#though i may be biased which will influence how i interpret things | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

stargazeraldroth · 1 year

Note

Ooohhh, good luck with your schoolwork, then! And don’t push yourself too hard~

I get what you mean! To be honest, I tend to make him lean more towards good, myself- It’s just how I view him, in no small part (like you said) thanks to all of the overly malicious interpretations of him. And honestly, especially with the other Stars, I usually interpret him as “good-leaning chaotic neutral,” so really, I’m probably biased, too! Also, he definitely, absolutely does need therapy- To help recognize and process his own feelings (and validate them), to help him recognize social cues he tends to disregard, etc. If nothing else, he’s lived for so goddamn long and seen so much shit that he could do with talking to A Professional about it and just getting it off of his chest. And that’s just with his canon role as a Protector… If you view anything with, say, Gin as canon, he probably needs it even more. And I’m a sucker for Gin/Ink, so I like taking it into account, heh.

I think I may have read that one, too! I… Also cannot remember the title, though, whoops. But! I could see his abandonment issues (and probable RSD, at least in my opinion (no I’m not projecting hush-) because Look At Him) playing into how he takes all of this- And the entire thing combines with his other issues and the fact that protecting the Multiverse is kind of a Big Deal to him, and it all just. Really, really starts to weigh him down, I think. He’d be trying to go over everything he did- Wondering if he did something to make them think he hated being soulless, like you said, or how he led them to think that he needed saving from the Creators (which, maybe he does, just. Not like this), or how me screwed up so much that two of the people he bases his understanding of morals off of went off the deep end. Did he interfere too much? Is this going to happen to others? Was there a way he could have seen this coming and stopped it? Blue and Dream would probably hate that he’s thinking that way (and maybe it even feeds more into their delusions, because how could he think like that? It couldn’t be their fault, right? They’re in too deep now, they can’t just stop-), but Ink is gonna spiral into self hatred and spiral hard, no matter how you look at it.

Core deserved to go a bit feral and wreck havoc on people who hurt the ones they love. Just a little bit. You know. As a treat. For real though, they’re definitely the sort of threat you regret overlooking, because even if they, physically, cannot do anything to you, kiddo’s got Influence and Knowledge and probably a damn good Scary Face. They’re definitely gonna assemble the squad to get their artistic pal back.

Depending on how badly off Ink is in the moment (both emotionally and physically), Cross might actually start out as a necessary caretaker AND protector for him- No one wants to decide things For Him, given everything that happened, but also, if he’s refusing to take his vials and not letting himself feel or function, someone needs to try and make sure he’s at least semi-healthy, you know? Either way, given time and A Lot of healing, I definitely see it developing into a much healthier, much happier friendship and partnership- With Cross probably acting like a Big Brother sometimes, because you know, Oreo Bros. And by that I mean, once they regained their bond, he gleefully holds having almost an Entire Foot on Ink over his head, and stuff like that (let them tease each other and be goofballs, they need it-).

Core and Cross are just gently giving Ink hugs and head pats while Error is just that one video of the guy awkwardly petting the other guy with a broom. And Fresh, in my mind, has plenty of motive to keep Ink Alive and Kicking because, if the Protector is gone, the chances of his Primary Food Source dying out goes up. Also I just really like the dynamic he’d bring to this particularly chaotic table, it’d be fun.

AHAHAHAHA HES SUCH A FUCKIN MANBABY AND I LOVE IT. Tantrum throwing Error over what would, to other people, be Weird Shit is always just. So funny to me. If Blue and Dream do kidnap Ink, I imagine he’d be a likely source of rescue, because the indignity of Someone Else having the nerve to capture His Rival would drive him insane.

O O F. That’s a tough (and painful) one. My first thought is that, if they wish for Ink to have a soul, and to not be “burdened” with the role of Protector anymore, the Overwrite reconstructs his old soul and locks him back in his old, unfinished AU… With just the sketches and his own thoughts for company. Unless it erases his memories, I don’t imagine he’d cope well with the sudden onslaught of Feeling so much and being in his Worst Nightmare.

My OTHER thought is that they wish to be Ink’s “perfect protectors” or something along those lines, but without any real guidelines, so now everyone has to deal with Shattered Dream and a Much More Deadly Blue running around and refusing to let Ink go anywhere.

Alternately, it goes right… For them. By locking all three Stars in the Doodlesphere and rendering it impossible to breach. Talk about an opportunity to gaslight poor Ink.

YOU KNOW GIN LORE!?

I'm sorry for shouting at you like that- but I have not been able to find a single thing about Gin's lore! Like I have a name, that's all I know. All I know is his name and that he had a close bond with Ink, or something like that. I don't even know where to look for this man's lore, which sucks because he?? Looks cool to me??? And he's Ink's friend???? I genuinely don't even know what Gin's lore is or what AU he's from-

Okay so that either refers to Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy or rejection sensitivity, and honestly? I'm here for both of them (I have looked as their basic definitions and nothing more). I, too, suspect that I may have some problems when it comes to abandonment and rejection... but this isn't a therapy session and I'm trying to be mysterious about myself, so we won't dwell on that. I can get behind Ink spiraling into self-hatred, that's a whole mood. Also, I just feel like if Dream and Blue tried to reassure him that it wasn't his fault (and of course they would, why wouldn't they step in?), Ink wouldn't believe them. There's just no other explanation for it, to him. Especially if they were to try and explain their reasoning to him.

I want you to know that I read "artistic" as "autistic" and didn't bat an eye. That's some self-projection right there.

Ooo yes yes, I understand exactly what you mean! I can see Cross being a necessary caretaker for the time being, if only to keep Ink functioning. Also just to keep an eye on him and make sure he doesn't do anything drastic, just as a precaution.

HJBVHHJBHJGG- Error with the broom?? Trying to comfort Ink by probing him with it?? Splendid imagery. He never learned how to comfort people, he's doing his best. He's improvising for the situation and I think that deserves some credit.

If Dream and Blue were to kidnap Ink, Error would be that one clip of the tank pulling right up to the house's door. I hope you know what I'm talking about, I think it's the perfect example of this. Error being a huge manbaby and having tantrums is something I live for, but it's so rare to find it in fanfics?? At least from my own experience. And I attribute that to the fact that Error's also greatly mischaracterized by a majority of the fandom as some sort of saint, but that's a topic for a different day.

(I will never want to rant about this.)

You know... I'm the one who suggested the hypothetical scenario, but you didn't have to assault me with that first interpretation /lh. My poor baby- especially because I'm pretty sure Ink doesn't actually remember anything from before waking up in the Anti-Void?? So he'd be confused and petrified, with no way of stopping his emotions or processing them. This also means that Broomie's gone for good, how could you do this Anon?

I do love me some Shattered content. Some nice Shattered and Ink interactions, we love to see it, love to see it. Some "nice" interactions. In this case, it's definitely a hostage situation, even before they hypothetically emerge victorious. Since Shattered now has tentacles, he can basically keep Ink restrained at all times, if he were to catch him. I can picture the scene: they use the OVERWRITE on themselves and, as soon as they do, Ink feels it. Something is wrong. So very wrong. The story- stories- they're different now. Something's gone wrong, he needs to fix it, but he's probably too bewildered by what he just witnessed to react properly. And for a little treat, just a little seasoning, imagine that he feels actual pain whenever something major like this- something so extremely off-script- happens. If the pain's great enough, it would render him stunned just long enough for the two to strike.

In the situation where they get locked in the Doodlesphere, I imagine there would be a scene where Ink's just processing everything. He's like "Creators... what the actual fuck?" The Creators really went to get the milk, huh?

Alternatively, Nightmare's probably just somewhere, eating popcorn while watching this whole thing go down from start to finish.

#underverse au #dream sans #blue sans #swap sans #ink sans #platonic yandere dream sans #platonic yandere blue sans #anonymous asks

5 notes · View notes

wprowers · 2 years

Text

i want to talk about sonic boom characters.

Long post warning.

First of all i would like to say that i really enjoy sonic boom !! I think it has a really healthy and silly humor that for me it's always welcome, so i like this show and its characters. But don't take my opinion as something biased bc i don't really think it is, i can't be biased towards a piece of media that holds little to no value to the true canon mainline games.

I have seen people dragging this show to hell, and at the time it came out it recieved a LOT of criticism for VALID reasons, valid when it comes to comparing them to the actual canon personalities of these characters (which varies from media to media but its mostly the same concept, but you can't say they haven't fucked up in the characterization of certain characters in mainline games but thats for another day).

But neither sonic or amy or tails or whoever in boom actually have any meaning at all, do they have a backstory? a purpose? any serious fight? is eggman even their enemy? Absolutely not!!

BECAUSE THIS SHOW IS NOT MEANT TO TAKEN SERIOUSLY !!

If we are talking about knuckles, he is not smart !! he doesn't have a life mission to protect the emerald !! There's nothing going on for him !! he doesn't even remember anything, in one episode he suddenly realized he didn't have a family and started to look for one, getting manipulated into an "evil" complot and that's he most arc he has ever gotten in boom (found family trope at the end of the ep, rlly cute)

And i did see some worries about the franchise being influenced by the boom! characterization. Mostly for knuckles and amy.

As for knuckles i think that some of you watched the scu shortfilm and immediately thought that they were bringing boom!knux into the mix, i disagree wholeheartedly with this (if s3 comes out and it is like that well then...) i think that scu!knux is just someone who gets represented by his pure heart (as every good representation of knuckles) and lack of knowledge of his surroundings and the people who came into his life. He gets easily manipulated and doesn't know what icecream is, bc he has been a loner for so long !! and he does not know earth, that does not mean he's stupid in any way, and i dont think that's what they would go for in s3.

And for Amy I've seen the discourse that boom! generated around her, some claiming that it was the best amy, for her not overly girly attitude maybe or for the fact that her affection towards sonic was hidden and she didn't show it at all, even though it was stated that she liked him.

So I've seen people saying that due to this amy being well received, it has influenced on how they made her in modern media, which i don't think is that much of a true tbh??? Like besides twitter takeovers, i haven't seen much of boom!amy influence in any other thing, perhaps yes they took a different take for her in frontiers or other modern games, but she has always been true to what really her character is, sonic or not Amy is Amy. Its not about how they made boom! canon suddenly but what is the path they want her character to take while she is still connected to her emotions and love for sonic and everyone.

And no i don't think boom!amy is the best version of amy, i don't think any boom! character is the best version of themselves and they will never be, because there is nothing that conveys their true selves in this interpretation, so it's impossible for these characters to be that.

LETS NOT EVEN TALK ABOUT BOOM!SHADOW because that boy is not shadow at all, then again this is a character that suffered a lot of misinterpretations from his own creators so,,,

So im not making really any point in here?

just simply stating the obvious !! sonic boom is a show that you watch to have fun ! it does not have any action or true emotional moments, never has the team gone through a serious situation. You watch it because it's silly and you don't expect much else from it! Everyone is loveable in their own way if you look at them with the right eyes, so maybe you could enjoy this show without thinking about how out of character most things are.

love you sonic boom i will always defend you

#LOOOOONG POST #like idek if someone will be willing to read this #if you do read this you are very well invited to leave your own opinion in the replies or reblogs #i love this show seriously #comfort show fr #sth #sonic boom #amy rose #knuckles the echidna #scu #I have a lot of thoughts about amy in general #thats for another post #forgive me for any grammar or spelling mistakes i will absolutely not check for them before posting

15 notes · View notes

speeddemon-82 · 2 months

Text

So I'm currently watching Gangwon 2024, the figure skating youths. I'm watching them out of order, I apologize ;-;. But, I just finished the Ice Dance section and I will say I'm not very happy with how the scoring went.

All of these people still did amazing though, they're doing things far more impressive and amazing then I ever could. I'm very proud of all of them! This is more of a criticism on the judges, music choice, and what the scoring system focuses on.

On a small note, the first pair for the Czech Republic was a bit sad. The girl (I'm so sorry I'm terrible at remembering names) just looked exhausted and her partner kept going way to fast for her if seemed. Like they were out of sync numerous times. So they ended up in last and I just felt really bad.

So scoring itself is very biased and I definitely feel like I felt that a bit with Ukraine when I watched the first half of the Ice Dance section last night. So, I feel like due to a lot of the ongoing political issues occuring right now, scoring is definitely being influenced (which isn't new).

Music choice this time around was extremely hit or miss, but this is again nothing new. The issue though is a good number of pairs kept picking upbeat and energetic songs, when they just couldn't match the energy; I noticed this with South Korea.

The artistry and interpretation of the music definitely isn't being scored too heavily and judges are focusing more on the technical aspects. Which I find a bit annoying because it lead to some slightly boring performances being in first and second (France and the USA). Great Britain definitely deserved to be in third though, they did great.

Anyways, I may reblog this post more with some of my other opinions on the rest of the performances for the other sections. But we'll see. Also just to say it again, all of the pairs did amazing in their own right and they should feel proud!

#speeddemon rambles

0 notes

lgenvs3000w23 · 7 months

Text

History & Nature (unit #6

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

“There is no peculiar merit in ancient things, but there is merit in integrity, and integrity entails the keeping together of the parts of any whole, and if these parts are scattered throughout time, then the maintenance of integrity entails a knowledge, a memory, of ancient things. …. To think, feel or act as though the past is done with, is equivalent to believing that a railway station through which our train has just passed, only existed for as long as our train was in it.” (Edward Hyams, Chapter 7, The Gifts of Interpretation)

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

The interpretation of history and nature interpretation is much more connected than one may think, as nature is just history. Every time we go outside we see trees that have towered over city streets for decades, interact with species that are part of long lineages often with tales of speciation or complex interactions, and endure weather that is part of a complicated narrative of climate trends. However, there are much more subtle connections such as the means we go about both types of interpretation and the values their interpretation holds in society. Notably, history and nature are severely disserviced by poor interpretation; which is an important aspect to note as both are often influenced by beliefs/biases over fact (e.i people's opinions on wars and opinions of climate change).

Hyams conveys the importance of accurately interpreting history and that history has significance in the present day. These two principles are equally as crucial in nature interpretation. In the first part of this quote, Hyams explains that there is no importance in history without accurate context and the full picture. Artifacts of history are like snapshots that can help interpret a full story but they are meaningless without the rest of the story and equally as worthless if the story is falsely conveyed. Thus, it is not the age but the preservation of truth that is attributed to the worth of an artifact or historical event. For anyone who has watched Pawn Stars, Hyams' message is communicated when an item is brought onto the show without any context or story behind it. Without the integrity of a story, the object lacks knowledge as Hyams states, and in turn, there is a blow to the value of the object because “there is no peculiar merit in ancient things” (Edward Hyams, Chapter 7, The Gifts of Interpretation).

(Pawn Stars Youtube, 2022)

Furthermore, I find the second part of Hyams’ quote relates very well to nature interpretation, specifically in arguments about climate trends and conservation. Hyams refers to the fact that history is just as relevant today because past events still have influence, they don't just disappear. Time is a major driver of nature as seen in old-growth trees, corrosion over millions of years creating rock formations, land-locked lakes formed by glaciation, and so much more. It is undeniable that history has shaped the ecosystems and the entire planet we see today. Therefore, nature is history and when we get out into nature we are quite literally basking in a natural history museum. I will never understand how historical buildings can be preserved solely due to age but old trees that house countless species and contribute to ecosystems are cut down. (Beck et al., 2018)

(TJ Watt/Ancient Forest Alliance)

Additionally, writing is a huge component of both nature and historical interpretation as writing style and vocabulary can completely change one’s audience due to terminology barriers, accessibility, and level of engagement (Hooykaas, Unit 06). This quote by Edward Hyams is a prime example of the power of writing. I think this quote it is too convoluted to easily get a point across to many, it requires too much interpretation for the average reader. I think the message would have been lost on me if I had just skimmed over it and not been required to analyze it. (Beck et al., 2018)

References

Beck, L., Cable, T. T., & Knudson, D. M. (2018). Interpreting cultural and natural heritage : for a better world. Sagamore Venture.

Hooykaas, A. (n.d.). Unit 06: Nature Interpretation through Science [Lecture notes]. ENVS3000 Nature Interpretation. University of Guelph.

1 note · View note

classicaltrav · 1 year

Text

Apparition coast

/ Visions / First thing I have to notice while listening to Apparition Coasts’ new album Visions is the amazing production with a crisp acoustic riff and muted background that builds up and explodes into a powerful intro. For me unfortunately something that keeps me from ever giving Alternative and or Pop-Punk bands a chance is a whining voice. It’s just personal taste. However I do enjoy the lead vocals here. A beautiful voice, enough said. Ringtone is a catchy opening song and this is carried throughout the album very nicely! I would mention in passing to Josh and DJ (I had the privilege of playing in CSUCI ensemble with them and worked with Josh for a while) to tell me when they would play live so I could go check them out without having really heard their music. After hearing this album now I really am looking forward to it! Everything about these songs is solid. If you are an Alternative or Pop-Punk fan you will feel right at home here; I am reminded of Four year Strong and Paramore at times. There is so much depth here. You get a short and sweet guitar solo on the second track and the harmonies makes one want to learn the songs and sing along. Listening to the title track Visions one has to appreciate the intricate riff that sound like a Yvette young riff at the beginning. In Vision you get a back and forth between atmospheric soundscape and heavy rock which is jarring but in a good way. The subject matter of visions sounds like things we all go through from time to time so it’s not like the lyrics were just churned out without a thought or feeling. It seems slightly open to interpretation as well in my opinion which will let the listeners look at the same song in different lights. I’m very impressed how modern these songs sound as well, several could honest to god sound natural on a popular radio station. That’s not to say they don’t pay respect to the influences that shine through their playing. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to see this band blow up! I’m not sure who the main songwriter or writers are but I am extremely impressed. This album may be talking about serious subject matter but it’s lifting me up and energizing me out of my lethargy of staying up too late last night. “Trigger” gives you a classic rock sounding riff hear which just affirms that there’s a little something here for everyone. That has to be DJ the guitar player shredding on his Les Paul because I know he really enjoys classic rock. Some albums I lose interest partway through for various reasons. Here that is definitely not the case. I’m grateful for this album because it’s really showing me how much of a lack of Alternative and Pop-Punk I’ve had these last couple of years. So wholesome, so true. I also heard a twinge of country on one or two of the tracks. This is just a testament to the eclectic music tastes of the members and the result is that they have a lot to say. Don’t get me wrong though this band is unique as any. Speaking of unique: California, PCH (Pacific Coast Highway), and Malibu are mentioned in the song “Getaway” which are beautiful sightseeing areas that you have to see if you’re in California ever. There’s something about a song or band that mentions or represents a place or thing that you love. It makes it more relatable or special I suppose. I may be a bit biased since I know two of these guys who are the nicest musicians you could hope to meet but I don’t care. The production value, songwriting, and instrumentation is just too good; I gotta give this album 10/10 Pizzas

Suggested tracks: Visions, Solve, Your reflection

#music #album #album review #alternative #Pop-Punk #record release #apparition coast #rock #band #Spotify

1 note · View note

halseyquinn · 2 years

Text

Portrayal of young people dealing with grief/loss in animated films

TW: Mentions of death/loss, trauma and mental illness

Please beware of potential spoilers for the following films: “The Lion King”, “Brother Bear”, “Frozen”, “Big Hero 6″, “Abominable” (2019)

I recently discovered that the animated films “Abominable“ (2019) and „Big Hero 6“ (2014) both focus on the issue of children/teens/young adults and loss as a kind of main topic and wanted to dive a little further into this subject.

There are two main reasons why I find it very important to discuss this: Firstly, because, at least in my opinion, the public awareness of it is relatively low – this also applies to death in general, being a rather “unpleasant“ subject to talk about, but is especially problematic when it comes to young people, whose problems very often go unnoticed. Secondly, animated films, being mainly targeted at a young audience, could support young people going through difficult times by showing them that they are not alone and maybe even what could possibly help them to deal better with their own problems, besides helping to raise public awareness for these issues. That being said, I selected a couple of animated movies (mainly Disney) from the last 30 years where the topic of loss plays a sufficiently big role. I chose the ones that I know well enough to analyze them and also the ones that I personally found the most interesting, so the choice is definitely pretty subjective and maybe a bit “biased“, but it should be informative nevertheless.

The first film that I‘d like to discuss is Disney‘s classic “The Lion King“ (1994). I‘m well aware that this choice isn‘t unproblematic – after all the main (young) protagonist “Simba“ is a lion, not a human. Since the animals in Disney films are almost always pretty humanized, I decided that it was alright, though. I especially wanted to include that film, because it deals with the combination of loss and trauma – Simba not only loses his father, but also witnesses his death and moreover gets guilt-tripped by his uncle into believing that it was his fault. While this may be a very extraordinary situation, the feeling of guilt is very common when it comes to loss. Simba can only leave the feeling of guilt behind at the end of the film when he learns about the true circumstances of his father‘s demise. It also shows how much these experiences influence Simba later in his life – he doesn‘t feel „worthy“ of being king, he runs away from the rest of his family (which could also be interpreted as secluding himself) and just wants to forget about the past. Only when he (literally) confronts his “inner demons“, he is finally able to make some sort of peace with it. All in all, the portrayal of a young “person“ dealing with loss in this film (although it‘s a rather crass situation) seems pretty accurate and includes some helpful pieces of “advice“ on how to deal with guilt.

The next movie I‘d like to analyze is “Brother Bear“ (2003). Once again, this film doesn‘t (exclusively) focus on humans, but is nonetheless informative since it portrays two experiences with loss which are closely interwoven: On the one hand, young adult “Kenai” has to deal with the death of his brother, on the other hand, the little bear “Koda” loses his mother. Kenai‘s situation resembles the one of Simba – both have to deal with guilt. But whereas his father‘s death isn‘t Simba‘s fault at all, it‘s much more difficult for Kenai to clear himself of being the one responsible for his brother‘s death. The interesting thing is that, whereas Simba takes the blame without questioning it further (probably because he is supposed to be still a “child“ when his father dies), Kenai shifts the blame fully onto the bear that his brother tried to protect him from and which he kills in the process. Later, when Kenai learns that the bear he killed was the mother of Koda, he once again feels guilty, but this time takes on responsibility for it. Koda, of course, is shocked when he learns this, but they both are able to come to terms with the past in the end, finding the family they both lost in each other. This film deals with the especially difficult issue of actually being (at least partly) responsible for someone‘s death – in real life this could, for example, be the case in a car accident. While this might not be that relevant for young people, there is another key message: even after the loss of someone, it is possible to find comfort in other people – be it other family members/relatives or, like in that example, friends.

Another film which I was a little hesitant to include here is “Frozen“ (2013) – while the main protagonists are humans, they are both technically already “adults“ (18 and 21 years old). I finally decided to include it because I personally think that an experience with loss at that age is still pretty difficult. People in their early twenties of course still struggle very much when they lose someone, but at the same time are expected to act all “grown-up“. This is exactly what the film shows: Both Anna and Elsa have to grow up pretty quickly, taking on important responsibilities from one day to the next, most likely without having been properly prepared to do so. While Anna tries to mend the bond with her sister, Elsa shuts herself away from everyone – which is also not unusual when people try to deal with loss. “Frozen” especially focuses on the aspect of relatively young people having to deal with a lot of responsibility – this seems pretty relatable for everyone who has lost one parent or both. But the film also shows another important thing: letting others help you instead of trying to get to grips with everything on your own, is a really important resource in difficult times. This message is especially relevant for young adults, who might feel like that they‘re alone and don‘t have anyone who could support them.

“Big Hero 6“ (2014) and “Abominable“ (2019) are the two films that, in my personal opinion, focus the most on the experience of loss itself. In the other films that I discussed previously, the experience of loss per se wasn‘t really the focal point – more often than not it rather served as a topic to help develop the actual plot. In “Big Hero 6“ 14-year-old Hiro has to deal with the loss of his brother – who seems to have been the only one left of his core family. “Abominable“‘s main protagonist is Yi (who might also be around Hiro‘s age), who has recently lost her father. Both films take the experience of loss as a kind of starting point and the topic stays relevant throughout the whole movie. Both Hiro and Yi have to deal with extraordinary situations (helping an escaped Yeti get back to the Himalayas/fighting a masked villain) that could symbolize them trying to come to terms with the definitely extraordinary situation of their personal losses. Hiro is portrayed showing signs of depression, Yi tries to cope by always keeping herself occupied with something. In Hiro‘s case anger also plays an important role, when he finally finds out who really is responsible for his brother‘s death. Yi rather seems to have to deal with grief, regretting that she never got to travel the country with her father, like they had planned. At the same time, both teens struggle with letting others (friends and family) help them.

This is especially prominent in Yi‘s case: During one scene she is talking about her experiences with her friend Jin, telling him that her mother and grandmother don‘t understand her and that she feels as if they were pushing her away. Jin then asks her whether it couldn‘t be possibly her, that is pushing them away. I think that is an extremely relatable scene – especially young people having to deal with things that are way too “heavy“ for them, often feel as if they were alone, because no one can truly understand them. While this often may be the case, isolating oneself is also a pretty common reaction to experiencing loss – wanting to be left alone to come to terms with everything etc. Yi always carries part of a photo with her, that shows her and her father. At the end of the film, the Yeti that she helped rescue, hands her the other part of the photo – showing Yi‘s mother and grandmother – and puts the two pieces together. This way, Yi finally realizes that she still has a family that loves and supports her – if she lets them. In a similar way, the robot “Baymax“ that was built by his brother, helps Hiro to realize the importance of friendship. In my personal opinion “Abominable“ depicts the topic of young people and grief in the most accurate and realistic way, making it especially relatable and possibly the most “helpful“.

To summarize my previous analysis, a varied set of animated films has, so far, portrayed the various aspects of young people dealing with loss. The different films focus each on different aspects of grieve – especially sadness/depression, anger, regret, guilt, having to grow-up quickly, isolating oneself and (not) accepting help/support. What strikes me as both important and interesting is the way these films approach the issue: Older films like “The Lion King“ and “Brother Bear“ only dealt with the topic “in disguise“. Not only that the main protagonists were (partly) animals, but the aspects of loss and grieving weren‘t really the focal point of the plot. This is what, in my opinion, makes the two most recent films “Big Hero 6“ and “Abominable“ special: A quite young protagonist trying to come to terms with their loss is basically the central theme of both films. In contrast to the older films, these two movies approach the topic more openly, depicting things like depression or showing funeral scenes (the latter also applies to “Frozen“). I personally interpret that as a kind of shift in film-making, especially Disney seemingly becoming “bolder“ as time goes by and no longer producing only “feel-good-movies“, but also films dealing with serious topics - not only mentioning them but actually making them a main theme of the plot. This is especially important since animated films are not only ideally suited to portray “difficult“ subjects in a way that is suitable for young people, but also to show them ways to deal with their own problems and therefore help and support them during severe crises, especially when they lack people to support them in real life. Besides, such films can play an important role in awareness raising.

#disney analysis #the lion king #brother bear #frozen #big hero 6 #abominable (2019)#disney theory #tw: death #tw: loss #tw: grief #tw: trauma #tw: mental health #tw: mental illness

13 notes · View notes

theydigthecape · 3 years

Text

it may not a kind story, but it is a good one.

it’s not a happy or uplifting story, nor is it a story about superheroes superheroing, saving people and/or ‘the world’. some people die, some people live, and it’s mostly up to chance or fate. some people are saved, some people aren’t, some don’t need to be saved, and some choose not to be saved, if one can term it saving. what constitutes the twinned notion of saving and being saved is based on personal biases and values; it differs depending on the person, and this story acknowledges that. it as well acknowledges the world as important both conceptually and in hard scientific fact, given that without a combination there would be no story to tell

Monstress isn’t a story about ‘a’ world or even ‘the’ world, conceptual or terra firma, though its worldbuilding is fantastic. it is, in fact, a story about women. all sorts of women, living all sorts of lives. it’s a story about mothers, and about the daughters of those mothers, and about the importance of mothers to daughters, and vice versa. it’s a story about one particular daughter of one particular mother, along with all of the mothers and daughters stretched back along their line behind them

it’s a story about a daughter who loved her mother, and who still obsessively loves her mother many years after her mother’s death. it’s a story about a daughter whose dead mother is still the driving force in her life. it’s the story of a daughter who hates her dead mother as much as she loves her, and wants to understand how and why that mother did what she did to make her daughter what she is

it’s a story about monsters, of course; monsters of every branding you could possibly imagine, physical, psychological, metaphorical, and so many more. it’s a story about the perception of monstrosity: about what makes a thing or person seem monstrous to another person, and why. it’s a story that tips its reader’s perceptions over like a raccoon with a waste bin, and leaves the contents scattered about, oracle bones to be interpreted anew

it’s a story about people being ineradicably people, no matter what shape or size or genetic variation they come in, and those kinds of stories will always be favourite

this is Maika Halfwolf, and Monstress is her story

she’s an arcanic, a person whose DNA is a blend of human and Ancient, and her genetics have given her some abilities that, to many people of many different cultures and races, even her own, make her seem monstrous

she’s also a survivor of a genocidal war that slaughtered thousands of arcanics, enslaved them, and butchered them for magical and scientific experiments, as well as to harvest the innate properties of their blood and bones

she’s a trained killer, a living weapon in more than one way, and a source of ancient power that pretty much everyone wants. all she wants is a better understanding of her own nature, along with closure for her traumatic childhood, and she’s not swayed by appeals to her better nature. if someone wants something from her, they’d better have something she needs or wants for bargaining, otherwise it’s right out. for every story where a protagonist is swept along on the ‘good of all’ bullshit fed them, Maika is the ultimate antidote. she does have her soft spots, but they are few and far between, and well hidden

also, if you piss her off too much (or even if you don’t), she has an old god who eats people living in her left arm stump so. yeah, she’s disabled, did i mention?

probably don’t piss her off. except that she lives in a state of permanent pissed off and people will keep trying to get their hands on her

her companions are a fox arcanic (Kippa) and a nekomancer (Ren)

idk, if these two don’t make you want to read this story just by existing...?

so yeah, fox people of all permutations (and wolf people, and bear people, and shark people, and basically every Ancient-human hybrid imaginable). and cats. just cats. lots of cats who are cats that look and act like cats but also speak the languages of Ancients and humans, and can walk on their hind legs if they feel like it (which, i mean. It Happens). look up there at Ren. two tails aside, that could be my cat looking at me and saying, ‘We’re fucked’. it’s very cool feline representation, and it makes me very happy :)

Monstress is steampunk fantasy influenced and informed by Chinese and Japanese legends and mythology, with a side dose of general Western fantasy mythology. the writer is Taiwanese-American, the artist Japanese, and they’re both women. Monstress is written by women about women, and the queer is strong with this one. romantic relationships aren’t the focus, the genre is steampunk fantasy/horror, not romance. but if fantasy with acknowledged and accepted queer life woven through it, a lesbian protagonist, and many queer and queer-coded women and nonbinary characters is your thing, Monstress will make your day

it definitely made mine. i started reading the first volume yesterday, and i’m already on the fourth and thanking providence that there’s a fifth volume left to read and a sixth being released in September, with the comic ongoing. i added it to my pull list last night

fair warning, if it hasn’t come across: this is a gory story. there is child death, and that death is often brutal. it is not, as i stated at the top of this post, a kind story. there’s racism, genocide, people being horrible to other people in most every way they can, though no rape so far, either explicit or alluded to. one more indication that an allo cishet dude’s not writing or drawing for this title

don’t get me wrong, there are many good comics being drawn and written by allo cishet dudes, but. historically most comics writers and artists have been allo cishet dudes, even when the characters they create are queer. i’m very glad that isn’t the case this time out

#image comics #lgbtincomics #comicedit #monstress #monstress comic #marjorie liu #sana takeda #comics rec #comics post #fantasy art #fantasy series #queer fantasy #queer comics #steampunk

84 notes · View notes

princesssarisa · 4 years

Text

Some more “Little Women” remarks: the problem of Beth

I honestly think most commentary I’ve read about Beth’s character is bad, both academic and from casual readers.

I understand why. She’s a difficult character. Modern readers who love Little Women and want to celebrate it as a proto-feminist work need to contend with the presence of this thoroughly domestic, shy, sweetly self-effacing character, seemingly the opposite of everything a feminist heroine should be. Meanwhile, other readers who despise Little Women and consider it anti-feminist cite Beth as the embodiment of its supposedly outdated morals. Then there’s the fact that she’s based on Louisa May Alcott’s actual sister, Lizzie Alcott, and does show hints of the real young woman’s complexity, and yet she’s much more idealized than the other sisters, which often makes readers view her as more of a symbol (of what they disagree, but definitely a symbol) than a real person.

But even though the various bad takes on her character are understandable, they’re still obnoxious, and in my humble opinion, not founded in the text.

Here are my views on some of the critics’ opinions I least agree with.

“She’s nothing but a bland, boring model of feminine virtue.”

Of course it’s fair to find her bland and boring. Everyone is entitled to feel how they feel about any character. But she’s not just a cardboard cutout of 19th century feminine virtue. So many people seem to dismiss her shyness as just the maidenly modesty that conduct books used to encourage. But it seems blatantly obvious to me that it’s more than just that. Beth’s crippling shyness is actively portrayed as her “burden,” just like Jo’s temper or Meg and Amy’s vanity and materialism. She struggles with it. Her parents have homeschooled her because her anxiety made the classroom unbearable for her – no conduct book has ever encouraged that! In Part 1, she has a character arc of overcoming enough of her shyness to make new friends like Mr. Laurence and Frank Vaughn. Then, in Part 2, she has the arc of struggling to accept her impending death: she doesn’t face it with pure serenity, but goes through a long journey of both physical and emotional pain before she finds peace in the end. Her character arcs might be quieter and subtler than her sisters’, but she’s not the static figure she’s often misremembered as being.

‘She needs to die because her life has no meaning outside of her family and the domestic sphere.”

In all fairness, Beth believes this herself: she says she was “never meant” to live long because she’s just “stupid little Beth,” with no plans for the future and of no use to anyone outside the home. But for readers to agree with that assessment has massive unfortunate implications! The world is full of both women and men who – whether because of physical or mental illness, disability, autism, Down Syndrome, or some other reason – can’t attend regular school, don’t make friends easily, are always “young for their age,” don’t get married or have romantic relationships, aren’t able to hold a regular job, never live apart from their families, and lead quiet, introverted, home-based lives. Should we look at those real people and think they all need to die? I don’t think so! Besides, it seems to me that the book actively refutes Beth’s self-deprecation. During both of her illnesses, it’s made clear how many people love her and how many people’s lives her quiet kindness has touched – not just her family and few close friends, but the neighbors, the Hummels (of course), the local tradespeople she interacts with, and the children she sews gifts for who write her letters of gratitude. Then there’s the last passage written from her viewpoint before her death, where she finds Jo’s poem that describes what a positive influence her memory will always be, and realizes that her short, quiet life hasn’t been the waste she thought it was. How anyone can read that passage and still come away viewing her life as meaningless is beyond me.

“She needs to die because she symbolizes a weak, outdated model of femininity.”

SparkNotes takes this interpretation of Beth and it annoys me to think of how many young readers that study guide has probably taught to view her this way. No matter how feisty and unconventional Louisa May Alcott was, and no mater how much she personally rebelled against passive, domestic femininity, would she really have portrayed her beloved sister Lizzie as “needing to die” because she was “too weak to survive in the modern world”? Would she really have turned Lizzie’s tragic death into a symbol of a toxic old archetype’s welcome death? But even if Beth were a purely fictional character and not based on the author’s sister, within the text she’s much too beloved and too positive an influence on everyone around her for this interpretation to feel right. This seems less like a valid reading of her character and more like wishful thinking on the part of some feminist scholars.

“She's a symbol of pure goodness who needs to die because she’s Too Good For This Sinful Earth™.”

Enough with the reasons why Beth “needs to die”! At least this one isn’t insulting. But I don’t think it’s really supported by the text either. If she were a symbol of goodness too pure for this world, then she wouldn’t forget to feed her pet bird for a week and lose him to starvation. She wouldn’t get snappish when she’s bored, even if she does only vent her frustration on her doll. She wouldn’t struggle with social anxiety, or dislike washing dishes, or be explicitly described as “not an angel” by the narrator because she can’t help but long for a better piano than the one she has. Now of course those flaws (except for accidentally letting her bird die) are minute compared to her sisters’. It’s fair to say that only “lip service” is paid to Beth’s humanity in an otherwise angelic portrayal. But it seems clear that Alcott did try to make her more human than other saintly, doomed young girls from the literature of her day: she’s certainly much more real than little Eva from Uncle Tom’s Cabin, for example.

“She’s destroyed by the oppressive model of femininity she adheres to.”

This argument holds that because Beth’s selfless care for others causes her illness, her story’s purpose is to condemn the expectation that women toil endlessly to serve others. But if Alcott meant to convey that message, I’d think she would have had Beth get sick by doing some unnecessary selfless deed. Helping a desperately poor, single immigrant mother take care of her sick children isn’t unnecessary. That’s not the kind of selflessness to file under “things feminists should rebel against.”

“She’s a symbol of ideal 19th century femininity, whom all three of her sisters – and implicitly all young female readers – are portrayed as needing to learn to be like.”

Whether people take this view positively (e.g. 19th and early 20th century parents who held up Beth as the model of sweet docility they wanted from their daughters) or negatively (e.g. feminists who can’t forgive Alcott for “remaking Jo in Beth’s image” by the end), I honestly think they’re misreading the book. I’ve already outlined the ways in which Beth struggles and grows just like her sisters do. If any character is portrayed as the ideal woman whom our young heroines all need to learn to be like, it’s not Beth, it’s Marmee. She combines aspects of all her daughters’ best selves (Meg and Beth’s nurturing, Jo’s strong will and Amy’s dignity) and she’s their chief source of wise advice and moral support. Yet none of her daughters become exactly like her either. They all maintain their distinct personalties, even as they grow. Admittedly, Beth’s sisters do sometimes put her on a pedestal as the person they should emulate – i.e. Amy during Beth’s first illness and Jo in the months directly after her death. But in both of those cases, their grief-inspired efforts are short-lived and they eventually go back to their natural boldness and ambitions. They just combine them with more of Beth’s kindness and unselfishness than before.

“She wills her own death.”

Of all these interpretations, this one is possibly the most blatantly contradicted by the text. Just because Beth’s fatal illness is vague and undefined beyond “she never recovered her strength after her scarlet fever” doesn’t mean it's caused by a lack of “will to live”; just because she interprets her lack of future plans or desire to leave home to mean that she’s “not meant to live long” doesn’t mean she’s so afraid to grow up that she wants to die. It’s made very clear that Beth wants to get well. Even though she tries to hide her deep depression from her family and face death willingly, she’s still distraught to have her happy life cut short.

I’ll admit that I’m probably biased, because as as a person on the autism spectrum who’s also struggled with social anxiety and led an introverted, home-based life, I personally relate to Beth. If I didn’t find her relatable, these interpretations would probably annoy me less. But I still think they’re based on a shallow overview of Beth’s character, combined with disdain for girls who don’t fit either the tomboyish “Jo” model or the sparkling “Amy” model of lively, outgoing young womanhood, rather than a close reading of the book.

#little women #beth march #meta #literary criticism

174 notes · View notes

ramblings-of-a-mad-cat · 3 years

Note

I've never met ANYONE who actually likes the Chibnall era. Would you seriously say that it's objectively good?

Brace yourself for unpopular (albeit positive) opinions.

Objectively? I don't know, I tend to feel like media is very much subjective and down to opinion. But on the whole...yeah. I'm gonna say yeah. I think the Chibnall era thus far is every bit as good as the Moffat Era and Davies Era were. It actually blows my mind to see the fandom come together and almost universally agree that the show has gone downhill. It's part of the reason why I kind of stepped away from the Doctor Who fandom because there's something very demoralizing about re-watching clips from Season 12 and seeing literally every comment just talk about how the show is ruined. And if I re-watch old clips, very often I come across comments that talk about how the show "used to" be good, and should have ended with Twelve, etc. I know a little reluctance toward the new Doctor can be part of the transition process, but normally the fans are over it by now.

Things haven't really changed.

I've been re-watching Twelve's era, and found a new appreciation for him. But I re-watched Thirteen's era right beforehand, and you know what? It holds up. Season 11 is remarkably strong. I can't think of a single "bad" episode in that season. It focuses on the characters, and thus it doesn't have nearly as strong ambitions, compared to one of the Moffat seasons, which were clever but often convoluted. They couldn't always stick the landing. (Looking at you, Season 6) But every has it's good parts and it's bad. The same man who wrote The Wedding of River Song and betrayed the entire season's storyline in the process...also wrote The Doctor Falls, which is probably my favorite final episode of any season ever. The Chibnall Era is the same way. The Tsuranga Conundrum isn't really a bad episode, it's just kind of forgettable, apart from the Pting. But then it is immediately followed up by Demons of the Punjab, which is an exceptional story in every way. I want the Thijurians to return for Thirteen's regeneration, I'm saying it.

My point being that even if there are episodes you can't stand in the new era, is that really exclusive to Chibnall? All the way back in Season 1, they had The Long Game, which I remember disliking, but it was sandwiched between Dalek and Father's Day, which are in my opinion, the two best episodes of that season. A lot of people don't like Orphan 55, for example. But it's followed up by Nikola Tesla's Night of Terror. Does anyone really dislike that episode? You're valid if you do, but I think it's really good. Ask me about any episode in the Chibnall Era, and I'll find something to like about it. (Except maybe Arachnids in the UK...and that one's not even bad, just kind of weak.) Because like I said, there is good and bad in every season...and I do think that the fandom has overblown how "bad" the Chibnall Era is...though that may be in part because I think this era is generally good? Incredible companions, solid episodes, a great Doctor, and hey...this era actually made the Daleks scary again. That is impressive. Even most of the hated episodes, like Orphan 55 as I mentioned...I enjoy them.

I stand by that. I think this era is great. If anything, I don't like that they reduced how many episodes we get, because some of these stories, like The Witchfinders and It Takes You Away especially Fugitive of The Judoon, are just begging to be two-parters. Spyfall is the only real two-parter we've had, in my opinion (Ascension of the Cybermen and The Timeless Children feel like two separate stories to me) and the episode was much stronger for having the extra time. If I have one genuine criticism with the Chibnall Era as a whole, it is the stark contrast between Seasons 11 and 12. I love Season 11, I thought it was beautiful. I like it far more than most people. I also truly enjoyed Season 12. But they are worlds apart, with Season 11 feeling so standalone and Season 12 picking up with a big storyline that really hadn't been hinted at all in the previous outing. The tone is also different, with The Doctor and "the fam" having a distance between them that seems to have developed offscreen in between seasons. It was as though Chibnall wanted to give everyone a breather from big overarching plots after the Moffat Era, but then after one season he decided "break's over" because he wanted to tell his story. And that's okay! It is. But it's jarring. Anyway, let's talk about Chibnall's storyline. You know where this is going.

"That" episode.

I meant what I said before. There isn't a single episode that I actively hate as much as say, Listen. Now let's get very controversial, because I know what y'all are thinking. "Not even The Timeless Children?" And I'll just get this out of the way right now: I don't think The Timeless Children, or it's twist, ruins Doctor Who. I don't think it gets anywhere close. I mentioned before that I was demoralized reading the comments on a clip of Doctor Who...to no one's surprise, it was this episode. Now, I may just be biased...after all, I didn't even hate Hell Bent. But while I have my criticisms of Season 12, The Doctor's revised backstory accounts for exactly none of them. You want to know what really bothers me? That we had a seven season buildup to Gallifrey's rescue, a nine season buildup to it's return...only for the show to do nothing with it, and then just destroy it again a couple of seasons later. As someone who loved The Day of The Doctor, I'm mad about that. Among other reasons, destroying Gallifrey is the kind of card you can really only play once.

So no, I don't think The Timeless Children is perfect. The Doctor had a seven season character arc culminating in them learning the lesson that using The Moment would be wrong, and that it was never okay to do something like that. To hear her even consider using The Death Particle, that "Or, a solution" line in response to Ryan appropriately reacting in horror? Yeah, that upset me. I don't like that Gallifrey is gone again, and even if The Doctor wasn't the one to do it, she almost did, and she left someone else to do it in her stead. That bothers me more than The Timeless Child ever could. That being said...the Timeless Child doesn't bother me. Seriously, it blows my mind that people act like this twist ruins Doctor Who. It...really doesn't, guys.

It does not insult the legacy of William Hartnell. He is still The First Doctor. It's not like there isn't a precedent for secret incarnations from The Doctor's past. We didn't start calling Christopher Eccleston The Tenth Doctor after we found out about John Hurt. Nothing can change The First Doctor's status or take it away, nor do I think Chibnall is trying. He is doing what I've actually wanted Doctor Who to do for a while. Give us a story about The Doctor's childhood. (Listen doesn't count, I don't care, that was all kinds of bad.) Let me ask you, what does this really change? I've seen people complain about the revision of The Doctor's history...but there's a precedent for that too. We could play bingo with how many times Clara fundamentally altered or influenced the show's history. She is the reason he started traveling, the reason he chose his Tardis, and the reason he saved Gallifrey. Why doesn't that bother people, if this does?

I also understand it if people dislike this change because they feel as though it makes The Doctor a kind of chosen one, compared to them having just been an average person who wanted to make a difference. I get that. However, this is down to interpretation, and there are so many ways to interpret The Doctor. Some people love it when The Doctor goes dark, other people cannot stand it and view it as out of character. Some people love it when The Doctor is heroic and badass, when they save the day...others would prefer that they take the backseat, teaching the humans how to save the day themselves. "The man who makes people better." And which interpretation you get, where it falls on the spectrum...it will vary from writer to writer. Moffat loved to make everything about The Doctor, and Davies frequently compared him to an angel or a god. This is not the first time that the show has portrayed The Doctor as a godlike being. It's not even close to the first time. And honestly? I don't think this makes The Doctor special or supernatural. I think it makes them a victim, nothing more. A victim of child abuse.

People also disliked this episode for removing the mystery behind The Doctor...but I fail to see how it did that? There are so. Many. Questions. That this finale opens up. Where did The Doctor come from? How and why did they get to our universe? What exactly is The Division? What went down between them and The Doctor? Where is Tecteun? (No, she's not Rassilon...) As the Masters asks, "What did they do to you, Doctor? How many lives have you had?" Amid all of the comments that made me sad, I did see a great one about how the original creator of Doctor Who actually didn't like it when they introduced the Timelords, because she felt that it boxed the show in and removed the mystery behind The Doctor, and how "She would have loved this episode." I agree with that. (Still salty that they destroyed Gallifrey though...) You know, I am genuinely interested in this story and where it's going to go, especially with the sixtieth anniversary approaching. But it depresses me that they might scale it back now, after how much the fandom has risen up against it. Not that I'm saying the fans shouldn't be happy, but...it's clear that a story is trying to be told here, and I think it should have that chance.

To each their own, of course. But I will never understand why this era is so hated.

#Doctor Who #Dr. Who #The Doctor #The Thirteenth Doctor #Chris Chibnall #Chibnall Era #Doctor Who Season 12 #Doctor Who Season 11 #Long post #Boy did this get long #Ramblings #The Timeless Children #The Timeless Child

37 notes · View notes

sylvies-chen · 3 years

Text

Chicago PD's Characters and the Role of Reform: an Analysis (???)

Hi everyone! The finales of One Chicago aired a couple of weeks ago by now but I've been preparing this post in my head ever since PD's finale aired. I wanted to talk/write about each character's (and maybe even the writers') interpretation of police reform and how it affects the plot. This will also talk about police reform in general. Before I start, I'd just like to state that this will be a bit long and probably biased since a lot of it is influenced by my own views on reform. I'm not interested in debating people on the internet, just putting out interesting perspective on an interesting TV show. Anyway, I hope you enjoy this and feel free to add thoughts of your own— as long as they’re respectful!

Chicago PD's handling of reform in this season was far from perfect but I did enjoy a few things they did with it. We had Kevin, a POC, stand up and fight back when even the people closest to him tried to shut him down. I did have some issue with the way they reduced Kevin's entire set of beliefs/morals to something so trivial and disrespectful as a "woke card" but I think the writers chose to do that on purpose to show how blinded white people can be sometimes. It's more the characters using that term, not the writers, which I thought was a good move since in both situations— Kevin v. Voight in 8x02 and Kevin v. Adam in 8x16– they made sure it's clear that Kevin is in the right. Voight may have been frustrated and Adam may have been spiraling over losing Kim (love me some #Burzek), but Kevin was still in the right. If only we could have some more varied representation on this show! That way, Kevin wouldn’t have to be used as the emotional punching bag all the time for these white characters and their misplaced frustrations with the system (added onto their personal frustrations which fluctuate on a episode-to-episode basis).

Now, onto the view on reform because this is where it gets interesting. I'm going to go ahead and say something that might be controversial: I think the majority of conflicts in this season have come from a gross misinterpretation of the concept of reform. This is especially highlighted in the finale when we see Adam saying he should be able to change/bend/break the rules to save someone he loves. It's also shown in the case with Miller's son Darrell and how they need to break the rules to save him, the case in 8x11 that Hailey considers breaking the rules for. It could even be loosely applies to 8x06 when Jay feels the need to break the rules only slightly in order to serve proper justice for their victim's father. Proper justice, in this case for Jay, being mercy towards the father and doing what's right in Jay's mind. Notice a common theme? These characters who are against reform (I know Voight was so good most of the season but he still falls into that category because of the first and last two episodes) all have one thing in common: the way they view reform. Voight, Hailey, and Adam, somewhere along the line (in my opinion), have all come to think of reform as a social push to get police officers to adhere to the proper guidelines when in reality, that's only a small fraction of an otherwise complex concept. Reform isn't all about getting police to follow the rules-- reform in and of itself is recognizing that the rules that are set into place aren't always effective. There are rules that are discriminatory, rules that are bureaucratic nonsense, rules that disproportionately affect specific groups of people, and rules that create roadblocks to solving real problems. Hell, the original police systems in North America especially were created to persecute minorities and maintain military power over citizens. The need for reform is referencing a larger systemic issue and getting police officers to follow the most basic procedures is just the tip of the iceberg. I don't want to get too much into the principles behind reform here because I am no expert. I recognize that because I am white I benefit from these rules/systems put into place so my voice shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but I do think the majority of the tensions in this season of Chicago PD stem from the extreme oversimplification of reform. It surprised me too when I thought about it because they've managed to explore the grey areas/more complex aspects of it, but I think the writers are intentionally making that decision which makes it really interesting.

Throughout the season, I couldn’t help but feel that these characters considered reform as the push from the public to adhere to guidelines-- as they should, obviously-- but while ignoring the more nuanced principles of reform such as asking themselves questions like: is what I'm doing truly helping the communities we've sworn to serve and protect? Are the solutions us cops in Intelligence are offering permanent solutions? Should we be rethinking our principles of justice to be less retributive and more procedural-- or even more restorative?

This is all in reference to the characters, of course, not the writers. We have Voight, Hailey, and Adam resisting reform because they don’t see value in following the rules. But reform, in its purest form, is recognizing that the rules need changing, which is why it’s so interesting to see the “opposing side” against it even though they also believe the rules aren’t helping them. So I think it's really good and interesting how the writers have written these characters as having very complex and layered discussions/arguments about reform and about justice while still doing that. Because their contempt for the rules comes from a place of wanting to carry out justice, just like Kevin and all the others who push for reform, but they’re motivated by ideals closer to retributive justice and using their position of power to exact a more personal form of justice. Because of Hailey, Adam, and Voight’s more personal and intimate views of justice, their solutions always feel short-term. For example, Voight murdering suspects, bashing in cars, etc. This is all stuff that creates a temporary fix but their passion towards justice makes them care more about the personal, emotional release that kind of justice brings than the actual, long-term change. This is especially shown in that one scene where Hailey tells Jay the story about how a clerical error made an offender walk, which she sort of views as a reason why breaking the rules should be allowed whereas Kevin would view that as a reason why the rules need changing. Again, short-term vs. long-term.

This is not to say that Hailey, Voight, and Adam are evil, obviously. They're complicated, but they're far from evil. (Well, the jury’s still out on Voight. Haha!) What this show is portraying, however, is how the ideas of reform can be fleeting and temporary and all-around fickle in the minds of these characters when they reach a certain breaking point. They're able to throw this aside because they're all white, so it doesn't affect them personally. But right off the bat in season 8 we've seen it affect Kevin professionally AND personally in every single way. Others are almost viewing it as a social trend or a push to be a rule-follower though which is why both Adam and Voight, when put under emotional distress, are so easily able to downplay Kevin's push for doing things the right way. (Even though, really, he's asking for the bare minimum here of following the rules and not killing people.) Kevin, ever the conscience of the group, doesn’t put up with it and keeps people in check which can be extremely aggravating when you’re in a very emotional state and want to let your emotions lead you on a rampage. Hence, this is the root cause of the majority of tensions between the unit— in season 8 especially.

Anyway, this is all to say that I think this season of Chicago PD has done quite a lot in terms of portraying reform and the need for systemic change while still staying true to their characters and delving into how their privelege has led to them misinterpreting reform. Which leads to the portraying of some fairly corrupt policing, but never condoning it. At the very least, they show how it's less important for these characters since they all have a breaking point where reform becomes moot whereas for a black man like Kevin, it's more firmly ingrained into him. That’s a concept that is all too common in the real world, and one I appreciated that they represented even though some things weren’t so great.

#abby trying to be meta? it’s more common than you think #chicago pd #hank voight #adam ruzek #hailey upton #kevin atwater #analysis #meta timeeee #meta #police reform #one chicago

23 notes · View notes

scripttorture · 4 years

Note

I have no idea if you can help me, but I am working on a short story that starts after a Sami girl is recovering from being tortured by Christian police after her father is put on trial for witchcraft. This is during the witch trials in Norway. I wanted to focus on recovery in the community and her animistic religion. However, I don’t know what kind of torture she could realistically be recovering from and if, aside from punishment, it should religiously motivated. Do you have any English links?

I put this one off for a long time hoping that the virus situation would improve enough for me to a) have less stress at work and b) be able to access the university library in my town. It doesn’t look like that’s going to happen.

Norwegian history in the 1600s isn’t my strong suit. So my focus here is going to be advice on how to research this. I’ll also include the bits I found and some tortures so common that you can throw them in to virtually any setting without it standing out or being inaccurate.

Before I get any further I don’t know anything about Sami culture. I’d strongly recommend trying to find Sami sensitivity readers if you haven’t already. Because it can be bloody hard to get accurate information on some of Europe’s oppressed minorities and I’d say the Sami fall squarely into that category.

Historical research is fraught with pitfalls and when you’re starting out it can be really difficult to figure out which sources to trust. This only becomes worse when you’re working across a language barrier. And when the focus is torture it gets even more difficult.

Torture has always been a hot button issue.

The fact that virtually every culture has a history of torture doesn’t change that. Cultural ideas about what was ‘more painful’ or ‘more brutal’ or ‘shaming’ have all played a role in what was deemed ‘acceptable’ cruelty. So has the idea of who is an ‘acceptable’ or ‘deserving’ victim.

And that means that misrepresenting the typical tortures of different countries, cultures, religious groups or past regimes has been part of political practice for literally hundreds of years. It is a very easy way to direct people’s hate and elicit an emotional response.

I can’t stress enough how important it is to consider an author’s motivations, biases and abilities when you read historical sources.

Think about whether an author was actually there for the events they describe. Think about their political and religious positions and what they may have to gain by pushing a particular message.

Apologies if some of this comes across as teaching you how to suck eggs, but I know a lot of people don’t get this lesson in their history classes. So sources-

Historical sources can be broadly categorised into primary and secondary sources. A primary source is something produced at the time. A secondary source is something produced later.

Both can be untrustworthy/biased but a primary source gives you information about how events/practices were interpreted at the time, while a secondary sources tells you how they were remembered later.

Primary sources can be things like diaries, court records of witch trials and objects produced in areas like Finnmark (northern Norway where most of the witch trials took place) at the time. Secondary sources might be things like how the witch trials are discussed in Norwegian history books and local history or stories about the witch trials that are told today.

By reading about this in English you’re mostly being limited to secondary sources. The danger here is that secondary sources can misrepresent the time period they’re describing, deliberately or not. Authors make assumptions about how historical people lived, thought, what their actions meant and how their beliefs influenced their actions.

Primary sources can also misrepresent what happened (deliberately or not) but with primary sources they are at least displaying the biases and concerns of the time.

Generally historical research is about the collation and interpretation of primary sources. Which is a lot of work, requires a degree of expertise and often demands fluency in several languages.

That level of work and knowledge appeals to some authors of historical fiction. But it isn’t for everyone. There’s nothing wrong with choosing to rely on history textbooks and the like instead of digging through transcriptions of things written back in the 1600s.

Here’s the problem when you’re doing that for another country: English language sources are often very very biased in favour of other English language sources.

This means if some bored academic in the 1930s made up a bunch of fan theories based on very little evidence it will probably still be used as a source today.

And without having another language (with access to other sources it provides) it can be really difficult to spot that kind of fuckery.

I am not saying that you need to learn Norwegian and believe me as someone with only one spoken language I understand how tackling a new one can be crazy intimidating.

But I think you do need to know Norwegians. Particularly Norwegians with an interest in history.

That’s all general stuff about researching historical periods in different countries.

For torture in particular… I’m not gonna lie it’s a sack of angry snakes.

Both primary and secondary often have considerable motivation for lying about torture. Historical accounts routinely downplay or outright lie about the damage different tortures cause. They are heavily judgemental about victims.

And they run in to exactly the same issues we have trying to study use of different tortures today with the added difficulty that accounts from torturers are preserved far more frequently then accounts from survivors.

It’s only once you start getting to the 1900s that you really start to see multiple survivor accounts of events. For the 1600s as a general period I can think of witness accounts and multiple accounts from torturers or their bosses in various countries. But the testimony of survivors is very very rare.

This is an issue because we know from modern research that torturers routinely lie about what they do.

There were laws in most European countries in this period that cover torture. They tend to define a sort of ‘accepted practice’: what torturers were supposed to do and for how long. And don’t get me wrong these are useful historical sources.

But we know from comparing similar torture manuals used in the 1930s (and indeed more recently) to multiple accounts from torture survivors that torturers do not follow their own rules. I see no reason why torturers today would be less likely to follow ‘the rules’ then their historical predecessors.

Looking up the laws of the land at the historical time period you’re interested in is a good place to start. But it won’t actually tell you everything that torturers did and it may not represent the most common tortures.

It will give you a list of things that were definitely used at the time in that place though. Which isn’t a bad place to start.

Look for history books that cover crime and punishment. If you can’t find one broad enough to do that (or give you a helpful summary of laws at the time) then I’ve found that accounts of specific historical figures in the relevant area/time often contain some of that information.

The next major pitfall when researching historical torture is the bane of my existence: euphemisms.

A lot of historical sources use vague or euphemistic terms for different tortures and then leave it up to the reader to figure out what they mean. This was probably perfectly clear at the time but now… less so.

To use an example from something I’ve been trying to research for a while now I can tell you that the Ancient Egyptians definitely used torture. They say as much in surviving accounts of their justice system. They used it to punish, force confessions and attempt to gain information.

They definitely beat people with sticks. They say they did, in multiple accounts. There are also wall carvings and paintings that show prisoners of war and enslaved people being menaced with sticks.

However, I can’t find any definite suggestion that they used falaka, ie beating the soles of the feet with those sticks.

Did they just hit people at random? This seems unlikely from a practical viewpoint as that’s a very easy way to kill someone. Did they ignore the feet and concentrate on other areas of the body? Did they use falaka and also beat other areas? Do I bring too much bias into this question because I’d love to find a historical point of origin for a torture that’s common throughout the Middle East today?

Historical sources often just don’t contain the details we need to be certain about what torture they’re describing. Terminology is often vague. Descriptions can be contradictory. Often the only way to be certain is to come across an illustration or surviving device and even then this does not necessarily represent common practice and either piece of evidence could be contemporary propaganda rather then something that was actually used.

When you’re talking about historical torture it is essential to find multiple sources and make sure they agree.

Vague terminology like ‘water torture’ can cover a host of different sins. Finding a vague term or euphemism multiple times doesn’t even tell you if this was the same practice carried out in different areas or different practices with superficial similarities.

If a source doesn’t give you enough information to be sure don’t use it. If a source suggests the meaning of a euphemism based on no clear evidence from the time period don’t use it.

What I’ve found in my own small collection of books on witchcraft is very sparse on details.

One of the older books I have suggests that there were almost no witch hunts or witch trials in Scandinavia which is complete bollocks. The book was published in 1959, so I’d suggest being wary of English language sources from that date and earlier.

A much more recent (2017) Oxford University Press book on the subject gives an estimated 400-500 executions for witchcraft in Norway during the period of 1601-1670.

This might seem like a small number compared to the thousands that were executed throughout the Holy Roman Empire but it seems a significant number given that the Norwegian trials were so concentrated in a small, sparsely populated region.

Unfortunately this book is a very general overview of the perception of witchcraft and magic throughout Europe from the ancient world to the present. So it doesn’t really give any details of the kinds of tortures a Norwegian accused of witchcraft might endure.

The author of the chapter on the witch trials was Rita Voltmer, University of Trier in case that’s helpful. She has published several papers on witch trials and the use of torture and at least one on witch trials in Norway. However a lot of her work is in German.

These two papers/chapters in particular may be of interest: the english language document on torture and emotion in witch trials and the German paper on Norwegian and Danish witch trials.

Several of the books I’ve got access to confirmed that Norway burnt witches and provided stories focused on shapeshifting and causing storms at sea. They also confirmed the use of torture in witch trials but nothing so helpful as the kind of tortures employed.

I found multiple references to ‘water torture’. One of these implied that the particular torture was waterboarding alla the historical Dutch method. But the same source said this caused vomiting or possibly diarrhoea which seems to imply pumping.

At a guess I’d say pumping is less likely because waterboarding can cause vomiting and so far as I know pumping wasn’t common anywhere in Europe during this period. However absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

‘Water torture’ could also potentially refer to: a temperature torture, near drowning, a method of sleep deprivation or even dehydration. Without more detail it’s really hard to say which of these is being referenced.

I found one mention of ‘burning torture’ a reference that I think referred to tearing the flesh with hot pincers based on the description of a torn wound. However given I only found this referenced once and I’m unsure of the source I found it in, I would not say this is a good one to pick.

Which leaves me with common tortures.

Whatever the time period, whatever the place, beatings the most common torture. Easily.

If your character gets repeatedly hit, whether it’s clean or not, you are not being historically inaccurate. And I’ve got a lot of posts on beatings generally and clean beatings that can help you write that.

Starvation and dehydration are also both really common regardless of culture and time period. So are temperature tortures or exposure though I think different countries have favoured different methods at different times.

Torturous cell conditions were incredibly common across Europe historically. Lack of sanitation, wet cells, inadequate bedding, over crowding and conditions amounting to a temperature torture were all really common. They were also often happening alongside starvation.

I have a masterpost on starvation and tags covering temperature tortures, exposure and prisons. I think the ‘prisons’ tag should give you most of the posts covering poor cell conditions, ‘historical torture’ and ‘historical fiction’ may also be helpful to you.

I’m sorry I couldn’t come up with anything more specific.

Available on Wordpress.

Disclaimer

Edit: So this should be my week off the blog but I’ve seen a lot of the responses to this. Most of them are extremely helpful, thank you to everyone who knows Norwegian that is offering to help.

However: if your instinct is to say that any torturer, historical or recent, is ‘honourable’ and follows a code of conduct then this blog is not the place for you. I don’t tolerate that kind of apologia or people using my work to spread it.

#writing advice #tw torture #tw racism #tw sectarian violence #historical torture #historical fiction #Norway #witch trials #witchcraft #historical research #behaviour of torturers #attitudes towards torture #National Styles #writing victims #writing torture #Sami #the inconsistencies in this field in academia #and the lack of adequate accessible translations #will eventually make me turn into a livid ticking column of smoke

50 notes · View notes

random-thought-depository · 3 years

Text

The infamously corny Star Trek TOS episode The Omega Glory was on TV last night and I watched it. My ideas for how I’d rewrite it to make it less silly:

---

The Yang ancestral culture wasn’t literally the USA, it was just a society that looked kind-of sort-of like the USA in the same way some pre-Columbian American and ancient Indian societies may have looked kind-of sort-of like ancient Athens. That by itself would make the episode much less stupid, and you could keep most of the same basic ideas.

Since we’re not bound to absurd levels of parallelism anymore, I’d personally be inclined to make the Kohms light-skinned blue-eyed blond(e)s and make the Yangs darker-skinned with darker hair and eyes, and imply that the Kohm ancestral society was fascist instead of communist. Maybe sprinkle some symbols distantly reminiscent of Nazi iconography around the Kohm village. It’s not like there was any meaningful connection between the Kohms and communism anyway, and I feel this resonates better with a lot of the ideas the episode was going for. Admittedly, this is probably influenced by my own biases.

---

Basically swap the roles of Cloud Williams and his mostly silent female companion who doesn’t really do much.

Why? Let’s think about how Yang society might work for a moment. I’m going to say they’re horse-riding big game hunters, like the nineteenth century Great Plains native American cultures on Earth, because 1) that fits with the idea that they’ve been driven into marginal lands and had to become nomads, 2) if you want nomads capable of assembling armies of thousands of people it’s either that or Eurasian-style herders, 3) it fits with the “they’ve become like native Americans” idea. They’re very slow-aging, theoretically capable of living over a thousand years ... but if they’re like their precedent cultures on Earth they probably live fairly rough and dangerous lives and I think would probably tend to live only a few decades or centuries before dying in a hunting accident or battle or something like that. But... going by Earth precedent, it would probably be mostly the men who do the most high-risk activities of hunting and war, which might result in very gender-asymmetrical life expectancy patterns, where men tend to only live a few decades or centuries while women stay relatively safe and have a decent chance of living to be thousand year old ancients. This would be compounded by 1) a lower death rate would mean a lower birth rate for replacement rate reproduction, 2) they’re almost immune to infectious diseases, which would make childbirth in primitive conditions much safer, so that would greatly reduce the probable primary cause of death for women in such a society (childbirth complications). So I think it’s pretty plausible that they’d have a more-or-less matriarchal society where women have a lot of power because they live a lot longer and hence have a lot more time to accumulate experience and become repositories of culture (important for a low-tech nomadic society that will have a mostly oral culture!).

So, I’d gender-swap Cloud Williams; my version of her would a matriarch with a leadership position in her tribe because she’s one of its oldest able-bodied members, she’s got a thousand years of experience and she’s had time to memorize a lot of the oral histories of her tribe and become basically a living library. Why would such a person be anywhere near a battlefield? Well, “the oral histories of her tribe” would include a lot of war stories, with detailed and often basically accurate descriptions of tactics and strategy because that’s how knowledge of how to win wars against Kohms and rival Yang tribes is transmitted in her society. She’s a living tactical manual, so of course she leads her tribe’s warriors in battle.

She could have a companion who’s a big guy who doesn’t talk much and does the brute strength side of what in the episode is Cloud Williams’s role (fighting Kirk in the cell, ripping out the bars). Maybe he’s her grandson, and was captured with her because one of his roles in the tribe is to be her bodyguard in battle.

----

Related to what I just said, have a bit where Captain Tracey says that he expected the primitive and superstitious Yangs to be overawed by phasers, but instead it was almost like they have a recent cultural memory of war with modern weapons and war against technologically superior opponents and they quickly started using effective counter tactics. Given the explanation in the episode for the long lifespans of people on Omega IV (very strong selection pressure for disease resistance), none of the Yangs would actually remember the ancient high-tech Yang civilization and original war against the Kohms, but the generational transmission chains from a lot of presently living Yang matriarchs to that time might be relatively short. For a lot of the presently living Yang matriarchs shooting down Kohm helicopters with surface-to-air missiles and ambushing Kohm armored columns in mountain passes might be something like “my grandma’s time.”

----

The reason the “Eee Plab Neesta” sounds like gibberish is that Cloud Williams is reciting it in its archaic original language, which the living Yang language has evolved into mutual incomprehensibility with. The Yangs might have one lovingly preserved paper copy of their equivalent of the Declaration of Independence, but their culture is mostly oral, and they mostly preserve the “holy words” in the heads of the matriarchs, who memorize it and transmit it from mother to daughter exactly (“by heart”), being careful to get every syllable right so it does not become distorted. The oldest matriarchs can still speak the ancient language, but for most of the Yangs, especially the relatively short-lived men, it’s like me listening to somebody recite Beowulf in its original language.

This is more-or-less my headcanon for what’s going in the actual episode too: the “Eee Plab Neesta” is just the text in its original now archaic form of the Yang language, which the universal translator can’t translate because it doesn’t have a big enough sample to work on. I’d make that much more explicit though.

The way I’d handle the scene is to have Cloud Williams start to recite the Eee Plan Neesta, and then have Kirk ask her what it means and suggest that she try to translate it into the everyday language of the Yangs so all her people could hear it with understanding, and of course it wouldn’t be the actual Declaration of Independence but something different but with a similar spirit, something like this:

“We the people of these five colonies of the nation across the sea and seven nations of the original inhabitants of this land, establish a Union, which we found in and organize according to the following principles: that all people are equally precious, that laws exist by the consent of the people and to serve the people, that leaders serve the people and hold their offices by the consent of the people...”

Then have Kirk give his speech about how these words are meant for everyone and not just for chiefs and should be something shared among all the people and lived by and not something gatekept behind archaic language most people can’t understand. Have him reference the USA founding documents by saying that his world has something very similar and he knows from the history of his own world how world-changing these ideas can be and how precious they are.

----

Obviously you can’t do that “the Yangs try to find out if Kirk recognizes the holy words, and Kirk almost recognizes them but not quite” thing with this version, so the equivalent I propose is:

Kirk recognizes the original functions of Yang “holy relics,” i.e. relics from the ancient Yang civilization: one is part of a machine that once carried people through the air (it’s a snapped-off piece of a helicopter blade), one was a device for seeing far away things as if they’re near (it’s a broken pair of binoculars), one was a machine which people could use to talk to people who were beyond the horizon (it’s a broken-down cell phone), etc.. OK, the last thing is anachronistic for TOS, but if I were writing this as a fanfic it’s what I’d do.

Cloud Williams starts to recite a long epic poem the Yangs have that tells their entire history, to see if Kirk will recognize it. Of course Kirk doesn’t, but while the Yangs don’t have history books they do use visual textile art as an aid to memory and they’ve set up a big story cloth that depicts the narrative in the room and Kirk goes over to it and starts pointing to pictures on it and correctly interpreting them:

“Here, the Yangs were oppressed by kings. The Yangs rebelled and overthrew their kings and made a new nation that had no kings. After this the Yangs became very rich and very powerful, they built great cities. The lords of the Kohms were threatened by this and they used terrible weapons on the Yangs and invaded the Yang land with great armies. Here’s a Yang city being destroyed in an instant by a Kohm weapon. The Kohm lords were so threatened that they tried to destroy the Yangs’ whole way of life. The Yangs retreated to the bad lands and kept fighting. Here are Kohm flying machines attacking a Yang village, and a Yang warrior hiding behind a rock destroying one of those flying machines with a lance of fire. The Kohm lords couldn’t overcome the Yangs until they brought the Death Thirst to the Yang lands in a box and let it out. But that weapon had a life of its own, and turned against the Kohms, and almost destroyed them too. Only a few Yangs survived in the bad lands, and the Kohms claimed the good Yang lands and settled them. But the Yangs survived, they learned the bow and the lance, and eventually their numbers started to increase. The survivors lived longer than people had before; you interpreted this as a gift for the Yangs and curse on the Kohms by the Great Spirit, so that both might live to see you retake what was once yours. And little by little, you did retake what was once yours...”

----

One way to suggest the Enterprise crew making a positive difference on Omega IV at the end of the episode: have Kirk convince the Yangs to spare the Kohm civilians in that village.

The victorious Yangs are all set to give the last Kohms the Numbers 31 treatment, which is what they usually do when they overrun a Kohm community. Of course, Kirk is horrified by this, and he manages to use arguments involving the Yang “holy words” to convince the Yangs to be merciful instead. “Your own holy words say that every person is equally precious! Every person! That includes the Kohms too! If you really mean it, it includes the Kohms too! They’re no threat to you anymore! Did you fight for so long just for a chance to do to them what they tried to do to you? If so, how are you any better than them? Your own holy words claim to be for all people! Your own holy words say that all people are more alike than they are different, and all people are capable of appreciating the gift of freedom! If that’s true, then your holy words are for the Kohms too! That’s why the Kohm lords were so threatened by you, because they were afraid of what would happen if the Kohm people heard those powerful, good words! Tell the Kohms about your holy words!”

So Cloud Williams agrees to make a merciful and peaceful settlement with the “last of the Kohm places,” let it integrate peacefully into Yang society with no further bloodshed and no abuse inflicted or spoils taken. And then Kirk says “If you mean your words of freedom, your work didn’t end today, it’s just starting. Build good seaworthy boats that can cross the ocean, and send people to the Kohms across the sea, so they can hear your words of freedom too! The words of your ancestors are for them too! You’d never be able to conquer them, but they can hear your words!”

#Star Trek #fanfic ideas #cw: Nazis #kinda #cw: genocide #I read/watch something

10 notes · View notes

communistkenobi-archive · 4 years

Note

hi! i saw your post about sw core worlds and the mercator projection, and spent an hour on wikipedia reading about map projections and distortion, which was very cool to learn about. I haven't done geo since picking history in grade 9, and i'm in uni for science now, but I was wondering if there's a few things/concepts about geography that you think more of the general public should know about?

Oh hell yeah I’m glad you found it interesting!!!! Honestly high school geo is such a letdown (imo) because it doesn’t really get into any of the cool stuff the discipline has to offer and people thinks its just like, colouring maps with crayons or studying elevation lmao

Most people’s engagement with geography as a theoretical idea or concept is actually via maps though, and I think the most useful thing to understand about maps is that they aren’t neutral. The popular understanding of maps is that they depict reality as it exists; the idea is that if you look at a map, you trust that the information on it is factual and free of human bias or influence. That authority is partially derived from the physical reality of the geography maps are representing (ie, “how can a map be incorrect or biased if the land it’s representing literally physically exists in real 3D space? How can the visual depiction of a continent be biased?”). Maps also derive authority from the state that produces it - if you see the map of a country, the map isn’t just showing you the physical borders that exist in real space of, say, a country like France, it is arguing to the viewer of the map that France The State exists. To question the borders placed on a map is to question the state itself. Which has historically been a pretty dangerous thing to do!

So maps are not objective, neutral documents that seek only to depict what we observe in real space. They are instead abstract representations of our interpretation of that real space. Some parts of a map may be more or less accurate to that real space, but they are not interchangeable with it. You cannot fully understand the physical world by looking a map, and you cannot fully understand a map by observing the physical world.

An extremely interesting paper I read was about the advancement of geospatial technology, and how that technology is compelling us to physically alter real space to better match the abstract representations we make of it (ie, maps). The example used in the paper was addresses on homes - the enforcement of visible numbered addresses on every building is a relatively new phenomenon that arose with geospatial technology (address numbers existed before this point in time of course, but not to the degree we have today), because the state wanted to have a way of cataloguing where every person within its borders resided. Instead of altering the geospatial technology at their disposal to find a way to do that, they began enforcing a numbered address system on all citizens - ie, they began to alter the physical 3D landscape we all exist in to better match what we were putting on maps, which sounds like a cart-before-the-horse situation IF you buy into the idea that maps are reflections of physical reality as opposed to ideological products. This practice is now being taken a step further by visibly putting numbers on certain apartment balconies as a way of further “calculating” the space human beings exist within.

So I think the assumption that maps arise from the physical reality we exist in is an incorrect and simplistic one, and taking that assumption at face value allows those who produce maps to argue that they are objective, durable, factual, and neutral documents that are not bound by ideological or political intention. I think keeping that in mind is a good way to remain critical of the sort of information you receive from maps, because a lot of those things are invisible to a lot of people.

If you want to read more about that, critical cartography is a sub-discipline of geography that argues most of what I’ve just talked about, and there’s some good free info on Wikipedia about it if you’re interested! There’s also indigenous cartography that gets more at the colonial history of maps that is super good too (if you google decolonial/indigenous cartography you’ll get some good free resources!)

#misc.txt #questions in spaaace #geography #cutting this bc its long #ty for indulging me :pensive:#krownest

27 notes · View notes

strangertheory · 4 years

Text

What’s all this confusing jargon?

Heteronorma-what? Comp het? Projection?

This past week I've seen a few different conversations here on Tumblr in which fans clearly demonstrated that they do not understand certain struggles that the queer community deals with, and many fans have been misunderstanding theories involving compulsory heterosexuality and emotional projection as making a character a "bad person."

Because I've seen this crop up multiple times this week, I wanted to create this post and address misunderstandings while also defining some terms and concepts that some fans might not be familiar with.

For the purposes of this post I'm going to be referencing the Stranger Things fan-theory that Mike is gay, that Mike is participating in compulsory heterosexuality, and that Mike is projecting his feelings for Will onto El. (This theory is one that I've seen garner the most criticism, but I'm sure that there are other queer-coded characters in Stranger Things that fans have argued over as well.)

The majority of this post is dedicated to defining terminology so that fans can better understand queer-coding and queer theory as it applies not only to the Stranger Things fandom but also to any other fandom’s discussions, but I’ll also offer an explanation and summary of one tiny part of the much larger theory that Mike is gay in order to contextualize this discussion a bit.

When fans theorize that Mike is "projecting his feelings" for Will onto El, or suggest that Mike is "pretending" to have feelings for El, some fans get upset and angry. I know and respect very much that these fans are not necessarily angry because they are bothered by the idea that a character in Stranger Things could be gay. Not all rejection of certain theories and popular ships stems from homophobia (although they very often do, and the fandom needs to be more aware of this.) But I understand that because some fans see the idea of a gay character choosing to have a heterosexual relationship as being dishonest and selfish and manipulative, they do not want to see a character that they love and respect (Mike) as knowingly “using” and “lying” to another character that they love and respect (El.)

Let me reassure you that is not at all what this theory represents, and that is not at all the angle that is taken by fans that interpret Mike as participating in comp het.

In this blogpost I’m going to do my best to explain some terminology that is often used in theories about queer-coded characters and narratives. I’m also going to discuss why queer people that are dealing with comp het, internalized homophobia, and projecting their feelings (knowingly or unknowingly) onto straight relationships are not bad or maliciously dishonest, and they are most often motivated by a desire to do what they believe is best for not only themselves but for everyone in their lives that they care about due to their mistaken beliefs about their feelings.

Internalized homophobia is when an lgbtqa+ person has within their mind negative ideas about homosexuality which impact their judgement and perception of themselves. Internalized homophobia often heavily influences their self-esteem, their decision-making, and it might encourage them to participate in compulsory heterosexuality in order to fit into a prejudiced community. The way in which internalized homophobia affects everyone will be different and it’s a very complex issue. Even lgbtqa+ people who have been “out” for years and that outwardly might seem as though they don’t have any insecurities might still suffer from internalized homophobia caused by the biases and toxic ideas that they’ve been exposed to over the course of their lives.

Compulsory heterosexuality (frequently shortened to the phrase "comp het”)

com·pul·so·ry /kəmˈpəlsərē/ adjective required by law or a rule; obligatory.

When fans of queer-coded pairings discuss that they believe that certain characters are participating in "comp het" they mean that they are behaving in a way that is strongly influenced by their culture's strong focus on heterosexuality, their community's biases against homosexuality, as well as perhaps their own internalized homophobia. Compulsory heterosexuality does not necessarily require that a person is even aware that they are not heterosexual yet: oftentimes, a person might grow up in a household that has never given them any examples of happy queer community. A person may not even know that being lgbtqa+ is an option. As a young person grows older and tries to do what everyone expects of them (ex. dating) they might only then start to realize that they aren't like all of their peers, and their compulsory participation in "what is expected of them" is not working out as they anticipated. This can result in a lot of frustration and confusion when all alternative options have been hidden or stigmatized by their family, friends, and neighbors. Many lgbtqa+ people often end up participating in compulsory heterosexuality before they fully realize that they are queer because their community treats being straight as the only way people can be. They haven’t had the opportunity to consider the existence of alternatives.

It's important to understand that compulsory heterosexuality is not done out of malice or intended selfishness. The main focus of most people that are trying to be straight is doing what they believe is the "right thing" or the "acceptable thing" in a heteronormative community. There are places in the world that have laws and punishments, often very severe ones, against the queer community. Not all countries are safe for lgbtqa+ people, and historically the US has not been and is still very often unsafe and intolerant even today. And because of strong biases that exist against homosexuality in many cultures: anyone that is trying to be straight does not recognize this behavior as dishonest or manipulative, they see it as something they believe they are expected to do, that they can figure out how to do, or that they believe they can choose in order to be accepted by others. Sometimes they might feel obligated to return the feelings of someone that expresses interest, and they might feel guilty that they don't feel the same way. Other times they might think "well, maybe I just need more practice with learning how to fall in love and be in love!" This is a very common feeling that young people might have when they first start dating. "Maybe I just haven't found the right person!" or "Maybe I'm overthinking things and this is how I'm supposed to feel, and this is love and it's a lot like friendship but with kissing!" People still trying to figure out their feelings or that believe they have to figure out how to be cishet are not "liars" and they are not manipulative or selfish, they're simply people trying to do what they truly believe they are "supposed to do" according to their community's "rules." Many are still in the process of figuring out that they aren't straight in the first place. Many, especially in time periods without the internet, might think that their experience is unusual and unhealthy and that they're alone in their struggle. And many might believe that being straight and being in a heterosexual relationship is the only allowable option available to them, and their behavior represents that.

Heteronormativity is the belief that romantic, marital, and/or sexual relationships between a cis man and a cis woman are ideal, preferred, or "normal" compared to alternatives. A heteronormative person dismisses and ignores the possibility that anyone they meet in their daily lives could be lgbtqa+ and behaves under the assumption that everyone is cishet when the truth is that humanity is infinitely more diverse than that. Heteronormativity causes parents to raise their children assuming they'll be straight and only teaching them about cis men and cis women falling in love and having families rather than offering them a broader perspective on all human experience. So many people that claim to be "allies" to the lgbtqa+ community will often behave and speak as though they assume that most people they meet are straight because deep down they still hold a very strong bias against accepting that a person being queer is just as "natural" as a person being straight. So many people that claim to be “allies” to the lgbtqa+ community will also judge queer people and queer fictional characters differently than they judge their straight and cisgender friends. The Stranger Things fandom is notoriously littered with a few heteronormative fans that only complain about the idea that two middle schoolers might kiss or have a crush on each other (they’re too young!) when it’s the idea of two boys or two girls kissing. Statements such as “they can’t know that they’re gay yet and they can’t have feelings for another boy or another girl yet because they’re too young” are heteronormative because these statements prioritize the false idea that heterosexuality is “natural” and that homosexual feelings cannot arise equally naturally for a young teen as they grow up and as they start having romantic interest in their peers.

Projection is, in simplest terms, taking feelings and directing them onto a new subject that is not the actual source of those feelings. The reasons that people project their emotions can vary. People often project their feelings when they believe at a subconscious level that their feelings are either inappropriate when directed towards the original source OR they feel powerless to do anything about the source of their original feelings and so they try to find a new target to blame their feelings on instead. Projection is one method by which people seek to manage and express their feelings when they are unable to express them directly. Through projection we often seek to avoid confronting the real source, reasons, and issues behind our feelings.

One simple example of emotional projection is how we treat others when we’re having a bad day! Let's say that I had a bad day at work. My boss yelled at me and reminded me that I'd forgotten to do an important task. I'm upset, but I don't tell my boss how I feel and I bottle up those emotions. The second I return home my spouse politely reminds me of something small that I needed to do. Right now: I'm angry. I was unable to yell at my boss because I recognized, either consciously or subconsciously, that this behavior would be unacceptable and that there would be adverse consequences. Now someone telling me what to do at home reminds me of my boss telling me what to do at work, so I explode and yell at my spouse. I have now projected my feelings towards my abusive boss towards my spouse instead even though I'm not really angry at my spouse at all: I'm angry at my boss. In my mind in this moment I see my spouse as being just like my boss at work! My spouse won't understand why I'm treating them this way: they'll think I'm unkind and unreasonable. I might not know why I reacted that way either, but I might know enough to recognize that I've had a long day and work was hard. The truth is: I wish I could yell at my boss, but I can't, and I've been bottling up my anger all day because I wasn't able to express my feelings. I've found a sudden outlet for those feelings that reminded me of the situation in which the feelings started: my spouse telling me I forgot to do something.

When Stranger Things fans speculate that Mike is projecting his feelings for Will onto El they have multiple canon circumstances that might logically support this interpretation of the story. I’ll summarize a few of them, but please keep in mind these are far from the only examples in which Mike might be projecting his feelings. (Both @kaypeace21 and @hawkinsschoolcounselor and many others have written about this interpretation of Mike’s character before. I highly recommend visiting and following their blogs if this subject interests you further.)

The first time we meet El is while Mike is out looking for Will. El enters Mike's life when Will goes missing and while Mike is upset and feeling as though he's "the only one that cares about Will." Mike’s new friend El says she knows where Will is, and by the end of season 1 she helps Mike find Will again! Then yet again in season 2 we see that El returns to Mike's life right when Mike is terrified that Will is being taken over by the Mindflayer. Yet again, Will is in danger and El arrives and she saves Will. We see Mike tell El "I can't lose you again!" when El returns to help save Will, and she reassures Mike "You won't lose me." But this is precisely during a moment in which Mike is absolutely terrified of losing Will who is unconscious in the other room and has been dealing with the Mindflayer. Mike was upset he lost Will in season 1, and then he was upset that El was gone in season 2, and then yet again at the end of season 2 right when Mike is afraid of losing Will again El shows back up in his life and Mike is relieved. But El is emotionally directly associated with how Mike feels when they "save Will" because that is what she has done two seasons in a row. The girl that has been helping Mike find and rescue and save Will is a repeated subject of Mike's affections, and yet he has only known her for a very short amount of time and is otherwise, in many ways, a mysterious stranger. Both Mike’s kiss with El in season 1 and the "I can't lose you again!" line in season 2 are delivered while Mike is in the middle of being terrified of losing Will. Could Mike be projecting his attachment to Will onto this new person in his life because she's there and she's a source of reassurance and hope? Does El subconsciously represent reassurance that Will is going to be okay because whenever she shows up she saves Will? If El is there, then Mike knows that Will is going to be rescued and that he will be okay. That’s a comforting feeling. A happy feeling! Mike knows he feels happy and safe around El, but he might not know why he feels happy and safe with her. Is Mike finding comfort in the thought that Will is going to be okay every time he sees El, rather than finding comfort in any feelings he might have for her? It is, of course, just a theory. But the way in which Mike experiences (arguably) his strongest romantic impulses towards El while being terrified for Will's safety is fascinating to consider. If you were to ask me whether Mike seemed most romantically affectionate towards El when she showed up to save Will in season 2 or whether he seemed most affectionate towards El while pulling her hands away from his face and breaking away from a kiss in order to sing along to a song that just hit the line "Just a little uncertainty can bring you down" to continue it with a loud voice and yell "And nobody wants to know you now, nobody wants to show you how! So if you're lost and on your own you can never surrender!" then... my vote is that he was the most enchanted when El showed up in season 2 to save Will. But until the show is over and the credits for season 5's final episode have rolled we can, of course, agree to disagree regarding who Mike is "in love with."

The theory that Mike is projecting his feelings for Will onto El is just that: a theory. But it’s not a baseless theory. It is logical to a good number of people and it resonates with many queer fans who have experienced comp het and internalized homophobia while growing up in circumstances similar to Mike’s. Before dismissing this fan-theory I believe it is important that fans recognize the validity of these ideas and the way that they reflect many very real lgbtqa+ experiences even if they disagree or decide that this is not their preferred interpretation of the story. Most dismissals of these kinds of theories that I have read tend to demonstrate a certain level of ignorance towards lgbtqa+ experiences and reinforce heteronormative worldviews.

However. To return to my original point!

Hypothetically, Mike would not be a "bad person" for trying to date El and trying to love El even if he was aware that he's gay. He'd simply be Mike, as he always has been: the paladin that just wants to do the "right thing" and do what he believes his friends want him to do. He would see loving El as what he is supposed to do and what he thinks she wants and deserves.

I hope that my earlier explanations in this blogpost regarding what comp het, heteronormativity, internalized homophobia, and emotional projection are will help fans respect that people and characters that do these things are not bad, selfish people and they are not malicious or dishonest. They are seeking to be what they believe is "good." Homophobia exists. It's a real problem. And it impacts every single decision that lgbtqa+ people make when they're growing up in a conservative, heteronormative community. When fans speculate that certain characters are lgbtqa+ : they understand that queer characters would not see their compulsory heterosexuality as being unfair to their love interests. They would see their behavior and words as what their love interest wants and what they think they need to want for themselves, too. They're trying to do what they believe is right and to make other people happy. There is nothing evil in that intention. There is nothing selfish in that intention. However, it is true that everyone will be happiest when they are able to safely embrace who they are and choose to be honest with their loved ones without any judgement or prejudice. That is one of many reasons why homophobia and transphobia and acephobia are such destructive forces in society.

#gay mike wheeler #stranger things theory #stranger things theories #stranger things #anti mileven #byler

44 notes · View notes