#this isn’t meant to be discourse with the post mentioned because two opinions can exist at the same time | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

carinyms · 3 years ago

Text

I've scrolled through a lot of discourse on episode 4 of Loki and I need to talk about it

(good lord its a whole essay im sorry)

I gave myself a headache from crying while watching this. (I joined the Loki fandom post-IW so I’ve never had to see him die before while emotionally invested and boy!!! Is it doing things to my fragile psyche!!). But now I’m rehydrated and more stable and ready to party so let’s go

Right off the bat, I loved this episode — loved it loved it loved it. Silly, manic in-shock Loki is gone and shit is getting real. My thought while watching this was truly “wow this is my favorite episode so far” and damn am I in a minority with this opinion lol.

So here’s my perspective on some of the discourse flying around, and just general thoughts

On the whole ‘Narcissist’ thing:

IMO, Mobius saying this means nothing: he’s mad and he’s spouted lies at Loki to push his buttons before (see: every interaction they’ve had since episode 1).

Loki saying this to Sif-- well, Loki is and always has been an unreliable narrator on himself. The major theme of this show is that he doesn’t really know who he is, deep down, and he’s trying to figure it out. The TVA is taking advantage of this, and even though he’s trying to stay above it all throughout the series, he's still in a really impressionable spot and absorbing what others tell him about himself. (not to mention this scene is literal torture and he’s already proven that he’ll say whatever he needs to to get out of it.)

But he does admit one true thing when he says “It’s because I’m scared of being alone.” (And like wow okay same don’t mind my tears) but here’s a big brain idea!

Sif pulls him up and says ‘You are alone, and you always will be’, which is like, WOW that’s cruel after what he said, but it makes me ask wonder: Sif is sentient in this scene, but obviously it’s not really her. Who’s controlling her? And why is it so important for them to make sure Loki thinks he’s alone? I’d go as far as to wager that Sif never even said this to Loki, the big bad made this up. (he admits he forgot about this ever happening, I doubt he’d remember what she said.)

I think the nexus event on Lamentis that caused the branch was two Loki’s joining sides. Or, Loki no longer being alone. Loki insists while talking to Mobius that “she’s not my partner!” but she was, and they were partners from the moment they grabbed hands on Lamentis — right when the timeline broke off. I think Loki variants teaming up is the biggest threat to whoever is pulling the strings here — that’s why the post-credit scene is so significant. (Is Loki the only person who has multiple variants of himself who've escaped the TVA?)

And here’s where I’m gonna get salty--so I apologize but i need to rant about this-- but it’s seriously pissing me off that so many people are intentionally reading this as Loki/Sylvie and then being mad about it when that’s clearly not what’s happening and why is everyone acting like Mobius with one angry jealous brain cell and no critical thinking about the context of the characters.

If people ship it that’s chill, but for the people who are against it—it’s clearly supposed to be platonic, and it’s so upsetting that in the year of our lord 2021 we still can’t have a man and woman hold hands without people saying it’s proof they want to f*ck each other, like what in the misogyny??? STOP. This show was written by a bi woman and Tom the-most-emotionally-sensitive-man-on-this-planet Hiddleston — let them display an intimate loving friendship goddammit. This isn’t romance, this is Loki learning how to admit he cares for someone who cares for him in return — something he hasn’t experienced a whole lot of and clearly doesn’t know how to navigate.

(You have permission to personally come at me if it actually turns out to be romantic by the end of the show—but as of right now I will die on this hill.)

Him putting his hands on her shoulders to me was a clear indication he wanted to hug her, and I’d like to think he would have told her he cares about her, and that they can figure it out together. Because these are two characters who’ve never had anyone else to rely on and trust, and for the first time they’re not alone.

And I have to think about what prompted this from Loki. He just lost Mobius the moment after he called him friend. The way I see it, he’s just realized the true gravity of what they’re up against, and Loki is suddenly very afraid of losing Sylvie too before he tells her cares about her, of dying truly alone because he never told anyone what they meant to him. (Don’t think about this in the context of him also having watched his entire family die knowing he never told Frigga or Thor how much he loved them either don’t think about it—) He’s realized, finally, that he has doesn’t have to be alone, that he can choose to be close to people and have friends. And god it’s so heartbreaking that he never got to hug her or have that moment with her. I really hope they get that in the end. I hope he gets it with Mobius. I hope they have a group hug. I'm upset again.

Okay, deep breath, ANYWAY.

Hopefully this didn’t come off as attacking anyone else’s opinions.

Personally, I love this character so much, I’m just so happy to be seeing him in his own storyline that they can’t go wrong here. Objectively I think the production is amazing, and personally I love they way Loki’s character has been explored so far. (Yea yea, was I HOPING that the bad-memory loop would morph into Sanctuary and Thanos and like a full exploration of his true worst memories? Yes but let’s be honest my whump needs will never be met in canon and I have to accept that lol.)

Honestly I left all my own meta about this character at the door when the series started, because for me the opinions I’ve formed from the hundreds of (amazing) fics and meta I’ve read on this character and what’s true in canon are basically inseparable at this point, and no portrayal is going to live up to the way Loki exists in my head. Canon Loki and fic Loki are two different characters and I can enjoy both at the same time :) I’ve just loved seeing the character get given the different dimensions he deserves, and written by people who care about his story.

Also, it’s not over! If he was dead and this was it I’d be very upset, but this is the rock bottom of the storyline, and I think the whole next two episodes will be the build back up. I trust it’s gonna be worth it. SO hyped for flaming sword Loki. I would die for Sylvie, but I’m excited to see him on his own again.

My current most pressing questions are:

-what was the fallout of Sylvie’s bombing the timeline? (Have we seen that yet, am I just dumb and missing something?)

-Obviously, who’s behind it all? (Kang? Is there a head honcho Very Evil Loki at the top?)

-How much does Ravonna actually know, and to what extent is she just a pawn too? She asked Sylvie to prune her— she’s probably also been duped here.

-Is everything we learned about the sacred timeline BS? How much of what the TVA workers believe is real?

-my favorite theory so far is that the war of the timelines miss minutes talks about hasn’t actually happened yet, maybe making setting that into motion is the true endgame, leading into Multiverse of Madness?

(Side note: holy HELL im so excited for this soundtrack to drop on Spotify. It’s SO AMAZING I had CHILLS in the end credits.)

Open invitation to discuss anything with me if you feel inclined! :)

#if you read all of this please come say hi and be my friend because I don't know if even I'd read all this lol #loki #loki show #loki series #loki show spoilers #loki spoilers #loki series spoilers #loki show discourse #loki show positive #my disaster son has a show

46 notes · View notes

rachelbethhines · 4 years ago

Text

Tangled Salt Marathon - The Way of the Willow

Now here’s a controversial episode from season one. Let’s delve into the discourse, shall we.

Summary: It's Queen Arianna's birthday, and she receives an unexpected guest: her estranged sister, Willow. Willow and Rapunzel quickly bond, sharing a lot of the same personality traits (most notably them never wearing shoes), and Arianna feels a bit left out. To add to her aggravation, Willow has given her a pet with an annoying rattle. Eventually, Arianna explodes at her sister, letting her know her irritation with her and throws away the rattle. The pet starts to multiply and rampage over the countryside. Meanwhile, Lance and Eugene take the King camping.

More Filler, More Poor Pacing, More Fatigue

This is yet another episode that was moved around. Noticing a pattern yet? It doesn’t effect the plot much, but it kills the pacing dead. By the time you get to this episode you’re just tired and bored and ready for the show to just get on with things.

Let's Talk About Representation

So we have here a show that is marketed towards pre-teen little girls run by two middle aged white guys and written primarily by men. The creators have claimed that female relationships are the focus of the show, but only to give us one female friend for our main hero, no other friendships with women in them, just two sister relationships, and only one mother that is even alive.

Furthermore they go on to break up that single female friendship, refuse to give any focus to the only mother in the show, and then wrap the plot around the dead abusive mom instead, making her unnecessarily even more horrible than she was in the OG film. (just to make the equally abusive father in the show look better)

Meanwhile we get four father figures, all of whom are just some variant on the ‘overprotective estranged dad’ trope. Even though at least two of them could have been easily written to be mothers instead and it’d not change the plot one bit.

When women talk about about poor representation in media, it’s things like this we are often complaining about. That’s not to say that men can’t write women. Miyazaki, of Studio Ghibli fame, has made a lifelong career out writing movies for and starring women. Nor is this a claim that the TTS crew are misogynist. You can be well intentioned and still screw up. As is most often the case in films.

But nevertheless, if you are writing for a demographic that you are not a part of then you need to either include those voices in the development of your story or reach out and consult people within that demographic. And no, you’re wife/niece/daughter/mother does not count here. You need to go beyond your personal social circle, as people who either don’t know you or have worked in the industry can be more open about what is needed in the writing process.

Sadly there are rumors, (and please keep in mind this is only rumor, and we’ll never know the actual truth due to the fact that production artists are under contract and can’t share things without fearing for their livelihoods) but there are stories of the head showrunner shutting down the opinions of the female storyboard artists who warned him of some these creative decisions.

Moreover said creator responded to criticisms of how his female characters were written by claiming he ‘knew strong women in his life’ as if that actually had anything to do with his writing skills. It’s a poor response and smacks of ‘Well I can’t be misogynistic, I love women. See, I married one’. Dear, male creators, please don't ever do this. It makes you look bad.

So Where are Arianna and Willow From, Again?

The show keeps dropping hints that they’re from Corona itself and are born princesses, but that makes little sense. Because if Arianna was the rightful heir she’d have far more political power then she actually does in the show. If we’re to buy the idea that only Rapunzel will be in charge, and not her and Eugene, or even just Eugene. Then we have to accept that it’s because she’s the rightful heir by birth. If so, then Frederic must also be the blood heir or otherwise he wouldn’t be able to do all the things he does in the show.

TTS is so determine to not have any real world markers in the show and keeping things a ‘fantasy’ that it winds up swinging too far in the opposite direction. To the point that it undermines its own worldbuilding.

The Conflict Between Willow and Arianna is Good, but Unnecessary

I’ve seen some debate over ‘who is right’ here, along with tons of unwarranted shade thrown at Willow, but the truth is, it doesn’t matter. Neither side is right or wrong, and for once the conflict in TTS is real, complex, not easily solvable with a ten minute conversation, and is presented evenly so that you know where each side is coming from. But in the end, it doesn’t add anything to the series.

Willow is never seen outside of this episode. This is the only story that gives Arianna any kind of focus. Rapunzel learns nothing useful from witnessing their squabbles and it’s all build up to a be bad parable/parallel in the series finale.

It’s a waste. A waste of conflict. A waste of character. A waste of time.

Had Arianna been treated as an important character to the narrative, like she should have been, then maybe the episode would have fared better.

Arianna is Reduced to a Pointless Parallel

We talked about it before but this might be the most grievous example of Tangled’s useless parallels.

Willow and Arianna are meant to be ‘foreshadowing’ (and I use that term loosely) for Rapunzel and Cassandra’s conflict in the finale season. Let me count the ways of how bad this actually is..

For starters Willows and Arianna’s conflit isn’t actually the same as Raps and Cass. There’s some overlap, but ultimately theirs is actually deeper and more complex than the Raps vs Cass stuff. It’s also only between them and does not involve ruining the lives of other people. So it’s a weak comparison to begin with.

Cassandra isn’t even here to make the parallel complete. She barely interacts with Arianna and has never met Willow on screen.

Rapunzel learns the wrong lessons from this. She gets encouragement from her aunt to go traveling and a pep talk from her mom during the show’s finale, but she doesn’t actually apply any of the actual context of the arguments being made to her own life. Making the parallel shallow.

Reducing a character from the original film, one that you did not create and who has reasons to be have more plot importance then they are given, to a mere ‘parallel’ for your favorite OC is just bad fanfiction. This is something that I would expect from a seven year old setting out to write their first ever story. Not from grown adults, who are supposedly professionals, who've worked for years in the industry and are employed by the largest entertainment studio in the world.

Now before you jump down my throat, there’s nothing wrong with fanfiction itself, nor with children exploring their favorite stories in ways they find personally fulfilling. But I happen to hold mass produced media to a different, and ultimately higher standard. As well should we all. A television show made by the mouse has more real world impact than a little girl posting on Ao3.

Critiquing stuff like female representation, the behind the scenes hiring processes that leads to either good or bad rep, and the impression these stories can have on people still developing their worldviews is important. Questioning things are needed in order to make change happen. If you never acknowledge how giving a show targeted to women to a male showrunner can cause problems then you’re never going to push the big companies for more female lead shows. Which means more women are left without work.

This is Subjective but...

I don’t like the Uumlaut being used as the main conflict. Look, if you like the Gremlins references, good for you, but I was promised sword fights and adventure according to the pilot and all I got was a parody of a 80s horror comedy that decided to skip out on the ‘horror’ part. The Uumlaut isn’t threatening enough to be interesting and the lack of real threats and challenges in this show is really starting to weigh things down. Plus it just distracts from the far more interesting human drama going on with Willow and Arianna.

Like if you don't want action to be the focus of every episode, that’s fine, but commit to that. Don't just half-ass it because you feel the need to shoehorn in an action sequence where it isn’t needed.

Conclusion

I like Willow as a character, but not this episode. They needed to do more with her to justify her existence, and they needed to do more with Arianna while at it. Sadly, you won't really miss out on much if you decided to skip this episode and that’s a shame.

Also...

I’ll forever headcanon that Willow is the wife that Stan mentioned back in Rapunzel’s Enemy and that she’s his and Pete’s beard. You can’t change my mind. Poly relationships for the win!

#tangled #anti-tangled #willow #arianna #repersentation #critique #tangled the series #rapunzel's tangled adventure #tts #rta

41 notes · View notes

meanwhileinthebroomcloset · 5 years ago

Text

Mhm... This post was meant to be much shorter, honestly. Not to mention it got super personal, which was not my intention. It actually made me a bit teary-eyed and I’m usually an emotional constipated dumbass.

Am I ready for the potential backlash this is going to cause? Eh, probably not. Am I going to engage in the discourse this can cause? Ah, you wished. I have more to waste my energy on. I didn’t write this post to argument with anyone, anyway.

Gonna risk it, still.

-----------------------------------------

Isn’t it kind of ironic that it was witchcraft that made me fully return to Catholicism?

I mean, I kind of never left, hence the ‘’fully’’ in that sentence. But now I really know who I am. Although I don’t think Catholicism is the most accurate label (Christo-pagan, perhaps?) it’s the one I grew up with, and the one that comes more naturally to me.

Studying the beginning of it all, the commentaries of Pagans and Jewish writers at the time are just so fascinating and honestly beautiful.

Then everybody started chasing and killing each order, and it sure wasn’t fascinating anymore.... ‘’Stop being murderous revenge-driven assholes’’ I angrily mutter into my book, while frying my brains for High Middle Ages exams.

And then it split into Catholicism and Arianism (not that Arianism! The no-holy-trinity-on-my-watch one), and that was a totally different can of worms. Then Rome got pissy and the Orthodox Church officially became a thing that existed.

Man, why is religion so messy?

Faith is such a strange thing. So much power, so much potential for good and evil and everything in between. I started losing mine some years ago.

Contrary to some horror stories you may hear, especially from people who are now no longer Christian, I was raised in a pretty open environment.

‘’Don’t be mean, have faith, give second chances... Here are the commandments. They’re perfectly acceptable, see?’’

‘’Yes, there are different religions, but you should always respect them and the people that believe in them. Remember, Jesus was Jewish. Here’s some historical context... ‘’

‘’What the hell kid, nobody here is going to hell. Also, you’re five, there are no children in hell. No, the cops also won’t... Lord give me patience... Are you sorry? Did you apologize? Are you going to try to not repeat it? Great! Then it’s all fine and dandy!’’

‘‘Man, we are definitely all going to hell... At least since we’re all gonna be there, we could form a basketball team. The devil can be the referee. He will be an awful one, but hey, we’re in hell’‘

‘’I know the bible says the earth was created in seven days, but when that story was written, people didn’t know dinosaurs were a thing. Science is cool, and we are not in the middle ages. ‘’

‘’Blind faith is dangerous, kid.’’

‘’Thinking thoughts and acting upon them are two very different things.’’

‘’Yes, the second mom in that Solomon story was willing to see another kid die for the sake of an argument... sometimes people are that bad.’’

‘’God is perfect. People aren’t. That’s the world we live in and it’s okay.’’

‘’There are people who do terrible things in name of religion or say they’re doing it because the bible says so. Don’t believe them. There’s no excuse for murder and abuse.’’

‘’Yeah, Portugal is very enthusiastic when it comes to Catholicism... ’’

Pretty good summary of religion in my childhood.

Still, I found my faith waning. I didn’t really know why and I’m still a bit iffy talking about that.

‘’What did witchcraft do, then?’’

Well for once, it reinforced my ideas on how faith worked, and how strangely powerful it can be. Being skeptical is healthy but completely closing yourself off because something isn’t completely clear is too radical and you're just doing the equivalent of closing your eyes to the less brighter lights.

My god, I can hear the hardcore atheists coming...

Can I remind you there are more things in life that will not provide the proof you want, but that won’t mean they aren’t there? Relationships. Relationships are too complicated to have straight answers, a lot of the times. People hide their feelings, they fake them, express them and react to them differently. There are so many things we don’t understand or know about yet, like space and organisms that live on this Earth.

Sometimes what you need is a different approach to see they exist! It’s one of the things I learned with witchcraft.

There was also the religion itself. As I worked on my magic, I started seeing magic around me again. Not just with gods I had never considered and the one I was leaving behind, but with the faith I had always known.

The affection when someone says ‘’Our Lady’’ when talking about the Virgin Mary, my family calling upon Saint Barbara when thunder comes, children screeching excitedly because the Compasso has arrived to give us the news that Jesus has come to life again in Easter, the marble cemeteries, the comforting prayers, the masses I couldn’t ear because the local church’s echo is terrible, those boring long-ass weddings (oh my god, how many blessings do two people need?!), the loving dedication I see in every saint carved, my church's priest’s good humor... I never owned a rosary, but I always like the ones my aunts and grandparents keep.

I found Christian and Catholic witches on this site and I finally got to my conclusion. It’s really there. I just needed a different approach to it!

These things made me believe again, but also in new things.

‘‘But you can’t do that! You can’t combine magic and christianity’‘

Oh, watch me. And also watch the centuries of cunning women and witches in European history and those still alive today. The women that make ‘’mezinhas’’ and other types of favors in Portugal sure as hell are doing witchcraft, but you can bet your ass they don’t think they’re any less Catholic than anyone else. They don’t care about your opinions and I will hopefully do the same.

Relationships with deities are personal, and my relationship with God, Jesus and all of them is no different in that regard. I am a witch, I am human, I am catholic. I’m a follower, not a fucking mindless sheep.

You know what? I always compared God to Aslan. The lion wasn’t always there for Narnia, he wanted his people to solve their problems on their own. Get their independence, as a good parent does. They both don’t come up all mighty, that’s a posture reserved for evil and people who need a good slap in the face. They come to your level. God may come through one of the less eldritch abomination looking angels, though...

‘‘Well, if you have god, you shouldn’t need anything more. He's everthing. Why are you also a witch?’‘

Excuse me, do I look like a goddamned saint to you?! What part of human did you not understand?

And before you bitterly start quoting the Old Testament, let me remind you that it’s Old for a reason. Christ came to this earth to give us new rules since he technically saved us and things became different. That’s why Jewish people follow the Old Testament, for them, the messiah hasn’t arrived yet. Not to mention that to them that testament is not Old, it’s just the Torah.

You can keep quoting the bible to me all you want. But in my short twenty years of life, I was thankfully able to learn a few things. One of them is that the world isn’t black and white. Yes, I know this sounds obvious but there are some really dumb people out there. Also, this is the hellscape that we call tumblr.

Anyway, as I have mentioned several times before, I’m a never-ending knowledge seeker I found the world beneath my feet is not pure myth and I want to explore it. Look at me go.

I keep a critical mind with everything. Faith and religion are not an exception. I’m not overly skeptic about faith itself, but I am of its writings, interpretations, translations and etc... I study history, it’s a skill you naturally develop.

And there’s quite a few plot-holes, characterization differences and much more. It was written by humans that couldn’t do a cohesive collaboration even if their lives depended on it. Godphones sometimes don’t get a good reception. There’s a ton of cultural context to unpack. I hear people saying all the time that taking the bible’s words literally is one of the most stupid things you can do.

And when I say people, I mean priests, clergy, theology students, etc... I didn’t hear this from my drug dealer in the street corner..

...... I don’t have a drug dealer.....

Anyway...

There are many problems with the catholic church. There are many problems with a ton of catholic and christians out there. I will never deny that. Shit needs to get fixed and maybe even chucked into the trash.

But I still believe in God, I still believe in the saints but I also still believe there are more gods and spirits out there. And those things are separate.

I have no interest in converting you. I’m just yelling into the void.

If you are one of those that no longer is a christian, or catholic because some dipshits banged self-hate onto your head, I’m really sorry. I hope you heal well and get the help you need in your new faith or lack of it. Banging the ten commandments back onto their heads repetiedly and tell them to actually read the damn book is optional, though.

In the end, if you are (or are trying) to be good, you deserve respect and freedom to worship whoever or whatever you want. You don’t need to be perfect, you can just strive to be the best you can be in your situation.

--------------------------------------------

And now back to our schedueled programing.

#well #that was a thing #rant #christian witch #catholic witch

12 notes · View notes

lesbianau · 6 years ago

Note

I'm a trans mtf gal majoring in LGBT/queer studies so I'd just like to add something! English isn't my first language rip so I apologize for my grammar. But there was so much misinformation being promoted yesterday and from what I could tell the op's of these posts were mostly cisgender? Which is so so uncomfortable. The idea of these messages from cis people on gender being cemented in this fandom as the acceptable way to talk about gender is a bit distressing. And from what I can(...)

tell from following you is that you’ve been very respectful about this topic from the posts you reblogged so overall I feel comfortable sharing this message with you. Since it seems like others who tried to do the same thing were met with hostility and anger. So to get to the point, I’d just like to say that from where I stand, with both academic and personal experience with this, er, discourse, is a few things. A lot of people have already said this and for whatever reason(…)

it’s been rejected. Which is bad! Let me make this clear: gender exists as a mental, emotional, and physical spectrum. It’s incredibly complex. A queer person’s experience with gender is their own to put into words. No one else can. This goes for gender identity and gender expression. The reason why it’s such a sensitive topic is because the idea of gender we know know comes from a misogynistic, homophobic, and transphobic society. When you assign gender- that is, categorize(…)

(I’m putting the rest under the cut, but this is a very interesting read i highly recommend)

anything at all as either feminine or masculine- you are by default perpetuating those standards. Pink is not feminine, blue is not masculine, sewing is not feminine, woodwork is not masculine, certain manners of speech or dress or walk or physical features- none of these things that are gendered. Society assigned them genders and decided to shape us around it. It is through this idea that queer people experience oppression, shame and violence. It is because of it. And as(…)

long as we continue to live in this society it’s an influence that we cannot escape. It shapes us, our perception and our beliefs on a subconscious level whether we like it or not. To change it would mean undoing centuries of social conditioning on a global scale. It just can’t be done. What we can only do is decide for ourselves our own feelings with gender, sexuality, etc. We weren’t born with the perks of falling into every societal standard demanded of us. As a result(…)

we are forced to examine our identities and try to make sense of what makes us feel a disconnect with the identity we’re told we must have. For some it’s a journey away from those societal standards entirely. For others it’s about finding a more comfortable spot within those norms. There is no invalid way of experiencing this. For gender specifically the experience is even more nuanced, confusing and delicate. This is because the further away one strays from gender norms(…)

specifically the greater the danger. There can be fatal consequences to simply existing as a trans individual. Both from violence and suicide. Because this is what our society perpetuates. So the second any of us project something born from discrimination and hatred onto anyone or anything other than ourselves, we are are honoring what it was meant to do. As a trans woman my experiences with masculinity have been very unpleasant and as such I’m very sensitive about conversations(…)

involving femininity and masculinity. For me womanhood is something I associate with femininity and I can’t break free from my feelings about it. However not all women feel this way. There are masculine women who are joyous in their womanhood and they are valid in their experience. It does not and would never affect my experience nor would mine affect theirs. Unless I came up to her and told her women can only be feminine or she came up to me and congratulated me on(…)

being a feminine man because we would both cause each other a lot of pain. Even if she meant to be nice to me I would be experiencing depression for weeks even though she meant no harm and even if she apologized to me right after. Another example is if someone told me they loved how feminine my demeanor despite having no hips I would probably burst into tears right there! I can’t help but have a very traditional view of gender in regards to my own identity. I’m a feminine woman(…)

who thinks everything I am and do is feminine. But because I can’t afford to transition I feel that I have to be more loyal to societal norms of gender in hopes I can be more passing. I see a feminine woman when I look in the mirror without makeup or my wig. But the world doesn’t see that. I go to sleep a masculine cis man according to society. Hell, I’m a cis man crossdressing in a wig to my neighborhood Kroger when I groceries. Someone might say that to me as a complement(…)

but hearing things like that nearly drove me to suicide in my teens. I can’t think of a more clear example of the harm in societal gender norms. It is a one-sided word. I walk towards the handle and I am given security. I love being a girly girl and wearing pink and wearing padded bras and a wig because I feel feminine and when I feel feminine I feel like a woman. If I were to take all that sitting at the tip of my sword and walked right towards a trans man what do you(…)

think would happen? It’s a terrible thing! If I waved around my sword out in the open- gave my view of gender and interpreted the identity of gender according to my experiences- what do you think would happen? It’s dangerous! And what I see every day with Harry is a lot of sword waving. Yesterday it was an outright sword fighting! When people were saying what made Harry masculine and feminine the only thing they were doing was promoting every homophobic, mysogynistic and transphobic(…)

and traditional societal standard of gender. Harry’s feminine because of this, followed by a statement that is meant to contrast the previous one regarding why he is masculine because of something else. The excuse is that they’re appreciating how multidimensional he is. But what they do is very blatantly categorize these traits as paradoxical. That there is something about the things being mentioned that are different, complex and unharmonious. And(..)

in a way that is the most harmful they make the implication that this is something he means to be. Harry has made a connection with gender and himself and it’s very simple. Masculinity, femininity, womanhood and manhood. The context has always been lighthearded and it has always been consistent. There is ironically no complexity at all. By simply wearing a leopard print suit he became Shania Twain according to his friends. He thoughtlessly talks about being pregnant without(…)

commenting on his gender or biology. So I find it strange that others try to make him out to be so deeply complex when he talks about himself so bluntly! The only way to speak on gender identity and gender expression is to take cues from the other person and stay true to respecting their identity. This is never seems something that’s given to Harry in the way people talk about him. It is the only way you can refer to someone’s gender identity ever. When he is taken apart(…)

and categorized into what is and is not comparable it directly opposes how he talks about himself. This isn’t something that doesn’t do his character justice or undermines what a complex and multifaceted human being he is. I’m a complex and multifaceted person and I only connect with one gender! I don’t like how this always used as an excuse or even something that comes into question. The only way to talk about gender and everything that falls into it is by mirroring(…)

the comments of the individual and those closest to them who are already doing the same. By not doing that you’re stepping into the minefield that is societal gender norms. It’s no wonder the people at the forefront of yesterday’s discourse were met with an entire onslought of outrage. This is how it will always be and honestly should be. People need to learn compassion and understanding and distance if they are trans or not. The great irony is the fight to establish(…)

Harry’s masculinity and the guilt that is demanded from those who don’t mention it the way they do. Not being masculine is one of the rare things Harry’s been very vocal about. Yesterday’s discussion should’ve never escalated the way it did. This is much bigger than fandom. Because what is shared is what you are being told is oksay by the person. If they compare themselves to women and use female pronouns then take cue. If they says they are not masculine then take cure. If(…)

the person shares with you a comment involving themselves within the gender spectrum then this is the only thing it’s okay to repeat. To speak generally is to place your view of gender onto a queer person who will always be listening and who will always disagree. Reading through some of the things from yesterday broke my heart in two. I don’t ever want to see such reckless comments on gender in a fandom full of so many queer people ever again. Wasn’t the outrage and pain obvious enough? I(…)

just can’t believe it could happen when the person they were arguing about has, to me, been more than clear about how they are comfortable being spoken about in their relationship with gender. If my opinion is of any value to people then I hope they listen and make an effort to at least think about something I said in the giant essay I didn’t meant to send you initially rip I apologize for that Kaleigh! I didn’t mean to send as many messages as I must have after all these hours(…)

I couldn’t help but get this off my chest. At least a trans person has had a say in this in a way outside of yesterday’s debate and maybe people will be more understanding of what really went so wrong yesterday. Anyway thank you so much for giving me this space Kaleigh! I hope I worded myself well enough and didn’t accidentally miss the anon button 😭 Have a lovely day ❤💙💚💛💜

hello darling! thank you for sending this to me because while i know a lot of what was being discussed was making me uncomfortable, i also didn’t feel comfortable speaking on it because i didn’t feel educated enough to do so. i’m sorry people made you uncomfortable and you’re so strong for reaching out to educate people who happen to read this. gender/identity is so personal, and people trying to “disprove” certain aspects of someone’s expression just to fit their personal narrative is so horrible and in no way okay in an lgbtq+ space. i love you a lot and i really really appreciate these messages ❤️

#you're incredible and so valid honey!!#thank you for spending so much time on this!!#asks #anon

75 notes · View notes

serenagaywaterford · 6 years ago

Note

1) Hey, it's me again. The idiot rambling anon. I wasn't gonna spam you again, but then I read your responses. At this point, I'm convinced you're my alter ego, lol. My thoughts are all over the place, but I'll try to organize them. So, about Nick. I've purposely avoided talking about him so far, but why the hell not? Let me make one thing clear: I'm NOT of of those thirsty fangirls. But even if I was? I wouldn't get offended or butthurt, because another person likes different fictional

2) characters (of all things) than me. I mean, big fucking deal. Each to their own, no need for apologies. ;) (My tone is a little aggressive, I know, but I’m sick and tired of some people on social media –in and out of fandoms– acting holier-than-thou and sending hate messages and even actual death threats (!) to creators or people that express unpopular opinions*. It’s reached a point where many people feel the need to put disclaimers in their posts so as not to be attacked.)

3) Back to Nick. I liked him just fine back in early S1, when he was all mysterious and his background story was unknown to us. When we did learn about it and the fandom started acting like he’s that pure, handsome angel uwu? Nah. Obviously, he’s no Fred/Serena/Lydia,but he’s not a “cinnamon roll” either. (Imo, the only decent dude on that show is Luke.) I mean, if Nick was SO altruistic, he wouldn’t have joined this job. Or even after everything went down, he could have tried to help other

4) handmaids without expecting anything in return. But no, he only helps June and that’s because he’s in love with her. I’m not blaming him for trying to survive under such circumstances, but I won’t idolize him either. Now, in s2? I’m kinda neutral about him. I don’t hate him, but I can’t say that I’m a fan either. Not gonna lie, he bores me at times, because he’s just… there. No sparks, no fireworks. Not sure if it’s the writing that doesn’t do the actor any favors, but his acting hasn’t

5) really drawn me in yet. A counterexample to this? Aunt Lydia. Her personality is despicable 98% of the time and yet. Dowd’s captivating performance makes me want to know so much more about her character.) On the other hand, I’m glad that June has someone (besides Rita) to back her up in that hellhole. She needs comfort and allies. But the whole ‘tRu Love 5eva" fanon thing? No, thanks. Not only it doesn’t fit the tone of the series, but I also believe that sharing an intense, forbidden love/

6) during such a shitstorm is not the same thing as keeping it alive after all is said and done (post-Gilead). Maybe they’ll stay together (as long as Nick doesn’t die), maybe they’ll fall apart. I can’t really see June romantically reconnecting with Luke either. After everything she’s been through… She’s a completely different person now. Unfortunately, the same things goes for Emily and her wife. Even though I’d love to see her interact with both her wife and her child in S3.

———

My inbox is so beautiful right now! Never, ever call yourself an idiot, my friend. (If you are, then so am I!) Brain twins, you see.

(Also sorry about this being out of order lol.)

I was trying not to talk about him too cos generally I just … I prefer not to think about him much. The fangirls, just, *sigh*. I try to avoid as much as possible in this fandom, esp on tumblr. Just hang out in my quiet little, not-Serena-hating corner. I always feel a need to put disclaimers these days cos as much as I don’t really care about random hate, I’d prefer not to have to deal with dogpiles or to look at it lmao. Like people can go around just hating on any character here–especially if they’re women–but say one critical (not even hateful) thing about their male fav and things just go off.

I’m more than aware the majority of people don’t like Serena and think she’s the worst thing ever. And fair play! (I get it… cos I’m not delusional. She’s awful.) Each to their own. I don’t go around bitching at people who say shitty things or stuff I don’t agree with, or blocking anybody who doesn’t like her. (There are a few posts I do engage with cos normally they seem like they want to go deeper in The Discourse but most Serena/Lydia/Eden/Janine/June-hate I just ignore.)

ITA. S1 was, like, okay. That’s Nick. What’s he up to? What’s his deal? (I don’t really care but I’m not opposed to him either. Just like I didn’t care about Luke’s backstory/escape.) He’s trying to be good to June and she needs that.When we did learn his backstory I was not pleased cos he seemed like a twerp but whatevs. Grey characters are grey. It wasn’t until S2 that I started to get irked by him (and the hypocrisy of his fans but that’s a whole other issue).

I can’t agree ANY more with your assessment of Nick. Like that’s EXACTLY what I’ve been saying! Firstly, he was RIGHT THERE when the Handmaid/Ceremony thing was first suggested and was like “Oh, yeah, great idea!” to Fred. I get that perhaps he was pressured to go along to keep his job but that’s a stretch imo, and if you can give him that sort of leeway, why can’t characters like Eden, Serena, Lydia and June get the same benefit of the doubt for certain things? Why is Nick’s pressure to keep his job more important and forgivable than anybody else’s pressures? It’s like that entire scene doesn’t exist to fangirls and Nick is so precious and in love and wonderful. Then there’s the rape of June. Like I know it’s pretty controversial to look at it that way, but that first time, with Serena overseeing it like a fucking creepy pimp (YUUUUUUCCCKKKKK I HATE IT THANKS) was rape. June barely knew the guy and I’m pretty sure if she wanted to have sex with him it wouldn’t be like that! And sure, after that, it was totally consensual but that first time was not. And I’ve heard the justification and excuses of “Well, Nick didn’t have a choice either!” which I call bullshit on, cos Nick is not some powerless delivery boy.

He’s a fucking Guardian who is tight with the top Commanders. He’s a man, if nothing else. Serena can act all high and mighty but she’s still a woman in a highly misogynistic society. I’m not convinced Fred would take his wife’s word over Nick’s tbh, especially if it was like “Dude, your crazy wife asked me to fuck the Handmaid you’re obsessed with”. If he really didn’t want to do it that badly, he could have taken that chance to report Serena. Even if Fred wanted to keep it hush hush away from other Commanders, he would have gone after Serena. Men are far more likely to turn on women than each other, esp in THT. But that’s just my take. Maybe I am missing something about Nick’s status. To me, it was like double rape. Neither of them wanted to do it, like that anyway. But Nick also did fuck all to stop it when IMO he did have some power to do something. He is not a helpless victim in that society, imo. Again, probably not a well-received opinion.

Don’t even get me started on his “Poor me!” routine in S2 when June tells him to have sex with Eden. I’m glad she called him on that bullshit. (But again, over the fangirls heads. Enough about them!)

Basically, everything Nick has done wrong isn’t his choice; he’s just a victim. In a story about women, Nick’s victimhood at the hands of these nasty women and men is the real issue. Blah. Whatever.

I just find Nick lacks total self-awareness about being part of the shitty ass system. He kind of just floats around thinking nothing is his fault and he’s blameless for it all, and he certainly can’t seem to see it from anyone’s perspective except his own. He’s upset about Fred & June’s Jezebel trips, not for her own safety or well-being but mainly he’s jealous. Of course he’s concerned about her safety but I believe it takes a backseat to his jealousy. He just seems to never take any responsibility for anything.

And BINGO about the previous Handmaid. Nothing we’ve been shown has given any hint he cares about any other woman’s plight in Gilead other than June, and only cares about her cos he had a crush/fucked her/is in wuv wiv her. Basically, she’s HIS so suddenly he cares about her. Look how fast he dumped that Martha as soon as he got brooding about June. He’s done fuckall for anybody except himself and that alone makes me dislike him. He’s no better than Fred in that way for me. But where Fred can occasionally be an interesting villain, cos Fiennes is nasty good, I find the actor who plays Nick just… not engaging. And he’s not SUPPOSED to be a villain! He’s meant to be a good guy! It’s crazy. He’s not compelling, he’s not interesting. He’s bland. He’s not even good looking, lol. I was watching with a friend once and mention I thought Fred was way better looking than Nick and she just stared at me and said, “You shouldn’t say that. But me too.” So, count me in the camp that just does not get the appeal of the character OR the actor.

I don’t hate Nick generally. I am just totally indifferent to his existence. If he left the show tomorrow, I’d shrug and probably be a little glad I don’t have to see that bland moping anymore. If he stays, oh well. Shrug. And I just don’t want his and June’s star-crossed romance shoved down my throat. It’s so… I dunno. I’m not opposed to June finding solace and hope but making it some beautiful forbidden romance, I’m not buying it. Like you said, it’s all well and good in Gilead–but it doesn’t strike me as something that can be sustainable outside it. To borrow from you last time: It’s the Handmaid’s Tale, not The Guardian + the Handmaid’s Tale.

Okay, enough about that pipsqueak. I don’t even like talking about him, tbh. He’s not worth it when there’s so much else going on.

ITA about Luke/June too. I feel like the level of disconnection and trauma that they’ve sustained, especially June, they can try to reconnect but it’s pretty difficult and I think especially with June having a sexual/romantic relationship with Nick pulls that really tight. It’s just two different planets they live on now. I don’t doubt that she still loves Luke, but actually reforming the relationship they previously had seems like an impossible task considering everything both of them have been through. It’s sad, but … sadly true for many people. Relationships can fall apart for far less.

And on the same page about Emily/Sylvia too. She is just soooooo fucking broken, and hopeless, that if they have them just rekindle with no issues, it’ll be bad writing. (I dunno if you see spoilers but there’s one about them.) She needs therapy so much more than a cutesy feelgood storyline.

Back to Lydia: Exactly! There’s a character we know very little about and who is a horrible person, yet the performance by Dowd makes almost everyone go, “TELL ME MORE!” With Nick, it’s the opposite for me. I’m just like, “Please, less of this.”

#Anonymous #rants and raves

1 note · View note

longlivefeedback · 7 years ago

Text

AO3 and Feedback: general overview

If you’re reading this, you’ve probably seen this post about ao3, feedback culture, and problems we have as both authors and readers.

We (as in, the two people who wrote that post) got, uh, a lot more of a response than we were expecting, and so that’s shifted the project from an open call for brainstorming to something originally much further down the line. However, before getting into that (because we’re still sorting things out!), we want to discuss some of the general opinion trends. This isn’t meant to be taken as comprehensive or any sort of statistical analysis, since we’re not able to sort through everything at this time, but rather to further the discussion as a whole.

Under the cut - why people don’t leave comments, the most popular suggestions, the most controversial suggestions, and what they tell us about the strengths and shortcomings of feedback culture and features on ao3.

Why don’t people leave comments?

“I don’t know what to say.” This was a reason given in support of comment ‘templates,’ or some sort of feature that gave outlines for possible comments (for example, “quote your favorite line in the fic and explain why you liked it/how it made you feel.”

“I’m shy”/”I don’t feel like I have anything important enough to say.” This is another reason given that points to a gap in our basic commenting abilities as a community. While tutorials for commenting exist, they’re not enough. Many readers simply don’t feel that they can give valuable feedback, which is understandable, because commenting is a skill. It’s something that has to be learned and practiced, and it can be hard to start out. Because feedback is such a vital part of fandom, we should look for new ways (and promote old ways!) to teach and learn how to leave comments. Once again, these were reasons cited in support of the comment ‘template’ idea.

“I’m on my phone.” MOOD, though. It can be incredibly difficult to refer back to the fic while leaving comments on mobile, and this is the trickiest problem to address because it’s purely a matter of difficulty with the format itself.

Which ideas were the most popular?

Native floating review box. A userscript for this is available, but accessibility (eg knowing about this, knowing how to use it, knowing how to keep it running, and being able to use it on your phone) is a major issue. Pros: basically everything Cons: ???

A per-chapter analogue to kudos (not leaving multiple kudos) This was by far the most popular suggestion, but not without its potential pitfalls. Pros: many authors said that they would love this feature to maintain motivation and a connection to their readership while writing multi-chapter fics. Many readers mentioned always wanting to leave extra kudos, and that this is a way to give some sort of love while binge-reading a fic. Cons: Authors worry that readers would opt to leave an impersonal “like” instead of a comment, thus decreasing original feedback. Other authors said that they would get too discouraged if the number declined as the story went on. This also adds another number for authors who are anxious about the kudos/hits ratio to worry or agonize about. There is a root problem here of measuring your worth as an author through these numbers, but that is a discussion for another day. AO3 has already encountered this idea, though at this point we don’t know if it was as multiple kudos or a separate system. Dialogue incoming! Conclusion: reader response for multi-chapter fics is one of the biggest problems and frustrations authors on ao3 face, and one a common reason as to why fics end up abandoned. Addressing this on an individual and a community level should be a top priority for fandom as a whole.

Native feature to quote specific lines/ability to interact or comment on individual parts of a fic. This has implications for both how we interact with fics and how we comment. First, it shows that many readers prefer to make their comments very specific to individual lines, phrases, or paragraphs, and find that their ability to do this by quoting manually isn’t ideal for reasons of convenience, character count limits, and... well, because we’re all on our phones. Once again, there is a userscript to address this, but the aforementioned problems still apply. Conclusion: how we interact with stories as readers is more specific and piecemeal, and it doesn’t always mesh well with having one big comment at the end. Much of this could be addressed with a native floating review box (and seriously, everyone who can should install that userscript, it’s increased my comment quality and frequency dramatically).

Comment templates/outlines of suggested comments/questionnaire or prompt to help people get started This has already been discussed, so we’ll keep it short here. This is one of the more complicated ideas, so people had a lot of different ideas of how it could look or be implemented - think of it as a rough sketch. Pros: provides a basic jumping off point to get readers started with a comment. Non-native speakers who are commenting in a second (or third, or fourth, etc.) language have said that this would help them structure their comment. Readers were often fairly positive. Cons: Authors are concerned that this would result in a lot of generic, cookie-cutter comments and a decrease in overall original feedback, as well as happiness regarding receiving comments at all. Conclusion: A bonus for people who don’t know what to say, another hurdle to climb for our inherent laziness. As for which way it would end up going... there isn’t really a way to know unless we can watch it in action. If anyone knows of other sites that have tried this, please send them our way. Secondary conclusion: writing comments is often described as “easy,” but the topic is a lot more complicated than that and we should address it.

Which were the most controversial?

Comment templates Bet y’all didn’t see this one coming. Lots of people love the idea, lots of people hate it. There does seem to be a split between reader opinion and author opinion, which tells us that authors love personalized feedback. So, comment! We’ll love you for it! Quote a line, liveblog your emotional reactions using a floating review box, find your favorite sort of comment and use it to create a template you can copy, paste, and personalize for the specific story.

Upvotes on comments General consensus seemed to be that commenters really want to interact with each other, but don’t want to commit to leaving an entire reply. On the other hand, this would be abused to leave hate, deteriorate into #discourse and flames, and could make comments feel pressured or competitive, all of which detracts attention from the fic itself and makes it an altogether unpleasant experience. In addition, no one’s really sure how many people (other than the author) read the comments. In conclusion, we want to talk to each other about the fic... somehow... and it would be great to find a way to encourage this part of the community. Since a lot of us spend most of our time online on tumblr, it can be difficult to have a multi-person discussion about stories, which is evidently something people want.

So, to conclude this whole thing, it’s been a hell of a day and we’ve gotten a lot of information about why people don’t comment, what people want from comments, and what people don’t want to risk losing with respect to what we already have.

We’re working on another post to discuss ideas that were proposed but didn’t get much discussion, but that’s another talk for another day.

Thank you all!

#longlivefeedback #ao3 #fandom #fanfic #ao3 feedback #the great feedback debate

447 notes · View notes

chokobananya · 8 years ago

Text

[TRANSLATION] MAX Matsuura x ELLY x Yamashita Kenjiro x Iwata Takanori (Gekkan EXILE May 2017)

Hi! It’s been a long time since I posted my translations in here. I’ve encountered people reposting my translations on their own twitter account without credits. I reminded those people and apparently, my reminders were taken too personal. I’m just hoping it won’t happen again. >_<

My reminders regarding reposting of translations: Click HERE.

This is an interview with Max Matsuura along with JSB Members: Yamashita Kenjiro, ELLY, and Iwata Takanori. Apparently, the first part was in the previous issue of Gekkan EXILE so if anyone has scans please let me know! ^_^ (Thanking my twitter mutual, CINTAAMONYET for the scans! <3)

I’m also hashtagging Tosaka Hiroomi and Sekiguchi Mendy since they were mentioned here!

ENTERTAINMENT CURRENT AFFAIRS MAX Matsuura x ELLY x Yamashita Kenjiro x Iwata Takanori

LEGEND: M – MAX Matsuura E – ELLY Y – Yamashita Kenjiro I – Iwata Takanori

A Continuation from the Previous Issue, the performers of Sandaime J Soul Brothers ELLY, Yamashita Kenjiro, and Iwata Takanori appear! A start of discourse from the different perspectives of the performers, a secret birthday present, and a lot more will be talked about.

Q1: In a continuation of the previous issue, the guests are Sandaime J Soul Brothers ELLY-san, Yamashita Kenjiro-san, and Iwata Takanori-san. Since all three of them are together with Matsuura-san, [we] would like to hear the kind of image you have on a performer from each of you. M: Nowadays, we have this position called a “performer”. However, it was called “dancer” in the past and its existence was not the main one. The vocals may have costumes during a performance but there were times where dancers wear civilian clothes. Under such circumstances, HIRO suggested: I would like to create a group that is focused on dancing. From that, HIRO has created “performers” which have values in terms of their position. Y: Same here. I think HIRO-san is the one who have cultured and opened the path of making “performer” an occupation. I began as a student in EXPG Osaka and then became an instructor. This is why I think “This is why we have a present.” M: Although there wasn’t a firm establishment at the beginning (laughs). HIRO was trying to make everyone equal that’s why the members speak during the lives. In that case, seven members speak during the live so it’s (the live concert) very long (laughs). E: Indeed, it’s gonna be long (laughs). M: “I have to improve it”… hence, the vocals were included in the group and did the MCs. In my opinion, that style is an LDH original. There is no group where performers are in the foreground until 2-3 years ago, even the overseas management were surprised because of that style.

Q2: Is everyone aware of their standing or position as members of Sandaime J Soul Brothers? E: About standings, to be honest I don’t really understand these… (laughs) M: So unexpectedly, you don’t think about these things? (laughs) E: (laughs). The EXILE style which HIRO-san has always been doing has contributed to the growth of Sandaime J Soul Brothers. Of course, I have this kind of feeling. There, with the environment I grew up into, I’ve always been thinking that it is okay to show my own style of dance. Y: In my case, it’s because of HIRO-san that I started from a dancer to making my dream, which is to become a performer, come true. That’s why from now on, it will be good if there will be a lot of performers who will aim to be on the stage. Then, I want more people to live on as performers. I: I want to be a performer who can contribute and respond to Sandaime, LDH, and Avex. I don’t think I have a special talent nor striking characteristics, but I want to respond to everyone’s expectations for them to be pleased and be happy. This is something that I have to do and my feelings about this will never change. E: When I just became a member of Sandaime, there were a lot of things that I didn’t understand. At first, there were a lot of things that I had to learn. When we debuted, it was difficult for me to go out there. Y: There were even rules for discipline. I: Rather than a ranked society, [the company] was more like a sports organization. Y: Around that time, I did not know how to adjust. E: I didn’t understand that [as well]. That’s why I had this feeling that erasing myself should be a right thing to do. (T/N: ELLY used 「自分を消すのが正解」 wherein 消す means to erase or put off. He probably meant remove himself from the group) Y: That’s why at first, everyone felt that: “Everyone is the same”. (laughs) E: In my case, the color of my skin is slightly different from everyone (laughs). M, Y, & I: (laugh out loud) I: Well, I had this feeling that everyone’s skin was dark… (laughs). M: No, everyone’s still dark-skinned (laughs). Y: In spite of Sandaime having 5 performers, it is evident how everyone was able to find their own expertise and individuality. I: Since everyone was their own color, I think everyone should be able to show their own self and find the things which only one person can do during Sandaime’s activities. Y: The number of members who are going out of the group has been obvious with each one increasing their own field of expertise. In spite of that, we’re still gonna flow back to Sandaime again. I: I personally think that ELLY’s self-production is amazing. E: Really? (laughs) I: That’s because a performer holding a microphone is something that was used to be impossible (laughs). With the usual style of a performer, I felt that [ELLY’s production] was a huge breakthrough. E: Before I was able to hold a mic, I asked ATSUSHI-san for an advice. I went to him alone and said, “I would like to try this thing so I would like to hold a mic.” When I was acknowledged, this style has been created. But now, Mendy is also able to hold a mic, it has become something ordinary. When everyone gives [me] a trigger and an encouragement, it makes me happy. I: But it’s not that the consciousness of being a performer will suddenly change one day, isn’t it? It has probably begun from the R.Y.U.S.E.I. period. From that moment, we have started to think more about ourselves. The attention which Sandaime J Soul Brothers gained has also increased. This is why I have to work hard for the sake of the members. In a good sense, I feel like a trigger to do my best was born. E: Furthermore, I was able to express what I really want to do. Also, Matsuura-san has praised me for the hard work in choreographing R.Y.U.S.E.I. He has given me a watch as a present. M: I really thought that R.Y.U.S.E.I.’s choreography was amazing. However, the watch was more of a “drunk momentum” (laughs). I just gave ELLY that watch but apparently, ELLY lost it (laughs). Y & I: What?! E: I-I’m sorry… M: Well, it’s something that is ELLY-like so I’m not mad (laughs). However, after I gave that watch, I was thinking that a gold watch would look better on him so I contacted him and sent a photo of that gold watch: “Would you like to exchange this watch to the watch I gave you the other day?” (laughs). E: It’s [the lost watch] surely somewhere in my house!

Q3: Speaking of presents, it seems that Matsuura-san gives the members a birthday present every year. M: That’s right but giving presents is difficult. I don’t know what to give and there is also a possibility that they have the thing that I want to give. This is why every year, I ask them what gifts they want. Because of that, I am able to differentiate their personalities and it’s interesting. Tosaka received a self-propelled vacuum cleaner from me last year. Then a year before that, he received an ordinary vacuum cleaner. I gave him vacuum cleaners for two consecutive years (laughs). I: (laughs). I receive something different from Matsuura-san every year. M: It’s like I’m giving Gun-chan a special treatment and that is not good (laughs). Y: Please be audacious here. M&I: (lol) M: In the case of Gun-chan, we go to shops together and I tell him, “Please buy whatever you would like to buy”. It has become an annual tradition as if he’s my grandson (laughs). I: Then, I ask Matsuura-san to buy me a cap (laughs). After our shopping, we’ll go out eating. It became an annual tradition and every year is fun. Y: That’s nice (laughs). In my case, I received an electric fishing reel last year. Before that, I received a fishing rod for sea fishing. M: Just like I thought it’s on your personality (laughs). Y: With this reel and rod I received, I’ve always concealed my desire to go on fishing with Matsuura-san (laughs). I think that using these with Matsuura-san will be a good experience. M: I don’t think I will appear in “All Night Nippon” until it’s gonna be over though (laughs). Y: (laughs). If the timing is good, I would like to do it with you (ANN). E: Since I really like music, I received a very good and top class speaker [from Max]. M: I will be putting your birthday present this year on hold until you find that watch (laughs). E: Yes… (bitter smile). M: But if your choreography will be good, I’ll give you a present (laughs). E: Yes! I’ll do my best! Then, I’ll also continue looking for that watch….I’m sorry. M, Y, & I: lol.

T/N: It took me more than 5 hours to translate this haha. I’ll try to recheck this for the fourth time probably tomorrow just in case there are typos ^^; I hope you enjoyed!

#sandaime j soul brothers #iwata takanori #elly #yamashita kenjiro #3jsb #jsb #jsb3 #三代目jsoulbrothers #三代目jsb #masato matsuura #avex #LDH #exile tribe #exile #tosaka hiroomi #sekiguchi mendy #translations: chokobananya #岩田剛典 #山下��二郎

60 notes · View notes

janiedean · 8 years ago

Note

Do you believe in the statement "Islam is a religion of peace"? I think it's a ridiculous statement and I'm sick of people repeating it over and over. Saying it doesn't make it true. I have NOTHING against Muslims as people but the Koran is no better than the Bible when it comes to violence and pretending otherwise is just ridiculous to me. I came across a gifset the other day of a Muslim woman insisting that Islam is "the most feminist religion of all" and it just doesn't make sense to me.

man you’re talking to an atheist so obviously my answer is biased, and I read the bible but not the koran (I read bits not all of it) so my opinion is what it is, but:

given that I think that the bush jr policy of demonizing islam post sept 11th was the dumbest shit he could have done and I’m happily blaming that for 90% of the mess we’re in today and that I don’t think islam is inherently more violent than christianity given that as you said violence in holy books is about that same level

and given that a lot of the koran has been (purposefully or not) misquoted to justify terrorism/fight against terrorism

and given that 90% of the parts of the sharia law we find more abhorrent (ie the ones condemning lgbt+ people, allowing child brides and so on) aren’t actually in the koran but are holy because some interpreters who were also holy men declared them so so a lot of it is - as with christianity - stuff added by the organized part of the religion (like, there isn’t ONE line in the bible openly condemning abortion unless you don’t interpret the sermon of the mount in a specific way but honestly, but according to the catholic church and christianity in its worst incarnations abortion is A SIIIINNNN)

I also think that everyone automatically tries to delete the worst parts of the religion they believe in and the likes and at the same time it’s really hard to question things you were taught since the day you were born. and going like yES BUT THIS LINE IN THE BOOK SAYS THIS doesn’t mean anything because another says the contrary ten pages after and a lot of religious ppl in general haven’t even read either the koran (see: a lot of isis recruits) or the bible (see: most people who tell me that if I read it I’ll convert, then I tell them I did and if they remember the dismembered concubine from the book of kings and they fall from the clouds. aha) and they tend to stick to the parts that are *safer*. ie for christianity everyone moderate says it’s all about the best parts of the gospel (and no one ever remembers my two favorite bits ie when jesus told people who *went around talking in his stead* that he didn’t know them from adam and when he said to one of the two thieves crucified next to him that he had a place in heaven with him hahahahhahahahaha) and never about the worst parts of them or of the old testament (for one, did you know that with the plagues of egypt the pharaoh refused to let moses go because god directly influenced him because he wanted to show how much more powerful he was in comparison to the pharaoh’s false gods, because the poor guy actually would have let moses leave after the sixth plague? YEAH I DIDN’T UNTIL I READ IT EITHER) same as a lot of moderate muslims focus on the best parts of the koran like the peace message and so on and ignore the worst.

now, personally I think that religious books are written in such a way that you can find anything and its contrary inside them. the bible is BOTH old and new testament but even if you decide that the old doesn’t matter because you only follow jesus’s teachings, okay, paul in some of his letters says exactly the contrary of what jesus meant but paul’s letters are in the NT and no one’s taking them out yet. st. augustine is one of the church’s Fathers with the capital F but he came up with predestination (which is a thing that is absolutely not in the NT) and the catholic church ignores it because it eventually rejected that vision. and so on. it’s not surprising that moderate muslims see their religion as a religion of peace and the jihadists use it to fuel terrorism because both interpretations have their valid points. if you’re moderate and want to say muslim religion is peaceful you have your quotes, if you’re not you have others. and so on. so like, I personally think that since to me it’s all about stuff that doesn’t exist it’s all very ridiculous and I honestly can’t conceive killing themselves in the name of someone whose existence you cannot prove never mind that it’s basically the same God just with a different name and a different theological interpretation so like, wtf guys. I don’t think any religion is inherently peaceful or warmongering, I think people make of it what they want and that you need it separated from the state in any case because if that doesn’t happen it’s always going to coincide with someone’s political interests and fanatics will breed more easily.

re the feminism, I have issues in that sense and maybe a clearer opinion tho that might be that there’s things I cannot chalk to cultural relativism to justify, but like: it’s true that in theory islam is not... well, anti-women at its core because let’s all remember that in the middle ages muslim women on paper were better off than europeans unless my high school books lied about that, but it’s true that a lot of the **sharia** law mentioned above is NOT fucking feminist - whatever you mean with it - and I’m honestly... I mean, I get cultural relativism, but like let’s just take the veil. in theory if it’s an imposition it’s not even valid because you have to choose to wear it and it’s all good, but do people choose to wear it in countries like idk taliban afghanistan? do people have a choice about it when it’s not just the veil but covering your whole damned body and you can’t touch someone else’s hand without your husband’s permission? and saying that it’s also valid for men makes me lol because I haven’t seen men under a burqa yet. like everyone has the rights to choose what they wear or not, but when it’s de-humanizing like that (bc burqas are de-humanizing to me sorry) and it’s people who have been taught since they were born that they have to wear it... is that a choice? and like, yeaaah in saudi arabia eight year old girls can marry people thrice their age and if I have a vagina I can’t drive a car, but that’s feminist? like where I teach, one morning each week it’s just women and only women can teach because some don’t/won’t come if men are attending as well and won’t be taught by male teachers. and like... I understand they do it because otherwise they don’t come, but I feel really iffy about accommodating a thing that to me is out of this freaking universe, especially because you get veiled women coming to regular class without a problem. shit like that imo is just backwards and the fact that it happened here fifty years ago as well means that while I won’t judge muslim countries too harshly on that sense... well, we moved past it and we have equality on paper, shouldn’t they have it too? (admittedly I don’t think attaching ideologies to any religion is a good idea because what the hell does FEMINIST RELIGION even mean, catholics are crazy when it comes to worshipping mary so they’re also feminists?? and religion are used to prop up other ideologies every other day so like.... I’m iffy on that period) so on that topic I honestly can’t agree but because I don’t agree that religions are inherently any -ism.

tldr: I think everyone picks and chooses when it comes to religions so saying that it’s THIS OR THAT is ridiculous (christianity from the westboro baptists is not catholicism to say one and they have the same holy book) and that you need to separate them from politics before doing any kind of this discourse. I also don’t agree with this policy of ‘since bush jr policy was BASHING ON ISLAM FOR EVERYTHING’ now we have to do the contrary and ‘EXCUSE ISLAM FOR EVERYTHING’ because it doesn’t help - you have to condemn the bad apples of the bunch and not alienate the good ones, and that means also criticizing where it’s due.

I mean, ffs, it was on the news here the other day but some girl in bologna who came from a muslim family who didn’t want to wear the veil was forcefully shaved by her mother (like shaved all her hair) and she told her teachers saying she didn’t want to live with them anymore because they were pushing the veil and the religion on her and she didn’t want that, and now she’s with the social services. she’s fourteen. that’s feminist? I don’t... really think so. and the fact that I’m atheist and I don’t get it from the pov of a religious person doesn’t mean that I can’t say it’s fucked up when it’s fucked up.

#religion for ts #like I'm all for people finding their balance and ignore the least progressive stuff in their holy books #but like let's not justify the whole bunch of information pls #because some is fucked up and always will be #anyway pls don't throw rotten tomatoes at me you asked I replied xD #obv not you but i just came from a fairly exhausting fb discussion on the atheism topic #and tbh i'm too exhausted to go into that shit #Anonymous #ask post

9 notes · View notes

salora-rainriver · 8 years ago

Text

Gaycoding and You: a Useless Ramble about Milkshakes and 1950s Humor

Ok lemme just start out this Disk Horse by saying that y’all are fuckin fakers. There’s no fuckin way my whole dashboard was secretly hardcore Archies Comics fans who read every motherfuckin issue and have been following the exploits of the Riverdale Crew for years. Shut the fuck up, we all read the comics casually while waiting in line at the grocery store, and now that a dude is confirmed ace, you all basically did the discourse equivalent of pullin’ an all nighter the night before the midterm.

I’m calling your fucking bluff, you ain’t intimately aware with ANY archies comics characters. Do y’all even know the name of that old lady who’s the teacher who has to deal with Archie n Juggy’s shit? the one who looks like a pencil with a cotton ball slapped on it? Cause I fuckin don’t. For all I know, she’s one of the fuckin Pearls from Stevens Universe, and she took a teaching job in this obnoxiously idyllic suburban neighborhood because she’s a masochist.

So now that we’ve got that out of the way let’s move on to this alleged “gay coding,”

Aight so in all the times I’ve read dem Archies Comics, Jughead’s basically been the dude who has 2 things on his mind: burger and nap. That’s it. Sometimes hes thinking of havin a milkshake with that burger. Nice cold 1950s diner style milkshake. His favorite napping spot is a hammock under two trees. It’s probably in his backyard or by the lake in the park and he just has that hammock permanently set up. Maybe he has multiple hammocks permanently set up around Riverdale and no one takes down the Jughead hammocks because that would be rude. In the carefree high school world of Archies Comics, where girls wanna date boys and boys wanna date girls (seriously there’s fuckin PAGES detailing the lighthearted yet completely overdramatic conflicts of archie, reggie, betty, veronica, and their Hetero Drama), Jughead is the quintessential Man Who Doesn’t Give A Single Fuck. As far as we know, he’s not even aware that schoolwork and romance and jobs exist. He literally doesn’t even look once at anything that other people build whole story arcs about. This is his character, this is the comedic trope he fills. He’s the straight man to Archie’s Hetero Bullshit, but he’s also the clown who’s amusingly uninterested in things he should be interested in. like his grades. get it together, Jughead.

At least, that’s the impression I get from all those years casually readin Archies Comics while my mom loads the veggies on the conveyor belt. Who tf knows, maybe Mr Happy Meal Crown batted his eyelashes at Reggie and blew him a kiss like a big fat flami- aw who am i kidding, the only reason Jughead would bat his eyelashes is during Masochist Pearl’s class cuz he’s bored and wants to sleep.

Anyways, Jughead’s character out of the way, we need to talk about this weird-ass idea that every single example of a male character refusing to date women is Gay Coding.

Now I’ve mainly read only the Classical Literature that my middle n highschool teachers gave me to read, and not much else, but BOY HOWDY did I read the SHIT out of those. You’re talking about a girl who cried her ass off at the end of Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein, in a hotel lobby where people were starin at me like I was a weirdo. Point is, I paid more attention to those verbose messes than most ppl my age, cause I’m a nerd.

And let’s get something straight. Lack of APPARENT attraction to a character of the opposite gender ISN’T gaycoding. And no I’m not saying this because of modern-day conceits like “someone not attracted to the opposite gender could simply not be attracted to ANY gender”, no you wet blanket, listen to me.

If Mr. Hooke isn’t interested in marrying Ms. Fairweather, there’s three main reasons for that, and you can usually tell which one it is right off the fucking bat:

- Hooke is Gay as Shit, and in love with his assistant, Sir Appleseed. You can tell because he’s always seen hanging out with Appleseed, and the two of them spend a lot of time together and regularly express affection for each other with words of praise. Also Appleseed’s like a decade younger and he’s very pretty. Very very pretty. A paragraph is written about how Appleseed has a lithe yet muscular body and nice abs. Any modern reader will giggle at how obnoxiously gay this is. People will debate at length on whether the author intended Mr. Hooke to look like such a fuckin flamer.

- Hooke is straight, but he’s a misogynist intellectual who sees the advances of Ms. Fairweather as a distraction from his Deeply Important Work. Whenever someone mentions Ms. Fairweather or women in general, he speaks at length about how he refuses to give in to their succubus wiles, and how he has a greater purpose. He may also mock Fairweather’s perceived shallow desires. The modern reader soon starts to feel intense hatred for Mr. Hooke, because the dude is so fucking obnoxiously CONCEITED, SHUT THE FUCK UP, but victorian guys probably deeply respected the dude for his chosen celibacy.

- Hooke is just a weirdass loner introvert. People confusedly ask him why he won’t marry Ms. Fairweather, and he just kinda ignores the question. He doesn’t seem to have a single opinion on the woman’s advances, and seems almost oblivious to them. The intent of the author was, of course, to portray Mr. Hooke as an eccentric man, and also maybe to push the idea that women are a drain on mankind’s intellectual pursuits. Or maybe the author just wanted to show how “weird” Hooke is for not wanting to get married. Either way, the modern reader will start desperately wanting to shake said author by the shoulders and shout “YOU WROTE AN ASEXUAL CHARACTER, YOU NITWIT!!!”

The point I’m trying to make here is that merely not wanting to date the opposite gender isn’t gaycoding, it’s too fuckin ambiguous for that. Either the character’s gay, or they’re straight and also illustrating weirdass misogynistic cultural standards, or they’re just a fuckin weirdo, in a way that was probably meant to imply neurodivergency, let’s be real, but any modern reader would unanimously agree it’s probably just asexuality, written from the perspective of people who don’t realize that’s a thing that can exist, and it isn’t a weird nameless “fuck marriage” disorder.

Anyways, 1950s is a bit different. In the context of Post WWII Oldies, specifically comedic comic books set in a suburban high school, if a dude doesn’t want to date, it’s more likely that the authors saw him as someone who was too dumb, ugly, lazy, or nerdy to ever get with a girl, so they made him uninterested in women just because it’s not very funny to see a dude get sad bcs no one will date him. We can feel better if we imagine they’re just uninterested. And That’s Jughead. He’s not coded gay, he’s coded as a nitwit food-obsessed lazeball, and if we’ll be honest, the original writers PROBABLY wrote him with Stoners in mind.

Jughead’s not running through a literal maze of women to get to his precious delicious milkshake because he’s gay, my dudes. He’s doing it because he spent all morning fuckin Blazing it, and he’s got a fierce case of the munchies, and munchies waits for no girl. He’s got that in common with Norville Rogers, AKA Shaggy from Scooby Doo. WE HAVE SEEN THIS TROPE BEFORE.

Point of the matter is, when the writers made him ace, it’s because they decided maybe Jughead should be more than a cheap stoner joke who’s friends w/ Archie. He’s still a stoner joke, of course, but now he’s a stoner joke that also cleverly doubles as an example of the ace community injoke about cake. You know the one I’m talkin about.

And that’s all folks.

#I wrote a fuckton im sorry #that discourse shit

8 notes · View notes

ifuckekureto · 8 years ago

Text

Thoughts

Putting this under a readmore because it got way longer than I intended it to lol. To summarize, it’s my thoughts on some character interpretation in the ONS fandom (not meant as discourse!!!). Sorry in advance for being a bit disorganized.

I feel a bit distanced from the ONS fandom, but I get a general impression that most people dislike Kureto. And just to preface the next few sentences, I of course think it’s completely natural for everyone to have their faves/non-faves and individual interpretations of characters. That’s what being in a fandom is all about! With that being said... well... I think my interpretation of Kureto differs from the rest of the fandom. And I’m probably just being salty, but this does bother me in a sense because: A) I’ll totally admit I’m a Kureto Apologist™ but more importantly B) if you look at Kureto on a superficial level, disliking him is a natural conclusion... but I feel like not many people look beyond the superficial level when it comes to Kureto. I guess it’s not so much that I think their analyses are incorrect, just incomplete.

In one sense, yes, he does bad things - he experimented on a helpless child and killed innocent people in order to activate a magical superweapon. Killing innocents is usually where I draw the line. But Kureto did this not in the name of power, but in the name of humanity. The vampires were planning to destory the JIDA headquarters, and he stopped them in their tracks. Don’t get me wrong, if I was there, I would be slapping Kureto upside the head. I always believe another solution is possible. This theme of finding another solution seemed to be prevalent in the light novels too (though *a bit spoiler-y for LN 7* such efforts seemed to be largely meaningless in the end). But it does raise the question, what would have happened if Kureto hadn’t initiated the ritual? Would the vampires’ assault have been stopped? Would the JIDA still exist? Would our beloved characters still be alive? Kureto also said that the deaths of the soldiers would be an honorable sacrifice. He wanted to respect their lives, though you would think he would have the respect to tell them ahead of time... rip... In a sense, it is a bit odd to me because you would think there would be plenty of soldiers in the JIDA who would willingly sacrifice their lives, making a surprise murder ritual unnecessary. Of course, you have the elements of maintaining top secrecy and some humans being born outside the world of magic who probably don’t have an unflinching loyalty to the Hiiragi. And there are a bunch of other complicated factors that could be a whole post of their own. (Not to mention the mechanisms to keep the plot rolling, haha.) Long story short, Kureto believed he was doing the right thing, and while I vehemently disagree with his methods, it is a bit different to me than a villain. One of my favorite quotes ever comes from the Mass Effect series, and it describes such a situation as part of “the ruthless calculus of war,” with the idea being that you have to make incredibly hard sacrifices here to save countless lives over there.

As for his ambition to take over the other human organizations... Honestly, I’m not sure what to think of this yet. I think I will need to see more of this ambition explained before I can form a proper judgment. My first impression is deeply negative. Kureto... what are you doing... One could say it is coming from Raimeiki, but to be perfectly honest, I don’t think that is necessarily the case. Seeing as the vampires have almost globally domesticated humans, my thought is that Kureto either seeks to upend the current way most other humans live or replace other human resistance organizations that exist due to the JIDA having been the only organization to unlock the Black Demon cursed gear (Kagami confirmed this about the JIDA on Twitter, I think). My guess would be the latter. But that’s the Kureto Apologist™ within me... I actually don’t have a positive outlook on what this ambition will lead to.

Anyways, as for the LNs... God, they fit my headcanons for Kureto almost perfectly. So much I could comment on. In my opinion, he really is a good guy by the end of the 7th LN. But many people seem to leave the LNs with the impression that Kureto really is a bully. I did not get that impression at all, to be perfectly honest, especially since he willingly put up his life as a sacrifice to save the world numerous times (though thankfully, it always worked out in the end). The only thing I can think of is when Kureto was on the phone with Mahiru and discussed the brutal ways in which he would torture Sakae. I actually just messaged a friend about this because I do not have a good memory of this passage. I do remember thinking that Kureto was bluffing, and I think Mahiru said so herself, but I really am not sure about this at all. This could be the Kureto Apologist™ within me, though, so take it with a grain of salt. One day, I’ll find the passage and reread it and update this post.

Well... this is somewhat related to the ideas of the first paragraph (but not to Kureto), but a lot of fans seem dissatisfied with Chapter 53. And yes, this will obviously have Chapter 53 spoilers... So if you haven’t read Chapter 53, just skip this paragraph. But some fans seem to think Narumi was a jerk to Mikaela. I... disgaree. First of all, Mika was involved in the skirmish in which two of his squadmates died. I don’t blame Narumi for being a bit wary of a vampire, especially with a demon poking and prodding around in his heart. Secondly, the issues he raised were extremely valid. If Mika can’t restrain his desire for human blood, they’re going to have a tough time on the battlefield together. But Mika lasted soooooo longggg without tasting human blood, that I’m sure he’d be fine. Narumi probably does not know much about this, though. Mika even had to explain how long he’d lasted without tasting blood. And full-blood vampires aren’t always bloodthirsty, as Chess remarked she was full once after drinking from a human. But again, Narumi wouldn’t know this. Also, as a plot device, Narumi’s questioning of Mika also provided much exposition for the reader in terms of what it really means to forsake humanity and become a vampire. And, at the end of the day, Narumi didn’t come off as particularly hostile to me.

And Seishiro... Haha... honestly, there’s not much in canon to redeem him at this point... Just the cute things like he feels relaxed when fixing his dumb hair or the fact that he loves Star Wars enough to name his dog (he has a dog!!!) after Chewbacca. I do think he will be important, though. Kureto said he would be useful. Which... okay, I really hope Kagami explains more of their relationship because Kureto was a big meanie head to Seishiro :’( I guess the biggest thing about Seishiro is that I saw some discourse in which someone called him a would-be rapist (in reference to LN 2, I think... Idk, I got the English version which combined the first two LNs, so I’m not sure). And... hoo... I just... I mean, obviously, he was attempting to humiliate Sayuri, which is just mean, but I’m not sure that there was really any sexual motivation behind it. Also, they were in a school-sanctioned fight. The Hiiragi family is crazy. But this means to me that it wasn’t just some random incident. It was part of the school’s examinations where students are expected to go all-out. The novel mentions that students have even died in these fights, and deaths were not exactly a rare occurrence. That shows the degree of sanctioned brutality in the fights. I use the word sanctioned here a lot because it really carries across the idea that the school’s environment fueled the circumstances for such a situation to happen. Also, Seishiro is just a dumb insecure 15 year-old trying to get approval from his peers who were egging him on. Not an unfamiliar narrative. I know it sounds like I’m defending Seishiro, but unfortunately, I don’t think I can communicate effectively enough to discuss the other layers to his actions without it coming across this way. Also, since there’s so little information on Seishiro, I have a myriad of complex headcanons about him and his behaviors... so I know that I myself am adding a biased layer to this discussion. Anyways, I just think it would be hard to grow up in a society driven by ambition and be inherently less powerful than your peers. He has probably been overlooked for most of his life, and I think his actions in the LNs are desperate ploys for attention and acknowledgement. Gah, heading into headcanon territory here, I better stop myself now.

Yeah... this had less to do with Kureto than I thought it would... But... one last thing... It seems that a lot of people in the fandom still like Ferid even though he gruesomely murdered children (and I don’t think this is offset by his implications of resurrecting them). But Kureto makes a tactical decision and gets h8 for it? Just sayin’ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Though I actually don’t really care for this argument because I have soooo many double-standards myself that this is actually pretty hypocritical of me haha.

Sorry, this isn’t meant to be discourse! And I’m definitely not hopping off the ONS hype train anytime soon. And this isn’t meant to be a complaint about the fandom. It’s just that I figured I might offer my perspective too since so little seem to share it. Gah. If you read this far, thanks, lol, and feel free to send a message if you want to discuss it further.

#kurethoughts #i didn't proofread this #rip

10 notes · View notes

neroiv · 7 years ago

Text

Review: "Backstory" by Joschka Laukeninks

https://vimeo.com/245687147

The short film "Backstory" by Joschka Laukeninks shows the life of ana anonymous protagonist. We follow him from his first memories, watching him grow up, go through his parten's divorce, undergo adolescence, fall in love, build a career, start a family, lose his wife and child in an accident, remarry, get a divorce, grow old and eventually die. The film employs a second-person narrator and tells the story in a rather abstract manner turning the protagonist into a kind of every-man and maximizing the viewers opportunities to identify with the story. It is this generic way of storytelling that makes the film so interesting as it comes surprisingly close to - as will be shown in the following paragraphs - a kind of master-narrative of life in contemporary (late-capitalist or post-modern) society.

The film touches upon a number of archetypal experiences that most human beings come across during their lifetime: growing up, loosening the bond with one's parents, first sexual experiences, break-ups, friendships, falling in love, becoming a parent, losing loved ones, aging and dying. These are the great themes of human existence that most people can relate to and feel touched by. However, several details of the story reflect aspects characteristic for our day and age. This text will explore these aspects to show how they mirror the contemporary construction of identity which is - as this text argues - in crisis.

A prototypical protagonist

As part of the aforementioned abstraction, the protagonist is shown in little detail. For example his face isn't shown throughout most of the film and we learn little that might identify him and set him apart from the viewer like his place of birth or his personal interests and opinions. However, the protagonist is clearly shown to be male, white, relatively wealthy, heterosexual, able-bodied etc. So while the film is clearly designed to make as many people as possible relate to it, a whole list of social groups is excluded from identifying with the protagonist, namely women, poor people, members of the LGBTQUIA-community, people with disabilities, people who are not neurotypical, people who are not white and people who have migrated. The exclusion of these identities is not coincidental and draws a clear image of what is thought to be the standard protagonist of our time. Sadly, while history provides us with a great repertoire of stories told from the perspective of rich, heterosexual white men, the film is another missed opportunity to give a stage to the voices that are traditionally overheard. Instead, it reifies yet again a notion of normalcy rendering the aforementioned alternatives as mere deviations.

The loss of the nuclear family

The first incident characterizing the problems of our time is when the protagonist is no longer able to live up to the stereotype of the "happy childhood" because of his parent's divorce. This is made explicit by the narrator who mentions that on his 6th birthday, everything is still as it's supposed to be, right before the separation. This notion of a normal/happy family is one aspect of the story that reflects the problems of contemporary society since the nuclear family has only existed as the standard script when it comes to how people plan on spending their lives. The specificity to a certain sociohistorical setting is however not made apparent in the film. Still, it is crucial to understanding the impact the divorce has on the protagonist. The reduction of people's social framework of reference to the nuclear family - even though it is mostly ahistorically staged as the universal standard - is a relatively new phenomenon and has left people vulnerable because of the overall scarcity of other significant relationships. This vulnerability is reflected in the trauma of the breakup of the father-mother-child trinity that rising divorce-rates have brought about. The overwhelming significance of this constellation is partly due to the meaning of romantic love in the late-capitalist society which will be addressed later on in the text.

Alienated labour

The protagonist's career is mentioned several times throughout the film but always in a completely unenthusiastic manner. The viewer never learns what it is that the protagonist does professionally, just that it is a relatively well paying office job. This is symptomatic if the phenomenon of alienated labour because it suggests that work doesn't mean anything to the protagonist accept something that is necessary in order to build a successful life and/or make a living. The mentioning of work is usually associated with expressions of meaninglessness, emptiness and routine. Apparently, the protagonist has entirely given up any hope to invest his manpower in something that he finds meaningful or fulfilling or that serves a purpose other than earning money and achieving success on a professional level.

Love at first sight

When the protagonist meets his new wife, the two of them are shown in the middle of a raging party quietly staring at each other before the first words even have been exchanged. The narrator immediately suggests that this is "her" (alluding to the trope of "love at first sight" or "the one true love"). There is no doubt, no anxiety, no reconciliation of differences, none of it. This relationship goes on to become the main point of crystallization that provides meaning for the protagonist's existence. While prior, less committed sexual encounters have left him with feelings of frustration and emptiness, his marriage provides him with a feeling of purpose and direction. This is highly representatives for contemporary self-narratives. With the social frame of reference reduced to a minimum, friendships and relationships becoming more and more short-lived, family-bonds loosening, work-relationships progressively growing more instrumental and overall lifestyles becoming increasingly anonymous, it is left to bilateral romantic love to provide people with all the recognition as valuable, unique human beings that they need.

The death of his wife and child is the dramatic high-point of the film and fully reveals the meaning of romantic love for the life of the protagonist, as it is said that after their loss he is alone again. Throughout the rest of the story he never seems to fully recover. The emotionally distant way in which his second marriage is described is particularly noteworthy. The viewer never learns about why this later relationship does not fill the whole that the traumatic event has left behind - possibly it is merely because he is so deeply wounded that he finds himself unable to open up again - but seen in the context of the entire story that this is most likely meant to entertain the trope of the "one true love". The meaninglessness of the protagonists later life implies that his role as a partner is more integral to his identity and construction of meaning than his role as a son, friend, professional and even as a father. Especially the later is interesting because the film dedicates surprisingly little time to portray his relationship with his child (there is definitely a gender-dimension here to be explored). Furthermore, possible alternative sources of meaning such as standing up for one's convictions, working for a greater good, pursuing intellectual or artistic goals etc. are never alluded to in the movie so that, when his wife dies, the protagonist is left with an empty existence and nothing to fall back on. This notion is reinforced in the films final moments when the protagonist's reminiscence over the life he has lived closes in to focus on his wife and the way she "always looked at him". In fact, she also spent her final moments - lying on the pavement bleeding all over - turning to him and their relationship as a primary source of reference for her existence instead of screaming in agony, trying to see whether her child was still alive or just panicking. Their eyes meeting across the devastating sight of the accident is the emotional money-shot of the story.

Absence of Spirituality

The protagonists inability to see himself as part of something bigger and drawing a sense of purpose from his commitment to his convictions, political or artistic work etc. is yet again shown in the very end when the narrator mentions that the protagonist has only a few more seconds before he is gone and than the film cuts to a black screen. There's no tacky gate of heaven, no light in the end of a tunnel, nothing. This reflects the current zeitgeist, characterized by the decreasing meaning of spirituality and religiosity. People's way of imagining their existence is marked by the very absence of any location of one's own existence within a greater religious framework.

Conclusion - the lack of meaning in postmodern society

Illustrated by the various issues discussed in this text, what becomes apparent is the protagonist's overall failure to construct meaning in his life - or to be precis, find a way to narrate his life in a way that provides meaning. While the film arguably comes surprisingly close to becoming an archetypal master-narrative reflecting the contemporary mainstream-discourse on human existence, this crisis can be seen as symptomatic for our day and age. Namely it illustrates critical characteristics of self-narration in a post-modern society such as individualism (the rejection of seeing one's existence within a greater context), lack of direction (no overarching idea on how to set up one's life after the great ideologies have lost their credibility, be it in the realm of politics, religion or tradition), scepticism about one's own agency in life and reliance on ready-made fragments of narration. All these combined show that it has become close to impossible to construct a sense of meaning and purpose in life for the protagonist as well as the audience. Taking into account how the film has been celebrated as a brilliant piece of art, a great piece of wisdom and deeply touching, it is surprising that it does hardly anything but reconstruct a status quo while reproducing a narrative that has nothing left to offer.

0 notes

ephemeral-afterlight · 5 years ago

Text

a personal analysis of deceit, deception, lying, and morality: an essay that’s literally almost 4k words for no reason other than that i like to make my sentences as obnoxiously long as possible

i just want to preface this post by saying i’ve been working on this for a little while, and then it got deleted, so i had to start all over. it is a huge weight off my shoulders finally getting this posted.

PLEASE please please take heed of the trigger warning: if you are triggered by talk of domestic violence, abuse, or alcoholism, do be wary of this post. i go somewhat into depth about my experience with abusers, and there are quick mentions of things such as strangulation, so this post is not intended to be light-hearted or funny. this post is serious, and very important to me, enough to want to post it, so please proceed with caution if you feel like you may be uncomfortable reading about these things. the rest is under the cut, so make sure to read the tags to know if this one is a skip for you! now, onto the analysis!

first off, i’d like to say that i personally don’t jibe with using “redeem” or “redemption arc” in reference to deceit, because that implies that dee has done something that needs to be redeemed, and he hasn’t. a redemption arc is used to right a wrong, if you will, and dee hasn’t done anything that can be classified as a wrong, at least nothing more than the other sides have also done (such as passive-aggressive teasing).

in my opinion, some fanders’ perception of deceit and “the dark sides” is somewhat skewed. there seems to be this overarching theme and/or agreement that they’re all bad and/or evil purely for being either 1. stuck with their purpose (that they didn’t exactly choose—it’s quite literally their job. who’s to say that dee likes lying, or remus necessarily enjoys his intrusive thoughts despite having the heavy and frequent impulses to act on them? they can’t easily control their dishonesty and impulsivity respectively, after all, but feel free to discard that notion if it’s too hypothetical for you) or 2. labeled as a “dark side”.

as for the latter, the name is purely something roman made up to further separate the two groups, but imo it’s quite easy to separate each side into a “moral group” based on their actions and behaviour at the time that is very different from the one roman (and the others by proxy, given that they go along with it’s usage) has imposed upon everyone, so that shouldn’t be used as an unchallengeable metric to determine which sides are either purely good or purely bad; everyone has their strengths and their flaws, and you could argue some more than others, but that is also subjective to one’s own perception of each side’s behaviour. pure good and pure bad just… doesn’t exist.

now, onto deceit. something i’ve noticed when briefly delving into sympathetic/unsympathetic dee discourse is that most people who say that dee is interminably bad/evil usually bring up the fact that dee lies as their main point; he lies, and lying is bad, so therefore he’s bad, which in my opinion is a woefully simplistic view of the sides and the world in general. i think a lot of fanders and people in general don’t realize that lying is not the only form of deceit, and you don’t necessarily need to lie to deceive someone. to deceive someone, by definition, is to lead them to a conclusion that is not true or not comprehensive of the truth, and that’s where it starts to get a bit muddled. by definition, deceit typically implies that the conclusion you’re leading someone to is a lie, but that’s not necessarily always the case; colloquially, deceit is much more than that, and it doesn’t just mean falsifying the truth, it also means concealment of the truth, which i don’t think is talked about near enough in these discussions. deceit’s main function isn’t necessarily to get thomas to always lie, but rather to cause someone else to draw a specific conclusion about something using any means possible. so while yes, deceit can often involve lying, the main purpose is to cause someone to draw an intended conclusion; the means to get there are not inherent, which is why reducing deceit’s purpose down to “just lying” is somewhat ignorant (i don’t mean that in a hostile way or to offend, i mean it in the basic sense of the word), and doing him a great injustice.

the discussion of whether lying is good or bad is an extremely difficult one, and a lot of arguments from either “purist” side of the spectrum are already out there, so i don’t really feel the need to go in-depth with that aspect of it. for this, i’ll just go with my own experiences and perspectives, to sort of bolster my main point about deceit and his purpose and how he should be treated, as opposed to how he’s being treated now.

now, in my experience, lying is not an inherently bad thing, nor should it be completely disregarded and viewed as something that makes you a terrible person. in fact, for me, lying has been mandatory, and something that quite literally meant the difference between potentially getting hurt or even dying. i know a lot of people haven’t had to deal with extremely volatile situations or grow up with abusive people around them, so let me explain this as clearly as possible: when you’re dealing with an abuser, in almost every instance the best thing to do is lie or be as submissive as possible to diffuse the situation and avoid being hurt. i know it doesn’t sound ideal, but especially when dealing with someone who has very manic, spastic mood changes or are severely alcoholic, making sure the situation stays de-escalated can quite literally save your life. lying to reassure the abuser and placate them is one of the safest and most efficient ways to prevent them from getting angrier or lashing out. in a lot of these cases, you also lie to stop an outburst or argument before it even starts, because once an abuser gets set off, there is little to nothing you can do to stop their chaotic rampage; they will try to destroy everything in their way, and that includes you.

domestic violence is something i’ve had to struggle with seeing from the sidelines and up close on an endless assembly line of abusive, toxic, manipulative users all my life, and although my mother tried her best to keep me away from it, there were times where i couldn’t stay out of it. there were times i’d get into arguments with the one i consider the worst of the bunch (let’s call him j), and those arguments ranged from me hatefully antagonizing him in response to his alcoholism and terrible decisions to screaming matches in which i genuinely feared for my life. i was an idiot, and i’m lucky that he was never stupid enough to try to hurt me physically. but the common denominator in this was that once i learned to shut up and remove myself from the situation, the arguments lessened in frequency for a while. whenever i sensed that j was irritated (he was irritated when he was drunk, and he was always drunk), i would hide things. if i had to lie, i would. if i had to lead the conversation away from what he was angry about, i would. if i had to stow away in my locked bedroom until he passed out, i would. because that was all i could do. and when i didn’t do that, j got angry. and violent. near the end, in one of the worst arguments we had ever had because my mom didn’t lie well enough or misdirect his focus, he blasted loud music (to purposely spike my anxiety), pounded on my locked bedroom door where my mom and i were hiding from him until the frame cracked, and he smashed a bunch of lightbulbs in front of the doorway in a drunken attempt to keep us from leaving. he snapped, because my mom wasn’t successful in deceiving him, misdirecting him to diffuse the situation. i found out later that on the last day she ever saw him, they had yet another an argument about something. j flipped from normal to hateful and vicious like a light switch, and he tried to strangle her. my mother could have almost died because she couldn’t diffuse the situation. because she couldn’t deceive him.

i know this is a heavy example to use, and it’s hard to read for me even now, but i can’t be satisfied with myself without putting my and so many others’ reasonings for lying in this post. lying isn’t always to pull yourself up at the expense of others. sometimes it’s to save your life, and i heavily empathize with people who are unfortunate enough to have to do so. you are strong, and you will get through it, and it’s okay to do whatever you have to do to keep yourself safe. even if it means lying or fighting back.

that was long, and i know i went off on a bit of a tangent, but my point is that lying isn’t always used in selfish ways, and even when it is, it doesn’t mean those selfish intentions are always necessarily bad or wrong or immoral. self-preservation is not inherently immoral. it is a basic human instinct to keep yourself out of danger, to excel and succeed, and to live the best and safest life you can.

i personally am very neutral on where i stand with how often you employ usage of deceitful means to get what you need. while yes, i do believe that lying should not always be used in every situation/altercation nor be used to always get what you want at the expense of others, i also think that lying is an essential part of a human being’s survival, and it deeply troubles me that it has become a necessary tool to keep yourself safe in the modern age. and while i did it in a roundabout way, this brings me back to my overarching point: deceit is not inherently bad or wrong or evil for wanting thomas to deceive people to help himself, it’s just the matter of regulating him that needs to be addressed and changed. this can be made very abundantly clear with virgil and how he fits into this whole narrative.

virgil and deceit are different in what exactly they want for thomas, but i don’t think they’re different at all in terms of their intentions. while virgil wants to keep thomas alert to danger and his control of the fight or flight reflex is testament to how thomas impulsively handles those situations, with logan’s influence, that impulsive reaction is tampered down, leaving virgil as almost an alarm system. he identifies problems and possible dangers, and then suggests a way to subvert said dangers (whether those suggestions are viable options or not). deceit, on the other hand, is who comes out when thomas decides to confront that danger. he’s thomas’ filter in every sense of the word, and therefore is an important variable when thomas is met with a potentially dangerous situation that can only be resolved verbally (and whether lying is employed or not is subjective to the situation). he is also needed in less intense ways, such as not letting every single thought that pops into thomas’ head get said aloud (remus would have a fucking field day with that one), which also brings us back to keeping yourself safe from volatile people and dangerous situations. you can’t always be completely honest and transparent with them, because that can set them off, and then they can hurt you.

in less dangerous matters, such as the wedding/callback scenario, deceit truly believes that he’s doing what’s best for thomas. (i agree that the callback is the obvious choice here, but that’s a whole other essay.) while yes, it could be argued that deceit wants thomas to gain at the expense of others, i’d counter that by positing that that’s not the point of the whole dilemma. deceit believes that doing something that would hurt you just to placate others and strictly adhere to your overbearing sense of morality is a terrible, harmful choice. it was acknowledged and brought up multiple times that it’s not just that thomas doesn’t want to go to the wedding, it’s also that he would hurt himself by doing so, and deceit doesn’t want thomas to do something that would cause an “increase in depression” because it harms thomas.

yes, deceit wants thomas to lie to get out of it, but you could also bring up the point that deceit is actually being kind by doing so. he’s sticking with what he believes is the right thing to do, and suggesting a means to do it in a way that would spare mary lee and lee the potential disappointment or hurt of thomas choosing the callback instead. after all, “what you don’t know can’t hurt you.” and yes, while logan is right, knowledge is extremely important and you should always strive to remedy your own ignorance, that doesn’t mean you’re always ready for that information, or that it’s safe for you to know such things, especially when they’re deeply embedded in a highly emotional and impulsive reaction.

you can debate whether it’s better for mary lee and lee to know the real reason why thomas wouldn’t be going to the wedding or not, but it still doesn’t change the fact that going to the wedding would not only harm thomas mentally and emotionally, it could also cost him a huge opportunity to better his life and reach new heights, and they would understand that. if mary lee and lee are as good of friends as patton says they are, they would not prioritize their wants over thomas’ needs. and that, folks, is the big misconception that i feel a lot of people don’t address—it’s not just about thomas wanting to go to the callback, it’s that he needs to, to prevent a worsening mental state or bad emotional reaction. any good friend would never force someone they care about to do something that would hurt them, no matter how much you want them to do said thing. this is where patton is going severely wrong right now; like i’ve said a million times before, patton is holding thomas to an impossibly high standard of purity and perfection and selflessness, and it’s the most harmful thing to thomas right now. just as extreme selfishness isn’t good, extreme selflessness isn’t good either.

that was another tangent, but i’d like to get back to virgil. now, i do agree that virgil’s arc is different from deceit’s, but in different ways, and they’re far more similar than i think some people realize. virgil’s arc was all about being viewed as a terrifying villain, the monster in the closet, the one who weighs you down and prevents you from moving forward. he was viewed as wrong and bad purely for his purpose, and ostracized because of it. he was treated badly by the others, not listened to, and disregarded. he was misunderstood, and forced into a box, so he lashed out in fear. the only way to get them to listen to him was to be scary, to force their attention just long enough to get his point across. and when they others finally realized how much he actually did for thomas and how important he is, they learned to work with him, and virgil learned to work with them.

referencing the yerkes-dodson curve, and even to basic concepts such as yin & yang, everything has to exist in a balance, and having something too much or too little can and almost certainly will be detrimental to the thing it affects. in this case, virgil can be over the top and scary and irrational at times, but his input is sorely needed, and an important tool to keep thomas safe and alert to potential dangers around him. with the help of the others, especially logan, they can sift through any of virgil’s more extreme reactions and lay out the condensed version that has the information and perspective they need without a lot of the panicky and overbearing aspects that can come with overwhelming anxiety. they found a balance, a way to work with each other, and the result settled a certain disquiet in thomas. it bettered him as a person to accept his anxiety and listen to what it has to say rather than push it away and suppress it.

now, look at deceit. he’s portrayed as a scary villain, the ghost underneath the sheet. he’s the mysterious sinister force that controls the flow of information from thomas’ subconsciousness to his consciousness, and therefore holds power. he’s being treated as a bad, dark part of thomas purely for his purpose, and has been separated on the other side of the “black and white” line between morality and immorality, pushed away from the others and from thomas. they’re constantly antagonistic and hostile towards him, doubly so in virgil’s case (which is where a lot of the hypocrisy comes out that i can’t ignore, because virgil treats deceit exactly how the others sides treated him before he was accepted, and virgil obviously hated being treated like that, so why in the world does he think it’s okay to do it to deceit?), and they disregard his opinions and very valid points backed up by painstakingly thought-out arguments (that i have a feeling deceit took a lot of time strengthening so that he could convince thomas to do what he thinks is right and to show them that he’s not trying to hurt thomas, he’s trying to help him, which could be why logan was benched during svs. deceit knew that they’d listen to logan, but if he had let him take over the conversation, they wouldn’t be hearing deceit’s points and opinions, they’d be hearing logan’s, and it wouldn’t bring deceit any closer to being accepted or listened to than before) just because oooOoOooOoOO scary dark side! he’s a liar, so everything he says is wrong and invalid! oOooOoOoooO he’s so edgy and extra so we obviously shouldn’t listen to him! he’s just dramatic oooOoOooOOoOOOOOOOO /s

sound familiar? deceit and virgil’s arcs are so painfully similar, it baffles me how people insist that they’re completely different. i think the worst argument i’ve ever seen for this is that virgil is just a pure soft uwu boy and he never deserved what happened pre-aa, but deceit is terrible, awful, evil, and abusive and he deserves to get cut off and isolated from the others and told his opinions don’t matter and his valid concerns and fears are just him being edgy. that one almost made me fly off the handle in a salty rage, but i have suppressed it until now, where i can vent my points in a more logical, organized manner than just me screaming internally.

what needs to happen with deceit is nearly the exact same thing that had to happen with virgil: the other sides and thomas need to understand that he doesn’t do the things he does because he wants thomas to be this bad, horrible, immoral, extremely selfish awful person who takes what they want when they want in the express intent to harm others. he is self-preservation (albeit in a different way than virgil exists as self-preservation), and just wants thomas to always make the best decisions to keep himself healthy and safe, even if it means doing something like lying to skip a friend’s invitation to a life event. this comes right back around to virgil and how they learned to work with him; they need to work with each other, and balance everything out. they need to take into account deceit’s opinions and concerns and suggestions, and consider each one carefully between themselves, vetting ones that have been thoroughly picked apart and shown to be flawed, just like what they do with virgil and every other main side.

(apart from patton right now, but that is also a whole other essay, and i won’t derail this just to talk about that.)

this post is getting really long, so i’m gonna try to start winding to a close. generally, i know that the debate on whether lying is good or bad can be tedious, and complex, and seems almost looming at times, just because of how much you can take into account. there are so many arguments and reasonings and examples and evidence and thoughts on the morality behind lying that finding a way to satisfyingly come to a conclusion can be difficult for most, and even when you have a somewhat set belief on where you stand with its usage, certain points and expostulations can shift your view on lying very quickly. morality is also a very nebulous thing imposed upon us as a society, a set of values to believe in and adhere to, but things that are viewed as moral, immoral, or somewhere in the middle can change their standings very quickly, and can be influenced harshly by society and how we grow as people over time. things like being gay were viewed as immoral and wrong and terrible many years ago, but now, people realize it’s a very normal thing and it doesn’t make you a bad person to be different.

because like logan got cut off from saying, morality in terms of good and bad is nearly impossible to quantify given that each person imposes their own subjective rules of good or evil on actions, words, and behaviours. there is no way to objectively say that someone or something is morally good, morally evil, or morally grey without also having to also assert the fact that your view of morality is, in itself, a subjective opinion based largely around your upbringing, environment, presence/non-presence of religion, and many other factors. what you view as morally grey can be vastly different from my definition of morally grey, and that comes to light very easily when i find myself torn between agreement and disagreement when reading more in-depth analysis posts on the sides and their intentions with what they do and represent.

not every opinion here necessarily applies to everyone. i just wanted to add as much as possible from as many opinions and perspectives i could find that would help to contextualize my points and hit as many bases as possible with this one post. i thought it would be beneficial to put down the thoughts of a person from a different walk of life, so to speak, and how that greatly impacts the perception of the sides and their purposes/intentions. i know that a lot of this stuff is more in-depth and less in relation to the sides, but i think it’s really important to go into deeper discussion on these topics and themes, and relating them to the sides and what they represent is only a plus because it makes them easier to understand and sympathize with, whether you accept my interpretation of them or not.

anyway, sorry this turned into an actual essay (i can write nearly 4k in a couple hours about philosophical perspectives on the innate morality or immorality of deception, but i can’t write a single paragraph of the draft fics i’ve been working on for months? i see how it is brain), but hopefully you got to the end without getting grey hairs in the process! i’m not trying to invite the Disc Horse™ with this one, but i’m always open to discussion, and i’m in no way saying that my interpretation is a fact, because it’s just that—an interpretation—and it’s up to you to research and understand and to ask yourself those complex questions about what you believe. thanks for reading!

64 notes · View notes