#what does the 1970s dictionary say? | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

dailyanarchistposts · 6 months ago

Text

I.1 Isn’t libertarian socialism an oxymoron?

In a word, no. This question is often asked by those who have come across the so-called “libertarian” right. As discussed in section A.1.3, the word “libertarian” has been used by anarchists for far longer than the pro-free market right have been using it. In fact, anarchists have been using it as a synonym for anarchist for over 150 years, since 1858. In comparison, widespread use of the term by the so-called “libertarian” right dates from the 1970s in America (with, from the 1940s onwards, limited use by a few individuals). Indeed, outside of North America “libertarian” is still essentially used as an equivalent of “anarchist” and as a shortened version of “libertarian socialist.” As Noam Chomsky notes:

“Let me just say regarding the terminology, since we happen to be in the United States, we have to be rather careful. Libertarian in the United States has a meaning which is almost the opposite of what it has in the rest of the world traditionally. Here, libertarian means ultra right-wing capitalist. In the European tradition, libertarian meant socialist. So, anarchism was sometimes called libertarian socialism, a large wing of anarchism, so we have to be a little careful about terminology.” [Reluctant Icon]

This in itself does not prove that the term “libertarian socialist” is free of contradiction. However, as we will show below, the claim that the term is self-contradictory rests on the assumption that socialism requires the state in order to exist and that socialism is incompatible with liberty (and the equally fallacious claim that capitalism is libertarian and does not need the state). This assumption, as is often true of many objections to socialism, is based on a misconception of what socialism is, a misconception that many authoritarian socialists and the state capitalism of Soviet Russia have helped to foster. In reality it is the term “state socialism” which is the true oxymoron.

Sadly many people take for granted the assertion of many on the right and left that socialism equals Leninism or Marxism and ignore the rich and diverse history of socialist ideas, ideas that spread from communist and individualist-anarchism to Leninism. As Benjamin Tucker once noted, “the fact that State Socialism … has overshadowed other forms of Socialism gives it no right to a monopoly of the Socialistic idea.” [Instead of a Book, pp. 363–4] Unfortunately, many on the left combine with the right to do exactly that. Indeed, the right (and, of course, many on the left) consider that, by definition, “socialism” is state ownership and control of the means of production, along with centrally planned determination of the national economy (and so social life).

Yet even a quick glance at the history of the socialist movement indicates that the identification of socialism with state ownership and control is not common. For example, Anarchists, many Guild Socialists, council communists (and other libertarian Marxists), as well as followers of Robert Owen, all rejected state ownership. Indeed, anarchists recognised that the means of production did not change their form as capital when the state took over their ownership nor did wage-labour change its nature when it is the state employing labour (for example, see section H.3.13). For anarchists state ownership of capital is not socialistic in the slightest. Indeed, as Tucker was well aware, state ownership turned everyone into a proletarian (bar the state bureaucracy) — hardly a desirable thing for a political theory aiming for the end of wage slavery!

So what does socialism mean? Is it compatible with libertarian ideals? What do the words “libertarian” and “socialism” actually mean? It is temping to use dictionary definitions as a starting point, although we should stress that such a method holds problems as different dictionaries have different definitions and the fact that dictionaries are rarely politically sophisticated. Use one definition, and someone else will counter with one more to their liking. For example, “socialism” is often defined as “state ownership of wealth” and “anarchy” as “disorder.” Neither of these definitions are useful when discussing political ideas, particularly anarchism as, obviously, no form of anarchism would be socialist by such a definition nor do anarchists seek disorder. Therefore, the use of dictionaries is not the end of a discussion and often misleading when applied to politics.

Libertarian, though, is generally defined to mean someone who upholds the principles of liberty, especially individual liberty of thought and action. Such a situation cannot but be encouraged by socialism, by free access to the means of life. This is because in such a situation people associate as equals and so. as John Most and Emma Goldman once argued, the “system of communism logically excludes any and every relation between master and servant, and means really Anarchism.” [“Talking about Anarchy”, p. 28, Black Flag, no. 228, p. 28] In other words, by basing itself on free association and self-management in every aspect of life the anarchist form of socialism cannot but be libertarian.

In other words, there is a reason why anarchists have used the term libertarian for over 150 years! More to the point, why assume that the right’s recent appropriation of the word be considered the base point? That implies that private property defends individual liberty rather than suppresses it. Such an assumption, as anarchists have argued from the start of anarchism as a distinct socio-political theory, is wrong. As we discussed earlier (see section B.4, for example), capitalism denies liberty of thought and action within the workplace (unless one is the boss, of course). As one staunch defender of capitalism (and a classical liberal often listed as a forefather of right-wing “libertarianism”) glibly noted, the capitalist “of course exercises power over the workers”, although “he cannot exercise it arbitrarily” thanks to the market but within this limit “the entrepreneur is free to give full rein to his whims” and “to dismiss workers offhand” [Ludwig von Mises, Socialism, p. 443 and p. 444] Right-wing “libertarians” are utterly blind to the liberty-destroying hierarchies associated with private property, perhaps unsurprisingly as they are fundamentally pro-capitalist and anti-socialist (equally unsurprisingly, genuine libertarians tend to call them “propertarians”). As left-wing economist Geoffrey M. Hodgson correctly notes:

“By their own logic, [such] market individualists are forced to disregard the organisational structure of the firm, or to falsely imagine that markets exist inside it. To do otherwise would be to admit that a system as dynamic as capitalism depends upon a mode of organisation from which markets are excluded … This … allows market individualists to ignore the reality of non-market organisations in the private sector … They can thus ignore the reality of control and authority within the private capitalist corporation but remain critical of public sector bureaucracy and state planning.” [Economics and Utopia, pp. 85–6]

The propertarian perspective inevitably generates massive contradictions, such as admitting that both the state and private property share a common monopoly of decision making over a given area yet opposing only the former (see section F.1). As anarchists have long pointed out, the hierarchical social relations associated with private property have nothing to do with individual liberty. Removing the state but keeping private property would, therefore, not be a step forward: “A fine business we would make if we destroyed the State and replaced it with a mass of little States! killing a monster with one head and keeping a monster with a thousand heads!” [Carlo Cafiero, “Anarchy and Communism”, pp. 179–86, The Raven, No. 6, p. 181]

This is why we argue that anarchism is more than just a stateless society, for while a society without a state is a necessary condition for anarchy it is not sufficient — private hierarchies also limit freedom. Hence Chomsky:

“It’s all generally based on the idea that hierarchic and authoritarian structures are not self-justifying. They have to have a justification . .. For example, your workplace is one point of contact and association. So, workplaces ought to be democratically controlled by participants .. . there are all kinds of ways in which people interact with one another. The forms of organisation and association that grow out of those should be, to the extent possible, non-authoritarian, non-hierarchic, managed and directed by the participants.” [Reluctant Icon]

Therefore, anarchists argue, real libertarian ideas must be based on workers self-management, i.e. workers must control and manage the work they do, determining where and how they do it and what happens to the fruit of their labour, which in turn means the elimination of wage labour. Or, to use Proudhon’s words, the “abolition of the proletariat.” [Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 179] Unless this is done then the majority of people will become subject to the authoritarian social relationships the likes of Mises and other right-wing “libertarians” support. As one communist-anarchist put it:

“It is because the individual does not own himself, and is not permitted to be his true self. He has become a mere market commodity, an instrument for the accumulation of property — for others … Individuality is stretched on the Procrustes bed of business … If our individuality were to be made the price of breathing, what ado there would be about the violence done to the personality! And yet our very right to food, drink and shelter is only too often conditioned upon our loss of individuality. These things are granted to the propertyless millions (and how scantily!) only in exchange for their individuality — they become the mere instruments of industry.” [Max Baginski, “Stirner: The Ego and His Own”, pp. 142–151, Mother Earth, Vol. II, No. 3, p. 150]

Socialism, anarchists argue, can only mean a classless and anti-authoritarian (i.e. libertarian) society in which people manage their own affairs, either as individuals or as part of a group (depending on the situation). In other words, it implies self-management in all aspects of life — including work. It has always struck anarchists as somewhat strange and paradoxical (to say the least) that a system of “natural” liberty (Adam Smith’s term, misappropriated by supporters of capitalism) involves the vast majority having to sell that liberty in order to survive. Thus to be consistently libertarian is, logically, to advocate self-management, and so socialism (see section G.4.2). This explains the long standing anarchist opposition to the phoney “individualism” associated with classical liberalism (so-called right-wing “libertarian” ideology, although better termed “propertarian” to avoid confusion). Thus we find Emma Goldman dismissing “this kind of individualism” in “whose name . .. social oppression are defended and held up as virtues.” [Red Emma Speaks, p. 112]

As we will discuss in section I.3.3, socialisation is advocated to ensure the elimination of wage labour and is a common theme of all genuine forms of socialism. In theory at least, anarchist argue that state socialism does not eliminate wage labour, rather it universalises it. In fact, state socialism shows that socialism is necessarily libertarian, not statist. For if the state owns the workplace, then the producers do not, and so they will not be at liberty to manage their own work but will instead be subject to the state as the boss. Moreover, replacing the capitalist owning class by state officials in no way eliminates wage labour; in fact it makes it worse in many cases. Therefore “socialists” who argue for nationalisation of the means of production are not socialists (which means that the Soviet Union and the other so-called “socialist” countries are not socialist nor are parties which advocate nationalisation socialist).

Indeed, attempts to associate socialism with the state misunderstands the nature of socialism. It is an essential principle of socialism that (social) inequalities between individuals must be abolished to ensure liberty for all (natural inequalities cannot be abolished, nor do anarchists desire to do so). Socialism, as Proudhon put it, “is egalitarian above all else.” [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 57] This applies to inequalities of power as well, especially to political power. And any hierarchical system (particularly the state) is marked by inequalities of power — those at the top (elected or not) have more power than those at the bottom. Hence the following comments provoked by the expulsion of anarchists from the social democratic Second International:

“It could be argued with much more reason that we are the most logical and most complete socialists, since we demand for every person not just his [or her] entire measure of the wealth of society but also his [or her] portion of social power, which is to say, the real ability to make his [or her] influence felt, along with that of everybody else, in the administration of public affairs.” [Malatesta and Hamon, Op. Cit., vol. 2, p. 20]

The election of someone to administer public affairs for you is not having a portion of social power. It is, to use of words of Emile Pouget (a leading French anarcho-syndicalist) “an act of abdication,” the delegating of power into the hands of a few. [Op. Cit., p. 67] This means that ”[a]ll political power inevitably creates a privileged situation for the men who exercise it. Thus it violates, from the beginning, the equalitarian principle.” [Voline, The Unknown Revolution, p. 249]

From this short discussion we see the links between libertarian and socialism. To be a true libertarian requires you to support workers’ control otherwise you support authoritarian social relationships. To support workers’ control, by necessity, means that you must ensure that the producers own (and so control) the means of producing and distributing the goods they create. Without ownership, they cannot truly control their own activity or the product of their labour. The situation where workers possess the means of producing and distributing goods is socialism. Thus to be a true libertarian requires you to be a socialist.

Similarly, a true socialist must also support individual liberty of thought and action, otherwise the producers “possess” the means of production and distribution in name only. If the state owns the means of life, then the producers do not and so are in no position to manage their own activity. As the experience of Russia under Lenin shows, state ownership soon produces state control and the creation of a bureaucratic class which exploits and oppresses the workers even more so than their old bosses. Since it is an essential principle of socialism that inequalities between people must be abolished in order to ensure liberty, it makes no sense for a genuine socialist to support any institution based on inequalities of power (and as we discussed in section B.2, the state is just such an institution). To oppose inequality and not extend that opposition to inequalities in power, especially political power, suggests a lack of clear thinking. Thus to be a true socialist requires you to be a libertarian, to be for individual liberty and opposed to inequalities of power which restrict that liberty.

Therefore, rather than being an oxymoron, “libertarian socialism” indicates that true socialism must be libertarian and that a libertarian who is not a socialist is a phoney. As true socialists oppose wage labour, they must also oppose the state for the same reasons. Similarly, consistent libertarians must oppose wage labour for the same reasons they must oppose the state. So, libertarian socialism rejects the idea of state ownership and control of the economy, along with the state as such. Through workers’ self-management it proposes to bring an end to authority, exploitation, and hierarchy in production. This in itself will increase, not reduce, liberty. Those who argue otherwise rarely claim that political democracy results in less freedom than political dictatorship.

One last point. It could be argued that many social anarchists smuggle the state back in via communal ownership of the means of life. This, however, is not the case. To argue so confuses society with the state. The communal ownership advocated by collectivist and communist anarchists is not the same as state ownership. This is because it is based on horizontal relationships between the actual workers and the “owners” of social capital (i.e. the federated communities as a whole, which includes the workers themselves we must stress), not vertical ones as in nationalisation (which are between state bureaucracies and its “citizens”). Also, such communal ownership is based upon letting workers manage their own work and workplaces. This means that it is based upon, and does not replace, workers’ self-management. In addition, all the members of an anarchist community fall into one of three categories:

(1) producers (i.e. members of a collective or self-employed artisans); (2) those unable to work (i.e. the old, sick and so on, who were producers); or (3) the young (i.e. those who will be producers).

Therefore, workers’ self-management within a framework of communal ownership is entirely compatible with libertarian and socialist ideas concerning the possession of the means of producing and distributing goods by the producers themselves. Far from there being any contradiction between libertarianism and socialism, libertarian ideals imply socialist ones, and vice versa. As Bakunin put it in 1867:

“We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.” [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 127]

History has proven him correct. Rather that libertarian socialism being the oxymoron, it is state socialism and libertarian capitalism that are. Both historically (in terms of who first used the word) and logically (in terms of opposing all hierarchical organisations) it is anarchists who should be called libertarians, not the propertarian right.

16 notes · View notes

theoldlesbianwithcats · 8 months ago

Note

prev anon here: the article is far too long, but i quoted the section. this article is from the 1970s, but it was reprined in this issue on the request of some other reader, so there are women who still think this way.

"HOMOSEXUAL – This word should also, in my opinion, be erased from our language: les-bian language. According to Webster’s Dictionary, the homosexual is one who has, or “exhib-its sexual desire toward a member of one’s own sex.” As has been pointed out by others before,such a definition puts the total emphasis on the sexual aspects of our lives – homosexuals aresimply sexual beings (i.e., resulting in such questions as “What do they do in the daytime?”).Calling ourselves homosexuals almost seems to reinforce the stereotype that lesbians are over-sexed women who will be “cured” (sic) as soon as they meet the man (penis) capable of fulfillingtheir vast sexual desires. Another possible misleading undertone to the word homosexual is theimplication that female homosexuals are attracted to women in the same manner that males areattracted to women. Of course, the primary reason a man is attracted to a specific woman isbecause of her physical beauty, and I doubt lesbians love women solely for their physical charac-teristics. And despite what the general public believes, generally a lesbian who’s attracted tosome woman acts nothing like most men would (i.e., whistle, grab, put the make on, hustle, try toscore, etc.). The term homosexual almost implies that lesbians feel and act like straight men,since both simply “desire” women, but thankfully this is far from the truth. In her book LoveBetween Women, Charlotte Wolff states that a lesbian would more correctly be labeled “homo-emotional” rather than “homo-sexual,” making the important distinction of placing the emphasison the emotional, instead of the physical, part of her orientation. Yes, I enjoy sex with womenmore than I did with men, but that is basically because my emotional relationships with womenare so much more intense and fulfilling than those with men could ever be. It is because of theserelationships that I am a lesbian; I am not a homosexual."

"i am not a homosexual" we know lol.

"homoemotional" really in every generation bisexual women were busy inventing the split attraction model because they simply dont understand that bad or boring sex with men because men are shitty to women does not make them lesbians, preferring sex with women does not make them lesbians.

this whole argument is so dumb i dont even know what to say. its like when you tell TRAs a woman is a female so they respond with "oh so you think woman are breeders?" um no? also how is saying lesbians are attracted sexualyl to women implying they need penis to satisfy them? disgusting and stupid.

i understand why homosexual is the one word all gay and lesbian people are increasingly using, because all these fakers and appropriaters hate it.

Thank you! :)

As always, polilez can't help projecting their own feelings and showing how lesbophobic they are. Being homosexual is being sex-crazed, shallow, etc. and of course they denounce the lesbophobia of lesbians having a supposed male exception... even though they had sex with men and call themselves lesbians anyway (In a way, "abusive men made me a lesbian" / "comphet made me have sex with men" are just negative variants of "lesbians have male exceptions")

In my case, I was thinking of a big proponent of political lesbianism in France and Europe, Alice Coffin, who said in her book Lesbian Genius (right after talking about her ex-boyfriends...): "I am not lesbian because of orientation or attraction, like the wind veers north. Lesbians are not homosexuals."

(Speak for yourself, dumbass!)

So many bi women think preferring women or being disappointed in men makes them lesbians, and they outnumber us so easily that they can enable each other and marginalize us... I've even seen fakebians have an obvious crush on a man and being told by other "lesbians" that its doesn't mean anything and it's comphet! How does that confusion help anyone??

Homosexual doesn't have any ambiguity, which is definitely a good thing, but I don't want to abandon the word lesbian either... (and I think gold star sounds cute!)

8 notes · View notes

lilyginnyblackv2 · 2 years ago

Text

A Breakdown of the Books in Kotetsu’s Bookshelf:

(I will provide a link to where I got the images in the comments below, since links mess up the visibility of a post).

Kotetsu has quite a lot of books! Though, they can all mostly be broken down into a few categories: Reference Books, Biography Books, Books on Religion, Business Books, Books on Sciences & Humanities, Paranormal Books, and Fiction Books. So, I’m going to go through each one now:

Reference Books: The World’s Heritage: A Complete Guide to the Most Extraordinary Places, Oxford: American Thesaurus of Current English, and Lau’s Laws on Hitting: The Art of Hitting

The first book is about UNESCO World Heritage Sites and the author is Japanese (Matsuura K.). Japan has a number of world heritage sites, and it is very common for students to learn about them in classes (at least one is talked about in the English textbooks that they have, that was when I first heard of UNESCO, actually). This may also indicate that Kotetsu has an interest in travel, and could be a nice little tie-in to the merch collaboration that was done between T&B and Japan airlines (the jet and everything too).

Kotetsu having a thesaurus, but not a dictionary, is rather interesting. Makes me wonder if he got one because Barnaby was using a lot of fancy words that he didn’t know, or if he got one to impress Barnaby and/or Kaede or something. He is quite well read though (of course, some or even most of these books may actually be Tomoe’s but we can’t really say for certain, so...), so he may have gotten it for when he reads.

This Lau’s Laws on Hitting book is about learning how to hit a baseball well. Baseball is both very popular in Japan and is supposed to be “America’s past time” (and Kotetsu is older + the series takes place in an alternate late 1970s - early 1980s timeframe), so it makes sense that Kotetsu would like baseball (esp. since Sternbild is basically just NYC). He may also find some of the techniques useful for some of his moves and things for his physical training as a hero too.

(Also, it is interesting to note that they don’t try to change these books to fit Sternbild or the alternate world setting in anyway, I’m pretty sure one of the books mentions the New York Times on one of it’s spines, lol).

Biography Books: Kaiulani: Crown Princess of Hawaii, TRUTH, Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, & the Prison of Belief

Kaiulani was the last crown princess of Hawaii. Her biography follows Hawaii’s loss of independence and colonialization, with Kaiulani and her father being very opposed to the colonialization of their nation. There is also a focus on her bond with her father, which ties into T&B and Kotetsu bond with Kaede.

TRUTH is a novel about Sojourner Truth, who was an ex-slave abolitionist and women’s rights activist. Based off of what I found, it wasn’t made 100% clear to me if this novel was a complete non-fiction biography, or if there was a fictional element added in, but regardless, it was still about this real life woman and her life. T&B never really talks about slavery or even racism, but it does explore bigotry (toward NEXT), gender roles, and feminist ideologies (Ryan and Karina’s talk in the car). I’d also imagine that Kotetsu has experienced racism as well, since he is (for lack of a better way of phrasing this) Asian American (is Sternbild actually supposed to be in America, or just another nation that is meant to be similar to America, just like Sternbild with NYC?). So he likely relates to that topic in a very personal way.

The Scientology book is non-fiction and takes a deep dive into Scientology, its creators, celebrities, followers, and ex-followers. It highlights a lot of the awful things that the “religion” has done, which all basically stem from abusing power. The book also questions if it is actually a religion or not. This book really connects to the Ouroboros plotline, which also almost has a cultish feel to it in a way, and is widely influential organization with deep roots.

Books on Religion: Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World Without God, La Mia Prima Bibbia (My First Bible), Suomen Kirkkohistoria (Finnish Church History)

The first book is a bit biographical as well (or so it seems, based on what I found), with a bit of a coming-of-age story about an artist and how he gained his naturalist worldview. But, the book is also about objecting authority and religion, while exploring the connections between art and science. There is also a lot of debate in the book about religion, the human condition, and the existence of God.

La Mia Prima Bibbia - I believe this is Italian and it seems to be a My First (Baby) Bible type of book (like a simple version of the bible for kids). Antonio is a name with Italian roots, so maybe this was a gift from Antonio to Kaede when she was born (like as a baby shower gift or something?). Outside of that, I don’t know what to really make of this one.

Suomen Kirkkohistoria - A book about Finnish Church History is just...??? I don’t know WTF this one is doing there, lol. Like, can Kotetsu even read Finnish. Granted, it might be translated, but I really don’t know what the connection to the series this one would have. Unless Kotetsu kind of did a deep dive into religious based stuff after Tomoe’s death to try and make sense of things.

Business Books: Just Start: Take Action, Embrace Uncertainty, Create the Future, Venture Deals: Be Smarter Than Your Lawyer and Venture Capitalist, The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity from IDEO, America’s Leading Design Firm, Remote Viewing and Sensing for Managers: How to Use Military Psiops for a Competitive Edge

A lot of these business books are all about giving advice and guidance to start ups. The first book is about setting and achieving goals. The second book is about how to make smart and sound choices to make your start up process neat and clean (the title also makes me laugh because of Kotetsu’s run ins with Yuri in court before, etc.). The third book is about designing products and services by freely expressing ideas, breaking the rules, being given freedom to design, and have good creativity and teamwork. While the last book is about learning how to understand the mindset of your competitors and gauge the mood of your coworkers.

In the recent manga chapter that came out, we saw Kotetsu and Barnaby post S2, and we saw Kotetsu starting up a small business (an Anything Consultation kind of business). So these books all really fit in with that, while the last book there kind of plays into what we see Kotetsu and Barnaby doing for many of the Buddy pairs in this season (gauging their moods and giving them advice, etc.).

Putting the rest under a Read More because this is a very long post, lol.

Books on Sciences & Humanities: Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State, The Metropolitan Revolution: How Cities and Metros are Fixing Our Broken Politics and Fragile Economy, Death By Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries, Necropolis: London and Its Dead

Many of these books cover a variety topics, some ranging from the governmental and political (and economical) like the Snowden book and Metropolitan Revolution ones. The Snowden one talks specifically about surveillance state, which fits into the Ouroboros plot line and the fact that the heroes have constantly been monitored this season, either for safety reasons (with Mugan and Fugan) or because of bigotry (the interment camps and such).

The book about the Metropolitan Revolution is about grassroot works, international ties, helping immigrants, diversity, sustainability, and skill teaching. The focus is on local government and community help and building, rather than on national government. I think some of the topics this book mentions can be found in T&B as well, and will likely be things that Kotetsu will foster with his small business post S2.

The other books that can be categorized in this section are more science and philosophy based, like Words and Rules, which explores languages through the examination of irregular and regular verbs, then branches off and connects all that to other topics in the sciences and humanities, along with Western philosophy.

Death By Black Hole is an anthology book with articles written by Neil deGrass Tyson. It deals with physics and the cosmos, but also things surrounding our senses, generalizing based on too little info, and etc. This books fits in with the focus on stars and the night sky that we’ve often seen in T&B OPs/EDs, and with Kotetsu’s growth this season of learning to listen and think more carefully than before.

Finally, the last book in this section is Necropolis and is more of a historical and anthropological look at mourning and burying practices and developments in London. I think an immediate connection can be made between Kotetsu losing Tomoe and his interest in a book like this. Though, there is also the fact that Barnaby has British ancestry, so there is that fun little connection too.

Paranormal Books: Remote Viewers: The Secret History of America’s Psychic Spies (he has another copy of this book), Psychic Case Files, Captain of My Ship, Master of My Soul: Living with Guidance, Paranormality: Why We See What Isn’t There, Extraordinary Psychic: Proven Techniques to Master Your Natural Psychic Abilities

So, this first one about Remote Viewers was labeled as Politics & Science and on Amazon is lumped in with Espionage True Accounts, Intelligence & Espionage History, and History & Theory of Politics, so it isn’t fiction, but I don’t think it fits in with the books on Sciences and Humanities.

This seems more like one of those “true” accounts of some kind of conspiracy thing, where there may be some kernels of truth, but I’m not 100% certain on that either. Anyway, I think it is easy to see why a book like this one is in Kotetsu’s bookcase, since it is a book exposing secret government projects and experimentation all being paid by taxpayer dollars, which all seem quite close and similar to the stuff with Sigourney Rosicky (the lady who could basically astro project into other people’s bodies and possess them) and Little Aurora, since they both had psychic based powers. From what little I could find of it, the book Captain of My Ship, Master of My Soul seems to be similar in content as well.

The Psychic Case Files book is supposedly non-fiction and is about a guy who is a psychic and uses those powers to solve cases. The one story in this book that caught my attention while I was researching it, was “Missing Children.” This story was about two children who disappear when their mother wasn’t looking (like she took her eyes off them for a second). It reminders me of Mugan and Fugan.

The book Extraordinary Psychic is a bit different from the other two. It deals more with learning how to bring out and fine tune your own psychic abilities and be able to: heal yourself and others, view the past/present/future, manifest goals for peace/prosperity/love, and communicate with your spirit guides and loves ones in spirit. I could see a book like this appealing to Kotetsu after Tomoe passed away. The Psychic Case Files book also mentioned things like ghosts and whatnot, so I wouldn’t be surprised.

That being said, Kotetsu also has the book entitled, Paranormality: Why We See What Isn’t There, which is a more skeptic based approach to paranormal things. Though it does so by exploring how paranormal beliefs, experiences, and phenomena can tell us a lot about the human mind. Highlighting how people can be susceptible to paranormal things. One of the neat things about the book is how it has QR Codes in it, that you can scan, which then bring you to Youtube videos that can let you check your own level of susceptibility. I could easily imagine Kotetsu buying a book like this after Barnaby calls him out on being gulliable or something, lol.

Finally, let’s move on to the last section:

Fiction Books: Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, The Republic of Thieves, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, The Fiery Cross, Tomorrow, When the War Began, An Echo in the Bone, Fatherland, Magic Tree House: Christmas in Camelot, Anansi Boys, Red Seas Under Red Skies

Let’s take a look at the books that are part of a series first:

The Republic of Thieves and Red Seas Under Red Skies - Part of the Gentleman Bastard Book Series.

I read a review of the series as a whole, and some of the themes the reviewer mentioned were: friendship (of the “heterosexual life partners, they act like a married couple” variety) and the negative impact of greed. The series is about a pair of delinquents (Jean & Locke). This is interesting, because we know from drama CDs that Kotetsu was a bit of a delinquent kid in his high school years. We also see Kotetsu being framed as a criminal in S1, and both him and Barnaby going against orders (and law enforcement) in S2 (like during the car chase scene).

This series seems to explore classism and the like, something which T&B never *really* touches on, but the Republic of Thieves book also touches on rigged elections (which calls to mind the corruption behind both the Mr. Legend situation (involving the cover up of his powers fading) and the fact that Sternbild’s government largely seems to be run by corporations and Ourboros definitely holds some level of power and control of it.

There are also romances in this series, mostly (to my understanding) in the third and last book in the series (The Republic of Thieves). It’s a het romance, though the personality of the female love interest (Sabetha Belacoros) instantly brings to mind Barnaby, lol. Tomoe too, from what we know about her from the drama CDs. Here is an excerpt from the fandom wikia that I found:

Sabetha is a strong-willed, determined, intelligent woman who displayed a keen understanding of the world at an exceptionally young age. She is well trained in the arts of theft, misdirection, and strategy. Sabetha is used to being respected and obeyed. She uses her persuasive abilities as well as her feminine charms when necessary to acquire what she desires. There are few that openly question her motives or her course of action. The glaring exception to this is Locke, who, though he loves her dearly, cannot seem to separate himself from the role of leader and strategist. To that end, the two minds are paired against one another in RoT.

Sabetha is very guarded. She has no lasting friendships, no family, and no one that she trusts completely. Her closest connection is to Locke, and we see several times that she continues to question his motives. This is clearly a result of her development and her role as a solo operator. While Locke thrives in a collective environment, Sabetha is the exact opposite. She thrives in an environment where she can dictate the necessary moves to accomplices who carry out her orders.

The Fiery Cross and An Echo in the Bone - Outlander Series

I have a little familiarity with this series. I watched some of The Outlander TV show when it first came out. I ended up dropping it, because I didn’t care for how some things were handled (though, I also wouldn’t be surprised if the book handled some of those things differently). But, neither of these books’ contents were covered in what I saw, so these were both all new territory for me.

Something to note about both books (and all books in this series) is that there is time travel.

The Fiery Cross is the 5th book in the series and focuses on the lead up to the American Revolution and corrupt government. One of the major themes in this book, in particular, is community, which is common ground for T&B where the heroes coming together to win happens every season. A fiery cross also equals an old way to call to action their clan on where to meet up in an emergency (by Highland Chieftains). The HeroTV heroes are basically their own little clan at this point, and this season (during Cour 2), where they all chose to go against their orders and work together was like their own Fiery Cross.

An Echo In the Bone is the 7th and final book in the series, and some of the themes it focuses on (from what I found) are: slavery, poverty, racism, history, power, and wealth. T&B never really touches on slavery or poverty much (maybe a bit with things like Mugan and Fugan and Thomas and Ruby, but that is more a focus on systems failing children, rather poverty specifically), but the other themes T&B does touch on. This book also has a large focus on family ties, which T&B 2, especially, focuses on a lot. You have Kotetsu’s bond with Kaede (Ep. 7) & him connecting Barnaby being in the hospital with Tomoe being in the hospital, Thomas with Ruby, Lara with her mother, Lunatic, and (of course) Barnaby’s continued struggle to move on after avenging his parent’s death.

As for romance in this series. It’s all very het from what I could find, though interestingly, there are some poly ships! The series also has some rather steamy sex scenes in them. Also, one character seems to be queer (specifically gay) coded, though only through mentioning past partners (men). A spin-off series seems to advert this though. When it comes to the main couple (specifically Claire), she is smart and well educated (a doctor) and the series seems to go the Badass Couple (and later Badass Family) route. The series is older (from the 80s) and I remember that the way the first Outlander book handled certain heavy topics (such as rape and domestic violence) wasn’t that great. Though, those are more present in the other books in the series, rather than the ones that Kotetsu has, from what I found in my researching, anyway.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter - There is, apparently, a sequel to this book, so it’s technically a series book. The first in the series. This book mixes history with fantasy (or the supernatural, really) and is also usually labeled as an “alternative history” book. Another one of Kotetsu’s books is alternative history too. This book is about a man, Abraham, getting revenge for a parent’s (I believe mother’s) death. The themes explored in the book are: death, fate and free will, strength and skill, memory and the past, visions of America, slavery, politics, duty, and sadness.

I feel this book relates more to the storylines of Barnaby and Yuri, with the whole “avenging parent’s death” angle (Barnaby for his parents in S1, Yuri for his mother in S2). Though, of course, there are aspects of this that relate a lot to Kotetsu’s storylines, such as dealing with death, duty, sadness, and even the idea of memories and the past (though, that *heavily* fits Barnaby and his whole situation with Maverick as well).

Tomorrow, When the War Began - This is the first in a series, but Kotetsu doesn’t have any of the other books. There is het romances, but nothing about them really stick out as interesting or intriguing or giving any insight into Kotetsu’s character or anything like that. The more interesting aspect is how this story is about a group of teens waging guerrilla warfare on outside powers attacking their home (Australia). I feel this aspect is very similar to the heroes going against cops and other government orders in order to stop Ouroboros’ plan in S2.

The Magic Tree House: Christmas in Camelot - I wonder if this book might actually be Kaede’s or a book that was bought for Kaede. I mean, I’m an adult that likes a lot of media aimed at kids (things like She-ra, Gravity Falls, and whatnot), so it isn’t out of the question that Kotetsu might have a Magic Tree House book, but it does stand out a lot in comparison to everything else he has.

Anyway, the Magic Tree House books usually have time travel and/or dimensional travel, which is something else we’ve seen in fictional books that Kotetsu likes (the ones in the Outlander series). As for the synopsis for this story: “Merlin has been banned, and all magic use forbidden.” This concept is very similar to what we see happen to the heroes in S2 Cour 2: the heroes all basically get banned from working and using NEXT powers becomes too risky to use. Other little connections: Christmas is a holiday that has heavy associations in the T&B world, and Camelot is from King Arthur, which is a legend that has British roots. Barnaby has British ancestry.

Anansi Boys - I read through the summary of this one, and don’t see any real or deep connections to the T&B franchise. It’s by Neil Gaiman, who I know has a lot of very diverse and progressive stories, which I think fits the feel of T&B in that way. A lot of the story also takes place in London once again showing that British connection with Barnaby’s ancestry. The focus is also largely on siblings, which we see a good amount of in S2 (Fugan and Mugan, Thomas and Ruby). There may even be some element of this good son/bad son, failed son/successful son element with himself and Muramasa that seems to kinda be going on in this book as well. This book is technically not part of a series, but does have a character that ties into another book, so I figured it fit best here.

Moving on to the two other, non-series books:

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close - This book is about a 9 year old boy, Oskar, who lost his father in the 9/11 attacks. The book makes ties to both WWII and 9/11 through character traumas. Oskar struggles with insomnia, panic attacks, and depression. I feel like Kotetsu, Barnaby, and Lunatic can likely relate to these issues. The themes of the book are: trauma, mourning, family, self-destruction vs. self-preservation, and survivor’s guilt.

I checked out the TV Tropes page as well, and there was a mention of the Disappeared Dad trope, of course. Iirc, a few of the other books here also have the characters struggling with father related issues, which fits well with Kaede’s issues with Kotetsu and Yuri’s issues with his father, Mr. Legend. It also makes me wonder if, perhaps, Kotetsu has some issues with his own father. We know basically nothing about his dad, so we just have theories and speculation. Though, I do believe that Kotetsu likely came to view Mr. Legend as a father figure character in his life, so him learning the truth about Mr. Legend this in S2 Cour 2 fits in with the father issues as well.

Fatherland - An alternate history fiction novel about Hitler and Nazis winning WWII. A theme for this book, according to my research, seems to be betrayal. The MC also fights, works against, and stands up to the fascists, even when the expected outcome will be tragic and bleak. The concept of betrayal, or the fear of it, is something that we do see with some of the Buddy Pairs in S2 (Ryan with Karina, Thomas and Subaru struggling to trust each other, etc.). We also see the heroes choosing to fight against bigotry despite the odds being stacked against them. Along with this, back in S1, the series did touch on the idea of extremism to fight back against NEXT based bigotry with Jake and Kriem (who were striving for NEXT supremacy as a way to fight back against discrimination).

---

And that’s the post! Whew. I haven’t read any of these books myself, so the thoughts and connections I have and make here are all based off of the research and summaries that I found. If anyone who has read any of these books has any more possible insights or connections (or corrections, if I got anything wrong), please feel free to add them! I would enjoying reading any additional input!

#Tiger & Bunny #T&B #Kotetsu T. Kaburagi #Taibani #literature #books #meta post #long post #image heavy post

41 notes · View notes

news365timesindia · 1 month ago

Text

[ad_1] Kirmani in his trophy cabinet. Source ( Syed Kirmani Insta) Atreyo Mukhopadhyay Technique is not sacrosanct. The output is. One can be unorthodox and not adhere to the rules set by tradition or convention. What matters at the end of the day is performance, and contribution to the team’s cause. It doesn’t matter if one doesn’t fit into the prototype or deviates from the dictionary definition of that role. Who is this in the Indian cricket team right now? If you talk to Syed Kirmani and ask him about Rishabh Pant, chances are high that you will get this answer. Showering praise on the most maverick wicketkeeper-batter in contemporary cricket, the legendary wicketkeeper of the Indian teams of the 1970s and 1980s was brutally candid. “One does not need to affirm right now whether Rishabh is the best ever that India has produced in that role,” Kirmani told RevSportzafter rain ruined action on Day 1 of the India-New Zealand first Test in Bengaluru. “From what we have seen so far, he certainly has the potential to be among the rare few. Now, it’s a question of consistency.” No less an anti-stereotype during his playing days, Kirmani is in Srinagar in connection with the Legends League Cricket. When this correspondent got in touch with him, he was at the Dal Lake. Initially reluctant to detach himself from the pristine surroundings of Jammu & Kashmir and dwell on current affairs, he eventually ended up speaking a few words on Pant. “Rishabh is a god-gifted talent,” said Kirmani. “Keeping or batting, there are many striking aspects about him. Of course, there are areas of improvement. That’s applicable to everybody. But, one must not forget that technique is not the end of it all. One may not be technically perfect, but can still achieve the results for himself and his team. That’s what matters and that’s what he is doing.” Other than Pant’s skills as a cricketer, Kirmanialso likes him for his fighting mentality. “It must have been very tough to come back from the kind of accident that he had,” said the 1983 World Cup winner. “Mentally and physically, it was an enormous battle. That he has bounced back, and that too in flying colours, shows what he is made of. It’s highly commendable. It shows that he is different.” Officially acknowledged as the best wicketkeeper of that momentous win which reshaped Indian cricket, Kirmanirefused to get into a comparison when asked if Pant is the bestthat India has ever produced, or whether he is on his way to becomingthe one. Players usually don’t like comparisons and for a valid reason. One can’t accurately evaluate performers from different generations. “I can’t say if Rishabh is the best,” said Kirmaniwith a laugh.“The best in my eyes, Allan Knott of England, and the likes of Rodney Marsh (Australia), Wasim Bari (Pakistan) and Bob Taylor (England) were unanimous that I was the best of those days. Personally, I am an admirerof the best performer. It’s all about performance and consistency. For Rishabh to stake a claim for the ‘best’ accolade, he has to be consistent over a period of time,” said the 74-year-old. Having made six centuries in 35 Tests and six more scores in the nineties, Pant is already perhaps the best Indian wicketkeeper ever in terms of batting. He is a game-changer and match-winner. Does he need to brush up his skills behind the stumps a little bit? Kirmani laughed again, like he often does, before coming up with the reply that it’s the result that matters, not technique. For more sports content: https://revsportz.in/ The post Kirmani, hero of yore, says Pant will be remembered for his game, not technique appeared first on Sports News Portal | Latest Sports Articles | Revsports. [ad_2] Source link

0 notes

news365times · 1 month ago

Text

0 notes

didisaythatright · 6 months ago

Text

Butt Naked or Buck Naked?

This phrase is commonly debated and doesn't have a "correct" answer really. Let me explain:

It makes perfect sense why people use "butt naked" as that does make sense to refer to being "completely naked." This is, in fact, noted in many dictionaries as a perfectly reasonable version of the phrase. Most people who fight for this version of the phrase say that "butt" makes more sense, as it would refer to the "buttocks," a word that, when shortened, means butt, and it has been established as existing as early as the 17th century.

However, the original phrase is most commonly believed to be "buck naked." This also means "completely naked." This phrase was identified a full four decades prior to the appearance of "butt naked." Interestingly, there isn't an agreed upon origin of "buck" in this context specifically (more information on this can be found in the article linked below).

Butt naked was first found in the 1960s and didn't gain much popularity until the 1970s, while buck naked was seen as early as the 1910s and 1920s.

Either phrase is perfectly fine to use, as most English speakers will understand what you mean either way.

(Most of this post is based on this article from Merriam-Webster. I could not identify the author of this article. All I did was write it in a slightly more concise way to post here)

#english #languages #words #phrases

0 notes

ledenews · 11 months ago

Text

Cathy Flanagan: It Can All Be Blamed on the FALALALA

She plays electric guitar and she sings and her jeans have frays and holes earned through time and not bought to be fancy. She speaks clearly, sings beautifully, and she’s going to do all of it over and over again because she and her bandmates are THAT popular here in the Upper Ohio Valley. But her lust for music wasn’t born from an exposure to stars like Debbie Harry or John Lennon or Joni Mitchell or even Freddie Mercury. No, Cathy Flanagan’s love affair with music sprouted thanks to a grade school soloist and the innocence of a FA-LA-LA-LA holiday, and then it blossomed during rock-n’-roll’s best decades – the 1970s-80s – here in the Upper Ohio Valley. Ever since, Flanagan has been on a stage and singing somewhere, and for more than a decade she’s joined the men of The Muddle while gigging on both sides of the Ohio River. The set lists are eclectic, the narration brief, and crowds are quiet with attention. Maybe the best parts are that you can name that tune, sing those songs, and transport back to the show or party where you heard the melody that very first time. The Muddle performs a solid show for sure, and it’s Flanagan who humbly fills the role as band leader. She schedules shows, promotes on social media, does the radio interviews, and it’s Cathy who thanks the crowd for their shows of appreciation for each little ditty. Not bad for someone once anxious when standing up front, huh? Flanagan sings and plays guitar for The Muddle, and the band can be enjoyed at various venues in the valley. Why The Muddle? Where did the name come from? Working as a duo being myself with Kevin Schlick or London Stadler – and, at times, a trio with Matt Uhlly – promotion was difficult. We needed a name. I was at the lobby bar at Nemacolin when the bartender served up a beautiful purple martini to the guy next to me, When I commented on it, he said the secret is to “muddle” the fruit. Muddle! We became “The Muddle,” because in the dictionary it also means “confusion.” This was perfect because it was really not clear who would be showing up to be it. Would it be a duo, a trio? We didn’t know, and eventually we’d even be a four-piece band for some performances. What performer or band led you to music? I don't think there was any one band or person that influenced me to want to play music. I loved music. I liked music class as long as we were singing. I didn`t care for learning music signatures or anything related to it. I took flutophone with hopes of making a band and failed the written test part. I was learning by ear. in 7th grade a classmate sang a solo in the Christmas program and I was mesmerized. I picked up a few instruments along the way. I played clawhammer banjo somewhat years ago with a trio. I struggled with stage fright. Flanagan interacts often with the audiences that attend The Muddle's shows. What female vocalist do you consider the greatest of all time? Why? I cannot say I consider any single one female or male vocalist to be the greatest, there are way too many fish in that sea. I wouldn't want to leave anyone out. What is the best job you’ve ever had? I've worked many jobs. Pondering the best makes me realize how many. I can honestly say I liked them all. Maybe the Riviera Bowling Lanes stands out. I worked in the Downstairs Lounge. I loved working in a rock club. We had top-notch bands come through there. I got to be friends with great musicians. I still have charts that Rick from the BE Taylor Band made for me. This was before the internet – at least for me. I got to be friends with The Toys, Dino and John. They knew I strummed some guitar and suggested I pick up bass. They said bass players were scarce. So, I did. The Muddle have played shows in bars and restaurants, sure, but also for steak frys and other outdoor events. What happened to rock n’ roll? Where’d it go? Well, I think rock n roll might still be around. Maybe just harder to find? Read the full article

0 notes

magicinaframe-part2 · 1 year ago

Text

Bizarre

If only, if only. If only I had the skill to come up with alternate lyrics to well-known songs, I would feel truly creative.

If anyone, here, at Tumblr, wants to try on your own and get back to me, that would be good news -- good news for me and, maybe, for you, also.

The word 'bizarre' has the same number of letters as the word 'divorce.' "D-I-V-O-R-C-E" was a popular country and western single from the late 1960s. It was a song that was used in the Hollywood movie FIVE EASY PIECES (U.S. debut date: Sept. 12, 1970), a movie that I recommend.

As a potential song with alternate lyrics, "Bizarre" would be a way for people to deal with the daily proliferation of off-the-wall events taking place in the U.S.

For the record, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary website defines the word 'bizarre' as follows: Strikingly out of the ordinary, such as (a) Odd, extravagant or eccentric in style or mode; (b) Involving sensational contrasts of incongruities.

With that definition in mind, I have to briefly describe a movie that was in theaters throughout the U.S., starting on August 9, 1967.

Sometime in the future, on planet Earth, the nations who call themselves Democratic have banded together into one group of countries, a group that is run by a Council -- with one man, amongst the Council members, chosen as the leader. Technological advances have continued, so that travel to other planets is commonplace, for instance. On Earth, surface travel is usually done with cars that appear to be suspended in the air, without wheels. Travel on Earth also includes aircraft that look like flying saucers.

The democratic nations' security is handled by both police and special security forces.

A space station orbiting the earth is where the main strand of the plot of this movie begins. A special security force Commander, named Mike Halstead, has arrived to get an update on a number of on-going scientific experiments. The experiments have been run by a Corporation, not by the government, and Halstead has thought for a long time -- that is, before the movie started -- that the relationship between the government and the Corporation has to be carefully looked at.

In particular, in Halstead's way of thinking, the Corporation person who is in charge of the scientific experiments is not to be trusted. That character's name is Nurmi.

The bulk of the plot focuses on the reality of Nurmi's scientific experiments. Nurmi has been quietly putting together a new race of 'perfect humans' who, if everything goes according to plan, will take over the government.

Now, this might sound intriguing on paper, as a movie script, but the actual presentation is what I mean by the word 'bizarre' -- and, perhaps a new word has to be found or created, because the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition does not accurately describe any of the sight and sound information on screen. 'Unbelievable' is too broad, vague. There must be another word.

To anyone who is interested by what I am saying, here, at Tumblr, I recommend the theatrical trailer of the movie THE WILD, WILD PLANET (1966) which can be found at You tube. If you have 2 minutes and 47 seconds that you can spare, the trailer will make clear what I am saying in this piece.

I'm wondering whether any controlled substances were consumed during the production of this movie. And I wish I could find a definitive answer to the following question: Were the scriptwriters and the director sincerely predicting the future or were they having fun and making money? In the real world, one had to have been more important than the other.

-- Drew Simels

#1960s Science Fiction Movies

0 notes

sideprince · 1 year ago

Text

I think the tl;dr of this is that the Marauders weren't really rebels and while they were, technically, rule-breakers, we don't see much evidence of consequences for them.

Let's take the definition of a rebel from Webster's Dictionary is:

1: opposing or taking arms against a government or ruler 2: DISOBEDIENT, REBELLIOUS

There isn't really evidence in canon that the Marauders broke rules with any purpose other than entertaining themselves. Their rebellion was transgressive but without purpose. They weren't doing it for political reasons or to make any kind of point. The textual evidence we do have of their motivations are:

bullying Snape out of boredom/because "he exists"

hexing people who annoy them

having "adventures" running around the school grounds and Hogsmeade with a werewolf for personal entertainment

As to their punishments, there's no indication that they were punished for the werewolf prank (where Sirius tried to kill/maim/turn Snape by using his supposed best friend to attack him without consent). No punishment is ever implied or said to have been doled out. Sirius only refers to it in the context of asserting that Snape deserved it more than a decade later, and doesn't say anything about having been punished. In fact, the only repercussions we know about that incident is that Snape was bound to silence by Dumbledore. (I haven't read the books for a while but if anyone has a better citation re: a clear statement of lack of punishment, please drop it in the notes or a reblog!)

The Marauders also don't seem to have been punished in any way for bullying Snape publicly and egregiously. (And yes, it was sexual assault as well as bullying, but if we're going by UK laws in the 1970s, pantsing didn't count as sexual assault yet and I think it's important to contextualize events within their own time periods even if they're fictional.) When Harry asks Lupin and Sirius about it, they make excuses and Lupin tries to argue that Snape and James hated each other and make it sound like a rivarly instead of 4-on-1 bullying. Again, at no point do either of these surviving Marauders say anything about having been punished. Sirius says, "I'm not proud of it" but he doesn't say anything along the lines of, "we had a week's detention for that, you know." No punishment or consequence of any kind is even mentioned. In fact, Sirius, who says isn't proud of his actions, does so when he's serving in the Order with Snape, who he recently ostracized and referred to by the same nickname he had bullied him with at school.

We do know, however, that the Marauders served detention often, because when Harry has to serve detention with Snape night after night for having used Sectumsempra on Malfoy, his punishment is to rewrite old cards, many of which refer to his dad and/or his friends and the rule-breaking they served detention for. Rule-breaking isn't the same as rebellion, though, and the glimpses we get of these cards show that the Marauders were punished for things like hexing people in the halls (I think one was for making someone's head swell up). This correlates with Lily's accusation to James in SWM about him hexing people just for annoying him and just because he can. Again, it's interesting that given all these detentions the Marauders were given, we're told of no punishments for the werewolf prank and for bullying Snape openly in front of a crowd of onlookers.

What's also interesting is that despite all these detentions, there weren't any further, more serious steps taken to discipline them. Comparisons get made to the Weasley twins, but their rule-breaking tended to be focused on achieving goals, not on harming other students. The Marauders, however, seemed to be a threat to the well-being of the students around them, but at no point is it indicated that their myriad of detentions was ever escalated to more severe punishments, because they were clearly ineffective at curbing their behavior. This is especially interesting when you consider that if, presumably, they had been breaking rules and getting detentions for a few years by the time the werewolf prank happened (and we can assume so, as it's unlikely that they developed behavioral problems as a group overnight), that would have been a marker of escalating problematic behavior and yet there seemed to have been no consequence. Isn't Sirius the kind of character who would boast about his egregious rule-breaking that cost him a great punishment? And yet he doesn't.

James and Sirius are privileged boys from wealthy pure-blood families. Lupin and Pettigrew are protected in their shadow, whatever their own lineage (we know little about Pettigrew except that he's cowardly and ingratiates himself with stronger people, and as for Lupin, his status is compromised by being a werewolf so he's at a disadvantage). What James' and Sirius' status gives them is the ability to break rules with impunity. The parallel I would draw to a real-world example is the way punitive laws are often a serious blow to low-income transgressors and essentially a fee to pay for wealthy ones. A no-parking zone for someone who can afford to pay the fine is just an expensive parking spot, etc.

James and Sirius aren't rebellious, because they are not only part of the system that holds power in their society, but also because they don't experience the consequences rebels do. They're given a free pass again and again, until their own hubris kills one of them and lands the other in Azkaban for a decade. Their rule-breaking at school is risk-free because to them, detention is an annoyance and no matter how terrible their behavior, they expect to have the same opportunities after they finish school whether or not they have a clean disciplinary record.

I would like to submit two ideas because I think I'm poking something but not going in fully, so I would very much like your opinions and additions about it (of course, as long as they remain in good faith *side eyes possible antis viewing my post*).

Marauders and surface-level rebellion

I've finally put to words something that really bothered me with the Marauders, though I don't know the name for it.

It started when I read a reblog that said:

I remember Brennan saying “laws are just structured threats made by the ruling socioeconomic class” during an episode of D20 and we truly just had to stan immediately

This is something dear privileged white woman Rowling didn't realize/understand well, since she held a high socioeconomical status even during her """poverty""" stage. It's known that, despite seeming to be defending ideas of fighting against fascism and "pureblood" supremacy in favor of acceptance of the other, her books reek of colonialism/imperalism. The story of the Marauders, a gang of privileged boys like her, is an in-world replica of that problem where Rowling betrays yet again her actual mindset.

The Marauders adopt the "bad boys who break rules" to get style, while completely losing/staining the moral sense in it.

Let's take piracy.

Some people pirate stuff because they consider that the stuff they'd like to get comes from unethical companies that abuse their employees or use modern slavery, or people who spread harm against certain minorities (like Rowling against trans people and thus the LGBT+ community), so while they may want to access the content, they don't want to give them money and might even encourage pirating their stuff to make them lose money.

Some pirate stuff because otherwise it's lost due to unfortunate "terms of use" -- see video games companies like Ubisoft (deletes gaming account after a while), Nintendo (does not bring back old games), etc.

Others pirate stuff because they just don't have the money but they still want to try the stuff that might make them happy and forget that they're poor -- reasoning that the company isn't losing any money anyway, or not much, since they wouldn't have been able to pay for it in any case.

Others pirate stuff because they consider the price ridiculously high or they consider it shouldn't be something to pay for at all. (Like education stuff -- isn't education supposed to be free for all, so that it can actually uphold everyone's fundamental and unconditional ( = not conditioned by wealth...) right to have an education? Oh and before anyone asks: I've DEFINITELY bought the ~15 expensive books that's roughly worth 500€ in total and that my uni asked I buy to study and get my degree...)

Rowling's Marauders is a group that would pirate stuff just because they'd think it would give them an edge, because they'd think it would make them cool to be seen as "talented" hackers who "defy" companies. Companies... that their own friends and families would own, and as such, would find that kind of behavior funny and entertaining (while they would trash other people around for considering it).

Another example. In society, in history, it's been proven time and again that breaking rules -- going against the law -- is an eventuality that's important for everyone to consider, if they want to defend their rights. Anti-racism, feminism, LGBT Pride, etc, advanced because people broke rules. In USA states where abortion is currently being banned, women and minors (+ their close ones) must now consider breaking the rules to get an abortion. (Privileged people don't give a fuck about those people, and if they suddenly decide that (moral) rules don't apply to them and they will get an abortion, they will just take a plane ticket to a country where abortion is legal, fiddling with legal stuff if necessary thanks to the lawyers their fortunes can afford and the lobbies that they're instituting.)

Revolutions happened because people broke rules too. I particularly like the 1793 Constitution in France Because it asserts that the people have the right to break rules and riot if the power in place threatens their fundamental rights:

Article 35. - Quand le gouvernement viole les droits du peuple, l'insurrection est, pour le peuple et pour chaque portion du peuple, le plus sacré des droits et le plus indispensable des devoirs. Article 35. - When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of rights and the most essential of duties.

(Of course the power in place would state and enforce and make use of propaganda to say that it's completely illegal and illegetimate and that those who riot for legitimate rights are terrorists!)

Breaking rules is at the core of anti-fascism, anti-dictatorship, anti-totalitarianism. Breaking rules is essential when those rules are abusive. Too often, those who put those rules in place really are only setting their rules of the game to establish their power over the others. Or as the reblog says: "laws are just structured threats made by the ruling socioeconomic class".

Rowling's Marauders break rules because they are the socioeconomical class in power. As such, no one can do anything about it, no one will really tell them down for it. They get excused and justified and romanticized by their peers, just like billionaires & politicians are excused by their peers and notably mainstream media (which is owned... by other billionaires). They break rules -- not because they think it's necessary and the morally right thing to do despite the dangers it puts them in -- but because it makes them feel powerful, important, invincible, which for them is very fun. As Snape says: James and his cronies broke rules because they thought themselves above them:

“Your father didn’t set much store by rules either,” Snape went on, pressing his advantage, his thin face full of malice. “Rules were for lesser mortals, not Quidditch Cup-winners. [...]”

They break rules because they're allowed to.

Which is why, in reality, the Marauders aren't really breaking rules or defying anything or opposing an actual big threat. They're a bunch of jocks who are having fun in the playground that's been attributed to them thanks to their status and family heritage (others wouldn't get the same indulgence because they don't get that privilege).

They break rules because they want to look cool, to be the "bad boys". The message has been compleyely botched. Especially with Lily actually finding this hot.

Because Rowling finds this hot:

[...] I shook hands with a woman who leaned forward and whispered conspiratorially, 'Sirius Black is sexy, right?' And yes, of course she was right, as the Immeritus club know. The best-looking, most rebellious, most dangerous of the four marauders... and to answer one burning question on the discussion boards, his eyes are grey.

(Anyone has an eyes washing station?)

Another quote:

"Sirius was too busy being a big rebel to get married."

(Nevermind the eyes washing, anyone's got some bleach instead?)

Stanning James Potter for being the leader of a gang that prides itself on breaking rules and always getting away with it -- it feels like stanning Elon Musk for being "innovative" and "a daring entrepreneur" despite being a manchild who exploits workers and modern-world slavery to play with his billions while always getting away with it.

They're not being "rebels" -- they're being bullies and flexing the fact they can get away with it thanks to abundance of privilege. Those are the tastes of a posh British white woman. She wanted the facade -- not the substance (that is, if she ever understood it).

You might say that they did oppose a big threat, the Death Eaters, but again, it's botched because:

they target a lonely, unpopular boy who's best friends with a Muggleborn Gryffindor, rather than baby Death Eaters like Mulciber, Lucius, Rosier, Avery, Regulus, etc.

The leader sexually harasses the Muggleborn Gryffindor because he's sexually jealous of the unpopular boy who dared not take the insult about his chosen House and shut up. Lily is treated as an object, they don't listen to her, and they barely speak about her later. (Lots to say to show that, which I won't do here because this is not the main subject.)

When the Marauders do join the Order, they do it... because they primarily want to adopt a rock-n-roll style and play the "bad boys" again. Or at least that's the message that's given to the reader:

They seemed to be in their late teens. The one who had been driving had long black hair; his insolent good looks reminded Fisher unpleasantly of his daughter's guitar-playing, layabout boyfriend. The second boy also had black hair, though his was short and stuck up in all directions; he wore glasses and a broad grin. Both were dressed in T-shirts emblazoned with a large golden bird; the emblem, no doubt, of some deafening, tuneless rock band.

(God, the Prequel is so cringy.)

They don't choose Dumbledore as the Secret Keeper, they don't tell him they changed to Pettigrew -- even though he literally was their war leader -- James uses the Cape to fuck around even though he was supposed to be hiding with Lily and then Harry (until Dumbledore takes the Cape from him)... and eventually, their group exploded, with James killed off, Sirius thrown to Azkaban, Peter (the traitor) hiding as a rat and Lupin going off to find jobs to survive.

Why did that happen? Because they thought of playing their part in the Order like going on a teenage adventure rather than engaging in a resistance organization. It was, first and foremost, about playing "the bad boys" and having fun.

(Harry half-inherits this. While he doesn't break rules just to look cool, and actually has several moments where he does break rules because it's the right thing to do -- like under Umbridge or, of course, when Voldemort takes power -- he does often get pampered when he breaks them in his earlier years. By Dumbledore, but also McGonagall, however much Rowling tries to sell her as a "strict but fair" teacher. Or by Slughorn, now that I think about it. That's something that enraged Snape, as it brought up memories of Harry's father -- Snape's own bully -- getting the same treatment.)

It's not a coincidence that Rowling not only failed to properly convey through the Marauders the true value of breaking rules, but also lusted over them for adopting that "bad boys" trope. It speaks to her own privilege -- she who never had to put herself in danger and go against the law in a risky attempt to protect herself or other less privileged people.

(Here's a useful read to expand on those worldbuilding issues.)

2. Dark Magic, obscurantism and conservatism

For context: Opinion: The Dark Magic/Light Magic Dichotomy is Nonsense (by pet_genius).

The idea of "Dark Magic" as something that's repeatedly told to be "evil" magic and where you cross the line of the forbidden, while hardly putting in question that notion that was (for some reason) enforced by wizard society, is another blatant example of Rowling betraying her mindset of privileged British white woman.

Rowling couldn't put herself in the minds of a society of "outcasts (witches & wizards) deeply enough to consider they would not see any magic as "Dark" at all (being a ""Muggle"" concept), or that Dark magic is only magic that requires something unvaluable to be traded off -- like one's soul or health or life or sanity. Instead, she has Dark Magic defined as "evil" magic, even though her own books show that you can do evil stuff with normal magic, and that you can do morally good stuff with Dark magic. This thing happened because Rowling could not think past her own little world and instead she poured a conservatist mentality (+ typical "Muggle", anti-witch prejudice) into the HP (wizard society) worldbuilding without considering that there could, in fact, be fundamental differences between the two worlds that include thinking of magic differently. (This has a lot to do with Rowling's wizard world being a pro-imperalism fest.)

"Dark Magic" feels like a lazy, badly-executed plot device to tell the reader who's a good guy and who is not. Because of course, that's how things work in real-life, huh… (Did she ever hear of "don't tell, show"?) It's used as an excuse to define who's evil (teen Severus) or not (James), who's worthy or not -- not how their magic was used. Which is a BIG problem:

“I’m just trying to show you they’re not as wonderful as everyone seems to think they are.” The intensity of his gaze made her blush. “They don’t use Dark Magic, though.” / “Scourgify!” Pink soap bubbles streamed from Snape’s mouth at once; the froth was covering his lips, making him gag, choking him —

Even worse, Rowling doesn't follow her own in-world moral framework. Dark magic is acceptable for some people (Rowling's partial self-inserts: Dumbledore, Harry, Hermione to Marietta...) but not for those that Rowling hates (Snape, who ironically represents the closest thing to rebelling by unapologetically obsessing over the Dark Arts). Again, this is at best unadressed in-world hypocrisy, at worst an expression of in-world and out-universe privilege (I get to do this and stay a good guy, but you don't).

There could have easily been rightful criticism of whatever could be defined as "Dark Magic". What if Dark magic was just something defined as "Dark" usually because the power in place doesn't want the people to touch it? Is abortion or contraception or a sex-altering or a goverment-threatening spell, Dark Magic? Is foreign or ethnicity-specific or female-centered or queer-centered magic, "Dark"? How about showing why (Muggle-raised but also neurodivergent) Severus thought Dark magic was so great, showing his point of view, while also establishing where the true limits are? If Lily can't be the one who sees past the "fear-mongering anti-intellectualism/propaganda", how about Harry being the one who does, thanks to him relating to Snape on a personal level? How about making Hermione go from someone who condems Dark Magic, to someone who entirely changes her point of view and understands that this is all bullshit -- effectively showing the dangers of only following what the books say, without putting them into question or thinking by yourself? How about a nuanced view of Dark magic as something that requires a significant sacrifice, which is conceivable for something they see as equally or even more important [Lily's life for Harry; Snape's soul integrity for Dumbledore]? How about making the Death Eaters, people who deviate that legitimate interest, rather than just evil guys who thrive in Dark magic for its supposed added evilness? How about showing that Dark magic was just a notion invented by Muggles to throw "witches" (real or not) to the burning stakes -- later taken by the witches and wizards in power to define, in the magical community, what was okay or definitely forbidden because it's the trademark of those who represent a threat to the magical community (understand: people who riot or strike or protest against the ruling socioeconomical class' politics)?

But there was none of that.

"Dark" magic in HP merely seems to be a weird concept that at best accidentally takes the form of an in-world obscurantism, at worst is just the trademark of someone who cannot imagine a "hunted, ostracized" community with a different culture and mindset than her own. Aggravating is the fact that she used "Dark magic" as a plot device to magically cast some people as good and others as never bad – again, probably reflecting her own questionable mentality.

The fact Rowlnig invented the notion of Dark Magic and had her world consider it seriously as an evil thing instead of being open-minded seems to be less telling of her wishes to show a wizard society that can be as prejudiced as the muggle one, and more of her own bizarre world where you must be evil if you are knowledgeable in or interested in certain "taboo" things (RIP neurodivergents).

Rowling glorifies the Trio and the Marauders for breaking rules. Yet when it comes to actually breaking expectations and norms, notably in the wizarding society -- like the use of another magical species as slaves, or the blatant anti-Muggle prejudice held by everyone including "good guys" (or anti-centaur while we're at it), or stupid anti-knowledge prejudice like "Dark magic is evil" -- there is none of that. At best, it's surface-level opposition that comes out as white savior syndrome. At worst, the protagonists make it their noble code to enforce those norms, and "sinful" characters (Snape, for one) are punished for not conforming. Too often, those sinful characters are punished by the "good guys" with the very thing that they apparently oppose so fervently.

Without ever adressing the fact that those characters were ("morally") allowed to do that because it was just, in the end, a matter of who gets the privilege to do that, and who does not.

There.

Do you have anything to say to develop on those ideas? I feel like I'm reaching my knowledge limit and I'd like to see if those ideas can be expanded.

287 notes · View notes

kambahpeoplesmap · 2 years ago

Text

Kambah - exhibition at Tuggeranong Arts Centre 20 Jan to 4 March

Welcome to the exhibition ‘Kambah’. Explore and help create two maps of our experience and the atmosphere of living in Kambah – the good, the great, the not-so-great, the personal, the useful, the curious ...

Mapping Kambah with you finds its inspiration in The People's Map of Wangaratta made by artist Ashabee Abraham (like Nick Cave, Wangaratta born and bred). She mapped the tiny personal things - locations of first kisses, best dog walking route, best sunset spot. She also mapped touristic sites, useful sites, happy places and not so happy places.

Mapping involves sensing and recording. I’ve used old style photography to record what I’ve seen and that’s what you’re seeing on the walls. I’ve talked to lots of people and you’ll find photos and stories getting added to the map over the exhibition. I learnt about the movie you see in the corner from one of those conversations.

I started Kambah during the first Covid 19 lockdown back in May 2020. The fires had just terrified us and the rains had started washing top soil off the burn sites into the creeks and gullies. Then we were all forced to stay home other than our walks. I noticed many people out on what are usually quiet routes. I noticed I paid attention to the Crozier area (my neighbourhood) in ways I have not before. I started to notice things.

This is where the map began.

I invite you to share what you would like others to know or what stays in your mind about Kambah. Maybe it’s a memory, maybe it’s something important to you. There are intriguing historical things (Skyline Disco at the Kambah Inn for example, that the IGA was known by a whole generation as Vic and Rick’s, that the real action for Kambah High’s Year 10 formal was at the woolshed) but there’s also intriguing experience (for my 10 years in Kambah, I’ve been woken by cockatoos who have roosted here from at least 1974).

But wait, there’s more. I’m also investigating our bogan reputation.

Kambah has an internet reputation as Australia’s biggest bogan suburb. Are we bogans? To me that means people who know their own mind. Dictionaries call it a mildly derogatory term. The internet says bogans are perceived to be unsophisticated or of a lower class background.

Kambah was planned as a 1970s utopia with a 28 hectare commons. Yet research from 2008 shows we don’t do much together here in Kambah. We’ve got the repeated experience of losing our community resources - eg the old Kambah homestead was pulled down, the closed schools were sold rather than turned over the community. Does this sense that there’s not much community in Kambah have something to do with our bogan reputation?

So that’s another reason to map. Those of us who live here know that 2902 is pretty interesting. The more I look, the more interesting it becomes.

I explained my journey of looking began with making photos using leaves, feathers and weeds from the edge of the golf course on Crozier Circuit (the blue square of small images you can see in the gallery).

I soon turned to the most basic camera I could find, a pinhole. For me, these silver-gelatin pinhole and cyanotype photographs are literal reflections of Kambah’s social processes. The photos signal change – the pinhole images exit the camera upside down and back to front, things look different. The blue of the cyanotypes is fixed with exposure to daylight. As metaphors, these photos both celebrate and change up how we view our bogan lineage.

And finally, in 2024, Kambah turns 50. Contribute to the map and help explore how best we can celebrate.

0 notes

deeisace · 1 month ago

Text

I don't spose you can know the reason behind a clandestine marriage, especially almost 300 years after the fact, but here look at this one anyway

(Does that say 7th?) January 1740, William (a Biscake Baker of St Catherins) and Mary, would not tell their names - but they must've married anyhow, it's in the book!

I would like to know what biscake is tho - puts me in mind of American cookies, or maybe scones or American biscuits?

duckduckgo says it's a brand new 2020's thing, and my 1970s dictionary goes bis->biscuit, but google books gives a 1745 recipe book that has Raspberry Biscakes in!

Edward Lambert's The Art of Confectionary

I'm not really a baker, but that sounds very meringue-ish to me, doesn't it? Sugar and egg whites and raspberry paste?

#research #cries in genealogist #my 6x great grandmother is on the next page (marrying her first husband where i am descended from the second)

12 notes · View notes

my-deer-friend · 2 months ago

Text

I don't really think we disagree on much. You don't know me (hi, internet stranger! 👋), but if you skim through my blog, you'll see I regularly use modern terms in jokes and shitposts to describe historical people – but then use more precise language for serious/academic posts.

So fundamentally, yes. Both are good! "Static and precise" is not and cannot be a standard for queer identites (that's exactly what I'm saying). Use whatever words you want in casual settings. I don't care. Have fun!

Still, I disagree that the "dichotomy is false" where it comes to academic scholarship specifically, which is what my post was about.

You say we should use "modern terms for groups with similar experiences today"; I'm saying that the experiences are not similar enough (or at least not in the time periods I'm studying) to warrant the modern terms. Not all queer scholars agree with that position, but here's my case for it.

You make my key point in your third paragraph. It's so contextual. If someone says they're gay, does that mean "the dictionary definition of gay" or "same-sex attracted, but not exclusively" or "how it was used in the 1970s" or "homosexual but not homoromantic" or "specifically a man attracted to men, so lesbians better not use it" or "my personal homebrew shorthand because I don't want to make a powerpoint about it"? Any of these could be meant; we can't tell without digging deeper. Even a seemingly straightforward term like "gay" unfolds to have a multiplicity of contested meanings and signifiers. Contemporary terms are living constructs: constantly negotiated, ideological, and laden with today's cultural meaning and baggage.

These words are not neutral. These words are not static and precise. They're not meant to be – but that real-world advantage is exactly what makes them shaky ground for historical queer scholarship.

The challenge is that the words we use today for sexual preferences or behaviours are often simultaneously the words we use for associated sociocultural identites. So, a lot of people will treat "homosexual" and "gay" as synonyms, where really they're not – the first can describe a sexual act (even between two straight same-sex people), whereas the second doesn't even clarify the gender of the person or whether they desire sex at all.

If one scholar writes that a man found guilty of sodomy in the British navy was gay (intending to mean "had commited a homosexual act") and another person reads that to mean "was exclusively sexually and romantically attracted to men", then... that's confusing, inaccurate, and potentially outright wrong. If you drew a venn diagram comparing an 18th century molly and a 21st century gay man, there would be some items in the overlap and many items in the non-overlapping parts of the circles on each side. As such, calling him gay instead of a molly both takes away the defining things that make mollies what they were, and suggests contemporary characteristics that weren't present at the time.

If somebody says that people did not (or could not) have the same gender or sexual traits that correspond to modern labels before those words were invented, then ✨that's nonsense✨ and they're talking shit.

But there is also a bad-faith (and rarely subtantiated) accusation that avoiding modern terminology in academic writing is erasing queer identites. When queer scholars say someone can't be pansexual before the identity is coined, it's like saying you can't be Canadian before Canada becomes a distinct country. "Pansexual" and "Canadian" are social-cultural identities, not objective ahistorical descriptors. But people have lived on the landmass that now falls within the modern borders of Canada long before it had that name, just as people in history existed who were attracted to others regardless of their sex/gender identity before "pansexual" was a thing.

And often, these people did have words for these identities. If a historical person considered themselves omnisexual, then my position is that it's inaccurate to call them pansexual or bisexual instead. That, to me, is erasure of queer identity.

TL;DR – in casual everyday contexts, do as you please. In academic writing, favour precision.

The problem with applying modern queer labels to historical people is not only that those labels didn't exist at that time but also that the labels used today just aren't very static or precise anyway.

Let queer people of the past have their own queer identities. <3

#i turned off reblogs overnight before the discussion could veer off course and to give me a chance to formulate a reply #carry on!#queer history

112 notes · View notes

therealvinelle · 2 years ago

Note

https://www.tumblr.com/blog/view/therealvinelle/692967241218719744?source=share

I must know, monolingual fool that I am, what this says in English.

Here you go:

TRANSLATION

You do know that I'm going to have to translate this post as well, and it'll be terrible. Last time I spent an hour translating the original post!

But oh well.

For those who don't remember the original Norwegian Bella-post, Bella is Norwegian and hasn't learned English before moving to live with her father in Forks. It's so embarrassing, she refuses to admit this weakness to anybody.

In this AU she decides to just tear the bandaid off, if she doesn't admit to not speaking English she risks her well-intentioned father leaking it instead.

She is as exciting as she could possibly be. Imagine, a true European has come to little Forks! People have a great many questions for her, but the difference from other timelines is that these questions are accompanied by heavy gesturing og repeated slowly, in the hopes that Bella will understand questions posed in a foreign language if the questions are posed more slowly.

"How much English do you know? ENG-LISH, HOW MUCH" is a frequently occurring one.

Mike fights his way through an English-Norwegian dictionary so he can ask Bella if it's true that all Norwegian women are blonde and tall, or if that's just Hollywood.

Tyler asks her questions in Spanish.

Edward, who has met his singer, does not care what language she speaks. He flees to Denali.

A week later he's back, and Bella, who is being followed everywhere by her self-declared English tutor, one Mike Newton, reacts as she did in canon. She finds Edward's return uncomfortable.

Edward, who was so set on talking to her and preparing for that, had forgotten that she doesn't speak English.

"Hi," he says.

"Heisann," Bella answers, the most demonstratively Norwegian greeting she can throw at him.

Edward stares at her in bafflement and only realizes then that the girl doesn't speak English.

And Norwegian happens to be one of the languages Edward doesn't speak.

He knows over a dozen languages, many of them closely related to Norwegian, but Norwegian is just one of those languages that was always on the agenda. He had vague plans of learning the nordic language next time he was travelling around, but he hadn't actually gotten that far.

And now he's standing there, with Bella Swan who has her English name and English-speaking family, born in America, and who doesn't speak a word of English.

"Parlez-vous français ?" he tries after a moment.

Bella has actually taken French as a foreign language in middle school and high school, but she's terrible at it.

"Pas beaucoup," she mumbles, and blushes.

Edward lights up. "On peut parler, donc ?"

Mike turns around to stare at them, eyes bright with curiosity.

And Bella realizes that if she lets Edward know she speaks some French, then half the school will know through Mike before lunchtime.

And then Bella will be stuck having to navigate her way through conversations in atrocious French, where the people she's talking to will supplement their French with English every time they don't know the words.

No thanks, better to be a blissfully languageless foreigner.

"Jeg snakker ikke fransk," (I don't speak French,) she quickly tells Edward, before moving her chair as far from his as possible.

Edward is fascinated.

The day after the truck accident happens, and she ends up at the hospital.

Carlisle walks into the ER. "Jeg hører rykter om at vi har en norsktalende ung dame her inne i dag," (Rumor has it we have a Norwegian girl in today) he says, and offers Bella a winning smile.

"Ja!" (Yes!) she exclaims, happy and surprised. "Snakker du norsk?" (You speak Norwegian?)

Carlisle, who hasn't been to Norway in many years, is surprised the girl is using informal pronouns with him, but figures that kids these days are less formal.*

*Prior to the 1970's, the Norwegian language rigorously enforced the T-V distinction.

Carlisle offers up an easy (and prepared) answer for why he knows Norwegian. "Ja, jeg tilbragte somrene mine på Tjøme som barn." (Yes, I spent my summers at Tjøme as a child.)

"Åja," (Oh) Bella answers.

Bella is so thrilled to finally have someone she can converse with properly that she forgets to tell Carlisle about Edward's impossible rescue.

After the examination the Cullens have their infamous meeting, which ends with Alice informing them that Edward loves Bella.

"How can he love her?" Rosalie demands. "They don't understand a word of what the other is saying!"

Edward must concede Rosalie is right.

How can he love a girl he's never had a conversation with?

He visits Bella that night, and to his shock he finds Alice is right.

He can't explain why, but he looks at this girl where she sleeps, ever so vulnerable, with blood heavenly to the point where he can only imagine God created her for his sake, and he feels himself change. He is devoted to this girl, and he will never be able to live without her.

He loves her.

Edward runs home to Carlisle, and asks him to teach Edward Norwegian. They spend the night on Edward learning glossaries and simple sentences, and when Edward shows up at school again he brings Ibsen's En Folkefiende (Enemy of the People) (Carlisle's recommendation). He also reads a Norwegian dictionary, and memorizes all the words in it.

The day goes by uneventfully. Bella can't confront Edward with how he rescued her when they don't speak the same language, even if she could ask him she wouldn't understand his answer. She's wondering if she could get in touch with his father again, as Dr. Cullen actually does speak Norwegian. Maybe she could drop by with flowers as a thank-you for the treatment, and ask to talk for a few moments while she's there?

But, a young girl presenting a married man with flowers and wanting to talk to him privately will get awkward, especially when the man in question looks the way Carlisle does. People would draw conclusions.

Bella ponders her conundrum.

Edward, in the meantime, has learned enough Norwegian from the dictionary, from Ibsen, and from Carlisle that he can understand some Norwegian. He glows brightly with confidence.

"God morgen," (Good morning) he says to Bella in Biology, in fluent Norwegian.

Bella stares. "Snakker du norsk?!" (You talk Norwegian?!) she blurts.

"Noe," (Some) Edward smiles.

"Hvorfor sa du ikke noe?" (Why didn't you say anything?) Bella demands, both surprised and pleased. "Hallo, jeg har jo ikke hatt noen å snakke med!" (I haven't had anybody to talk to!)

That she spoke fast wasn't a problem by itself, but that Bella pulled "har jo ikke" into one word, "ha-jo'kke" and "du ikke" also become one word, "du'kke", makes Edward smile stiffen for a second as he decodes what she just said.

"Jeg lærer," (I'm learning,) he says, and doesn't dare say more.

"Men du har jo nydelig uttale! Like god som faren din," (But you have beautiful pronunciation! As good as your father,) Bella says, still very happy, and oblivious to the fact that Edward's pronunciation is so similar to Carlisle's because he copied it, phoneme by phoneme.

Edward just smiles as he concentrates on combining the sounds Bella is making with the phonetic spellings of Norwegian words he picked up from the dictionary.

He's quiet for a few seconds before answering.

"Takk." (Thanks.)

Bella wonders how much Norwegian he really speaks, but he continues before she can ask.

"Carlisle er en god lærer," (Carlisle is a good teacher.) he says.

Bella is really impressed by the Norwegian he has shown so far.

And realizes that she can now confront him with the incident the day before, when he saved her from being hit by a car.

So she asks about it.

Edward stares. Han hadn't realized she'd have noticed what he did during the accident, certainly not so much of it.

"Jeg er ikke veldig god i norsk," (I'm not very good at Norwegian) he quickly says, and the rest of Biology class is spent with him answering solely in English or overly broken Norwegian each time she makes an overture.

Bella's now more suspicious than ever.

The next day Edward seeks her out, and he tells her in Norwegian that's markedly better than it was the day before that she hit her head, she doesn't remember correctly. That's that.

Bella asks if he was always this good at Norwegian.

"Carlisle er en god lærer," (Carlisle is a good teacher.) he says.

Bella goes to La Push, where she doesn't know Jacob as they didn't grow up together, and she never hears any legends.

Port Angeles happens as in canon, just because she doesn't speak Norwegian doesn't mean Jessica wants to exclude her. Bella can still point to dresses and offer her Scandinavian perspective on fashion. The difference from canon is that when Edward rescues her she has no vampire theories to present him with.

Bella suspects a robot.

Edward is obviously not human, he has super strength, looks a little too perfect, his skin is stone hard. If he's a robot it would explain his language skills, she knows he didn't speak Norwegian that first week. The language must have been uploaded to him and the delay was because the package wasn't operative right away.

The Cullens are most likely a military project, where they've placed highly sophisticated robots in a society to test how well they can blend in among humans. It certainly makes more sense than "mad scientist lost control of his robot army".

She confronts Edward with this theory.

Edward... supposes he's glad she doesn't know he's a vampire. He's a bit disappointed, but... isn't this a good way to protect her?

If Bella knows he's not human, and that she must keep this a secret, but she doesn't know the darker side of things, is that not the best of two worlds?

So he tells her he's never out in the sun because of the material his skin is made of. He'll show her what he means.

(He needs to buy himself some time to come up with a good explanation for his new robot self that is as close to the truth as possible without Bella finding out he drinks blood.)

They meet up in the meadow, and he lights up like in canon. He tells her this is because he charges in the sun, it was either this or sun panels on his back and those would have been too conspicuous. The sparkle means he's charging.

Because he doesn't want her thinking Edward Cullen is just bytes and electrical circuits, he tells her that he was once a human just like her, but the seventeen-year-old he was become terminally ill, and his parents agreed to a science project that would give his consciousness a chance to live on. Due to security concerns he never saw them again after that, the point is he and all his family were once human.

(Neither of them realizes that this is all strongly inspired by the plot of Robocop.

It helps that they never watched Robocop.)

Bella doesn't doubt it.

When they meet James, Bella doesn't catch any of what the robots are saying in English, but she's fascinated by what appears to be rogue robots who walk around without any purpose or missions.

Edward explains to her that some robots break free and become rogues. These robots are very dangerous and must be destroyed at all cost. He goes on to explain to Bella that the robots they encountered now intend to kill her because... well, robots can be very dangerous, and these ones are clearly mad.

The rest of the family (who also learned Norwegian. Rosalie wouldn't have, just to spite Edward, but the unfortunate fact is that she learned it in the 80's so she's stuck) just stares.

(No one points out that this is all strongly inspired by the plot of Blade Runner.

Blade Runner for the record being another film Edward hasn't seen.)

Canon carries on more or less, with increasingly colorful explanations from Edward. James' bite burned the way it did because of battery acid, and Jasper attacked her because he's programmed to kill humans that are bleeding (it's a military thing. Don't ask, Bella).

The rest of the family doesn't quite know what to make of all this, but no one wants to walk up to a human girl and tell her vampires are real, so no one says anything.

Bella, in the meantime, nourishes a hope that she might become part of this military project. She understand that this would be difficult, but she has a brain, she's patriot enough, and she wants to be part of the Cullen family so badly.

Edward explains to her that this will take years to get approved, and they only take the terminally ill anyway. It's unlikely she ever gets approved, and even then she'll be well over thirty by the time it happens, by which time technology will have changed so she's a different model than Edward. Life is rough like that.

Jasper's attack on her is a shock to Edward, who realizes that he's living a lie with a girl who doesn't have a future with him anyway.

He tells her that their romance was a training mission for him. Could he seduce a teen girl and be her lover for half a year? Was he sophisticated enough for that? The answer was yes, so now his task has been completed.

Thank you and good-bye, Bella.

He leaves.

Bella is left there, heartbroken.

She tries to find solace in the fact that the robot she loved passed the Turing Test thanks to her, but that's a meager comfort.

She starts hanging out with Jacob Black, communicating isn't easy for them but he can fix motorcycles, and motorcycles are what Bella wants.

A few months later she jumps from a cliff, and is surprised to find Alice in her house.

Alice sticks to the robot lie, there's no point in vampire truths when the relationship with Edward is over anyway. She stays for two days seeing as she'd missed Bella, and that's when the fateful phone call happens.

Bella and Alice go to Volterra, and Alice can only hope Aro will show Edward some mercy. After all, he didn't tell Bella what he really was.

She tells Bella that the Volturi are like James, but unlike James. They are rogues, but considerably more sophisticated than James was. They're loaded, and... some of them have a virus that make their skin and eyes discolored.)

(Aro, on his end, is... well, impressed by Edward is a nice way to put it. A very nice way.

He wonders if anyone among the Cullens have realized that the word "vampire" doesn't actually matter.)

Bella gets to Edward in time, and the gang is led down into the underground Volturi palace.

(Bella marvels at the obvious age of the palace. How long has the technology for these robots been around? Edward was always vague on that point.)

Aro takes one look at gifted Bella, who's miraculously alive and so very valuable, and immediately tells her the truth. He's a vampire, Edward is a vampire, all the Cullens are vampires, everyone's a vampire. The robot thing was a lie.

Edward is horrified, it's all over now that Bella knows.

Alice can only sigh, Edward should have told the truth from the start.

And Bella stares at Aro, this rogue who obviously has a virus. He looks blind.

Vampires.

Uh huh.

Nice try, fella.

She doesn't buy it.

Aro tries, but soon has to give up on convincing her they're vampires. Edward learned a language in two days, he became fluent, that's not a vampire thing.

Aro still asks Bella if he wants to be one of them.

And Bella just laughs, she knows that process takes years, there's mountains of paperwork to clear. She'd love to be a robot, but let's be realistic here, guys.

And Aro gives up on the truth. He has to play along, or lose his window with Bella.

So he corrects Bella to "cyborg" in a quiet voice, if he's to be a technological miracle he will at the very least be a correctly named technological miracle.

He then tells her that he has the tech required to make her a cyborg. That's why he has so many vampires (sorry, cyborgs) with him. He made them all!

Edward cries out that all of Aro's robots have viruses and their programming is spaghetti code. Bella's gonna have so many bugs and error messages that she never gets anything done.

Edward is escorted out of the room.

Bella is left feeling very dubious, it's not like she wants a virus.

But she does so want to be a robot. Or a cyborg, whatever they're called (Edward never gave her the name of the model).

Aro promises her she won't get any viruses, the only reason why he, Marcus, and Caius have any is that they agreed to a software update that turned out to contain malware. Had they taken a moment to realize update notifications don't usually come as pop-ups on the internet or in Marcus's case in the mail, this sorry business could all have been avoided. Bella needs only learn from their experiences and mind what she downloads, she'll be fine.

Bella says yes.

She gets a terrible shock when Aro's laboratory turns out to be an empty room in which he bites her, and she wakes up three days later with a terrible thirst in her throat.

#norwegian bella #the carnivorous muffin #twilight #twilight meta #twilight renaissance

168 notes · View notes

gffa · 3 years ago

Note

Do you think one could follow the Jedi Code/Lifestyle in real life as a positive manner of living or do you think it only works in Star Wars? I asked this on r/Mawinstallation and the answers I got were either:

''The Jedi code is oppressive so no'' ( this was the most upvoted answer )

''The Jedi code works but only for the Jedi''

''The Jedi code requires the force to work and since the force doesn't exist in the real world, the code cannot work''

And finally, I got only a single reply that said

''Yes, the Jedi code does work in real life, that's the entire point of Star Wars''.

What is your take on this?

This is going to be sort of a long, roundabout answer, but the short version is: In the finer details, we're not space psychics, but as a general idea? Yes. First of all, what even IS the Jedi Code? Are we talking about the whole “there is no emotion, there is peace”/”emotion, yet peace” meditation mantra, which we should point out is nowhere in the movies or TV shows, but is entirely in the novels and comics supplementary material? Are we talking about a more generalized idea of Jedi philosophy? And what, precisely, does that mean? I mean, what’s oppressive about it and what scene evidences that that’s what the Jedi taught? Second, there are two talks that George Lucas gave that I think really illustrate this view of emotional navigation and how that impacts Star Wars and the Force: There’s the writers meeting of The Clone Wars where he talks about the light side and the dark side and there’s an Academy of Achievement Speech from 2013 where he talks about joy vs pleasure: “Happiness is pleasure and happiness is joy. It can be either one, you add them up and it can be the uber category of happiness. “Pleasure is short lived. It lasts an hour, it lasts a minute, it lasts a month. It peaks and then it goes down–it peaks very high, but the next time you want to get that same peak you have to do it twice as much. It’s like drugs, you have to keep doing it because it insulates itself. No matter what it is, whether you’re shopping or you’re engaged in any other kind of pleasure. It all has the same quality about it. “On the other hand is joy and joy is the thing that doesn’t go as high as pleasure, in terms of your emotional reaction. But it stays with you. Joy is something you can recall, pleasure you can’t. So the secret is that, even though it’s not as intense as pleasure, the joy will last you a lot longer. “People who get the pleasure they keep saying, ‘Well, if I can just get richer and get more cars–!’ You’ll never relive the moment you got your first car, that’s it, that’s the highest peak. Yes, you could get three Ferraris and a new gulf stream jet and maybe you’ll get close. But you have to keep going and eventually you’ll run out. You just can’t do it, it doesn’t work. “If you’re trying to sustain that level of peak pleasure, you’re doomed. It’s a very American idea, but it just can’t happen. You just let it go. Peak. Break. Pleasure is fun it’s great, but you can’t keep it going forever. “Just accept the fact that it’s here and it’s gone, and maybe again it’ll come back and you’ll get to do it again. Joy lasts forever. Pleasure is purely self-centered. It’s all about your pleasure, it’s about you. It’s a selfish self-centered emotion, that’s created by self-centered motive of greed. “Joy is compassion, joy is giving yourself to somebody else or something else. And it’s the kind of thing that is in it’s subtlty and lowness more powerful than pleasure. If you get hung up on pleasure you’re doomed. If you pursue joy you will find everlasting happiness.” –George Lucas And how I like to compare that to The Hijacking of the American Mind by Robert Lustig, MD, MSL, which is a book about how corporations have hijacked our pleasure centers to make us focused on reward over pleasure. It talks about the exact same concepts, with only slight word adjustments, but otherwise might as well be verbatim: “At this point it’s essential to define and clarify what I mean by these two words—pleasure and happiness—which can mean different things to different people. “Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines “pleasure” as “enjoyment or satisfaction derived from what is to one’s liking”; or “gratification”; or “reward.” While “pleasure” has a multitude of synonyms, it is this phenomenon of reward that we will explore, as scientists have elaborated a specific “reward pathway” in the brain, and we now understand the neuroscience of its regulation. Conversely, “happiness” is defined as “the quality or state of being happy”; or “joy”; or “contentment.” While there are many synonyms for “happiness,” it is the phenomenon that Aristotle originally referred to as eudemonia, or the internal experience of contentment, that we will parse in this book. Contentment is the lowest baseline level of happiness, the state in which it’s not necessary to seek more. In the movie Lovers and Other Strangers (1970), middle-aged married couple Beatrice Arthur and Richard Castellano were asked the question “Are you happy?”—to which they responded, “Happy? Who’s happy? We’re content.” Scientists now understand that there is a specific “contentment pathway” that is completely separate from the pleasure or reward pathway in the brain and under completely different regulation. Pleasure (reward) is the emotional state where your brain says, This feels good—I want more, while happiness (contentment) is the emotional state where your brain says, This feels good—I don’t want or need any more. “Reward and contentment are both positive emotions, highly valued by humans, and both reasons for initiative and personal betterment. It’s hard to be happy if you derive no pleasure for your efforts—but this is exactly what is seen in the various forms of addiction. Conversely, if you are perennially discontent, as is so often seen in patients with clinical depression, you may lose the impetus to better your social position in life, and it’s virtually impossible to derive reward for your efforts. Reward and contentment rely on the presence of the other. Nonetheless, they are decidedly different phenomena. Yet both have been slowly and mysteriously vanishing from our global ethos as the prevalence of addiction and depression continues to climb. “Drumroll … without further ado, behold the seven differences between reward and contentment: Reward is short-lived (about an hour, like a good meal). Get it, experience it, and get over it. Why do you think you can’t remember what you ate for dinner yesterday? Conversely, contentment lasts much longer (weeks to months to years). It’s what happens when you have a working marriage or watch your teenager graduate from high school. And if you experience contentment from a sense of achievement or purpose, the chances are that you will feel it for a long time to come, perhaps even the rest of your life.Reward is visceral in terms of excitement (e.g., a casino, a football game, or a strip club). It activates the body’s fight-or-flight system, which causes blood pressure and heart rate to go up. Conversely, contentment is ethereal and calming (e.g., listening to soothing music or watching the waves of the ocean). It makes your heart rate slow and your blood pressure decline. - “ Reward can be achieved with different substances (e.g., heroin, nicotine, cocaine, caffeine, alcohol, and of course sugar). Each stimulates the reward center of the brain. Some are legal, some are not. Conversely, contentment is not achievable with substance use. Rather, contentment is usually achieved with deeds (like graduating from college or having a child who can navigate his or her own path in life). - “Reward occurs with the process of taking (like from a casino). Gambling is definitely a high: when you win, it is fundamentally rewarding, both viscerally and economically. But go back to the same table the next day. Maybe you’ll feel a jolt of excitement to try again. But there’s no glow, no lasting feeling from the night before. Or go buy a nice dress at Macy’s. Then try it on again a month later. Does it generate the same enthusiasm? Conversely, contentment is often generated through giving (like giving money to a charity, or giving your time to your child, or devoting time and energy to a worthwhile project). - Reward is yours and yours alone. Your sense of reward does not immediately impact anyone else. Conversely, your contentment, or lack of it, often impacts other people directly and can impact society at large. Those who are extremely unhappy (the Columbine shooters) can take their unhappiness out on others. It should be said at this point that pleasure and happiness are by no means mutually exclusive. A dinner at the Bay Area Michelin three-star restaurant the French Laundry can likely generate simultaneous pleasure for you from the stellar food and wine but can also generate contentment from the shared experience with spouse, family, or friends, and then possibly a bit of unhappiness when the bill arrives. - Reward when unchecked can lead us into misery, like addiction. Too much substance use (food, drugs, nicotine, alcohol) or compulsive behaviors (gambling, shopping, surfing the internet, sex) will overload the reward pathway and lead not just to dejection, destitution, and disease but not uncommonly death as well. Conversely, walking in the woods or playing with your grandchildren or pets (as long as you don’t have to clean up after them) could bring contentment and keep you from being miserable in the first place. - Last and most important, reward is driven by dopamine, and contentment by serotonin. Each is a neurotransmitter—a biochemical manufactured in the brain that drives feelings and emotions—but the two couldn’t be more different. Although dopamine and serotonin drive separate brain processes, it is where they overlap and how they influence each other that generates the action in this story. Two separate chemicals, two separate brain pathways, two separate regulatory schemes, and two separate physiological and psychological outcomes. How and where these two chemicals work, and how they work either in concert or in opposition to each other, is the holy grail in the ultimate quest for both pleasure and happiness.” – Robert Lustig, MD, MSL And then lets add in what Dave Filoni has said about the Force and the core themes of Star Wars: "In the end, it’s about fundamentally becoming selfless moreso than selfish. It seems so simple, but it’s so hard to do. And when you’re tempted by the dark side, you don’t overcome it once in life and then you’re good. It’s a constant. And that’s what, really, Star Wars is about and what I think George wanted people to know. That to be a good person and to really feel better about your life and experience life fully you have to let go of everything you fear to lose. Because then you can’t be controlled. “But when you fear, fear is the path to the dark side, it’s also the shadow of greed, because greed makes you covet things, greed makes you surround yourself with all these things that make you feel comfortable in the moment, but they don’t really make you happy. And then, when you’re afraid of something, it makes you angry, when you get angry, you start to hate something, sometimes you don’t even know why. When you hate, do you often know why you hate? No, you direct it at things and then you hate it. And it’s hard because anger can be a strength at times, but you can’t use it in such a selfish way, it can be a destroyer then. “These are the core things of Star Wars.“ –Dave Filoni So, the core things of Star Wars and the Jedi teachings (because Jedi teachings are basically almost word for word how GL described how the Force works) can very much be a reflection of real world teachings and ways to live by, because all of the above are about how GL viewed the world and what he wanted to put into his movies. Further, Jedi teachings are basically just reworded Buddhism + Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. And both of those are very livable by our real world standards, if you so choose. GL was very much about how SW had themes that were meant to be picked up on by the audience and even DF has said this: “ Jedi have the ability to turn the tide, to make a significant moment, to give hope where there’s none. That’s their ultimate role to play, to be this example of selflessness. And that’s what makes them a hero, when no one else can match that heroic thing. And then our job is to emulate that, to use that example, and further our own lives.” --Dave Filoni Ultimately, the Jedi are specifically focused on disciplining themselves (which GL has said is the only way to overcome the dark side, in that TCW writers’ meeting), probably to a degree most of us wouldn’t have the room to devote to, but that doesn’t mean that the broader strokes aren’t meant to be applicable to our lives or don’t echo real world teachings.

#jedi order #meta #long post

124 notes · View notes