#there's no way to be charitable about that

[transfatliberation]

that’s the big thing, enshittification. Get annoyed at the big tech companies’ products’ shittiness often enough and you’ll resent the companies. This was previously a very politically-charged issue mainly because most conservatives tended to be older and more tech illiterate, but in the past 10 years literally every tech product has gotten worse — and not just worse, actively seems to want to make the user experience as frustrating as possible, or at least has no qualms about doing so for the bottom line. Where previously the most common gripes with technology and computers were things like “It seems way too complicated to do Thing X or Y” and you could simply… learn how to do so, now the problems are things like “My Smart TV’s youtube app crashed 2 minutes into the 3 minutes of ads 2 minutes into this video I wanted to see, and now after booting the app and trying to get back to it, it restarted the ad timer from the top and wants to force me to watch 3 more minutes of ads, including one asking me to pay money to not have all these ads.”

like yes it’s still somewhat avoidable by things like adblock on pc, but that’s not the point, the point is, that’s the intended end user experience now, rather than only the experience of people who don’t know what the save icon is and how to open a pdf. To avoid shittiness in tech, you no longer need to be proficient at it - you need to actively be good enough at it to try to bypass or break down the shittiness.

So much of tech culture has changed from “look at these amazing things you can do” to “look how much money we can squeeze out of people if we annoy them enough,” with one of the only big “advancements,” AI (with the word advancements being used EXTREMELY charitably, because it’s believed to be by the general populace) actually really sucking the more you look into it. From the art theft, to the incorrect information given by ChatGPT, to the huge environmental impact, to it being made unavoidable in so many tech products, pick your poison.

People used to dream of a world with extremely advanced technology, where anything was possible. Take the average person from 2010 and offer them a superpowered brain implant that could connect to their tech and they’d think it was the coolest thing ever. Now they’d be worried about it being a buggy, crashing mess that serves ads in their dreams.

[mollysunder]

I wish we got to see Vi's reaction to Isha's imprisonment. Isha was clearly younger, weaker, and less able to protect herself than Vi was when she thrown into Stillwater (which still wasn't a lot). Where's Vi's horror to be on the outside looking in at another child thrown into an adult sized prison cell? How does it feel to know someone you grew close to (Caitlyn) signed off on the same abuse you were personally subject to during your formative years? Does it feed into Vi's self-loathing to know she was apart of this? Would Isha recognize this is the same girl who protected Jinx and would have been shot by Caitlyn? There's so much to explore for Vi in that one plot point alone.

[eternal-echoes]

“Your child says she's trans. Now what? Many parents are frightened that if they don't affirm the child's declared gender identity, they could lose their child. In fact, some trans activists openly discuss how they train family court judges to view parental hesitation as a form a "medical neglect."(2) As a result, some parents can lose custody of their children if they don't consent to hormones and surgery.(3) Therefore, what should you do if your child claims to be trans? If you don't affirm her proclaimed gender identity, are you rejecting her?

First off, here's what not to do: Don't freak out, be dismissive, tell her it's just a phase, try to win a debate, convince her she's immature, or remind her that the frontal lobe of her brain isn't fully developed. Upon reading this, some parents might think, "Okay, I already managed to do all of that during our first conversation, and now she's locked in her room with her earphones on, not answering the door, and probably staring at her cellphone screen again. Any suggestions for damage control?"

When the dust settles, approach her gently and say, "I want to apologize. I'm sorry I didn't handle that very well. I honestly wasn't sure what to think or what to say. Do you mind if I could try to listen again?" Although teenagers often have a short attention span when listening to their parents, they have a surprisingly long one when parents offer a sincere apology. Nonetheless, if she spouts off a snarky reply, give her a pass this time. Let her air her grievances.

Should she be willing to reengage in a conversation, here are ten tips for your initial discussions:

One: Express gratitude that she has shared this information with you. Odds are, these feelings have been brewing in her mind for quite some time, but she was afraid to talk to you about them. She might have privately navigated through stages of initial awareness about her gender dysphoria, followed by waves or confusion, shame, exploration, self-rejection, resignation, and acceptance. For her to confide in you more deeply about where she's at in this process, she'll need to feel safe.

Two: Express reverent curiosity. By the time she talks to you about this, she has probably spent countless hours learning about the subject online and discussing it with others. If you don't understand concepts or terms she uses, invite her to explain what she means by them. If some of them strike you as absurd, unscientific, or theologically unsound, now is not the time to debate. Listen and learn what she's thinking. If you show her that you're willing to listen to her, in due time she'll value what you have to say in return. If she's open to sharing with you some of the sources where she's learned about the topic of gender, take the time to explore what they are saying, so you can better understand what she's thinking. In time, as she sees that you're willing to learn more about what matters to her, she may be open to reviewing resources you could share with her, that charitably call into question some of the ideologies she may have internalized.

Three: Be empathetic. Don't try to disprove her feelings. Rather, find places where you agree and might be able to affirm her ache or discontent. You could say, "I can see why you would feel constrained by the way the world expects people to fit into stereotypes. That makes sense." Although you might not agree on what it means for her live as her "authentic self," you can affirm her desire to live authentically. You could also affirm that this must be difficult to experience and acknowledge that you realize she didn't choose to feel this way. It's possible to validate her feelings without validating her reasoning, beliefs, and ideology. You could add, "I can see this has been very hard on you. I hear what you're saying, and I want to help. Thank you for trusting me with this."

Four: Rather than interrogating her, ask thoughtful questions. For example, "Can you tell me more about this? I want to understand." "What can I do for you?" "What has it been like to tell me about this? It must have taken courage." As your conversations deepen with time, you might be able to gradually map out the history of conflicts she has felt with her sexual identity. For example, "When did you start feeling this way?" "What was happening in your life at that time?" "When does the discomfort feel most intense?" For some individuals, gender dysphoria is like a white noise always playing in the background of their lives. For others, it fluctuates in intensity, and certain things such as formal attire and events (where individuals are expected to dress in a strictly masculine or feminine way) could trigger dysphoria. Another female recalled, "I felt the most dysphoric in my teenage years just in my bedroom.”(4) As you learn more about her experiences, you can discover ways to avoid triggering some of the distress.

Five: Don't debate her memories, even if they seem embellished. Parents of gender dysphoric teens often note that their child often reinterprets their childhood history through a transgender lens. Rather than trying to disprove her recollection, listen to her perception.

Six: Be humble. If she points out some of your flaws and the hurts that you have caused, own what you can without blame-shifting. Seek forgiveness where it is needed. Often, parents worry that if they admit blame, they empower their children to hold things against them. The opposite is true. When children witness authentic vulnerability, they learn from example that ownership of one's shortcomings is a trait to be emulated.

Seven: Remind her that she is loved. Reaffirm that you will never leave her, no matter what. Explain that God loves her unconditionally as well. Perhaps you could take this moment to also apologize on behalf of the Church if she has ever been alienated by members of her faith community. Reassure her that God loves her, that He desires a personal relationship with her, and that the Church is her home. Assure her of your prayers and encourage her to have a genuine prayer life as well.

Eight: Listen for deeper motives. Drs. Yarhouse and Sadusky write:

What motivates their gender atypical behavior varies. Teens may engage in atypical expression to manage gender dysphoria, reduce anxiety about body image, express a sense of "true self," experience sexual arousal, seek entertainment, or respond to boredom. Moreover, some teens do appear to be in a search for identity and community.(5)

Each person's motivation is their own. But by listening well, you can gradually discover that there are often motives that run much deeper than simply the profession, "I'm trans." What might appear on the surface to be a feeling of inadequacy could have a layer of shame beneath it, and self-hatred at the core. Insofar as these or other deeper factors surface, try to help them distinguish how they feel from who they are. Your unconditional love will help her to explore difficult emotions such as resentment, anger, hurt, and self-loathing, so that the deeper unmet needs can be addressed with healthy strategies.

Nine: Don't pull away from your child. The topic of gender can cause so much relational friction that some parents opt for a "flight" response, hoping the difficulty will spontaneously resolve if they ignore it long enough. One young woman recalled that as she was wrestling with the idea of gender, she felt as if she were being pushed in a "confused and desperate head space" by her parent's isolated attitude toward her. Speaking of her mother, she wished that she "would have shown a bit more understanding and asked me some questions and talked to me like I was a human being going through a struggle rather than a problem to be solved."(6) So, rather than viewing her as a problem to be solved, consider her to be a mystery to be gradually revealed. According to existing research on the well-being of LGBT-identifying young people, the best predictor of their well-being over time is the quality of their relationship with you, their parents.(7)

Ten: Buy yourself time. You could say, "To be honest, this is a lot for me to understand. But I can tell that this really matters to you, and so I want you to know that I take this seriously because of that. I need some time to process our conversation and learn more about this." Telling her that you need time enables you to avoid making any major decisions or promises (other than love) in your initial conversations. It allows you time to strategize how to help them manage their dysphoria in the least invasive manner possible. Further, it models the type of thoughtful discernment around complexity that you hope your child would emulate.”

-Jason Evert, Male, Female, or Other: A Catholic Guide to Understanding Gender

—

Work cited:

2) Julian Vigo, "Capitulating to Bullies: Brown University and the Transgender Lobby vs. Science," Public Discourse (October 7, 2018).

3) Cf. Ryan Anderson, "Parents Denied Custody of Child for Refusing Support of Transgenderism: Here's What You Need to Know," Lifesitenews.com, February 19, 2018.

4) "DETRANSITION Q&A (#1)," https://youtu.be/kxVmSGTgNxI.

5) Mark Yathouse and Julia Sadusky, Emerging Gender Identities (Ada, MI: Brazos Press, 2020), 67.

6) "DETRANSITION Q&A (#1)," https://youtu.be/kxVmSGTgNxI.

7) Cf. Yarhouse and Sadusky, Emerging Gender Identities, 66.

—

For more recommended resources on gender dysphoria, click here.

[ceekari]

To be a little more charitable to the... tradition, in my experience, it's usually less about the daughter being property, and more about making sure her boyfriend knows that, in a society where men often get away with violence and mistreatment of women scot-free, there *will* be consequences if the boyfriend mistreats this young lady. It's a way of informing the lad that the daughter has someone who will stand up for her, and that justice would be served directly and regardless of legality

mutuals do this

[fandom-blahs]

Every problem with Alicent's writing can be traced back to the idea of envisioning her as a "woman for Trump"

[velvetvexations]

I feel the love you all show me deeply, Velvet Nation, but if you should ever feel compelled to express it in another way and you have the ability to do so, please consider making a donation to Ukraine. The Ukranian government has a website that makes it easy and lets you pick the specific area you'd like to put your donation towards.

It's okay if you don't, I promise! I'm just putting it out there.

[irregularbillcipher]

The best example of how Flatland is a piece of fiction where A Square, the author, literally does not know what the hell he's talking about half the time is all the stuff about the Universal Color Bill, because as it is presented the segment on the Color Bill is one of the most biased and propaganda filled things I've ever seen spouted from a narrator who claims he Knows What's Up with the world he lives in.

Like ooooh, gee, so the only reason the Universal Color Bill got so widespread was because a Mean Traitorous Circle with an Irregularity that he should have been killed for but wasn't due to Circumstances that nobody actually knows or remembers (but in A's opinion was definitely pity because we all know how CHARITABLE the Circles are) came up with it, and used his tricky cunning Irregularity mind powers to make the Bill so foolproof and amazing that if it had gone through it would have toppled all of society and allowed all the icky women and disableds and lower classes to have something close to equal rights.

(And it had to have been an Irregular Circle because yes the Irregular Circle is also icky and cunning but at least he's a Circle and any Isosceles would have simply been too brain dead to have come up with such an evil cunning Bill and THIS is why eugenics are good, so those mean old disabled people that we allow to live don't stab us in the back for our charity.)

And wow, you're really telling me that right when the more upper-class women of Flatland, those who care about their standing and who are most supportive of eugenics because of the privilege they're afforded by their marriages and lineages, started to agree that this society-destroying Color Bill was a good idea, (because it would actually give them a bit of respect, authority and safety if they were regarded as being as precious as their husbands,) the Circles just happened to hear about this poor orphaned daughter of a Polygon who was accosted by a very very real and scary and uncouth lower class Shape and tricked so thoroughly into believing he was a higher class Shape by employing the very evil colors that these poor Lines were starting to come around to?

(Not to mention that even in the story itself the Isosceles is framed as both a vile, duplicitous mastermind tricking a poor innocent upper-class girl into marrying him, but also an idiot who "accidentally" dabbled in paints from a Tradesman he'd definitely just robbed, and either painted himself or coincidentally "caused himself to be painted" with the exact same color pattern as a Dodecagon. Because for this story to work, he has to be an absolute monstrous brute, an Isosceles of the "low sort" with hardly any brains, while also being cunning, clever and cruel enough to pull off a marriage ruse and take advantage of a poor orphaned maiden. Stupid enough to be looked down upon but smart enough to come up with this plan like the perfect boogeyman.)

And man, it sure is unfortunate that this marriage, which A Square admits only happened because of a wild amount of near impossible accidents and an "almost inconceivable" lack of research on the part of the bride's remaining family, in a society where lineage is checked thoroughly before marriage, just happened to be consummated despite all the odds being stacked against it. Did he pretend to be a member of a high ranking family? Did he make up a name and family history? If nobody can decide if he even painted himself on purpose, I doubt him creating a whole persona convincing enough to fool the daughter of a Polygon and any family members would be part of the story... that would frame him as far too intelligent for an Isosceles with a brain of four degrees, and we can't have anyone thinking that sort is intelligent.

So then are we to believe that the daughter and her remaining family were stupid enough to just accept a supposed Dodecagon with no family ties or history? That seems unlikely. With no family history, his sides may not even matter-- maybe he has an Irregularity in his line. Maybe he was disowned for failing his Sight Recognition exam. No respectable girl in her right mind would marry a Dodecagon with no family history! And it's so, so convenient that this woman, who already knew this Isosceles, because he had already tried to court her in the past, never recognized him once throughout their new courtship, until the marriage was consummated.

And it's so convenient for the Circles that her reaction upon discovering what was very clearly a near astronomical feat of deception was to kill herself, in a society where we already know the Circles are really cool with killing its citizens if it helps to maintain the status quo. But there really isn't anything suspicious about that, of course, because the only way that a daughter of a Polygon would ever wed a lowly Isosceles is if she were tricked into it, even if the process of being tricked was so lengthy and complex that it would be near impossible for anyone to pull off without either the bride or the bride's family being in on the deception, and the only reaction any decent girl would have upon realizing she'd been tricked would be suicide.

And the fact that she was orphaned and this man apparently tried to court her in "former days." So how former? And who was the one rejecting the marriages? How did she feel about this attempted courtship in "former days?" As a daughter of a Polygon, she surely had no say in who she married, so her opinions on this man are completely up in the air, and the idea that she would at no point during this new proposal, recognize this man who had tried to seek her affections before is... implausible, I would say. What the Circles would want you to think, of course, is that the Isosceles tried again once she was orphaned because she was vulnerable then. That's possible, of course, but got necessarily the given that it would seem like.

But the idea that a Line and an Isosceles may have come up with a plot using color to be allowed to be married despite their class differences is Absurd, of course! They're too stupid for that! And that the Circles may have picked up on what had happened and taken the woman out of the picture and then twisted the story to suit their needs is preposterous, of course, just ignore how often they twist history and kill citizens to keep the status quo. The fact that this specific version of the story is the exact type of thing that would tug at the heartstrings of upper-class women who love eugenics and classism and their own nebulous purity more than they actually love themselves, enough to literally militarize a great number of the more reactionary ladies? A coincidence, I'm sure, but one that was oh so good for crushing the Color Bill and using those scared, privileged women to help murder Chromatistes and the rest of the rebels in a political set up.

... And of course, all those holes in the story, all that propaganda even assumes it was a real story to begin with. Because it very well may be completely fabricated.

Before telling the story, A Square straight up admits that this is the perfect type of story for someone in power to make up to scare a portion of the populace, but he absolutely refuses to actually, legitimately entertain the prospect. Instead, he just barrels ahead and tells the story of the Evil, Cunning Irregular Circle, and the Poor Orphaned Polygonal Maiden and the Brutish, Tricky Isosceles and how that Completely True and Real Tragic occurrence definitely, positively happened, and also definitely happened exactly the way all the Circles said it did. The fact that this is all completely absurd and reads like literal propaganda and was literally used as propaganda to scare upper-class women into falling back in line does not matter to A, because this was the story he was told and he Understands The World He Lives In, and the Circles are always right except for the whole Third Dimension thing.

TL;DR: A Square is a stoodge who will fall for anything the Circles tell him, no matter how absurd, and every single thing he says that is not him literally laying out laws should be taken with ten bowls of salt, because he has no critical thinking skills.

[burinazar]

Alright someone actually said they couldn’t find my takes and wanted to know and unfortunately I do love to Yap so here’s a post about my Wicked feelings. It’s now been a very long time since I directly engaged with either piece of media (the book or its musical), like, almost a decade in the case of the musical, but I’ll try to read the book again soon. As such, various parts of this may be Totally Wrong about specifics of narrative, but also…hopefully they aren’t. 

I have not seen the movie. If it diverges from the musical then I don't know about it. Consider this to be about the book and musical.

If anyone’s very emotional attached to the musical narrative, you may find this post overly negative and want to give it a skip. You have been warned. Also, obviously, spoilers for various versions follow.

 It feels very central to the point of the book for me and central to the reasons Elphie is a tragic, heroic, and emotionally resonant character that she a) essentially failed at everything she tried and achieved only incremental progress for her causes, b) died, and c) died without anyone else ever really knowing her story. This is a story that asks us “is this a life worth living, a life that you can find heroism and admirable traits in? Is it worth having tried to do the right thing the entire time if it isolates you from society and means you must live a life like this and nobody ever even KNOWS all you strived for and in the end you fail?” 

And to me the point is, yeah, it still was, and that’s why it hits so fucking hard. Although I don’t really recall how point A pans out in the musical, B and C are fundamentally undercut by, well, obviously by her not dying, but also (and maybe even more importantly?), by having Fiyero alive and Glinda knowing her story. 

The book also has this looming and relentless sense of the march and grind and brutality of colonialism, genocide, and the like (this is why it feels so important that even though she failed and died she still tried, she still fucking tried – because basically everyone in real life who meaningfully and directly opposes colonialism and totalitarian regimes see many people they care about die while they are helpless to stop it and then they die themselves and then their stories are not perceived and recorded and they don’t get to run away happily with their lover and they don’t have a best friend who knew the truth and is still around.)

Other than just the changed ending there are dozens of ways that the shiny marketable tale told in the musical reflects the neutering of these themes. I feel Turtle Heart’s existence and the related backstory of Elphie’s family is pretty fundamental since the fact Elphie’s parents were in a poly triad with an indigenous man that was publicly lynched and they both spent their lives wracked with guilt for it after is the reason her childhood was the way it was and what predisposed her to spend her entire life perceiving the horrors and injustice of the world and fighting them. Replacing all of that with ‘she is the way she is because people were mean to her because she was green’ is just insulting and depressng. Fiyero and his family also being from a culture of brown/black people that is genocided out of existence is important as well. That’s the entire reason they bond! Replacing him with a random chipper jock (usually played by a white guy, but replacing the race of the actor would absolutely not solve this issue) and getting rid of the entire plot with his wife and kids and Elphie’s guilt piled upon guilt for neither confessing to nor saving them is… is… I just can’t explain how depressing it all is, that the version with all of this cleansed and gutted is the version embraced by the world.

The entire existence of colonization and genocide of various nonwhite populations of humans as a prevalent theme in the book (and the entire reason the Wizard is bad lol. Also given he came from his world his deeds are clearly an extension of the real world enterprise of colonialism and genocide perpetuated against real life native peoples) is just swooshed out of existence in favor of, if i recall correctly, keeping literally just the talking animal oppression plot point. (And that’s toned down from speaking Animals being an ethnic minority that’s getting killed off just like the oppressed humans, to ‘in this magic land animals can talk but he wants to use magic to make them stop talking!!! :’(  anyway I, hmm, don’t love the implications of who seemed most sympathizable to the audience……but that’s probably way too cynical there.

This next part is subjective but the book also feels like it links defying oppression to gender and queerness in ways that were removed. It was written in the 90s so the explicitness of the queerness I’m going to describe would probably not really meet the standards of today almost thirty years later but it still feels prominent and serious to me. The aforementioned relationship (Frex and Turtle Heart may or may not have been sexually involved like Turtle Heart and Melena were, but the book definitely says they both  ‘loved’ him so I do consider the three of them confirmed as a queer, poly relationship), and the inclusion of an actual gay couple among Elphie’s uni friends (they later die from what I think was implied to be something of an AIDS analog; keeping in mind this book was written in the 90s that was probably fresh in many people’s memories, the positive depiction of a gay couple with fantasy AIDS would have been meaningful at the time), and the little recurring subtle thing of Elphie being mistaken for or rumoured to be intersex or defying assigned gender which feels to me like her role as a witch and disruptor is juxtaposed with the concept of witch as a gender role disruptor…unfortunately all of this is infinitely more interesting to me than whatever handwavey shippable potential lesbians are teased in the adaptation that people are obsessed with. (Although if someone likes them as a ship the part in the book where they share a bed during their journey to Oz feels very queerplatonic.)

I dunno. It all…feels like something that would happen IN the book, honestly. The book’s story of Elphie isn't marketable and lovable. It’s the kind of story that would make people wonder if they WOULD mistreat a person like this in real life and would feel justified doing so. It gives you very uncomfortable things to sit with. The version in the adaptation allows the audience the happy comfort of identifying with heroic Elphie and knowing they would never ever be so wrong as to malign a person like that in real life, the comfort of knowing they’re not complicit in regimes like the wizard’s. The book, the permeating and structural and unstoppable nature of the evil depicted and the real reasons someone might like Elphie, an alienating, uncompromising woman who doesn’t bathe and sleeps with a married man and gets a bunch of people including children killed and fails and fails and fails but never stops trying for what she knows is right but who cares about that, who would root for an uncharismatic failure anyway – is a version that wouldn’t inspire popular sympathy, so she was erased in favor of this more simple and lovable version. 

The entire modern reality of the ‘root for the villain’ retelling genre is always doing what the musical of Wicked did. (It in fact may very well be because of said musical.) It isn’t ever really about the untold story of why to root for someone who has done what you find unpalatable or unrelatable or despicable because it was right to them; it’s about taking the easy and palatable concepts of heroism and villainy and simply swapping the labels and color coding on who’s who to introduce a surface veneer of novelty while allowing the audience to carry on in general comfort with their predefined conceptions of who is deserving of sympathy and comfort. But what feels so insulting and frustrating and so damn sad about this specific case is that here, they do so while soothed by the consolation that they’ve definitely now been thoughtful and introspective about the subject and are able to sympathize with those different from them. They’ve definitely now learned to question the narrative. Right?

I’ve compared it to Hunchback before (Disney Hunchback fundamentally changes the plot and the themes of the original novel, but i happen to LIKE Disney Hunchback) and been like “why am I capable of loving one adaptation that does this and not the other” and, I dunno, there are a lot of reasons, but probably just because the kind of narrative the book has and the things it wants to say about the nature of heroism feel bitterly sad to lose, and it feels bitterer still to know most of the world was happy with what we got instead. I try to keep it packed away because I don’t want to bum people out and I know a lot of people that love the musical and I can verge on sounding judgemental of the people who like it, but it’s not the audience’s fault this was the version they were given and they happened to like it, it’s the fault of the tellers of the narrative…I dunno. 

I don’t have a good ending to this post. The only hopeful thing I’ve ever heard about it was someone pointing out to me recently that people are regardless of content more inclined to enjoy stageplays with music than books, which I took as reason to believe ‘maybe a musical of Wicked which had kept what was so bitterly amazing and meaningful and tragic about the original would actually be just as loved if it existed’. So though I know it’s pretty much guaranteed any further adaptations or versions will keep the ‘new’ story and that if they didn’t people would hate them lol, I’ll hold on to that little scrap of imagining that maybe people at large WOULD be capable of embracing the original narrative too, rather than the popularity of the musical being an indictment that says the world can’t handle a story like that.

Did the witch come back?

Not….

Yet…!

[david-talks-sw]

Picture a sculptor.

He sculpts an animal... and it was meant to be an elephant for a kids zoo, but because of the limits of his tools at the time, he stopped at the skeleton only.

And it's a great fucking skeleton! It's got that old feel to it, like a Rodin sculpture, but with a modern vibe.

The skeleton even has fans and stuff, and the fans go "we love this badass mammoth skeleton you sculpted!"

And this sort of bothers the sculptor. Because he was going for an elephant, not a mammoth, right?

So when he finally has the right tools, he completes the sculpture, so the next generation of fans can enjoy the elephant...

... and the previous generation of fans, who grew up reading and dreaming about a mammoth for 30 years, they go "wtf". They hate it.

Now, the sculptor takes on an apprentice, who is also a fan.

The apprentice learns the technique, learns how to look at the clay, how to get the right texture... and is able to do all this without going "wtf" because he looks at this elephant sculpture through an anti-establishment lens.

"Yes, it has shorter tusks and almost no hair, but the purpose of the sculpture is to say that it should be hairier, taller and with longer tusks. The whole point is that this elephant is failing to be the mammoth it's meant to be!"

And y'know, it's art! If that’s what this elephant means to him, great.

But once the tools are passed down to him, the apprentice (along with other sculptors) takes some clay and makes the tusks longer, adds some fur, shortens the ears, etc.

Overtime, he makes it a mammoth again.

Of course, most fans are happy again, including many who were introduced to the elephant as kids, because the transition was a slow one, done carefully.

And, hey, it's a nice mammoth!

My only issue is that I grew up loving the elephant, just as it was. I think the elephant was friggin’ great.

But nowadays, whenever the elephant is brought up, it's always through the lens of "it's failing to be a mammoth" rather than what the sculptor said it's supposed to be: just an elephant.

[irenespring]

Time for one of my favorite TV traditions, "watch the new episodes of Selling Sunset and argue with the screen like the people can hear me."

[sendmyresignation]

ok so knee deep in girls to the front which is incredibly interesting to hold up against dance of days. but the number one thing that keeps itching at my brain is like. I feel like so much of the discussion around riot grrl does a disservice to the fact this community was full of literal teenagers, both from the standpoint of why they were taking the specific actions they were, with what little political power young women are able to wield, but also explains why riot grrl... isn't perfect like god forbid the radical thought i had at seventeen doesn't just start a very public and easily hated youth moment but is also scrutinized and held up forever as The Thing You Believe Now. so much of my personal issue re: riot grrl is with the Canon and the retrospective understanding of the scene and much much less to do with the actual things fermenting in young people's minds/motivating them into taking actionable steps to mitigate unrelenting patriarchy because it's admirable to see young people take those steps.

[carefulfears]

what do you consider the heart of californication? like really carries through the series & makes it compelling

thank you for this question, i really love it. to me, it's a number of things, starting with that the show cares deeply about hank and takes him seriously in a way that the culture doesn't. in a way, yes, he's their dog and pony show with the funny one-liners and the salacious pull. but the arc of the series is unequivocally aligned with him and his desires and his needs and his values.

hank wants to be with his family, wants to be better for them, wants to not let them down- and the show needs him to fail at all of those things. for the dog and pony of it all, for their viewership and for their thesis and for the food in their mouths, but it simultaneously feels bad that he is failing. simultaneously knows that this isn't what he wants, and that it's sad. and it can be as simple as a dream sequence or a look or a quiet final scene, but every single episode is ultimately going to remind you that everything you're laughing at is a loss.

which, like i said at the top, speaks to a level of respect that the show had for the character that is just gone in discussions of the series. they take the time to recognize that he is missing something. he is losing something and he is without everything that means anything to him, this is the cost. equally important, duchovny respects that character and understands the same.

i was listening to an interview last night (trish you heard this) where he was speaking with some podcast dudebros and one of the hosts said that he always wanted to be just like hank moody, and then he made some "bad decisions" and got there, and he doesn't like it. and duchovny said that every time people come up to him saying "i'm just like hank moody," he says "i'm sorry."

men watch and they want to be just like hank moody and women watch and they want to fuck hank moody so bad, and all of you miss what the source comprehends: that it's an irreparable deficit.

other than that, i feel like what roots that show is that it really isn't all that cynical. not in the way that it could be. and the show believes in hank.

there is a lot of kindness and hope (often false hope) that runs underneath most every relationship and interaction and dynamic in the series and i really really appreciate that about it. it's like in the pilot when hank is being mean and he wants marcy to yell at him and she just says "go home, honey. sleep it off. tomorrow's another day."

there's always a little bit of understanding and grace amongst the crazies and i think there's something really special about that

[humanmorph]

it's crazy to me that everyone keeps saying the people at the archive are sooo nice because I kind of fucking hated it there. oh the people I found so unpleasant to be around that I started taking walks in the rain during my lunch break at 8°C in November so I didn't have to be inside? yeah haha (gritted teeth)

[heliianth]

the dark evil wizards have afflicted me with a hyperspecific interpretation of killuas "moral conflict" which leaves a lot of fan content that tries to engage with it unsatisfying. a wicked and foul hex indeed

[thedarklyblue]

not in a good mood rn..... god give me the strength to not cry in front of the director when we chat privately

[quicktimeeventfull]

i have had to take like a billion thousands days off work for medical(tm) reasons & like truly this may been paranoia but i feel like people were getting a bit irritable about the matter. HOWEVER today i brought donuts and everyone loves me again. this is the real life hack