liz any time over the last two seasons when either needed comfort, nor did I see a threesome between Alex, Kyle, and Michael after nearly being blown up at Caulfield, the notion that this is about comfort is such a pathetic excuse.

It was sex. Period.

It was for shock value and ratings. Period.

It was poor writing. Period.

[dweemeister]

Once Upon a Time in America (1984)

Italian director Sergio Leone made a name for himself worldwide with the Dollars trilogy of Westerns starring Clint Eastwood as the Man with No Name. These movies, along with Once Upon a Time in the West (1968), had more stylized violence than the typical Hollywood Western, and audiences flocked to see what some waved off as pulp novelties. During this period, an idea had been reverberating in Leone’s mind; no longer could he ignore his imagination’s wills. Leone’s success led him to spend ten years working on this passion project, even declining an offer to direct The Godfather (1972). Based on The Hoods by Harry Grey, Once Upon a Time in America is a gangster epic filled with betrayal, crime, graphic violence, and regret. The film alternates between three time periods: the late 1910s/early ‘20s, the final three years of Prohibition from 1930-1933, and 1968. It is Leone’s most ambitious project after a thirteen-year absence from filmmaking, and his last.

In New York City’s Lower East Side, we follow a handful of young Jewish boys who engage in petty thievery, grow to complete contracts for organized crime, and later make their fortunes bootlegging during Prohibition. The film centers on David “Noodles” Aaronson (Robert De Niro as adult Noodles; Scott Tiler as a child). He is first seen in a Chinese opium den in 1933 after seeing three of his friends’ corpses – burnt beyond recognition – whisked away from a crime scene. A non-diegetic telephone rings during this wordless montage – a blaring, ceaseless ringing serving as an aural pang of guilt. That guilt will be gradually explained as the film progresses. Soon after this opium-induced retreat, Noodles will depart New York City for Buffalo. He will return decades later, his hair and soul fading, after receiving a suspicious invitation. Once Upon a Time in America’s first half concentrates on Noodles’ childhood, alternating with scenes from his 1968 return. The film’s second half intercuts between Prohibition and 1968.

Noodles’ boyhood friends are the protagonist’s de facto family. They include Patrick “Patsy” Goldberg (James Hayden as adult Patsy; Brian Bloom as a child), Philip “Cockeye” Stein (William Forsythe as an adult Cockeye; Adrian Curran as a child), Dominic (Noah Moazezi), and Maximillian “Max” Bercovicz (an excellent and up-and-coming James Woods as adult Max; Rusty Jacobs as a child). Fat Moe (Larry Rapp as an adult Moe; Mike Monetti as a child) is not part of the gang, but is nevertheless a friend who knows their secrets. The film also features Noodles’ young love interest, Deborah (Elizabeth McGovern as adult Deborah; a debuting Jennifer Connelly as a child) and friend/underage prostitute Peggy (Amy Ryder as adult Peggy; Julie Cohen as a child). Also appearing in the film are Joe Pesci (whose unclear role in the film is heavily downplayed in the European cut), Burt Young, Tuesday Weld, Treat Williams, and Danny Aiello. Louise Fletcher's cameo appears only in the most recent restoration.

Before continuing with this review, I want to note that there are multiple versions of Once Upon a Time in America available to viewers. Leone’s film debuted at the 1984 Cannes Film Festival with a runtime of 229 minutes (the “European cut”). For the American general release one week later, the film’s distributor (the Ladd Company, via Warner Bros.) cut the film to 139 minutes without Leone’s permission or input. The American theatrical cut – which was released on VHS in the 1980s and ‘90s and sometimes appears on television – rearranges scenes to play in a strictly chronological structure and removes essential plot details, essentially butchering Leone’s directorial intent. A 2014 Blu-ray release of Once Upon a Time in America includes additional footage bringing the runtime to 250 minutes, but the additional footage – due to the degradation of the original negative – appears worse for wear. This review is based on the European cut, which is the recommended print for all those seeing this film for the first time.

With a screenplay by Leone, Leonardo Benvenuti, Piero De Bernardi, Enrico Medioli, Franco Arcalli, and Franco Ferrini, Once Upon a Time in America is told through the lens of an unreliable narrator in Noodles. How one views the film changes radically depending on which period should be considered the “present”. If the viewer interprets Once Upon a Time in America as using the 1968 scenes as its anchor, the film is an old man’s reverie – where a lifetime of guilt is revisited and ghosts are confronted. In this interpretation, are Noodles’ memories of his childhood and young adulthood sanitized to spare him further pain? How does he square with all the pain he has been responsible for? Or perhaps one might view Once Upon a Time in America using 1933, as Noodles retreats to the opium den, as the anchor. Here, the 1968 scenes become an opium dream or a nightmare, a painful future that may have been. If indeed this is an opium-induced dream (which would make the 1968 scenes nothing but a hallucination), does that make the childhood scenes even less genuine than in the former interpretation? That Leone and his writers never force the viewer down either avenue speaks to its thoughtful screenplay.

No matter how one reads this film, it requires complete attention. Characters age over fifty years, friendships are formed and destroyed, and innocence is forever lost. Whether it is viewed as an old man occupied by his violent past or a young gangster attempting to smoke away his pain, Once Upon a Time is awash in regret. As much as viewers might sympathize with Noodles, Leone’s film portrays Noodles’ violence as the result of terrible choices influenced by his friends. Granted, there is one occasion where he kills in self-defense. But even that killing is laced with rage and revenge. Faced with the choice between his friends and the money involved with their operations and being with Deborah, Noodles will attempt to have both. Deborah’s disapproval of the gang’s behavior – her opposition becomes more tacit as she ages – assures that Noodles retain some semblance of a conscience as Max’s arrogance permeates through all their friends. Neither fully committing to the appeals from Deborah or his friends, Noodles will lose both.

In the film, smoke or steam is usually present just before or during moments tinged of bittersweet memory. Whether emanating as puffs from an opium pipe, the steam billowing from New York City’s manholes on a frigid day, or discharges from a passenger train, it is a demarcation of an event that will irrevocably affect Noodles’ life. Potentially, due to the film’s openness to interpretation, smoke or steam may also herald moments where Noodles’ memories are most suspect – through conscious reframing of his story or opium-influenced phantasms. Either way, certain narrative threads are left incomplete, raising questions over whether those dangling characters and subplots were Leone’s original intention. Perhaps Leone here is acknowledging the voids in human memory – people and things half-forgotten. Unlike its genre counterparts, Once Upon a Time in America leaves little space for comic relief. Any levity in the film is snuffed out almost immediately due to monstrous lust, performative masculinity, or Noodles’ weariness. The elderly Noodles is stone-faced, wrapped into a world frozen in time the moment he boarded that train to Buffalo. His pain is omnipresent in Once Upon a Time in America. Even in the earliest scenes of his childhood, the years of rumination can be felt in the film’s deliberate pace. Robert De Niro and Scott Tiler, respectively, embody the older Noodles’ sorrow and the younger Noodles’ conflicted feelings.

Like American Western films, the gangster genre is rife with mythologizing and, at times, a glorification of their protagonists’ violent lives. Where Westerns over the last half-century have deconstructed their role in the American mythos, the gangster film – probably because gangster films were never as ubiquitous as Westerns at their respective pinnacles of popularity – has not done so nearly as much introspection. Before Martin Scorsese’s Goodfellas (1990) and especially The Irishman (2019), Once Upon a Time in America stood mostly alone among gangster films as a rueful examination of its protagonist’s violent lifestyle. The film consistently undermines its characters’ celebrations and successes with the consequences of their prior actions. Those consequences weigh on Noodles still.

But Leone is not entirely successful in this regard. Once Upon a Time in America has two overlong rape scenes – both of which turned my stomach the longer they went on – following a fruitful robbery (this one follows an unsettling submissive fantasy by its victim) and a glamorous date, respectively. The two rapes are committed by Noodles; both scenes serve to highlight his descent into depravity rather than express a minimal concern for the victim. Once Upon a Time in America, already uninterested in developing its female characters beyond sex objects, frames Noodles as a husk of a man because of the murders and robberies he has committed, not his treatment of women. Just because the film has adopted Noodles’ viewpoint – in his childhood and young adulthood, he cannot differentiate between objectification and love – does not mean Leone and his screenwriters can wave away his misogyny as secondary to his violent tendencies. His misogyny and criminality are distinguishable, but both were learned from the same people and environment. This dynamic persists even from the first moment that Jennifer Connelly appears as the young Deborah. There, Deborah sexually teases the young Noodles in a way that neither reflects her personality as a child or as an adult. Is that the result of the opium clouding Noodles’ memory or is it Noodles’ obsession with Deborah?

Once Upon a Time in America is beautifully shot by Tonino Delli Colli (1966’s The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, 1997’s Life Is Beautiful) and edited by Nino Baragli (The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Once Upon a Time in the West). Like a photograph that has faded somewhat but still captures the likeness and character of its subjects, the brown environments and warmly-lit interiors capture the spirit of these neighborhoods of New York City’s Lowest East Side. Life is hardscrabble here, with those born into the prevalent poverty rarely escaping from it. Their Jewishness, verbally and visually, is strangely downplayed by Leone. The film’s long takes – several last over thirty seconds – without any cuts from Baragli allow the viewer to reflect on its changing characters, internalizing the film’s scope and depth of Noodles’ introspection. For the 1968 scenes, the browns are mostly replaced by overcast grays in exterior and interiors. The colors, no longer as warm or as diverse, help the film navigate its temporal and tonal transitions.

Ennio Morricone’s powerful score does even more to strengthen the film’s emotional power. The recently-passed composer, best known for his work on Leone’s Dollars trilogy, was a classically-raised/taught, jazz-loving experimenter whose sound could be bold and brash. Upending expectations for what the Western could sound like with anachronistic electronic elements and guitar, Morricone suspends any anachronisms for his Once Upon a Time in America score. The viewer will hear an odd pan flute (not Morricone’s decision) and diegetic/non-diegetic jazz music, but the defining aspect of the score is its romantic minimalism. One does not associate minimalism with grand emotions, but the score’s romantic minimalism – encapsulated by “Deborah’s Theme” – does not preclude the pathos it evokes. The rests in the lushly-orchestrated “Deborah’s Theme” (according to Morricone himself, despite the cue’s name, it can also be interpreted as the film’s main theme) reflect Noodles’ silent longing and remorse. Even at mezzo piano with no dialogue or sound effects present, Morricone’s cues pierce the soul. As longtime collaborators, Leone respected Morricone’s talents, allowing his friend and colleague’s music to be the star for long stretches. Leone allows Morricone to envelop the viewer in its textural splendor. The orchestral renditions of “Amapola” and The Beatles’ “Yesterday” are effective in placement and arrangement. Whether it is his theme for childhood and poverty, for the film at large, or for Deborah, Morricone’s score to Once Upon a Time in America is an essential part of his film scoring career – a career that spans so many titles, that most of it has not been heard outside of his native Italy.

Before and when making this film, Leone intended to direct two films running around 180 minutes each. Convinced by his producers to whittle Once Upon a Time in America to the 269-minute version that should be sought for a first viewing, Leone was horrified to hear that the Ladd Company – frightened by the runtime and (justifiably) the rape scenes – decided to eviscerate his film. When word eventually (and inevitably) reached Leone’s North American fans that they would not be receiving a version of Once Upon a Time in America that respected Leone’s authorial voice, the film bombed at the box office and was savaged by most anyone who saw it. To some critics including the Chicago Tribune’s Gene Siskel, Once Upon a Time in America’s American theatrical version was the worst film of 1984; in an about face for those same critics, the European cut was the best film of 1984. Eighteen minutes of footage for Once Upon a Time in America have still not seen the light of day due to continuing legal entanglements surrounding them. Leone’s ardent admirers remain hopeful for their eventual inclusion on a future print.

As he challenged the tropes of American Westerns, so too did Leone subvert what might be expected from a gangster film. Or, perhaps with a cynical grin, Leone is challenging the essence and veracity of cinematic narrative. Once Upon a Time in America is an underappreciated, imperfect movie whose reputation continues to grow the further removed it is from its botched release. America’s traditions of tall tales and melting pot storytelling make villains and bystanders of the unsavory characters contained within. Haunted by a past that cannot be changed, Noodles attempts to reclaim his life’s story from those who have written it. As the viewer, we project our anxieties and insecurities onto images spliced to make narrative sense.  Authorship disputes and the struggle between legend and fact permeate cinema. Seldom do they converge as movingly as they do here.

My rating: 9.5/10

^ Based on my personal imdb rating. Half-points are always rounded down. My interpretation of that ratings system can be found in the “Ratings system” page on my blog (as of July 1, 2020, tumblr is not permitting certain posts with links to appear on tag pages, so I cannot provide the URL).

For more of my reviews tagged “My Movie Odyssey”, check out the tag of the same name on my blog.

[bossladytae]

Major Gintama spoilers ahead. Decided to share my thoughts since I feel people are missing the point on why some of us are not happy with the current developments, especially when we are looking at the bigger picture, not just a snapshot. A few folks have already and wonderfully articulated their thoughts that I agree with, so this is my two cents to add. No one has to agree with me. I’ve been a Gintama fan for a very, very long time. I will always love this series, but no series is perfect, and having a different viewpoint about the present events does not make me or anyone else less of a fan.

Death in general always brings a mixture of emotions, and people are allowed to mourn, to question, to do what they need to do in order to process somebody’s last farewell (just don’t harass people if they feel differently than you do). You are not required to be 100% positive or negative about the story’s progression. Different opinions on this chapter can and do exist. I’m sharing mine only because I want to clear up some misconceptions about why those of us with the same thoughts feel as we do.

We are not necessarily unhappy that Takasugi died (although this does not make us jump for joy, either). We were prepared to accept Takasugi living or dying, depending on the manner in which either fate was carried out. Indeed, his death mirrors history with the real Takasugi also dying young. His death brings to mind Gintoki’s words to Oboro: “Be it killing him or protecting him, they’re both my job.” Takasugi’s death has been foreshadowed more than once, particularly with his first appearance post-time skip and the revelation of borrowed time, so it’s not a surprise when it’s been quite apparent. We know this. Lastly, some of us, like myself, are fine with the death scene itself (Takasugi dying in Gintoki’s arms) because it was beautifully done.

We’re unhappy that the final arc post-time skip consisted of rehashed events that have already taken place multiple times (even in a movie). We’re unhappy that Katsura, who originally said, “I can’t let you cut down your master again,” is denied the chance to be present for these final moments when he’s also a student of Shouka Sonjuku, having experienced the same loss. We’re unhappy that Matako and Henpeita – who have now lost more of their closest comrades – were denied the chance to fight alongside Takasugi just as everyone else was allowed to rush forward and fight with Gintoki. We’re unhappy that Shouyou had to be reminded once again that he could not save a single one of his cherished students. We’re unhappy that Takasugi had to stab himself again, compounding his trauma, as if Utsuro bringing him to the brink of death countless times was not enough. We’re unhappy that in a cruel and twisted way, Gintoki saves his teacher but loses his friend, whom he had already protected multiple times, body and soul. We’re unhappy that Gintoki is reliving that choice, that pain—again, and again, and again.

No, happiness doesn’t always prevail in life. Everyone knows this. But we’re talking about a fictional story whose final arc is one we feel could’ve been set up differently. And there is nothing wrong with expressing a variety of opinions about it.

I’m not a fan of endless tragedy and violence with little to no substance. To me, it felt like Takasugi had become a vehicle for violence. “How much more can I shock the audience and get away with it?” That’s the impression I received. Consequently, these last few chapters have come off as rather uninspired to me, especially when several pages were centered on everyone simply running around or running after people, and repeating the same one-liners and sentiments they have expressed countless times already. It’s not as if we’ve forgotten or have never seen how much the cast cares for one another. Gintama’s past arcs have given us high standards already, so we had different expectations for the finale.

This is partly why I wasn’t fully on board with Nobu Nobu’s death, even though his death flag was obvious, too. It felt like the easy way out, because then he wouldn’t live on to deal with the consequences of his actions, wouldn’t have to work hard to change what he had caused. It’s harder to live on with such a burden, to find a new path in life, and to earn back people’s respect and trust, but how much greater a message that would’ve been. Killing off your antagonists immediately after redeeming them also has the risk of becoming a cliché as much as surviving does.

However, I accepted it because even though Gintama isn’t mirroring history detail for detail (for one thing, Okita would’ve died instead of his sister), it still does with the passing of the Edo to Meiji era, Amanto parallels with the Perry Expedition, the end of the Tokugawa Shogunate, the Western influences, and more. Nobu Nobu’s death and the rise of a new government within Gintama’s world made that much clear.

It can also be said that chapter 703 emphasizes the fact that you can still move on after a great loss. But, as far as lessons go, we have already learned this through Shige Shige’s death with little time spent on the fact that Zenzou had to kill a friend to save a friend, and lost that friend in the end, anyway. Yet, he returned to assist in the battle against Utsuro. Zenzou has exemplified moving on from a terrible tragedy; we have seen the lesson in action already, and, truly, Zenzou has amazing inner strength. I was sad that Shige Shige had to die after all that because he is a good man, but I liked the plot and character development his death resulted in.

Takasugi had his redemption already, and his entire story arc was well done and even his death is memorable, as redundant as the circumstances turned out to be, but I would expect nothing less, for he deserves to go out with a bang. He has directly and indirectly caused many deaths as much as any other antagonist in the story, but he has also saved many lives through his later actions. Had he lived, I wouldn’t expect him to feel he must spend the rest of his life atoning for his actions, because he did not see himself on the “wrong side” so much as he did the government. Politics is a complex matter, which is why Gintama has always focused on one’s reaction to their circumstances and polishing their soul to silver, not whether they’re politically right or wrong.

Rather, if chosen to survive, I think Takasugi would have tried to find his own way to live in the new world while being a product of the old one. Yes, he held onto his grief and rage for far too long, but he was also driven to change or destroy all the obstacles in his way. Shogun Assassination and Rakuyou arcs showed him renewed by the end. He would have found his way again, just as Shouyou once told him he was capable of doing. And it would’ve been a nice change from dying right after you reconcile with your family or friends. It would’ve been an inspiration for those that live on with great burdens in their past, but can now look forward to a future for once after believing there was no more hope for them in their traumatic lives.

As for living on borrowed time, I’d also hoped that Takasugi would be able to die on his own terms away from the public eye, sharing one last drink with Gintoki, Katsura, Sakamoto, and even Matako and Henpeita. If Sorachi really couldn’t think of anything else to do with him (or the Kiheitai, for that matter) except to kill him off, then at least give Takasugi some final moments of peace with his friends before exiting this world, just like other characters received (whether they died or departed the city). But he was not granted that. Instead, he was subjected to one violent attack after another, used to deliver another fatal injury to himself and cause his teacher more sorrow, and then, finally, cut down by one of his dearest friends. For me, it was nothing but senseless bloodshed.

After reading this convoluted-to-the-utmost-degree finale, I can appreciate that Takasugi at least could die within Gintoki’s arms. It continually reaffirms my belief that Gintoki and Takasugi’s relationship is unbreakable. They know each other so well—too well, perhaps, which is why they were so readily annoyed with one another, too. Gintoki called him “my other self.” Takasugi admitted that hurting Gintoki hurts him more than anything else. They were the original pair of rivals from the beginning. They entrusted earth and space battles to one another, needing no explanation. Gintoki knew Takasugi would come back; Takasugi knew Gintoki would come through in the end. No one understands one another better than they do (except I would venture to include Katsura, and Sakamoto on some level, as one who had met them after Shouyou’s initial capture).

Gintoki wielding both their swords to deliver the final blow to Utsuro, who kept trying to destroy Gintoki while in the throes of death thanks to Takasugi, is a nice touch. Gintoki saying that not even death will break their bond is a lovely sentiment. Takasugi protecting Gintoki in return and paying the ultimate price moves my soul. Takasugi making a joke about his height is well within the spirit of the story. Gintoki saying, “We might have just been born under that star,” makes me smile. Takasugi wanting Gintoki’s smile as his last sight of this world, and Gintoki struggling to keep his tears in check until after Takasugi has left him, breaks my heart.

I’m fine with all of that.

I simply lament the fact that the path leading to the finale, to Takasugi’s death, was not all that I’d expected. I can only hope that like Shige Shige, Takasugi’s death will challenge and change status quo somehow. It has to because it’s such a significant event.

I have issues with the narrative as a whole since Rakuyou arc, but that’ll be too long to get into right now, and I don’t have any desire to write out my thoughts at this point (not enough time, anyway). One of them in a nutshell is this idea that you can’t move on unless your cherished ones return. Sometimes you don’t know when they will and sometimes they don’t. If you’ve built your life around the condition that those people are always there, then you may not have the strength to stand on your own two feet when you have to tackle something on your own. I feel it contradicts one of Gintama’s lessons about building up your inner strength – your soul – so that you can still move forward, even if you must walk alone. Solely relying on others for your happiness, solely making others responsible for your happiness, is not that healthy, in my opinion.

I think Tae and Tsukuyo showed a healthier way of moving forward while hoping for others to return or reunite. They became/resumed being leaders and businesswomen; they reacted to their circumstances and proceeded accordingly with what they felt was best. For Sacchan, Sorachi relied on an old gag; for Kyuubei, Sorachi placed them in a marriage interview situation, as if he couldn’t think of what else to do with them. In the end, Tae was worried for Shinpachi being unable to move on, and Tsukuyo was the one who reassured everyone that Gintoki would eventually come back, and that they would all see him again. Not even Katsura believed that Gintoki had somehow become an enemy of the world; he has always trusted that Gintoki would be on a sure path because Gintoki told him, “If you've got time to fantasize about a beautiful death, why not live beautifully until the end?” So it was strange to me when others expressed their doubts in thinking they’d have to fight Gintoki in order to protect the world.

But, I digress, and I will stop before I lose sight of my original purpose for this post.

Everything that has inspired me before Silver Soul arc will remain. I still think Gintama is one of the best shounen series to date with its myriad of ways to stand out from the rest. Sadly, it just fell short of my expectations at the end, becoming more like a generic shounen story. I don’t know if Sorachi is burnt out; or if his editor(s) were pressuring him to write a certain way; or if he had written himself into corner and this is the result of him trying to get out in a believable way. He has redrawn things before and has admitted he has forgotten details or story elements in the past. It happens to the best of us, and only he knows how his internal process works. Clearly, he’s still trying to end things in the best way he can with what he already presented chapters ago. No one is faulting him for that. It’s not the same as critiquing a story’s entirety on its own.

I will accept Gintama’s impending conclusion, but as I have stated many times in the past, you are always free to question, to challenge, and to even affirm canon material of any text with your opinions. Everyone thinks and feels differently. That is why we study literature; that is why we love stories. I’m eternally thankful to Sorachi for creating Gintama. I will always treasure this series.

I will never forget that Takasugi Shinsuke gave his life for a world he was intent on destroying—and, really, he did destroy it so that it could be renewed. And I hope none of the cast forgets, either.

[ginnyzero]

Books that Stand Out in my mind.

When you read a lot of books like I do, it takes quite a bit for something to stand out from the shelves and stick in your mind. A lot of books start to blur together after a while. Now, of course the books that influenced my writing stood out in my mind. If they hadn’t stood out to me, they wouldn’t be an influence now would they? But they aren’t the only books that have stayed in my head. While these books have stayed with me, they don’t necessarily correlate with what I like to write, but at the same time, taught me some extraordinary lessons about writing.

If I tried to summarize the Journey of the Catechist trilogy by Alan Dean Foster, you would probably think it is the most boring and most worn out story in existence. A noble savage is asked by a dying man to rescue a fair princess from the lair of a monster halfway across the world and bring her back to her family. Armed with his few weapons and gifts from his family and tribe, the noble savage sets out on a long and perilous journey to fulfill the man’s dying wish, with the certain knowledge that he shall die at the end of it.

Bah. How boring and tired is this plot?

See, it wasn’t the plot that had me go out and buy the rest of the books in the series. It wasn’t the plot that kept me reading. It was the world building and the adventures and what in the noble savages pack is going to get them out of their dire straits this time?  The book would have been utterly boring and predictable if the setting hadn’t been so engaging and inventive.

I can be very forgiving of a predictable plot, as long as the setting and characters are interesting and fresh along the way.

I can’t remember if I bought the Angelwalk trilogy by Roger Elwood or if it was given to me. It was the second book in the trilogy, Fallen Angel that stuck with me. Fallen Angel is the story of Observer, the Chronicler of Lucifer. Observer is obsessed with seeing everything and writing it down. Lucifer encourages this because it keeps Observer by his side. Throughout the book Observer questions the rightness and morality of what Lucifer and the others are doing, but as he doesn’t participate he doesn’t fully feel he can cast judgement. (Now, I say Observer doesn’t participate, however, this is Lucifer we’re talking about and yes, Observer is called upon to take part. He just doesn’t do so under the name of Observer.) Observer is given multiple chances to repent and return to the Angels. Each time, he refuses because of his writing and in the end shares the fate of the rest of the Fallen Angels. And it is brought home that even though he was simply observing and claiming not to take a side, by doing nothing, he had chosen a side, Lucifer’s side.

The imagery in this book is not for the faint of heart. Fallen Angel is the observation of the world through the eyes of a demon. There is a point in the book where Observer has a vision or a dream depending on whether or not you believe demons sleep, about where all the victims of abortion come to him across the plains and ask Observer why he didn’t help them. Why didn’t he stop the practice? If I remember correctly, an angel (Steadfast, I think) comes and tells Observer the possibilities behind each of the babies and takes them to Heaven after giving Observer another chance to return.

The imagery of this book was very compelling, sometimes horrifying, but always compelling. In the guise of Observer, Roger Elwood had a very simple way with description and imagery that kept me turning pages. The words were clear, simple and direct but always exactly the right words needed to paint the picture Observer was seeing and stuck in my head. (I wish I had that way with words.) Perhaps, there is some irony of a writer liking a book about a writer.

The next set of books that stayed with me were written by Timothy Zahn. Now, Timothy Zahn was actually one of the few writers that I trusted in the Star Wars EU. And when it came to going through my books and keeping and getting rid of them, he was one of the author’s I kept. However, I hadn’t and still haven’t read a lot of his writing outside of Star Wars. I picked up the first book of his Conqueror’s Trilogy second hand and had to spend some time to find copies of the second and third book. (And then on my last move, I accidentally left them behind, drat. Note to self: Never, ever, ever, assume a box is empty. Ever.)

Science fiction is one of those genres that can be really hard to get into. The Conqueror’s trilogy straddled the line between “soft” science fiction and “hard” science fiction in a way that was more approachable for the moderately educated reader. They didn’t require the reader to have a degree in physics or biology to understand what was going on.

A lot of science fiction assumes that most aliens have advanced technology far beyond human’s that is usually completely mechanical and relies upon computer interfaces with binary similar to the way our technology works. This is, of course, completely and utterly ridiculous, but everyone has run with it from Isaac Asimov on down because well, it seemed the thing to do? Timothy Zahn decided to toss this idea out the window and wrote a book speculating about what would happen in humans met an alien race that used technology so completely opposite to ours that our technology actually caused their technology pain. This inability to communicate whatsoever sparks a war of misunderstanding, while the scientists on both sides of the lines scramble to figure out what the hell is going on with the other side’s technology and are mutually horrified by what they are finding.

I’ll admit that this wasn’t an easy read. I had to work to finish these books. I am more of a ‘soft’ scifi reader. Star Wars is an excellent example of the scifi I prefer, Heinlein, Asimov in moderation, the very early Frank Herbert, the non-political portions of David Weber and the satirical Robert Asprin. A lot of scifi is either far too technical (which is fine if you enjoy that type of thing) or not character driven enough to be interesting to me. The only reason I finished these books was because the concept was intriguing and interesting enough that I wanted to see how it would all turn out and if the two species could figure out how to settle their differences (which were more along the lines of, ‘hey, your technology is killing our technology’) and come to a mutual peace. Plus, there were mind meld pilots in the mix too to keep me entertained.

That is the power of a good concept. The premise of those books captured my attention and made me remember them.

The last series I want to talk about is once again by Anne Bishop. She is coming up a lot when I talk about books. This time probably not for the reason that you think. No matter how you look at it, there is a certain set way of writing. When you write a book, you have a main character (or two, or three, or half a dozen) and usually the story is told through the viewpoint(s) of them. They are the most important character(s) in the story and the reader gets to intimately (depending on point of view) know their opinions, likes, dislikes and general thoughts about the world around them. Not so in the Black Jewels trilogy by Anne Bishop.

Throughout the entire series of books set in the Black Jewels universe, not once, are we treated to the viewpoint and thoughts of the main female character the entire story revolves around, Janelle D’Angelline. We see Janelle through the lens of her father figure, her brother figure and lover. We see her through her friends and through her parents, family and her enemies, but not once are we treated to the inside of Janelle’s mind and thoughts. A lot of these viewpoints are male, which may be something of a weakness with this trilogy, giving such a strong female figure as the lead and then never using her thoughts. It is a very interesting stylistic choice. One I feel there might be two reasons for, but these are my opinions and possibly hold no weight. Either, Bishop thought that Janelle being Witch, Dreams Made Flesh of all the different races in her universe, that Janelle’s thoughts would be too alien for the reader to be able to sympathize with or, Bishop in her wisdom felt that the topics she was addressing would be way too shocking coming from the victim and decided to add a layer of “insulation” if you will for the reader. Thus, the reader would be horrified and disgusted, but not have the immediacy of the events through Janelle’s eyes.

There are other very strong female characters that Anne Bishop uses later to tell stories through. However, in her first, and major trilogy, she declines. In her later books, Anne Bishop does use a more ‘traditional’ story method, where the main central character to the story is the character we get the primary point of view from. The Black Jewels trilogy stood out in my mind simply because she declined to do so. The books, in my opinion, do not suffer because of this choice! Though sometimes I am very interested in knowing what in hell is Janelle thinking to end up with the conclusion that this has to happen. Other times, I'm extremely grateful not to be in her mind.

So, what makes an outstanding book in my mind can be almost any part of the story making process. It can be an intricate and imaginative world. It can be clear and concise imagery in word choice that sticks in the mind rather than slipping through it. It can be a compelling concept that stands apart from others. Or it can be an interesting style choice on behalf of the writer. These books are clear example of each of these ideas. Now, if there were books that managed to combine these, then we’d be closer to genius I guess.

[drmicrochp]

A Marathon trip to Havana, from the depths of the Chilean south.

A MARATHON TRIP TO HAVANA FROM THE DEPTHS OF THE CHILEAN SOUTH

Everything and everyone will pass you by in an airport if you wait long enough. While waiting for the plane to travel to Lima, I spent a short while in the Santiago airport. Chile’s main airport is about as busy as the Sacramento airport (14 million passengers in 2014 versus 11 million passengers in 2017), but an immense amount of construction is going on. Like the rest of Chile, it is growing rapidly. Trying to talk to strangers there is a lost cause. Everyone is paranoid that you're going to try to sell them something or con them.

It has been isolating for me. I have been able to get to know very few people outside of my wife’s circle. I hold back somewhat with them because we have such different ideas. Little signals tell me when I have strayed beyond the limits of polite conversation. However, outside of Chile, I can see the difference between conversation which is always to create a certain impression and talking to engage the other person.

What will the Cubans be like? I´m sure it will be different than living in this cold country to the south. I'm also wondering what it might be like to talk with educated people about politics. Usually I must bend to the right to avoid confrontations with the conservatives. In Cuba will I be able to find common ground with people who have a true revolutionary heritage, or would it seem that everything that I have to say is a repetition of a lie or completely uninformed? I've been practicing my little speech mentally; that people on the left should find common ground, between liberals, socialists and communists in the hopes of defending the small gains in justice and equality that have been won. All around the world, it seems that the forces of reaction have the upper hand, with racism and greater inequality being the result.  In the U.S., where it is so polarized, it seems that the only interaction these days is shouting and name calling and… it seems that there is no interest in facts. How do you even talk to someone who denies climate change and the thinks that racism is a made-up excuse to harass white people. After that type of interaction, a Cuban viewpoint might be refreshing.

 ARRIVING IN CUBA

I had so many impressions from my trip and I was so tired that I just let them wash over me and tried to live in the moment. Even so, there were so many amazing events that the images just stuck with me and, only now, do I realize what was so special about them.

There were three long flights with long layovers to bring us to our destination, from Temuco, Chile to Havana, Cuba. Spending six hours in the Lima airport was nice because it was so huge and interesting to see all the shops. The Lima airport was the antithesis to what awaited in Cuba. The most expensive luxury goods, duty free, beckoning me to spend money, any single purchase enough to feed a family in Cuba for a week. Like Chile, Peru has had a commercial explosion and the place is about ten times larger than it was the last time I was here. And, of course, there was construction going on all over the place. Drinking coffee was always my main activity as I can’t abide the thought of being sleepy and disoriented while having to keep track of my possessions, worry about schedules, and to be on the lookout for thieves.

Raquel, who is of a different mindset, concentrated on capturing moments of rest, sleeping here, there and everywhere she had a moment. Checking out the passengers in the waiting area in the airport for the group that was bound for Havana is one of my favorite pastimes, sleuthing the origins of the passengers around me. It seemed to me that they were mostly from Brazil, Peru and Argentina with a smattering of Cuban expats.

They were more Bohemian in appearance than the rest of the passengers at the airport. One young woman, with multiple tattoos and a hipster vibe, was very nice and explained the tattooed portrait on her arm as Celia Sanchez, an icon of the Cuban revolution. Surprisingly, there were several families with babies and small children. Bringing my crutch with me (a kind of strategic move as I rarely use it these days) earned us the right to jump ahead at each line at boarding time. I was grateful for every small favor as the trip was already becoming a grueling experience. Sitting amid strangers on mid-sized jets that were packed full of passengers gave me claustrophobia.  

When had passenger planes ever flown so full? What enormous quantity of fuel was being consumed to lift all this weight into the sky and fling us to our destination? We were a smelly lot as sitting around in the same clothes for days on end can produce that effect. I don't much care about that as I’m not bothered by smells and find them to be an ordinary thing. The women seem to opt for spraying perfume and air fresheners everywhere. Raquel had a bottle of eucalyptus scent which, although it had a piney medicine smell, was a welcome alternative to all the other odors that were accumulating. I'm always reminded of medieval Europeans who rarely bathed and always carried around little handkerchiefs with orange peels and cloves in them. I can imagine the intensity of those olfactory onslaughts from my encounters with the truly homeless in Stockton, California. Just another indignity of poverty.

Finally, we arrived in Havana and I noticed that our cell phones, iPad and portable chargers were depleted. I have tried meditation, watching everything and everyone, mindfulness and conversation to pass the time, but it never seems to go quickly enough. Like the rest of my over-stimulated generation, I depend on small electronic entertainments to keep my mind occupied so I don’t have to think.

Havana airport! Smaller than I would have thought and about the size of the airport in Stockton, California. There were long lines for customs, baggage checks, and visa checks. My mind was filled with so many doubts and questions. How was it that all these people were doing their jobs with salaries of $25 dollars a month? Although the Cuban government doesn't let anyone actually starve, it doesn't seem possible that people would care about anything without getting paid more than that. Yet here they were, and they actually seemed to be enjoying themselves. We could hear laughter and joking from the baggage handlers from the other side of the wall. Although everyone was dressed in crisp khaki and blue uniforms, they were far from the rigid, military postures that I remember in other international airports. They sat comfortably in their chairs. Many were enjoying conversations. They kept everything moving, but it was not like the work, work, work, hurry, hurry, hurry attitude that I remember from other customs experiences.

My happy observations came to a halt though when I realized that the airport had few seats. Also, there was no way to call our hotel people and our son’s flight was delayed. To add to that, the whole situation seemed confusing as there were so many people wandering around the exit area -taxi drivers, passengers, and people waiting for their friends and family to appear as they disembarked. Also, the lights in the airport kept flickering on and off. I concluded that this would be a trip of unexpected little problems, sudden surprises, and great beauty.

Finally, our son, Joaquin, arrived on a separate flight from New York and we were all reunited at last and, amazingly, nothing was lost or stolen, nobody injured, and no obstacle had proven too great for this encounter.

 OUR FIRST NIGHT

Sure, we were exhausted when we checked into our beautiful hotel in old Havana. But stay in our rooms and rest? Never! Our ground zero was within the overwrought, grandiose, but decaying old sector, leaving us within walking distance of all the most interesting places in the capitol. I experienced déjà vu seeing these streets again, after having seen them in so many YouTube videos before the trip. We found a top restaurant not far from the hotel and, after checking out the prices, selected three cocktails and three appetizers. Even with judicious selections our bill came to around $50 dollars. We were surprised and amazed at the gourmet offerings and the three musicians who serenaded us. I was in disbelief at the prices of suggested wines handwritten on chalkboards; one of them selling for as high as $60.

Other contrasts confronted me as a member of a privileged group. The indifferent tourists, enjoying the musicians playing magnificently throughout, who would neither tip nor applaud.  A single bottle of wine selling for two months average salary in Cuba. The impression I had was of two completely different sets of people, each one a stranger to the other. Perhaps they would never really see one another. Perhaps they could not.

I realized that I wanted to reach out and talk to everyone, to know their reality. Could they see me as someone who applauds their courage and their sacrifice? I think that everyone who comes here has some level of respect for the Cubans, how they have faced every trial with their dignity and ideals intact. Even so, when do tourists cross the line into disrespect? When will the Cubans get tired of this other group, a group that cavalierly enjoys and discards so much, so much denied to them by an accident of birth?

 THE HOTEL

On our first day we enjoyed the softest of landings -a bathroom with hot water, air conditioning, a beautiful room in old Havana. There was so much to be grateful for, including friendly hotel staff, nearby restaurants, and impressive two-hundred-year-old architecture throughout this sector of the city.

The owner of the hostel (less than a hotel, more than a lodge) is a Spanish entrepreneur married to a Cuban woman who purchased the two-story home and rebuilt it into a hotel with twelve rooms. In the morning we enjoyed a full breakfast with fruit, bread, eggs and CUBAN coffee (delicious).  Joaquin, my son, reproached us for looking at our cell phones during breakfast, but it was the best time to check the internet as the hotel provides a strong signal, as long as you’ve paid up your Wi-Fi access keys and figured out all of the steps to configure it. The public internet service here, less than five years old, requires that you buy little connection cards, each with a scratch off code good for one hour. Once you enter the code, the clock is ticking. Breakfast time is intense: eating, talking, connecting devices onto the net, answering email, checking web pages. Command central for planning out the entire day.

The staff at the hotel shared directions, recommendations, and chit chat. We felt close to them. I know that Raquel gave away some toothbrushes and toothpaste. I, myself, have been donating USB drives with collections of Chilean music on them. In an act of solidarity between old time music lovers, one gentleman even gifted me some of his prized Nueva Trova records, Cuban folk music from the 70’s records.

The street where we've been staying is an eclectic mix of private residences, private restaurants, hostels, government offices and other services. The streets are very narrow in Old Havana, full of pedestrians. When a car, taxi or pedicab comes by we all have to jump on to the narrow sidewalk until the vehicle goes by. Garbage trucks and water trucks are even wider and can be a challenge to escape.

The streets are an amazing combination of young Cubans, tourists, mobile salespeople with pedicabs full of bread or fruit, people just chilling and sitting on stoops, and a few homeless or derelict-looking people that just wander around. And nobody bothers anybody! And there aren’t any police. I'm told that there are a lot of police wherever you go, but that they dress in civilian clothes so as not to be recognized. I couldn't say for sure.

I enjoy talking with everyone that I meet and find an astonishing amount of honesty in every conversation. Sure, some of the people are just trying to hustle me to eat at their restaurant, take a ride in their taxi or buy whatever they're selling, but it always morphs into a conversation about Cuba, politics, or the United States. As I've said, I highly respect everyone I meet, and they reciprocate.

There is some apprehension in the air as our current government is trying to limit remittances and tourism. At the same time, Venezuela has reduced petroleum shipments here by two thirds. Cubans are expecting a return of the “special times,” a period during the 90´s when Russia cut off all support and the country endured hunger, unemployment and shortages. If the White House goes through with its plan, things may get a lot worse. They won´t be as bad as the 90´s, though. Still, hearing of a return to the “special times” sends a shiver down the back of any Cuban.

 OUR FIRST TOUR

We met with our tour guide, a lawyer that had been employed with the television and programming ministry who had to leave a job that she loved, paying $25 a month, for a job as a freelance tour guide, paying ten times as much. She took us to the University of La Habana where the revolution began with a student uprising. Later we saw the Plaza of the Revolution and a nature preserve in the middle of the city, the Almendares River, where tall ceiba trees overrun with vines overlook the sleepy river. It's probably less sleepy when the rainy season arrives. We also visited a couple of street art projects, one named “the tank” (from a repurposed water tank) and one called “Callejón Hamel.” Both places featured sculptures, painting and art in open air galleries, using recycled metal or ceramics, free to visitors. The creations were ingenious and surreal, framed with poetry by José Martí or other messages promoting love, friendship, and patriotism. I was very impressed. I could only compare it to a neighborhood in Valparaiso, in Chile, where my Chilean niece convinced a dozen muralist and graffiti artists to paint everywhere throughout the sector, making the whole neighborhood a giant open-air gallery. Perhaps the movement to bring art to the people is something common to Latin America.

Finally, our guide took us to her apartment in the largest, most popular part of the city, 10 de Octubre, taking its name from the date when slavery was abolished in Cuba. It was eye opening to see this part of the city with the more affordable homes and the state stores with people queuing up for bread, eggs, or other foods sold at subsidized prices or redeemed with ration cards.

On the way to our guide’s home we picked her son up from kindergarten and traveled to her home on the third floor of a little cement building. Her husband gave me gift of a Cohiba cigar, one of Cuba’s prized exports. A quintessential experience in Cuba is to smoke a Cohiba cigar while drinking rum. It doesn’t get more Cuban than that.

 THE BUENA VISTA SOCIAL CLUB AND ART GALLERY TOUR

We had reserved tours to see a “Buena Vista Social Club” style concert and to visit the commercial art galleries in central Havana. The Buena Vista concert was a pale reminder of the musicians I remember from the movie. The musicians were uneven, some spectacular and some less so. We were also hindered by sitting sixty feet away from the musicians with pillars blocking the view no matter where you sit. We arrived early, but all the best seats were blocked off and reserved. The show was a lineup of a dozen different singers, each one singing a song, followed by another with an orchestra backing them and an emcee introducing the acts. Following the magic of the movie, a reunion of the best musicians and vocalists in Cuba, is a bit like capturing lightning in a bottle. The best songs evoke nostalgia for a time gone by, the sultry rumba of Cuban rhythms and the sweet sadness of lost love.

The art galleries ranged from modernist themes with ironic overtones and political messages, to wonderfully complex panoramas of men, machines and urban landscapes. One gallery specialized in amazing woodcuts of sugar plantations and refineries. Sugar production is a resource that once carried the country’s economy, but now has a fraction of its previous production and export value. Since the time of the Chanel fashion exposition (May 3, 2016) and the Rolling Stones’ concert (May 26, 2016) a few years ago, art masterpieces valued in the thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars, seem less out of place. The glitterati and the literati have discovered Cuba and now walk these streets, perhaps disposed to pick up an expensive collectible piece, just as in any major city.

We weren’t able to include the “Museo de la Revolución” or the “Museo de Bellas Artes” in our tour but have heard that they are spectacular exhibits. We plan to return to see these sights at a later time.

 A FAILED EXPEDITION TO VARADERO BEACH While planning our trip and scanning the possible destinations for our travels in Cuba, a constant lodestar was the chance to visit a beach considered by many to be the best in the world, Varadero. I was struck by the high price of the outing as listed on our AirBnB internet options and had the bright idea of bypassing these tour guide run operations and buying the tickets ourselves from whatever transportation service in Havana offered trips to said location. Ha! What we discovered is that buying a ticket on a bus to the beach from a public transport agency, the one available named ViaAzul, is next to impossible.  We spent $30 on taxi fare to and from the bus station, wasted time with a phone number for the bus station that nobody answers, and an indifferent ticket sales office. It proved to be too much for us. We found the bus terminal, but the agent wouldn’t sell us a ticket until the “official time” to open, requiring us to wait a long time at the bus station. Remember, the ticket lady, the bus driver, as well as everybody else working at the bus station is on a salary of $25 a month. It seems that regular Cubans don’t buy tickets to travel to the most expensive beach in the country. Most of them don’t do any traveling at all, concentrating on how to procure food, money or other scarce, but vital resources. No wonder the ticket lady stared at us with indifference.

As some have said, “the government pretends to pay us, and we pretend to work.” So, long story short, we never made it. As weird as it sounds, the only way to organize a visit to anyplace in Cuba is from some other country than Cuba. From Chile or the U.S. one can buy a ticket and pay for it online. Trying to do it in Cuba is an exercise in frustration. We did, however, travel to one of the little beaches to the east of Havana, Santa Maria and had a good time splashing in the water, drinking rum from a coconut and getting sun burnt. We enjoyed talking with medical students from Gambia and took pictures together. For $5 we even paid a trio to sing us a song which I joined in on for the refrains. A little more frugal. A little more authentic. Memorable.

 FROM VICTORIA, CHILE TO HAVANA, CUBA, METHODIST CHURCHES CONNECT TWO CONGREGATIONS It´s not in the Lonely Planet guidebook but making a direct connection with the congregation of the Methodist Church of Havana was probably the most authentic moment of our trip. Our little Methodist church in Victoria (a congregation of less than a hundred) charged us with outreach to the Methodist church in Havana. It´s common for people of certain faiths to visit with a sister church in another part of the country or even in a different country. A sense of belonging to a universal creed follows this kind of visit as people feel the connection that their church is part of something larger.

We arrived in time for Bible study and listened to the pastor´s wife tell us of the attributes of the “good wife” from Psalms, appropriate for this “Mother´s Day” service. Just as in Victoria there was plenty of joyful singing, the verses appearing synchronized on television screens throughout the church. Women wore elegant dresses and the men mostly wore shirts and ties. The pastor spoke and the congregation was rapt with attention. At one point he filled a glass with water and continued filling it as the water spilled to the ground. We grasped that someone that is already full up could not accept anything new (grace, knowledge, God’s presence). There is a Buddhist koan that teaches a similar lesson. Finally, the pastor moved to recognize visitors from other congregations. Some came from the east. Others from the west. Raquel, Joaquin and I stood up and introduced ourselves as visitors from Chile. People stared at us. How often do the curious hipsters and tourists in Cuba spend a day visiting a church and sharing in the service?

Raquel, never at a loss for words, said that her church in Chile sent greetings to this church in Havana. It felt electric. A more genuine regard for solidarity with Cuba couldn’t be expressed. I was asked to speak as well and used the moment to ask of the pastor if he could help me to find someone in the congregation who needed a cell phone. I had brought my used iPhone5 to give to someone in Cuba. The pastor asked the congregation if they knew who should receive the phone. On everyone´s lips was the same name, a praise leader who was also a fourth-year medical student who needed a cell phone. Nothing seems more miraculous than a prayer answered. Apparently, the church had been praying for this and now received a reply. He joyfully, tearfully, accepted the gift. There are no cell phone stores in Cuba and few people with the resources to buy one. We hadn’t visited every place on our list, but we made more real connections with people than we had ever hoped.

[mysticdragon3md3]

PQ2 story speculation

The more trailers I see for Persona Q2, the more theories I have about the story. 

TL;DR:  I don’t trust Nagi.  I think she’s sheltering Hikari from growing, trapping her in stagnancy.  Hikari will have to learn from the Phantom Thieves, to rebel. But can she do that if the Phantom Thieves are re-framed as bad guys in movies that re-tell their stories from warped perspectives?

Persona Q combined the themes of "inevitability of death" from P3 with the "enjoying happy school days" theme from P4, so I kind of expect PQ2 to use P5's "rebellion" theme. P5 primarily expressed "rebellion" through authority figures taking advantage of the people under their care, through lying to them.  

PQ1 especially represented the main Persona games' themes through the 2 new characters.  So PQ2 is probably going to represent “rebellion” and “authority figures taking advantage of people they’re responsible over” through Nagi and Hikari.  And look at this lady.  Nagi’s body language in the trailers, so far, says she is shielding Hikari, while Hikari’s body language says she's dependent on Nagi for protection. 

They’re always standing close together, with Nagi towering over Hikari.  But look at Nagi’s face!  Those are some suspicious character designs.  Her eyelashes are white while her hair is black. Characters designed with some kind of incongruity in their eyes, usually represent a skewed point of view that motivates them to act maliciously.  She also has an extra ring inside her iris that makes her eyes look a little too intense or even crazy.  When the Phantom Thieves’ eyes are drawn that way, it's usually to emphasize their deviousness.  I’m suspicious about her motives for “protecting” Hikari.  Is it really “protection” or something else?  

Another thing is this whole "cinema" motif in PQ2.  The thing about movies is that they can funnel and narrow your perspective on events, to make you see only what the director wants you to feel about a scenario.  It's even emphasized in the opening theme when Hikari creates a viewing box with her hands to frame her perspective.  

I really feel like she's being controlled, brainwashed into submissiveness, and she'll have to learn from the Phantom Thieves how to rebel.  

It bothers me to see Kamoshida dressed as a superhero, and the recently-released full opening sequence gives him a surprising amount of screentime.  It reinforces the theory that these movies which the Persona Users will be forced to watch are warped re-tellings of their stories, to frame the corrupt adults as heroes, the Phantom Thieves as criminals, and "rebellion" as either bad or not even an option.  All so that Nagi can control Hikari.  It would also explain why the P4 protagonist would be fighting P5's.  If the Phantom Thieves were re-framed as criminals, using a selective viewpoint chosen from multiple warped perspectives, while steering away from the true perspective, that would also explain why the image of superhero Kamoshida was split into multiple TV screens, to maybe represent the multiple false perspectives.  Plus, later in the sequence, there are lots of eyes, probably to reinforce the idea of different perspectives (...Or maybe I'm way off and it's about Hikari's self-consciousness?).  

An interesting thing about the opening song ("The Road Less Taken") lyrics is that it echos some of the things from near the beginning of Persona 5.  (Lyrics mostly from http://megamitensei.wikia.com/wiki/Road_Less_Taken)

P5 prologue:   "The world is not as it should be. ...  Those who oppose fate and desire change...  Now is the time to rise against the abyss of distortion."  

The Road Less Taken lyrics:   "Your movie, your storyline All decided before the curtain rises. How does it feel to be ingrained To a fate so certain?

How can you change a thing if your life Has been written into stone? Your life's fading into bright lights By another, can you make it your own?"

Both quotes paint a picture of a predetermined or unmoving fate being a bad thing that requires change.   The lyrics go on to reinforce themes of rebellion.  

The Road Less Taken lyrics continued:   (Whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do? Your life planned out, written by someone but you? Whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do? Won't you stand up and fight?)

And then this verse talks about warped/false perspectives hiding the truth:  

You are looking without seeing. It's not like you're blind, The phantom had it clear, yeah. From what you could find, Just hiding in the side, You're already always free.

This last verse seems to refer to a more specific rebellion, which allows one to make their own choices freely (vs captivity or being under the control of another):  

Now you're looking and you're seeing. Your every choice is fine. No doubting it, you're free now. And the starry night is your's for the making. The road less taken, Could be where we're meant to be.

According to Japanese flower symbolism, white lilies, like the one Nagi wears, mean purity/chastity.  But combined with her suspicious eyes, plus a name like "Nagi" that means calm/lull, I can't help but think this all has connotations of stagnancy, and maybe sheltering Hikari too much, for the sake of "purity/chastity" to a point where she can’t grow...or leave the movie theater.  It would explain why the theater that Hikari is in has no exits (according to https ://personacentral.com/persona-q2-new-cinema-labyrinth-pv1-trailer-released/).

But I’m just rambling.  I’ll probably be wrong on MANY counts.  ^^;

[maverick-werewolf]

Random Werewolf Fact #5 - Becoming a Werewolf

So how does someone become a werewolf, anyway? Ask almost any Hollywood movie, video game, TV show, novel, and what-have-you, and they’ll say: “Being bitten, of course!” And there are always tons of other wild answers people come up with, too. Here’s a coherent list of some from legend - and some that aren’t, just to point out a few more of those pop culture creations.

I’m going to preemptively say please don’t trust any of the silly lists you see everywhere on the internet or consider them a reputable source. Those make werewolves cry and then go eat someone out of frustration.

Also, this list will obviously not include quite every obscure possibility inside or outside of folklore. There are simply too many around for me to list all of them here (especially some of the wacky things in more obscure legends - as well as some of the even wackier things in pop culture today). Feel free to send me an ask about something if I left it off!

Did NOT appear in folklore:

You’ll notice the majority of this list associates them specifically with disease in some way and turns being a werewolf into an infection. (Keep that in mind for next week’s werewolf fact.)

Being bitten - Some scholars claim there were a few old, obscure legends in which claims were made that a werewolf’s bite could spread the curse - and I’ve seen some around, myself (including some French ones that seem to possibly actually have some basis behind them). But the real question is, are they reputable? I’m personally going with probably not, which is why “being bitten” is exclusively in the section of NOT appearing in folklore. Werewolves transferring their curse via bite was almost certainly created by Hollywood (namely Cut Siodmak again) and then picked up by every form of media imaginable. This is just another of those generally modern ideas that brought them closer to being a disease instead of a curse (looking at you, rabies).

Being scratched - This one is very, very recently contrived (and as you may have noticed honestly kind of irks me for various reasons; more on that later). There’s not a lot to say about it other than that. I’m not sure who exactly made it up or when, but I wish they hadn’t. It’s become quite prolific.

Werewolf sex - Rawr. It’s fine (I mean unless you wanted it?), ladies, having hot werewolf sex won’t give you your partner’s curse, unlike what some pop culture would tell you. This is just another one of those things popular media made up to make werewolves more closely associated with “infection” of various types (yes, including STDs), and to try to associate them more with sex in some way. So have all the werewolf sex you want! You can even get kinky with scratching and biting (disclaimer: depends on your lore, also the werewolf might transform and eat you in a not-fun way during it in most modern media)!

Drinking/otherwise being exposed to werewolf blood - Once again an association with disease, nobody exposed to werewolf blood in folklore was ever at risk of becoming a werewolf, themselves.

Genetics - And lastly, an equivalent to a hereditary disease. This was never a thing in folklore, either. There were no werewolf “genes,” for assorted obvious reasons. All of this is very Hollywood, and very “let’s make monsters into science.”

Appeared in folklore:

Magic skins - A very common one, especially in Scandinavian folklore, someone could always just don a wolf skin and become a werewolf. Usually the skin is in some way enchanted (blessed or cursed, depends on your story and viewpoint). Most often they were wolf skin cloaks, though belts also made some appearances. The hard part, sometimes, was getting them back off, such as what Sigmund and Sinfjotli went through (Sinfjotli himself was later accused of being a werewolf, in the Poetic Edda).

Potions, salves, etc. - Another relatively common one, though this appeared much more often in the late Middle Ages and Early Modern period than any other time frame. One could drink a potion to become a werewolf, or else rub a magical salve all over their body to immediately transform.

Curse from a witch - Watch out for those witches, because they can turn you into a werewolf if they don’t like you. And when it comes to a witch’s curse, you might not necessarily be turning back into a human until you break it.

Curse from a god - Much like the witch’s curse, a curse from a god could result in a permanent or semi-permanent werewolf form, with little (very well spaced out, over a matter of weeks) or no regular shifting back to a human form. For example, Zeus cursing Lycaon to be a wolf - Lycaon was never turning back from that. This isn’t always the case, though.

Performing certain rituals - This is a very broad category, because plenty of werewolves became werewolves after they did some ridiculous ritual or another. For instance, in Arcadia, you had rituals that required someone to swim all the way across a lake under the light of a full moon and they would emerge a werewolf on the other side. Note that none of these rituals involved anything sexual, and generally didn’t even involve violence either (sacrificing virgins has nothing to do with werewolves), unlike modern depictions.

Gift from God - This is an unusual one, pretty much only exampled by the court case of a man named Thiess who came to court admitting he was a werewolf, after multiple eye-witnesses saw him turning into one. However, Thiess said he is a Hound of God. He was released from the court because no one could find fault in him. (You’ll be hearing about Thiess in more detail here in the future! I love his story.)

Test from God - This also didn’t result in evil, feral werewolves trying to kill people. In this case, quite simply, people were either forced to turn into werewolves or even opted to turn into werewolves in order to test the goodness and humanity in others. There are multiple accounts from Christian monks on this subject, of werewolves approaching someone (often a monk, themselves, and the subject of the test) and asking for help, or else helping that person. Their reaction to this kind-hearted, gentle wolf would be the test of their goodness. Because if a man cannot treat a kind, gentle wolf the way he would treat any kind, gentle man, he isn’t really a very good person, now is he?

Deal with the Devil - This started up fairly recently, when werewolves took a turn into being evil - in the Early Modern period, well after the rise to power of the Catholic church (which, in later periods, decided werewolves were evil, unlike the medieval accounts told by the monks). Plenty of people claimed they made a deal with the Devil to receive a salve or a skin that would allow them to take the shape of a wolf. Since they were dealing with Satan, they of course wanted this shape so they could romp about and murder and cannibalize people with the power of a wolf - and also a disguise, since no one would recognize them.

Family curse - There were times, of course, when a family in legend was kind of ambiguously cursed - and this would result in someone being born a werewolf.

Being born on Christmas - Here’s some fun Russian folklore for you: if someone dared to share the birthday of Christ, they would be born a werewolf as punishment. Or, alternatively, according to one account, this was actually an awesome blessing (I’d take it).

Being conceived during a new moon - Again from Russian folklore, if you were conceived during a new moon, you would be born a werewolf. I was born on a new moon... does that count, I wonder?

Next week’s post will be all about this modern idea of lycanthropy as a disease as opposed to a curse (as you saw so readily exampled in pretty much all the newfangled ideas of becoming a werewolf that were recently made up by popular culture), how recent of a concept this is, how it’s become so predominant in werewolf media - and maybe even a little bit of why exactly this is a bad thing.

(If you like my werewolf blog, be sure to check out my other stuff!

Patreon --- YouTube --- Wulfgard --- Werewolf Fact Masterlist --- Twitter)

[garrettauthor]

Hello, Writer, and welcome back to my life.

It's Writer Wednesday, the day where I give you my tips and advice on the art and the business of writing, and tell you how I do what I do as an indie author.

Today's question comes to us from patron Kristen Stevens, who asks:

How do you find a cover artist that you like?

That's it. That's the question.

We've been answering a lot of questions like this recently—questions about people to work with. There's been questions about editors, review teams, and beta readers. I hope that means the Writer Wednesday community is growing up, and we're finding the people we need in order to actually take our books to a done. I hope that's the case with you. Feel free to let me know.

All right. How do you find a cover artist that you like?

This is, again, one of those important ones. Your cover is the number one thing that sells your book.

It's a hackneyed joke in the indie publishing community that "Everybody says you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, but everybody does, haha."

It's 100% true. That's why people design book covers. If people didn't judge books by their cover, every single book would just be white paper.

Before you even begin the search for your cover artist, you need to make several important decisions about your cover. And first you have to decide: what KIND of cover is it going to be?

I've talked about how you need to write what's important to you. You need to write something, not because you think it's going to be the biggest moneymaker, not because you think it's the hot genre right now—that will lead you to a career of misery—but because you WANT to write it, because you are passionate about it.

And it has to be in a genre that you truly love, or a combination of genres, if you're mixing and matching things a bit. That's fine.

Either way, it needs to be something that is important to you—WHEN YOU'RE WRITING YOUR BOOK.

But when it comes to cover design, you need to throw that whole viewpoint away completely.

Every artist, every author, and particularly every indie author, has to be able to switch between the art and the business side of things. When you are working on your book, you wear your artist hat. You with your passion, your tools, and your creativity.

When it comes to your book cover, you need to take off your artist hat and put it far away, where it is not going to influence your decisions in the slightest. And then you need to pull on your business hat and strap it under your chin.

Because if you make cover design decisions based off of the whims of your heart, you just won't sell any books.

Cover design is the number one part of indie publishing where you must be absolutely 100% market-driven in order to get the best results.

Before anybody misunderstands, obviously you still have to be honest. Honesty IS market-driven. Dishonest people don't last long. Don't ever design a cover to "sell a lot of books," but which isn't REPRESENTATIVE of your book.

Theoretically, you could design a cover that looked just like a Jack Reacher novel. They're simple: a textured background with a target symbol.

Shoppers might assume it was a Jack Reacher cover and buy it for that reason. And then they would be very pissed off at you, because you're not Lee Child and it's not actually a Jack Reacher book.

Never do that. That's not being market-driven, that's being dishonest and criminal.

Designing a market-driven cover means finding out what sells well in your market and doing that in a way that is representative of your book.

I think of book cover designs in three broad categories.

THE GRAPHIC COVER

The graphic cover doesn't usually contain illustration. It rarely depicts characters. It's about symbolism.

This is the only one of my books that has a graphical cover. It's a simple symbol, designed to perfectly encapsulate what the reader will find in this literary book.

And graphic covers are primarily seen on literary books, including YA lit, such as John Green's The Fault in Our Stars:

Graphic cover. One of the best graphic covers out there.

And while we're talking about the Green brothers, the cover of Hank Green's new book was just released:

Another graphic cover. No real image, just a simple design communicating a lot of meaning.

In addition to literary and YA lit, nonfiction often features graphic covers.

THE PHOTOSHOPPED COVER

The next broad category is photoshopped covers. That's what I call them. There might be a better name, but you understand me.

Mark Dawson's books are perfect examples. A man on the run, usually with a gun, on a city background. I'd guess that two or three stock images are combined in each of these, in a very artistic way.

But photoshopped covers CAN get much more complicated.

This is the second edition cover of Nightblade, the one I had before my current cover. It's all Photoshop. About fifteen images from stock photo sites, combined to create this image.

Photoshop covers are also massively popular in romance. Two very attractive people, representative of the main characters of your story.

Photoshopped covers are also very popular in urban fantasy, and then there are some very good ones in military sci-fi and other sci-fi. You can definitely do photoshopped covers for genre, it's just more applicable to CERTAIN genres.

THE ILLUSTRATED COVER

The final broad category is the fully Illustrated cover, where every single pixel on the cover (except for the lettering) is hand-drawn by an artist.

These covers can be complex or simple. My individual books have one character on the front, and then for the bigger volumes, I have multiple characters from an iconic scene.

Illustrated covers are immensely popular in epic fantasy. They're the go-to standard. But illustrated covers are also very popular in sci-fi, particularly space opera—to the point that space opera covers can look a little bit samey.

Similar images of a planet in the background and a tiny little ship flying past it. They're great, but I do like some variation from that very common theme.

So the first big decision that you have to make is: what kind of cover are you going to get? And that is entirely dependent on your genre.

If you are writing epic fantasy, I firmly believe that you must do an illustrated cover. The one prominent exception that I can think of is George R.R. Martin and the Song of Ice and Fire books, which LOOK like photoshopped covers. And I'm not even sure about that. They're simple elements on a textured background. They could be illustrated, or they could just be heavily photoshopped.

If you're writing space opera, I think you should have an illustrated book cover, though I haven't done full market research on that. If the biggest space opera books of all time haven't had illustrated covers, don't feel obligated to do so.

If you're writing urban fantasy, paranormal romance, thriller, or regular romance, you almost certainly want a photoshopped cover. That's the standard. That's what your readers are looking for.

And if you're writing YA or literary fiction, consider a graphic cover.

But you have to make this decision first. It does no good to find an amazing Photoshop cover artist if you're writing epic fantasy. It doesn't matter how amazing they are. That's not what your genre demands.

While we're on the subject, because I can just see somebody bringing this up: The Name of the Wind has a photoshopped cover.

It's also an awful cover. It's one of the worst covers I've ever seen come out of traditional publishing.

I'm sorry. It's one of my favorite fantasy books. The cover is just not great. It is anti-great.

(And I can say that because it's not MY cover artist. Looking at you, Terry Goodkind.)

Moving on.

So you've determined what kind of cover that you need, based on your genre. Now comes an even harder part. Now you have to find the right person.

Not just the right person, but the right person who you can easily communicate and work with.

Not just the right person who you can easily communicate and work with, but the right person who you can easily communicate and work with, and who you can afford.

And I have no easy solution for you. I looked for a very, very, very long time before I found my current three cover artists, and I tried lots of covers before them that didn't work out, for one reason or another.

I have designed entire covers that were taken to full completion—and of course I paid for them—and I didn't use them, because the vision was not executed correctly. It was executed WELL, but that artist and I didn't jive on what we were going for.

That's the thing. It doesn't mean that that artist was bad. It just means that we aren't in sync enough to work together as author and cover artist.

I know they can turn out great work. I looked at their portfolio before I hired them.

But people can have compatibility issues, as I have discussed before. You can find a really good editor who YOU cannot work with. That doesn't mean they're a bad editor.

So you've got to do the grind, walk the beat. You have to look at art websites. Spend a lot of time on deviantart, if you need an illustrated cover. (There's good Photoshop work on deviantart as well.)

Talk to other authors. Find out who they used. Find covers from your contemporaries and ask where they got them.

Talk to a bunch of artists. Find out how their process works. Find out how much they charge.

You might go through five artists who you don't work well with—who would be perfect, and their art is very good, but something's off. You don't work well with them, or you can't afford them.

And then, finally, you'll find the person. You work well together, you're in sync, and you can afford them.

I can make a couple of recommendations. These are people I know and have worked with in one capacity or another over the years.

My three cover artists for illustrated covers for the Underrealm books are Sutthiwat Dechakamphu, Sarayu Ruangvesh, and Miguel Mercado. Their names are linked to their artist accounts.

If you're looking for illustrated covers, you should absolutely hire them. I don't generate enough work to keep them working full time, and they deserve stunning careers as artists.

If you're looking for Photoshop covers, Domi over at Inspired Cover Designs designs my text templates, and she does a lot of Photoshopped cover work for indie authors.

For more graphical covers, the best person I can think of is Risa Rodil. I've never commissioned a book cover from Risa, but she is an amazing graphical artist who has done lots of work with the vlogbrothers (and with me) for merch.

You've seen my "Have I Mentioned I Write Books?" t-shirt. That's a Risa piece of artwork. If I had a book named Have I Mentioned I Write Books? (maybe one day) I would totally take that piece of artwork and slap it on the cover.

Again, all these artists are amazing people. They're easy for me to work with, they're super flexible, and I have had a great experience with them every single time.

They might not work for YOU, because some people just don't work together. So if you do happen to reach out to one of these people, and it doesn't work out for whatever reason, it doesn't mean they're bad. It doesn't mean you're bad. It just means you need to keep searching until you find the people you click with.

That has been what I feel like was a very, very long answer. Thank you so much for the question, Kristen. I hope that you and others found the answer helpful.

A reminder to everybody else watching this video that my $5 patrons on Patreon, like Kristen, are the only people who get to ask questions for Writer Wednesday, and they get these videos two weeks ahead of everybody else. If that sounds interesting to you, check out my Patreon.

Thank you so much, and I will see you next Wednesday. Bye!

[transcending-chaos]

Writing Religions 101

Okay, so I’m not just gonna bitch about this tonight, here’s a quick 101 on writing these things. This is one heck of a long post, but hopefully it’ll explain things well enough. 

CLASSIFICATIONS

There are measurements and rules as to what classifies/what is considered a religion, especially if you want to write an Organized Religion. As such, here are the definitions again, as well as what they entail:

Religion is a group of collected beliefs passed down either through generational storytelling, instruction, or conversion. These beliefs have significance, importance, and prevalence in the adherents’ society, social activities, personal lives, relationships, and world views

Basically, religions are (often) archaic or long-standing, established beliefs that have weathered the passage of time or transformed along with it. They spread via common story-telling, through writing, generational teachings, familial traditions, are have bearing in an individual adherent’s life in some form, even if it’s mild superstition. It is a cultural tool used to help inform a worldview, and teach the uninformed or uninitiated. Yes, this can be bad, and yes it can be good, but it needs to have impact that resonates with the masses- even if it’s contained to one area. The resonance and personal value is what quantifies it as a religion in the first place; yes this varies from person to person, but without that quality, validity, attachment, and lens to help view the world through, it is not considered a religion or faith.

If this sounds strange, that’s because you’re trying to measure and quantify feeling, emotional and spiritual attachment, and give it value to be measured by. It’s a hard thing to do, but it can be done. It’s the attachment of people and principles, their devotion, their community and connection with a cause and ideal that is bigger than themselves.

So, that’s the broadest definition I can give, now to the sub-categories.

Organized Religion is a religious structure, narrative, values, and set of beliefs specified in a formally established doctrine that has interpreters, leaders, and systems. These are post-literate, meaning written or containing documents, and can be read or translated.

Any religion with definitive text and interpreter (preacher, spiritual leader)

This means that the religion has been written down and there is a structure and format to the members. Be it a hierarchy with different tiers, a community with a single speaker who reads, defines, and provides context for the text, or a structure where people take turns, Organized Religions have to be organized. There are systems to keep order, often for the sake of keeping the message of the text clear and unified, and this is what allows Organized Religions to spread so easily when compared to their counterpart. They often have community outreach or influence, they have a tendency to be much larger than Folk Religions, as well as considered more ‘valid’ in the eyes of the law because of their prevalence and the beneficial value they bring to the masses.

Please note that Organized Religions do not always mean Theocracies, though if you’re going to make a believable theocratic structure, you might want to use this one because it’d be a larger threat.

Folk Religion is/are social concepts followed by groups of people often determined by old superstitions and regional practices.

This one is harder to define because it can be offensive or insinuate that a group’s customs or traditions are not a ‘valid’ religion. Everything from tribal religions, forgotten ancient customs that few still practice, to civil religions can be considered Folk Religion.

Folk Religions are like old wives’ tales that are specific to regions or smaller territories than Organized Religions, as well as not usually written down. These have a far greater emphasis on oral storytelling and generational teachings, and of the two, are the ones with more malleable symbols and structures, but ultimately the morals and messaging should reach the same conclusion. These tales are more like superstition, often subtle, and often very simple. Considering a black cat crossing your path as bad luck is an example, throwing salt over your left shoulder if you spill it is another. Heck, if a town has ghost stories that are shared and reiterated over generations, than that’s a form of Folk Religion.

Cult as a term used to refer to those devoted to certain sects of larger religions. (For instance those who were devoted to a certain Saint in Catholicism would be considered a cult, but they still followed the larger practices and doctrine of the Catholic teachings.)

New movements within larger religions were usually classified as cults before becoming established sects.

In the traditional sense, Cults really were just smaller facets of larger religions that were devoted to another god within a pantheon, a saint within the host, etc. Also, anything new or not established were considered cults, as they were not formally organized, as widespread, or long-standing as the other two types of religions.

In the modern sense, cults are groups that practice a predatory method of recruitment and extremist ideals. Cults can rise to the level of organized religions, but doing so takes great periods of time, devotion from followers, outreach, influence, etc.

WHY DO CLASSIFICATIONS MATTER?

Quite simply, it determines structure, influence, validity (as determined by law), acceptance by outsiders, and the gauge your characters’ faith will be measured by. These criteria are put in place so that no one can make up something and then just say it’s a religion to get out of doing something else or breaking a law; it’s a way of categorizing and verifying that something is indeed intrinsic to one’s way of life.

Religion *has* to matter to your world if you give it one; it must have impact in some way. Does this mean your character has to have faith? No, absolutely not. But if you mention religion or begin to hint at one, be prepared to at least write the basic ramifications/effects of it existing in your world.

WAYS RELIGION HAS IMPACT/THE ‘WHY’ OF HAVING RELIGION

Religions are forms of mythology, ways that were established to explain the world when people did not know much about it.

Religions pass down traditions and connect multiple generations of people

Religions can unify nations and create peace/community through common belief

Religions dictate morality, good conduct, bad conduct, and consequences for actions

Religions were used to maintain order during periods of great social change

Religions offered entertainment for the masses or distractions from hard work as most are filled with parables

Religions offer comfort, solidarity, and purpose to those who need/seek it (ie. ‘finding faith’)

These are all explanations of why we have religions to begin with; whether it’s an old mythology that was once used to explain the world, or a collection of stories that withstood the test of time and slowly was transformed into something greater, these are reasons we have religions today. You must have a why, be it because of people trying to make the world into something they could fathom, actual divine instruction/intervention, or something someone made up and established a long time ago to create an empire, there has to be a reason. There must be a catalyst: a prophet or leader, an event, an object, something that still holds great relevance and meaning in the current day and age.

If you want an old-world religion, then go with the myth, tradition, and morality reasons.

If you want a religion that’s being used to manipulate the way a certain group of people thinks and interprets the world (via a theocracy), then go the route of choosing unification, morality, maintaining order (to repress change), and comfort.

If you want more of a Folk Religion path, choose something more like morality and entertainment.

Yet whatever the case, keep in mind that in order for your religion to stay around in your world, it must have a redeeming value. This is why ‘comfort’ is on the list. People will ignore reason and fight for what makes them feel good. It’s a good scapegoat if you’re struggling to come up with other reasons. 

IMPACT AND SYMBOLS

Here is where you let your creative side go nuts. Because your religion has relevance to groups of people and their worldview, it’s obviously impacted how they interact with the world. Your doctrine can be as broad or specific as you like, but it needs to have bearing on the world and/or it’s people. THERE MUST BE EFFECTS.

Symbols can be anything, for instance:

Christian Symbols:

-Christian Symbols focus predominantly on morality and the superiority of God

--Depending on what sect is using the symbols, certain images and techniques are more common

--Typically triumph Christian morals and viewpoints but these change based on the sects

-God Conquers All narrative

-Crosses (St. Peter’s Cross, the Crucifix) -humility, sacrifice, martyrdom, faith, carrying the weight of one’s sins

-Saints, Humans -servitude, reward, dedication, devotion, the images of God

-Angels -protection, devotion, messengers/heralds, divine interaction

-The Color Red -blood of Christ, sacrifice, fire and brimstone, hell and damnation

-The Color White -innocence, purity, virginity, perfection, divinity

-Theme of Unity and Edenic Worlds

-Theme of Virtue over Sin and/or Hypocrisy

-Theme of Conversion

Pagan Symbols

-Spirals and Knotwork -Pantheism, connection to all things

-Elements -Nature is Holy, Nature is God/powerful

-Magic -Transformation is necessary and natural, everyone and everything has power and importance

-Animals

--Predators are representative of savagery and forces greater than man

--Prey are humility, representative of humans, and how even the seemingly insignificant have important roles

--Sacrifices to or embodiments of God(s)

These symbols are highly malleable and change through the years to keep their relevance, but this is a rough outline of some very basic concepts.

Ultimately, choose your symbols with care and relevance to your created faiths.

WHY HAVE RELIGIONS AT ALL IN A NARRATIVE?

Aside from being a way to increase the scale of conflict to unfathomable and ancient wars between the very embodiments of good and evil, it’s a very easy way to get morals across as long as you’re clear in your messaging. Religions are very personal beliefs that are transcendental from culture to culture, relating themes in a concise manner (parables), and are often very human -because they have to relate to humans (I mean, in our world at least). They exist to fill needs, and whether those needs have gone and past are up to you in your narrative. Once again, they are cultural tools used to help inform a worldview, and teach the uninformed or uninitiated.

The possibilities are endless, but treat them with care.

For instance Religions can impact:

-Arts: fashion/visual arts/music/poetry/writing

-Sciences: the progression of how fields go forwards/sponsoring new fields of study

-Humanities: social structures/hierarchies/types of (un)favorable behavior/values of society

Literally anything and everything can be affected by religion, entire societies rise and fall with it.

These are just the most essential elements you need to write something that qualifies as a religion in your works. The broadness of the terms gives you a lot of room to explore, but it has to have substance, meaning, relevance, and an effect. Remember, you’re trying to validate and quantify things that are, by nature, unquantifiable. 

[garretteqis470]

Medical Marijuana - The Federal Reaction

"The idea that marijuana could be used for medical objectives is not a new concept; as a matter of fact, it has been around for thousands of years. Before I started to do research on this subject I highly thought that marijuana could be utilized as a reliable medicine. I had heard several stories concerning its potential for helping cancer as well as Help patients, to name a few ailments, to manage both the signs of the diseases and the negative effects of the therapies. These treatments could include radiation treatment or radiation when it comes to cancer people. I also was cognizant of the fact that marijuana has never ever had a single recorded instance of a person passing away from a marijuana overdose. This by itself is reason to claim that marijuana could be a more secure medicine instead of other prescriptions. With this proof alone, it might seem that I am a complete advocate of the possibility of marijuana being utilized for clinical objectives. This is not entirely the situation. Before doing any of my research I have actually heard the horror stories of individuals ending up being completely addicted and having the medication take control of their lives. The whole problem of cannabis is a highly questioned topic and also ought to be checked out from different viewpoints prior to making a decision a placement.

As I conducted my research study one of the main debates in this heated debate has to do with the real possibility for it to aid individuals better handle the signs of illness. Some people believe that marijuana has much to offer people in the realm of medicine; others say that it does more harm than excellent. Those that are supporters of cannabis being legalized state that it is of incredible clinical value. They suggest that it can aid minimize persistent discomfort, stop muscle spasms from happening, cause a gain in appetite and also help stop nausea, as well as also soothe stress within the eye. A few of the conditions that could be assisted by this drug include AIDS, cancer cells, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, and glaucoma. AIDS as well as cancer clients could benefit from cannabis by having both the pain related to this condition diminished. Also, these clients could be aided by having a more stimulated cravings and also less nausea. Those with epilepsy could be helped by potentially having seizures stopped. Individuals experiencing several sclerosis can perhaps have less painful muscle spasms. Additionally, those who have glaucoma could be given with remedy for intra-ocular pressure as well as possibly excelsior cbd be saved serious eye damage.

This short article all at once was essentially a listing of all the ways that maybe practical for numerous diseases. It also explained that for a very long time cannabis was being utilized as medicine currently so this idea of it being useful is not new. After seeing every one of the illness that it could potentially help with I was shocked. All I could think of with regard to individuals that deal with these conditions is that if I were in their place I would intend to try anything that can potentially function.

Nevertheless, there are those who disagree totally and also state that marijuana has no location in the medical globe what so ever. They mention the fact that cannabis has never ever been accepted as a true medication by many major companies associated with screening as well as certifying medicines including the Fda. Additionally, it has actually been mentioned that medical marijuana still can not be prescribed in the large majority of the states today. Cannabis is likewise not sold in drug stores, as well as perhaps the most crucial thing to note is that cannabis is still ranked in the same category of drugs as heroin, LSD, and other controlled substances.

This post was defiantly against medical marijuana. It slammed every part of it having medical worth. It explained that it has actually never been approved for clinical usage by the Fda (FDA). It additionally broke down the standards for a medicine to be licensed to have clinical worth as well as spoke about each point and why cannabis did not qualify. This write-up was, if absolutely nothing else, extremely efficient at revealing the sharp comparison in views in between the supporters and resistance.

One more disagreement that has been made is whether cannabis has the possible to be an addictive medication. Some people state that marijuana provides a threat to culture due to its addictive properties. There is an excellent factor to count on this perspective. During the time between 1992 as well as 2006, the strength of cannabis greatly enhanced. In fact, it is approximated that this increase could be as long as one hundred seventy-five percent. This caused the number of people who depend on marijuana to increase. There are numerous dangers that accompany dependence on cannabis. One of these is that some users might possibly drive while under the influence of the medication. Utilizing marijuana hinders electric motor skills as well as can cause crashes. In general, cannabis is the 2nd most regularly spotted medication in the chauffeur's systems.

When reading this write-up, it became clear that the author was very against all kinds of cannabis both medical and also non-medical. It takes place to review the evolution of cannabis into what we have today, in addition to the factor that it is so addicting. The writer of this article additionally shows the biggest factor they think that marijuana must not be legislated in any kind of type. Medical marijuana is one action better to legalization. This places children and also teens in jeopardy and this write-up primarily makes a statement versus such circumstances.

On the other hand, there are individuals who state that marijuana is not addicting as well as is actually an extremely risk-free medication to use. One such individual is Paul Armentano author of ""Marijuana is not addicting"". In his article, Armentano points out a record done by the Institute of Medication (IOM). According to the IOM, less than ten percent of individuals who attempt marijuana satisfies the description of an individual who shows dependency. This is an unlike the variety of individuals that showed addiction to other medications.

These medicines consisted of cigarette which went to 32 percent, heroin at 23 percent, cocaine at 17 percent, and also alcohol at 15 percent. All of these percentages are high compared to cannabis which was at less than 10 percent. Another factor that supports the reality that cannabis is non-addictive is the lack of withdrawal signs and symptoms. Marijuana, unlike cigarette or alcohol, does not create extreme withdrawal impacts. The most notable results of cannabis are small worry, frustration, and also absence of sleep. Cigarette generates comparable withdrawal effects, yet much more severe comparative. Often times tobacco's effects are enough to encourage an individual to launch again, which is not true for cannabis.

This post to me was extremely eye-opening. It provided a large amount of information that was concentrated on the issue of whether or not cannabis is habit forming or not. It compares dependency prices with many of the other abused narcotics; in addition to talking about the withdrawals that each medication creates. In general, it clearly favors cannabis being used as a medicine, and also presents scientific evidence to show why it should be.

Another significant piece of evidence that supports legalisation comes from a write-up titled ""Medical Cannabis"". While the National Company for the Reform of Cannabis Rule was conducting a research concerning the chemicals that marijuana contains, researchers discovered something interesting. The particular chemicals that they researched are called cannabinoids which are chemicals unique to the marijuana plant. These chemical compounds were located to in fact be anti-cancer.

This article is extremely vital due to the info that it has concerning the unique effects of marijuana' chemicals. The article additionally takes place to restate the advantages that were provided previously in a different discourse. Additionally in the source, the lawful triumphes are additionally discussed which were connected to how medical cannabis had the ability to get to where it is today.

In conclusion, marijuana being made use of for medical functions is a highly arguable topic. So many studies have been made with each appearing to produce different outcomes. After checking out all the short articles, my opinion has actually not been persuaded by the opposition. I still side with those who rely on legalization for clinical purposes. I do however understand that individuals have really various and really strong opinions on the subject. It is difficult to tell precisely that is right or incorrect. There is a lot proof offered both for, and versus the legalisation of marijuana as medication that it is less regarding that to believe as well as extra regarding who not to believe."