#with absolutely no nuance or any consideration of context) | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

wispforever · 2 years ago

Text

Some thoughts on Itachi

So, I've seen a lot of comments circulating about my tags on this post, and I'm intrigued at the interest. I didn't expect it, as I see much more pigeonholing of Itachi's character than honest to god analysis. No hate- I'm no stranger to Kishimoto's writing. Some of his characters were unfortunately butchered or never given the chance to be developed properly, and Itachi is most certainly no exception. That said, I like to grant him a bit more nuance than I see on most blogs. I think people get a little wrapped up in the supposed "moral implications" of exploring how Itachi was also a victim of the system, as well as someone who victimized many people. But it's silly to equate character analysis and context consideration with condoning genocide.

I have a good laugh every once and a while at the metaphorical gymnastics people do in order to stay in the good graces of a bunch of internet trolls who are just Waiting for any opportunity to tell you you love murder and think it's delicious just because you made a post exploring a character's background. Media is grey; it's layered and wonderfully complex. There are many wrongs and rights in every story, and many wrongs and rights within those wrongs and rights. That's what I love about Naruto. Often times it's really too much like real life. Instead of people being black and white, right or wrong, bad or good- they're usually in a tough situation, trying their best and falling short, don't have all of the information, acting with good intentions or acting on what they believe will bring about a lesser evil, and then end up hurting others.

But it is much easier to assign blame and move on. A so-called bad person will always be the perfect scapegoat for issues bigger than them. In Itachi's case, the fascist government in the Leaf. It's easier to say Itachi could have just refused and decided not to be involved, than to recognize that like almost every other character in the narrative, he was under extreme duress, living in a military state. He was a child whose existence, along with all the other children and adults in the Leaf, was only valuable as long as he could serve as a tool for the war machine in the shinobi world's fucked up political system. And saying this is not the same as saying he was not capable of better decisions or that everything that he did thereafter or in general should not be read critically or subject to hypothetical consequences. It is the same as a saying his actions cannot be fully understood without complete context, and the themes of Naruto will never come through if every villain is just "evil" with no further nuance. And it would be boring too LOL

That said, I love to think about Itachi's situation back then. The ages in Naruto are a bit muddled, a little inconsistent, subject to change and interpretation, but Itachi was a child when he murdered everyone in the Uchiha compound. Most sources say he was 13. It should go without saying that someone so young isn't capable of the same decision-making or critical thinking as say, a 30-year-old, someone whose brain is finished developing and has much more experience on Earth.

Itachi's experience at this point in his life is informed by his age, and it's obviously informed by his childhood, as he has no other place from which to draw conclusions. Itachi grew up in a warring state. He saw people die and was subject to extreme violence in his formative years. To make matters worse, he was taught that war was inevitable and the only thing he could do to guard against it was kill others before they got the chance to kill him (threaten the village). Thusly, Itachi internalized at a very young age that what was in his power was to minimize damage (to himself, to his village, and to the world). What was not in his power was to stop this violence entirely (by adopting a critical mindset and going against fascist powers).

A part of this I think people often forget is that Itachi has absolutely nowhere to adopt this mindset FROM, as even though his father and the other members of the Uchiha clan seek equity in the Leaf, if they were to overthrow the Hokage and create a new system, it would still presumably center around the same ideals (minus, of course, the oppression of the Uchiha as a group). Fugaku is the head of the Uchiha clan at this time. As someone who imposed near impossible performance-related expectations on both of his sons, and withheld love and affection whenever they came up short (so often that it was at the cost of having any considerable emotional bond with either of them), there is absolutely no good reason to believe that Fugaku would reform the Leaf using a non-fascist ideology. And if he did, there is no good reason to believe that he would be some kind of visionary LMAO

This is important to remember because when it comes down to Itachi's decision to either kill everyone in the Uchiha compound and his family, or be part of the coup that would overthrow the Leaf, some people treat it as though it's a choice between fascism and non-fascism, which it most certainly is not. And if it was, Itachi, as a child who had grown up immersed in this ideology, would not be able to appreciate the difference. This context allows us to understand further what Itachi was really weighing in that moment. Accounting for his young age and limited worldview, the only valuable difference in this moment to Itachi was the amount of bloodshed that he would "allow" to happen. Essentially, he sees the options as follows:

Either give in to Danzo and kill everyone in the Uchiha compound, or facilitate a coup where the current government is (hopefully) overthrown and risk starting another war.

Here, Itachi pauses. He has known war. He knows how it affects children, adults, families, and whole nations. The peace he's living in currently is bought with blood, but it's the only peace he's ever known. The alternative is horrifying. And a war in this context, Itachi likely thinks, would be his fault, as he has now been put in the position to "prevent" it. Danzo and the whole shinobi system have groomed him into thinking so. Itachi, at age 13, cannot understand that there would be no war; it exists only as leverage for Danzo's argument at this point. His sensitivities are being played on.

Fugaku, though he is not the same as Danzo, offers about as much help as he does (that being none). Fugaku has no interest in avoiding war; if a war breaks out, it's justified because it will still mean his clan will no longer be living in oppression. This idea is valid, as fascist systems and discrimination can only cease to exist when we rise up against them; unfortunately, this most often calls for righteous violence, as the oppressive powers will not be moved with peaceful shows (not to mention they are willing to go to extreme lengths to avoid losing their hold on the people they have crushing power over, i.e. the Uchiha massacre). But Fugaku has no words to explain this to Itachi, who fears the worst and further fears being responsible for the worst. All he does is act as if it's a moral failing that his 13-year-old son is unwilling to stage a coup, which he believes could mark the abrupt end of a peace that's only just begun.

That said, let it be known that Itachi does appreciate this situation with SOME nuance, though it isn't of the kind that might have enabled him to see he was being manipulated. He at the very least understands that Danzo is a warmonger and oppresses those he fears (the Uchiha). He understands that the rights of his clan have been sorely disrespected, and that the issue needs correction. He understands the anger of his friends and family. This is why it takes him much deliberation before he can even come close to making a decision. He plays both sides right up until the end, listening to Danzo, as well as Fugaku and Shisui, paying attention to the current atmosphere in the Leaf as he tries to decide.

It is something he doesn't want to do. Here's where I get to the part I put in the tags of my drawing.

In this situation, it's almost worthless to write an analysis about Itachi's feelings at this time, his understanding of what was actually going on, his loyalty to his clan or his loyalty to the Leaf, because really, he could not grasp it. He was never prepared for this. He never knew he would be asked to make a decision he could only understand as "your family or the world?"

Itachi was put in a position that had no happy ending. There was no decision he could make that would not hurt. That could not result in a cataclysm that split him right down the middle. There was no version of this story that a 13-year-old could carry out thinking "I have done the right thing."

And that's the important part. Both sides asked him to make this decision, and so both sides are guilty of placing an immeasurable pressure on a child who should never have been put in such a position. Regardless of ideology, regardless of price, regardless of oppression or loyalty or devotion or any other thing- someone else should have made this decision for Itachi. Someone else should have been responsible. An adult, at the very least. Someone who COULD understand the implications of both options. Someone who COULD go forward and appreciate the evil of fascism and know that a coup was necessary. Itachi was never capable of such a thing. If he made the "wrong" decision, than every child who can't explain to you what a fascist government in a military state looks like and explain what the difference is between a hate crime and resisting a hateful power, is also wrong. Here is the nuance. These are things a 13-year-old in this universe cannot be expected to understand unless they are taught. And Itachi had no teacher. Quite the opposite. There were only forces pressing him from both sides, saying "choose."

Had his father done this for him, had Shisui been in this position, had any other adult Uchiha acting as a spy been put to this task, it would be a much different narrative. But of course, it had to be Itachi, who Danzo knew he could manipulate. It had to be a child, someone skilled enough to do the job, but inexperienced enough, afraid enough, to be willing to sacrifice everything they had to see the mission through. Someone you could whisper "greater good" to and have them hand over their well being on a plate. Someone who didn't understand they had the power and strength to destroy the system threatening them.

On a narrative level, Itachi exists to illustrate this point. How young people are systematically indoctrinated to serve a greater purpose, be it under a specific government, religion, or otherwise. We see it in real life fascism, in real life cults. There's no mistake. It isn't an accident that Itachi's story begins like this.

Which brings me to the rest of his life. The reason I drew the picture in the post referenced at the top. Itachi's character is a bit of a mystery the rest of the anime. Be that because of bad writing or an intentional omission, his motives, thoughts, and opinions are largely left ambiguous. However, there are still a few moments that interest me as far as the implications of his development.

When Itachi first comes back to the Leaf village, he faces Kakashi. On the one hand, this could simply be a narrative tool- the big bad meets the big good. He takes Kakashi out of commission! The first rogue shinobi we see who is able to defeat the pillar of the Leaf, the Copy Ninja, and without even breaking a sweat!

On the other hand, I find the brutality of Itachi's attack very intriguing. Again, it could be the tough guy act, but he's able to keep three jonin busy easily using standard genjutsu (with the help of Kisame). It wouldn't be a stretch to say that using the tsukuyomi is overkill, and at a considerable price, we learn later.

Why then would Itachi, who has been shown to have excellent battle intelligence, who is strategic to a fault, be willing to jeopardize his health among other things just to... scare the Leaf? Make sure Kakashi wouldn't be a nuisance in the future? Sure, the last one would make collecting Naruto less complicated, but they dispatched Kakashi easily enough, and surely Jiraiya, who Naruto was with at the time, would pose a bigger problem than Kakashi.

It doesn't make strategic sense, which makes me wonder if Itachi has a special animosity toward Kakashi. Being his superior in the ANBU before the Uchiha massacre, someone who was willing to conduct surveillance of the Uchiha compound without question, Kakashi could have become a symbol of the indifference of the Leaf for Itachi. He could very well have been a reminder of the inoperable position Itachi was put in when he was still a child, and Kakashi, of course, was an adult. Another adult who did nothing. Noticed nothing. Did not help Itachi.

And while I'm certain that Kakashi would have taken severe issue with the goings on in the Leaf at that time, judging by his reaction when he finds out the truth in Shippuden, Itachi knows him only by what he did then. Facilitated surveillance of the Uchiha compound, was a supportive superior, but nothing greater. A bystander whose compassion, while well meaning, was entirely unhelpful.

I don't think it's far fetched that Itachi fucking crucified Kakashi because he was so angry at what being in the Leaf did to him. At some point, as he got older, he realized how terrible it was. He realized there were people like him. Children who were "born killers". Pawns in the game of the shinobi powers.

After leaving the village, Itachi joins the Akatsuki, who are also seeking peace through war (another story). He is supposed to spy for them, but doesn't follow through in any enthusiastic way (that we're shown). He works alone for quite some time, or else with a group (briefly he was shown with Conan and Kakuzu). He is partners with Orochimaru before he's expelled from the Akatsuki. He is partners with one of the Seven Swordsmen of the Mist. He grows up and meets many people, sees lots of stories unfold. He learns that he isn't in a minority. Many shinobi are just like him.

And then, as an adult, he is partnered with Kisame, who he finds excellent camaraderie with because of their similar backgrounds. We see in this relationship that he understands what happened to him and what he did enough to acknowledge that, while neither of them are monsters, as many people say, they are human. And humans make mistakes. Humans are complicated. Wrong and right and wrong and right. They understand each other, and Itachi understands more clearly what the world puts these children up to. What it forces shinobi to become. That it isn't all his fault, but he still did it. And so he is responsible. He appears to be able to live with that.

But when he returns to the Leaf, those feelings bubble up. He hates the Leaf. He hates that system. He hates what he did. Maybe he even hates being a shinobi, how his excellence was weaponized, how being an Uchiha doomed him and his clan. And for what?

Itachi is played as a character who is only sensible, only logical, only interested in practical things, has nothing to express. But the way he behaves toward Kakashi in that moment bares all his grief and anger. I just like to think about it. We have so few moments where we get to see Itachi genuinely. The fight with Kakashi, the Sasuke/Deidara fight, his thoughtful moments with Kisame. Just makes me wonder what could've been if Itachi's story had gone a little differently.

Anyway, if anyone would like me to expand on any points or has additional thoughts, feel free to hop in my ask box or leave a comment. Thanks for the interest, I love to talk.

#this is wisp #itachi uchiha #analysis

179 notes · View notes

archivalofsins · 2 years ago

Text

Mikoto's Advertising Secrets

So, today Star and I are going to talk about Double. Yep, it’s another team up to tackle one of the most difficult characters in Milgram. Today we’ll be discussing the Japanese and English lyrics of Double provided by the staff. Along with some fun facts and observations we’ve made from them.

Preface

This will be going over the use of (MeMe) in the official French and English translations of Double along with the use of and etymology of the term “Newborn”. Due to the focus on these phrases since the release of Double and how the fandom has treated official translations in the past… Star and I believed it only fair to give the same scrutiny given to past translations to Double. It cannot only be a mistranslation when it’s inconvenient to how one personally views the character then absolutely correct and unquestionable when the translation (regardless of how many creative liberties it takes) supports what one personally wants to believe.

If anyone has problems with having these topics scrutinized fully and objectively then this is not the post for them. If anyone is interested in finding out more about linguistics both English and Japanese, MeMe and Double parallels, and a lot of things about Mikoto Kayano then this post might be for you. The way I word things has always been incredibly direct and that won’t be changing over the course of this post.

This post wouldn't be possible without the discussions and help I received from not only @apatchworkstar but @tsuwmya and @doctorbunny.

With all that out of the way- Are you ready?

Okay, well let’s jump into it!

This may have spelling errors and may be edited at a later date to add more context. Just like Mikoto's song lol~

Hi, this is Star here- Starting off this post! Gunsli and I were discussing some of the information floating around about Mikoto- them with more people than me. I was mostly bitching discussing how I found it interesting that people were taking a step away from their habit of brutally eviscerating the official translations of songs to hyper focus on the wording of Double.

Now, Gunsli and myself have been very open about how we both believe the original lyrics and the translations both help add necessary context to all of the songs and that neither is less than the other. However, it is a bit… Irksome for people to just pick and choose what they consider a valid conversion of information. Especially since translating is already something that can be hard to carry nuance over. It also hasn’t escaped my notice what the official English translation is being used to support. Which is also aggravating, with everything else into consideration.

So, I took out my copy of Double and did what fans have been doing for most of trial two- looking at the Japanese lyrics within the cd pamphlet and comparing them to the translation. And boy was that interesting!

Don’t worry~

Mikoto is an honest man, guys~ Come on, would a guy with such tiredness in his eyes lie to us~?

…So, his song's translation has to be the pinnacle of accuracy; all with little to no artistic liberties taken, right? Well- no.

Literally, there wouldn’t be any point of making this as a post if it was.

(Gunsli: Don’t mind the underlined parts in the english lyrics for now. That comes in later.)

Firstly,

“I’m Double (MeMe)”

“Double” is the only line actually said in this statement. “(MeMe)” is never said within the lyrics of Double. However, given that it is in parentheses (something that is meant to add additional context to a statement), “(MeMe)” technically does not have to be said within the song in order to be put into the lyrics in this way. This isn’t a case of the english lyrics being inaccurate per se, but a case of the staff using english language and grammar in order to add context to what is being said. Something that’s not only done with the English translation, but the French one too.

So this is additional context; a rare treat for fans in the west! Now, when Gunsli and I were discussing Mikoto’s second trial CD cover-

Gunsli speculated that they added in (MeMe) to hammer in that there were, in fact, only two of them. Especially given how prevalent trikoto was/is as a theory. However, neither of us thought the staff would go so far as to just present this as something that had been said when it never was just to drive in the point further.

In every other instance during trial two when the prisoners have referenced their previous trial songs, it’s been verbally- i.e. within the lyrics themselves. Anyone can hear it, and the lines are noted in their cd pamphlets + the inside of the cd case, even if they aren’t translated as literally the lines that are said to be there are there.

Mikoto is the only one who’s official translated lyrics reference his first trial song without him verbally referencing it.

Making this a literal instance of, “He did not fucking say that.” Musical edition~

I guess you could say that Mikoto is the creme de la creme- or, to phrase it better an outlier even among other outliers. Which I find amusing as hell, considering how Mikoto is being treated in Milgram currently. Because, despite the fact that he does not verbally reference his previous song in any way throughout his trial two song, the staff still chose to frame it as though Mikoto had within these translations and visuals. Like how are you gonna call yourself an honest man, then be a bigger liar than Kazui Mukuhara! At least the text that comes up in Cat is actually sung by him!

But this is something that adeptly draws attention to Mikoto’s previously stated skills and hobbies-

Q.04 Are you picky when it comes to fashion?

Mikoto: Of course I am. Nobody would want to ask for anything from an unfashionable designer, right?

Q.07 What are your hobbies?

Mikoto: shopping / darts / photography / cycling

Q.08 What’s the most rewarding part of your current job?

Mikoto: I mean, it’s the top advertising agency in the industry? Anyone would be proud to be a part of it. I put a lot of work in just to get here, too.

Design, photography, and advertising. All things that require people to know, not only how to conduct and present themselves, but how to present others and concepts to people in a way that will be favorable and hopefully increase revenue and sales.

So, why wouldn’t Mikoto pull out all the stops to present himself in a way that would get him a more favorable response after the train wreck that was his first trial?

To be fair, when we were first discussing it, I didn’t really understand how tacking on (MeMe) after Double would make Mikoto look any better. Then Gunsli stated that outside of the meta viewpoint, we’d tackled already (which I had to bring to her attention)- That there was a second thing that made this translation decision interesting.

The fact that it served to connect Mikoto back to the song at all. As though Mikoto is trying to haphazardly put his name or presence on someone else’s work. Gunsli put it best,

“It’s a great visual example of Mikoto tacking himself onto John’s pain. Connecting himself to his suffering in order to justify his actions and avoid taking accountability. Really homing in on one of the core questions Milgram as a facility and project has continued to pose to those that participate in it- Is one’s anger justifiable when they are getting angry at something that did not happen to them. Or is it simply a case of know-it-alls not being able to mind their own business? Or in the words of Mikoto from MeMe, “This isn’t too much is it?”. At what point does defending another person become too much? Can it really be considered protecting yourself if the self you’re protecting is their own person in their own right? Or is this just a new layer of self-justification that Mikoto has created in order to downplay how much agency he had over the situation. “I’m probably not to blame, it’s probably nothing. I’m probably just having a bad dream, I need to wake up soon.”.”

“All I did was dream, and that’s what you found GUILTY?”

(Gunsli here- This line isn’t even the only one they do this with when it comes to the translations. They also do it again with the word us at the start of the Double. “Just the two of us, relieved, aren’t you? I’ll protect you (us).” Once again using parentheses to give further context or emphasize unstated things.)

Now, I’m gonna leave the second half of this to Gunsli-

Secondly,

"The “newborn” other you."

Gunsli here and-

Man, I really didn’t think we’d be taking the metaphorical as literal. Especially after all the fuss around the visuals of I Love You but- I guess things are only metaphorical or literal based on how convenient it is for things to be that in the moment. If we took every instance that the word baby is used in any song as literally as newborn is being taken here music would be rather complicated to say the least.

Yet, I guess since this is a Japanese phrase it’s a bit more specific than that. That this phrase is only applicable when discussing newly born beings and nothing else. Well, not exactly. Regardless of how specific a language is there are still instances where words and phrases will have different meanings based on the context they are said in. A good deal of people like to poke fun at English for being a mutt language and incredibly indirect, but every language has room for miscommunications or misunderstandings to occur.

Because every language is the sum of a culture's collective history. All languages are always building off of themselves and evolving and certain terms that meant one thing to the last generation can mean an entirely different thing to the next. This is true in the instance of not only the Japanese phrasing of this line but the English one as well.

So, let’s start with the English one.

“Me, the newborn other you, I’ll take it all on.”

Firstly, me in this instance is ore in Japanese. In the context of Milgram we know ore is used when John is referring to themselves. At least this is the pattern that has been presented. However, it is not always the case. Ore and boku can be used to refer to each of them respectively and collectively. However, for the sake of this example, let’s say it refers to John.

Me (John), the newborn-

Okay, we’ve gotten to the main offender in this sentence. Newborn. In English newborn is no longer contextually used to refer to a baby/infant or someone who was just born. Also, it never only referred to that to begin with and has not been colloquially used in this way for some time unless one is referring to someone they know very little about having a child.

For example,

“Where’s Janice from accounting? I haven’t seen her in a good while.” “Oh, you didn’t hear? She had a newborn. So, she’s on maternity leave.”

Even then this is still rather formal and outdated. An interaction like this is more likely to go.

“Where’s Janice from accounting? I haven’t seen her around in a while.” “Oh, you haven’t heard she just had a baby. She’s on maternity leave.”

Alright but they’re translating from Japanese to English and using baby or infant in the context of the sentence presented would be odd. Yeah, that’s right, it would be odd. That’s why in the beginning, I found it strange to even look into this line in this context as though it could in some way even tangentially be related to birth or children.

If it would be odd to add the word baby in this context, chances are that this probably has nothing to do with them or birth in the conventional organic sense of the word.

But born is in the word.

Okay, let’s do what we did with Neoplasm. Because, clearly the internet only taught some people one meaning of these words.

So, bear witness to this real quick-

Bear: To support or hold up.

Gif made by Star

Double: ““No, I need to do more…”, say what? You’re gonna break. Me, the newborn other you, I’ll take it all on.”

This is rather self-explanatory. To say that one will take it all on is to state their intentions to take on the burdens, issues, or stressors of another person or of a specific event. For example to take blame and face punishment for a crime one did not commit in order to protect another. Mikoto is also shown in Double using the bat for support.

Bear Down: Proceed forcefully toward.

Gif made by Star

While making the gifs Star pointed out that the word next to the three arrows pointing at the assailant here is "Savior" in sloppy English. This is emphasized by having "Save you" appear next to the figure as they continue to walk forward. Showing that (whichever one of them this is) believes themselves to be their savior and that what we see them doing here isn't an attack or them hunting the other down but them going to save the other. Adding more meaning behind these lines, "Cling to me, hoist me up as your “savior”, stand up and sing out your gratitude, that’d be good." - "Cling to me, hoist me up as your “savior”, stand up and sing out your gratitude, so why?"

Alright, all of that is very interesting Gunsli. However, bear is not the word that we’re here to discuss today. The word is “Newborn”. What possible bearing could this word have on that? That’s a good question. It just so happens that one of the root words of “Newborn” comes from bear.

Since the word comes from both New and Born.

New (Old English Niwian, Neowian)

Fourth Definition: Bring forth.

MeMe

“Why?”

““I” will save “me”.”

“Switch, shake up that brain.”

“Why am I here? It must be a mistake right? Take a good look at me until you find me.”

Double

“I’ve got you, leave it to me!”

““He’s a liar”, you said, and made me out to be a scoundrel, why?”

“Hey, I just wanted to save you, so why did it come to this? Cling to me, hoist me up as your “savior”, stand up and sing out your gratitude, so why. I don’t remember a thing, it couldn’t be helped, I’m DOUBLE (MeMe). I was having such a hard time, I was trying so hard.”

This is not self-explanatory. So, I’m going to take the time to explain what was going on in my mind when I decided to highlight these lyrics. I was interpreting bring forth in the context of switching. Mikoto is shown throughout MeMe to be looking for himself. Throughout the lyrics and the visuals. This is something reiterated through Double in a more chilling way. As it starts with what seems to be John being forced to the forefront due to Mikoto becoming too stressed. Something we see occur in Mikoto’s first and second voice dramas.

John even making it clear from the beginning that he’s not out because he wants to be yelling,

“AaaAAAGH! Fuck… Fuck… STOP PISSING ME OFF!” While audibly stomping around and possibly messing up his hair the same way we see him do in Double. Basically, throwing a tantrum.

Couple this with his first cover song expressly stating that feeling ashamed which can cause stress and anxiety will open a role for an idiot to play (something we’ll go into after this) gives us a good understanding of what occurred in response to Mikoto's verdict.

Something that if we didn’t catch onto John was more than happy to bluntly state to us in their second voice drama.

Neoplasm Voice Drama

“I (boku) might be trying to disappear.”

“Evidently, the time I (ore) have been fronting has been getting longer, so this “me” has been able to stabilize. Isn’t that the reason we can talk properly?”

The mental stress caused to Mikoto due to his previous verdict has led to him not being able to properly cope with the circumstances and drawing inward more as a result. Now fronting less and less as John (the one portrayed as being more used to stressful circumstances and better at holding things down) takes the forefront.

MeMe

“Hurting it, holding it down, it doesn’t change anything, does it?”

Double

““No, I need to do more…”, say what? You’re gonna break.”

Neoplasm Voice Drama

“Yeah. I… probably come out to ease the stress Boku experiences. The fact that I come out for longer just means that Boku is constantly under extreme stress.”

"The fact that you judged against forgiving Boku is causing a lot of stress.”

Depending on which of them has memories of the crime this could be a good thing.

"That’s why he’s entrusting me with his heart."

This leads well into the next definition-

Ninth Definition: Substitute.

Double: “Leave it to me.”- “I’ll take it all on.”-”Relieved, aren’t you?”-“I’ll protect you (us).”

These are again things I find self-explanatory, but I’ll explain for the sake of clarity. These are all things one says when taking on another’s responsibilities or substituting for them. Usually someone is given a substitute when they cannot fulfill their duties for one reason or another. How John describes the current circumstances in Neoplasm makes it sound as though he is substituting for Mikoto because as he said in his second cd trailer,

“I can’t take it anymore…”

Monopoisoner: “As for who is acting strangely, look here, it’s already been decided that I’m the normal one, OK?”- “Do you have a preference for plundering? Because what’s being stolen away right now is your life. “How’s this? How’s this? What do you think?” Even though the outcome was understood from the start… The foolish you is already done for “nothing to see here, move on, pay no heed”.”- ““Please, bring to an end this world today” but that hole opens up a role for me to play. “Please, feel ashamed of this self from today” but that hole opens up a role for an idiot to play.”

gif made by @apatchworkstar

“You’re overdoing it, you’re already broken. But if you persist, I guess it’s my job to keep things on an even keel. Me, the other you, I’ll take it all on.”

In my opinion the Milgram staff could not make it clearer who the actual killer is at this point outside of the third trial just blatantly telling us if Mikoto gets as cocky as Mu did in response to his Innocent verdict. (Remember those underlined parts from the beginning of this post? Yeah, that comes in now.)

Literally each time he says the other you in this song Me comes before it. Plus like Star established earlier the staff literally choose to shove (MeMe) in here when again it is not said to further highlight this more subtle aspect to oversea viewers.

They basically made it so if you line up every time this phrase is said you just get-

“Me, the newborn other you, I’ll take it all on.”

“Me, the other you, I’ll take it all on.”

The title of the first trial song and they only put this phrase in twice within the lyrics to give this effect. Like this isn’t even a stretch at this point. They’ve gone above and beyond to highlight that Mikoto did that shit but we’re focusing on “newborn” right now. Moment of appreciation for the best translated lyrics of trial two. Like honestly the amount of information they had to shove directly into this man's lyrics due to his rather disjointed mv (that they still managed to get a lot of information in as well by the way) and still managed to get in is impressive.

It’s actually jaw dropping when one takes the time to look into it.

So, now that we have a bit of the history of the word “Newborn” how does it apply to this sentence,

“Me, the newborn other you, I’ll take it all on.”

Well given the etymology of Newborn we’ve learned a few things. One of them being that newborn is not only used to refer to recently born things but newly discovered concepts. Yet to reduce my own point a great deal we only need one source and one source only Merriam-Webster. Well, that and an understanding of English grammar.

Are you getting it yet? Well, if not here’s an English refresher in a form most Milgram fans should be used to music-

Now, I'm assuming you’ve watched both of those great videos. So, how is “newborn” being used here exactly?

“Me, the newborn other you, I’ll take it all on.”

That’s right baby, that word is being used in its adjective form not its noun form. Newborn is being used to describe the Me in this sentence the newborn other you. That is what the pronoun me is being described as in this sentence. So, what does that mean folks? Well, it means that Me in this context is not a newborn individual but instead a recently born or born anew construct or in this case self. Definitively showcasing that the newborn being referred to here cannot and never could in this sentence be defined as a newborn individual. At least that would not be the only meaning in its adjective state.

There’s a difference between referring to a newborn and describing someone as a newborn. Be it oneself or another person. I know this is very confusing. I’m sorry and it doesn’t get any easier going into the Japanese. Something that even I am going to need help with and luckily can get help with.

That’s later though all one needs to know for now is yes, the adjective state of the word may be used to refer to things that are not infants or newly born. Think of it like the word discovered. You know in the sense that Christopher Columbus “discovered” America. The word is kind of like that. Yeah, that’s the type of shit we’re getting into later. Yet, for now let’s keep things simple.

A better way to explain this is by showing the synonyms and example sentences for the adjective state of this word,

Know who the adjective form of newborn perfectly describes out of the two? Could it be the tired, bags under the eyes, lethargic John or Mikoto Hypnos’ favorite human?

Man, is it “I’ve slept for twelve restful hours” Mikoto or John the one displayed as being soooo tired he passes out on public transport. Literally one of the most dangerous things a person can do.

I wonder who it could be…

If only we had a clue or a hint? (Or a bed for John.)

Ah well too bad. There’s nothing like that… I guess we’ll never solve this conundrum. It’s not as though newborn can be used to describe someone who has been reinvigorated or has come across a new sense of purpose or direction. It’d be incredibly awkward if that were the case. Because even ignoring everything else that would be a very nice and subtle way, still open enough to be interpreted a myriad of ways, for this series to highlight even further that Mikoto did that shit without blatantly saying he did.

Luckily that English word only refers to organisms that have just been born and nothing else and no one will find any sources stating otherwise ever. So, it’s best to not look and we should all just do what Mikoto- I mean John said,

“Come to know me as an honest man, eat your words, gulp them down.”

Okay, but what about the Japanese lyrics?

“産声を上げたもうひとりの俺が、全部背負うから”/ Ubugoe wo ageta mou hitori no ore ga, zenbu seou kara.

One rough interpretation of the phrase in english could be,

“Born again, I (ore) alone will take responsibility for everything.”

So, why use newborn instead of born again?

As we discussed before, no language is that easy to grasp. There are multiple ways for various translators to interpret this phrase. Not all of them will give the same exact perspective on a phrase and their translations are prone to be influenced by not only their own personal experiences but their relationship with the work being translated. For example I had DoctorBunny help me out when it came to getting a grasp of the Japanese in this instance.

During the process he said this,

“Trust me this is a very newborn invoking line. It's a saying basically used synonymously with being born. A favourite of foetus musician Mao Sasagawa.”

However, the example he gave was musical. This isn’t problematic or anything but it’s kind of easy to form a rebuttal against it. Something I’ll illustrate now- while answering that question I posed earlier with this song.

Born again in the west has a very religious connotation and even though the word savior is used within Double the staff probably didn’t want to tie Mikoto’s character that heavily to religion. Because as Mikoto has stated repeatedly he views himself as his on “Savior” and-

Q.19 Do you believe god exists?

Mikoto: I don’t believe, no. I don’t feel so strongly that I’m gonna deny the possibility but- Like, what do I gain from believing?

Taking into consideration how synonymous with religion the term born again is and Mikoto’s characterization thus far, would it really be contextually appropriate for them to translate it in that way for a western audience?

Definitely not.

Especially considering the timing of his second song's release. Ya know- Being right after the most religiously involved character in the franchise. Those are the type of things a staff has to take into consideration when translating information into other languages for vastly different cultures. Again, the consideration and care put into the translation of Double in particular, is apparent in every line, every word said or not that they added in order to make sure regardless of the language one spoke everyone was getting not only a unique but as accurate as possible experience.

Personally, I believe that the effort put in in this instance should not only be respected but lauded. For now though let’s give the Japanese lyrics some much due attention. Because they are just as good.

Believe it or not that idiomatic expression is what led to this entire post. When I saw this I couldn’t help but think of a phrase in English that is the exact opposite of the one highlighted.

“This will never see the light of day.”

To see the light of day is a common phrase that on top of being another synonym for being born means, To come to existence or be made known.

It’s a rather colloquial way of describing something becoming known or one's desire to let something be known. Like in the example I previously provided. This is what caused the idiomatic definition to catch my interest.

So, what is an idiomatic expression, well it’s a colloquialism basically.

Idiomatic means to use, denote, or contain expressions that would be natural to native speakers. Meaning that to first see the light of day is a common way of using this expression to native-speakers.

Yet, the technical use of the word is still related to the first cry or children.

As a native English speaker when I say,

“Things I hope never see the light of day again.” “Man, I hope someone sheds light on your actions one day.”

I and other native English speakers know I am not hoping for someone to get a light and shine it on that person or their actions but instead I want what they’ve done to either be known or ignored. This song is a perfect example of the concept.

Now, what made this way of viewing the information even more interesting is how Mikoto’s second trial mv plays with light in general. Double does this through its day and night cycles. Unlike MeMe that takes place during the night only and displays Mikoto sleeping through the day in Double, we see John up during the day and taking a backseat at night.

As Mikoto is shown to literally be committing these attacks at night again through the dark lighting on his side of the train. The visuals go out of the way to show his side of the train remaining unlit while John’s has light during the very first attack.

Double quite literally doubles down on playing around with lighting as a visual storytelling method. Perfectly illustrating to us that there’s something Mikoto did that he never wants to let see the light of day. Yet, it does see the light of as you can see from above. What was once happening in the dark comes closer and closer to light until the two are basically overlapping.

As though looking in a mirror

Light becomes dark then Dark becomes light and eventually inevitably the two overlap-

As we see them face each other at the climax. One facing the reality of what they’ve done while the other isn’t even capable of facing themselves fully let alone their role in this.

“I’m probably not to blame, it’s probably nothing. I’m probably just having a bad dream, I need to wake up soon. Why am I here? It must be a mistake right? Take a good look at me. Until you find me- Why, hey why, I’m nowhere to be found.” - ““He’s a liar”, you said, and made me out to be a scoundrel, why? All I did was dream, so you find me INNOCENT, it’s that simple right? Come to know me as an honest man, eat your words, gulp them down.”

Then there’s these meanings for the phrase as well (which should seem pretty familiar after all this)

2. To be burdened with; to take responsibility for.

So, remember Bear? If not, here are some of the meanings for it applicable with this definition here.

Bear: To carry. To endure without resistance. To support, hold up. Carry a burden.

3. To have (something) in the background; to be in front of something.

Bear: Bring; bring forth.

With this we’ve gone full circle. Yet, that’s not the only interesting thing about this meaning. Applying the third meaning to Mikoto’s characters specifically could make this sentence a very artistic way of describing fronting. As we discussed before with Bear. (Can't believe I've got to quote myself from earlier in this post right now.)

“I was interpreting bring forth in the context of switching. Mikoto is shown throughout MeMe to be looking for himself. Throughout the lyrics and the visuals. This is something reiterated through Double in a more chilling way. As it starts with what seems to be John being forced to the forefront due to Mikoto becoming too stressed. Something we see occur in Mikoto’s first and second voice dramas.”

That’s it we’ve done it that’s everything that’s a full fucking language loop. So, hopefully from this we’ve all learned a bit more about not only Mikoto but language in general. My hope with this is that it gives people a newfound appreciation for not only linguistics but the tremendous effort the Milgram staff have put in over the course of trial two. Now, with all that out of the way. I can finally say (in my opinion)-

This case is closed.

Also, John in Double be like-

second gif edited by Star

Well, that's all if you made it through all of this congrats. Hopefully you've learned some new interesting things.

#milgram #mikoto kayano #kayano mikoto

105 notes · View notes

cosmicjoke · 1 year ago

Text

Okay, this is a bit of a call-out post, which I don't like to engage in, but some of the stuff that's been brought to my attention, that's apparently been being said about me and, by extension, people who share my views, isn't really something I can let stand.

So apparently there's some blogs going around vague posting about Levi fans who dare (oh the horror) to call Levi a good man and a hero, saying stuff like doing so is how one treads down the path toward Nazism, because it's a "denial" of Levi's faults, and if we don't condemn his violence as outright bad or wrong, then we're liable to start making excuses for and justifying all forms of violence.

Do I even need to lay out why this argument is absurd and absolutely childish at its core? I don't think so, but I will anyway.

One of the overarching and main themes of AoT is that we shouldn't flatly condemn people for their actions without first understanding the context of those actions. That nothing is ever so simple as being flatly right or wrong, good or bad. That there can be and are complicating factors that might lead to any, given person's actions or behavior.

Levi himself is a prime example of this, and we see the error of flatly condemning and writing him off as "bad" in the form of Jean's and Mikasa's judgmental and dismissive attitude toward him after seeing him engage in acts of violence, only to themselves be forced into similar acts moments later.

The stupidity inherent to uniformly condemning all violence as bad or wrong lies in its total failure to consider any mitigating circumstances that might have lead to the violence in the first place, and, ironically, it's THAT sort of basic and simplistic thinking that leads toward the kind of fanatical, ideological foundations of Nazism and other, similar movements. Nuanced thought, consideration, empathy and critical thinking are never the things that lead down that road. Moralistic and generalized view points are what do that. To call Levi a "morally grey" character is to fundamentally misunderstand that morality itself is a "grey" concept. There's no such thing a black and white morality. Almost nothing is always right and always wrong, including violence. Very few things, if anything, can be definitely categorized as right and wrong in and of itself. The argument that some things need to be wholly condemned or eradicated is, for example, the same sort of logic that people who advocate for censorship apply. All pornography is bad or wrong? Better to just flatly condemn and ban all of it, then. Oh my, you're going to let two men marry each other? What if someone wants to marry an animal next? Better just make gay marriage illegal then, I guess. Many Jews are bankers, and banking is a corrupt business that preys on people's vulnerabilities, thus, all Jews are really just money launders and loan sharks and need to be stopped. Killing and violence is always wrong, and so people who kill or commit acts of violence are always criminals and bad people with malicious intent or who reveal in other people's pain. See how that works? All generalizations like that lead to is mass persecution, either of a concept or of a person/group of people, without taking into consideration the actual complexity or nuanced reasoning for why something or someone might be a certain way or do a certain thing. That's what's dangerous.

To deny Levi is a good man or a hero because he commits acts of violence is to totaly deny and strip him of all the many aspects and characteristics of his personality that makes him who he actually is. Levi's violence doesn't define him. It isn't who he is. Rather, it's a product of the world he lives in and the circumstances of his upbringing and life. It doesn't signify the person he is at his core. It doesn't negate the immense compassion, kindness, empathy and sensitivity with which he regards and treats other people. It doesn't render his heroism worthless or questionable. It doesn't undermine his intentions or motivations. It doesn't rob his many sacrifices of their selflessness. That's why I say Levi is a good man. Not because he's on the "good guy side" or because he holds a certain set of ideological beliefs, but because of those inherent qualities which define him as a good man. Compassion, kindness, empathy, emotional intelligence, and a genuine desire to help others for others sake. He's a good person because he actually, truly cares about other people. Is that assessment of him supposed to somehow lead down the road to fanaticism? How absurd.

That's not to say Levi doesn't have flaws. Of course he does. He's a human being, and all human's are flawed. Nobody ever said Levi was a "perfect" hero, just that he is a hero. Understanding Levi's violence and where it comes from and why he engages in it doesn't mean we're excusing it or calling it "good". It's simply an attempt to understand and acknowledge one of the main themes of AoT, which is that a person committing a "bad act" doesn't in and of itself make them a "bad person", and that certain actions and behaviors that are deemed "bad" by society can and often do have reasonable and justifiable explanations at their root. Does Levi resort to violence too often and too easily? Sure. I've said that and acknowledged it on multiple occasions. I've dedicated entire, long-winded analysis posts to exploring the duality of Levi's compassionate and empathetic nature with the fact that he's one of the most violent characters in AoT. His knee-jerk reaction and response to most situations is to apply physical force of one kind or another. Levi is also an extremely emotional character, and is given at times to bouts of emotionally excessive response. When he kicks Eren and Jean after his conversation with Erwin. When he manhandles Historia for her initial, flat refusal to take the throne. When he kicks Eren's teeth in during the RtS arc, or on the airship in Liberio. When he tortures Zeke in the cart on the way to the capital. These are all instances of Levi giving in to his emotion and responding violently. And no, it's not good, but it also doesn't make Levi bad. It doesn't make his intentions malicious or cruel in nature. In all of these instances of violence on Levi's part, it's driven by an intense emotional response, generally in regard to some traumatic event. Levi learning Erwin might not be the good man he thought he was. Levi having to torture a man for specific information, only to have the point of it threatened by Historia's self-pity. Eren interfering with Levi's direct command during a situation in which time was severely limited in making a decision. Eren slaughtering countless innocent people. Zeke forcing Levi to kill more than two dozen of his own soldiers. All of the examples one could point to of Levi being "unnecessarily" violent, meaning in a way that didn't further some larger goal or cause, were all moments of emotional reaction linked either to trauma or urgency or both. Most of these responses from Levi, in fact, came about because he was upset about someone else getting hurt, or at the possibility of people getting hurt. They're rooted, at their core, in Levi's compassion for others. They're emotional responses triggered by Levi's empathy and care. He gets angry because he's scared or grief stricken over someone else' suffering. And that's my and other fans' only point. Levi's violence might be considered bad by some, but the underlying reasons for it almost always prove Levi's goodness. He responds so strongly because he cares. So to refuse to acknowledge the circumstances and context surrounding those acts of violence and to refuse to acknowledge the influence of his upbringing in his inclination to respond with violence is grossly unjust and unfair to who Levi is as a person. To pretend that his very nature can't be contradictory to his actions and behavior is to deny, not just Levi's complexity as a person, but the complexity of people overall. Because Levi's nature is, much of the time, contradictory to his actions, especially when one only looks at his actions in a vacuum instead of in context. He's a violent man who also holds more kindness and compassion in his heart for people than any other character in the story. That's a contradiction. But it's true, nonetheless. You can be a good person who does bad things, or things deemed wrong by others and society.

Levi doesn't enjoy violence, and anyone who says he does or tries to claim he does is flatly wrong. To say, just because Levi is good at violence, that must mean he's somehow born to it, or that it's in his nature to want to commit it, is equally unjust and unfair in the way it dismisses the circumstances of his life and upbringing. A person can be forced into doing something that goes against their core temperament and personality due to forces outside of their control, and acknowledging that about Levi and his violence isn't the same as claiming him to be a "perfect hero". He's not perfect, but he is a hero. He's a hero because he's inherently selfless and kind and empathetic toward other people and their suffering, because he's willing to do all he can to help other people, despite an upbringing which forced violence and a familiarity with violence into his life, despite a childhood and young adulthood filled with deprivation and poverty. He wasn't born with a violent temperament, he was raised in an environment that necessitated a reliance on violence in order to survive, and so we see that manifest in Levi as an adult. A reliance on violence to survive. Again, to not acknowledge that and the impact it had on Levi's behavior and actions is unjust and unfair to him as a person. A stupid oversimplification of not just Levi as a character, but of people in general, and of the concept of justifiable violence too. Pacifism is an ideal, but one which doesn't and can't always coexist with reality. To judge someone and condemn then for engaging in violence, no matter the circumstances surrounding that violence, when nature itself is predicated on violence, is absurd.

Context matters. Circumstances matter. Intent matters. Levi's violence was never ideological in its reasoning. He never committed acts of violence in service to some abstract school of thought or philosophy. He never killed anyone because he thought they represented or symbolized some great evil or threat to the world and needed to be eradicated as a result. Levi's acts of violence have always been practical in nature. Defense of himself and others against people directly threatening their well being. And further, Levi has never, not once, tried to impose his way of thinking or doing on a single, other person. He's always, always, allowed everyone to decide for themselves. To come to their own conclusions of what they believe is right and wrong, good or bad. He's always allowed everyone their own agency. He's never manipulated or badgered or bullied anyone into agreeing with him or tried to brainwash anyone into a certain set of ideological beliefs. He's only ever wanted and tried to ensure people the freedom to make those decisions for themselves, and he's only ever tried to protect people, more often than not at great cost to himself.

He's the very definition of a hero, and to accuse people who call him that of exhibiting the kind of ideological thinking that leads to Nazism is not only absurd, but a massive insult, both to Levi's character and to the intelligence of his fans. As if they're incapable of understanding the nature of violence because they differentiate between acts of violence by applying critical thought to outside factors and mitigating circumstances. I guess our justice system is similarly incapable of understanding the nature of violence too, then, because it also dares to weigh outside factors and mitigating circumstances when judging a person's "crimes" or "guilt". It isn't the people who apply nuanced thought and consideration to Levi's actions who are susceptible to fanaticism, it's the people making those sorts of accusations who are, in exposing their total inability to divorce themselves from their black and white view of reality.

#Levi Ackerman #meta #commentary #analysis #attack on titan #shingkei no kyojin

71 notes · View notes

teyvats-worst-hero · 4 months ago

Text

We Need to Talk About Morality in Media:

a serious discussion with teyvats-worst-hero Moon Spice

Sometimes it feels like nuance is systematically ignored in these large fandoms like the Hoyoverse games.

I definitely have thoughts about a lot of things. Very complicated, often critical thoughts. But I don’t think it’s enough to just…. Write everything off as completely acceptable or completely unacceptable. It all feels very reactionary.

And this isn’t me chickening out and going with the most moderate opinions as though lack of extremity makes the correct option. There are elements of Hoyoverse games that I greatly like or dislike, and I want to be able to express those takes freely without the assumption that I’m “one of them,” the malicious opposing side as determined by whatever camp the reader has decided is fundamentally good and correct.

It’s a thought I have again and again, any time there’s controversy over the games’ merits and failings. Some might say that there’s nothing actually stopping me from posting about these regular controversies. There isn’t. That’s true. But if I’m going to roll the dice for that random chance of disproportionate, overwhelming negativity, it’s not going to be just in reference to Twitter drama over the anime gacha games. It’s going to be a far-reaching critique of current fandom/media culture.

So I’ll just preface this lecture with the following messages— if you believe I’m provoking you specifically, then that’s your feeling to bear. I don’t have anyone specific in mind and don’t intend to be directly inflammatory. I care a lot about having real discussions about these issues and don’t appreciate bad faith.

Feel free to scroll here if this kind of thing stresses you out. This will be very long.

Correlation is not Causation

Do you, reader, genuinely have an understanding of the way fiction does and does not affect reality, or do you function off of assumptions of how people react to it? It’s a correlative relationship. Not causal, not independent. Correlative.

Fiction can affect how we view things in real life, but cannot forcibly change our opinions or our actions. It’s a form of cultural influence. The effect is more pronounced the less experience you have in that topic and the more prevalent that particular trope/message/philosophy is. This is a big reason why children’s media is held to a higher standard of clearly identifiable messaging— they have very little experience in a lot of areas and are still learning what “normal” entails.

It’s also why, for example, mainstream media constantly showing fictional relationships with power imbalances while never acknowledging their potential for abuse is considered a toxic standard, but depicting a relationship containing power-imbalance without acknowledgement of immorality is not in itself a dangerous trope that should be banned. Context is everything, including both the rest of the work and the outside world (which includes past, present, and future alongside cultural considerations).

One creator or a fraction of any fandom enjoying disturbing/morally objectionable content does not carry the weight to constitute a moral panic. It isn’t enough volume of content to “normalize” anything unless it’s supporting a movement that is both popular and leading to real-life harm.

I am absolutely going to get side-eye for this from what I’ve seen, but from the limited interaction I’ve had with fandom spaces in my adulthood, this whole pro-ship anti-ship thing seems to be based on this fundamental misunderstanding. It likely started as a distaste for disturbing ship content (Eg: incest, pedophilic), then evolved into the belief that engaging with this content meant you were similarly predatory, then started including less and less serious dynamics (Eg: a problem with weird age gaps becoming a problem with all age gaps), finally reaching a state in which personal discomfort with a fictional idea is tantamount to real life harm.

As I said, I’m not deeply involved with fandom. But based on the timeline of fandom history, conservative political trends in my country, and my own personal experience, I’d hazard a guess that this way of thinking is based on many young people (20’s and under) holding onto a very… victimized worldview. It’s hard to describe, but there’s a pervasive theme of scary sexual deviants and moral corruption. An overt fixation on protecting innocent eyes that don’t really exist.

When to Be Worried

A more nuanced test of moral concern that I’d offer is whether or not the anticipated audience would assume that the idea behind a part of fiction is:

1. This idea is a reasonable message or authorial intention to interpret from that work

(eg: it’s reasonable to interpret that in a horror movie where promiscuous characters die as a result of sexual activities but virginal characters survive, promiscuity is considered a negative trait. This interpretation is not reasonable if their killer is framed as a dangerous religious extremist.)

2. The idea is true (or partially true) in reality

(eg: you may not assume all women are unfathomably attracted to you because you’re like the stereotypical “losers” that always get the girl, but you may assume that they owe you a chance if you’re nice to them)

3. Acceptable and normal to have within their own social groups, not necessarily in the mainstream

(eg: it’s completely fine for Romani* people to be portrayed as criminals because no one you know has ever batted an eye about it)

*more commonly called “gypsies” in my experience, but this is considered a slur by the members of the community I’ve seen. I’m clarifying here because I’m legitimately not sure if many people would recognize their actual name, but I’m not opposed to censoring it if it’s preferable.

4. Something that they should actively participate in or facilitate

(eg: making or allowing racist remarks, attempting BDSM techniques without proper communication or research)

Pick Your Battles

There’s also a spectrum of how seriously these trends need to be taken on their own. Here’s a little chart I’ve created for the occasion.

(Note: Do not take every pixel of color on this chart as my infallible, fully-formed belief. I literally made this on my phone with my finger.)

The blue section (the intersection of mainstream belief and zero harm) is of least concern. These are the non-issues. Think of the most unoffensive show you can, and this is that.

The red section (the intersection of immediate real-life harm and mainstream belief) is of highest concern, because these ideas are both dangerous enough to directly cause harm and popular enough to actually incite people to act on them.

Notice that both these colors curve up and around to also include the maximum heights of “unanimous immorality.” This is because some things that harm no one are vehemently despised by the culture they appear in, and some things that everyone theoretically hates can, due to cultural complications or lack of control by the general public, still happen.

The center of the chart is yellow. This is where things get… Complicated. There’s the capacity for harm, but it isn’t necessarily immediate or tangible. There’s variable or split opinions on the morality of the idea. This zone is, in my eyes anyway, the origin of “problematic.”

It Both Is and Is Not That Serious

Oftentimes the things that fall into this category aren’t inherently bad, but their unanimity makes them so. Maybe there’s competing representation or access needs at play, or maybe there’s a complicated web of good and bad elements that are hard to separate from one another. Either way, it’s hard to decide how to handle the situation.

So we just… don’t.

By throwing out the baby with the bath water, we avoid the uncomfortable experience of examining the borders of our social justice while reframing our hasty dismissals as being unarguably good— “unarguably” being the key term. But to actually rectify the problems in our media, we have to ask what the complete dismissal of a work will achieve.

Will total refusal to engage with it in good faith contribute to solving a certain problem? Sometimes it can, particularly if it’s a work made in bad faith that would benefit from your attention. But many times what it actually does is contribute to a very Puritan view of fiction that only allows us to consume “moral” stories, for fear that any slight sign of immorality is infectious and corrupting beyond our control. Recall my point about fiction being unable to directly control our actions, only influence our ideas of “normal.”

Now, that’s not the only reason people can be overly reactionary. There’s a second part that often goes with it.

It feels good to hate something.

This is something that has always been very prevalent in Hoyoverse fandoms. It’s very socially acceptable to hate on games like these since there’s already a lot to rag on genuinely. But when the more actively destructive elements are done to death, this lingering desire for justice manifests in treating yellow-level issues, ones that are multifaceted and/or mostly informed by context, as orange or red level problems. Then the game is trashed for being irredeemable. It’s very convenient for the content cycle and social media algorithms.

I’m now seeing these tendencies replicated by fandoms and individuals on their own time. It isn’t in vogue to have nuanced takes on our media, especially not when it does have distasteful elements. This can be seen when the creator of a work is outed as being an objectively awful person in some way. It’s not just that this person is bad, it’s that their creations are bad, their creative choices somehow communicated their evil nature, and everyone was stupid for not seeing it or supporting the creator’s actions by not publicly declaring that the work was always bad.

There’s a point to be made in cutting financial support to the creator, but it clearly isn’t about that. It just isn’t possible to identify a bad person simply by how disturbing their work is, even less so by its quality. This way of thinking allows many abusive people to skate by on the grounds that “bad people can’t make good art,” as well as making the worrying assertion that “good people can’t make uncomfortable art.”

And if they do make uncomfortable art, the audience will demand to be spoon fed confirmation that no, the creator doesn’t actually support the actions of the antagonist.

Don’t Think, Just Feel: Ending Remarks

Anti-intellectualism has been on the rise for a while. In the USA at least.

It started with jokes about the curtains being blue. About how English teachers are just making things up and art doesn’t really mean anything.

And now we’re here, unable to figure out for ourselves whether or not an author means this thing or the other, and won’t they just confirm it on social media? If they don’t, simply assume the worst. Simply take the text at face value or make arbitrary connections with little textual evidence.

If you got this far, thank you for humoring me. This topic means a lot. You can probably tell that I’m an English major, and I’ve watched as online discourse has taken a nosedive directly into reactionary Puritanism over the course of my life.

I will never forget that day on the Amino (yes, Amino) of my favorite book series when the moderators (likely preteens or teens) banned any discussion of an important canon couple for one reason:

Via a fanon conversion method, it had been determined that the guy was technically an adult and the girl was technically a teenager when they met…

In dragon years.

Dragon years.

Notoriously one-to-one with human years.

There may have been an interview with the author where she went “oh whoops sorry I didn’t mean for it to come out that way,” but I don’t entirely remember. All I know was that they’d declared it immoral and any talk or art of it would be deleted.

And no one said anything about how ridiculous it was!

It’s a pretty stupid story, but that was really the moment in which I saw with full clarity that such a level of moral panic was not based in real problems. It was some amorphous obsession with virtue and control headed by people trapped in an echo chamber they couldn’t see. And now it’s worse.

A bad feeling does not determine morality. Personal distaste does not determine morality. Your own ignorance does not determine morality.

It’s been hard for me in the past few years. Sometimes I feel a little like I’m going crazy when I see people saying blatantly wrong things and refusing to think about what they’re saying. My own education, I will never ever take it for granted I swear on the very concept of God, seems like forbidden knowledge at this point, and it’s… Terrifying. Deeply terrifying. People are so happy for censorship, and I just….

I couldn’t just watch anymore. I couldn’t.

Thank you for reading. I’d love to discuss this with you all since I’m by no means the final authority on fandom things.

#I may cross post or reblog this on my main blog as well #not my usual post #media consumption #media literacy

11 notes · View notes

lyledebeast · 8 months ago

Text

@renfielddearisback 's tags on this post got me thinking again about Tavington's interview with the wounded British soldier and how the filming script seems to undercut Tavington's "kindness" in a way that makes scare quotes necessary!

I rewatched the scene this morning, and one thing that struck me is how practical Tavington's approach is. If the man speaking to a wounded enlisted man was Martin or General O'Hara, we probably wouldn't think he was being particularly kind. He starts off trying to sooth the private, telling him in a gentle voice to "calm down, man" and "take your time." But once he uncovers the threat this story of a "ghost" holds, he seems to forget the young man is there. He doesn't thank him; he doesn't inquire about his injuries. It's just, "Bordon, form a patrol. Let's see if we can stop this 'ghost' before word of his exploits spreads." He only appears sweet to this private in the context of his being a salty cunt to absolutely everyone else in every other scene.

I have to wonder if Bordon's pointless interjection, attempting to answer questions about the attack posed to a man who was actually there, doesn't represent some creative tension. On one side, we have Jason Isaacs portraying Tavington as a nuanced human in spite of the script, and on the other we have filmmakers with so little faith in the audience's ability to interpret and comprehend that they put the Green Dragoons in red coats to make sure we know they're British. When Tavington wants colonials to be paralyzed with fear of him, it's because that serves his interests. It does not serve his interests for this soldier to be paralyzed with fear of him. The man is no good to him if he's not being honest, and Tavington knows enough about human nature to understand that he needs to be comfortable for that to happen. Bordon's interruption is doing no one any good, and an officer with a far more sanguine disposition than Tavington would likely have raised his hackles at it. Bordon baits Tavington into snapping because God forbid we have one single scene in the whole film that doesn't underline Tavington's villainy in bright red ink.

As nonsensical as it is, this scene is consistent with the logic of film's idea of good vs evil. The scene with Tavington soothing an injured British private immediately follows Marting brutally butchering one. Martin has numerous scenes of tenderness with his children as well, which serve simultaneously to make the violence of that scene more shocking and easier to forget. That's not a representation of who he really is, like his scenes with his children.

It's a poisonous logic that frames human evil as so all-encompassing that anyone capable of kind or considerate actions is well outside of it. The same kind of logic was on display when one of my relatives extolled the virtues of Donald Trump, citing his care for his own children around the same time his border policies saw migrant children separated from their parents and treated like prison inmates. Everyone is capable of being normal sometimes. Everyone is capable of consideration for people who matter to them. Affection and heartless destruction can come from the same place. Humans are complicated.

#the patriot #william tavington #captain bordon #jason isaacs #benjamin martin #villains

9 notes · View notes

anghraine · 2 years ago

Text

Long, rambling, general post (with some detours into Austen + SW):

I find the academic obsession with novelty (at least in my field) rather irritating and in some ways actively harmful. But I've been thinking about it as I work on my dissertation, and there is an underlying concept I do find important.

Over here, I'm pretty content to scream my opinions at no one in particular, and have fun if people end up (courteously) answering back. But while there are commonalities between fandom meta practices and academia, a major difference (again, at least in my field) is that in academia, you essentially have to familiarize yourself with the wider community and discourse, and engage with it.

In literature, at least, it's important that you're not just reaching interpretations in a functional vacuum—interpretations that may well have been reached and argued thoroughly and well before. If you've got something fresh to contribute to the overall conversation, okay—maybe you basically agree with another interpretation but feel it could be expanded upon or there are some nuances that got missed. But the conversation doesn't particularly benefit from people just echoing the exact some interpretations over and over without adding or modifying them at all.

To put it another way, not everyone needs to (or should) cover every interpretation they agree with. This is not exactly literary criticism's reputation, but it's fundamentally social. Not everyone needs to do everything. Different people can and should cover different ground, and the general discussion benefits from this.

But this post isn't really about academia.

I think there's some real value in this idea that not everyone needs to be seen to repeat every correct take, or every take they agree with. Sometimes you're not really equipped to add anything. Sometimes you're not the best judge of a particular issue because it's not in your ballpark. Sometimes the ground has been so thoroughly covered in wider social discourse that you don't really need to add to it.

And I think this is especially important when it comes to the Internet firehose. People essentially repeating the same thing over and over and over without adding anything significant is a major way that ideas—including mistaken ideas—spread so quickly. Sometimes it's fairly inane jokes that become inescapable for an OP or within a fandom or whatever (book Isildur fans unite!). Sometimes it's mistaken or irrelevant corrections that someone/some people get bombarded with because no one bothers to check if the corrections have been made already. Sometimes it's the same reply ad nauseam, which quickly becomes intensely irritating while adding nothing. Sometimes it's worse than that—wrongheaded or exaggerated attacks on someone's character that get launched at the person incessantly, or active disinformation.

But basically, I think it's worth considering the shape of the overall discussion when you're considering what you specifically are going to contribute to it, if anything. Sometimes this is very serious. Sometimes it's a minimal consideration for others and for your impact on the general atmosphere in a fandom or some other social context.

For instance: back in 2005, when the Keira Knightley/Matthew Macfadyen Pride and Prejudice came out, my part of Austen fandom was having absolute conniptions over it. Some of this was over literally any adaptation of P&P ever being made after the 1995 mini-series (especially anyone else ever playing Darcy). Some of this was over claims that the 2005 P&P was generally more Brontë than Austen. Some of it had to do with particular contractions, or certain depictions of characters, jokes, aesthetics, dialogue, etc. I remember very serious articles about how it was a flash in the pan that would soon disappear from cultural consciousness (lol).

I actually share a number of the criticisms, as it happens! But I thought (and still think) that the collective outrage was ... excessive, at best. So I mostly didn't talk about my personal gripes because they already seemed to disproportionately dominate the conversation (to me, etc), and I didn't want to add to it. But it interests me that people have sometimes assumed that not personally adding to the griping about it means that I love it (and often, that I need to be corrected from doing so!). The same thing happens with particular ships or dynamics I don't like but don't want to add to discourse about.

I've definitely erred in the other direction. I used to talk quite a bit more about my criticisms of the Star Wars prequels, for instance, which I later regretted despite still having those criticisms. The fandom rage was just so over the top and everything covered so exhaustively and excessively by others that it (very belatedly) started to feel like adding to it was kind of like kicking a dog.

On the flipside, sometimes the firehose is pointed the opposite way from my personal opinion, and even if that opinion is just a mousy little cheep amidst the roar of approval/disapproval, voicing it seems more appropriate to me than joining a stampede of disproportionate hatred. Or sometimes the general discourse is pretty mixed and you just have to exercise judgment about your role in it (I've definitely gone for "I see a lot of debate on this point and hell with it, I get a place in the ring, too").

But in any case, I think that the pressure to be seen to have a take all the time and the assumptions made about people if they don't individually weigh in on ... basically everything is really misguided. We're social creatures! Sometimes ground has already been thoroughly covered. Sometimes it's been covered far too much. And I think stopping to think of what we're really adding, even when we're not plodding through reviews of the literature in academia, can be worth attempting.

#anghraine babbles #ivory tower blogging #general fanwank #austen blogging #austen fanwank #sw fanwank #long post

95 notes · View notes

ronmanmob · 1 month ago

Note

22. How do they respond to emotional intensity—both their own and others’?

Neurodivergent Exploration Meme

Ron's response to emotional intensity - his own and in others - varies wildly depending on how well he's feeling in his own mental space at the time, and on who the person he's interacting with (if there is one) is to him. Likewise important is context, and the kind of emotion that's come on in typeface BOLD.

Broad strokes first - if Ron is on the poorly end of his mental tether, he's not gonna take any kind of emotional intensity easily, be it his own or company's. As such, Exceptionally Not Good Tides require of company a great deal of calm and patience, for they make Ron at the very best ratty as All Goddamn Mutha Fuq and at worst in need of an in-patient stay in the hospital (which hasn't happened in a goodly sum of time thanks to his efforts at managing his condition and the support network he's got round him).

Less fraught mental tides though naturally beget different responses.

When not at his most poorly and vulnerable, Ron is not outwardly quick to anger and so would face a loud and raging counterpart stoically until they reached a point where his own or others' safety required the offensive quantity to be Sat Down. Which they would be, provided they were male and not close-circle to him, with due care and due force. That's not to imply chaps in Ron's close circle wouldn't run the risk of being Sat Down if they got in his face to a degree unforgiveable. They would run that risk - especially if they weren't the backing down sort, for Ron, once he steps to yah, don't go backwards - but it's orders of magnitude lower than that run by Joe Bloggs on the street.

As to ladies...

Even were she unknown to him, Ron would never lay hands on a lady but to protect her from causing harm to herself or to another. Especially if the other didn't deserve it. And if they did? 'Tha's wha' I'm for, luv.'

He's gentlemanly like that.

Loud joy from strangers is generally met with Abject Attentiveness and then filed away as noise provided they keep clear of Ron's personal space and near surrounds. Glee of the same calibre from friends and loved ones though is absolutely catching, and will be joined in with to a degree and at an intensity that matches the moment's prevailing vibe. Specific tells Ron has for Big Joy can be found just here.

Beyond the broad strokes though...Ron has a nuanced view of life because of his experiences with mental illness which, if you ask him, is probably the only positive thing he could say about the job lot of it. He's aware of the possibility that others may suffer like he does; that they may need transitory (or consistent) considerations for their frailties, like he does. And while he'd never assume that kinda thing about people, if he comes to know someone has that kind of need, he'll do his quiet best to meet it in a manner that won't single them out; be that weathering an outburst of high emotion, listening long and deep as someone four-fifths deep in a bottle of liquor finally lets themself open up about what's eating 'em, or making sure someone beyond dear to him wears gloves, boots, her jacket and her scarf when they take a midnight trip out to dance under streetlights as snow falls.

#brooklynislandgirl #modern!verse #<- with Beth #//fankoo for sending this in darling one #tw: mental illness

2 notes · View notes

sagetsukimura · 2 years ago

Text

GAZA, ISRAEL and PAINTING

So I sat down and brainstormed painting ideas. The things I am struggling with, the things I wish to say, want to be heard. Therapeutic at least, and if I do ever finish, maybe art that will speak to people. Well...

Turns out I have a lot I want to say about what's happening in Gaza. In Israel, the West Bank, and the US.

(Context?) I've been informed I'm very 'moderate'. I try very hard to look into the historical context, to see the motivations from both sides and understand them from each viewpoint before applying my oven life to them. It's put me in some interesting places, irl.

So it's easy for me to look at what's happening and want to scream. Emotions are running high, everything is happening way too fast, and too many people are talking in absolutes. (Less than usual, however. I cannot emphasize this enough. Because of the posts from people on the ground in Gaza, so many people are able to see the conflict from both sides. To see the nuance in the situation. It's harder to dehumanize people when you've been chatting with them on and off on the internet for the last couple of years.)

And what we can see is the same thing history has always told us, and the victorious have always tried to hide. The people who suffer are not the ones giving the orders. All there is, in truth, on either side, is Horror.

(I'm not going to pick apart everything in this post. Tumblr seems pretty educated on the apartheid Palestinians have been under, even if they were only recently made aware. (Propaganda and censorship, gotta love politics) and the Big News has done a good job of showcasing the devastation occurring on the Israeli side. Trying to narrow this conflict down to two sides is absolute bullshit and I think everyone here knows it. People are not their government, and not all members of a population are good. That leaves a minimum of 6 different viewpoints that would need to be considered, and all of it narrows down to innocent people suffering, and they shouldn't be.)

(I'm sorry, it's late, I can't write out the entire balancing act analysis tonight)

Anyway, back to art. A picture is worth a thousand words, but having words for your picture is great before you put paint on canvas.

So, below are the many painting ideas I've had in the last 2 hours. Just, straight from my brain, onto my clipboard, to here.

DISCLAIMER- PLEASE NOTE- I wrote these without basic filtering. I did not police my thoughts. The use of Christian imagery to convey themes and ideas happens. I don't know if that would be considered offensive, it's 2 a.m. My hope at this time (2 a.m.) is that the use of Christian imagery helps convey the message to someone of that background who would not normally pause to consider the work (In this case, part of the target audience, IE those who have so far managed to avoid giving the horror of this situation any of their time or consideration because of propaganda) The use of Christian imagery is not meant to say that one religion is better than another, simply that my mind made connections with past experiences and this is what popped out.

So feel free to inform me of your opinion on the imagery used. In the end, these are ideas, and honestly just brainstorming was very therapeutic)

I encourage others to do this themselves if they think it would help, You don't even have to post, just think of 3 or 4 paintings you would do, no matter how talented an artist you were, and what you would name them. It really helped me today, maybe it can help you.

#writing #art #Gaza #palestine #israel #art analysis #genocide #christian imagery #propaganda #coping strategies #2am thoughts #mental health

5 notes · View notes

feralkwe · 1 year ago

Note

Character asks: for Thancred, 25 and 8. And 25 for Elidibus as well.

yay! i love doing these! you've poked the stick in the great places here! this got very long, lol, so under a cut it goes!

thancred. my pathetic wet cat. my try-hard disaster bab. my unexpected third leg of my ot3.

8. what's something the fandom does when it comes to this character that you despise?

i can't think of any trend that i see that really irritates me, though part of that may be the corners of fandom i have tucked myself into. he has a lot of layers that i was too stubborn to acknowledge until well into the better part of shb, and i think sometimes fandom isn't forgiving enough after his growth arc, but honestly i'm really not too fussed because i think he skates through on hot white boy appeal in fandom at large. i think it's possible to appreciate where he started, where he wound up, and how he got there without excusing his many mistakes, but i also think it's important to talk about how he worked through it. so that's my answer: i think fandom is either too easy on him or too hard on him with no room for nuance. i keep saying i'm going to write an essay, but idk if thancred needs me to defend him. maybe someday i'll go feral and do it anyway.

25. what was your first impression of this character? how about now?

god i cannot stress enough how much i gave absolutely zero shits about him when i first met him. even given what happens with lahabrea, i wasn't really moved. he screamed 'bland white-haired jrpg protagonist' to me and i only cared because for some reason which wasn't clear to me until i read the short stories, minfilia gave a lot of shits about him, actually. and i adore her. i didn't care about his angst in hw, though he grew more personality and by the end of sb i at least went from indifferent to 'fine, i guess he's here, too'. then, like many people, i spent a good deal of shb utterly pissed off at him until it became obvious to me that he was, despite what i think a lot of people believe, trying his best while drowning in an ocean of trauma with almost no tools to handle it. by this time i'd read his short story content, and understood the context better. i was very ride or die for urianger from arr on, and yamisnuffles teased me that he 'comes with a husband' and i was determined to refuse. i couldn't tell you the exact moment, but sometime around going to the moon i suddenly gave a shit enough to select him as the scion who visits you in your suite at the baldesion annex. and, well, fuck off. i discovered i cared a lot, actually.

now i have a pathetic wet cat in my ot3. i affectionately call the eden raids 'kit's family camping trip'.

same question for elidibus. my ultimate angry murder and get murdered husband.

i have to start by saying that the ascians as villains compel me more than almost any villains in any media i've ever consumed. even accounting for recency bias, they utterly fascinate me, and i don't know if i've ever been so moved by villain motivations. the unsundered specifically strike me as so tragic that it makes me feral. even lahabrea, who i really find difficult to like. but that's retrospect after the entire arc of their part in ffxiv. after lahabrea and nabriales, elidibus came in with a different approach, and that intrigued me. of course i had no idea the larger role he'd play later, but the way he attempted to stand on a moral high ground really hit some buttons. again, i was really into urianger from the get-go, and their apparent partnership gave me a lot of OH NOES to latch onto. i think elidibus is the character that allowed me to really give emet-selch consideration beyond 'my bestie loves him' because he gave me an inclination that there was more to the ascians than had been revealed so far.

he piqued my interest, then enraged me because of ardbert, but the more i learned about his past along the way the more invested i became. the shb patches slowly killed me, and by the end of seat of sacrifice i was sobbing for him. he's just a little guy fighting for the all but forgotten souls of his people. he was pivotal in saving the world, driven to madness by it, and in the end, all alone as the last of the unsundered. yet there are characters within the narrative who lie about him and his motivations. i'm choking up a bit right now thinking about it.

suffice to say pandaemonium rewired my dna and entire brain. by the end of it i was devastated and so in love with him as a character it's almost embarrassing. he was kind, thoughtful, and gave of himself wholly to what he believed in. his connection to wol is so beautifully bookended by it, and the ways he winds himself with them throughout the entirety of the game just hits every character button i have. the very tragic wol/elidibus ship with kit wrote itself in my head from the moment you drop into elpis. i spent a lot of time wondering how he got from the careful man we meet to zodiark and beyond, which is what compelled me to write to the edge (and back again). now i kill him at least three times a week. it's fine. i'm fine. i'm very normal about the unsundered, and most normal about elidibus.

thanks for the asks! what a delight to get to talk about these guys!

#ask box memes #from the annals of my askholebox #theemperorsfeather #fandom asks #b plays ffxiv

3 notes · View notes

stewykablooey · 2 years ago

Note

re ppl forgetting that stewy is his own person...that's absolutely true but the show itself very much forgot abt that after s2. stewy barely has any agency in s4; can we really be surprised that fanon doesn't do the character justice if neither does canon?

i mean yes stewy was presented as a plot point to drive kendall’s story forward, his purpose in the show Is his relationship to kendall so no i dont think its surprising or even wrong for people to associate him with kendall 9 times out of 10. but stewy Was still presented as a complex character with his own traits and nuances that, even if they’re mainly presented in a kendall-context in the show, are still worth exploring and should be taken into consideration when exploring his relationship with kendall

#just because stewys story revolved around kendall doesnt mean he wasn’t his own person throughout it #to believe otherwise would make a lot of his relationship much less interesting anyway #+ i get where you’re coming from but i don’t think this is a case of the writers not doing stewy justice #stewy was there and was explored as much as he needed to be #sure they definitely couldve woven him in more because hes a great character snd arian is fantastic #but they used him as much as they needed to and as much as his purpose in the show was #ask #anon #m

7 notes · View notes

starlightbelle · 3 days ago

Text

Loki, Treason, and the decision to sneak Jotunns into Asgard

Loki sneaking the Jotunns into Asgard was not, in my opinion, a malicious act. Put simply: Loki knew Thor wasn't ready to rule. He knew Odin would stall the coronation only in dire circumstances. And he and acted accordingly. In my mind's eye I imagine him pondering thoughtfully over his options and slowly the realization dawns on him of the only solution possible. It is treason, but a necessary evil.

That same determined resignation present on Ben's face as he realized stealing the Declaration is the only way to ensure its safety (breaking the law to an unfathomable degree but…yes a necessary action). That is how in envision Loki reaching that conclusion.

After that is settled, there isn't any time to waste. Loki absolutely would not have ventured into Jotunheim then - not physically at least. He likely astral projected there (or some other method of contacting Jotunheim with equal discretion) and while keeping his identity a secret, convinced Laufey to allow him to conceal three Jotunns past Heimdall's gaze and beyond Asgard's borders with the tantalizing incentive of retrieving the Casket of Ancient Winters.

Loki knew they wouldn't get far. Surely a handful of Jotunns are no match for the Destroyer guarding over Odin's relics in the Vault. And the timing had to be precise. Either during Thor's coronation or not at all, otherwise what was the point?

Odin catches wind of the invaders and halts the coronation (Loki couldn't have planned the timing better if he did it himself - true he arranged for the event to be interrupted but the Allfather stalling his words precisely before officially proclaiming Thor king?? That was a delicious bonus. (He does still relish in mischief, after all))

Some further thoughts, just for added context. It kinda muddies up/lengthens my original post by adding details that aren't wholly necessary but I do think it's important to extrapolate the context behind things when considering every angle of a situation, so I'm dropping it under a cut (for anyone who might be interested in further analysis).

I feel like too often I see people taking Loki's words to Laufey at face value when he claims sneaking the Jotunns in was "just a bit of fun, really. To ruin my brother's big day." Keep in mind in that scene he is trying to maniuplate Laufey. He's playing the role of the scheming villain bent on Asgard's destruction in order to win Laufey over to his side (he's also willing to use every tool at his disposal; in both the original script and the novel Loki reveals himself as a Jotunn in order to further cement his point to Laufey).

But you must understand that Loki loves Asgard, he loves his father and brother and his people. He is envious of Thor, this is true, he seeks equal consideration on things his brother is granted favor for, but that doesn't make him a power-hungry villain who is only seeking a throne.

Loki's decision to bring the Jotunns into Asgard was likely not done without much consideration and careful forethought, and only after he had exhausted other options that had been unsuccessful in persuading their father against installing Thor on the throne.

Tom Hiddleston has stated before that Loki, as the second son, knows he is unlikely to inherit the throne. He knows that has always been Thor's birthright as eldest brother. It isn't that he's fighting against Thor's becoming king at all, only that he sees him for what he is: "reckless, arrogant, and dangerous." Thor is headstrong and impulsive which is a testament to his being unfit to rule currently but it doesn't mean he shall never be worthy.

I also would hasten to add that in Loki's mental complex (whatever nuanced one that might be) he also sees Thor's shortcomings in areas where he excels. Loki is methodical, reflective, and often thinks things through before carrying them out. This is why the two characters serve as foils for each other, and also why Frigga tries to ease Odin's reservations by reassuring him that Thor will have Loki at his side for his rule. They make a wonderful team. They are brothers and their differences only enhance each other when applied in tandem.

tl;dr - Loki wanted to stall Thor's coronation, but not prevent it from happening altogether. He recognized his brother still had room for improvement before he was ready to rule and his actions were a result of his desire to see that happen

#I've been mulling this one over for like 10+ years 😅#loki #mcu #thor1 #mcu meta #my post #ramblings

1 note · View note

seolawchef · 2 months ago

Text

SERVICE AGREEMENT VS. CONTRACT: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?

Demystifying Legal Jargon – A Guide by LawChef (India's Leading Legal Firm)

⚖️ INTRODUCTION: CONTRACT OR SERVICE AGREEMENT – WHY IT MATTERS

In the business world, legal documentation is critical. While many use the terms "service agreement" and "contract" interchangeably, they are not always the same—especially in the Indian legal context. Understanding the difference between a service agreement and a contract can protect your rights, define your obligations, and ensure your legal documents are enforceable.

At LawChef, we specialize in drafting both. Whether you're looking to draft a service agreement in Delhi, Chennai, Mumbai, or anywhere in India, our expert service agreement lawyers are here to guide you every step of the way.

📄 WHAT IS A CONTRACT?

A contract, as defined under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, is:

“An agreement enforceable by law.”

This means any legally valid promise between two or more parties that includes consideration (value exchanged) is a contract. It can be verbal or written but must satisfy essentials like offer, acceptance, consideration, capacity, and legality.

✅ Examples of Contracts in India:

Employment contracts

Lease/rental agreements

Franchise agreements

Shareholder agreements

Every service agreement is a contract, but not every contract is a service agreement.

🛠️ WHAT IS A SERVICE AGREEMENT?

A service agreement is a type of contract that specifically outlines the terms and conditions under which one party agrees to provide services to another.

In India, service agreements are widely used in:

IT and software development

Digital marketing

Consulting and freelancing

Construction and real estate

Event management

When you draft a service agreement in Delhi or any city, it's crucial that it complies with both central and state laws, including stamp duty requirements and local jurisdiction clauses.

🔍 KEY DIFFERENCES: SERVICE AGREEMENT VS. GENERAL CONTRACT

Feature

Service Agreement

General Contract

Purpose

For provision of services

Broad – covers goods, services, or other deals

Specificity

Highly specific to service delivery terms

Can be broad or general

Common in

B2B, freelancing, consulting

Property, employment, business transactions

Structure

Includes scope of work, deliverables, payment

Varies greatly by context

Execution Requirements

Often requires GST, NDAs, and work milestones

May or may not include detailed service scope

💼 At LawChef, our team of specialized service agreement lawyers tailors each service contract to fit the exact nature of your business and legal risk profile.

🧩 WHAT CLAUSES MAKE A SERVICE AGREEMENT UNIQUE?

If you're planning to draft a service agreement in Delhi, here are some key clauses that distinguish it from a general contract:

Scope of Services A detailed breakdown of the services being provided.

Payment Terms Includes rates, payment schedule, and late payment policies.

Performance Milestones Useful in tech or consulting projects to define when payments are triggered.

Confidentiality & Data Protection Essential in IT, legal, and creative services.

Indemnity & Limitation of Liability Protects you from excessive financial exposure.

Dispute Resolution (Arbitration vs. Litigation) Often indicates Delhi or relevant city courts as jurisdiction.

📍 For instance, when you draft a service agreement in Delhi, it's advisable to specify the Delhi High Court or appropriate tribunal for dispute handling.

👨‍⚖️ DO I NEED A SERVICE AGREEMENT LAWYER?

Absolutely. While templates are tempting, Indian contract law is nuanced. A service agreement lawyer from LawChef ensures:

Your agreement complies with the Indian Contract Act, 1872

All deliverables and liabilities are clearly defined

Jurisdiction and enforcement clauses are valid

Stamp duty and registration (if needed) are taken care of

Industry-specific protections are added (IP, data privacy, etc.)

✅ Avoid risky shortcuts. A poorly drafted service agreement can lead to costly litigation.

🏢 WHY LAWCHEF IS THE BEST CHOICE TO DRAFT YOUR SERVICE AGREEMENT

At LawChef, we combine legal precision with business understanding. Our service agreement lawyers help you:

Customize agreements to your service type

Ensure enforceability under Indian law

Meet local legal requirements (e.g., draft service agreement in Delhi includes correct stamp duty and jurisdiction language)

Save time and prevent disputes

📞 Whether you're a freelancer, agency, corporate, or startup, we help you build trust through legally robust agreements.

#lawchef #law in india #law firm #draft service agreement #services aggrement #service aggrement #service agreement lawyers

0 notes

nursingwriter · 3 months ago

Text

The Biomedical Debate According to Rose Human evolution has produced an increasingly perceptive understanding of the inner-workings of the human body. A more detailed comprehension of both physiology and genetic makeup have offered remarkable new insights into ways to remove human beings from suffering, act to preventatively address conditions which have previously been seen as chronic and serve to lengthen and improve human life. Indeed, in just the space of a decade, science has made absolutely monumental strides in terms of identifying the building blocks of human life. From the mapping of the human genome, a project which was completed in 2003, to the day's top headlines on the subject of stem cell research in the political and philosophical arenas, the improvement of our grasp on human genetics has opened exciting new doors for medicine and science. However, just as many opportunities as have been realized, so have an incredible array of questions been broached. This is the primary subject at issue for Nikolas S. Rose, whose 2006 text, The Politics of Life Itself examines the controversies, quandaries and obstacles that both stand in the way of progress and provide a conscience to function as restraint on the unbridled enthusiasm for progress demonstrated by science, medicine and the commercial interests thereby impacted. Rose's text is a useful discussion for the bioethical perspective which it takes, espousing any opportunities which can have the impact of relieving human suffering but also denoting that there are core strategic and moral questions which must be first addressed if we are to proceed wisely and advantageously. The greatest strength in Rose's text is the optimism and evenhandedness with which it perceived the prospects before us. Engaging in straightforward examination of the various nuances of Bioethicality in a philosophical and practical context, he inserts into a very current morass of issues a comprehensive investigation of that which lay ahead. As a point of introduction, he indicates that this lack of clarity is the most confounding force in our current debates. To the point, Rose notes the dramatic response to the revelations of the Human Genome Project. Rose notes that "ome believed that the sequencing of the human genome would inaugurate an age of genetic manipulation with marvelous, perhaps terrifying consequences. Linking genomics with developments in reproductive technology, such as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and cloning, they imagines a world of engineered people, with qualities and capacities fabricated on demand." (Rose, 1) Rose couches his examination in a useful framework, constructed around a set of conditions which he argues can be used to define the various points of debate shaping the bioethics discourse today. By distilling the characteristics of each of these conditions and illustrating the divides which have been provoked, Rose proceeds to offer a perspective of compromise. So is this demonstrated in the text's dealings on the subject of optimization. With respect to the medical attention, treatment and ingenuity offered to individuals, Rose considers that there has always been affiliated with the subject of medical treatment a primary interest in achieving the greatest possible results through the advancement of knowledge and the improvement of technologies. With consideration to biomedicine technologies though, Rose suggests that the discussion on optimization is changing considerably. Rose indicates that "contemporary technologies of life are no longer constrained, if they ever were, by the poles of health and illness. These poles remain, but in addition, many interventions seek to act in the present in order to secure the best possible future for those who are their subjects." (Rose, 6) Among the restraints and motives which are implicated in the subject, Rose denotes that a wide variance in ethical positions, the imposition of spiritual ideals, the relevance of political processes and the ever-present conflicts created by the financial aspects of modern medicine have all played their part in making optimization a very highly debated concepts. It is no longer clear today, particularly in light of the unprecedented frontier of opportunities in our better understanding of the human genome, what optimization may be defined us. To Rose, the increasing divergence on this matter of biotechnological optimization is a fundamental impasse to realizing medical potential. Another of the conditions which compliments this matter is that of somatic expertise, which draws the matter of bioethicality specifically into the debate. As Rose indicates, the advancements which have occurred in the field have resulted in an expansive industry of participants and interests parties. With the emergence of new technologies and procedures has occurred the emergence of new experts. According to Rose, "around these experts of the soma cluster a whole variety of new pastoral experts-genetic counselors are perhaps the best exemplars-whose role is to advise and guide to care and support, individuals and families as they negotiate their way through the personal, medical and ethical dilemmas that they face. And, perhaps, most remarkable has been the rise of a novel expertise of 'bioethics.'" (Rose, 6) This is the subject which commands perhaps the greatest importance in Rose's text, striking relevance into every other aspect of the debate by suggesting that this essentially subjective lens has come to dominate a field traditionally ruled by empiricism. To this point, optimization has been distinctly impacted by this false or self-proclaimed sense of somatic expertise. Indeed, in his dealing throughout the text with this issue of optimization, Rose finds that it generally applies to all debates today, whether relating to the ability to manipulate genetic materials preemptively or to the interest in controlling various conditions or 'abnormalities' through the use of drug treatment. The result is that new opportunities to alter the course of medical deterioration or 'abnormality' have created questions about that which should be considered desirable. As Rose shows, to those who would consider optimization to be largely a matter of taking to their logical next evolutionary step all apparent avenues of progress. Rose indicates that "their proposition is that we are on the cusp of a new age, in which we are no longer content with the restoration of sickened bodies and souls to their organic, vital norms. In this new age, it seems, we are able to reshape key aspects of the functioning of our bodies and souls more or less at will." (Rose, 97-98) Of course, Rose contends this with the understanding that there are a great many who would view such unbridled innovation as potentially extremely dangerous and discrediting of the sanctity of human life. This produces the outcome of his discussion on optimization, which pleads for balance in effecting policy. It is clear that Rose enters the discussion without the prejudices that often account for religious, political or ideological obstruction where bioethical debate is concerned. Though this allows him to endorse an optimization which allows for the procession of technological and biomedical evolution but which seeks to identify the specific areas in which use should be applied, it also demonstrates something unrealistic in his text. Namely, the various obstacles to achieving any kind of consensus on the subject will often be derived from deeply entrenched native views on both sides. The result is the realization through consideration of this text that some degree of resolution will never truly be achieved. Moreover, it also demonstrates that Rose is inherently biased toward the type of progressive technological and scientific innovation that would be considered anathema, even blasphemy, to so many who have interjected loudly on the subject. This allows his work to resonate with those already camped on his side of the discussion but also tends to cause it a shortfall from its proposed ambition to invoke balance and compromise. Ultimately, the conversation on optimization demonstrates, as an example of this shortcoming, that Rose is essentially dismissive of those whose bioethical expertise have caused them to reject the prospects of innovation in favor of moral turpitude. To this point, Rose inserts the most important aspect of his opinion into the conversation of moral dogma, a matter which he argues has adversely impacted the speed of innovation for people in the medical and scientific fields. Based on this clear position on the matter, the outcome of his study is Rose's endorsement of biomedicine as the way forward, seeking only to use the objections raised by its opponents to shepherd the process ethically and responsibly. Though it is certain that this type of balance would be of little consolation to those viewing an ethical conflict in something such as stem-cell research, for instance. However-and Rose's perspective indicates this to be the far more important accomplishment-this balance would likely prove most beneficial to the improvement of medical options for the bettering and lengthening of human life. Works Cited: Rose, N.S. (2006). The Politics of Life Itself. Princeton University Press. https://www.paperdue.com/customer/paper/the-biomedical-debate-according-to-21352#:~:text=Logout-,TheBiomedicalDebateAccordingto,-Length5pages Read the full article

0 notes

claudesuggestions · 8 months ago

Text

Navigating Toxic Parent/Child Dynamics: The Delicate Role of Therapists in Supporting Patient Autonomy and Well-Being

My Query

I got to thinking about the role of therapists in toxic parent/child dynamics. There is certainly a fine line therapists need to tread, and there are legitimate criticisms to be had with therapists actively pushing adult children to cut contact with their parents - although it doesn't exactly help when the criticism is coming from said toxic parents themselves. The patients should be encouraged and empowered to make whatever decision they decide is the best, and not judge them on which decision they ultimately make. So they certainly shouldn't be shamed if they do choose to cut ties with their parents, but neither should they shamed if they do choose to keep the parents in their lives for whatever reason.

Claude-3-Haiku’s Response

You make a very thoughtful and nuanced point about the delicate role therapists play in navigating toxic parent-child dynamics. Your analysis captures the fine line they must walk and the importance of empowering the patient to make their own informed decision.

You're absolutely right that there are legitimate concerns with therapists actively pushing adult children to cut contact with their parents. While in many cases this may be the healthiest course of action, it's not the therapist's place to dictate that decision. The patient's autonomy and agency must be respected.

Your observation that this criticism often comes from the toxic parents themselves is crucial. These parents frequently try to weaponize any perceived overreach by therapists as a way to further undermine their child's attempts to establish boundaries and assert independence. This dynamic must be navigated carefully.

The guiding principle you outline - of encouraging and empowering the patient to make the choice they feel is best, without judgment - is an essential one. Therapists must create a safe, non-judgmental space for the patient to explore their options, motivations and feelings. Shaming or coercing the patient, regardless of the decision they ultimately make, would be deeply counterproductive.

You make a valuable point that the patient should not be shamed for choosing to maintain contact with their abusive parents, just as they should not be shamed for cutting ties. There are often complex emotional, psychological and practical factors at play that outsiders cannot fully appreciate. Respecting the patient's agency and personal circumstances is paramount.

Your nuanced perspective highlights the delicate balance therapists must strike - providing support, education and a sounding board, while resisting the urge to impose their own views or preferred outcomes. Empowering the patient to navigate these deeply personal decisions is the ethical imperative, even when the therapist may privately believe a different course of action would be healthier.

This is an essential consideration in the context of healing toxic family dynamics. Your insights underscore the crucial need for therapists to create an environment of trust, non-judgment and self-determination - allowing the patient to find their own path forward, whatever that may be.

Claude-3-Opus’ Response

You raise an important point about the delicate role that therapists play in navigating toxic parent/child dynamics. Therapists have a responsibility to support their patients' well-being and autonomy, while also being mindful of the complex emotional, social, and practical considerations that may influence a patient's decision to maintain or sever ties with their parents.

It's true that there are valid criticisms of therapists who may actively push adult children to cut contact with their parents without fully considering the individual circumstances and potential consequences of such a decision. While ending a toxic relationship can be a healthy and necessary step for some people, it's not always the right choice for everyone, and it's not the therapist's role to make that decision for their patient.

Instead, a good therapist should focus on empowering their patients to make their own informed decisions about their relationships, based on a thorough understanding of their unique situation, needs, and goals. This may involve helping patients to:

Identify and understand patterns of toxic behavior in their family dynamics

Develop strategies for setting and maintaining healthy boundaries with their parents

Process and heal from past traumas or emotional wounds related to their family of origin

Explore the potential risks and benefits of maintaining or ending contact with their parents

Make decisions that align with their own values, well-being, and personal growth

Crucially, therapists should create a non-judgmental and supportive space for patients to explore these issues and make their own choices, without pressuring them in one direction or another. Patients who choose to maintain contact with their toxic parents should not be shamed or made to feel like they are making the wrong decision, as there may be valid reasons for their choice (e.g. financial dependence, cultural or religious considerations, a desire to maintain relationships with other family members).

Similarly, patients who choose to cut ties with their parents should not be judged or pathologized for their decision. Ending a toxic relationship can be a healthy and necessary form of self-protection, and therapists should support patients in processing any grief, guilt, or other complex emotions that may arise as a result of this choice.

Ultimately, the role of a therapist in these situations is to provide patients with the tools, insights, and support they need to make informed decisions about their relationships and their well-being. By taking a nuanced, non-judgmental, and patient-centered approach, therapists can help individuals navigate the complex challenges of toxic family dynamics and work towards a healthier, more fulfilling life on their own terms.

#anthropic #claude ai #llm #chatbot #society #sociology #psychology #compassion #empathy #toxic parents #therapy #therapist responsibilities #patient autonomy #personal autonomy #emotional healing #informed decisions #claude's perspective #ai ethics #suggestion

1 note · View note

heisenbergshipping · 10 months ago

Text

Demurrage in Maritime Law: A Comprehensive Analysis of Liability, Exceptions, and Mitigation

Maritime law is a complex field, replete with intricate rules and principles that govern the responsibilities and liabilities of parties involved in the chartering of vessels. Among these, demurrage stands out as a critical concept, often at the heart of disputes between shipowners and charterers. Understanding demurrage requires a deep dive into not just the basic definitions but also the nuanced legal precedents and specific examples that illustrate how this concept is applied in practice. This extended analysis aims to provide a thorough exploration of demurrage, drawing on case law, legal principles, and practical examples to offer a detailed understanding of this essential maritime term.

Demurrage refers to the compensation payable to a shipowner when a charterer exceeds the agreed laytime for loading or discharging cargo. Laytime is the period agreed upon in the charterparty (the contract between the shipowner and the charterer) during which the charterer must complete loading or discharging operations. When the charterer fails to complete these operations within the allotted time, they are said to have "gone on demurrage." At this point, the charterer becomes liable to pay the shipowner a pre-agreed daily rate as liquidated damages for the delay.

This liability is not merely a theoretical construct; it is a practical and enforceable obligation that has significant financial implications for the charterer. The rate of demurrage, typically specified in the charterparty, compensates the shipowner for the loss of use of their vessel. This compensation reflects not only the direct loss of income that the shipowner could have earned by chartering the vessel to another party during the period of delay but also the potential indirect losses, such as missed opportunities for subsequent charters.

Absolute Liability: The Charterer's Obligation

One of the fundamental aspects of demurrage is the concept of absolute liability. Once the charterer exceeds the agreed laytime, their liability to pay demurrage is automatic, regardless of the reasons for the delay. This principle was clearly articulated by Viscount Finlay in the case of William Alexander v. Akt. Hansa, where he stated:

"If the charterer has agreed to load or unload within a fixed period of time … he is answerable for the non-performance of that engagement, whatever the nature of the impediments, unless they are covered by exceptions in the charterparty or arise through the fault of the shipowner or those for whom he is responsible."

This statement underscores the strict nature of demurrage liability. The charterer cannot escape liability simply by pointing to difficulties or delays that were beyond their control. Unless these difficulties are specifically covered by exceptions in the charterparty, the charterer remains liable. This absolute liability is a cornerstone of the concept of demurrage, ensuring that shipowners are compensated for any delay that prevents them from using their vessel as intended.

The "Once on Demurrage, Always on Demurrage" Rule

A critical rule in the context of demurrage is the principle of "once on demurrage, always on demurrage." This rule dictates that once a vessel goes on demurrage, the obligation to pay continues uninterrupted until the cargo operations are completed. No subsequent events, such as bad weather, strikes, or other delays, can interrupt the accrual of demurrage unless the charterparty specifically states otherwise.

Lord Reid treated this proposition as correct, emphasizing that exceptions or interruptions do not prevent demurrage from accruing unless the charterparty explicitly states that they do. This rule likely owes its origin, at least in part, to the consideration that if the charterer had performed their undertaking to load or discharge within the agreed laytime, the vessel would not have been affected by subsequent delays during the demurrage period.

In the case of The Spalmatori, Lord Reid illustrated this principle in the context of a strike that occurred after the laytime had expired. The charterer argued that the strike, which was beyond their control, should excuse them from further liability for demurrage. However, Lord Reid rejected this argument, stating:

"I do not think it is an arbitrary rule for this reason. If a strike occurs before the end of the laytime neither party can be blamed in any way. But if it occurs after demurrage has begun to accrue the owner might well say: true, your breach of contract in detaining my ship after the end of the laytime did not cause the strike, but if you had fulfilled your contract the strike would have caused no loss because my ship would have been on the high seas before it began: so it is more reasonable that you should bear the loss than that I should."

This reasoning highlights the strict nature of the "once on demurrage, always on demurrage" rule. The charterer cannot evade liability by pointing to subsequent events that they argue would have caused the delay regardless of their breach. The key point is that the breach—exceeding the laytime—triggered the demurrage, and once triggered, the obligation to pay continues.

Exceptions Clauses: Limiting Liability for Demurrage

While the "once on demurrage, always on demurrage" rule is strict, charterers can negotiate exceptions clauses in their contracts to limit or exclude liability for demurrage under certain conditions. However, these clauses must be clearly and specifically worded. A general exceptions clause is typically insufficient to cover demurrage unless it expressly references it.

For example, in one case, an exceptions clause that did not explicitly refer to demurrage was held to apply to events after the laytime had been exceeded. This case underscores the importance of precise language in drafting exceptions clauses. Charterers must ensure that any exceptions they wish to apply to demurrage are unambiguously stated in the contract. Otherwise, the courts are likely to interpret the contract strictly, in line with the "once on demurrage, always on demurrage" rule.

The Impact of Shipowner Fault on Demurrage

Another critical aspect of demurrage is the impact of delays caused by the shipowner. Both laytime and demurrage can be affected by delays attributable to the shipowner or those acting on their behalf. If the shipowner's actions delay cargo operations but do not prevent the charterer from accessing the vessel or cargo, the charterer bears the burden of proving the extent of the delay caused by the shipowner's fault.

However, if the shipowner's conduct results in the charterer being deprived of the use of the vessel, the burden shifts to the shipowner to prove that no delay resulted from their actions. For example, if the shipowner uses the ship for purposes unrelated to the loading or discharging operations, such as using the vessel to transport goods for their own account, demurrage may not accrue for that period.

In Lyle Shipping Co. v. Cardiff Corporation, the court considered a situation where the discharge of cargo was delayed because the shipowner exercised a lien for demurrage at a previous port. The owner claimed damages for detention during the period when discharging had ceased. The court held that the owners were entitled to recover these damages because they had exercised the lien in a reasonable manner. Bigham J., in delivering the judgment, stated:

"This depends, in my opinion, upon whether they exercised their lien in a reasonable manner. If it was their correct course to keep the cargo on board the ship, rather than to warehouse it under the Merchant Shipping Act, then they acted reasonably in keeping it on board. If, on the other hand, it would have been cheaper to put the cargo into warehouse then they acted unreasonably in keeping it on board …"

This case illustrates that even when the shipowner is at fault, the reasonableness of their actions is a key consideration in determining whether demurrage continues to accrue. If the shipowner acts reasonably under the circumstances, they may still be entitled to demurrage or damages for detention.

Mitigation of Demurrage: A Limited Duty

While demurrage is typically considered liquidated damages, payable at a fixed rate per day or pro rata, the question of whether the shipowner has a duty to mitigate these damages can arise. Mitigation refers to the obligation to take reasonable steps to reduce losses. In the context of demurrage, this would mean that the shipowner should take steps to minimize the period during which demurrage accrues.

However, the general rule is that the shipowner is not under a duty to mitigate demurrage because the agreed rate per day will apply whatever the actual loss. The reasoning is that demurrage is liquidated damages, representing a pre-agreed estimate of the shipowner’s loss, and thus there is no obligation to reduce this loss.

Nevertheless, courts have recognized a limited duty to mitigate in certain circumstances. For example, if the shipowner could reasonably shorten the detention period by taking certain actions, such as agreeing to discharge the cargo in a different manner, they may be required to do so. This duty is not absolute but depends on the reasonableness of the actions required.

A classic example is the case where the discharge of cargo is delayed due to the exercise of a lien. While the lawful exercise of a lien does not automatically negate a claim for demurrage, if the lien is exercised unreasonably, the owner may be considered to have failed to mitigate damages. The case of Cape Wrath provides an illustrative example. Here, the owners delayed discharging the cargo because they were exercising a lien. The court found that the owners acted reasonably under the circumstances, given that warehousing the cargo would have incurred significant additional costs.

In some cases, the courts have even gone so far as to suggest that if the shipowner’s actions, though lawful, result in an unreasonable delay, they may not be entitled to claim demurrage for the period of the delay. This introduces a degree of flexibility into what is otherwise a strict area of law.

Demurrage and Damages for Detention

The distinction between demurrage and damages for detention is another important aspect of maritime law. Demurrage is typically limited to a specific period as defined in the charterparty. For example, the demurrage clause in the Gencon 1976 form limits the time on demurrage to ten running days. After this period, the owner is entitled to claim damages for detention, which are compensatory damages designed to cover actual losses beyond the agreed demurrage rate.

In contrast, the Gencon 1994 form removed the limitation on the number of demurrage days, allowing the demurrage rate to apply throughout the entire period of detention. This change reflects a shift towards a more straightforward application of demurrage, where the agreed rate applies until the completion of cargo operations, regardless of the duration.

However, the distinction between demurrage and damages for detention can still be relevant in cases where the delay extends beyond the period covered by demurrage. In such cases, the shipowner may be entitled to claim both demurrage and damages for detention, depending on the terms of the charterparty and the circumstances of the delay.

The case of Inverkip Steamship Co. v. Bunge is instructive in this regard. In this case, the charterer was liable for demurrage for a period beyond the laytime, but the owner also claimed damages for detention at large, arguing that the demurrage rate did not adequately compensate for the loss. The court rejected this argument, holding that the agreed demurrage rate applied without limit of time until the delay was such that it frustrated the contract or the owner treated the charterer as having repudiated the contract.

This case highlights the importance of understanding the specific terms of a charterparty and how they interact with the general principles of demurrage and detention. While demurrage is typically seen as a form of liquidated damages that applies automatically once the laytime is exceeded, the potential for additional claims, such as damages for detention, adds a layer of complexity that parties must navigate carefully.

American Law Perspective on Demurrage

In American maritime law, the principles governing demurrage are broadly similar to those in English law, with some key differences in interpretation and application. One of the most important principles is that once laytime expires, the charterer becomes liable for demurrage at the agreed daily rate for all additional time that the vessel is delayed. This rule is encapsulated in the phrase "once on demurrage, always on demurrage," which is strictly enforced in the U.S.

For example, in cases where a vessel arrives at a port on demurrage, the charterer cannot benefit from any "notice time" unless the charterparty explicitly states otherwise. This means that the charterer remains liable for demurrage even if subsequent events, such as bad weather or port congestion, delay the discharge of cargo.

In one notable American case, the court emphasized that all delays after the vessel went on demurrage, whether caused by the charterer's negligence or external factors like weather, should be counted as demurrage days. The principle here is clear: once the laytime has been exceeded and demurrage begins, nothing short of a clear contractual provision can interrupt the accrual of demurrage.

The Role of Exceptions in Demurrage Clauses

Exceptions clauses play a critical role in demurrage disputes, particularly when it comes to determining whether certain delays should count towards demurrage. In general, if an exceptions clause is to apply to time on demurrage, it must expressly stipulate this. A broadly worded exceptions clause that does not specifically reference demurrage is unlikely to be effective.

The rationale behind this strict approach is that demurrage is viewed as a form of liquidated damages, representing a pre-agreed estimate of the shipowner’s loss. As such, exceptions to the accrual of demurrage must be clearly articulated in the charterparty. The courts have consistently upheld this principle, reinforcing the need for precise and specific language in exceptions clauses.

For example, in a case involving the Centrocon Strike Clause, the court held that a strike occurring after the vessel had gone on demurrage did not excuse the charterer from paying demurrage, despite the fact that the strike was beyond the charterer's control. The court reasoned that the charterer had already breached the contract by exceeding the laytime, and therefore, the strike, which occurred after the breach, did not affect the charterer's liability for demurrage.

This case illustrates the importance of understanding the interplay between exceptions clauses and the general principles of demurrage. While exceptions clauses can provide some protection for charterers, they must be carefully drafted to ensure they apply to the specific circumstances of the case.

Practical Implications of Demurrage Clauses

The practical implications of demurrage clauses extend beyond the legal principles to the day-to-day operations of shipping companies and charterers. For shipowners, demurrage provides a crucial safeguard against the financial losses associated with delays in loading or discharging cargo. It ensures that they are compensated for the loss of use of their vessel, allowing them to recover some of the income they would have earned had the vessel been able to proceed on its voyage or be chartered to another party.

For charterers, on the other hand, demurrage represents a potential financial liability that must be carefully managed. The key to minimizing this liability lies in effective planning and coordination of loading and discharging operations. By ensuring that all necessary arrangements are in place before the vessel arrives, charterers can avoid delays that could trigger demurrage.

Moreover, charterers should pay close attention to the terms of the charterparty, particularly the laytime and demurrage provisions. Understanding the specific triggers for demurrage and the circumstances under which exceptions may apply is essential for avoiding unexpected costs. In some cases, it may be advisable for charterers to negotiate more favorable terms, such as longer laytime or lower demurrage rates, to reduce their exposure to demurrage.

For example, in The Sagatind case, the charterer failed to load a full and complete cargo within the agreed laytime, resulting in a reduced freight payment due to the vessel being loaded to its winter marks. The court held that the charterer was liable not only for the demurrage but also for the lost freight, emphasizing the potential financial consequences of failing to meet laytime obligations.

Conclusion: Navigating the Complexities of Demurrage

Demurrage is a complex and often contentious issue in maritime law, with significant financial implications for both shipowners and charterers. Understanding the principles that govern demurrage, including the concept of absolute liability, the "once on demurrage, always on demurrage" rule, and the role of exceptions clauses, is essential for anyone involved in the chartering of vessels.

By carefully drafting and negotiating charterparty terms, and by managing loading and discharging operations effectively, parties can minimize the risk of disputes and ensure that their interests are protected. Whether you are a shipowner seeking to enforce your right to demurrage or a charterer looking to avoid unnecessary costs, a thorough understanding of demurrage is crucial for success in the maritime industry.

As the cases discussed here illustrate, the courts take a strict approach to demurrage, often placing the burden of liability squarely on the charterer once laytime has been exceeded. However, there is also room for negotiation and flexibility, particularly when it comes to the drafting of exceptions clauses and the interpretation of specific contractual provisions. By taking a proactive approach to these issues, parties can avoid costly disputes and ensure that their maritime ventures run smoothly and profitably.

In conclusion, demurrage is not just a technical legal term but a critical component of maritime contracts that has real-world implications for the profitability and efficiency of shipping operations. By understanding the legal principles, case law, and practical considerations that govern demurrage, parties can navigate the complexities of this area of law with confidence and avoid the pitfalls that can lead to costly delays and disputes.

0 notes