#though i guess I do understand that it represents a specific thing in the narrative and it wouldnt make sense to have that much more of it | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

leantailean · 11 months ago

Note

I think what i like about Toko is the way the too off them play off each other. Both are stubborn, blunt, loud and insensitive to others. Both came from a posh upbringing. Among other things it leaves them both a bit self-centred, which they both struggle with. Toph wants nothing but move away from home, while Zuko does everything to return to it. Toph hates rules, while Zuko is a stickler for honor (unless the ends justify the means, which usually benefits himself). Zuko is a terrible liar while Toph can turn into a doll on a dime while also being a human lie detector. They have one good eye between the two of them. They both have so much room to grow as people. There's billion things more like that really.

I can't tell you what specifically made me interested in romance between them. I think i just already read a few fics about them being friends it made curious how those dynamic would play out in a romance.

It's funny to see you liken Kataang to Toko. Since despite it's ubiquity if never really felt one way or the other for the former, nor do i think much about it. My guess the appeal of the ship would be what those too represent to each other, which would be quite different from the more interpersonal dynamic appeal of toko. But you point i out there some interesting parallels there.

I don't really hate season 3 myself, though i'd call it probably the weakest of all the seasons. Funnily enough the Zuko gaang interactions are something i'm mostly fine with. I mostly just find the way they team up a little clunky, as well as Zuko being unable to imagine why Katara would still be mad at him and the general asspullery of the finale. So i'm curious what you think about that.

Hello! Happy Holidays and thank you for our question! And sorry for a very late answer, I really want to start answering on time next year! You showed me at the the very interesting parallels between Toph and Zuko, and I’m entirely agree with you. I’m gonna repeat what I was saying in my last answer to you. I think that the reason of why Toko is not so popular is that fandom doesn't see them right. Fandom always tries to see Zuko as super restrained, manly and steady grown up guy loaded with mature decisions and endless amount of altruism. Meanwhile Zuko is just traumatised kid, and his trauma is what dictates a lot of his character traits that fandom refuses to see. His impetuosity, impulsiveness, anger, egoism, and tunnel vision. And his sometimes happening disregard of other people. And all this melts unites with his kind heart and moral compass. And all that mess is what making him so interesting and appealing character. But unfortunately all these traits are seen as “problematic” and even ugly, and fanom just tries to ignore all of this. As a result the real and complex Zuko's character always is out of any discussion.

Toph is, usually, completely disregarded and ignored by fandom at all.She is being seen as a “gremlin” or “little bratty sister”, and people refuse to see that she is one of the most complex and well-written member of gaang. She has lots of conflicts and difficulties. (I’m telling about all this very mess, hope I’ll have enough time one day to develop this idea better)

She and Zuko are very close in the very same traits that fandom tends to deny in Zuko. Egoism, stealthiness, disability to trust, stubbornness and arrogance. They would be a great pair because their basic character traits are so similar and it would be easier for them to understand each other.

I also always loves how atla narrative connects Toph and Zuko with Aang. Aang sees Toph in the vision, so their meeting was predisposed, and Aang and Zuko’s arcs similarity is basically the heart of the show.

As you noticed, Toph leaves her home for Aang, for Zuko Aang is a way home. And later Toph and Zuko’s stories mirror each other, because, like Toph did, Zuko leaves his cruel family to join the gaang as an avatar teacher.

I really like how toko is similar to canon ship that plays the key role in the whole storytelling, Kataang. As well as Kataang, Toko grows from support and friendship, develops for a long time. It’s 100% “friends to lovers” trope. As well as in Kataang, one of the pairing starts feeling some romantic feelings from the very beginning (It’s canon that Toph feels romantically about Zuko, it’s clear in many scenes, “That’s how I show affection” is one of the most prominent) while another partner have only friendly-platonic feelings. And also Toph was the first from the whole gaang who trusted Zuko and even almost argued with others standing out for him. This is very clear similarity to Katara who always eagerly protects Aang, attacking anyone who can harm him.

Another moment that will never stop to amaze me in relation between Kataang and toko is their colour schemes that are built on complementary colours.

Complementary colours are the ones that placed opposite one another on the colour wheel. They empower and supplement each other. In visual arts, and especially in animation and character design colour schemes are one of the essential tools of the storytelling. Complementary colours are emotionally appealing, they show to the viewer connection and harmony between characters. Orange and blue - colours of Aang and Katara are complementary to one another as well as red and green - colours of Zuko and Toph.

As for Third season I think that it was the weakest and terrible. It almost ruined characters of Aang, Katara, and, especially, Zuko and Iroh, transformed their complex and dynamic personality into two dimensional cliches. Lots of people complaining about comics for ruining characters, but actually it all originates in how third season destroyed lots of things. So called Zuko's redemption arc was lazily written, he was descended from the most complex and interesting character into the rather boring banality. Honestly after that "redemption" Zuko became much worse person them he had been before it. Again very composite and ambiguous Iroh was transformed into some mix of Dumbledore, Gandalf and stereotypical and racist type of "asian wiseman". he was stripped of anything that was making him interesting and unique. And that terrible westernised redesign of Katara and Zuko, complete rethinking of clothes and armor of fire nation warriors that was obviously stolen from some RPG?

I can discuss why 3rd season is terrible for long time. that my super unpopular opinion

Thank you once again for sharing your thought about toko! I always happy to discuss these wonderful characters with you🖤

#zuko #toph #avatar the last airbender #zutoph #kataang #toko #ask #long post #thank you!#otp #otp ship #lets talk #we need to talk about toko

22 notes · View notes

bunnytalksf1 · 9 days ago

Note

bunny! love you and thanks for your work and talent ;)

could you please clarify for me why Drive to Survive is unreliable thing about F1? i get that it's speculated a lot but still want to understand more, thank you

Hi, thank you <3

Writing this on my phone so please excuse any mistakes!

The unreliability of documentary as a media form is inherent, because in order to produce documentary, the director must construct a narrative. This narrative is taken from reality, but it is also inherently biased to what the director sees, what editors see, etc. Even if I was a fan of DtS, I would have this criticism of it. Documentary CANNOT BE RELIABLE. It’s in the nature of the format.

But specifically for Drive To Survive:

The most glaring issue with this series is that it is commissioned by Liberty Media, who are responsible for the sport’s promotion. It was taken to Netflix in 2017 and has continued since. This means that they can’t really show anything unsavoury, or things that might disillusion people from watching the sport. That’s an extra level of bias.

Additionally:

In the first season, the producers had VERY limited access to the top teams. Both Mercedes and Ferrari wanted nothing to do with the camera crews, given they had a lot more to lose. RBR was the only top team willing to be in the show, and at the time they were kind of averaging third-fastest over the course of a season. The lack of insight into the top teams’ mechanics is frustrating to me in those episodes.

It also requires some sort of foresight, which is impossible. The way DtS is produced means that they have to guess who will have a Big Weekend, since they are embedded into teams from Wednesday to Sunday. And some race weeks, they aren’t there at all. If they have no footage of something, they can’t weave it into the narrative they’re constructing, so it gets left out. In the 2023 season, towards the back-end, one of the biggest narratives amongst fans was the emerging rivalry between Norris and Piastri, phenom rookie, who won a race before him in Qatar, and the emergence, too, of a very fast McLaren in the back end of the season. These were almost entirely left out of DtS because Netflix was not at Qatar.

Qatar was a big weekend for Mercedes too, because Russell and Hamilton crashed into each other, and there was a lot of noise over the public apology Hamilton gave etc. It got left out, though.

The main issue that the drivers and teams have is that its largely sensationalised and designed to create tension that simply isn’t there during the season. Verstappen was particularly vocal about this, and he suffers a fair bit: he was villainised in 2018 vs. Ricciardo, and then again in 2021 vs. Hamilton.

DtS also has its “main characters” in Ricciardo, Sainz, Alpine, and Haas (Geunter Steiner) etc, who let the DtS crews have more access than the average driver, like perhaps Verstappen or Leclerc (and Ferrari). Relying on personal footage means that DtS picks its main characters before we know who the main characters of the Actual Season are, which limits their ability to roll with the punches and represent the sport accurately.

It tips the balance of footage towards personal lives, with a lot of footage being taken from off the track / outside race weekends, which I personally don’t think is necessary, and also opens up drivers to parasocial relationships from fans (some drivers suffer a lot more than others, i.e. Norris, Leclerc, Sainz).

I think my main criticisms of DtS come from a) the format (its completely non-chronological, and hops from team to team which means that inter-team conflicts are minimised in favour for intra-team ones) and b) it is a behind-the-scenes of the drivers, not the sport. I’d prefer to see most of, if not all of, the footage taken from race weekends, and for the series to be a peek behind the curtain at the sport itself, but Netflix is (or was, at the time) not allowed access because there is A LOT that these teams want to keep secret from camera crews, and this doesn’t just go for DtS: it also goes for the actual media present in the day-to-day of the sport.

A lot of this is My Opinion, but I share a lot of these sentiments with F1 fans. I watch DtS as a fun little bingo thing at the end of the year, rather than a replacement for the season.

That being said, the positive about DtS is that it gives an overview from 2018 onwards and allows new fans to learn enough quite quickly to interact with other fans, who have their own takes and thoughts and can even out the bias DtS presents us with. It gives a decent baseline understanding of the sport, even if Will Buxton has become somewhat of a meme because of it.

Hope that helps:) DtS is also NOT the only docuseries on f1 - theres the Brawn GP doc (v good) and Leclerc and Verstappen each have stuff produced about them by Canal+ and Viaplay respectively.

#bunny talks f1 #drive to survive

5 notes · View notes

lupins-hehim-pussy · 5 months ago

Note

Must know your Furina thoughts cause I’m forever a Furina defender. I see her as different from Focalor and like… I get why Focalor did what she did but god I’m so… I don’t like her

I have more thoughts but I’d like to know yours and then I’ll explode

Heyy hiya hi hey! Sorry for getting back to this a bit late, I have been in a hole. You know how shrimps are

But the short answer is, regretfully, MHY's writing made me really viscerally dislike her, at first. There was definitely resistance in my heart and that was frustrating in itself, because I do not hate Her exactly and I see why a lot of people liked her a lot (my friends liked her too. I was pretty solitary in my extreme disdain of her). I just hated the story that MHY is trying to tell with her, I hated what she represents (to me, at least), and I hate that I'm seeing people being a lot more forgiving with her (compared to Ei) because she's shown to be more emotionally vulnerable, which makes her more relatable (this isn't so much as like, a 'her fans are bad!' take from me, just to clarify. More so, it is an observation about how MHY is able to very easily use their storytelling to sway the audience and keep their attention on certain narratives, and I don't like the effect of their writing decisions).

Disclaimer, though, I hate, hate Marie Antoinette and that "sad, helpless, rich (white) woman" archetype, so when Furina/Focalors clearly has some inspiration (and when I see the audience immediately make some of that connection), it was immediately rigged against her in my head, lol. She had no chance.

In retrospect, though, the Marie Antoinette reference isn't that strong, but I don't know if that's because MHY really chickened out of the French Revolution inspiration, or because they just vaguely wanted the vibes of it without ever intending on committing to it, and I end up looking silly because I'm making connections where there are none. MHY writing is notorious for making people do that because it expects you to extrapolate from minimal and vague writing at times.

Anyway, then I started writing her. I wrote her into the family dynamic of the WRLT family, streamer modern/future AU thing I've got going on, and even for my canon rewrite/reinterpretation/filled-in-the-shit-I-didn't-like-and-made-it-work-for-me fic where she shows up very briefly at times, I couldn't exactly make her completely villainous either. That role I reserve solely for Focalors (who, arguably, isn't portrayed as a villain in canon, either. I just hated her more, and she's specifically written as a scapegoat for Furina Criticisms by MHY, anyway, so she's literally used, narratively, as an excuse for Furina's action as the ruler of Fontaine, so. It's functionally the same shit as Ei being like "erm that was the robot, not me..." just much, much better executed).

And she's really grown on me! Like, if I'm not so hung up on her whole "I may be the ruler of a police state, but I have feelings, too" thing, I think her personal story of having to perform a role, and having to meet an expectation that just gets further and further out of reach, and how she was shown to quite literally fall apart under that pressure was (through gritted teeth) well done. I Guess. I liked the way they unravelled her on a literal stage at the end of the MSQ. If anything, I will give it to MHY for their understanding of effective visual storytelling.

In her defence, Neuvillette also had the whole "I may be the ruler of a police state, but I have feelings, too" thing going for him. In many ways, you can argue that he's Worse because he's the actual, functional facet of Fontaine's Justice System, while she was treated more as the theatrical side. But, I will Say, MHY tried to sneak it in there that she also does work behind the scenes to help vulnerable people, and they also tried to say that she takes her job very seriously behind the scenes as well. She just acts like she's all fun. But, once again, because of their writing, I think it's horribly executed. Because aside from those Few Specific Moments where they showed her doing these things, no actual impact of her leadership was ever shown within Fontaine aside from the way she represents the Theatre-Court thing, BUT EVEN THAT MEANS NOTHING ANYWAY.

(So once again, in the same way as my Neuvillette ramble, you have MHY being like "is she actually helpless? Is she not? Can she actually make changes, can she not???" and they end up playing Accountability Hot Potato between her and Neuvillette where they're like, No, Actually. You're the one In Power! No You! No You! I'm a clueless Sovereign, I don't know humans, you're the Archon! But you are the one people actually take seriously as the Iudex, you're the one with actual political influence, and I'm not the real Archon anyway! Then Focalors is like, Wah, Celestia! That's the actual party you should blame! I'm actually the martyr here! Feel bad for me! And if Celestia pops up with playable characters you know they're gonna be like erm, actually, we also have clones who's been acting as us who's the actual evil ones, but it's not us I prommie.)

Like how the fuck have they not figured out about the Primordial Waters shit, like, a hundred years ago. You're telling me they are so damn good at their jobs, but it took them this long? To realise??? The Primordial Waters can be a big ass problem in the future that they should have prepared for in the past? It's almost like a nod to how IRL governments will ignore global warming and line their pockets allowing big corpo to continue wrecking the environment at the cost of the common people— oh wait, MHY vaguely suggested that too in the world lore about pollution caused by Fontaine's rapidly growing technological landscape, but they didn't do anything with it, because the Government that would get narratively criticised in Fontaine is Entirely Made Up of the Two Characters Products they're trying to Sell?

Oh, you're telling me the way Oratrice Mechanique D'Analyse is feeding off the people's belief in Justice while it literally hoards all the energy of the nation in order to fulfil Focalor's plan can almost be seen as commentary on how Media like True Crime commodifies Justice while platforms like TikTok literally profit off your engagement— oh wait it falls apart the moment you try to say that Focalors did this out of necessity in order to give Neuvillette back his sovereignty because those vaguely evil, undefined Ceslestia people?

And I'm sure someone could pop up and say like That's The Point! They're trying to show that someone is always above someone else, pulling the strings, and that Everyone has to do a little evil sometimes! As if that's not the easiest excuse for MHY to wave off writing accountability into their character stories.

But you know what poisons all of their writing to me? Knowing that they make products first, stories after. Every writing decisions they make, I am sitting there like, "This is designed for an audience, this is specifically made this way to sell to the most people possible." I can't look at Furina and think "they're trying to make a sympathetic and relatable character" because I Know there is a board of Rich Guys somewhere who sits there and say "but she has to be redeemable, she has to be relatable, and she has to be just a little bit of everything to be palatable to the widest swath of people."

Like, all the "flaws" of Genshin's writing are barely "flaws" at this point, in terms of intention. There's no one sitting there being like "this is what we wanted to achieve, but we went about it wrong", it's more like "this is good enough to make us money. Some people might complain or look into it deeper, but most are still gonna buy and keep using our product." And they're right. Fuck, I might come back for Natlan just to see what the fuck they'd do. And I hate it lol

#like its not Flaws when they clearly never intend on fixing any of it #and like there was that youtuber i watched who talked about the like. problems with hate-watching or engaging with media just to shit on it #and how that still gives it revenue. i think it was shanspeare #and it made me reconsider a lot of my engagement with genshin. of course the Situation i am in is a bit more complicated.#taking into account of autism and hyperfixation and how that isn't. exactly fully in my control. and how also like. at the core of it #I don't really hate genshin. well I Do. But i don't. it's complicated. for starters I Enjoy Writing up these. rants. I sound pissed and #I sorta am. but also. this does give me something. Whether or not it's healthy for Me or beneficial to Others is something I am still #feeling out. I do want to be more authentic this year (LOL) and this is one way of going about it. but it sure is a wack ass way.#jurys still out or whatever.#krill #ask

7 notes · View notes

shiraishi--kanade · 6 months ago

Note

hi! im sorry if this is a far too personal question, it just comes from a place of curiosity — since you have aphantasia, how do you experience books/fics/writing in general?

if movement or specific body language is being described, is it harder to interpret it? can you like, ‘see’ the words in your head instead of the images or is any sort of visualization impossible? also how does math work for u…..

Hi! Don't worry, I don't mind talking about it all (I don't post about anything I would be opposing to discussing or sharing my experience with publically as a rule of the thumb), and this is actually a very thoughtful and interesting question! Because yeah, it does impact my ability to both enjoy reading and write something of my own, and I've talked about it quite extensively with other people - just not like, posted about it. But with that said my experiences don't represent everyone, every aphantasic person has a different expectations, you know the drill.

I think I approach reading more mathematically than other people, but in general I don't tend to enjoy books. Like, at all (especially adding dyslexia to the mix). Non-fiction is easier to get through than fiction - around 80% of books I've read in the past three years or so have been non-fiction. Fan-fiction is also easier because you don't have to put in effort into getting to know the characters and their environment, but original fiction is the ninths circle of hell - double if it's set in a fictional fantasy word or whatever. I can appreciate nice world building, but, my guy, those two pages you've just spend describing the castle worth nothing to me. I can't see shit (guy being a metaphorical writer, whatever metaphorical castle are we talking about here).

Anyway, back to approaching it mathematically - it is as you said, I don't interpret body language in writing. Things like people moving across the room, or standing up or sitting down, I think they don't really translate over in my brain because I never thought or needed that information anyway. However, I do understand things from narrative point? As in, I don't "see" a character crossing their arms, but as a person who is reading about it and knows how to interpret real life body language, I know the author intended to write that gesture to portray a character being defensive or discontented. This is generally how it goes for every facial expression/body language thing in a book - I notice it and analyse the intent behind putting it there, and that's about all there is to it. I guess you could say reading is more of a conversation with the writer for me in that respect? There is still merit to pointing out those things for me, and I know the purpose of putting them in the text. I think, for me, everything that requires imagination is a bit of a "blue curtains" dilemma - it's always the "why"s it's in the text, and honestly this is what I enjoy in reading, figuring that stuff out.

This also means my experience will vary depending on writhing style, on a case by case basis. Flowery language, abundance of metaphors, a lot of descriptions that don't serve an overarching narrative purpose usually amounts to Did Not Finish on a book for me. It's just not enjoyable. On the other hand, dialogue-driven, heavy-hitting "no-nonsense" and more factual writing styles is something I usually enjoy.

Also, while I do have aphantasia (no visualisation. No images in my brain whatsoever), I don't have total aphantasia - which means I still have an ability to mentally recall and imagine other senses, mostly aural for me. So I both enjoy dialogues in books overall, and especially dialogue-heavy fanfiction and such. Also, no, I don't exactly "see" the words themself in my mind either (although I think some people do?), but I can imagine how they would sound if spoken aloud - just kind of narrating everything without actually picturing it. I don't know if there's any use to it, though.

Edit: also forgot to add - math works for me in a way that it just kind of doesn't. I finished the subject with D.

#jay rambles.txt #jay gets asks.txt #thanks!#jay rambles about life.txt #this also impacts my writing a lot. more than I'd like to admit #in very messed up and interesting ways #I'd be willing to talk about it but I think I'd rambled enough and covered what was asked of me -#feel free to send a follow-up ask if you're interested in that too!

5 notes · View notes

thosearentcrimes · 2 years ago

Text

The Sherlock Holmes stories by Arthur Conan Doyle are serviceable detective fiction in themselves if you don't mind bigoted stereotypes in lieu of characterization. A detective story does not have much time and has a lot to say, so most characterization will be extremely stereotypical, with the possible exception of the character of the detective (and even then the demands of serialization are considerable), but the specific kinds of stereotype Doyle uses are quite unpleasant. It is generally not possible for a reader to figure out the mysteries, which almost always hinge on hidden information and counter to the presentation tend to privilege an arbitrary and often highly illogical interpretation of the part of the evidence that is provided, but you do occasionally get to feel clever (I knew it was a jellyfish!), and the stories manage to build suspense well enough.

But of course I did not read the entirety of Sherlock Holmes because I wanted to enjoy some detective fiction, really. I persisted in reading it because I felt like it was an interesting testament to elements of late 19th century British society, and who doesn't love the deranged ramblings of an empire that doesn't quite understand it's doomed? I have touched on the use of bigoted stereotypes. I do not think dwelling on Doyle's moral status is particularly useful, though it is worth remarking that on a handful of occasions he attempts to be actively progressive with his writing. From other 19th century British work I would guess that the beliefs implied by the stories are reasonably similar to the beliefs of 19th century Britain, except in the case of a handful of Doyle's eccentricities that are mostly identifiable from the text.

Doyle gives us an image of a society which is obsessed with phrenology, race science, misogyny, and free trade. I do not mean merely that the narrative treats phrenology, race science, and misogynistic pseudopsychology as useful pieces of information about the world, though it does to a genuinely shocking degree (it also validates graphology, because Arthur Conan Doyle was just incredibly gullible in general). What I mean is that when Arthur Conan Doyle looks for some arbitrary and thematically irrelevant topic of discussion for some men of culture to embark on, they will more likely than not discuss the latest developments in those fields. Is this just a particular preoccupation on the part of the author? I don't have a representative sample of other texts from the time to compare to, but it sure is remarkable.

The thing I find interesting about Sherlock Holmes is that the point is at least nominally the immense power of reason. So it is interesting to observe which people reason is attributed to, and which people it is not. In particular, reason is only rarely displayed by foreigners, especially not displayed by non-whites, extremely rare if at all possible among the lower classes, and highly unusual in women (children are not sufficiently prominent to determine). Any intelligence or competence displayed by these groups is almost certain to be described as the result of "cunning", probably by reference to animal metaphors. Reason is predominantly the province of Anglo-Saxon upper-middle and higher class men, though of course they may or may not actually display it. As a side-note, it doesn't seem that what we would now regard as mental illness is regarded as particularly significant in this respect, it is not necessarily disqualifying and the absence of it is no guarantee of ability. Mental illness is socially constructed, what else is new.

There is an interesting quirk as regards America, actually. In America, you do not need to be high in the class structure to be rational. It appears that America is considered not a classless society but one in which class is less important, even as regards mental faculties. There is another peculiarity of the United States in the novels, there is one story in which Holmes proclaims himself a partisan of Anglo-American unification and world conquest under a flag incorporating both the Stars and Stripes and Union Jack. This was a real but fringe position at the time, based on the much more common (and also evident in the stories) belief in the superiority of the supposed Anglo-Saxon race. One of the traces of Doyle's more esoteric political beliefs there.

I think the a priori exclusion of people from reason displayed in the Holmes stories is a matter worth considering for those who feel reason has been unfairly maligned by society. If you were similarly excluded, how would you feel about the social institutions of reason and reasonableness? Irrationalism is a refuge of scoundrels, but is it possible that at least some of the critics of reason correctly judge that they are considered to be excluded in this way? Food for thought, perhaps.

#book report

4 notes · View notes

raenparade · 2 years ago

Text

01/12/22 - Subversion in Media/Horror

If I’m being honest, the reason I chose the subversion question was because when I first read all of them, that one was the only one I could somewhat understand. After a little bit more research I decided to stick with it, even if I had to quickly accept that I didn’t really understand anything at all. Some progress is better than no progress.

Throughout my tutorials and more research, I mostly had subversion in my mind as something related to media and film studies? That’s where I’d had my previous exposure to the concept. During my time at A Level I did Film Studies, where we had a module on themes present in the horror genre. This was looking at a lot of tropes that appear in horror, such as character archetypes or the idea of ‘The Final Girl’ - which is a trope that was coined by Carol J. Clover in 1992. According to TV Tropes:

‘The simplest definition of this is "the last character left alive to confront the killer" in a Slasher Movie. The character in question tends to follow a certain set of characteristics. The most obvious one is being (almost) Always Female. Especially in older works, she'll also almost certainly be a virgin, remain fully clothed, avoid Death by Sex, and probably won't drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, or take drugs, either. Finally, she'll probably turn out to be more intelligent and resourceful than the other victims, occasionally even evolving into a type of Action Girl by the movie's end.’

While all of our focus wasn’t on tropes specifically, it made me think about how tropes and by extension - rules - affect our creativity and the things we decide to produce. I don’t think tropes are bad, lord knows I’m a sucker for them, especially the really cheesy ones. I don’t think they’re inherently bad for a good narrative, either! Structure is good. What it does do, however, is lull people into having certain expectations. The easiest way to subvert these expectations is to twist it, pretend you’re using a trope and then yank it away, ideally still in a way that is satisfying to an audience.

Even though I’m not really a fan of horror, Drew Goddard’s ‘Cabin in the Woods’ remains something I actually quite enjoy. I’m the first to admit that I’ll look up the Wikipedia page for a horror movie to avoid a sustained sense of dread, so it’s very likely I did that with this movie too. Even then I still like the movie! It uses almost all the typical tropes found in horror as a direct element in the narrative, everything serves a purpose. The main characters all seem to fit in boxes and we see their personalities on display as they go to spend a weekend in, you guessed it, a cabin in the woods. It’s then revealed that this is all part of a sacrificial ritual meant to appease ‘The Ancient Ones’ and if this doesn’t work, humanity is doomed. Not only that, but the characters don’t even embody the personalities of the archetypes they’re supposed to be. The main character, Dana, who has been chosen as ‘The Virgin’, isn’t even a virgin. This is similar in regard to most of the other characters.

Each country has to perform a similar ritual, each ending in failure up to this point. A character named ‘The Director’ tells Dana that the sacrifices deliberately mimic American slasher films. As long as ‘The Whore’ dies first and ‘The Virgin’ the last one standing, living or not, the ritual is complete.

I’ll admit in hindsight it is a little on the nose, especially when you realise the message of the movie is that the Ancient Ones - most likely representing the audience, or typical horror fans - would riot if things don’t follow an established formula. I don’t doubt some people feel this way and it still is a clever way to not only subvert tropes, but use them! I admire Drew Goddard for curating a pretty consistent vision with this movie and it’s something I’d like to achieve with the things I make. I find remixing and remaking pre-established media very satisfying, not having to come up with all my own characters or narratives but slightly changing things to make it feel new is something I’ve done since I was a child. When I was younger I’d make my own characters from the Sonic the Hedgehog universe (I still do sometimes) and in one way, this isn’t too different.

I don’t think everything you make has to be totally innovative or different, sometimes people just want to build upon something or change it slightly! Or use the themes present in something in a slightly different way. As someone who hyperfixates on one thing for a little while before moving onto the next, I often feel the need to keep things fresh and gravitate towards media that does this.

I think breaking the rules is fun, often necessary, but I won’t lie that I always like having tropes or structure to fall back on. I’m just someone who likes labels, categories and boxes! A shortcut to explain things makes it so much easier on my brain, but I do sometimes just like some good ol’ cheese when watching films or playing games.

#a question of research #ma illustration

0 notes

writingwithcolor · 3 years ago

Text

Jurassic period alien interacting with key cultures and historical figures in Middle East & Asia throughout history

@ketchupmaster400 said:

Hello, so my question is for a character I’ve been working on for quite a while but wasn’t sure about a few things. So basically at the beginning of the universe there was this for less being made up of dark matter and dark energy. Long story short it ends up on earth during the Jurassic Period. It has the ability to adapt and assimilate into other life animals except it’s hair is always black and it’s skin is always white and it’s eyes are always red. It lives like this going from animal to animal until it finally becomes human and gains true sentience and self awareness. As a human it lives within the Middle East and Asia wondering around trying to figure out its purpose and meaning. So what I initially wanted to do with it was have small interactions with the dark matter human and other native humans that kinda helped push humanity into the direction it is now. For example, Mehndhi came about when the dark matter human was drawing on their skin because it felt insecure about having such white skin compared to other people. And ancient Indians saw it and thought it was cool so they adopted it and developed it into Mehndi. Minor and small interactions though early history leading to grander events. Like they would be protecting Jerusalem and it’s people agains the Crusaders later on. I also had the idea of the the dark matter human later on interacting with the prophets Jesus Christ and Muhammad. With Jesus they couldn’t understand why he would sacrifice himself even though the people weren’t deserving. And then Jesus taught them that you have to put other before yourself and protecting people is life’s greatest reward. And then with the prophet Muhammad, I had the idea that their interaction was a simple conversation that mirrors the one he had with the angel Jibril, that lead to the principles of Islam. Now with these ideas I understand the great importance of how not to convey Islam and I’ve been doing reasearch, but I am white and I can understand how that may look trying to write about a different religion than my own. So I guess ultimate my question is, is this ok to do? Is it ok to have an alien creature interact with religious people and historical events as important as they were? Like I said I would try to be as accurate and as respectable as possible but I know that Islam can be a touchy subject and the last thing I would want is to disrespect anyone. The main reason I wanted the dark matter being in the Middle East was because I wanted to do something different because so much has been done with European and American stuff I wanted to explore the eastern side of the world because it’s very beau and very rich with so many cultures that I want to try and represent. I’m sorry for the long post but I wanted you guys to fully understand what my idea was. Thank you for your time and hope you stay safe.

Disclaimer:

The consensus from the moderators was that the proposed character and story is disrespectful from multiple cultural perspectives. However, we can’t ignore the reality that this is a commonly deployed trope in many popular science fiction/ thriller narratives. Stories that seek to take religious descriptions of events at face value from an areligious perspective particularly favor this approach. Thus, we have two responses:

Where we explain why we don’t believe this should be attempted.

Where we accept the possibility of our advice being ignored.

1) No - Why You Shouldn’t Do This:

Hi! I’ll give you the short answer first, and then the extended one.

Short answer: no, this is not okay.

Extended answer. I’ll divide it into three parts.

1) Prophet Muhammad as a character:

Almost every aspect of Islam, particularly Allah (and the Qur’an), the Prophet(s) and the companions at the time of Muhammad ﷺ, are strictly kept within the boundaries of real life/reality. I’ll assume this comes from a good place, and I can understand that from one side, but seriously, just avoid it. It is extremely disrespectful and something that is not even up to debate for Muslims to do, let alone for non-Muslims. Using Prophet Muhammad as a character will only bring you problems. There is no issue with mentioning the Prophet during his lifetime when talking about his attributes, personality, sayings or teachings, but in no way, we introduce fictional aspects in a domain that Muslims worked, and still work, hard to keep free from any doubtful event or incident. Let’s call it a closed period: we don’t add anything that was not actually there.

Reiterating then, don’t do this. There is a good reason why Muslims don’t have any pictures of Prophet Muhammad. We know nothing besides what history conveyed from him.

After this being said, there is another factor you missed – Jesus is also an important figure in Islam and his story from the Islamic perspective differs (a lot) from that of the Christian perspective. And given what you said in your ask, you would be taking the Christian narrative of Jesus. If it was okay to use Prophet Muhammad as a character (reminder: it’s not) and you have had your dark matter human interacting with the biblical Jesus, it will result in a complete mess; you would be conflating two religions.

2) Crusaders and Jerusalem:

You said this dark matter human will be defending Jerusalem against the Crusaders. At first, there is really no problem with this. However, ask yourself: is this interaction a result of your character meeting with both Jesus and Prophet Muhammed? If yes, please refer to the previous point. If not, or even if you just want to maintain this part of the story, your dark matter human can interact with the important historical figures of the time. For example, if you want a Muslim in your story, you can use Salah-Ad-Din Al-Ayoubi (Saladin in the latinized version) that took back Jerusalem during the Third Crusade. Particularly, this crusade has plenty of potential characters.

Also, featuring Muslim characters post Prophet Muhammad and his companions’ time, is completely fine, just do a thorough research.

3) Middle Eastern/South Asian settings and Orientalism:

The last point I want to remark is with the setting you chose for your story. Many times, when we explore the SWANA or South Asian regions it’s done through an orientalist lens. Nobody is really safe from falling into orientalism, not even the people from those regions. My suggestion is educating yourself in what orientalism is and how it’s still prevalent in today’s narrative. Research orientalism in entertainment, history... and every other area you can think of. Edward Said coined this term for the first time in history, so he is a good start. There are multiple articles online that touch this subject too. For further information, I defer to middle eastern mods.

- Asmaa

Racism and Pseudo-Archaeology:

A gigantic, unequivocal and absolute no to all of it, lmao.

I will stick to the bit about the proposed origin of mehendi in your WIP, it’s the arc I feel I’m qualified to speak on, Asmaa has pretty much touched upon the religious and orientalism complications.

Let me throw out one more word: pseudoarchaeology. That is, taking the cultural/spiritual/historical legacies of ancient civilizations, primarily when it involves people of colour, and crediting said legacies to be the handiwork of not just your average Outsider/White Saviour but aliens. I’ll need you to think carefully about this: why is it that in so much of media and literature pertaining to the so-called “conspiracy theories” dealing with any kind of extraterrestrial life, it’s always Non-Western civilizations like the Aztec, the ancient Egyptians, the Harappans etc who are targeted? Why is it that the achievements of the non West are so unbelievable that it’s more feasible to construct an idea of non-human, magical beings from another planet who just conveniently swooped in to build our monuments and teach us how to dress and what to believe in? If the answer makes you uncomfortable, it’s because it should: denying the Non-West agency of their own feats is not an innocent exercise in sci-fi worldbuilding, it comes loaded with implications of racial superiority and condescension towards the intellect and prowess of Non-European cultures.

Now, turning to specifics:

Contrary to what Sarah J. Maas might believe- mehendi designs are neither mundane, purely aesthetic tattoos nor can they be co-opted by random Western fantasy characters. While henna has existed as an art form in various cultures, I’m limiting my answer to the Indian context, (specifying since you mention ancient India). Mehendi is considered one of the tenets of the Solah Shringar- sixteen ceremonial adornments for Hindu brides, one for each phase of the moon, as sanctioned by the Vedic texts. The shade of the mehendi is a signifier for the strength of the matrimonial bond: the darker the former, the stronger the latter. Each of the adornments carries significant cosmological/religious symbolism for Hindus. To put it bluntly, when you claim this to be an invention of the aliens, you are basically taking a very sacred cultural and artistic motif of our religion and going “Well actually….extraterrestrials taught them all this.”

In terms of Ayurveda (Traditional holistic South Asian medicine) , mehendi was used for its medicinal properties. It works as a cooling agent on the skin and helps to alleviate stress, particularly for the bride-to-be. Not really nice to think that aliens lent us the secrets of Ayurvedic science (pseudoarchaeology all over again).

I’m just not feeling this arc at all. The closest possible alternative I could see to this is the ancient Indian characters incorporating some specific stylistic motifs in their mehendi in acknowledgement to this entity, in the same vein of characters incorporating motifs of tribute into their armour or house insignia, but even so, I’m not sure how well that would play out. If you do go ahead with this idea, I cannot affirm that it will not receive backlash.

-Mimi

These articles might help:

Pseudoarchaeology and the Racism Behind Ancient Aliens

A History of Indian Henna (this studies mehendi origins mostly with reference to Mughal history)

Solah Shringar

2) Not Yes, But If Ignoring the Above:

I will be the dissenting voice of “Not No, But Here Are The Big Caveats.” Given that there is no way to make the story you want to tell palatable to certain interpretations of Islam and Christianity, here is my advice if the above arguments did not sufficiently deter you.

1. Admiration ≠ Research: It is not enough to just admire cultures for their richness and beauty. You need to actually do the research and learn about them to determine if the story you want to tell is a good fit for the values and principles these cultures prioritize. You need to understand the significance of historical figures and events to understand the issues with attributing the genesis of certain cultural accomplishments to an otherworldly influence. 1.

2. Give Less Offense When Possible and Think Empathetically: You should try to imagine the mindsets of those you will offend and think about to what degree you can soften or ameliorate certain aspects of your plot, the creature’s characteristics, and the creature’s interactions with historical figures to make your narrative more compatible. There is no point pretending that much of areligious science fiction is incompatible with monotheist, particularly non-henotheistic, religious interpretations as well as the cultural items and rituals derived from those religious interpretations. One can’t take “There is no god, just a lonely alien” and make that compatible with “There is god, and only in this particular circumstance.” Thus:

As stated above by Asmaa and Mimi, there is no escaping the reality the story you propose is offensive to some. Expect their outcry to be directed towards you. Can you tolerate that?

Think about how you would feel if someone made a story where key components of your interpretation of reality are singled out as false. How does this make you feel? Are you comfortable doing that to others?

3. Is Pseudoarchaeology Appropriate Here?: Mimi makes a good point about the racial biases of pseudoarchaeology. Pseudoarchaeology is a particular weakness of Western-centric atheist sci-fi. Your proposed story is the equivalent of a vaguely non-descript Maya/Aztec/Egyptian pyramid or Hindu/ Buddhist-esque statue being the source for a Resident Evil bio weapon/ Predator nest/ Assassin’s Creed Isu relic.

Is this how you wish to draw attention to these cultures you admire? While there is no denying their ubiquity in pop-culture, such plots trivialize broad swathes of non-white history and diminish the accomplishments of associated ethnic groups. The series listed above all lean heavily into these tropes either because the authors couldn’t bother to figure out something more creative or because they are intentionally telling a story the audience isn’t supposed to take seriously.*

More importantly, I detect a lot of sincerity in your ask, so I imagine such trivialization runs counter to your expressed desire to depict Eastern cultures in a positive and accurate manner.

4. Freedom to Write ≠ Freedom from Consequence: Once again, as a reminder, it’s not our job to reassure you as to whether or not what you are proposing is ok. Asmaa and Mimi have put a lot of effort into explaining who you will offend and why. We are here to provide context, but the person who bears the ultimate responsibility for how you choose to shape this narrative, particularly if you share this story with a wide audience, is you. Speaking as one writer to another, I personally do not have a strong opinion one way or the other, but I think it is important to be face reality head-on.

- Marika.

* This is likely why the AC series always includes that disclaimer stating the games are a product of a multicultural, inter-religious team and why they undermine Western cultures and Western religious interpretations as often (if not moreso) than those for their non-Western counterparts.

Note: Most WWC asks see ~ 5 hours of work from moderators before they go live. Even then, this ask took an unusually long amount of time in terms of research, emotional labor and discussion. If you found this ask (and others) useful, please consider tipping the moderators (link here), Asmaa (coming eventually) and Mimi (here). I also like money - Marika.

#alien character #historical fiction #science fiction #pseudoarchaeology #Middle-Eastern cultures #South-Asian cultures #Islam #writing with Islam #mehendi #cultural appropriation #areligious perspectives in writing #asks #WWC

350 notes · View notes

n1kolaiz · 3 years ago

Text

The Six Realms

Okay, so I was pretty close to giving up on writing analyses but I'm back LMFAO plus I see we're close to 100 followers and I just want to thank you guys for being so very supportive <3

Alright, I'm not sure if anyone's ever written about this, but if an analysis like this exists, please do let me know because I'm kind of curious as to what other people think about this, too!

Remember that time Fukuchi spoke about bringing "about the five signs of an angel's death"?

I read a little bit more about it, and as a minor content warning: this analysis will focus on a few religious aspects (Buddhism + Hinduism). So if I get any of the facts wrong, firstly: I do not mean any disrespect to either religion, and secondly: please do correct me if I interpret anything in the wrong way.

Spoilers for BSD chapter 90 onwards + BEAST!AU under the cut!

So I'll start by talking about the Decay of Angels. As we all know, the members include Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Nikolai Gogol, Sigma, and Bram Stoker, and their leader, Fukuchi Ochi. After Fyodor's arrest, the Decay of Angels came into light with Nikolai murdering four government officials in a week. These murders symbolise the Buddhist cycle of existence, or otherwise known as samsara: the cycle of life, death, and rebirth.

"We are the Decay of Angels—hiding here as terrorists, a 'murder association', five people who will announce the demise of the celestial world."

Nikolai Gogol, chapter 57

Samsara is described to be a concept beyond human understanding. According to Hinduism, samsara is the physical world where every being has its soul trapped into a physical vessel. The Hindus believe that everything has a soul, and due to a soul's attachment to desire, it is forced into a deathless cycle of being born, dying, and reincarnating into a different body. In Buddhism, the ultimate way to break free from this cycle is by obtaining nirvana.

Nirvana is a Sanskrit word for the goal of the Buddhist path: enlightenment or awakening. In Pali, the language of some of the earliest Buddhist texts, the word is nibbana; in both languages it means "extinction" (like a lamp or flame) or "cessation." It refers to the extinction of greed, ill will, and delusion in the mind, the three poisons that perpetuate suffering. Nirvana is what the Buddha achieved on the night of his enlightenment: he became completely free from the three poisons. Everything he taught for the rest of his life was aimed at helping others to arrive at that same freedom.

- TRICYCLE'S definition of nirvana

As Fukuchi mentions in the panel above, there are six different realms of existence. These realms represent every possible state of existence, but one cannot live in a specific realm forever. Depending on whether or not one's past actions were morally good or bad, an individual is born into one of these realms. Basically, the controlling factor of which realm a person is born into is dependent on their respective karma. The realms are separated into two categories: the hellish ones and the heavenly ones.

The Deva Realm: where beings are rewarded for the good deeds they have done. This realm is void of anything unpleasant. It is basically paradise— empty of unfulfilled desires, any form of suffering, and fears of every kind. Religious individuals, however, do not seek to be born into this realm since its attitude is more or less carefree.

The Asura Realm: where demigods are admitted. Asuras are driven by greed and envy, and may come in conflict with human beings since they are quite similar. They are powerful beings, but quarrel with each other quite a bit, making this realm quite undesirable to be reborn into.

The Animal Realm: where beings are given the form of an animal (you probably guessed that lol). Individuals here don't actually have good karma to take pride in, but rather, they are born into this realm to work off their bad karma (by being slaughtered, hunted, or forced to work, etc). Being born into this realm forces one to atone for their past sins by living out their life as an animal.

The Hell Realm: where one is punished for their evil actions. The most merciless of realms, where one pays for their transgressions through pure suffering, methods of which include: dismemberment, starvation, and psychological/physical torture. However, once a person's term is fulfilled in this realm, they are presumably promised to be reborn into a higher state.

The Preta Realm: similar to the hell realm, in which beings pay for their past sins (specifically: greed and stinginess) by having to survive through hunger and thirst. This realm is also known as the 'ghost realm,' because some pretas are psychologically tortured by being forced to live in places their past selves have lived in. They are invisible to human beings living at that time, which pushes them to face the depths of despair and loneliness. Your typical horror movie, really.

The Human Realm: the only realm where one's actions determine their future. The status (social ranking, physical wellbeing, and so on) of a human being in this realm is determined by their past actions, but due to the fact that a person has their own conscience to differentiate good morals from bad, the actions they commit in this realm have the power to determine which realm they are sent to next.

Okay, so now that I've got that out of the way, let's shift our focus to the Book. Very little is known about the Book, but the basic fundamentals of how it works is that whatever is written in the book will come into existence only if its contents follow the rules of karma. In addition to that, only a few sentences can be written into a single page of the Book, and it must follow the current narrative of the story.

If I'm not wrong, the first time the Book was mentioned was by Fitzgerald, who wanted it to resurrect his deceased daughter in hopes of restoring his wife's mental health. The next time the Book is brought up is when Fyodor's intentions to possess it are divulged; his goal was to decimate the global population of ability-users. And now, the current arc has the Book as its central focus, with a single page in Fukuchi's possession.

[ BEAST!AU spoilers ]

The Book acts as the central point of multiverses, with each character's lives differing from universe to universe.

Dazai committing suicide in this alternate universe stands in sharp contrast with how he decided to start up a new life in the main universe.

Oda staying alive to act as a mentor to Akutagawa in the ADA differs from how Oda uses his death to prompt Dazai to "be on the side that saves people."

And of course, the way Atsushi and Akutagawa have their positions switched in the two universes depicts how different their lives would be if they were given the chance to be mentored by different people— these are just a few examples of how the Book houses an endless amount of possibilities.

[ end of BEAST!AU spoilers ]

Hypothetically speaking, this kind of reminds me of the differing realms I mentioned before, where suffering is promised in some realms, and better things are granted in the rest, depending on one's karma, or the deeds they've done in their past lives. In this scenario, perhaps one's past life can be understood as one's current life in a different universe. That's just a personal opinion though. Take it as you will.

side note: Keep in mind that the person who is more or less impervious to the Book's effect is Dazai, with his nullification ability. I wouldn't want to propose any theories in this aspect (I don't believe I'm fully fact-checked ;_;), but I could use Dazai as a raw example of how your choices affect your future. If Dazai had decided to stay in the Port Mafia after Oda's death, or if he even decided to go through with his suicidal fixations, life would've been different for him in the root universe (obviously, ryley) I mean, you could basically understand that from how he ended up in the BEAST au, but imagine if he really did slip up in his decision-making in any of the universes.

Many analysts have proposed that he went MIA (early in his life) from the main universe for a while to figure out how the BEAST universe worked, whilst having the Book to his advantage. Perhaps his actions were guided? I'm not saying he's all-knowing, but he's sure as hell smart. I'm not sure if Kafka was trying to highlight the concept of karma when it comes to Dazai, but if he is, then I suppose you could say that Dazai is pretty much unaffected by the rules of karma, existing as the centerpiece of all the multiverses. No Longer Human is the namesake of his ability, but the book talks about disqualification from societal norms and generally, the world. I was talking about it with a friend, and they reminded me that Yozo (the main protagonist) was pretty strong in his views against society. Like he didn't speak out of total defeat, he spoke out of defense. If there was anything Dazai actually lost to, it was his guilt— "Living itself is a source of sin."

Then again, that's my personal interpretation since everyone has their unique perspective of his writings. In terms of the actual adaptation, you could translate the word 'disqualification' to 'insusceptibilty' when if it came to the Book's effects on Dazai? This side note is becoming really long lmao anyways I'll link a few theories which afflicted me with brainrot down below.

Another thing before I wrap up, the name 'Decay of Angels' stemmed from Yukio Mishima's book entitled 'The Decay of An Angel.' This is the final novel to the author's tetralogy: 'The Sea of Fertility.' The main protagonist, Honda, meets a person he believes to be a reincarnation of his friend, Kiyoaki, who takes the form of a young teenage boy named Tōru. The last novel of this series enhances Mishima's dominant themes of the series as a whole:

the decay of courtly tradition in Japan

the essence and value of Buddhist philosophy and aesthetics

Mishima’s apocalyptic vision of the modern era

Again, this could be referred to what Fukuchi goes on to say:

Some people view the concept of samsara optimistically, justifying it by saying that perhaps each individual is given a second (third, fourth, fifth, who knows) chance to refine their actions in order to be birthed into a better realm, with their karma being the independent variable.

On the other hand, other people, specifically the Hindus, view the cycle of existence as some sort of plague. To them, the flow of life and being forced to endure the suffering of mere existence in any form was somewhat frowned down upon. Some Hindus viewed samsara as a trap. Besides, having one's soul being limited to a physical body for the rest of eternity was not very appealing, especially since where they ended up at depended on the karmic value their past actions surmounted.

Even so, particular types of Buddhists don't seek nirvana, but instead, like the Hindus, they make an effort to be good people of society, building up their good deeds to increase the likelihood of being reborn into one of the better realms.

As mentioned before, the Deva Realm was the home of angels, the most carefree, gratified beings to exist. Fukuchi describes these angels as the people who don't get their hands dirty, the people who act as the puppeteers of society: politicians.

In terms of parallels, angels were the most fortunate and powerful, but they didn't have anyone ruling over them. A lack of supervision would lead to the abuse of power, which is what I believe Fukuchi was referring to. Deeming himself the Decay of Angels, he sought to prove himself as the 'sign of death that falls on the nation's greed.'

A few fun facts (okay, not really) about Yukio Mishima: he committed seppuku (ritual suicide by disembowelment) on the day he held a speech to voice out his unpopular political beliefs to the public. Mishima deeply treasured traditions and opposed the modern mindset the nation was advancing forward to adapt eventually. In his last book, The Decay of an Angel, he spoke about the five signs which complete the death of an angel:

Here are the five greater signs: the once-immaculate robes are soiled, the flowers in the flowery crown fade and fall, sweat pours from the armpits, a fetid stench envelops the body, the angel is no longer happy in its proper place.

The Decay of an Angel, p.53

The reviews about this series I've read so far describe Mishima's works to be quite complex; his writings demanded a lot of time to deconstruct and understand. They were highly symbolic, and he was pretty obsessed with death and the 'spiritual barrenness of the modern world.' I think you could attach a few strings from here to the mindsets of the DOA members. Of course, this parallel is completely abstract, but I'll go on rambling anyway:

He should have armed them with the foreknowledge that would keep them from flinging themselves after their destinies, take away their wings, keep them from soaring, make them march in step with the crowd. The world does not approve of flying. Wings are dangerous weapons. They invite self-destruction before they can be used. If he had brought Isao to terms with the fools, then he could have pretended that he knew nothing of wings.

The Decay of an Angel, p.113

I suppose you could resonate Nikolai with that excerpt. As much as Fukuchi takes the lead in this whole murder association, I'd like to believe that each member of the DOA plays an equally interesting part in whatever movement they're trying to execute. Fyodor feels it is his god-sent purpose to cleanse the world of its sins, his motto being, "Let the hand of God guide you." Sigma doesn't know where he belongs, since his origination comes from a page in the Book, and is fueled by the desperation to find a reason to live. Bram holds one of the most powerful abilities which is counted to be one of the "Top Ten Calamities to Destroy the World."

What I mean to say is that the DOA members are incredibly powerful, and they're not your ordinary antagonists (or I'm just biased). It's not just overthrowing authorities, mass genocide, and world domination— you could say that each individual is trying to utilize their purposes to their fullest expenditures, and the way they're trying to assert their plan into action is a little more passive-aggressive (framing the Agency, having a convo with a suicidal dude in jail, etc). They're the gray area between evil and good. As they framed the good guys for their own crimes, they're trying to conquer the bad guys for exploiting the innocent as they please.

This post would definitely age well if all hell breaks loose in the current arc (as if it didn't) and Kafka doesn't give us a happy ending.

That's all I have to say for now I guess! Thank you for reading, and once again, if anyone else something they wanna share, feel free to do so <3

sources (tryna follow Q's example ^_^) :

the six realms

samsara

the decay of angels

beast!au

the book

the sea of fertility

yukio mishima

theory: dazai’s emotional/mental state in beast!au

q’s theory: dazai being the protector of the book

theory: beast!dazai and the book

217 notes · View notes

samwisethewitch · 4 years ago

Text

Everything You Need to Know About Pagan Deity

As you’ve probably guessed by now, there are many, many, many different approaches to deity within the wider pagan community. While it would be impossible to summarize all of these different perspectives in a single blog post, this post contains some common themes and best practices that are more or less universal and can be adapted to fit whatever system you choose to work with.

In my Baby Witch Bootcamp series, I talk about the “Four R’s” of working with spiritual beings, including deities: respect, research, reciprocity, and relationship. However, when it comes to gods and goddesses specifically, I think it’s important to include a fifth “R” — receptivity.

If you’re completely new to this kind of work and want to avoid making rookie mistakes and/or pissing off powerful spiritual forces, sticking to the Five R’s of Deity Relationships is a good place to start. The Five R’s are:

Respect. It’s always a good idea to have a healthy respect for the powers you choose to connect with, whether you see those powers as literal gods and goddesses or as archetypes within the collective unconscious (see below). While not every ritual needs to be incredibly formal and structured, you should always conduct yourself with an air of respect and reverence when connecting with deity. There’s no need to humble yourself to the point of cowering before the gods (and in fact, this kind of behavior is a turnoff for many deities), but you should strive to be polite and follow your system’s proper protocol for things like cleansing, offerings, and prayers.

Research. I am of the opinion that you should do serious research into a god or goddess before any attempt to make contact with them. This can be controversial, but in my own experience things seem to go more smoothly when I know what I’m doing. Books are really the way to go for this — the Internet can be useful for connecting with other worshipers and hearing their stories, but it isn’t a good source for nonbiased factual information. I recommend starting with academic sources written by secular experts for a purely historical account that won’t be colored by personal religious experience. Once you have a decent understanding of the basic historical context, look for books by pagan authors who have experience working with this deity. These sources will give you a framework for your own interactions with them.

Reciprocity. As we’ve discussed before, reciprocity is a core value of virtually every pagan tradition. Reciprocity is a mutual positive exchange where all parties benefit in some way, and this quality forms the backbone of all healthy relationships with deity. While we benefit from connecting with the gods, the gods also benefit from our worship. Upholding reciprocity in your relationships with deity means making regular offerings to show your appreciation as well as living in a way that your god or goddess approves of.

Relationship. At the end of the day, connecting with a god or goddess is about creating a healthy, fulfilling relationship. Like any relationship, it takes time and effort to keep the connection alive. The gods are living, thinking, feeling beings just like you and me, though on a much larger scale. Just like you and me, they have likes and dislikes and require certain things from those who want to work closely with them. Try to approach the gods as individuals, and connect with them as you would with another person. This will naturally lead to much more authentic and organic relationships.

Receptivity. To be receptive is to be open and ready to receive whatever comes your way — this is an essential quality for anyone who is serious about connecting with a god or goddess. Connecting with the gods means allowing them a place in your life, whatever they choose to bring with them. It means forming a relationship with them on their terms, and that requires us to give up a certain degree of control. While you should never feel afraid or completely out of control when connecting with deity (if you do, stop contacting that deity immediately), you may very well experience things you did not expect or ask for. Be prepared for these surprises, and understand that when the gods surprise us in this way, they do it in order to help us grow. Let go of any preconceived ideas about what a relationship with this deity “should” look like, and instead let it unfold naturally.

Though there is much more to working with deity than just these values, keeping these values in mind will get you started out on the right foot in your relationships with the gods.

Deity or Archetype?

As odd as it may sound, not everyone who connects with the gods through study and ritual believes those gods to be literal spiritual beings. Some pagans (I would even say the majority of pagans, based on my personal experience) connect with the gods as individuals with their own personalities and agency, but others connect with them as symbols that represent different elements of the human experience. This latter group is working with the gods not as deity, but as archetypes.

The term “archetype” comes from academia, particularly the fields of psychology and literary analysis. An archetype is a symbol that embodies the fundamental characteristics of a person, thing, or experience.

Swiss psychoanalyst Carl Jung argued that archetypes are powerful symbols within the collective unconscious (basically an ancestral memory shared by all of humanity) that arise due to shared experiences across cultures. For example, Jung would argue that Demeter, Juno, and Frigg all represent the “Mother” archetype filtered through different cultural lenses, reflecting the important role of mothers across Greek, Roman, and Old Norse culture. For Jung and his followers, archetypes allow us to connect to latent parts of our own psyche — by connecting with the Mother archetype, for example, you can develop motherly qualities like patience, empathy, and nurturing.

For comparative mythology expert Joseph Campbell, archetypes represented types of characters that appear in some form in most or all global mythology. In his book, The Hero of a Thousand Faces, Campbell identified the “hero’s journey” as the archetypal narrative framework on which most stories, from ancient myths to modern films, are based. (If you’ve taken literally any high school literature class, you’re probably familiar with Campbell’s work.) Like Jung, Campbell has been hugely influential on modern pagans who choose to connect with the gods as archetypes.

Working with an archetype is a little different than working with a deity. For one thing, while archetypes may manifest as gods and goddesses, they can also manifest as fictional characters, historical figures, or abstract symbols. Let’s say you want to tap into the Warrior archetype. You could connect with this archetype by working with gods like Mars, Thor, or Heracles — but you could just as easily do so by working with superheroes like Luke Cage or Colossus, literary figures like Ajax or Achilles, or the abstract concepts of strength and honor.

When pagans worship a deity, it’s because they want to form a relationship with that deity for some reason. But when pagans work with an archetype, it’s usually because they want to embody aspects of that archetype. In our above example, you may be trying to connect to the Warrior archetype to gain confidence or become more assertive.

The biggest difference between worshiping a deity and working with an archetype is that a deity is an external force, while an archetype is an internal force. When you connect with a deity, you are connecting with a spiritual being outside of yourself — a being with their own thoughts, feelings, and drives. When you connect with an archetype, you are connecting with a part of your own psyche. Because of this, archetypes tend to be more easily defined and behave in more predictable ways than deities, although some archetypes can be very complex and multi-faceted.

On the surface, worship and archetype work might be very similar, but the “why” behind the action is fundamentally different.

If you choose to worship the Morrigan, for example, you may have an altar dedicated to her, make regular offerings to her, speak with her in meditations and astral journeys, and/or write poetry or make art in her honor. If you choose to work with the Wild Woman archetype, it may look very similar to an outside observer — you may have an altar dedicated to the Wild Woman energy, speak with manifestations of Wild Woman (perhaps including the Morrigan) in meditation, and write poetry or make art dedicated to this archetype. However, these actions will have a very different intent behind them. Your Wild Woman altar is not a sacred space but a visual trigger to help you connect to the Wild Woman within you. Your meditations are conversations with different aspects of your own personality, not with a separate being. Your art is an expression of self, not a devotional act. The result is a deeper connection to yourself, not a relationship with another being.

I hope I’ve made it clear that archetype work and deity worship can both be very worthwhile spiritual practices, and that each serves its own purpose. Many pagans, myself included, work with both deities and archetypes.

There is some overlap between worshiping a deity and working with an archetype, and many pagans start out with one practice before eventually ending up in the other. Sometimes working with an archetype leads you to encounter a deity who embodies that archetype, which can lead to a relationship with that deity. Likewise, your relationship with a deity may help you become aware of a certain archetype’s influence in your life, which might lead you to work with that archetype.

Making First Contact

First impressions are important. This is true for making new friends, for job interviews, for first dates — and for your first meeting with a god or goddess. In many cases, the way you behave in your first meeting with a deity will set the tone for your relationship with them.

That being said, don’t overthink (or over-stress) about your first impression. You aren’t going to be cursed or punished if you mess this up — at the very worst, the deity might lose interest in connecting with you, and even that can often be remedied with an offering and a polite apology. While it’s always best to get off on the right foot, don’t feel like you need to be perfect.

So, how do you make a good first impression on a god or goddess? Honestly, the rules are largely the same for making a good first impression on any other person. Make sure your physical appearance is clean and tidy — some systems, such as Hellenismos and Kemetic paganism, have special rules for cleansing before contacting the gods, but it’s always a good idea to take a shower first and make sure you’re wearing clean clothes. Likewise, make sure the physical space you invite the gods into is relatively clean — it doesn’t need to be spotless, but take a minute to tidy up before beginning any ritual. Be polite — there’s no need to be overly formal, but you should be respectful. Don’t immediately ask for favors — how would you feel if you met someone at a party and they immediately asked you to do some sort of work for them?

Beyond the basics, it’s wise to make sure you have an idea of who this god is and what they are like before you reach out to them. This will keep you from accidentally doing something offensive. For example, you wouldn’t want to invite them to an altar dedicated to a deity they have a rivalry with. Likewise, you want to avoid offering food or drink that would have been taboo in their original worship. (Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, but when you’re just starting out it’s a good idea to follow the historical framework as closely as possible.)

At the risk of sounding like a broken record: this is why research is so important. Knowing who you are dealing with allows you to deal with them respectfully, gracefully, and competently.

Callings

There’s one aspect of deity worship that is controversial in modern paganism: the idea of being “called” by a deity. This is a question you’ll find many, many heated discussions about online. Do you need to be called by a deity to form a relationship with them? Do deities choose their followers, or do we choose them? How do you know what a call from a deity even looks like?

As I said, this is a controversial topic, but I firmly believe that 1.) you do not have to feel called to a deity beyond being interested in them, and 2.) feeling drawn to a deity’s image, symbols, and myths is a form of calling.

Many pagans do feel like they were called or drawn to the deities they walk most closely with. They may have encountered myths of that deity as a child or teenager and deeply resonated with them, or may have always had an affinity for that god’s sacred animals. They may have dreamed of this deity before knowing who they were, or may have felt a spiritual presence around them before identifying it as a god or goddess.

Many people first encounter the gods in fiction, only for this fictionalized depiction to spark a deeper connection that eventually leads to worship. In the modern era, it’s entirely possible for someone who worships Loki to have first encountered him (or at least a character loosely based on him) in Marvel comics and films, or for someone who worships the Greek pantheon to have first discovered them through the Percy Jackson books. As far as I’m concerned, this is also a valid “call” from deity. The gods are very good at communicating with us through the means available — including fiction.

That being said, just because you don’t already feel a strong connection to a god or goddess doesn’t mean you can’t or shouldn’t worship them. The connection will come with time and effort, just like in any relationship.

Dedication, Patrons, and Matrons

In online spaces such as Tumblr and TikTok, a lot of inexperienced pagans parrot the idea that every pagan needs to have a designated matron and/or patron god and/or needs to be formally dedicated to a god in order to have a close relationship with them. Not only is this untrue, but such restrictions can actually cause harm and/or stunt spiritual growth.

Let’s address dedication first. To be dedicated to a deity means to outwardly declare yourself a servant of that deity, usually with a formal dedication ritual — think of it as the pagan version of joining a convent or going to seminary. It is an outward expression of your devotion and loyalty to that deity. Dedicants are held to a higher standard than the average worshiper by themselves, their communities, and the god(s) they have dedicated to.

Dedication can be a powerful and fulfilling spiritual experience (it’s the backbone of many peoples’ spiritual practice), but it should not be taken lightly. Dedicating yourself to a god or goddess should be a sign of your commitment to them and a deepening of your relationship — it should not be the beginning of that relationship.

Dedication is a lot like marriage. Just like you wouldn’t marry someone you’ve only been on a handful of dates with, you shouldn’t dedicate to a deity just because you’ve had one or two positive experiences with them. Like marriages, dedication can be difficult to get out of — ending your dedication to a deity is possible, but it’s a messy, complicated, uncomfortable process that is sure to shift the foundation of your entire spiritual practice, and not always for the better.

My advice to new and inexperienced pagans is not to even consider dedication until you’ve been practicing for several years. As you begin your journey, your focus should be on exploring your options, forming meaningful connections, and developing a practice that works for you and your unique spiritual needs. Now is the time for experimentation, not lifelong commitments.

But let’s say you are an experienced pagan, and you feel like you are ready for dedication. How do you know if you should dedicate to a given god or goddess?

Dedication may be the logical next step in your relationship with a deity if:

This deity has been an active part of your spiritual practice for at least 2-3 years, with no major gaps in contact with them

You are comfortable upholding this deity’s values for the rest of your life — and are willing to face consequences if you fail to do so

You are willing to dedicate a significant amount of time and effort to the service of this deity

You are willing to face major changes in your life outside your spiritual practice — dedicating to a deity often leads to major shifts that may affect our career, family, and/or relationships

If you answered “yes” to all of the above, dedication may be appropriate. This may seem overly cautious, but remember that dedicating to a deity is a serious, lifelong commitment akin to joining the clergy. For context, it takes at least five years of study and practice to become a Catholic priest, a similar amount of time to become a Jewish rabbi, and three years to become a high priest/ess in Traditional Wicca. If you don’t have the patience to maintain a relationship for a few years before dedication, that is probably a good indicator that dedication isn’t for you.

If you are dedicated to a deity or are planning to dedicate, you may actually choose to attend seminary or receive some other formal religious training. This training will help you to better serve your deity in a public capacity, as you will learn skills like religious counselling, leading ritual, and building community. If your program of study includes ordination, it will also allow you to perform legally binding religious rituals like marriage ceremonies. Depending on your path, attending seminary or training may be your act of formal dedication.

Finally, let me make it clear that dedication does not make you a better pagan than someone who is not dedicated. The choice to dedicate or not dedicate is only one element of your spiritual practice, and it is possible to have a fulfilling and life-affirming practice without dedication. Some of the people who do the most work in the service of the gods are not dedicated to them. You may be one of these people, and that is totally okay.

Patron/matron relationships are a specific type of dedication.

The concept of patron deities comes from Wicca and related neopagan religions. As we’ve previously discussed, Wicca is a duotheistic system with a God and Goddess, whose union is the source of all creation. However, because Wiccans believe that all gods are manifestations of the God and all goddesses are manifestations of the Goddess, some covens choose to work with the God and Goddess in the form of other deities (say, for example, Osiris and Isis), which are referred to as the coven’s “patron” and “matron” deities. In these covens, initiation into the coven’s mysteries (traditionally in the form of first, second, and third degree initiations) typically acts as a form of dedication to these deities.

As Eclectic Wicca has gained popularity in the last few decades, there has been a growing trend of individual Wiccans and eclectic pagans choosing personal patron and/or matron deities. Some Wiccans will have a single god or goddess they are dedicated to, while others feel that it is very important to be dedicated to exactly one masculine deity and exactly one feminine deity. This second model is the one I see most often in online pagan spaces, especially Tumblr and TikTok.

The patron/matron model can be useful for some pagans, but it is not one-size-fits-all. As I mentioned, this model of dedication comes from Wicca, and is a very modern concept. In ancient pagan religions, most people would not have been dedicated in this way. That does not mean that this isn’t a valid form of worship (it absolutely is), but it does mean that those who practice reconstructionist paths may not be inclined to interact with deity this way.

The guidelines for patron/matron relationships are similar to the guidelines for dedication in general, but these relationships often (but not always) have a more parental nature. For some people, having a divine mother and/or father figure is ideal — especially for those who are healing from parental trauma or abuse. If you feel drawn to this type of deity relationship, I encourage you to explore it.

On the other hand, you may not have any interest in the patron/matron model, and that’s totally fine! It’s called polytheism for a reason — if you prefer to maintain less formal relationships with many gods, you should feel free to do so.

I hope this post has helped clarify some of the murkier aspects of polytheism and deity work. Obviously, this is only the tip of the iceberg — I could write a book about this topic and many, many authors already have. However, I think the information here is enough to get you started, and I hope that it will provide a first step on your journey with your gods.

Resources:

Wicca for Beginners by Thea Sabin

A Witches’ Bible by Janet and Stewart Farrar

The Spiral Dance by Starhawk

Where the Hawthorn Grows by Morgan Daimler

The Way of Fire and Ice by Ryan Smith

Jessi Huntenburg (YouTuber), “Dancing with Deity | Discovering Gods, Goddesses, and Archetypes,” “Archetype, Deity, and Inviting Transpersonal Experience,” and “10 Ways to Bond with Deity”

Kelly-Ann Maddox (YouTuber), “How to Have Deep Connections with Deities”

404 notes · View notes

baya-ni · 4 years ago

Text

Renga Shouldn’t Be Canon (clickbait)

No but seriously, I hope that Renga doesn’t become canon, at least not in the way that I think a lot of people are hoping that it will. Personally, I’m not expecting anything close to a kiss and confession and that’s fine by me.

Queerbaiting is a problem in mainstream media, there’s no doubt about it, and many people both within and outside the queer community are right to feel wary about hoping for that kind of representation. Personally, I’m still caught by surprise every time a queer person or couple is depicted in a normalized and healthy way onscreen. And that just speaks to the appallingly poor representation queer people are so used to seeing.

But I think that fandom likes to throw the word “queerbaiting” around a bit haphazardly, much in the same way faux woke people throw around words like “gaslighting” and “cancel culture”. They’ve become buzz words to evoke immediate feelings of self-righteousness and to prey on person’s fear of appearing ignorant or bigoted.

Unfortunately, I worry that when the season inevitably ends without Renga’s “canonization”, people will unfairly label Sk8 as Queerbait. And I have many Feelings about this- mostly frustration.

But we’re only mid-season. I can only guess where the show is going to go and only make assumptions about fandom behavior based on personal experience, and there’s a high possibility I’ll be proven totally wrong so... take whatever I say with a grain of salt. But anyway, let’s get on with it.

Fundamentally, Sk8 isn’t shoujo, it’s not BL- it’s a sports anime. And while that doesn’t preclude a total absence of romance between its characters, ultimately those aren’t the kinds of relationships that sports anime concerns itself with. The most prominent relationships you’ll see will be more along the lines of Teammates and Rivals (there's also a third dynamic I'm calling Opponents which is Not the same as Rivals but the Opponents dynamic is less relevant to my point so I'll focus on just the first two).

However, it's not hard to see why romantic interpretations are so common among fans of sports anime. At their core, the basis of Teammate and Rival dynamics bear many similarities to that of a compelling romance. Both Teammate and Rival relationships are built upon two characters' mutual admiration and respect for one another, they involve characters learning from one another and being inspired to push themselves to be their best. There's a great deal of trust involved, as is vulnerability, communication, and empathy. In other words, all the essentials of any healthy relationship.

But context and genre are important. I think that a good romance is one that is unique to its characters specific personalities and needs, as well as is believable within the context of the setting and story. For an anime like Sk8, I would find an on-screen kiss strange and out of place (unless it was done for comedic effect which would be... bad).

I'm reminded of this quote from Portrait of a Lady on Fire, which is one of my all time favorite films:

"Do all lovers feel as though they are inventing something? I know the gestures. I imagined them all waiting for you."

And that basically sums up what I've described, albeit more poetically. Love is invention. Romantic gestures form a unique language between lovers. And if I may add, genre and narrative establish the basis for the emotional significance of these gestures.

In a genre like action/thriller, one of the most meaningful things a character can do is risk their safety or straight up sacrifice themselves for another, because bodily harm and physical risks drive the tension in these kinds of narratives. In the romance genre, confessions, physical intimacy, and grand romantic displays serve the same purpose. In something like sports anime, I argue that its gestures like physically accommodating for your teammate, supporting them when they feel dejected, and being motivated to train harder and be better for the sake of being allowed to stand beside them, that hold equivalent significance.

But this is all broadly speaking, and genre is just one element. Characters’ personalities, habits, insecurities, and trauma, as well as a story’s themes, further specify the kinds of gestures that hold the most meaning in a narrative.

Let’s look again at Portrait of a Lady on Fire, on my favorite scenes:

Portrait is interested in subverting the power imbalance inherent between the Artist and the Muse, the Voyeur and the Subject, the Looker and she who is Looked At. Heloise’s observations of Marianne hold great significance because of this theme; she disrupts the power imbalance by taking back agency as the Subject, demonstrating that she is just as capable of Looking at the Artist just as the Artist does at her. This is visually represented by the framing of the final shot. With the camera pulled back, we now see Marianne as Heloise has been seeing her, and she is now subject to being visually scrutinized in the same way that Heloise has been up to this point in the film.

This scene is so poignant because the romantic gesture it depicts ties heavily to the story’s themes, its characters’ personalities, and its existence is believable within its genre.

Now, let’s bring this all back to Sk8. In this show, what sort of gestures are given the most significance?

Skateboarding. Duh.

Basically, this line establishes that “basis for emotional significance” that I mentioned earlier, such that skating is the means by which characters and relationships are developed and the plot is driven forward, that any and everything related to skating potentially holds symbolic meaning.

And specifically, equating the act of skating to love then allows for more romantic interpretations of all kinds of scenes. Take for example, these parallel sets of shots from ep 1:

(I mean cmon look at his tiny blush, it’s fucking adorable) And:

In a show that equates skating to a “ritual of love��, these scenes can be realistically be interpreted as Langa and Reki falling in love with one another. Skating acts as both the catalyst for their relationship as well as later on being the means by which they express their feelings and develop their relationship.

Skating is their love language.

Ok, I’ll try to wrap this up since this post has gotten wayyy too long. But basically my point is that Renga is about as canon as this show could possibly make it within the confines of its genre and narrative. Romance in sports anime is different from romance in shoujo, but it’s romance all the same, in the same way that different people express love in different ways.

A kiss and confession is not the only means by which a ship can become canon. And I personally would much rather have this kind of carefully crafted symbolism than a kiss just randomly shoehorned in.

But I understand that in the face of centuries of censorship, cop-outs, and barely believable and forced heteronormativity, people want same-sex intimacy onscreen, unapologetic and normalized. I get that.

But in my opinion, Sk8 isn’t queerbait, and it shouldn’t be accused as such just because its characters won’t kiss onscreen. I think this show depicts a wonderful and loving relationship between two boys, that isn’t any less loving just because it doesn’t fit into conventional romantic tropes.

Edit: I did a followup post about Sk8 and its queer representation here, where I go more in depth into the ways that Sk8 represents queerness through beyond its implied homo-romantic relationships.

So yeah, I’d love to hear yalls thoughts :)

#this is gonna get me cancelled #i kno it to be true #but Some Bitches like to reduce romance to kissing and sex #which is the smoothest fucking brain take i have EVER heard #gay ppl invented romance #Good Romance #i don't make the rules #sk8 #sk8 the infinity #sk8 meta #renga kyan #langa hasegawa #renga

311 notes · View notes

shizukateal · 3 years ago

Text

Lore Olympus Speculation: Zagreus and Dionysus

Ok so a few mild corrections and warnings first: I framed my theory last time under the assumption of a prophecy, only to realize immediately after that there's no need for it, per se. Demeter could just be displaced in her interpretation of the Rule of Successions. Instead of it being that the previous usurpers rose to power thanks to fertility goddesses, it could be that those were their downfall, since fertility goddesses are destined to produce the next heirs of the world. After all, even though the female Olympians are not born from Rhea in this version, they are born from the explicitly confirmed as a fertility goddess Metis, who in the original myth was devoured/assimilated(?) by Zeus specifically to prevent her from siring children who would replace him.

Also, last part was a bit far reaching, but not too much given the point of the story we're at in now. This part however is WILD in terms of the details I speculate on. I have faith in my theory, of course, but I also understand that I could be completely wrong about it. But hey, what is fandom for if not for having fun trying to get ahead of the author in guessing what they're planning, am I right?

Ok, so Dionysus is 100% coming since we were already introduced to the currently not pregnant Semele and he historically has a connection to Persephone in some of the myths. Zagreus' inclusion as a separate entity is a bit more debatable, since there is at least one version in which he is born, killed and reincarnated explicitly as Dionysus, but as I mentioned before in the previous part there's a bunch of narrative cues in the story that seem to be pointing to his appearance specifically as a son of Persephone and Hades alone. The focus on Hades' "infertility", on how Apollo, who is arguably the antagonist who has caused the most damage to Persephone thus far has his eyes set on Zeus' throne, and on Metis and Thetis who are both known for being disposed of by Zeus before they could bore him children who could be a threat to him, all seem to point that eventually the big one-upmanship that Persephone will deal to them is bearing and raising the son of Hades that will depose Zeus.

Also it is part of my theory that both Dionysus and Zagreus will be purple with the main difference being that Zagreus will have white hair like Hades while Dionysus will have black hair like Zeus. It just seems like a cool thing to do. Again this is purely my ravings made for fun and I absolutely acknowledge that I could be wrong. With that out of the way, let's move on to the speculation:

Zeus Does The Dick Move Of Manipulating (and/or Framing) Hera

So. Zeus has just clowned himself up his own ass and beyond. He girlbossed a little to close to the sun, if you will, and now Persephone is pregnant. Shit. But he can't take direct action against the baby lest people start asking questions. Also the underworld is probably like, really fucking excited about this.

However, say Semele also gets pregnant around this time. And Hera gets suspicious, although maybe she doesn't have all the details yet. And so, Zeus gets an idea.

The Hera we know in this telling is just a bit too... composed for what we know about her from the myths. Yeah, she can get vengeful and maybe even petty, but she doesn't always express it in a fit of impulsive rage. Whatever anger and envy she felt towards the women Zeus cheats him with has now subsided into the resigned frustration of the insult that the affairs represent towards her. After all she is not doing anything in particular about Thetis, right? Not in the way she does to other women in the myths, anyway. She is a Queen with a capital Q here, and she needs to act as such. But what if, for whatever reason, Dionysus represents a threat to her children?

I mean, we know that eventually he'll come to replace Hestia in the Olympian pantheon. But while I'm not saying that that'll be his intention from the outset, I think Zeus will let it drip that he is planning on favoring Dionysus over the others for whatever reason. That's when Hera gets panicky and hasty. And Zeus takes advantage of that.

Maybe he uses Echo for this. All she has to do is to tell Hera where this other conspicuously purple kid is and boom. Hera plans a hit. Actually, whether she goes through with it or not is irrelevant. The moment it comes out that Persephone and Hades' kid, the hope for an against-all-odds Prince of the Underworld, was assassinated, all Zeus has to do is establish a probable case against Hera and he just killed two birds with one stone while washing his hands.

Semele burns and Persephone raises Dionysus

The press goes insane with the news. Hera's reputation dives harder than a rock thrown at the sea. Maybe Persephone and Hades hate her now, or maybe not! Maybe all 3 of them know by now that Zeus is full of shit, but can't get the news out that Zagreus survived for fear that he will try to kill him again or some other reason. Whatever the case, Hera decides that if she is going to be the bad guy in the eyes of the public, she may as well do something deserving of the title. She arranges the whole Semele shebang we know about. Maybe this is the part where she puts that punishment on Echo as well. In any case, luckily or not Zeus gets to rebuild what's left of Dionysus. But with Hera having no fucks left to give he can't take him straight to Olympus.

This next part also depends a bit on whether Hera managed to warn Persephone and remain friends or not. If she didn't then Hades will probably ban her from the Underworld like with Leto and Apollo. If that's the case maybe Zeus feels comfortable with announcing that he has another child at that moment? But I think it'll be more likely that he keeps quiet about it and gives him to Persephone and Hades in secret. Eventually, Persephone decides to let him grow up in the mortal realm, but doesn't repeat Demeter's mistake (or maybe she does at first, but grows out of it) and lets him figure out his stuff as a god, even if he's not officially recognized as one by Olympus while he is there. Meanwhile, as a being born in and from 2 underworld beings Zagreus may or may not have a limitation on how much time he can spend away from the underworld, but it's likely that he'll be raised closely to Dionysus, with both of them aware of their particular circumstances and having some form of a brotherly relationship, hopefully.

Dionysus Revealed through the Bacchae

What happens next is the Bacchae, of course. To recount: Semele's family bans the cult that Dionysus is amassing and laughs at the idea that he could be the son of Zeus, so he retaliates by driving his aunts crazy, and gaslighting his grandpa with his real form until the aunts rip him into pieces.

Such an act of wrath does not go unnoticed by Zeus, but since by this point Dionysus has amassed a fuckton of followers and started his own cult, he has no choice but to recognize him. The news go insane and when Persephone's involvement is revealed the yellow press start speculating that Persephone toooootally had an affair with Zeus, you guys, we swear, which, of course, he does nothing to dissuade even if it annoys her and Hades because that's just how Zeus is. For whatever reason, Hestia gets demoted and he ascends as an official Olympian. Which is bad news for...

Apollo vs. Dionysus

Leto and Apollo's agenda is to keep him as THE most popular youthful god around, particularly with the mortals who have a lot of use for him because of the reach of his domains, and also probably eventually let it come out to light that he is a legitimate son of Zeus. For the moment only Hermes can compete with him in those terms, but since he is more focused on his own thing and whether he is a son of Zeus in this version is still up in the air, they don't seem to think of him as a threat for now, at least at the point in which we are in the story. You know who else could compete in those terms, though? Dionysus, god of wine and theatre, son of Zeus, newest god extraordinaire, and who is famous for amassing ravenous amounts of fans.

The massive kick in the balls that Dionysus will represent to Apollo is sure to be nothing short of hilarious and I cannot wait to see it happen. Especially when you take the Nietzschean dichotomy between the two, where Apollo represents societal acceptance vs Dionysus' transgressive, fringes-of-society nature. Point is, they'll be enemies in the competition for Zeus' succession. That being said, I doubt that Dionysus will be genuinely interested in it beyond doing stuff to annoy Apollo, although I'm obviously getting to ahead of myself by trying to predict his characterization in this version. But yeah, I fully believe they will be antagonistic towards each other. In some versions Apollo is also part of the team that keeps Zagreus' dismembered parts under his supervision, just in case making him an explicit enemy of his parents in this version of the story wasn't enough, so add that up to the potential conflicts in this narrative.

Orpheus Does His Thing And Ends Up Revealing Zagreus

As most of you reading this should know by now, Orphism is the religion that muddied the Zagreus waters even further by making him an epithet of Dionysus. My conclusion to this is that in this version Orpheus ends up meeting Zagreus -who may or may not be in the Underworld due to his possible restrictions- and he tries to deflect by claiming he's just Dionysus with an epithet. And while this succeeds in keeping the mortals ignorant, the news have already reached Apollo, Orpheus' father, before the maenads kill him (maybe Dionysus orders them to do that to try and keep the secret) and he goes and snitches on Zeus.

And that's the point where I have no idea what happens next. I mean, seriously, even though we all know that Persephone and Hades will end up married and all that jazz there's no way to predict how the story will end, since greek mythology doesn't have a Ragnarok, or at least not one that is permanent. Even if I happen to be right about everything I have no idea what a pantheon lead by Zagreus would look like, so I can only wait and see in excitement for what's to come next. And I'll be sure to enjoy every second of it ;)

#lore olympus #lo theory #lore olympus theory #lo speculation #lore olympus speculation #lo persephone #lo hades #lo demeter #lo zeus #lo apollo #lo leto #lo thetis #dionysus #zagreus #lo metis

37 notes · View notes

spiribia · 3 years ago

Note

I’m sorry if this is a lot to ask, but I was wondering if you knew the meaning behind some of the objects on the tables during the black rose duels? most of them seemed pretty straightforward, but kanae’s, tsuwabuki’s and shiori’s objects kind of left me wondering what the symbolism represented

no worries, thanks for the ask! here were my personal rough guesses:

- the flowers on the tables at kanae’s duel are lilies. admittedly i’m probably least sure about these just because of lack of contextual clues pointing to any specific possible meaning as far as i could remember - i think it’s notable that kanae is sort of the guinea pig of this whole thing, after which they change up the process, so her sword isn’t pulled from anyone else’s chest and her object does not seem a direct artifact of her relationship with another character. white lilies represent purity and chastity generally -- maybe or maybe not significantly in contrast to the black rose and all it seems to represent. an external expectation for composure, given her status and her role, versus the ‘uglier’ mikage-elevator inner thoughts, maybe. her pleasantry toward anthy versus the inner resentment and discomfort she has toward anthy. in black rose mode, with these things on the surface, she claims “this is the real me” and plows through the lilies and shatters the vase when she says she’ll kill anthy.

- the bitten chocolate in tsuwabuki's duel represents some idea of childhood. one of the gripes he lists to nanami of things that make him kidlike include "i can't eat bitter things" - likely in correspondence to his preference for something sweet, like chocolate.

around the beginning of the episode as his classmate mari is reprimanding him that he needs to get into a real, more mature relationship (vs. his situation with nanami), she steals a chocolate bar from him and takes a couple bites of it. when he gets it back, he won't even take a bite of it himself because he is too kiddishly chaste about the "indirect kiss" of it.

tsuwabuki's deeply frustrated by his own immaturity and that others perceive him as a kid. before the seminar, he almost takes a bite of chocolate, but then throws it in the garbage instead, trying to reject that aspect of himself, but it shows back up at the duel. the thing that drives him.

- shiori's bird appears to be a java sparrow / finch (same bird, different names). when she has the conversation with juri on the balcony asserting that she wants to be friends with juri again and juri rebuffs her, a bird crashes into the window and breaks its wing. it doesn’t see or understand this. juri then reveals that she never had feelings for the boy that shiori thought she’d “stolen” from juri to begin with, so she doesn’t have any ‘hard feelings’ for shiori now (though she clearly does), and the bird appears dead on the ground. shiori realizes that the rift between her and juri might not have begun because of that boy and that she doesn’t actually know who juri likes - a girlboss empire crumbling moment. she isn’t in control of the situation, she doesn’t even understand it like she thought she did, and juri’s completely out of her hands. maybe this really had nothing to do with shiori at all, and so she's become irrelevant in juri’s narrative.

just before shiori walks into her room and discovers juri’s locket on her desk, you get a brief shot of the bird, suddenly alive and singing.

i think it’s likely emblematic of herself or her perceived relationship with juri, which she can only see herself as keeping alive by provoking juri again and again so juri doesn’t completely slip away from her. something she can’t let go of.

#anon

43 notes · View notes

lucemferto · 4 years ago

Text

Someone left a very good comment under my video on Technoblade (link) and I thought I’d post it and the reply here, so that more people could see it.

My response under the cut

I was in the middle of editing the next video and in comes you with all of your good points that I want to respond to, how dare you!

Not, but seriously, thank you for your comment! I’m going through your points in order.

1) You bring up a good point about Techno’s retirement and his choice to try and remain non-violent throughout it. The reason why that didn’t register with me so much as character development is because – from the perspective of someone who hasn’t watched every stream and only kept up through clips and compilations – the change felt very … uneven. I don’t know, if there was like a character journey or some-sort of soliloquy or something like that, but to a viewer like me, it didn’t pick up. It felt like they knew what they wanted to do with the Butcher Army and didn’t give too much thought as to how he got from End of Season 1 à Beginning of Season 2.

But honestly, that’s a minor nitpick, there’s worse cases of character inconsistency on the server, so it’s not something I would hold against him.

But this kinda ties into a bigger point, that I feel like I didn’t articulate well enough in the video: My problem with Techno’s worldview being reaffirmed has less to do with anarchy being good, but more that Techno’s disproportionate use of violence is shown to be the effective and ultimately “right (?)” way to go about it.

Like, it would have been really nice – also from an emotional conflict point of view – to have Techno seriously struggle with whether he should return to his violent ways, even after the Butcher Army event. Frame it like a tragedy, where the viewer is aware that this isn’t healthy for Technoblade – an ultimately self-destructive spiral that betrays what he came to learn about violence during his retirement.

But that’s not how it plays out – instead it serves 2 narrative purposes: 1) facilitate cool team-ups like Techno & Tommy and later Techno & Dream and 2) evoke classic action tropes ala John Wick and 80’s Arnold Schwarzenegger. There’s no time to reflect or to gather himself, to pick himself up from his lowest point – instead he immediately unveils his vault full of withers like he’s Morpheus from the Matrix. It’s pure power fantasy at that point – and with the Butcher Army posing frankly no threat at all, the stakes for Techno couldn’t be lower.

2) This one is complicated, in my opinion, because I still believe that through framing and allusion, L’Manburg, in Season 1 in the very least, is positioned as a Symbol of Good. It represents freedom from Dream’s oppression and the framing of stuff like Tommy’s last speech around the L’Mantree definitely communicates on an extradiegetic level that L’Manburg is meant to be seen as good.

But you’re right, that – even during Season 1 – there are points where we are shown the dark sides of the nation. What I’m unsure of is how much of that is intentional use of grey morality and how much of it is funny bits from early on, when the writing hadn’t yet solidified the themes it was trying to communicate.

In Season 2 though, your guess is as good as mine. It’s just very … difficult to pin down at what shade of grey L’Manburg is operating or rather how we, the viewers, are supposed to perceive them. Like, the reason why the Butcher Army event sticks out so badly in my mind is that there’s so little build-up to it – from the perspective of Tubbo’s and Fundy’s character (Quackity is a … special case). They’re just suddenly so cartoonishly corrupt – which, I need to emphasize, I’m not against having a Tubbo Corruption- or Villain-Arc. I would be very here for it. But during Tommy’s exile, when they had ample time to build up Tubbo going down a dark path – which would have been especially cool if they had involved Phil in that – they didn’t take it. Tubbo’s just spinning his wheels and then – BOOM – he evil, corrupt government. For me, it just seems sloppy.

As for the destruction of L’Manburg – here’s where I would talk about suspension of disbelief. Like, yeah, there’s six people living in L’Manburg, three of which comprise the government – so it’s really neither a nation nor a government, it’s barely an apartment complex. But we’re meant to understand it as a full nation – and as such, I still think the complete obliteration of it was a Bad Thingtm to happen. That’s the hard stance I have to take.

I read Ghostbur kind-of like the stand-in for the general populace – the people who were disenfranchised by what took place. Because when they don’t have extras to fill that role, a main character has to sort-of “symbolize” it (similar to how Niki was the stand-in for the “rebellion” in Manburg).

Overall, the problem that I have with Doomsday – aside from my problems I have with Technoblade’s character specifically – is that it’s just so muddled in what it’s trying to say. It doesn’t read as moral complexity, but just like a bunch of half-ideas that weren’t properly developed and ended up not meshing at all. Dream’s victory is framed as a bad thing – something that’s reinforced by the Season 2 finale – but from Techno’s side the destruction of L’Manburg is a triumphant moment?

Is it to show that L’Manburg was always just a shallow symbol? But Tommy, Tubbo, Quackity and Ghostbur never let go of it and are not framed as delusional or in the wrong. Again, the Season 2 finale explicitly frames Tommy’s attitude to attachment as in the right. Is it karmic punishment for Tubbo’s and Quackity’s descent into corruption? Tubbo’s arc was sloppy at best and his “epiphany” came completely independent from Technoblade and L’Manburg’s destruction. And Quackity played barely any role in Doomsday.

The people, who denounce L’Manburg like are either shown to not be in the right state of mind, like Niki and Fundy, or are still extremely traumatized by excessive amounts of violence, like Ranboo.

I hope, I could make my points clear. Again, thank you very much for your insightful comment, which helped me recontextualize a few of my own misgivings with Technoblade and Doomsday.

#dream smp #dream smp doomsday #dream smp season 2 #dsmp #dsmpblr #dsmp analysis #dream smp analysis #technoblade #tubbo #tommyinnit #dream #dreamwastaken #quackity #ghostbur

98 notes · View notes