#you either have morals or you do not. trying to argue with people like rad fire vixen is just a waste of time.

[swagging-back-to]

how can anyone with morals think it's okay to kill and eat dead animals, all of which are in the infant-very young stages of life, is truly beyond me.

[whitehotharlots]

The point is control

Whenever we think or talk about censorship, we usually conceptualize it as certain types of speech being somehow disallowed: maybe (rarely) it's made formally illegal by the government, maybe it's banned in certain venues, maybe the FCC will fine you if you broadcast it, maybe your boss will fire you if she learns of it, maybe your friends will stop talking to you if they see what you've written, etc. etc. 

This understanding engenders a lot of mostly worthless discussion precisely because it's so broad. Pedants--usually arguing in favor of banning a certain work or idea--will often argue that speech protections only apply to direct, government bans. These bans, when they exist, are fairly narrow and apply only to those rare speech acts in which other people are put in danger by speech (yelling the N-word in a crowded theater, for example). This pedantry isn't correct even within its own terms, however, because plenty of people get in trouble for making threats. The FBI has an entire entrapment program dedicated to getting mentally ill muslims and rednecks to post stuff like "Death 2 the Super bowl!!" on twitter, arresting them, and the doing a press conference about how they heroically saved the world from terrorism. 

Another, more recent pedant's trend is claiming that, actually, you do have freedom of speech; you just don't have freedom from the consequences of speech. This logic is eerily dictatorial and ignores the entire purpose of speech protections. Like, even in the history's most repressive regimes, people still technically had freedom of speech but not from consequences. Those leftist kids who the nazis beheaded for speaking out against the war were, by this logic, merely being held accountable. 

The two conceptualizations of censorship I described above are, 99% of the time, deployed by people who are arguing in favor of a certain act of censorship but trying to exempt themselves from the moral implications of doing so. Censorship is rad when they get to do it, but they realize such a solipsism seems kinda icky so they need to explain how, actually, they're not censoring anybody, what they're doing is an act of righteous silencing that's a totally different matter. Maybe they associate censorship with groups they don't like, such as nazis or religious zealots. Maybe they have a vague dedication toward Enlightenment principles and don't want to be regarded as incurious dullards. Most typically, they're just afraid of the axe slicing both ways, and they want to make sure that the precedent they're establishing for others will not be applied to themselves.

Anyone who engages with this honestly for more than a few minutes will realize that censorship is much more complicated, especially in regards to its informal and social dimensions. We can all agree that society simply would not function if everyone said whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted. You might think your boss is a moron or your wife's dress doesn't look flattering, but you realize that such tidbits are probably best kept to yourself. 

Again, this is a two-way proposition that everyone is seeking to balance. Do you really want people to verbalize every time they dislike or disagree with you? I sure as hell don't. And so, as part of a social compact, we learn to self-censor. Sometimes this is to the detriment of ourselves and our communities. Most often, however, it's just a price we have to pay in order to keep things from collapsing. 

But as systems, large and small, grow increasingly more insane and untenable, so do the comportment standards of speech. The disconnect between America's reality and the image Americans have of themselves has never been more plainly obvious, and so striving for situational equanimity is no longer good enough. We can't just pretend cops aren't racist and the economy isn't run by venal retards or that the government places any value on the life of its citizens. There's too much evidence that contradicts all that, and the evidence is too omnipresent. There's too many damn internet videos, and only so many of them can be cast as Russian disinformation. So, sadly, we must abandon our old ways of communicating and embrace instead systems that are even more unstable, repressive, and insane than the ones that were previously in place.

Until very, very recently, nuance and big-picture, balanced thinking were considered signs of seriousness, if not intelligence. Such considerations were always exploited by shitheads to obfuscate things that otherwise would have seemed much less ambiguous, yes, but this fact alone does not mitigate the potential value of such an approach to understanding the world--especially since the stuff that's been offered up to replace it is, by every worthwhile metric, even worse.

So let's not pretend I'm Malcolm Gladwell or some similarly slimy asshole seeking to "both sides" a clearcut moral issue. Let's pretend I am me. Flash back to about a year ago, when there was real, widespread, and sustained support for police reform. Remember that? Seems like forever ago, man, but it was just last year... anyhow, now, remember what happened? Direct, issues-focused attempts to reform policing were knocked down. Blotted out. Instead, we were told two things: 1) we had to repeat the slogan ABOLISH THE POLICE, and 2) we had to say it was actually very good and beautiful and nonviolent and valid when rioters burned down poor neighborhoods.

Now, in a relatively healthy discourse, it might have been possible for someone to say something like "while I agree that American policing is heavily violent and racist and requires substantial reforms, I worry that taking such an absolutist point of demanding abolition and cheering on the destruction of city blocks will be a political non-starter." This statement would have been, in retrospect, 100000000% correct. But could you have said it, in any worthwhile manner? If you had said something along those lines, what would the fallout had been? Would you have lost friends? Your job? Would you have suffered something more minor, like getting yelled at, told your opinion did not matter? Would your acquaintances still now--a year later, after their political project has failed beyond all dispute--would they still defame you in "whisper networks," never quite articulating your verbal sins but nonetheless informing others that you are a dangerous and bad person because one time you tried to tell them how utterly fucking self-destructive they were being? It is undeniably clear that last year's most-elevated voices were demanding not reform but catharsis. I hope they really had fun watching those immigrant-owned bodegas burn down, because that’s it, that will forever be remembered as the most palpable and consequential aspect of their shitty, selfish movement. We ain't reforming shit. Instead, we gave everyone who's already in power a blank check to fortify that power to a degree you and I cannot fully fathom.

But, oh, these people knew what they were doing. They were good little boys and girls. They have been rewarded with near-total control of the national discourse, and they are all either too guilt-ridden or too stupid to realize how badly they played into the hands of the structures they were supposedly trying to upend.

And so left-liberalism is now controlled by people whose worldview is equal parts superficial and incoherent. This was the only possible outcome that would have let the system continue to sustain itself in light of such immense evidence of its unsustainability without resulting in reform, so that's what has happened.

But... okay, let's take a step back. Let's focus on what I wanted to talk about when I started this.

I came across a post today from a young man who claimed that his high school English department head had been removed from his position and had his tenure revoked for refusing to remove three books from classrooms. This was, of course, fallout from the ongoing debate about Critical Race Theory. Two of those books were Marjane Satropi's Persepolis and, oh boy, The Diary of Anne Frank. Fuck. Jesus christ, fuck.

Now, here's the thing... When Persepolis was named, I assumed the bannors were anti-CRT. The graphic novel does not deal with racism all that much, at least not as its discussed contemporarily, but it centers an Iranian girl protagonist and maybe that upset Republican types. But Anne Frank? I'm sorry, but the most likely censors there are liberal identiarians who believe that teaching her diary amounts to centering the suffering of a white woman instead of talking about the One Real Racism, which must always be understood in an American context. The super woke cult group Black Hammer made waves recently with their #FuckAnneFrank campaign... you'd be hard pressed to find anyone associated with the GOP taking a firm stance against the diary since, oh, about 1975 or so.

So which side was it? That doesn't matter. What matters is, I cannot find out.

Now, pro-CRT people always accuse anti-CRT people of not knowing what CRT is, and then after making such accusations they always define CRT in a way that absolutely is not what CRT is. Pro-CRTers default to "they don't want  students to read about slavery or racism." This is absolutely not true, and absolutely not what actual CRT concerns itself with. Slavery and racism have been mainstays of American history curriucla since before I was born. Even people who barely paid attention in school would admit this, if there were any more desire for honesty in our discourse. 

My high school history teacher was a southern "lost causer" who took the south's side in the Civil War but nonetheless provided us with the most descriptive and unapologetic understandings of slavery's brutalities I had heard up until that point. He also unambiguously referred to the nuclear attacks on Hiroshmia and Nagasaki as "genocidal." Why? Because most people's politics are idiosyncratic, and because you cannot genuinely infer a person to believe one thing based on their opinion of another, tangentially related thing. The totality of human understanding used to be something open-minded people prided themselves on being aware of, believe it or not...

This is the problem with CRT. This is is the motivation behind the majority of people who wish to ban it. It’s not because they are necessarily racist themselves. It’s because they recognize, correctly, that the now-ascendant frames for understanding social issues boils everything down to a superficial patina that denies not only the realities of the systems they seek to upend but the very humanity of the people who exist within them. There is no humanity without depth and nuance and complexities and contradictions. When you argue otherwise, people will get mad and fight back. 

And this is the most bitter irony of this idiotic debate: it was never about not wanting to teach the sinful or embarrassing parts of our history. That was a different debate, one that was settled and won long ago. It is instead an immense, embarrassing overreach on behalf of people who have bullied their way to complete dominance of their spheres of influence within media and academe assuming they could do the same to everyone else. Some of its purveyors may have convinced themselves that getting students to admit complicity in privilege will prevent police shootings, sure. But I know these people. I’ve spoken to them at length. I’ve read their work. The vast, vast majority of them aren’t that stupid. The point is to exert control. The point is to make sure they stay in charge and that nothing changes. The point is failure. 

[myngxy-sue]

I began writing this thing since last night. It’s just practice and I have no plans on continuing it. However, if you guys do like it enough, I might make it into a full on story. For now, it’s just a short story written in my self-insert’s POV.  This entire thing is just angst. There are references to Bible in this and it’s 1198 words long. That’s the best warning I could give for now.

I arrived in Devildom quite unceremoniously the night before.

For the longest time, I didn’t understand why I was chosen amongst millions of people on earth. All I knew was that I was sitting amongst six demons and I had to tolerate them for an entire year.

I was conflicted. There was a lovely plate of scrambled eggs, bacon and some small sausages sitting right in front of me. It looked perfect unlike my dad’s cooking which was always either burnt or undercooked. But I wasn’t sure if I should eat. I was in a strange place, surrounded by men who probably didn’t know what morals were. You can’t blame me for not trusting them right off the bat, right?

It was tormenting me. I refused to eat dinner with them when I first arrived so I was quite hungry. Yet I only poked at my breakfast. The night before, I promised myself I wouldn’t interact with any of these demons unless absolutely necessary. I supposed that this would be one of the instances.

I asked whether my food was safe to eat. Lucifer, the eldest brother, assured me that it was and went on to elaborate that my food was made with ingredients from the human world so I didn’t need to worry. A part of me didn’t believe him. Nonetheless, I ended up eating something for once.

The food was fantastic. The egg wasn’t salty and the bacon wasn’t oily. It reminded me of the breakfast I had at a hotel my family took me to when I was younger. But my face was as hard as stone and I didn’t comment on the cooking.

At least I knew the cooking wasn’t going to kill me. 

Breakfast was quite chaotic. Beelzebub began eating the tableware and Mammon was arguing with his little brothers. If Lucifer hadn’t been there, I’m sure it would’ve escalated into a physical fight.

As I brought another piece of bacon to my mouth, I began to wonder how I was picked. I was a Christian. Granted, I was probably an insult to all Christians out there but I still went to church often enough and I believed in God.

Perhaps this was punishment for all my misdeeds, I thought. Maybe I should’ve repented and truly become a good Christian when I had the chance. But what did I do that was so bad? Was it the fact that I lied too much for my own good? Did I indulge in pornography too much? Maybe it was my laziness and how it affected my grades in school.

Yet again, when I thought about it, none of my sins were horrid enough to warrant something like this. And even if I was that awful, I wasn’t supposed to get punished severely. Jesus died so we’d be forgiven for all of our sins no matter what, isn’t that right?

I didn’t know anymore. Throughout breakfast and the walk to school, I was trying to rationalize my situation. However, I only confused myself even more. The demons did do a few nice things for me.

Before I “settled” into Devildom, I was allowed to contact my family and friends so I could explain my situation. My father would allow me to explain myself because I was pretty much in Hell so he recounted every “misdeed” I did to him. Mom actually listened to me and let me know that I will be in her prayers. Saying goodbye to my friends and my sister was the hardest part. I think that was the point I started crying. If they hadn’t been supervising me, I would’ve gladly stayed there forever.

My granny’s call was the strangest. She was her usual, vigorous self when I greeted her. When I explained I was in Devildom for an exchange program, she went silent. I was sure she’d hang up on me. But she didn’t. 

I called her expecting a much harsher condemnation than the one I got from my father, at least until she’d allow me to explain myself. She was a devoted Catholic, after all. But the only thing I was hearing were footsteps, probably her’s. Then a door slammed shut.

“Sue…” My granny began in a whisper, “I know that you’re scared right now but I want you to know that everything is going to be alright, in the name of Jesus. I will keep you in my prayers and I can assure you that he will take good care of you.”

She prayed for me then, which I was grateful for. However, there was only one thing on my mind then.

“Who is he?” I asked when I was sure she was done with her prayer.

I was sure she was about to tell me but then I heard the door opening and my uncle ranting about something, probably my aunt telling him what to do.

“Oh God, Immanuel!!” Was all my granny got to say before the call was cut off.

“Granny…?” I muttered, even though I knew she was gone.

They didn’t allow me to call her back. Still, it was nice of them to let me call to begin with. I was sure that would be one of their last acts of kindness towards me though.

The demons might be kind afterwards but I told myself to keep my guard up. I mustn’t get close to any demon lest they take advantage of me. One already seemed like he’d eat me when given the opportunity. And don’t get me started on Asmodeus. Leviathan wanted nothing to do with me and I was okay with that. Satan was sensible and had a love of books but I had to stay away. He was, after all, the Avatar of Wrath.

As for Mammon and Lucifer, keeping away from them was going to be difficult. Mammon was assigned to be my guardian. Even then, Lucifer still kept a close eye on me. No one had faith in Mammon which made me question the elder brother’s decision.

Mammon may be the second oldest but he behaved and was treated like the runt of the litter. Sometimes, I even felt sorry for him. But it was so easy to get disillusioned. If he’d stop causing trouble for one day, I might’ve forgotten that he was a demon then.

I wasn’t going to be in any trouble, I thought. I’d go through my entire year in Devildom having little to do with the demons and keeping to myself. I saw no reason to leave the comfort of my room. Everything I needed was there and Lucifer would just go and buy whatever I needed.

My first day at RAD would be the only day I wouldn’t take anything in. I was too caught up in my thoughts to notice how my classmates gawked at me and whatnot. Throughout the day, I had a clenching pain in my chest. I couldn’t cry anymore. All I could do now was get used to my situation. As I apathetically went to pick up my soiled lunch from out in the rain, I wondered how long it would be before I reached my breaking point.

[kallypsowrites]

Are Adapted Characters Seperate from their Original Counterparts?

So here’s a post that has been on my mind for quite some time, partially because, after being in the Game of Thrones fandom pretty regularly, I see people compare the book and show characters a lot. This is understandable as changes through adaptation are inevitable and sometimes a character can be changed for the worse or for the better, depending on your preference. But today I want to address the question: should adapted characters be viewed as an EXTENSION of their book character or should they be able to stand on their own?

Before I get into the weeds of this argument, imagine you are me. I’m a seventeen year old high school student and my brother has decided to show me this rad new show which has already aired two seasons and is several months off of airing the third season. Game of Thrones. Naturally, I am excited and I dive right into watching with him. And of course I love it. I’m a fantasy nut and there’s magic and dragons but also POLITICS and really intriguing character dynamics and dialogue and moral grey areas. All the stuff I like! I know there are books of course, but I want to experience the show and be surprised as it comes out, so I hold off reading the books. In fact, I hold off reading the series all the way through until after season seven airs (in an effort to make the long wait for season 8 less painful. It didn’t work. I read too fast).

What’s important here is that for several years, the show was my ONLY CONCEPT of all of these characters. The book versions, to me, didn’t exist. All I had access to was the characters on the screen. And that’s all many of the GA has access too. Let’s face it, the books are bricks and, for that matter, dense. A lot of people aren’t going to take the time to read them, especially the strangely paced and structured book four and five. So what does that mean? The characters on the screen have to stand on their own. And therefore, you can easily argue that the onscreen characters are seperate entities.

There’s been a lot of talk in the fandom about the show creators white washing male characters and ‘greying’ female characters. That is certainly an issue worth talking about and I’m not trying to discourage that conversation, nor am I trying to say that we shouldn’t talk about adaptation changes and focus on the books and tv show as different entities. They are in conversation with each other. But I do want to address the fact that just because something is present in the book does not mean that watchers of the tv show have to acknowledge it as ‘canon’...especially if the show never mentions it. They are, in many ways, seperate, particularly since the TV show has moved ahead of the books.

Conversely, this means the TV show can’t rely on the books as part of their ‘canon’ to take short cuts. Because if it isn’t made clear in the show and can only be understood by a book reader, then the show has failed in some way. The TV show has, in fact, dropped the ball on a couple of prophesies in this way. The fact that they did not include the ‘valonqar’ section of Cersei’s prophesy takes away from her reasons for hating Tyrion and, for that matter, doesn’t guaruntee either of her brothers will be her killer. It wasn’t in the prophesy in the show, so it really doesn’t matter if it was in the books. Its not part of show canon.

Even more egregious is Mirri Maz Dur’s prophesy to Daenerys. In the books, she says that Daenerys will never bare a living child again. In the show, she does not say anything of the sort. And yet Dany says to Jon that ‘the witch who murdered her husband’ said she would never bare a child again. That’s the show straight up making something up for cheap forshadowing and if the casual watcher went back to view the first season they might be understandably confused. Even if it happens in the book IT MUST BE PRESENT IN THE SHOW in order to effect the show.

This applies to character interpretation as well. And as an example, let’s talk about Tyrion.

The Moral White Washing of Tyrion Lannister

Tyrion Lannister is one of the most commonly cited characters in the conversation about moral white washing, and with good reason. Tyrion is never the best person, but he’s certainly not the worst. Being born a dwarf, he is an underdog who has been ridiculed all his life. But he’s also his father’s son and spends much of the series manipulating people in order to gain power in King’s Landing or elsewhere. It just happens that he is a better person than a lot of the other characters surrounding him. It’s not that he’s not sympathetic, but he’s not an angel.

He, however, has a much darker character arc following the death of his father and his Essos stuff, in particular, really delves into the dark corners of his mind. His father’s cruelty shows itself more than ever and being in his head is almost difficult. In the show, this Essos arc is effectively deleted. Tyrion never meets Young Griff, never meets Illyrio, spends much less time wallowing in the darkness, and actually meets Daenerys pretty dang quickly. And, considering the fact that we’re not in his head, we’re not really exposed to any of his thoughts. It’s left to us to decide how he feels about the situation based on Peter Dinklage’s acting.

But the most contested aspect of Tyrion’s character is his relationship with Sansa and how he treats her throughout the books vs the show. In the books, Tyrion  thinks often about how he is attracted to her. Honestly, it’s uncomfortable at many points, considering that Sansa is like...twelve. And he straight up molests her. He doesn’t rape her on their wedding night, but I don’t think we would call him person of the year for that. He sees an opportunity in being married to her and he’s not completely repulsed by the idea.

In the show, it’s a very different story. Tyrion protects Sansa from Joffrey before their engagement (and even from the Hound in a deleted scene), and his kindness to her does not seem to be motivated in any way by attraction. When he is engaged to her, he is very clearly repulsed, and it is painted much more like him being forced into it. He does not make any physical advances on her and in his scenes with Shae, he makes clear that he sees her as a child and is therefore not interested. Again, because we are not in his head, he are able to interpret this at face value if we prefer. That he isn’t attracted to her and is only doing this to satisfy his father.

At the wedding, he prevents the bedding and, while making a few very crude comments in order to play off threatening the king, does not touch Sansa. Does not even let her undress all the way before he says that they don’t have to do this. And he really doesn’t seem all that bitter about it. Because we don’t have access to his thoughts, we never hear him lamenting that his child bride will never want him.

All of Tyrion’s interactions with Sansa on the show, especially after their marriage, are that of someone trying to make a girl’s life slightly more tolerable even though she is a prisoner. He sympathizes with her and is genuinely horrified by her situation. And he never makes a move even once or complains about it. Because she’s a child. It’s easy for show only watchers to come out of watching this relationship with the opinion of: yeah. Tyrion’s a decent guy. Even though it would be expected and accepted in this society for him to press Sansa, he doesn’t, and that’s cool of him. I’m in NO WAY saying that this means Sansa owes him anything. He’s a Lannister and the Lannisters destroyed her family and if she doesn’t want him, she doesn’t want him. End of story. But Tyrion is, overall, a more sympathetic and better person for how he is portrayed in the show. And you can’t blame show only watchers for seeing him in that way.

Of course this is a double edged sword. In the books, it seems that Tyrion is headed toward some sort of dark/tragic end, and his darker personality earns this. But if the show wants to give him the same ending it might seem very jarring. Because the show has not earned making Tyrion a villain. It has not given him an arc that makes that narratively satisfying because of the white washing. Now maybe Tyrion will get a perfectly find ending or at least remain as a hero. It’s possible that he could have some sort of redemption in the books as well. But we’ll have to wait until season 8 to see how that ends up.

There are a lot of characters that have diverged from their show counterparts. Lena Heady has imbued Cersei Lannister with some very genuinely sympathetic moments and the pathos she brings to her role has moved me on multiple occasions. She also plays Cersei as more in control than she seems in the books, very much her father’s daughter. The book, again, has Cersei’s thoughts and we get a view into her increasingly unstable and paranoid brain. The two characters feel very seperate from each other so conversations and interpretations may vary depend on the version.

The whole ‘lack of thoughts’ thing also makes Jaime easier to stomach in the show. Many of his thoughts are shocking and kind of vile in the books. Nikolaj gives Jaime more pathos and softens him. Again, maybe it’s moral white washing, but you cannot blame a show only watcher for that (like me, who fell in love with Jaime long before I even touched the books). I know people like that Jaime got away from Cersei in the books but that was much more motivated by his own jealousy as opposed to any moral problems he has with her actions, and abandoning her to suffer at the hands of the high sparrow always left a sort of sour taste in my mouth. And I say this as a JaimexBrienne shipper, which I’ll talk about later on. But first--

The Greying of Daenerys

@rainhadaenerys made a pretty extensive post on the differences between show and book Dany which I’ll link here . It’s highly show critical so bear that in mind, but one of the things she mentions is that Daenerys is consistently made more impulsive, less competent and ‘greyer’ as a character. There is a more of a sense, especially in season seven, that she must be ‘controlled’ by her advisors and she rarely makes plans of her own but rather listens to other make plans and decides based off of that. Lots of valid points made in this post.

But if we were to interpret the show only and look at Daenerys as a character seperate from her very different book counterpart, it begins to make sense why the dark dany theory became so popular, especially after season seven. I’m not going to argue my stance on that theory here, but suffice it to say there are a lot of show!dany characteristics that COULD potentially lend themselves to a tragic fall from grace. Though you could make the argument that this is just a writing error on D&D’s, that does not make the interpretation invalid. One could just as easily argue that yes, the transistion is clumsy but that George will write an even better and more believable fall from grace. Again, not saying it will happen. I know a lot of people on all sides of the debate following. I’m just saying that you can’t blame people for differing interpretations based on the show alone.

Posts like the one linked above are great for thinking about the show in context of what it is adapted from. But in a New Critical reading (which focuses on the text itself), we could analyze the show only to extrapolate that perhaps Daenerys is not going to be the hero everyone expects. It’s equally possible to extrapolate that she will be the hero and I’ve written a post here on the various interpretations of Dany so I won’t go too in to detail on this post. But it’s just another example of a show character needing to stand on their own seperate from the books.

The Inconsistency of Arya

Sometimes an adapted character is different from their book counterpart. And sometimes they are inconsistent in their own adaptation. Such is the case of Arya Stark. She’s one of my favorite characters and despite the butchering of her Braavos arc, I still took a lot out of her stuff there when I first watched it. Watching Arya struggle to hold onto her name and her very identity is quite emotional. For the most part, show! Arya might be a bit different but she’s consistent with herself.

Except for fucking season seven? Arya’s arc with Sansa featured some truly trash dialogue (from both characters but especially Arya). And I have nothing against these characters clashing. Far from it. It makes sense for their to be tension. But it was very bad tension and Arya literally threatening to murder her sister and steal her face was one of the more ‘what’ moments of the show.

I bring this up to say that while it is valid to interpret a character based only on their show version, sometimes there is still bad writing within that version that one has to...deal with. And it’s important for a character to be consistent within it’s story.

There are other examples of this besides Arya’s season seven stuff. The Dorne bullshit, for instance, is the canon show Dorne stuff and all of the intriguing Dorne stuff in the book is irrelevant to a show interpretation.

And then there was that trashy season four scene where the directors UNKNOWINGLY filmed Jaime raping Cersei?? That was especially out of character for show Jaime and apparently the show runners thought so too because they didn’t even think they were filming a rape scene. Because they’re dumb sometimes.

Anyway, this is just in here to assure you that I’m not forbidding ‘the show has bad writing’ criticisms because it super does. But sometimes you don’t even need to compare it to the book to see that.

In Conclusion

We are ALL going to view media in different way. There is no right way to consume it. And certainly if you want to evaluate the show based on what happened in the books go right ahead. I’m not here to force anyone to read the show or the books in a certain way.

On the other hand, in some way, the show and books are seperate entities that must function on their own. And because they are so different in some ways, that makes for more differing opinions. Some people really like Tyrion because of his show verse self. Some people wonder if Daenerys will go dark based on her show self.

Me personally, I’m a big Jaime and Brienne shipper. The other day I saw someone who didn’t like their ship mention the power imbalance and age gap in the book--something I of course didn’t notice during the show because the two characters seemed close in age and on pretty equal footing with each other most of the time. And that person’s opinion is totally valid! We’re just both viewing the pairing through a different medium.

This got a little long and rambly, so I just want to throw out there that this not anti any particular character. Just another one of those, it’s okay to have differing opinions and biases and stuff. Enjoy your Game of Thrones, nerds! I’ll be right there along with you!

[paganchristian]

A baby mockingbird singing in this high-pitched cheepy voice to its mother, practicing flying lessons with her and wanting to be fed, which we saw one day at that walk by the sparkling polluted water.  It makes me think, of the cuteness, the brightness, the liveliness, vitality, and yet also vulnerability, of the world, of people, human  nature and culture in general.  But while it makes me think of that it also makes me think the vulnerability is also strength, as they say.  There is at least some strength in vulnerability, safety in numbers, and security in humility, the rock bottom is the place from which we can stably ground ourselves, and see just like the place the water flows is the lowest and the most widespread, covering a flat area or a deepest crevice, water flows so.  To spark thoughts from quotes I’ve read, but don’t try to get right or even eloquent, sure I’m stumbling over words, poorly worded.  Quotes by J. K. Rowling and Lao Tzu, about rock bottom and the low, flowing nature of water, the unconquerable, submissive, malleable, shapeless water, any shape water, morphable, mercurial, infinitely creative, substance-less, spineless, simple,..  essential, vital, life force, well I don’t know, think I carried the quote into too much wordiness, got away from what Lao Tzu said, probably though of course in the Tao Te Ching he says many things and I only recall snippets of this or that and not like I rad it all, mostly too incomprehensible for real life for me, and even more of that bound, cornered feeling of judgment and assumption, morals I can’t apply or make sense of, like most religious things, but I found a book that helped me a lot more which as 365 Tao by Deng Ming-Dao and then I was getting all of his books I could until something I read cast some uncertainty on some things related to all that, or some of his books maybe, but not that I know, and I still like the books.  I’m not here to criticize, argue or debate, just vaguely tell about my own personal journey and what has shaped it, mostly to try to make sense for myself and let associations and memories and new angles spark new possibilities.

The world feels so loud, hyperactive, productive, bright, light, over-positive, over-confident, overly self-assured, narrow-minded, happily so, oftentimes, or reactive, happily reactive, wrapped up in a reactive stance, full of facts, knowledge and prestige, arrogantly so, or full of doubt, credulity, confusion, self-loathingly so, naively, and very much lost, very much easily ready to just follow whoever looks like they might know better or maybe to reject anyone who doesn’t conform into one’s comfortable simplistic ideas (that though, one thinks are complex and complete, not simplistic at all), and all these things wrapped into one, or sometimes just one or the other.  Often rushing, rushing, competing, showing off, look how busy I am, busy with work or busy with play, but busy always, look how active and productive my life is.  Or even not busy with work or play, but busy with the opposites, whatever those are thought of as being,.. so busy studying or learning or thinking or being creative and insightful and intuitive,...  Or, busy being spiritual, busy meditating, or even if it’s said to be lazy being spiritual,... laziness embraced and glorified, look how Zen and without a care I am,.. look at me.  Look how transcendent and blissful or peaceful and content and accepting of the mundane tedium I am,..  But it’s not like I’m above all that busy-ness or busy-being-lazy-ness  I’m prone to some of this, much of this, depending on the time, the events of my life, the conditions, just like the Buddhists say, that conditions make a person who they are and the wheel of life, Samsara keeps us stuck, and we aren’t better or different than others who seem worse, because in the wrong set of conditions we would be the same.  

Anyway, that pretty much covers everything, all those ways of being busy, even being busy as we just “Be” and not busy doing.  Everything has to fit somewhere in there but it’s more about how balanced it all is, how authentic, how real and true and appropriate for the situation given, and that shows if it’s a good kind of busy-ness or a good kind of way to just Be, or not, how much and when.  And it’s in the eyes of the beholder, and we have to subjectively say what feels right, even if another can see we’re harmful but if we don’t see it only we can choose and judge and no one really knows how maybe it’s the best for us even if it’s harmful since we can’t cope and find another way but there are benefits despite the harm, maybe benefits we absolutely need and can’t do without, so yeah...  All of that may be true, but still, I need something far, far more than relativism in my own individual life situation right now.

But still I have to see, how can I try to get a handle on all this,... The world feels so ephemeral, so slight, slippery and slipping through my fingers while my own life I try to hold my loved ones, God, and my family, and shape them so they will have a ledge to stand on and not just be sucked up into the wheel of Samsara and suffering, but not either be fooled into thinking they have transcended it when in fact they’ve just dissociated from reality in a harmful and delusional way, as I think that some of these spiritual things can be, or else entrenched themselves into an arrogant and reactive stance, narrowing their views, beliefs and values to feel better than it all, even if they appear to be very active, engaged in moral causes and practices.  How can I keep this from happening.  Or how on the other hand, can I keep them from slipping into nihilism, relativistic extremes and confusion?  

I see what has helped me after my own long many years and decades even of struggle.  And it’s not like I’m beyond reproach, at all.  It’s not like I’m beyond being disrupted and pulled off my fragile ledge of security and goodness that I’ve found, however very imperfect it is still.  I know it’s still precarious, but it’s something, and how could I wish or hope I might pass it on to those who I love and stabilize it for my own self so I won’t lose it irretrievably or so I hope.  

How when my whole path has been almost like one of extreme contemplative isolation?  That is not even possible for most people nor would they ever choose it if it was, for most people, because I’m not like most people at all.  What do I have to offer that they want to take, that they can use and see in such a way to benefit and not be harmed or led astray?  What like that do I have?  I want to give books, I want to give my own writings and the books of others.  I want to give practices.  But none of those things feel as if the others would even take the time to immerse enough to deeply see the insights in them.  None of them feel like they’d be given much thought at all, necessarily.  Maybe with my daughter, but she’s too young to see how she’ll become when she’s older, and for now she is far from being able to absorb them at her age, of course, almost ten years now.  Though they began training religious people at a very young age in many cultures, traditionally, but does that mean I could without doing harm or would it be just more of the things that are causing me so much grief and confusion in religion, that I’m just now hoping that I’m finding a way out of that tangle of mistaken ideas and correcting it?  So even if I could teach her from a young age, certain things, what things?  Is there a precedent of such new and open minded ways to teach kids from a young age?  Or would I have to forge my own unique open minded set of ideas to teach her? 

I don’t know but I want to teach her enough before she is beyond the age of being very influenced by me any more and she gets so whirled up in the mire of rush and performing for others, competing and impressing and fitting in and consuming the many ideas and pressures and judgments and crises that are presented as fact, and she has to then see what to believe or consider or ignore and there is only so much time to do any of that while you’re growing up, getting closer and closer to adulthood, trying to find your place to live in the world, when you’re grown up, trying to find friends and people you can count on when you are and adult, hoping to find love one day, a lasting love, as many or most are, and so on..  most get so caught up in this whirl of confusion or alternatively, in stagnation, escapism, just coping just to get by, with all the stress, and not really becoming wiser or growing, because it’s all they can do just to deal with the confusion and pain and it’s just scraping by in life, maybe even stuck in such a position for the rest of their whole lives.  But of course, making the best of it they can, putting on a happy face and being brave because why complain if we’re all in the same chaotic sea, in the same or similarly insufficient rafts, life boats, why complain if this is all life seems to be?  And so it felt for me for decades, except my particular lifeboat felt a little or a lot different from many, because I was so very introverted, isolated, contemplative and just inclined to do and consider differnt ideas and practices than the vast majority of people.  But still for so long, I was lost, and still I am still so precarious.  

I just want to find how to reach people, how to find a place and a way to fit in the world, and belong and be safe in the larger structure and order so  that it doesn’t dash me to bits.  And I just want to find also a way to pass on my knowledge, and insight, practices, healing, bliss, wonder, beauty, grace, goodness, that I’ve found to those who I love, at the very least, if no one else, if I can’t reach any farther than that, at least to someone, the ones most likely to be able to receive it, it seems, because they do have a lot in common with me, they are open, loving, caring, wise, thoughtful, in many ways, about things that I feel are often rejected or ignored by most people.  They aren’t totally open, or I could just share it all and it would be obvious, but still they seem much more open than most anyone, in reality.  Many are open in theory but not in practice, open to talk but not deep talk, open to ideas but not complex elaboration of the ideas, open to accepting but not to engaging or really understanding, so I feel on the outskirts of every open-minded seeming community that goes into the deeper things.  Even among them I feel excluded and ignored and rejected to a great degree, unwanted, irrelevant.  But with my own family, it’s different.  We aren’t just family, with all the ties, the life history, the love and hope, and continuity and always being there that that usually implies, to some extent.  We are also close, loving, much in common, understanding so much, nonjudgmental, open minded in so many ways far beyond the norm of society at all generally.  Even when the coldness, anger, bitterness, and avoidant resentment and self-loathing can all be there, with my closest loved one, besides my child.  And even with my child, still so young, dreamy, flying from one thing to another, active, distracted, as children often can be, seeking excitement and chaos, freedom, play, imagination, spontaneity and impulse.  I do not feel it’s really my place to try to redirect such bold and free and active impulses, yet it feels to me that I worry if it will take her away from the more contemplative path that I feel holds almost all of the wisdom that I could offer.  But children aren’t contemplative generally, are they?  And to try to make her go on that path too early might be wrong, so what age and how?  And maybe is it right, ever, if she isn’t inclined towards it?  How can I see if she is inclined towards it, how can I see if she has that gift and that sort of personality or whatever?  Because I think maybe it could be there, just latent, untapped, and how can I see if it’s there without trying to push her into this or give her too many practices that would unintentionally shape her and take her from her own natural gifts and true personality?  I feel my own personality was shaped away from who I was meant to be and ever after I felt lost, depressed, and in no way will I ever do that to her if I can help it.  But it feels like maybe there are some ways I can give here these opportunities and see if she is able to absorb them well and fit in with it all well and enjoy and thrive in it.  Maybe.  Just enough of these practices and ideas, and not too much to where it shapes too much her so impressionable childhood mindset and nature.  

As for my relative, can I ever find a way to reach them?  Can the rush and skating on the surface that most people look to me like they’re doing, when I see them, can that ever really be reached by me?  If I could write a whole series of books on all the things that would help them, and it had the cure, but they are never going to sit with the material enough to deeply perceive the truths in them, and it’s not just books you can skate through, but you have to really sit with them and return to them, turning them over and over , over time, seeing different angles and things you didn’t even notice at first, looking and looking again and again, over much time, many breaks, patient and slow and peaceful,... and if they will never even consider such a thing, and look with extreme skepticism and resentment on the mere ideas of such things, looking on such slow contemplation with arrogance and scoffing at it, supposed wisdom is seen as foolish, arrogant, and out of touch with realty,.. and indeed I think that often spiritual and philosophical ideas are truly out of touch, arbitrary order, unnecessary rules, deluded, narrow-minded so I see how they can assume such things about it all.  But is there a way I can reach them with these things that are only reached through deeper contemplation or s it just like I’m a deep water creature who can’t swim up there to where they are?  And if I tried to show them what you can only really experience in the deep they will not see it the same way, will just laugh at it and swim on by.  And yes, yes, I know this sounds very arrogant of me, to be talking about deep and shallow.  I don’t think they’re altogether shallower than me in every way, though>  I think that in some critical ways, they might be much better people than me, maybe.  And I don’t like to judge.  There is just so much that you can’t know or see of another’s experience.  But this is how I perceive the reality of it- that some ideas are deep and gradual and contemplatively accessed, and some are not, and that some people are inclined or willing to look at the deeper or more gradually, intuitively processed ideas, and some are not.  And you can’t reach those who won’t consider the deeper, gradual, obtuse, mysterious things,... Or you just can’t reach them with those deeper, slower, intuitive ideas.  A world of riches might be totally beyond them, till if they ever will open to the idea in more than a theoretical sense and really dive in and live there.  Their lives might not let them live there anyway, caught up in the rush, chaos, need, problems that feel urgently like you can’t escape and they take all your attention...  And they may  be far less able to concentrate and focus mentally, even if they had the free time and energy to spend on it.  Most people don’t read a lot of complex books and find them extremely painful to read.  I don’t even read a lot of them myself, because they’re too long-winded and detailed dry and arrogant-sounding and stuffy for me.  Or they seem too hard to believe and too hard to follow, too out of touch with my lived real experience of my life.  But some of these deep complex books and other things I read online, or audiobooks (sometimes much easier for me to process more quickly and pleasurably than reading certain kinds of books, if the voice and tone of the narrator conveys a lot of interesting content, that the text in itself doesn’t, for me) ,.. Yes, some of them I can read.  Some I do find great wisdom in and thankfully I have read just enough to give me immense benefits.  I know if it wasn’t for these authors much more brilliant and wise than me I would never have made it far in my life.  Self-destruction would have consumed me, delusion would have run my life.  But many can’t read the books and things I’ve read and can’t contemplate and arrive at the insights which have saved me from self-destruction.  

I know that talking like that might make me sound arrogant, but it is just how reality appears to me, when I perceive the facts and appearances of things before me.  It looks and feels to me as though so much goodness is trapped in books and things most people will never even be able to deeply think about because it feels too painfully boring to them, to ever tolerate.  

What then can you do but let go and hope there is another way they can find grace, mercy, goodness, in shallower waters, a way I don’t understand myself, a way I don’t live, a way I don’t know how to share because I don’t understand.  I’m not the one to help them, am I, unless I could ever come to be shown such things.  Then they’re a depth I can’t understand.  But I have to let go and give it to God or the universe or randomness and chance, or whatever it is, because sad as it could be, it feels totally beyond my grasp, unless prayer and metta meditation and energy work helps.  

[nitrateglow]

Thoughts on The Last Jedi (spoilers under the “keep reading” line)

I originally wanted to just make a small list of things I liked and did not like about this movie, but I’ve come to realize my feelings are a bit more complicated than I expected. I don’t hate it, nor do I think it is the worst film in the series; however, I am baffled by the arguments that it’s somehow a clever deconstruction of the Hollywood blockbuster formula or finding new ground for SW. If anything, I found it an aimless, poorly paced retread of familiar tropes and ideas with only a few interesting elements to save it from being mediocre.

I’ll start with what I considered all-around good: the acting is excellent across the board. Every actor is game, doing their best and even elevating the material at times. It was a bittersweet experience to see the late Carrie Fisher here and even with her limited screen-time, she brings a great deal of dignity and spunk to the princess/general we know and love. Mark Hamill gives one of his best performances as Luke, communicating worlds of pain and regret with his eyes alone. While he isn’t one of the greatest actors of all time outside of the voice-acting world, he is incredibly effective here. Thankfully, Oscar Isaac gets more to do this time around. And everyone else is on the whole fine, even great at times. I was also impressed with the visuals and editing, which are often breathtaking, especially on the big screen. The casino planet was pretty rad too; I can so see the rich and powerful hanging out in such a place. And—everything else is extremely mixed for me.

This movie reminds me of Attack of the Clones in that it is all over the place tonally. I am all for genre hybrids or movies that can touch on several emotional shades at once, but it is a hard thing to do and this movie isn’t up to that. One minute it’s dead serious and in the grand epic mode, then the next we’re dealing with broad comedy more appropriate for a Marvel film. That juxtaposition felt awkward in the prequels and it feels awkward here.

For all the critics’ talk of this movie breaking new ground, I remained frustrated by the same old rehash of lines and themes from the OT. There’s still the good versus evil, the empire chasing rebels Everything is also rushed beyond belief, which seems like a weird conclusion to draw about a 2 ½ hour movie. Rose is barely developed, despite her potential to be a great character (her romantic feelings for Finn are woefully half-baked; I would say the only thing that even makes you believe she was into him was her slight bout of hero worship in her initial scene with him). Finn doesn’t evolve beyond what he was in TFA. Rey doesn’t change, despite the challenges posed to her ideas about the Force by both Luke and Kylo. Her training with Luke, if you can even call it that, is basically nothing, even less than the crash course Luke got from Yoda in Empire. We’re led to believe Luke has some great development, but that’s yet another thing that has little payoff.

Overall, I am torn on Luke Skywalker’s characterization. On one hand, I believe he would become disillusioned with the Jedi after he lost his nephew to the Dark Side—however, do I believe he would stay on that island after hearing one of his oldest friends was MURDERED by the former student he feels he failed? I’m sorry, I don’t. I know people change as they get older and I know enough cranky old people to see how life can beat you down and make you emotionally exhausted. But the thing about Luke is that he’s stubborn and contrarian; when Yoda and Obi-wan told him to give up on Vader (a Sith who committed WAY worse sins on a much grander scale than Kylo-Ren ever did), he went with his hunch that his father could be redeemed, even though he had only his gut instinct as evidence to go on. I have a hard time believing he wouldn’t try to right the wrong he did to his nephew. Him retreating from the conflict feels as false as the strong-minded and very active Padme losing the will to live at the end of Revenge of the Sith. His death sits even less well with me, since I feel the character had more to do and should have been more active in trying to aid the Resistance and train Rey.

Kylo-Ren is more interesting this time around, more conflicted and morally ambiguous. His temptation to turn to the Light mixed with his savagery is great. His interactions with Rey, which are simultaneously uneasy and charged with sexual tension, are fascinating. And yet, like so much else in this movie, it all goes nowhere. I still have no clue why Kylo is drawn to the Dark Side. With Anakin, it was an outgrowth of growing up as a powerless slave and losing those he loved to war and violence, which makes it clear why the idea of a fascist dictatorship would appeal to him. For Palpatine, it was because he was a greedy psychopath. But Kylo? I have no idea what he feels he’s getting on an emotional level from the Dark Side. What do Snoke and the Dark Side promise him that makes turning evil so tempting? He didn’t hate his parents, however lacking he felt they were. Luke was hard on him, though we learn that’s because the kid was already turning to the Dark Side. So where does it all originate? I have no clue and I think, yeah, it’s not unreasonable for me to understand what motivates one of the major villains of this new trilogy. Because otherwise, it is hard for me to be fully invested in him as a character.

In fact, the whole First Order are just disappointing villains, a second-rate empire. I have no idea how they were able to come to power, not only because it’s never brought up in either this film or TFA, but because these guys are about as competent as the Three Stooges. Hux is a punchline subjected to “yo mamma” jokes and proving himself utterly useless time and again. Phasma is pretty much like Boba Fett: she looks cool and fights well, only to get killed off without ceremony. Snoke is a dumber Voldemort, built up as this clever, evil genius only to be proven even worse at underestimating his employees and enemies than Palpatine! I was never a fan of the character to begin with, finding him bland, but here, he just shows up, cackles evilly, then dies in a rather comical manner. How did he come to power? It has to be more than just his powers; even Palpatine was a politician and he preyed on the Clone Wars’ devastation to convince people to make him Emperor. But Snoke? Nothing.

The pacing was also a huge issue for me. Now, I normally dig slow pacing—but this was excruciating, probably because I felt like the story was going nowhere much of the time. Finn and Rose are wasted, given nothing but a McGuffin side-quest. Every time we cut to them, I just lost so much interest. As for the political “subtext” (if you can call an explicitly socio-political monologue subtext) in the Finn and Rose sub-story, I’ll just say I agree with critic Tim Brayton on the matter:

And this plotline feeds right into the absolutely unforgivably terrible subplot, which is the adventures of Finn (John Boyega) the cowardly ex-storm trooper, and Rose (Kelly Marie Tran), the class-conscious engineer, who go on a fetch quest that is every bit as pointless as the whole matter of the military nonsense, only even worse, because it hinges on terrible comedy, bad CGI, and a spectacularly horrible moment when Johnson stops the film in its tracks to provide a ruthlessly on-the-nose lesson about economic inequality and the military-industrial complex, and I hate this all the more for the film's message in this moment being one I passionately agree with - if something has to be artless and awful, better that it not take down a cause I hold dear as part of the collateral damage. And it really is awful; the worst thing in the movie, despite the best intentions of various film critics to defend it (I am sorry, but "has politics I like" is not all it takes to make a movie good. If all you want is for a film to spit your ideology back at you, and it doesn't matter if this is done with any grace or artistry at all, congratulations: you are a Stalinist. I like politics in movies - I love politics in movies - but not every political filmmaker is Sergei Eisenstein, and they should damn well not be treated like they are).

I have no problem with this political/social angle being there; hell, I love the idea of the Rose character and the theme of inspiring the downtrodden (the idea of legends and the power of storytelling really appealed to me, and I loved that last scene with the kids re-enacting the OT story in the stables), but like so much else they feel underwritten and clumsily implemented. It doesn’t help that this side plot feels oddly disconnected from everything else and is far less interesting than Poe or Rey’s stories. And once again, I feel like it accomplished nothing whatsoever, much like the majority of this story.

Now, people might argue the main theme of this movie is about failure and how we must learn from it, thus making this side-plot appropriate. The thing is, I don’t think anyone besides Poe learned much of anything from their mistakes or failures, let alone Finn and Rose. According to writer/director Rian Johnson, one of the big inspirations for this film was the 1964 classic Three Outlaw Samurai, a movie in which the titular heroes become disillusioned with the samurai code and the corruption of the culture in which they live. Concepts such as honor and loyalty become muddied. TLJ is clearly trying to weave a similar theme, with Kylo, Luke, and Ghost!Yoda calling for a new age in which the Jedi and Sith are no more. The problem? Kylo still embraces much of the Sith ideology as much as he claims he’s let go of it (okay, yeah, Abrams claimed he wasn’t a Sith, but that seems more like an in-name only affair given the dynamic between Kylo and Snoke), and Luke, for all his “the Jedi gotta go” lip service, ends his life by triumphantly claiming, “I will not be the last Jedi,” implying he’s passing the torch to Rey. So much for questioning the past.

At the end of the day, the movie left me frustrated and hollow. I’m not very excited to see where they take the story next, because it’s clear they’re going with same-old, same-old, only with vague motivations and no sense of direction. I don’t get what the big point of this new trilogy is. The OT is at its heart about Luke coming of age as a Jedi Knight and redeeming his father. The PT is a tragedy about the fall of both a man and a democracy. The sequels though? I have no clue. I don’t think they go far enough in their attempts to challenge our ideas about the Force or the Jedi, or good and evil. It’s the same old rebels versus tyrants fight, only this time around the villains are more inept than usual and the good guys, for all their failures, don’t appear to learn much of anything.

[bambamramfan]

Superheroes

[Thing I wrote when Marvel was first promising a “woman Thor”]

I admit I was a little bothered by an article I saw bemoaning recent trends in science fiction and other genre movies. I don't argue with it's data, so much as the tilt of its conclusions. The article complains that scifi movies these days aren't really about the future, but rather about a different vision of now. They're not about tomorrow, they're about today.

Of course they are about today. Science fiction in all forms is always about today. Because today is all we know. We can talk about the future but it's almost entirely commentary on the current world, and the current truths we live in. None of us are from tomorrow, how could we write to it?

This is a good thing. It means science fiction (and other work) can tell us lessons for our current lives.

The other trend this article laments is the too many superheroes. A movie about superheroes isn't really a movie about us.

But much like "writing about the future" is really talking about today, then writing about "superheroes" can really be talking about everyone. When Spiderman recalls "with great power comes great responsibility", our reaction should not be "wow sounds like such a burden I'm glad I'm not him."

So I wanted to write about superheroes some. What are they telling us?

And first off, we need to distinguish a Super Hero movie from… well, a vigilante movie. A superhero is about a symbol that inspires the general populace. It's not that they do great things, but they proclaim "great things can be done."

A vigilante is just a dude who hits things pretty hard and solves the problem themselves.

What is Superman's power in one term? His power is to do the impossible. It's why they kept adding new powers all the time until cannon froze around Crisis on Infinite Earths (and why the end of Superman the movie wasn't shocking). It's all about thinking something is impossible, and then doing it! In an unexpected, garish, and often fairly public way. This is why the most famous line about him is "Up in the air, it's a bird, it's a plane, it's Superman!" He is all about us, the public, witnessing and being in awe of his impossibleness. (And his second most famous line, about truth, justice and the American way, is also meant to be inspiring.)

Superman's secret identity is a nebbish reporter who is almost offensively normal. This isn't a subtle disdain on his part, but rather a promise. Anyone could secretly be Superman. Why, even *you* could secretly be Superman. Any day you could rip off your shirt, fly over the moon, and save the city.

Superman is hope. Kryptonite represents, well, cynicism.

Batman, is like the opposite of this in all ways. He lurks in the shadows, and really does intend to fix all the problems himself. Batman is well known for inspiring an emotion – and that emotion is fear, in his enemies. (The yellow lanterns admit he is the greatest of them.) He's not a symbol for us to be in awe of, he's a symbol for others to cower before.

Populist fans admire Batman because he's human whereas Superman "cheats" by being an alien with superpowers. But well, I can be Clark Kent. We can't be Bruce Wayne. He's born a billionaire and has psychological fixtures we can never replicate. There's nothing populist about lionizing a obsessive billionaire.

(This is part of why The Dark Knight is such a morally bankrupt movie. People are inspired by Batman to be like him – and they are depicted as objects of pathetic ridicule who need to be stopped for their own safety. Gotham does need a hero to look up to, and so Batman and Gordon invent one out of a lie. It's basically saying "inspiration is for suckers.")

Who would win in a fight between Superman and Batman? That's really asking "Who would win in a fight between hope and fear?"

(Maybe if fear wore a ring of cynicism… See how these symbols work?)

***

Which brings me to the other goliath that's dominating the public imagination vis a vis superheroes and vigilantes: the Avengers. What do each of them stand for? By and large, they're not vigilantes.

Captain America is very, very obviously a superhero. His meek background is used to emphasize that anyone of us could become the symbol of idealism he currently is.

Iron Man is a billionaire yes, but at least he's a superhero for libertarians. He flaunts his power and oblivious do-gooder spirit, and encourages everyone else to be as smart as him and show up Uncle Sam who wants to horde all the cool toys to themselves. He's a fairly amoral superhero, but still it's something.

The Hulk is more primal than any of the above. It's not necessarily a pleasant inspiration to see him trampling through a metropolis, but it promises a sort of chaotic, undifferentiated power. There's more things than dreamt of in our philosophies.

Thor. And then there's Thor.

***

Oh my goodness, a woman Thor is such a bad idea. Why? Well lets go through the above Avengers and see what sort of inspiration they stand for. Then we can ask, how would a woman version of that character change the interpretation?

Captain America stands for America of course, but he also stands for idealism itself. He believes in people, and not out of naivete. He sees the fallen world and still believes in the best.  He never compromises, but also never loses faith in the people he cares about. A woman filling that role… is actually a radical departure AND an unambiguously good statement. I don't even know what it would mean, but I'd like to see it.

A woman Iron Man means like, nothing. You can be rich and smart and make things and generally disdainful of other people AND a woman. Iron Man is not a good person, he just happens to tag along for good things. There's nothing inherently revolutionary about a woman filling that role instead. It would work pretty smoothly and we might not even notice the difference. It would be Ayn Rand, but less edgy.

(Perhaps the best joke in that comic would be that when she's inside the suit of armor, no one can tell the difference between her and Tony Stark at all.)

The Hulk? The Hulk is basically phallic power. The woman version of the Hulk… is already a really popular comic called She-Hulk. And any fan of that series knows that she mostly solves her problems without or going beyond the use of brute force. She's clever and has personal skills besides her super powers (Note: superscience is a superpower. Itisn’t really a skill any of us can develop. Her organizational skills are.) The entire comic is basically a joke "What would a woman do with a phallus? Not much, she doesn’t need it." Consequently, it's a pretty good comic.

So what is Thor. Thor stands for worthiness. He didn't create or climb to his power, it was just given to him for who he is (son of Odin). But on the other hand, it necessitates an incredible standard that he must always maintain. He's good-hearted, loyal, determined, and many other generically good moral traits. Whenever he goes against Asgardian-morality, he loses his powers. The chief feature of his hammer is that no one else can lift it – Mjolnir is a worthiness symbol just as much as the sword in the stone. He doesn't even want his future kingship, which is contrasted with his very UNworthy brother.

I don't really like this, even though I like Thor. He's generally a liberal superhero arguing on the liberal side of things when politics comes up. And he dearly loves his brother, even as he's a pathetic snake. These are great things, but are largely treated as inconvenient biproducts of his essential worthiness. Like "Oh yeah, Thor is very generous because he's worthy, which means he will never give up on Loki, but that's just Thor, that's not at all a sign that *we* shouldn't give up on Loki." (This contrasts with Captain America. When Cap never gives up on Bucky, we understand that *we* should never give up on Bucky either. Faith in Bucky is *why* we admire Cap. For Thor, it's just a side-effect.) And worthiness… is not a good meta-virtue. Judging that people can only have certain power if they meet a standard of personality, is a fairly destructive moral heuristics. I could give plenty of examples of groups where this goes more wrong than right.

You know what group *really* doesn't need more of the message of worthiness? Women. A woman Thor would basically redouble on his inherent message that you can only participate if you meet certain unwritten standards. That you have no inherent value, but you have to prove your value every day. Ugh ugh ugh. How many times are women already told this? Too many.

This would be bad. So bad.

Now, one comic reinforcing sexism isn't going to be the dowfall of western civilization, obviously. But here's what will happen. The very people excited for "A Big Name Woman Superhero!" are going to find themselves… surprised. Upset. Woman Thor will be trying to live up to impossible standards, and only praised when she does (or punished when she strays from the arbitrarily chosen moral path) and holy shit will that look uncomfortable to readers. And Thor will meekly accept that and continue to try to retain the good graces of Odin.

Imagine the first scene where woman Thor can’t lift Mjolnir for whatever stupid reason it is this week.

They'll wonder why, and they'll conclude "latent sexism by the writers" which was half true, but was inevitable from the word go because of what Thor stands for. And since no one will be happy from this, it counts as a bad idea.

There is of course, one way this could be redeemed, but it would be the end of the comic. Thor could go before Odin, after she has strayed, and say "My time as a woman has taught me what utter bullshit all these rules and moral standards are. Fuck worthiness. Fuck you. I am done with all this. Me and Loki are out."

That would be rad.