#you may interpret these in whatever MORAL scenario you wish

[vicsep7250]

Before post-nut and edging backs me out of this decision. Also in very loose "if you know you know" terms and speak because I know a lot of you are goddamned fetuses.

[nacrelyses]

normal album analysis as a musical: the child

first a disclaimer: i know this interpretation was not will wood’s intention in making the album, this is just how the music resonates with me and i hope it helps other people as well.

now following up on my last post about the normal album potentially being interpreted as the life of a queer child in a conservative family (tw internalized and external queerphobia, gaslighting, mental illness). 

let’s call this ..hmm.

a normal musical: the child.

suburbia overture: the aforementioned overture, the establishment of the musical setting as your typical white picket fence upper middle class suburb nuclear family. traditional values, traditional lifestyle, traditional children, with the vampire culture segment foreshadowing the way that imposing conservative values and self-loathing on a closeted queer child “sucks” the life out of them.

2econd-2ight-2eer: when the child starts questioning, the very act of questioning defies the moral compass their family has set out for them. possibly reflecting the way that questioning and exploring one’s identity, in addition to being rife with internalized queerphobia, is also fraught with the self-gaslighting that comes as a result of the internalized queerphobia, which might make the child believe they’re simply “losing it” or that whatever they’re experiencing is a mental illness. also the first stanza: “my grip on my secrets slipping while i’m speaking in tongues, screaming at the top of my lungs in the confession booth” religious trauma much?

laplace’s angel: the child has begun to come to terms with the fact that they are most likely queer, and the complete deterioration of their family’s imposed conservative values. this is the phase where the internalized queerphobia still makes them feel as though they’ve become a bad or evil person, thus laplace’s angel being them internally pleading for the world and for society to see them as they really are rather than a villain deviating from the norm. that if others were in their shoes, they’d walk the “same damn miles”, the same damn crises, the same damn emotional turmoil, that the child is currently going through .

i/me/myself: gender cannonball...need i say more? maybe the child believes, as a product of internalized transphobia, that it would be easier if they were their assigned gender - or perhaps, depending on the individual, maybe the child is wishing to be able to exist as their true gender. in either scenario, this song encapsulates the desperation that comes with exploring identity. the freedom that arrives with a revelation and the immediate restriction that comes with realizing that that revelation can never be truly realized in a queerphobic family. or even the bitterness at knowing their family makes such a huge deal about queerness, that queerness is somehow a gigantic roadblock their family will never be able to cross. both realizing your identity and still grappling with the idea that if you were born into the “norm”, you wouldn’t need to go through all this pain to try and figure out who you really are. it’s the turmoil of being genuine in a society that would actively oppress you for doing so and putting up a facade that somewhat lessens the aforementioned pain, but at the cost of further internal suffering.��

also, to my fellow genderqueer and gender nonconforming will wood fans (and let’s face it, which one of us isn’t?): i see you. i see your spotify listening activity. i see the loop button. i would ask if you’re okay but i know we’re not

...well, better than the alternative: parenting angst here, maybe alluding to the parents themselves perpetuating toxic cycles that they never had the opportunities to realize or heal from. the child is born amid these toxic cycles, and although this toxicity (the queerphobia, for example) is the norm in this suburban family, deep down the parents don’t want their child to turn out the way they do. meanwhile, on the other end, the child is feeling as though “everybody’s up in my goddamn business” - maybe the parents are starting to suspect that their child is less than cishet (or maybe the child has come out to them), and within their denial of their child not turning out the way they want them to, maybe they unconsciously realize that it’s their own toxic parenting styles that have made their child so afraid and secretive about who they really are. if this is the scenario that the child has come out to their parents, they have decided that even if they are existing in a conservative family, they will be existing as themselves. or if it is a closet scenario, the child has decided that they will continue to hide themselves from their family for their own safety. in either situation, the child believes that the decision they made is “better than the alternative” 

(this song also makes me remember hospitals a lot so there’s that)

outliars and hyppocrates: we start off with some more religious (trauma) imagery. maybe the metaphor of the apple is trying to indicate to the parents, through the conservative lens of seeing queerness as something bad, that the child was not “brainwashed” or “taught” to be this way. that they simply are. the rest of the song grapples with that internalized queerphobia, maybe the child feeling that they are less than human because of their queerness but who’d want to be human, be the norm, anyway? if the child is made to feel Other, then they ought to embrace and wear and own that Otherness - out of defiance, out of desperation, but ultimately out of a need for survival. 

blackboxwarrior: i want to focus on the chorus here. the child’s mental struggles are exacerbated by the lack of acceptance they receive from their immediate environment, but the chorus acts as sort of a defiance against their internalized queerphobia. so what if their parents’ values portray queerness as an illness, something that will kill you? if it was going to kill the child, it would have by now; and it hasn’t, so surely the child is heading in a right direction to be exploring and reclaiming their identity. and then the bridge - “growing up, how was your relationship with the fundamentals of conscious existence?” ties back to i/me/myself’s grappling with the idea of self and existence in one’s body. growing up, how was the child’s relationship with the environment that dictated how they ought to exist and be perceived? and “what, you think ideas spread because they're good? / no, they spread because people like them” can be pointing to the conservative ideas that are perpetuated by the child’s family. these ideas do not spread because they’re good. they spread because the family wants an excuse from some higher power to discriminate against those they feel are outliers from the norm. ��so here we are once again, holding, as it were, a mirror up to your mirror / i guess it's just something people do” can be pointing to how the way the child is trying to come to terms with their identity is by overcoming the toxic ways of thought that their parents taught them, and which their parents are still bound by. if the parents are to find out that their child is queer, their reaction will be to ask, “why? we don’t understand you?” but they are really only talking to the mirror, to the reflection they have constructed that they believe their child to be. their child is not that reflection, and they are going in circles, but that’s just what people do, i guess.

finally, the bridge being formatted sort of like one’s first session with a therapist or psychiatrist leads into marsha, thankk you for the dialectics.

marsha, thankk you for the dialectics: a heavily psychiatry-based song. marsha thankk is about the intertwining of the self with the illness and i value that meaning a lot. i can’t think of another way, nor do i particularly want to think of another way, to embed this song’s meaning into the child. it has grown obvious by this point that the child has their own mental illnesses to grapple with - whether they arose as a need to cope within their toxic home environment, or out of other factors, is not particularly important to be clarified. i would say that the meaning of this song in this musical is just what it was originally intended to be - the child, on their path to recovery, slowly separating those toxic coping mechanisms from themselves in order to really realize their identity. 

love, me normally: i wrote a long ass post about this at 12am this morning. 

memento mori: the musical’s closure. this song embodies a lot of nihilism about one’s existence and one’s meaning in existence, and i would like to think that this song being the musical’s closure is not closure in the sense that it gives you a “where are they now” glimpse, or that it gives you the final direction that the child has decided to head in. rather, memento mori exists in this musical as the child’s innermost thoughts about their own existence as somebody who seemingly defies the (supposed cishet) order of the universe. it is the child’s darkest, most shadowed and hidden ruminations about their life and what their death may bring, if anything at all. throughout the child’s life, throughout the musical, these thoughts have only been hidden, obscured and glimpsed in passing when the lyrical puzzles of the normal album’s previous songs unfurl (think, “if it was gonna kill you boy, it would have by now” and “am i pretty enough to fucking die” and “good news for the purists, they’ve discovered a cure for the symptoms of being alive / it’s a painless procedure with a low rate of failure, but very few patients survive”, etc). but as the musical’s finale, memento mori brings these thoughts into their very antithesis - into the light. it illuminates the rawness of the child’s pain in learning to accept and love themselves. it brings these thoughts into tangible and articulated reality for two reasons: 

for the audience, as both a warning of the results of such a toxic and intolerant family/environment and an articulation of the thoughts perhaps many of us, ourselves, have to contend with at some point in our lives.

and for the child themselves, so that they can fully realize these thoughts. so that they can parse them, articulate them, unlearn them, and begin to heal.

memento mori in this musical is, paradoxically, a song about death that encourages life to heal.

anyways that’s what i’ve got so far now i have homework i should...do....oh god-

[alternatefandom]

The Three Faces of Furuya Rei, or: what moral philosophy does Furuya Rei subscribe to?

Furuya Rei is a fascinating character that can be difficult to understand. This is complicated by the fact that he presents three very different faces to us. Our very first impression of him was as the kindly waiter and detective, Amuro Tooru; next we are shown the antagonist, Bourbon, and last, we discover the driving force behind them: the undercover agent, Furuya Rei. These three personas act in a very different way, especially Bourbon, making Rei’s true motives and morality somewhat opaque to us. In this meta I will analyze Rei’s actions and motives in order to discern the true school of morality that he believes in.

There are three major theories of morality; virtue ethics, utilitarianism, and deontology. However, in this meta I will be brush on ethical egoism as well. Let us first talk about the relevant theories.

Virtue Ethics is first and foremost concerned with character. Here, we judge right and wrong based on whether or not it is virtuous. A person’s action reflects on their character; a virtuous person will do virtuous actions, and vice versa. Therefore, virtue ethics defines virtuous actions as the right action.

Utilitarianism, on the other hand, defines right and wrong based on the consequence of the action. It is concerned with outcomes; in utilitarianism, the end justifies the means. As long as the action results in the greatest good for the greatest number of people, it is right.

Lastly, Deontology defines right and wrong based on what the duty of the subject is. It is concerned with motives; as long as the person was trying to fulfill their duty, then it is right according to deontology. What the duty itself is, of course, subject to argument.

Now out of these three moral theories, which one does Furuya Rei follow?

To analyze this, I will be including materials from the Zero the Enforcer movie as well. This is because in my opinion, we don't actually get much insight into Rei's motives in the manga; we are told what he wants, but we’re not really told why, at least not enough to explain how he justifies his actions for himself. Now let’s get to the analysis itself.

First things first, I think we can safely say that Furuya Rei doesn’t subscribe to virtue ethics. In his debut as Amuro Tooru, in the private eye case, we see him allow Banba, a murder suspect, to destroy exonerating evidence. We also see him create a wrong deduction that almost damned an innocent man. With what we know of his deductive capabilities, as well as the fact that he had all pieces of the evidence and knowledge required to solve the case from the beginning, it is highly implied that he deliberately risked Banba’s freedom just to test Kogoro. Hardly the actions of a virtuous man. It should be noted, however, that in this case, Rei had still maintained control of the situation, thereby allowing him to keep the worst-case scenario from happening; as a PSB member, he would still be capable of exonerating Banba later.

I deliberately did not mention the Detectives’ Nocturne case, the Mystery Train case, as well as the Elementary Teacher Assault case, as I don’t believe that the evidence presented in these cases can conclusively point to Rei’s true intentions. There are always possible alternative interpretations that makes his actions possibly virtuous. However, I will mention the Zero the Enforcer movie. This movie clearly lays out that Rei is definitely not a nice person, and doesn’t mind that other people knows that about him. He deliberately framed Kogoro as a terrorism suspect; fabricated evidence, bugged Conan’s phone, and was generally manipulative. Thus, from the evidence, we can conclusively say that neither manga!Rei nor movie!Rei follow the school of Virtue Ethics.

The second school of ethics we will analyze is utilitarianism. In utilitarianism, the end justifies the means. For Furuya Rei, ‘the end’ would probably be the downfall of the Black Organization, or, taking it further, the safety of Japan and its citizens. I have seen some people take the point of view that Rei had wanted to kill Sherry in the Mystery Train, so that she wouldn’t produce more works that could be used to harm innocents; if this is true, then he would definitely be an utilitarian. However, I’ve argued before that Rei had not intended to kill Shiho and instead had wanted to spirit her to safety, as she is a valuable lead into Elena Miyano’s whereabouts. Therefore, the Mystery Train case should not be taken as evidence that Rei is an utilitarian. 

As there is no evidence that Rei is an utilitarian, one way or another, one could argue that we could take Rei’s willingness to do morally-questionable things as evidence that he thinks it will lead to a better outcome for everyone, if not for one notable case: Akai Shuuichi.

In my opinion, utilitarianism is a very rational and cold moral philosophy; it is a moral school perfectly suited to geniuses, masterminds, and detectives like Rei. However, when it comes to Akai Shuuichi, we see Rei display zero reason. There is no obvious rationale why taking Akai out of the game would result in a better outcome for all, and Rei doesn’t even attempt to explain it; nonetheless, he continues to hunt Akai without any sense of guilt, which implies that he thinks hunting Akai is the correct course of action (note that I don’t necessarily think that Rei wants to kill Akai, despite what he said--more on that later). This implies that Furuya Rei does not necessarily believe in utilitarianism. 

This brings us to the last major ethical theory: Deontology. Deontology is concerned with duty; it takes motive into account more than the actions itself. And Rei has so kindly told us which duty he has dedicated himself to in the Elementary School Assault case.

That’s correct; he’s dedicated himself to his lovely, lovely Japan. Conan said it best:

“I was sure that since he said that to the FBI investigators... those beliefs!”

It becomes even clearer if you look at the Zero the Enforcer movie. There, Rei clearly states what he thought of his job to Kazami.

In other words, our job isn’t always nice or even legal, but we have to finish it because it’s our duty.

If we take the point of view that Rei subscribes to deontology, a lot of his action becomes immediately explainable. He cuts contact with his old friends all to make sure they were safe, but he risks returning Hiromitsu’s cellphone to his older brother because he feels that it’s his duty as Hiromitsu’s friend. Arguably, he hunts Akai Shuuichi out of duty to his fallen friend, and yes, to his country. Akai, after all, was not only involved in Scotch’s death; he’s also operating illegally in Rei’s territory. This would explain why Rei brings PSB agents instead BO agents into the Scarlet Showdown; if Rei intended to kill Akai one way or another, bringing BO agents is definitely the way to do it. This is because bringing PSB means Akai would fall into PSB custody, and there Rei cannot do whatever he likes with Akai; he must answer to his superiors in the PSB. I believe that despite what Akai said, here Rei had only intended to arrest Akai.

So why, then, did he say that he wished to kill Akai, right in front of Okiya Subaru’s face? This brings us to my last theory: it’s because to figure out how to act, Rei aligns each of his three faces to a different moral theory.

Amuro Tooru, quite obviously, follows virtue ethics. He is polite, kind, always helpful, always cheerful. He does not do morally questionable things; he is an upstanding member of society.

Furuya Rei, as we’ve discussed, is a deontologist.  He is dutiful to his friends and country but now he has no friends left so really it’s just his country. His ‘lover’ is Japan itself, and he is willing to do anything--anything--to keep her safe.

And Bourbon? Bourbon would probably loosely follow ethical egoism. It is out of the question for Rei to create an absolutely amoral persona for Bourbon--it would unnecessarily conflict with his deontologist morality. However, to fit in the Black Organization, he needs to create someone who would do terrible things without needing to justify it with ‘duty’ or ‘the greater good’. Someone who wouldn’t just do anything that’s asked of him too, so Rei could reasonably rein Bourbon in. Rei would probably style Bourbon as someone who looks out for his own interests, and only his own, whatever that may be.

And so when Rei wants to hunt down Shuuichi Akai, Bourbon would say that it’s because in his interest to do so--because he bears a grudge against Akai, perhaps, and as an organization member, murdering Akai is the only way to resolve it. Bourbon would investigate Okiya Subaru and corner him, but Rei wouldn’t bring the Organization into their confrontation. Bourbon would threaten Okiya Subaru with death--but Rei wouldn’t pull Okiya’s collar down and condemn him right then and there. Because at the end of the day, the one holding the wheels is Rei, not Bourbon, and whatever he may say, Furuya Rei is a dutiful police officer, and he believes in justice.

[tidustargaryen]

The Last of Us Part II - A unique experience you can never get rid of (My interpretation of the story - Full of spoilers!!!)

I made some screens of the game, but I messed up while forgetting to remove the black frame of options from photo mode. I was so proud of the screens! ^^ Sorry. 🙇

Wow...Wow...Wow... 🤩🤩

 I couldn't not talk about this game, and what it felt like to play it.I went through all the emotions, I smiled, I cried, I screamed, I laughed, I was scared, I was anxious, I sang, I felt anger, even hatred, but also compassion, pity, empathy and the desire to forgive and forget. They broke my heart, and then filled it with rainbows. It was really the roller coaster of emotions. That's what I wanted when I bought this game. I wanted to feel things, a whole lot of things. I wanted to smile, I wanted to laugh, but I also wanted to cry. Because crying is not necessarily negative. It's a human emotion that also does good things.

I love Red Dead Redemption 2, I played it a lot, but I didn’t have the need to put words on my feelings. And especially not to give it such praise, that is to say how much The Last of Us Part II affected me. I also find it hard to describe my thoughts, my feelings in another language, and the review took me time and effort. There will surely be plenty of mistakes, but I love this game too much not to grant it the honor it deserves.

The job is successful, it's more than successful, this game has affected me deeply, in a positive way. When I put the controller down at the end of the game, wow... Just wow... That's all i could think of. And I must confess, I don't understand the negative feedback. I understand of course, that you can dislike a scenario, I myself dislike some movies, we like, we dislike, for different reasons, it's our most legitimate right. But hatred for a game? Putting a zero grade on it? It's not objective. The gameplay is excellent, much better than the first one, the immersion is incredible, the visual and sound atmosphere... damn! The motion capture is unmatched. More weapons, more actions, more everything.The graphics, the dialogues, the music! Even if the scenario is not good for you, you have to admit that the rest is almost perfect... So it's impossible to put 0 to this game. It may not please you, it's legitimate, but when I don't like something, I leave it, I don't spend days talking about it, in a bad way. I would also add that reading the leaks is one thing, playing the game, living the story with the controller in hand is something else. Maybe you're missing out on something huge, it's your choice.

If I say that, it's above all because I would really like a third opus, I want other stories with Ellie. I liked her in the first one, but I got so attached to her in the second part. And I like the world of the Last of Us, I got attached to the Ellie/Dina relationship as well, and I'll come back to that in the development I'm going to do on the characters right after.

All that to say, for anyone who didn't like The Last of Us Part II, your life is not going to change whether or not there's a part III, but I, and other players, would really like a sequel. But I'm not sure there's going to be one after this outpouring of hatred. So good for you, so bad for us, I guess. But I'm not selfish.

I've also seen some very positive comments, a lot of “masterpieces” and objective opinions, full of very good reviews from players who have had the same experience as me. I've played a lot of games that I liked, very few of them made an impression on me like The Last of Us Part II, none of them made an impression on me like The Last of Us Part II in fact, thank you Naughty Dog. Really, thank you, because, and this is my personal opinion, this sequel is much better than the first opus. Yes, that's what I think, and I had heard and seen a lot of press reviews that said it was better, I couldn't believe it. And yet, since I finished the game, I can't stop thinking about it, I can't stop rewriting the story, imagining a sequel, and that's what I wanted this game to do, to touch me emotionally, quite simply. This game haunts me since I press “start”. Well done, I admit.

Spoilers, ahead.

They didn't lie on this, I knew what game I was buying. A violent game, which deals with difficult subject, revenge, hate, the worst human emotions. It's hard for the players to understand the choices they made in the script, but it's also because it's hard to imagine living in a world like The Last of Us.  Anyone can die at any time. And the survival instinct brings out the worst in humans. In their world, we too would become violent, hateful, we would do anything to survive. We will do the same things as Abby, Ellie, Joel and everyone else. Yes, it would be so much simpler, and more productive, to cooperate, to be united, this is the solution, the only one. Unfortunately, humans do the contrary, because the fear of the other, of the unknown, makes one strike before being struck. Already, in our current world, people find it very difficult to show solidarity, there is solidarity, but how many there are out of billions ?? They said it would take an open mind to enjoy the game, and understand the choices of characters. And they were right.

The game could have dealt with the story of a father and his adopted daughter, wanting to survive in a cruel world full of infected people who want to devour you, but who are not the worst enemies. It would have shown these characters succeeding and living a happy life in the town of Jackson... and it could have been believable, why not, with a big stroke of luck... Because honestly, in a world like this, where anybody can die at any time, realism is very important. The worst thing that could have happened to this game is not hate, it's indifference, and the game does not leave indifferent, far from it. People still haven't understood that to show disappointment in a game, a movie, a series, or whatever, hatred is not the solution, but indifference. Hatred proves that you are interested enough in the subject to talk about it a lot. This is indifference, the opposite of love.

Because, yes, in this world, you can die very cruelly, horribly, just like Joel... It's hard, it hurts, but it's realistic. When I first played the first opus, at the end I said to myself "If there's a sequel to this game, Joel will pay harshly for the consequences of his decision..." Because Joel's choice was selfish, it was very human, but it was very selfish. I love Ellie so much that I'm thrilled, but he saved a little girl that he cared so much about, a love that he didn't think he'd feel since he lost his little girl. But tell me, how many other little girls has he sacrificed in the process? How many people has he forced to live in such a terrible world? This vaccine could have saved them all. It’s unthinkable to me that the surviving Fireflies wouldn't want revenge. And it's even more natural to want revenge on the murderer of your father.

Yeah, I wish Joel would've survived, or not died so cruelly, especially not in front of Ellie. But Joel is paying the consequences for his choice. It's hard to put yourself in that position, but I don't think I would have made the same choice Joel did. And maybe, when you think about it, was it better for Ellie to die saving the world, rather than go through all that she had to go through next ?

The Last of Us part II, it's clearly not a game where everything is white or black, the development studio took a big risk, making us play inside the head of the person we're supposed to hate, the one who took Ellie's dearest love. Most games make us play nice people, who fight against the bad guys, but here, the bad guys aren't always bad, they can do good deeds, and bad ones, just like Ellie. These shades of grey in each character are very interesting to study, the story becomes more complex, more captivating. Joel wasn't a "good guy" either, he did a lot of bad things before he crossed Ellie's path, he ambushed people to kill them and steal from them... That doesn't stop us from loving him, it's also true for Abby and her companions.

That's what I love about this game, the nuances. The questioning of the character choices, and the morality that's built into it. And for me, this game is clearly an essay about what makes us feel and what drives us to hatred and revenge, and what we get out of it... Nothing, as we can see with my poor girl Ellie. She brutally loses Joel and in her quest for revenge, loses everything else.

 There's clearly no way in hell she's going back to Jackson, she's leaving, for good, and alone.Besides, we saw her head toward the door at the back, not the one on the side, which leads to Jackson. And when she walks with JJ, towards this door, she tells him that only bad things are behind this door. No, unfortunately, Ellie does not return to Jackson, and that is understandable. This quest for revenge has affected her deeply. For me, it's like a stain on her soul. Is it legitimate for her to want revenge? I think it is. Should she give in to hatred and revenge? Of course, in this story, for Ellie, the answer is no. "I'm gonna find, and I'm gonna kill every last one of them," I think she could've added, "No matter what it costs me." Her future happiness. Neil Druckmann brought up a possible part III, and perhaps this part could imply a redemption from Ellie. She tells JJ that behind this door there are only bad things, maybe in the end, she goes to these bad things, to try to destroy as much as possible.  And to finally be able to do what Joel stealed from her, and finally answer this question of why she is immunizing, why her ? To save people.

Ellie can't move on. She has a lot of nightmares, she's been through a trauma and can't get over it. Despite the peaceful life she has with Dina and JJ, she is not happy, at least not entirely. Part of her has stayed in that house near Jackson, on the ground where Joel died cruelly. And that part she'll never get back, and she doesn't know it, but even killing Abby wouldn't change anything. Ellie lost too many people, and Joel was the one person she couldn't lose. But even if she doesn't give in to the last siren of vengeance, the damage is already done. After Nora, whom she tortures for information, Owen's death and his pregnant girlfriend, it's too late. Not to mention all the other people she had to kill to get there. It's not without consequences,the guilt is too big,for what she did to those people and also for Joel,who she feels she has to avenge,rightly or wrongly,out of love,out of loyalty, or both.

And it's very clear when she kills Owen and then Mel. Of course, she's just defending herself, she didn't want to kill them, she just wanted to know where Abby was. And most of all, she didn't know Mel was pregnant, and in that moment, she knows she's gone too far, that her revenge cost her too much. But it's really when she sees Jesse die, when she thinks Tommy's dead, too, and she almost lost Dina, that she gives up on revenge, for now. She chooses a quiet life with Dina, but Tommy won't give it up, and Ellie is still very affected by Joel's death.

She must avenge Joel, even if it means losing everything, she will find Abby. She'll finally give up on killing her, and I completely agree with that choice. All this was for nothing? Well, yes, because Ellie realized too late that revenge would never heal Joel's death, would never make up for her great loss, and that Abby's death wouldn't bring Joel back. The problem is, she realizes that too late, she already lost everything else, including herself.

As far as I'm concerned, she knows the farm will be empty, she just needs to go back, as if the last bit of happiness she has left is in this house. And maybe, with a spark of hope, that the person she loves the most after Joel, hasn't abandoned her. I think she also thinks that Dina and JJ deserve better than her, someone who got lost on the path to revenge, a ghost of the Ellie that Dina fell in love with.

Yeah, it's not a happy story, but that was never the point. I think it's hard to imagine the world they live in compared to ours. This is not a world where happiness exists, and if it does exist, it is hard to find, let alone keep.

The game did something very daring, making us play Joel's killer. It's ballsy, isn't it! And yes, bad guys have a life, a story, and a reason to do what they do. They're just as human. I hated Abby, that's a strong word, but I wish Ellie had killed her right then and there, and then I was forced into her head. Abby lost her father, and so did Ellie. Joel killed Abby's father, and she killed Ellie's father. An eye for an eye? A lot of people hate Abby, so I'm going to put it another way. Would you have let your father's killer live? Abby couldn't. It's very legitimate, I wish she'd killed him quickly, his death was cruel. But as much as Joel's choice... All the loss, all the hardship, all of it could have been stopped with the vaccine. All because of Joel. Maybe you wish she would've kissed him and thanked him?

And yet, she spares Ellie and Tommy and Dina, something she's gonna regret, by the way. Because, later, Tommy kills Manny, her best friend. And Ellie kills Owen, the man she loves. And once again, in spite of that, she spares Ellie again. This time, her mercy will save her life, when Ellie delivers her from this new group of slavers she meets. (Ellie the breaker of chains xD) Abby doesn't want to fight anymore, doesn't want revenge. She gives up punishing Owen and Mel's murderer, and their babies, and also the others. (If Abby knows about Nora, etc.)

She knows what it cost her to take revenge, it didn't bring her father back, it didn't ease her grief, and that caused the death of her closest friends, when Ellie, in turn, wanted get revenge. The price is too high. I had no particular affinity with Abby, but I understand her character. In her quest for revenge, Abby only kills the man responsible for her father's death, when Ellie wanted to kill them all, and kills many. Abby also has her bad choices, she condones Isaac's torture methods which are just horrible, but her revenge has not controlled her like she did to control Ellie. Punishing the one responsible was enough, but not for Ellie.Yes, at the beginning, I wanted Abby to die, and kudos to the developers, because at the time when Ellie had her hands around her neck, I had only one thought, let her live, please… Well done to make us pass from a desire for revenge to an act of pity.Yes, Ellie made the wrong choice, but could she make another one? In a world like that, I don't know, it's very difficult to imagine the impact of such a harsh universe on our psychology. But it shows that revenge brings nothing, it takes everything. And hatred also does nothing good, especially if it is your main driver.

This is a great lesson that the developers are giving us, it pushes us to question certain morality, and that was their goal. Our world is also filled with hatred, and some people give in to it so easily. I don’t understand how you can feel all this hatred for people who just created a video game ... Isn’t there a bigger fight in the world? Racism, homophobia, slavery (yes, yes it still exists), pedophilia, rapists, misogynists, the people who govern us, the powerful who buy everything with money, animal and family mistreatment … Why waste time on developers whose only fault is wanting to create a game to entertain people? Were they not successful for you? Go on to something else. And I'm not even talking about everyone who hates the game without ever even playing it. It's just a game. There are more serious things that deserve your anger, don't you think?

This is my opinion and I give it with all the objectivity I can. If the game was bad, I would not have wasted time writing all of this in another language, I would have moved on but that is not the case. Yes this game is huge! And even more because it highlights things that some people want to hide. Personally, I loved that the two characters we play are female! Especially on such dark themes !! It's always for men... two women, who want revenge, who gives in to the darkest and most human emotions. Not men, finally. Thank you Naughty Dog. A gay heroine! I love, and I don't understand all the controversy around LGBTQ propaganda ... So, according to this reasoning, do other games make heterosexual propaganda ?? And gay people have to go through this ?! It's a shame !

No, I'm not gay, I have no personal interest in defending it, just the freedom of everyone to be able to live. It is out of the question that people live unhappy all their life, just so as not to shock people who are too closed to understand that the sexual life of others does not concern them ... More games like that please, and with men too… because homosexuality in the media is often represented by women.

I also didn't understand that we can take offense for the visit to a synagogue ... Should we blame Assassin's Creed for all the cathedrals in which we did stunts and break a lot of things ??

Again, everyone has the right to like or not like the game, but I don’t think you should be so disrespectful of all those people who worked hard on this game. Especially when it’s unwarranted. And I know something about it, I watched GoT season 8, I know what it's like to betray the soul of a story Clearly, this is not the case, here. I’ve seen some very constructive reviews explaining how amazing this game is, but it couldn’t please everyone, and I’m sorry for all those who didn’t like it (those who played well sure, the others are not legitimate for me) but don’t prevent us from enjoying this game, especially if we can have a sequel.

I needed to put all my thoughts on my keyboard, and on my blog, because as I said at the very beginning, this game affected me deeply and it is, for me, the best game I ever played. (sorry RDR 2, sorry Arthur, but Ellie gave you a nice slap there 😋 ) I highly recommend it! However, I know that it cannot please everyone, like all works of art, it’s subjective.

I would like to end with my favorite scenes, no matter they made me smile or cry, because there are really magic and unforgettable moments. Not necessarily rank in order of preference.

- The guitar scene with Dina. The cover of "Take on me" which is just beautiful, I still listen to it often, and it's a moment of peace (like the giraffes in the first one) in this terrible world.

- The scene where Joel takes Ellie to the science museum. Same, wonderful moment in this world of brute. And a wonderful gift from Joel to his daughter. I'm still crying. And that is to bring it perfectly, they could have put this scene to us before his death, it would not have had the same impact. After Joel's death, it hits where it should.

- Of course, the scene where Ellie and Joel talks about his choice to save her. This moment, or Ellie tells him that she can't forgive him yet, that she may never be able to, but that she wants to try, I think that is also one of the reasons why Ellie doesn't want to give up on revenge. Joel died when she still resented him, and they were both on cold terms. She can't forgive herself.

- The scene where Dina offers her her bracelet, I love this bracelet.

- All the null jokes of Ellie !!!! xD

- I cry when Ellie thinks that Dina could leave her for Jesse. And then after, when she comforted her.

- The scene at the farm, when Ellie is walking with JJ, I loved it, she seems happy, but shortly after, we realize that this is not the case, or rather, that something is missing, or someone… The scene of the return to the farm, for me has made it harder, already because it's the end, because Dina is no longer there, even if it was easy to imagine. And the scene where it seems to me that she plays the song that Joel sang to her. She lost him, And then she lost herself. The song he sang to her at the beginning sums it all up. This is the saddest scene for me. In the first game, Ellie told Joel that all the people she has ever loved are dead or have abandoned her. She finds herself alone, and it's partly her fault.

Various :

I hate having to hit Ellie while playing Abby, especially with her arms so big, she must hurt very much!! I'm not a fan of tattoos but Ellie's is just beautiful! I would like to visit a little more Santa Barbara, it changes from Seattle ^^But Seattle is really beautiful. The lifespan of the game is enormous and the difficulty much bigger than the first one. In normal mode I sometimes suffered a lot ^^ Naughty Dog has dared to model the penises of the infected !!! (Yes, I took photos, no I would not show them xD)

The first game had given us a tragic death from the start, Sarah. She is the first playable character for a very short time, and we are just walking with her. And witness helplessly at her death. The second game does the same, but it’s her father who dies this time just after we play a little with him, just for a horse riding with Tommy. Poetic ?

Yes, the game has faults, some bugs, some passages are long, but given the quality it offers us, personally, I forget these faults, nothing is perfect, nothing needs to be.

And the only criticism I have of this game is that I wanted to play with Ellie a bit more (it's relative, the game still has a long life, but I'm greedy, I wanted more of Ellie). I really want to play with her again and I hope that where she goes, she will be fine. I liked her in the first opus, I love her now. She enters the top of my favorite fictional characters, with Daenerys Targaryen, Ellie in second place, and Arthur Morgan (sorry for your second place big boy 😋 ) And I now understand the Youtubers who said that they envied us for still having to discover the game and the scenario. Now, I wish I could forget it and find out again. What is certain is that I will not be able to say goodbye to Ellie, impossible. She deserves a very, very big hug after everything they've done to her.

I haven't read the leaks, I haven't been spoiled at all, and I hate that. I trusted a Youtuber when the fans started to hate the game, without ever playing it, and I was right. For those who compare The Last of Us with GoT: I read the leaks of GoT, I was happy to have done it given the parody they did of the show, I would have really regretted having read the The Last of Us part II leaks. Reading and living the game are two different things.

I probably forgot some things, I will do a second part, I may add things later.

This game is simply and deeply human. In these most beautiful qualities, and especially in these worst flaws.

Best game ever. My opinion.

[histrionicscribbler]

Jokes aside, I have a lot of feelings about this.

The only time that a creator loses the right (or more accurately the ability) to totally control how their OC is used is when they are presented in a commercialized or otherwise published work, especially one which spawns a fandom and derivative works. When a character becomes better known as a character rather than an OC, and their source material gains a following, it can be difficult to completely police what a fandom may do with the character and the work as a whole.

However, it's still polite to respect a creator's wishes when altering the source material. Even in fandom, where characters can be flanderized, put into AUs, or changed drastically, the character still belongs to its creator. People who put their characters out there in a finished product are signing up for people to see them, interpret them, and interface with them. When fandom interacts with and changes characters, it's still obvious who they belong to and there is a clear source for official information about them. Derivative work is easily identifiable as derivative and not original content. In most cases, the original work is protected by copyright and fair use can be enforced.

Even in this scenario, claiming somebody's character as your own property is shitty and wrong. But outside of fandom spaces, it is INFINITELY worse because it's that much easier to get away with. Characters might not be as widely recognizable or protected in the same way.

Treating somebody's OCs like you can do whatever you want with them just because they're posted publicly is the scummiest shit on planet earth. Posting on a Tumblr blog is not the same as publishing a work. Depending on who you steal from, it may be impossible to trace the OC back to its original owner. Without proper credit, even well-intentioned derivative work can be mistaken as original content— And that HARMS artists. That is not Blorbo from your shows, that is somebody's independent personal work, you inconsiderate fuck. Credit them for it.

You will almost never be as invested in it as the person making it is.

Nobody needs to make their OCs perfect, treat them to happy endings, or make them good people. Nobody should have to bend their own intellectual property to anyone's will. Not every OC will be or needs to be saved from the suffering written for them. Tragic OCs and vent OCs are allowed to exist just as much as those who are well-cared for, and those who get rescued. Remember the artist behind the character is a human being, and be mindful that people's OCs can sometimes be deeply personal. You may disagree with the way their story is being told, but their creator likely has a reason it's told that way.

Some OCs are, by design, meant to be unchangeably awful people or completely helpless victims. Some stories are not going to be happy ones that make you feel good. Some may even be triggering to you. Your sensibilities are not the only ones being catered to. As long as nothing morally reprehensible or illegal is being promoted, there's nothing wrong with creating an upsetting story or OC. You don't have to like that, but please be a mature adult and respect it. Move on from things that do not appeal to you instead of trying to force them to.

If the way a character is treated triggers you, then you owe it to yourself to stop interacting with the content that is distressing you. Content that triggers you unintentionally is not inherently wrong, it's just not good for you personally to consume. Practice self-care, blacklist the character name or keywords, and do not interact with content that hurts you anymore. Being triggered should not be taken lightly, but it still doesn't grant you character rights.

And If somebody does purposefully and intentionally weaponize their OC to trigger you, block them, report them, and disengage with them and their content. If they're genuinely that shitty of a person, then their content doesn't need to be glorified. It will only introduce more people to it, and by extension, them. If they're a troll, they need to be starved of attention, not given more.

TL;DR:

There is no situation that justifies OC theft. It's wrong in fandom spaces and it's downright deplorable outside of them. Not all stories and characters need to be positive or appeal to you. If you are exposed to content that triggers you, disengage from it immediately, do not expect it to change to accommodate you. Good people deserve the right to their intellectual property and bad people don't deserve to be given any further attention.

not submission. I really hate the "My OC, my rules" thing. Cause like, no? Just because they are your oc doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with them. If you want to make your oc suffer and not like them get help, you deserve to lose rights over them. Especially if you only do that stuff to purposely trigger people. Once you do that, your oc no longer belongs to you. they belong to the public who will take better care of them instead

Making a comment to get this to post.

[colormelife]

Self Worth

I thought I knew this.. but by no means do I have this down to a T or dotted i’s but!! My friend one day, when we were driving up to the mountains to go skiing, randomly said “Jennee. I wish you were kinder to yourself. I wish you saw yourself the way I do and other people do. You’re such a decent person but it’s very obvious that you don’t see yourself that way.” I’ve heard this in a few different conversations. I was so confused. Hahaha I do love myself. I do know my value..? Lmao I’m insulted.. No! What you’ll come to realize is that self worth doesn’t mean you look in the mirror one day and acknowledge you look cute. Or you know you’re intelligent. Or you give off a grandiose persona in front of people. I think these may supplement what your worth may be, but true self worth is independent from external factors that may influence your perception of self worth. 

A scenario I got from Anna Akana. Take a 100 dollar bill fresh off the print. The experience of having the brand new 100 dollar bill may make it seem like it’s worth more. Wear it down a few years and crumple it up. It doesn’t feel as nice to have a wrinkled 100 dollar bill in your pocket but will you still want the 100 dollar bill? yes.. is it still worth 100? yes (don’t bring in inflation. that’s out of my post grade). If it’s not a good analogy, you get the point. 

Another thought that may explain what self worth/love is... try to spend some intentional time (like realllly intentional ((you must put the work in)) in getting to know yourself. Know what triggers you, what your areas of improvement are, what areas you’re proud of and confident in. What are your values and morals? Catch yourself saying things or doing things in real time. Be emotionally responsible. If you don’t know who you are, you’ll start absorbing everyone’s random and conflicting ideas about yourself based on their pov of whatever you show them and note, they are free to interpret you the way they want whether it’s unsolicited or not. Knowing yourself on an intimate level is the best way to keep from internalizing disempowering opinions from others and questioning your own worth/image. 

A note from Brianna Wiest. Knowing self worth also means you don’t need to justify yourself or “choices to people who only care about how you look within the context of their lives (read this again). The people who squawk the loudest about what you should and shouldn’t do or how you’re on the wrong path or whatever else they couldn’t possibly have the grounds to know are usually the ones most concerned with how it makes them look” in front of their friends, family, coworkers.... You are not a reflection of someone else. They are not a reflection of you. You should not worry about how you’ll make someone else look. 

I catch myself in the moment being defensive when someone tries to tell me what kind of person I am or who I should be. I think this reflects low confidence. In a state of high confidence, I would be assertive, or even just brush it off. I have not gotten this down and it’s not an easy thing to do but it’s okay. We put little pieces together through every experience. It’ll look imperfect with cracked lines but hopefully we’ll come to whole and clear pictures of ourselves. It may fall apart into some pieces again but we know what we need to put it back together. 

I hope I articulated this somewhat well.. and surely it’s okay to disagree or all this may be obvious.. but just my take on it and a gentle reminder for you and I (:

[bothsandneithers]

Day 2775

To arrive at this particular gas station: Take i-25 past Ikea, through Castle Rock, Colorado Springs and Pueblo, and then turn right onto the old i-25 to Walsenburg. Here, like in most other gas stations and grocery stores in Colorado, you can now purchase full-strength beer -- as opposed to the prohibition era “three-two beer” (3.2% alcohol by weight), which used to be the only permissible beer sold outside of liquor stores. But, while the change in legislation was state-wide, not all gas stations carry a particular Apricot Ale beer that I like.

The guy behind the cash register reacted similarly when he saw it, “I love this stuff! I used to buy it in Denver!”

“Yeah! That’s where I’m coming from!” I said, with enthusiasm that surprised me. Though this trip wasn’t motivated by a recent fallout with the city of Denver, a planned three days of solitude happened to dovetail nicely with mounting disappointment of the recent election.

A few years before state lawmakers updated the alcohol laws in Colorado, Denver implemented an “urban camping ban” that prohibits tarps, sleeping bags and tents in public -- in effect, criminalizing someone who puts a blanket over themselves trying to stay warm, and in turn, making it illegal to experience homelessness.

That sounds cruel. I want to think that most people I know would agree.

However, most residents didn’t vote to repeal the ordinance when they had the opportunity to do so this month. Instead, only 19% of us did, making me wonder: Do a small number of us just conceptualize human rights differently than the rest?

It is also worth noting that the mayor that signed the ordinance into law has credible accusations of sexual harassment against him, but still managed to receive more votes than any other candidate in this present election.

It seems, then, that the voters of Denver, though critical towards the national political landscape, recalibrated their moral code for which they hold laws and politicians to at a local level. And, I’m not shy to decry this hypocrisy in public places.

One such locale in which I rebuked the “classist rhetoric” of supporting the urban camping ban was while standing in the vestibule of the Whole Foods, a place that has its own classist implications, ranging from the upscale prices (preventing many from being able to afford its food) to the powerful, seemingly above-the-law conglomerate owning it (which paid no federal income taxes in 2018, for example). This juxtaposition of not affording food and being too big to fail nicely signifies late stage capitalism, where people have too little and corporations have too much. Yet, I still choose to spend my money there, in turn doing my part in sustaining the mechanisms that spur on inequality.

Even though my friend graciously did not call me out on my unfortunate setting for my diatribe, the discomfort felt in our silence would have been eased by someone coming onto the intercom and saying, “HEY! You’re part of it!” Overturning money tables while simultaneously making a Venmo request for Matthew to pay you back for lunch dampens the cause: Let’s fix you, as long as the solution ensures that I still have mine.

And with that, I shirked out of town with my frustration and complicitness in tow.

After you stop at the gas station in Walsenburg, you drive for a little while and you get to the vistas of the Spanish Peaks, which takes you over a friendly mountain pass, and on the descent you turn left instead of going straight. As you continue on the narrow and hilly road, the mountains are mostly in the rear view mirror, with some smaller hills in the periphery. Silhouettes of canyons and the desert are in the foreground, but it’s still green near the Rio Grande, and its affiliate rivers and streams.

And that’s where I stayed, to inhale fiction and sleep without listening to the sounds of ongoing traffic or thinking about bizarre moral arguments for how those without homes should live, and how much harassment is a negligible amount.

What I didn’t expect, but what always ends up being a terrifying treat, was a pack, or packs, of yelping coyotes.

If you are anything like me, this is how you might interpret the event: It is always disorienting when you first hear these cries, as they jolt you out of sleep. It sounds like a middle school slumber party gone wrong -- as if twelve children are screaming as they are running out of a house on fire. But then there is a shift in perception, and these panicked screams no longer seem to be coming from humans, but retain a fuller, non-human quality, which has been described as all of the following: “a bark, flat howl, yip, yipe, short howl, warble, laugh, irregular howl, scream, and gargle.” And, whatever the creatures may be, they are no longer a herd of victims, but rather a gang of perpetrators.

Finally, things begin to make sense, and you realize that these sounds are probably coming from coyotes. Now, they are no longer villains, but merely communicating in a way that is unusual but admittedly very effective. Unwittingly, you are brought into a moment of nature, in which you feel small and vulnerable, and part of some larger ecosystem that you are otherwise and unfortunately, completely out of tune with.

If someone asked you if there were three coyotes or fifteen, you might not be able to accurately discern the count. And there’s research to back it up: There tends to be a misperception that coyotes are more abundant than they actually are [1].

I actually didn’t drink any of the beer that I bought. Instead, it was a strange, affectatious burden that I carried around with me, keeping it in a cooler with a bag of ice that was slowly melting. But I wished that the ice would melt a lot faster, when I returned to my car, waterless, from a desert trail run.

I poked a tiny hole in the bag of ice, and tried to center it into my empty water bottle to collect what pooled water there was. When a handful of droplets were successfully transferred out of the bag, I would then smash the plastic bottle into my dust soaked face and then repeated the process. I imagined that I looked desperate, and a couple in a passing car confirmed it. They gently pulled up next to me. “Um, can we offer you some water?” The woman asked, as she grabbed a half-empty gallon of water from her back seat. “I think your water will be much colder, but you can have this water right now.”

Without first checking with the social conventions, I took her water and poured it into my smashed bottle. “Thank you so much!” I quipped, “I feel as if I am in one of those comics -- with the guy who is always stranded on the island -- and all he has is an ice block that won’t melt!”

What?

The car of kind strangers generously smiled, but my imagined scenario is not cartoon material, even if a stranded man on an island is a common backdrop in The New Yorker. It is not funny. Ice melts.

It's okay that I'm not always funny. For the most part, I have actually grown comfortable with some amount of distance between between my perceptions and reality: my jokes aren’t always good and the number of coyotes are difficult to estimate when you can’t see them. But, every once in a while, I am still stunned -- floored, really -- when my reality clashes with those around me, especially when we are used to being floored together, in unison against whatever state, group or movement that is collectively disappointing us.

I don’t know what to do about this. But I do know that I should have offered the kind strangers beer as a token of gratitude; it’s no secret that I had more than I needed. But I didn’t. I was too busy drinking down what was now mine.

https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1411&context=hwi ↩

Amy

[olaluwe]

Image credit: Wotzup.ng

Masturbation is the act of manually or electronically stimulating the genitals for sexual pleasure. The fact is, it is an act common to both humans and animals. Are you surprise? As for humans, however, it is considered in several quarters to be a moral and social problem which many people in virtually every culture are grappling with in silence today. Furthermore, it is definitely safe to say it is both a male and female problem. Dodgy as the act might seem; it is nonetheless possible one gets addicted to it.

At the same time, some people feel it is a normal thing and those indulging in the act should be cut some slacks. To these people, it is a fair substitutionary choice for those whose wives/husbands or boyfriend/girlfriends either aren’t consenting (for whatever reasons) or are unavoidably briefly absent to play the socially expected role of being sexual consorts in their various relationships/marriages or as the case may be can't afford the services of the commercial sex workers in which to empty their natural or induced sexual orgies. Here don’t they have valid reasons? In scenarios like these, it is clear many people must have taken solace in the act at various points in their life but will always deny it.

In recent past, a popular Lagos based Pentecostal Tele-evangelist once passionately defended the act as a valid alternative for anybody who comes under naturally unmet sexual need.  He expressly declared in one of his widely televised program that it is not in anyways morally undignifying nor is it sinful as generally viewed and even quoted relevant bible passages to back his assertions up.

However, his position did not go without viral objections and backlashes from many social and religious purists and the topic was even a subject of interesting conversations in the public sphere for a very long time. In the midst of it all, he was even labeled an apostate by clergies who have ecumenical understandings or interpretations that were at variance with his. That notwithstanding, I couldn’t recall if he ever for once recant. And like many social talking points before it, sooner than later it faded out.

Having said this, it is nonetheless considered in the medical circle as being capable of compromising the genitals of men who indulge in the act. Summarily, it may cause erectile dysfunction and other associated sexual inadequacies like premature ejaculation in men that are addicted to it.

In the light of this, it is still fit and proper to deem it therefore a social or existential problem if not spiritual that is in urgent need of a solution.

Are you masturbating? Do you consider it a problem and wish to stop on your own but have not been successful?  Then, you just might need to pay attention to the following suggestions and see what becomes of your masturbation problem afterwards.

1.Take control of your mind or your thought processes. Our mind is usually the first suspect. Experience has shown that the human mind is the first sexual organ. Every sexual act started from the mind through imagination and fantasizing. So the first thing is to stop your mind from running riot with thought of sexual escapade that have little or no realistic chance of being met. Above all, learn to purify your thought and occupied it with socially or humanly helpful idea and ideals. Make helping other people your priority in a way helps put your sexual energies to some good humanitarian use and as a byproducts you will gain morale and self-satisfaction. Above all, focus your mind on life goals that bring long term fulfillment and sustainable end to lack and want.

2. Get married if you are within the age bracket. Another suggested solution is to get married if you are continually pressured for sex. And mind you, it is not a conclusive or permanent solution for exceedingly high appetite for sex. But it will definitely help if marriage is considered especially if you fall within the age bracket and have the necessary financial and emotional wherewithal to cope with unending pressure and demands that come with marital life.

3. Avoid pornographic materials. Pornographic materials, from experience surely trigger or fuel sexual appetite in just about anybody. And you will be helping your condition if you can avoid them as much as possible like a plague. It is as if dinning with the devil.

4. Be prayerful. Prayers surely are antidote to a lot of existential problems but not exclusive though because there is also a place for vigilance in the equation. After all we are admonished by the bible to ‘watch and pray’. But if you’re not the prayerful type then you can skip it. But I tell you, it’s worth considering. Yes, it is!

5. Discuss with your partners if your sexual needs are not being met. Many a times, people whose sexual needs are not met in their relationships bottled it all up and resort to masturbation for solution which doesn’t help in the long time. If you’re in a situation like this whether as a man and a woman the perfect step to take is talk to your partner in the most frank manner possible. And in so doing a permanent and amicable solution may be arrived at.

6. Patronize commercial sex workers. This is one controversial issue as far as humanity is concerned. Whether critics like it or not commercial sex workers no doubt are playing an important role in the society and as such have been conferred with legality in some countries while others are still mulling the idea of legalizing it. As a man if you are having masturbating problem, you just might consider patronizing women of ‘easy virtue’ or commercial sex workers or prostitutes as they are sometimes called. Indeed, a lot of highly placed people are known to be their regular customers but will come in the open acting like what the hell they are doing. But you will do well to wear protective rubber on your fore skin to put any of the deadly venereal diseases at bay for good.

  7. If all the above fail, see a professional sexual therapist or relationship counselor. Another suggested solution is reaching out to relationship counselors or sexual therapists. Bear it in mind that this option may however come at a price. But know for sure these classes of people are trained to deliver on existential problem like the one we are talking about here. And they are definitely worth our mention and referral because sometimes we are prone to get lost in the deluge of diversionary assumptions and cultural hidings.

.

[nevinitambay-blog]

Close Reading *Kubo and the Two Strings* (2016), or: Parting is such sweet sorrow.

Hey, everyone! I hope you all had a nicely productive week looking into guiding philosophies and how they can help you create dramatic conflict. Before we get into close reading Kubo and the Two Strings, I have some bad news: I’m suspending this blog until further notice. I will still be reachable in general and if you have questions about any of my previous posts, but I won’t be posting new content in the foreseeable future. My life is undergoing a bit of a major shift, and my attention is needed elsewhere. Please, keep writing. If you get stuck, please revisit some of my older posts about writer’s block, writing exercises, or story creation. You got this! Now to Kubo.

 “If you must blink, do it now. Pay careful attention to everything you see and hear, no matter how unusual it may seem. And please be warned: if you fidget, if you look away, if you forget any part of what I tell you, even for an instant, then our hero will surely perish.”

 In modern fiction, direct address is usually frowned upon due to its frequent and historic use in authorial moralizing. This quote from Kubo is one of the few prime examples on how to use a direct address to the reader well. In this introduction, there are no life or character judgements of the audience. There are no references to current or past events. There are no instances of trying to correct behavior. This quote, this moment in the film has one job: to let you, the reader, know what is at stake (if you don’t pay attention, the hero will die). At that point, you make the decision you will, with the burden that your action has a different set of consequences than just leaving on a sitcom as background noise, closing a book ten pages in, or stopping that song you were listening to before the end. You are involved now. You have a job to do.

 In other beloved stories, I can only think of two other works that use direct address well: “Peter Pan” and Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events. In “Peter Pan” (the play), Peter usually implores the audience to clap to show that they believe in fairies in order to save Tinker Bell’s life. In A Series of Unfortunate Events, Lemony Snicket constantly warns the reader away, to turn from the horrible story to find a better one or else to bear the anguish of learning the unfortunate story of the Baudelaire children.

 All three of these examples are profoundly honest with the reader in a way that most other direct addresses aren’t: the characters need something from the reader and ask for it, then respect the reader enough to accept whatever decision that they make. It is a really vulnerable and intimate exchange in a relationship that usually has a strict power structure, where the reader is at the will of the author’s story, and the author is at the will of the reader’s attention. Most other media tries to leverage this power. Social media leverages the power of the reader over the author. This creates scenarios where news sites must be entertaining over being a good source of news. Traditional media (textbooks, art galleries, video game companies) leverages the power of the author over the reader. This creates cult followings in the case of authors like J.K. Rowling, Neil Gaiman, and James Patterson, in the case of video game companies like Blizzard, Valve, and Bioware, and in the case of other companies like Apple and Netflix.

 The direct addresses from Kubo, “Peter Pan”, and A Series of Unfortunate Events reduce this power structure to the point that neither side really leverages its power over the other. In these statements, your power as the reader is recognized along with the implication that that power is restricted (you can change the story by participating or not, but in a limited way dictated by the author).

 In addition to using direct address, this film also utilizes a prologue, another out-of-fashion storytelling tool. Prologues are rarely done well, because they are usually used as world-building info dumps that have very little to do with the story. Differing perspectives of certain events are interesting, but, when those are so far removed from the anchor points of the actual story, it just becomes expositional word vomit. The prologue in Kubo, though, doesn’t make this mistake, because it does a specific job: it informs us that, before the events in Kubo’s story, Kubo’s mother was powerful and was running from something (why else would she be in a canoe in the middle of a storm?). Without this prologue, we wouldn’t have really known either of these things until Kubo is told about them later, at which point they wouldn’t be very believable (first impressions are powerful things). From this, I’m inclined to think that prologues work best when creating a different first impression than what the story provides, instead of trying to be a tantalizing appetizer or narrative appendix. I’ll have to remember that for my own writing.

 Speaking of remembering, let’s move right along to the next literary device that this film makes ample use of: repetition. Every major aspect of the story is repeated, some more times than others. We are told “If you must blink, do it now.” three times. We are told many times over about Kubo’s grandfather, the moon king, taking his eye and wanting the other. We are told about the set of armor several times. Each repetition makes the essentials of the story easier to remember and the outcomes of the story more obvious. Unfortunately, as writers, we don’t have access to all of the visual repetition used in the film, but we do have other anchors for repetition within language, such as common phrases used by individual characters (that even correspond to the themes of the story) and names of cities or items. Another linguistic repetition tool available to us is the repeated evocation of certain themes, like the desire for power and the loss of a sister that Kubo’s aunts bring up.

 Which brings us to theme. Kubo and the Two Strings has very focused themes pertaining to stories, family, memory, and sight, and that is reflected in multiple places (which makes the theme stronger and more apparent). One person telling a story makes storytelling just that person’s profession, but each character telling their own story, sometimes conflicting with those of the others, makes storytelling a theme. You can interpret this how you wish, but I think that the desire of each character to hear and tell their stories speaks to the human desire to be understood and heard, or to understand and know others. Can you see where the other themes pop up in the movie? What do you think the movie is saying about those things?

 Finally, Kubo does one thing very well that I absolutely love: it makes magic from the mundane. In other fantasy stories, people can shoot lightning out of their hands or read peoples’ minds. That is all well and good, but it makes meaningful conflict difficult (unless everyone else is also at that same power level, which is difficult to do well, since not all powers are created equal). Kubo, on the other hand, can strum a guitar to make a wake of light and bring origami to life. The Aunts have mundane weapons, the ability to fly, and a magic pipe that creates force-smoke. The Moon King can turn into a flying bug thing and has above average strength. Each of these abilities is grounded in something directly familiar to us (with the exception of shapeshifting): origami paper, a guitar, a pipe, strength, and flight. You know how they behave, what they look like, what they feel like, so when they do something new, like move on their own or emit light, they become exceptional yet still attainable. The magic becomes less about power and more about possession (in the case of magical objects) or skill (in the case of weapons or instruments).

 In most fantasy and science fiction, power is a slippery thing to deal with narratively and logistically. It can nullify some conflicts or potential stories entirely, depending on the difference of power, while also occasionally setting up a winner-take-all scenario where the person with the most power becomes a tyrant. Think about it: If there is a being in the universe that can eat planets, how can our hero possibly defeat them using a ring that makes them invisible? In a more recent example: How can Hawkeye and Black Widow be on the same team as Captain America and Thor? Even if we ignore all of that, how we would use power is an incredibly personal thing. For some people, it makes perfect sense for Darth Vader to serve Palpatine, while it makes no sense to other people. This sort of disagreement can be fine, but it runs the risk of pulling focus from your story all together (which defeats the purpose of storytelling, in my opinion).

 As writers, we each have to opportunity to tell good, well-crafted stories, where we can anticipate and encourage certain interpretations. This can be done by using literary devices like repetition and diction as well as keeping up on the etymology of words you frequently use (to keep up with the current connotations). I look forward to reading your stories, too, one day. Happy writing!

 Sincerely,

 Nev