#and have two people use the same literary criticism to analyze that work | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

chickenstrangers · 11 months

Text

Pat's Shirts: An Extended Analysis

Since Bad Buddy's on the brain, I'd like to present an analysis of a show through a Pat's-shirts-centered critical lens.

Literature review: Many very smart people that I will try to link to have analyzed Bad Buddy through this lens already, but I would like to contribute to the discussion, specifically focusing on the iconography and text on the shirts. For great analysis that also incorporates colour, look to @dribs-and-drabbles whole series (x). Thesis statement: Pat's shirts convey his inner thoughts directly to the audience, generally going unnoticed by other characters, like a soliloquy. They provide insight into his emotional state and aspirations as they shift throughout the stages of his narrative arc.

Pran is more reserved about his feelings, and often expresses them through external signs such as the smiley face on his door. Pat can also be interpreted through the same lens, using external signifiers such as t-shirts to show what he is thinking. Pat is so expressive that he needs to literally wear his feelings on his sleeve (or chest).

In the first several episodes, there is a sense of optimism and possibility. In episode 1, Pat wears a shirt that reads "turn up the saturation" while talking with Pa in his old room. He looks over at Pran's house, Pran obviously on his mind. This showcases how things are just getting started. His feelings for Pran have been reignited after seeing him on campus. Pat wants to turn up the saturation in his life, make it more vivid, and already he's connecting that sentiment to Pran.

The feeling of hopefulness continues when Pat wears his Lucky (Charms) shirt. When their friends get into another fight, while Pat's wearing this shirt, his professor tells them they're lucky no one got seriously hurt, but there's more luck at play in this moment; they're lucky that they have found each other and are in each other's lives again. They have their first real conversation while they're patching themselves up, where they decide to work together to stop their friends from fighting and exchange chat IDs. Things are (slowly) starting to come together.

Pat next wears a Tim Hortons shirt from the Smile Cookie charity campaign. This is an interesting adaptation of Pran's signature motif, Pat mirroring the smiley faces that Pran surrounds himself with. Pat wears this shirt when they eat together at the food truck, so the food-related shirt is thematically relevant, especially one associated with sharing and giving. Pat and Pran share food (or more accurately, Pat steals Pran's wonton) but it’s a playful moment that they'll return to later in the show when Pran gets an extra wonton for Pat to steal. The shirt represents Pat's happiness at being close to Pran again, at being back in the game they play.

The optimism embodied in these shirts is also reflected in a shirt that Pat doesn't wear yet, but is instead hinted at. On top of Pat's pile of laundry is another smiley face shirt that he will wear five years later in the finale. Pat holds onto this shirt that represents Pran and his aesthetic, long before they start dating. The teasing of this shirt is the ultimate symbol of optimism, brimming with possibility.

We then move on to Pat's confusion and realization arc. The first shirt I'd like to discuss is the Salome shirt he wears at the photoshoot with Ink. There are two literary and artistic references here: Salome, the biblical story and its adaptations, and Picasso's painting of his close friend Jaime Sabartés.

Picasso painted many portraits of Sabartés, and dedicated many more to him, but this specific painting is from 1939, humorously portraying Sabartés as a sixteenth-century courtier. This might reflect Ink and Pat's relationship in this moment. Ink gives Pat this shirt, putting him into a costume like Picasso did with Sabartés, and there is an interesting juxtaposition between subject and artist at play.

Sabartés recalled about a previous painting, “When he put the painting up on the easel, I was astonished to see myself … the spectre of my solitude, seen from without.” About the 1939 painting, he wrote, "[it] has all the characteristics of my physiognomy, though only the most essential ones. If the way Picasso put them together does not coincide with the way the majority of people see them, this is because, thinking about me, he took them from his memory, with the intention of giving them form in a picture […] while people who look at me directly as I am forget me when they are trying to remember me." (x)

This is reminiscent of the way that Ink seems to knows Pat's feelings maybe more than he knows himself and her lack of surprise that Pat and Pran get along. From her perspective, they have always been friends. As artists, Ink and Picasso see their subjects in a different light. It is in direct relation to Ink that Pat comes to realize his feelings for Pran, by testing out Pa's patented technique. This whole situation discombobulates him, which is captured in Picasso's Cubist style.

The second aspect of the shirt is the biblical story of Salome. @dribs-and-drabbles (x) made the excellent connection between the femme fatale in this story to the faen fatale in Bad Buddy (Ink), although Bad Buddy explicitly subverts this trope. I also find it interesting that one of the most famous adaptations of Salome was written by Oscar Wilde, so some queer connection could be teased out. It is also worth noting that one of the themes of the play is the dangers of looking, especially since the shirt is worn during a photoshoot. Herod begs Salome to free him of his promise, apologizing for looking at her too much: "Neither at things, nor at people should one look. Only in mirrors should one look, for mirrors do but show us masks." Perhaps Pat can also be seen as wearing a mask, one he is not aware he is wearing all the time.

There seems to be little connecting Salome and Picasso that I could find, though both are playing with ideas of historical adaptation, from the biblical play to Sabartés in costume. Bad Buddy also toys themes of the past as Ink is introduced, casting new light both on Pat and Pran's historical relationship and their relationship now.

The next shirt is another one that is given to Pat. Pat borrows the friend/unfriend shirt from Pran when he sleeps over in Pran's room. They are figuring out how to relate to each other, and especially in this scene, how the other feels about Ink. Pat wears this shirt on a "date" with Ink at the food truck, another relationship that he is trying to determine how he feels. The friend/unfriend shirt reflects a pivotal question about Pat and Pran's relationship. They are not friends, but what does that make them instead? What is "unfriend", the negation of friend? Is it enemy? Is it lover? They both desperately need it to be something, to be in each other's lives in some way.

During and after his next "date" with Ink, Pat wears a black shirt with an abstract face on the front. This echoes the Cubist style of the Picasso shirt. However, in this design, the face is even more abstracted, configured with just a few white lines on a black background in unrealistic proportions. Just as the Picasso shirt implied Pat's burgeoning confusion, here he is slammed with the new revelation that he likes Pran as more than a friend. @dribs-and-drabbles pointed out the splash of red right over his heart, signifying his newly discovered feelings (x). This design is stark, impressionistic, boiled down to the bare essentials of a face and disassembled. Pat is taken apart and feeling lost knowing how much he wants Pran. The shirt speaks to the confusion Pat feels in this moment.

The next phase is about yearning and seeking connection. Pat knows how he feels about Pran; he has fallen, and fallen hard. Now that he has discovered this, he changes into the Baseball Mom shirt to tell Pran of his feelings on the rooftop. In this scene, Pat tells Pran he doesn't want them to just be friends, and through his shirt he tells Pran he sees a future with him. The shirt evokes a future of love and family (though not confined to the heteronormative idea of family). It is about closeness and partnership and possibilities.

During the flirt-off, Pat shows up to the Kwan and Riam audition with a blue shirt mostly covered by a burgundy button-up. The only clearly visible words are "YOUR / MAN?" This is a declaration, he wants to be with Pran. He's asking, can I be your man? as @dribs-and-drabbles writes (x). He's almost staking a claim on Pran, but subverts this by instead declaring himself to be Pran's, similar to when he cedes the competition to Pran.

Looking at the text more closely, however, a few words are visible. The shirt has a quote from On the Road by Jack Kerouac: "What's your road, man? - holyboy road, madman road, rainbow road, guppy road, any road. It's an anywhere road for anybody anyhow. Where body how?" Combining the full text and the selective framing visible on screen, Pat seems to be asking to go on this road together, wherever it may lead.

Once Pat and Pran start dating, Pat's shirts reflect the joys and tribulations of a newly established relationship. He wears the "Proud to be a [Noles] Hater" when practicing the play with Pran. Pride is written clearly on his chest, but it also hints to insecurities. Pat is being perhaps too proud for Pran, posting pictures on Instagram and flirting to openly. Moreover, this shirt is a reference to the sports rivalry between the University of Miami and Florida State University, and as the previous scene showed Pat playing rugby, the shirt signals the continuing rivalry between the architecture and engineering faculties. The theme of rivalry is also ever-present in their families' rivalry, which as @dribs-and-drabbles discusses (x), originated with university. This showcases that while Pat and Pran are happy together, there are external forces working against them.

After a tense argument with his father, Pat wears a white shirt with [SELECT] written on the front. In this scene, Pat is asking Pran to choose him—to select him. The framing of the text in square brackets is also reminiscent of a hyperlink or code, perhaps further emphasizing the act of clicking/selecting. He wants comfort from Pran but is unwilling to ask for it directly, to bother him with his problems. Pran hears the unspoken message and comes home to cheer Pat up, prioritizing him.

When Pat gets out of the hospital, Ming surprises them both by thanking Pran for helping Pat get his name cleared. During this scene, Pat wears his California shirt, which @karometeenk has deciphered. To summarize, it is a slogan for a German pharmacy that reads "Here I am human, here I shop" which is a play on the Faust quote which can be translated as "Here I am human, here I can / am allowed to be one" (full credit to @karometeenk for translation and analysis, along with @dribs-and-drabbles and @airenyah's discussion (x) (x) (x). There is something sinister underneath this message. This shirt alludes to Pat's desire to escape, to be free, but also signals the obstacles to this, especially as he wears this when talking to his dad, who seems to be behaving decently, but there will be future complications. The slogan appropriates a quote about one's humanity commodified to sell products, commercializing people's identity. While Pat and Pran are happy together, they cannot yet just be.

The theme of seemingly cheerful shirts with a sinister undertone continues later in the episode. Pat wears a shirt with the words "SUN SUN SUN", reflecting the happiness he feels to be with Pran, as well as directly mirroring Pran's "radiate positivity" rainbow shirt. Together they depict the sun emerging after a period of rain. However, the optimism conveyed by these shirts is undermined by the peril they find themselves in, the danger of getting caught in Pran's father's office and the looming revelations about their families' rivalry that could destroy their relationship. The storm is not yet over.

You may be wondering why I have skipped over a crucial subsection of Pat's wardrobe: his Hawaiian shirts. Fear not! I would like to discuss these shirts collectively, as they convey a similar theme that does not fall neatly into the chronology of the other shirts. They reflect an idea that the show keeps returning to every time Pat wears them. They stand outside of time.

These shirts symbolize hope and yearning, but they are often tainted by a feeling of despair and desperation. Dreams thwarted. These shirts are aspirational for Pat, conveying the sense of peace and freedom that he wants but cannot yet achieve. He often wears them in moments of crisis. In episode 5, Pat wears the blue pineapple shirt when he gets in the fight with Wai. He is seeking clarification about their relationship but winds up in a physical altercation and Pran leaves without giving him any answers.

He wears the Golden Gates Bridge shirt when he gets shot—this was a chance to reconcile their two friend groups, but it ends in disaster. However, in the end, that event literally builds bridges between them (I am including this shirt in this section though it may not be a Hawaiian shirt). The elephant shirt Pat dons in episode 11, as @dribs-and-drabbles has discussed (x), shows Pat wanting to forget, wanting to start anew on the beach with Pran without their families interfering, but the elephants belie this message as elephants never forget.

Pat wears a lot of Hawaiian shirts at the beach, both times. On the first beach trip, there is a feeling of opportunity, now that they have kissed. But at the same time, while Pat wants Pran to open up to him more, Pran is trying to protect himself. The beach symbolizes a chance at freedom, a chance to be open about their feelings. It makes sense that Pat would wear these shirts there. Except they are not confined to the beach, they traverse space and time.

I'd like to look specifically at the shirt Pat wears when he runs away. He is wearing it when his dad finds them together at the mall, and during the confrontation with both their parents. Here in the city it seems out of place, but it reflects Pat's desperation to love Pran freely, to escape the restrictions being placed on them. And then they do escape to freedom, to the beach where there is hope that they can be together, and Pat continues to wear the shirt. It depicts a dream that seems so close to being realized.

When they get back home, Pat is once again wearing the shirt he wore when they ran away. Nothing has really changed, despite their temporary escape, the same problems with their families persist. The repetition of the shirt brings this message home. But it also an interesting choice for both of them to wear the same shirts, it feels intentional. Like a disguise. They are going home, pretending that nothing has changed, that they broke up, but are keeping the truth hidden.

The shirt Pat wears in the finale is a callback to the first episode when we saw it in Pat's laundry basket. Pat has incorporated Pran's style into his own, reflecting smiles back at him. He wears it in front of his family, a hidden signal of their relationship. This shirt shows that the optimism of before paid off, that they can achieve the open-ended future they are fighting for. That there is hope.

#bad buddy #on this rewatch i analyzed the show using 2 critical lenses #1. literary allusions and queer theory #and 2. pat's shirts #how is this the longer meta of the 2 i wrote this weekend? it was supposed to be a joke #sometimes i just like to have thoughts recreationally #bad buddy series #bad buddy meta #bad buddy shirts #thinking thoughts #thai drama fashion #bad buddy the series

118 notes · View notes

bromelads · 7 months

Note

Wait, are you telling me that to enjoy or criticize OFMD characters I have to use "different lenses" for each of them instead of treating them all the same regardless of their skin color? Or did I misunderstand your words?

Hello! Yeah, I think there was a misunderstanding there :P

When I say "lens," I mean a theoretical framework through which to experience and analyze something (a piece of media, in this case). Being able to learn different theoretical frameworks in order to analyze a literary work, world event, even your local news, is a key part of developing critical thinking.

At its most basic level, "adopting a new lens" in media is the equivalent of consciously choosing to adopt the perspective of a different character for each watch. For example, back in May 2022, David Jenkins invited fans to rewatch season 1 through the lens of Edward and Izzy's relationship. If you went and rewatched the show by looking at it from the perspective of Ed and Izzy's relationship, or Roach's perspective, or Buttons' perspective, or Spanish Jackie's perspective, or Mary's perspective, you successfully applied a different lens to it!

When I called out the ofmd fandom for "only [knowing] how to experience People of Color in fiction through these two lenses: white guilt and the white imagination," I was pointing out that, as a predominantly white space, the ofmd fandom is firmly grounded on white normativity, a cultural perspective that prioritizes the feelings (guilt) and thoughts (imagination) of white people.

So no, I am not calling for the adoption of separate, individual critical lenses for characters of color and white characters: I'm asking for a wider, conscious adoption of critical lenses that challenge white normativity for the sake of increasing empathy for the characters of color (and by extension, People of Color).

If you're interested in applying a framework to OFMD that exists outside of white normativity: I've been applying a postcolonial lens to my analysis of the show and intend to do so again come season 2! I've read a few story and character analyses that borrow from postcolonial theory here and there, but haven't seen a fully formulated essay that successfully applies it.

#hablanndo #thanks for the ask!#hope I addressed your question #assuming good faith here #fandom discourse #ofmd fandom discourse #fandom racism #ofmd meta #la meta de mi meta #ask

28 notes · View notes

discourse-on-discourse · 2 years

Text

The Guild and the Privileged White American Ideal

In regards to characters, this post discusses racism, classism, abuse, Catholicism, and imperialism. In regards to writers, this post discusses the aforementioned topics, along with brief mentions of slavery, homophobia, and other topics of oppression that are politicized.

BSD characters do not fully represent the writers they are named after. Rather, they represent the literary impact of the writers’ most notable works. Since a writer’s personal experience goes into that work, it’s important to critically analyze characters like the Guild, who are based on late American (and one Canadian) writers. Each Guild member represents one (or more) facet(s) of American imperialism, which is the core of their villainy in a politically charged story. Since the narrative of BSD generally falls in favor of those who have been exploited, it’s shocking to me how many fans lack the understanding behind the Guild as a representation of imperialism and racism. Character and author summaries and explanations under the cut.

Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby is a criticism of the American dream. Fitzgerald in BSD is willing to exploit the resources of another country (Japan in particular) and let thousands of people die, along with even greater consequences, for the sake of his family. This motive ultimately fails him because how he exerts capitalistic ideals on his subordinates. We also see Fitzgerald bragging about his wealth, guns, and exploits on others. Even after the Guild fails, he has a sense of self-entitlement because of his history of getting what he wants. Showcasing how everyone has an opportunity to change in the narrative, the post-Guild arc is not a redemption for Fitzgerald, but rather a decay of his threat, because he no longer has his money, which gives him power.

Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath critiques capitalism. The Joad family is driven out of their Oklahoma home and subsequently exploited by harsh working conditions. Steinbeck in BSD joins the Guild to provide for his family, but eventually perpetuates the same violent exploitative cycle of capitalism under Fitzgerald. Later, when the Guild disbands, he vows to defeat Fitzgerald. This is never expanded upon, nor is his ‘Remnants of the Guild’ motive. To put it short, the exploited becomes the one to exploit.

Lovecraft’s work is infamous for popularizing cosmic horror in America while being notoriously racist, anti-Black, and antisemitic. BSD Lovecraft was contracted by Fitzgerald for his competence and his ability; Since the characters are based on literary impact rather than the authors themselves, he is both the cosmic horror itself and the one who fears the unknown. BSD Lovecraft has little to no personality aside his social incompetence and his assistance to the Guild. At the root of his character, he is a tool for Fitzgerald’s, and America’s as a whole, capitalist imperialism, as a reflection of his namesake’s work.

Twain in BSD has little to no screentime in the story, but just from his eagerness to do his work, along with the themes of Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer, BSD Twain represents a seemingly-naïve white savior complex. His namesake’s work talks about slavery abolitionism, but continues to use stereotypes and slurs throughout the books. BSD Twain’s ability manifests as two dolls by the names of Huck and Tom, showcasing that the impact of those books made the titular characters into figureheads of some sort. A shallow ability, shallow characterization, to reflect a shallow understanding of the context of the books.

Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter uses Catholic shame and sin as a prominent theme. Hawthorne in BSD is presented as a villainous, Catholic contrast to Akutagawa’s violent, reactive, “demonic” motif. There is little reference to Hawthorne’s writing outside of the devotion to Catholicism and his ability of the same name. However, his relationship with religion is still a significant part of his character. After being defeated by Akutagawa during the Guild arc, Hawthorne is brainwashed by Dostoyevsky, whose namesake is known for darker themes of sin and Catholic guilt, whether or not God is a theme. Basing ideas of “righteousness” on Catholic text inherently rejects the ideas from those outside of that belief, and is therefore imperialist.

Mitchell in BSD has little to no personality going for her, and little to no expansion on the motive of restoring her family’s honor. She’s clearly traditionalist, being mainly based on Gone With the Wind. The main theme of that story is going back to the “good old days,” to which an upper-class white family reminisces on being on the top of the social ladder. The main characters of Gone With the Wind get entangled with various instances of interpersonal drama, as well as perpetuating slavery and American imperialism. Turning her into a “girlboss” when she represents American “traditionalism” not only defeats the reason why she’s a villain, but also ignores the harmful impact of her namesake’s legacy.

Lucy carries a similarity to Steinbeck in narrative framing: Exploited person becomes a tool of those who exploit. She carries little to no similarities with her namesake, and even her ability, Anne of Abyssal Red, doesn’t have much similarity to the theme behind Anne of Green Gables. Montgomery as a writer has a more subtle white-savior complex than Twain, while thinking of World War I as unnecessary while simultaneously supporting allied countries going out to fight. Lucy in BSD however, takes this whole idea and flips it on its head. Lucy criticizes the Guild, having been used and abused her whole life. Her only solace in the Guild is her brief friendship with Alcott and eventual alliance with Atsushi. Lucy is shown with an exaggerated personality, implying that she forces herself into this violence. She relies on Atsushi to save her from the Guild’s clutches, and aids him against their cause. Lucy’s relationship to the Guild is similar to how military powers prey on poor people with the promise of money and fortune, then push them into a cycle of violence and trauma, usually perpetuating more than they receive.

Poe is a unique case. He is generally disconnected from the Guild because narrative framing puts him as a foil to Ranpo. Edogawa Ranpo as a pen-name is a Japanization (for lack of better word) of “Edgar Allan Poe.” Poe, having been a huge inspiration to Edogawa for his grotesque and gothic literature, is set up in BSD reversed to this; Ranpo inspires and defeats Poe in a battle of wits. Poe’s overall involvement in Guild activities goes no further than his salary and targeting of Ranpo, and eventually becomes allied with Ranpo and the rest of the protagonists because of their similar ideals. However, there is still some baggage to unpack with the implications of his upper-upper-class wealth.

Alcott also doesn’t have much going for her personality aside from being directly under Fitzgerald’s ideals as a strategist. Her ability, loosely based on Little Women, allows her to slow down time only when she’s alone in a closed room. This reflects the book’s themes of forming one’s own identity, and showcasing the true power of what girls can do by themselves. She’s briefly implied to have a friendship with Lucy before the disbandment of the Guild. During the post-Guild arc, she allies with Fitzgerald again, who becomes to her more of a fatherly figure. This reflects the uncle of the March sisters in Little Women having gone off to war. Since she was the strategist for the Guild, she was still complicit in their violence, whether coerced or not. Alcott as a writer was also a lesbian, and many of the writers’ sexualities get pushed under the rug in BSD but that’s a topic for another post.

Melville was exploited from the start. He founded the Guild before Fitzgerald took over. Taking the themes of Moby Dick into consideration, as well as BSD Melville’s canonical interest in diversity, it’s safe to assume that Moby Dick as an ability wasn’t used for the sake of Fitzgerald’s oppressive ideals. Even in BSD, the Moby Dick was built upon, reworked, harmed, and used by Fitzgerald, becoming something completely different than what it originally was. He is hesitant to aid the guild, and gives Atsushi a resolute answer to defeat Fitzgerald. Keep in mind that the book Moby Dick is still flawed in its portrayal of culture, but is anti-capitalist at its core.

Does this mean every BSD character reflects every political belief of their namesake? No. But if those political themes seep into their most notable work, it’s only natural that they’ll be used as referential frames for their character and the story as a whole. This differs mainly in the genre and theme of each character’s namesake’s notable works. Sometimes, the themes in these works are criticized by the very characters built from these impacts. The Guild, however, is pretty transparent in their motive of wanting to use, exploit, and oppress.

There are many things Asagiri could have done better in handling these characters. However, to expose readers to long and graphic depictions of the violence their namesakes have perpetuated may have done more harm. Still, it’s important to know that you cannot separate imperialism or racism from most of the Guild characters, and to acknowledge them as villains who reflect the impact of real-world issues.

#bungou stray dogs #classic literature #bsd #the guild bsd

53 notes · View notes

mask131 · 2 years

Text

Magical summer: Merlin

MERLIN

Category: Arthurian myth/literature

Merlin is without a doubt the most well-known wizard of all times. Everybody knows who he is and his story.

Or at least, everyone THINKS they know. But in truth it is impossible. For one simple reason: the “Arthurian myth” or “Arthurian literature” is a mess. Modern media might have given you the false idea that there’s a canon or a definitive corpus of texts – well, no. The Arthurian literature is a series of texts of many different authors and many different natures, that were spread over ALL of the Middle-Ages (which is a lot of centuries) and over numerous different countries and cultures. The Arthurian myth was the transition from oral folklore and pagan myths to literature of a set of mythological figure, old tales and legendary themes, but with no consistent canon or rule: each new author that wanted to add a part in the Arthurian mythos did so on its own, or when in relation to another author or text, it was to correct, complete, oppose, rewrite or expand. You know the SCP Foundation, how it was hundreds of unrelated people contributing to a same project? Well the Arthurian myth was the SCP Foundation of its time. To tell you how confusing it is: where exactly it happens geographically is unclear. We know it takes place in “Britain”, but the two main countries that provided Arthurian literature were France and England – and the trouble is that “Britain” exists in both. England is “Great-Britain” or the “British Isles”, and this is why Arthur is King of England ; but France has a region known as “Bretagne” (aka Britain, often called “Little Britain” or “Petite Bretagne” to differentiate it from the English Britain) – it is notably where the Broceliande forest is. As a result, the geography of Arthur’s kingdom is an impossible realm that exists in both England and France as if the sea did not exist between the two countries.

Merlin, one of the greatest and most important figures of the myth, is as a result just as complex and complicated, a character who was built over a series of additions like a literary Frankenstein’s monster. But let’s try to untangle and analyze everything, shall we?

THE ORIGINAL MERLIN

Merlin was introduced in the Arthurian literature in the 12th century by a British author named “Geoffrey of Monmouth”, who took inspiration of older legends to create “Merlinus Ambrosius”, a mix of ancient druids, mad bards and wild prophets. Merlin first appears in “Prophetiae Merlini” (The Prophecies of Merlin), which is a series of prophecy attributed to Merlin, a legendary poet, wise man and prophet: the main prophecy here is how the Vortigern, warlord of Britain, asks Merlin to interpret a vision he had of two dragons fighting, one red and one white. Merlin explains that the red dragon is the “British race”, while the white dragon is the “Saxons” – he then explains that the Saxons will be victorious and details numerous prophecies related to the British-Saxon wars. This version of Merlin is a very righteous seer, as he keeps chastising, criticizing and condemning people for their various sins and crimes.

Merlin reappears in another work of Geoffrey, “Historia Regum Britanniae”, “History of the Kings of Britain”. In this text we have the story of Vortigern expanded: as it turns out, he tried to build a tower at a given place but each time it ended up crumbling down. Asking Merlin on the matter, he revealed that there were two dragons fighting right under the place where Vortigern wants his tower, and it is their battle that causes the structure to fall down each time: cut to the “red and white dragon” prophecy. We also learn in this text that Stonehenge was built by Merlin as a burial ground for Aurelius Ambrosius, a famous war leader (Merlin even brought the stones from Ireland!). Finally, we discover that he helped in the birth of Merlin: Uther Pendragon, king of Britain, used Merlin’s magic and spells in order to disguise himself as his rival, Gorlois Duke of Cornwall, and slip into his castle of Tintagel, to sleep with his wife, Igraine. From this disguised union was born little Arthur, and Igraine later became Uther’s wife after the death of Gorlois.

The last apparition of Merlin in Geoffrey’s works is in “Vita Merlini”, “The Life of Merlin”, which takes place after the death of King Arthur. Here Merlinus (Merlin) is described as a prophet and king of Dyfed, who after a bloody battle where close companions are killed, becomes mad with grief and runs off in the Caledonian Forest, living there like a wild man, only eating grass and fruit. Merlin however has a sister, Gwenddydd (or Ganieda), also a queen and also a prophet like her brother – thanks to her efforts, she manages to inform Merlin how his disappearance distraught both her and Merlin’s wife, Gwendolen (or Guendoloena). Merlin gains back his lucidity and goes to his sister’s court, only for the experience of being in a crowd to plunge him back into madness: he is chained to prevent him from returning to the woods. Bad idea to keep him here however, as Merlin laughs upon seeing a leaf in his sister’s hair, pointing out to her husband that she got it by laying outdoor with her lover. Gwenddydd, embarrassed, tries to discredit her brother through a trick: she brings the same boy three times before him, in three different disguises so no one could recognize him, and asks each time Merlin to tell her how he will die. Merlin says “in a fall from a rock” the first time, “in a tree” the second time and “in a river” the third time. Merlin proven a “fake” he is let go – but later the boy would indeed die by falling from a rock, being caught in the trees of a branch beneath it, and entangled upside-down in such a way that his head was plunged in a river in which he drowned. Merlin, before fleeing, authorizes his abandoned wife to marry again, but says her new husband should beware. And indeed, when news of Gwendolen’s new wedding reach Merlin deep into the woods, the mad prophet rides upon a stag to his wife’s wedding and there rips the antlers off the stag and throws them at the groom, killing him. He is imprisoned again at the court of his sister’s husband, Rhydderch king of the Cumbrians. And just like last time he laughs at bizarre sights (a beggar asking for money, and a young man repairing his shoes). The king, curious, offers him his freedom if he reveals why he laughed, and Merlin explains that the beggar was standing upon a buried treasure and that the young man would drown before he could wear his repaired shoes. [This is a recurring motif, the one of “Merlin’s laugh”, where the demented wild man keeps laughing at random sights, but as it turns out it is because he perceives the hidden truths and deep ironies of the world]. Merlin then retires to an observatory deep into the woods, a house with seventy windows, in which he studies the stars and practices astronomy. During his stay there he makes numerous prophesies about the future of Britain, until one day he discovers a new spring that appeared in the forest and whose miraculous waters have healing properties: drinking them, Merlin is definitively cured of his madness. Immediately numerous chiefs, warlords and rulers of Britain go to Merlin and ask him to return to his old kingdom, to become again the king of Dyfed, but Merlin refuses on the ground that he is now much too old to be an efficient king, and that he takes much more pleasure in nature than in the company of man. Merlin thus stays in the woods, alongside his sister (that after the death of her husband joined her brother away from the world) and with a goof friend of him, the famous poet Taliesin, who is basically Merlin’s besties and kept visiting and discussing with Merlin in his madness about things like cosmogony, the geography of world or the history of fishes. The text ends with Gwenddydd making a prophecy which tells of how Merlin will end up renouncing his own prophetic gift.

HOW MERLIN EVOLVED

The works of Geoffrey of Monmouth had an enormous impact on the Arthurian myth – it was the start of Merlin’s fame, and everyone wanted to have their piece of the cake. Which led to many authors rewriting or re-using Merlin, and slowly changing his character.

# Robert de Boron, French poet of the 13th century, wrote “Merlin”, an epic poem about the life of the titular wizard (Merlin being the Frenchization of the original “Merlinus”). The original poem was lost, with only a few fragments remaining, but the poem was hopefully “re-adapted” in a prose version that we have to this day. In Boron’s story, Merlin is just like in Geoffrey born of a human girl and a male demon. However Boron explains that this birth was no coincidence: demons actually wanted Merlin to be born, he was planned to be the Antichrist and this is why an incubus seduced a young maiden in a parody of Jesus’ birth. The demons wanted Merlin to reverse the effects of the Harrowing of Hell (when Jesus descended into Hell and came back, freeing all of the souls in it). However a priest foiled the demons plan by baptizing the boy, which freed him from the power of Satan and erased his intended destiny as Antichrist. The rest of Merlin’s life stick to Geoffrey’s version : as a seven years old his prophetic powers are so great Vortigern (here an usurper-king) asks him about his tower leading to the dragon episode ; he assists and helps Uther Pendragon and his brother (new kings of Britain after Vortigern’s death) in their war against the Saxons ; he built Stonehenge (here as a burial place for all fallen Britons in the war against the Saxons), he helped Uther give birth to Arthur by changing Uther’s shape into the one of Gorlois… However, Boron added two new episodes to the life of Merlin that weren’t there before. The first is after the building of Stonehenge: Merlin encourages Uther to establish the order of the Round Table, and to create the titular table. The second is the story that closes the poem: he encourages the young Arthur to pull a sword out of a stone, and Arthur succeeds, only to discover that this action (that no one else could do) proves that he will be Britain’s High King and is gifted with a divine destiny.

Boron does not keep the “madness” and “wild man” parts of Geoffrey’s Merlin, but he keeps the “Merlin’s laugh” part by depicting the wizard as a mischievous and amusing character prone to jokes. Boron also heavily insisted on Merlin’s shapeshifting powers, as he keeps either changing his own shape or those of other people. Boron also details how Merlin’s magic is both devilish and divine: from Satan and the demons, Merlin got a supernatural knowledge of the past and the present, as well as the ability to speak fluently as soon as he was born ; but when he got baptized, God gifted him with a new power to balance this all: he received from Heaven the power to see the future and make prophecies. The prose version of “Merlin” was followed by a prose sequel, “Suite de Merlin”, which describes the first wars waged by King Arthur and how Merlin helped him in there by predicting and/or influencing the course of battles – this sequel notably includes a specific tale in which Merlin, to help Arthur, gets for him the magic sword Excalibur from the Lady of the Lake.

# This set of prose works inspired many other French literature works about the Arthurian myth, most notably the “Lancelot-Grail” (Or Lancelot-Graal in French), a vast cycle of numerous French prose stories that formed together a HUGE epic story about, as you guessed it, Lancelot’s life and the quest of the Grail. In these works, Merlin’s demonic nature is heavily insisted upon and he becomes a more villainous character. While in previous works he was born of the rape or abuse of a virgin girl by a demon, here he is born of the consensual union between a demon of lust and a beautiful young woman – and due to never being baptized, all of his powers and magic are purely demonic. Merlin grew up in the borderlands between the Pictish lands (actual Scotland) and Argyll (actual Ireland) – and he was feared by all the Bretons due to all the knowledge he got from demons. In fact he was feared so much everyone called him a “holy prophet” out of fear, and those that dreaded him most even called him “their god”. [The part of the Lancelot-Grail cycle concerning Merlin is known as the “History of Merlin”, in French the Vulgate “Estoire de Merlin”, or to simplify the Vulgate Merlin : it notably shows what the life of Merlin was, how he helped both King Arthur and the knight Gawain in the beginning of their career, and how Merlin ultimately disappeared from the world due to the Lady of the Lake and his failed romantic relationship with her. We also know in these stories that Merlin helped Arthur have an affair with the “most beautiful maiden ever born”, Lady Lisanor of Cardigan, which led to the birth of Arthur’s illegitimate son, Lohot.

The Vulgate cycle got several sequels (aka the Post-Vulgate), which added several more elements to the legend: for example in it Merlin warns Arthur that one of his future illegitimate children will bring great misfortune and great ruin to his kingdom, and he advises Arthur to kill all the baby boys in his kingdom (like the Massacre of Innocents in the Bible): however it turns out that it is all a self-fulfilling prophecy, as Arthur’s attempt at killing him as a child leads to his illegitimate son Mordred wishing to take revenge upon his dad – and as we all know, Mordred would become Arthur’s murderer. One last addition to the corpus of French texts would be the “Perceval en prose” story, in which Merlin is presented as the one who actually started the quest of the Grail and sent Arthur’s knight on it. He is also said to be an immortal, that will only die “at the end of days”, that he had an apprentice who would become the wizard Mabon, and that after the death of king Arthur and the fall of his kingdom, Merlin turned himself into a bird and retired in the depths of the forest never to be seen again.

# Let’s jump from one country to another. Thomas Malory, an English writer of the 15th century, was quite inspired by all those French works, especially the Post-Vulgate writings, and he used them as a source for his own depiction of Merlin in his famous “Le Morte d’Arthur”, a Middle English prose tale about the stories of King Arthur, Guinevere, Lancelot, Merlin and the Knights of the Round Table. In this version Malory rejects most of the evilness and demonic nature of Merlin, presenting him as a much more benevolent figure. We find back the idea that Merlin the wizard set up the contest of the “sword in the stone” to prove the birthright of the next king of Britain (in this version Arthur is unaware of being the son of Uther and prince of Britain, due to being raised secretly by as small countryside lord) ; we also find back the idea that Arthur’s first wars against rivals and rebels (which culminated in the Battle of Bedegraine) were won notably thanks to the prophecies and magical counsels of Merlin (though this time Merlin didn’t give Excalibur to Arthur, Arthur got it directly from the Lady of the Lake) ; we also find back the idea that on Merlin’s advice Arthur had all the male babies of his kingdom taken away, only for Mordred, the one targeted, to survive Arthur’s murder attempts and return to kill his father…. But this was for the first time brought to the English language, and it would influence many more English Arthurian works.

- - -

I could have written much more about this, because Merlin is such a complex figure, but let's keep things short. If you are interested, you can look into more of it yourself This is the purpose of this Magical summer, to invite you to discover many more aspects of the world of magic - aspects you might have been unaware of before... When it comes to Merlin, his end is also very interesting - but I couldn't sort out a clear presentation on the spot. In the older and earlier version, Merlin is said to retire on his own from the world (as I wrote, sometimes he decides to abandon humanity to live in the woods, other times he turns into an animal and disappears). But as Merlin evolved, a new type of "ending" came from him: his downfall due to his own weakness for pretty young girls. Indeed, later versions of Merlin have him be quite a ladies' guy, who can't resist the charm of pretty young maidens. And in those many variations of his end, Merlin ends up vanquished or defated by a pretty young woman/fairy/sorceress that Merlin took either as his lover, either as his apprentice, often both. The name of the identity of the young lady or supernatural "femme fatale" depends: sometimes it is Morgan, other times it is Viviane, sometimes Nimue... But the story stays the same. Once the woman learned what she wanted to know (if she is the lover she will use her charms to take away Merlin's secrets, if she is the apprentice she will do it once Merlin has no more to teach), she gets rid of him in one way or another, usually imprisonning him in some sort of magical trap (a prison made of air, the interior of a tree, an isolated cavern, a magic tower...). Sometimes she does so because she is an ambitious and power angry woman who seeks to replace Merlin as the advisor and court mage of King Arthur ; other times she is just a jealous and obsessive lover who wishes to keep Merlin all of her own, and sometimes she is rather a woman who rejects Merlin's constant lust and seductions, and gets rid of him in order to protect herself and her virginity. The interesting fact however is that most agree that Merlin, due to being a wise sorcerer and a prophet, always knew of the plot of the "femme fatale" to get rid of him, but chose to ignore this warning : sometimes it is because he has grown too old and too weak to fight the female sorceress and so he just surrenders himself to her plot ; other times it is because he is blinded by lust or love and his own folly leads to his imprisonment.

#magical summer #wizard #merlin #enchanter #arthurian myth #arthurian literature #king arthur

11 notes · View notes

anangkaaa · 5 months

Text

Understanding a combination of science and philosophy: Critical Review of Denny Ja

Introduction In the intellectual world, a combination of science and philosophy is often an interesting topic to discuss. Both have an important role in the development of human knowledge. However, often science and philosophy are considered two different entities and are difficult to put together. In this article, we will conduct a critical review of Denny JA, a well -known intellectual in Indonesia, and how his view of a combination of science and philosophy. An understanding of the combination of science and philosophy is not easy. Science is the process of observation and experiment based on the facts and evidence that can be verified. Meanwhile, philosophy is a process of critical thinking and reflection on the basic assumptions regarding reality, truth, and meaning of life. Traditionally, science and philosophy are considered two different and conflicting disciplines. However, over time, many people began to realize that science and philosophy actually have the same goal, which is to find a deeper truth and understanding of this world. Denny JA is a famous intellectual in Indonesia who has contributed in various fields, including politics, literature, and education. In his view, Denny JA often links knowledge and philosophy as two complementary things. According to him, science without philosophy will lose meaning and philosophy without science will lose direction. Denny Ja argues that a combination of science and philosophy is the key to understanding the complexity of this world. In Denny Ja’s view, science and philosophy have a different role but complement each other. Science provides objective knowledge and understanding of this world, while philosophy provides a framework of in -depth thinking and reflection on the meaning and purpose of life. Denny Ja also argues that science and philosophy must dialogue and work together to achieve a more comprehensive understanding. In practice, a combination of science and philosophy can be applied in various fields of life, including politics, literature, and education. For example, in politics, a combination of science and philosophy can help us understand various social and political issues that are complex. By using the scientific method, we can collect data and objective facts, while with a philosophical approach, we can analyze the basic assumptions that are behind these issues. In the field of literature, a combination of science and philosophy can help us understand the messages contained in literary works. By using a scientific approach, we can analyze the structure and style of writing, while with the philosophical approach, we can understand the meaning and message to be conveyed by the author. In education, a combination of science and philosophy can help us understand the broader educational goals. By using knowledge, we can develop knowledge and skills that are beneficial for students, whereas by using philosophy, we can help students to understand the values and objectives of a deeper life. Conclusion In this article, we have conducted a critical review of Denny Ja and his view of a combination of science and philosophy. We conclude that science and philosophy actually complement each other and have an important role in the development of human knowledge. Denny Ja argues that a combination of science and philosophy is the key to understanding the complexity of this world. In practice, a combination of science and philosophy can be applied in various fields of life, including politics, literature, and education. By understanding the combination of science and philosophy, we can achieve a more comprehensive understanding of this world.

Check more: Understanding a combination of science and philosophy: Critical Review of Denny JA

0 notes

hamliet · 3 years

Text

What Does It Mean to Save?

I keep seeing it said that Deku, Ochaco, and Shouto will “save” Shigaraki, Himiko, and Dabi, but that there will be no redemption and/or no survival for them. I’m truly not trying to vague these posts and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but literary criticism is fundamentally responsive so I’m writing this anyways.

I personally think that’s not BNHA’s definition of saving nor of redemption. So here, have a deep dive into literary tropes related to redemption, genre, and character arcs as they pertain to BNHA and the question of: what does it mean to save Shigaraki, Touya, and Himiko?

Before we begin, let me say that while we might be personally uncomfortable with redemption (there’s a redemption arc in BNHA I am personally quite uncomfortable with), that doesn’t inherently mean the narrative won’t go there. The key principle I’m operating on here is BNHA’s message that heroes save people. It’s held up as the highest ideal.

So let’s talk redemption in BNHA-verse. With this guy, whose redemption arc I dislike in principle but accept as part of the story so don’t come for me stans and/or antis. I’m analyzing because it shows us what redemption means in BNHA-verse, whether or not that is satisfying to you personally as it fits/does not fit with your own morality/philosophy.

If Endeavor can be redeemed and live, and he’s Bakugou’s negative foil, I highly doubt Shigaraki and Deku as well as Touya and Shouto and Ochaco and Himiko will be any different. Why? Because Enji is an adult character. The others--well, Himiko’s age we don’t know, but we do know that Shigaraki and Dabi are technically adults. But does the story consider them adults?

(It doesn’t.)

Child-coded characters are generally more likely to survive a redemption, which I’ll explain more later. First I have to define what I mean by child-coding, because I DO NOT mean this in the way it’s often (mis)used in fandom wank. Child-coding is a real thing, but it is not done to infantilize and it has nothing to do with shipping.

Child coding frames the character as a child for a few narrative purposes to convey a story’s theme or purpose. For example, if it’s a coming of age story coding a character as a child even if they legally are not emphasizes their journey to an understanding of self-actualization, or a true understanding of self with self-awareness and an understanding of self-value. An example of an adult coded as a child is The Kite Runner, wherein Amir is a legal adult for half the story, even married for fifteen years so we’re talking 30s-40s, but he does not truly become an adult until he returns to his homeland and takes responsibility for a childhood sin. In Attack on Titan, the main characters are now nineteen, but are still struggling to take responsibility as adults and have only started doing so now that their mentors/parental figures have started dying.

Along those lines, in any kind of story, you can code a character as a child of someone, regardless of biological relationship, to convey the type of relationship they have (usually a mentor one). For an example of this, see Bungo Stray Dogs’ Dazai and Akutagawa. Despite their two year age difference, Dazai recruited him to the mafia, abandoned him, and Akutagawa desperately seeks his approval. Usually in these stories a character will “overcome” their parental figure. This can be done through overcoming their need for the parental figure’s approval in stories where the parental figure is kindly (such as in Harry Potter, when in the final book Harry, Ron, and Hermione leave the Weasleys to find the Horcruxes despite Mrs. Weasley’s please) or through like, killing/stopping/leaving the parental figure when they are abusive (see fairy tales like Rapunzel and Cinderella). The parental link to self-actualization is because it is childlike (and a part of actual psychology that is reflected in literature) to see yourself as a part of your parent; self-actualized person would see yourself as a distinct person from your parent, but also acknowledge the ways in which they’ve shaped you.

So, how do you code a character as a child? BNHA isn’t subtle about it, because Horikoshi seldom is subtle about anything. The villain trio are all coded as children.

Shigaraki Tomura:

Who cannot achieve self-actualization so long as AFO has access to his body, as he’s literally trying to possess him. He’s trying, but it’s not gonna work because Shigaraki can’t keep AFO and become an adult at the same time. It’s a choice the narrative is setting up: your dream of destroying, or your freedom? (To get the latter, he’ll probably have to destroy AFO).

Todoroki Touya, who is repeatedly emphasized as a small child when compared to his siblings, and yes, I know he’s now tall. Specifically he’s spotlighted as the child of Endeavor:

And he’s the least self-actualized one in a lot of ways, contradicting himself constantly. I’m not Endeavor, DUH! But these are Endeavor’s flames! He’s gonna have to choose one or the other, because the tragic irony is that the more he takes out his rage on those around him, the more like Endeavor he becomes.

And Toga Himiko (who might well literally be a legal child), who is actually the most self-actualized one thus far, because she rejects Curious’s child insistence (Curious holds her in a Pieta pose, based on Michelangelo’s statue wherein Mary holds a deceased Christ):

She’s still got, like, a way to go though:

Because Himiko also wants to be like the people she loves to the point where she loses her own identity in them, which is er, not self-actualization. So she’ll have to choose whether or not she really wants to be like the people she loves or whether she wants to live her own way, which she herself tells us how that would end (death):

Deku said it himself: it’s good to focus on what someone is doing now. And look, I have issues with this statement and how it’s framed. I’ve talked about it at length and it was doomed to fail because Shouto himself told us long ago that it was annoying to hear a righteous speech by a stranger when you hadn’t gone through the same, plus Endeavor kinda failed by choosing being a hero over a dad here. But, the principle is that if the past doesn’t preclude Endeavor from seeking a better self, why would it preclude three characters coded as children, one of whom is literally somewhat the product of Endeavor’s sins? BNHA doesn’t think the past keeps someone from a better future.

So what about Dabi’s counterpoint, which is indeed valid? Well, redemption doesn’t mean the past forgets, either. It’s complicated and nuanced, and we can debate how well Horikoshi strikes this nuance (it’s got its flaws), and admittedly I don’t know how this will go down in the future. But it is asking Endeavor: how do you redeem yourself to the people you’ve hurt? And we have Endeavor asking this question to Touya’s shrine. I mean, the foreshadowing is obvious. Endeavor has to redeem himself by trying to save Touya. However, it will still probably come down to Shouto to save Touya.

For our three villains, it’s a little harder to predict... well, sort of. For Shigaraki it’s extremely obvious: he has to help take down AFO. Dabi probably has to do something to help his family (siblings probably), but it’s vague. Toga needs help and not condemnation, but presumably she’ll help Ochaco with something.

So, is this redemption? I’d define it as redemption in the eyes of the narrative. To address what makes a redemption is another essay unto itself, but if we bring in the oft-compared Star Wars example: did Darth Vader get a redemption? Did Ben Solo? Everyone says yes to both. However, only Luke witnesses Vader’s redemption, and only Rey Ben Solo’s. So the rest of the galaxy? Doesn’t think so. When I say they’ll be redeemed, I’m defining it as their role in the eyes of the narrative, not whether or not society will accept them or even whether their victims will forgive them (of note, in canonical novels, Leia never forgave Darth Vader despite learning he was her father and obviously knowing Luke’s account of his redemption was true).

So, redemption in a narrative doesn’t mean all of society has to forgive and accept them. Dabi has still like, murdered 30 people--many of whom were thugs, but he himself acknowledges they didn’t deserve to die. Additionally, he himself also acknowledges that the families left behind--their feelings matter:

But why does that mean they have to die? Why even does it mean they have to languish in prison forever? (If there’s even a safe prison at the end of BNHA which I kinda have doubts about.) Heroes have also killed: see Hawks as Exhibit A. In fact, some people want revenge on the heroes precisely because they arrested or killed their loved ones (jail isn’t held up as a rehabilitative place in BNHA’s world. In most countries it isn’t in real life, either, but again that’s for another essay). So why don’t the League’s feelings on Twice’s death matter just as much as the feelings of unnamed and unseen (and thereby less important narratively) characters?

Additionally, regarding death... the villains routinely get called on their death wishes. Himiko’s determination to decide how/when she dies is called out because this is right before Twice overcomes his trauma to save her, and the next arc they appear in is when Twice dies trying to save her again. Dabi’s suicide wish keeps him from getting close to others, and it keeps getting thwarted. Shigaraki’s obsession with destruction and death is clearly not a good thing, and his rejection of his family’s desire for them to join him in death this past arc is growth.

In other words: what Dabi said and what Snatch said about families and how they feel matter for the villains too. The villains are their own weird found family (Dabi as the deadbeat prodigal brother of both his families). Their deaths--Magne’s and Twice’s thus far, and I’m not ruling out further deaths in the future--affect the others. People’s feelings on losing loved ones matter. The villains are people, as Himiko said herself this arc:

Their feelings about each other matter:

How would Touya dying affect the Todorokis? At least they saved him spiritually, I guess, but that’s absolutely lame narratively, and if you have Enji eventually do a sacrifice to save Dabi (pretty likely, even if I personally think Enji will survive said sacrifice) then what’s the point of Dabi dying? How would Himiko dying affect society? As a martyr like Curious wanted her to be, even a redeemed one? A tragic warning story? What even is the point of Ochaco saving her if that’s the case? If Shigaraki dies, well, who would mourn besides Deku? How would Shigaraki dying affect the surviving members of the league? He just couldn’t be saved physically?

It’s not impossible some of this happens, but it doesn’t seem like great writing, especially with panels like, oh, these that show us BNHA’s perspective on death:

Sacrificing something is a type of death that occurs in stories; this should happen in a redemption arc, which is why I’ve been saying Enji needs to sacrifice his hero reputation to help save Touya and even then it’ll still be Shouto imo who does the saving. But physical death?

If you want further analysis of the latter two panels and how they relate to the ending, see here.

We already have another villain who will definitely die redemptively (Kurogiri--an adult coded character--because he’s already, like, dead), and Spinner and Mr. Compress aren’t coded as kids so I hold them with anxiety towards the end. But again, this isn’t me being ageist or saying this is the way things ought to be in fiction or real life: it’s me looking at writing tropes and saying that child-coded characters tend to survive their redemptions. See: Zuko. Why? Because the death of children or child-coded characters is a tragedy. When a child-coded character dies redemptively it doesn’t feel like a happy ending and if framed as such, it’s often criticized for bad writing (see: Ben Solo). Curious even called this out in her fight with Himiko. I would hope Horikoshi doesn’t end the story being like yeah Curious was right that’s the best use of Himiko’s/Dabi’s/Shigaraki’s arcs:

Additionally, as for the believability of a character getting a new chance after so much destruction and murder... well, it’s kinda a thing in shonen and even in seinen? For better or for worse, it’s a thing. We have Vegeta in Dragon Ball Z and Kaneki Ken in Tokyo Ghoul (Kaneki, by the way, is absolutely an inspiration for Shigaraki). We can debate how well-written these redemptions are (I personally have been quite critical of Kaneki’s despite wanting it to happen narratively), but it can be done. BNHA’s Japan especially isn’t as harsh a world as Tokyo Ghoul’s Japan, so it would make even more sense for something like Kaneki’s ending.

The reality is that the cycle of revenge via hurting people and then leaving hurting families and loved ones has to stop somewhere. Someone has to be the bigger person and step up and be like “naw.” That’s heroic. That’s brave. That’s sacrificial itself. Justice itself doesn’t really exist in its purest form without mercy.

There’s another genre-reason I don’t see death or jail as likely (I could see, like, maybe a mental health ward like Rei’s? But it’s too soon to speculate).

If saving is considered a good thing for the story, if it’s truly the highest ideal, then saving someone should be rewarded by the narrative. The characters who save should have a positive result to show us this a good thing.

This is why it doesn’t work for the heroes’ end journey to be accepting that some people cannot be saved. The notion of just accepting that you cannot do something, you cannot save everyone, you cannot, cannot, cannot, is called out as a flaw of society. Determination, on the other hand, is rewarded.

We see it with Deku as well as with Mirio.

So, what if they save them and the redeemed characters then go on to sacrifice themselves in their redemption and die (come to the same end)? If saving changes absolutely nothing for the saved person, if it’s too late for the saved from themselves to change and/or do anything that matters besides die, then the narrative theme of saving as important is left unemphasized at best and undermined at worst. Simple intrinsic knowledge that the kids “did the right thing” doesn’t cut it for a story with so much focus on physical saving when the kids are already doing the right thing; moral struggles about whether to choose to be good aren’t really Deku, Ochaco, or Shouto’s arcs. It works for Aizawa’s arc with Kurogiri, but not for the kiddos. If BNHA was more of a philosophical/spiritual text, that would indeed make sense, but it is not. Genre-wise, BNHA is a fantastical superhero optimistic story, not a gritty real-world set drama.

631 notes · View notes

rahleeyah · 2 years

Note

I thought I'd taken CM saying E's just figuring out how he feels for Liv ok. But somehow, this has been eating at me all week. Because IF I'm supposed to assume E didn't have romantic feelings for Liv all along, how tf can we excuse his behavior all this time? All the ghosting and avoiding and choosing other ppl only makes any sense if it was too complicated to face. Otherwise he just... doesn't deserve her. Makes me wanna hate him, but I still think he's her happy ending so it's not goin well..

i'm really glad you asked me about this bc it gives me the chance to say something that's been on my mind a lot lately:

it literally doesn't matter what chris says.

it literally doesn't matter. they do these interviews and the actors and producers give what are essentially their headcanons in answer to questions that have not been answered in the text but until those answers become text? they aren't real.

the only things that are real are 1) the actual, textual scenes and 2) your interpretation of them. you know that whole thing about how ten people can see the same thing and describe it ten different ways? that is so true and it applies here. your perspective on the scene is not less valid than someone else's. not even chris's.

chris said, off the cuff, in response to a question he presumably did not prepare remarks to answer, that he thinks elliot is figuring it out right now. does that mean that the actual canon character of elliot literally never thought he might be in love with olivia before now? does it mean that he's never been allowed to be in love with her before and he's figuring out what that means now? does that mean that he's figuring out how to be in love with her?

it's open to interpretation bestie!

what chris and mariska and the writers and producers think the characters are feeling, what they think their motivations are, inform what canon becomes. but again, until those thoughts become text, they are only one interpretation.

i throw a couple of phrases around here all loosey-goosey and i wanna talk about two of them you may have heard me use before. the first is "word of god". word of god refers to statements made by people with power in connection to the show. some fans treat those statements as "word of god", that is, as immutable truth that cannot be questioned and must be taken into account when viewing/analyzing a piece of media. some fans need word of god, want that affirmation that their perspective is the Correct(tm) one. and i understand it! we want to believe the creators are on our side, that our vision of what we think the show is and what it's trying to do is what's gonna happen.

i am not one of those people. i am interested in what they have to say but if i disagree with them i do not think that i have lost something, or that i am wrong bc the creators don't agree. i think we all have our headcanons and mine are as valid as anyone else's.

the second thing you'll hear me say a lot is "the author is dead". this is an actual theory of literary criticism that argues we should separate the work from the context of the author's identity and intentions. whatever an author intends, their work can have multiple meanings, perhaps even some meanings they didn't intend at all.

when i engage with a piece of media, i am engaging with what has been done on screen, and what i interpret from it. it doesn't matter if the producers and writers don't think elliot was in love with olivia, or think he didn't know he was; i've seen fault. whether it was intentional or not elliot's behavior in that episode can be interpreted as him being all too keenly aware of that love, and being afraid of it. that's how i interpret it. no one else, not even chris, saying otherwise will deter me from believing it.

so does elliot love olivia? how long has he known he does? does he deserve her?

you tell me, friend.

#anonymous #e.o asks #s.vu

17 notes · View notes

azurowle · 3 years

Text

@dworkinsdaughter okay I’m making a separate post to address this bullshit but I’ll say it right up front, because your response to me only confirms it:

You are not talking TO me. You are talking AT me. Your rhetoric is based on the presumption that our vaginas and breasts will be enough for us to relate to one another, rather than trying to engage me in good faith, on my own terms, as an individual. It’s lazy and it’s little wonder why trans masculine people are not fans of you.

If you relate to the fact the environment is the issue,

I don’t.

It doesn’t take a master literary critic to understand where you were going with that. It was trite and cliche. I just don’t relate to it.

Understanding a metaphor and relating to it are not the same thing.

you have to understand your conclusions are wrong.

The irony of you telling me this is just…something else. The absolute audacity.

The hatred directed towards the female body you have decided to internalise and allow to consume you emotionally.

Did you just ignore the “I’m more ambivalent or even positive towards my body since I started transition and HRT” in my last post?

To the point where I’m in no real hurry to get my top surgery done?

It’s truly sad.

You are calling the fact that I am more mentally stable and happier than I’ve ever been “sad.”

The radical feminist philosophy places the blame where it belongs - outside of your body.

The radical feminist philosophy does not give two shits about trans men or trans masculine people, at least not beyond those who are gender critical.

If it did, it would elevate our voices when we talk about the unique obstacles and struggles we face, and would do everything it could to include us in struggles for reproductive justice.

Instead we get blamed for when OB/GYNs treat us like garbage or even refuse to treat us entirely. We get blamed when insurance denies us coverage for essential treatment because we have an “M” on our documentation. We get told to suck it up and deal with it.

We get called fujoshi, traitors, “pedophilic autoandrophiles,” and delusional.

You don’t see me as a person. You see me as a text to deconstruct and analyze, a prisoner to be liberated, and someone you know personally based on whatever universal experiences you think we have simply based on our vagina and breasts.

It is not your body that is wrong.

Your metric for harm is skewed. Tell me, which would you rather have - a “healthy body” belonging to someone who is suicidal and miserable in it and self-harming and drinking to cope? Or someone who is transitioning who is finally at peace with themselves?

It is harm for you and the people around you to medicate and pathologise a perfectly working healthy body

Making assumptions about my friends, family, and support team is…pretty out of line to be perfectly honest.

You as a female found this world excruciating towards women and decided you could escape by means of transition.

And what do you know of my personal life and experiences?

What do you know of me beyond words on a screen?

You don’t.

You are wrong.

I’ll accept the consequences of that if that’s the case, but I’ll be going on three years in November since my first T shot and I wouldn’t change a thing.

The truth will bite you

It’s taking it’s sweet time. Which is fine by me.

and radical feminists are trying to prevent you from further self harm that you cannot undo.

So tell me, what do detransitioners think of the TERFs that claim to be the only ones to support them calling their bodies “mutilated?”

We love you enough to tell you the truth.

You don’t even fucking know me.

You love some sort of platonic idealized archetype of me, based on nothing but my breasts and vagina and words on a screen. You love me as a victim - as someone that needs to be saved, as someone who you can fantasize about detransitioning and recruiting.

You don’t even try to engage with me as an individual. If I even went into my story would you even fucking listen, in good faith, without applying your ideology to my experience?

I’m pretty sure you’d nitpick every single part of my trauma instead to show me why I’m not really trans, just a lost delusional lesbian.

And you have the audacity to say you love me?

Fuck. You.

There is no escape.

This is what caused my suicide attempt when I still thought I was faking being trans.

Your body was never the problem.

No, it wasn’t. The disconnect between my physical reality and my sense of self was what causes the distress.

HRT saved my life and has objectively made my life better.

Gender critical ideology left me with no mental health assistance, no support, and no hope.

34 notes · View notes

lany-d-flow · 3 years

Text

A Note on Cherry-Picking: Some Concerns

As someone who is new to engaging in discussion with fandoms, there are plenty of perspectives, views, and original authorities (typically the writers/developers) for me to both observe and learn from. Having a space for fans to discuss the intent, the story of an artist’s work is an important part of not only understanding the message the artist wanted to tell its readers as they draw their conclusions, but also for fans to tell interpretations of their own. Not every story has a concrete, objective outcome for events and dynamics that unfolded in the plot. Some stories have an outcome, yet authors choose to be subtle about what happened and could choose not to specify their message in interviews and commentary, allowing readers to comprehend the story on their own until they eventually see what conclusion makes the most sense in the text. In other words, the canon outcome/the outcome intended by the authority of the text, the author. The result of this practice may cause fans to spend a bit more time reading through the text before connecting the dots, and perhaps sharing their own interpretation even if it is not the writer’s outcome. Such a practice is pretty much fine, if not encouraged to help folks gain some inspiration and use their own creativity for what could have been written.

I have some concerns about one either over-extending their interpretation or forgetting to use the main source and only using a supporting source, though.

By this, I mean intentionally spreading their interpretations over one or multiple platforms as canon, even when the creator’s original work, continuity, and supporting texts would say otherwise. This is something potentially dangerous not just for new folks of the same audience, but even to the creator themself if the fan’s interpretations imply that the creator has a twisted mindset/agenda, which would very likely not be the case.

To make matters worse, some might choose to take singular moments, phrases in text and supporting texts, and creator comments out of context to support their narrative, even though taking a look at said scenes in proper context would help readers see otherwise. But this actually is not limited to the interpretation-spreaders alone, as one who understood the proper message/canon outcome of a work could also use the previously mentioned sources to support an incorrect interpretation of the creator’s work, even if this was not their intention in the first place.

I have especially seen instances of this in a fandom I actively participate in. While the actions of few do not represent the thoughts of many, I believe it is still important to make a distinction of this behavior, to not only help understand what could be a negative influence on the media you appreciate, but also to hold those who want to support the creators’ work to a higher standard, that we may stay true and respectful to the creator’s intent, the context of a text and its key moments, and instead of pulling quotes out of a paratext alone, using them to support an argument that’s using the text to make a more cohesive case.

So, I would like to focus on a specific logical fallacy that connects with what I am talking about, and use examples of this fallacy that could be seen in fandom.

Definitions

To start, I’d like to define some key terms related to what I have previously mentioned. These would be paratext, epitext, and of course cherry picking. @themelodicenigma has written comprehensive work on the subject of paratext and epitext, and cites a text named The Peritext Book Club to define these terms:

The concept of paratext was defined by Gérard Genette as common elements provided within a book (peritext) and elements outside of the book that refer to it (epitext); these elements can affect individual, as well as cultural, perceptions of a text (1997, 4–5). Peritext includes elements that surround the body of the text, such as the foreword, table of contents, index, and source notes. Epitext refers to communications outside the text that can also influence whether and how the text is read. Examples of epitext include book reviews, interviews, author websites and letters, and critical literary analysis. [source - pg. 2] (Gross - Peritext Book Club).

Another way to define paratext, as also mentioned in Enigma’s work, is that of which supports and communicates something about the text. In other words, what the paratext states is an analysis of what one can understand from the original text. Although there is a chance that paratext can have some extra information about a story for worldbuilding purposes, what it generally states about scenarios is what we should be able to discern from the text itself. Therefore, if one wants to strengthen their case for why something is as the author intended, it’s usually best if you analyze key moments from the text, followed by usage of a paratext. However, this is not always done, and we will look at it later.

The other key term is cherry-picking. If we want a good definition, we can refer to the Oxford English and Spanish Dictionary:

Cherry-pick(ing): Choose and take only (the most beneficial or profitable items, opportunities, etc.) from what is available.

This is a common logical fallacy, often used intentionally or unintentionally in practice. Typically, when one wants to prove their point, they will find a source of relevance or semi-relevance that says what they want to hear. Then, they will cite that source as the ultimate Word on what is true, whether or not that is the case. Also, this fallacy can also invite confirmation bias to the user, making their case more fallacious than intended. The problem with this fallacy is that it most often does not address the full context of what the statement is about in the first place. There is also a chance that the source and quote cited are either not officially proven, taken from an outside source that may not be relevant to the topic, as well as taken out of context and warped to the user’s meaning so that their narrative may be supported. If one wants to determine the strength of the source used, they need only check the source cited in the first place and read the material themselves. From there the reader can determine how valid the source actually is to the topic, and continue to point out to other readers why that source is not entirely valid and does not cover the full context of the topic. We can actually see this fallacy in practice with any form of text, whether it’s a paratext, epitext, or the text itself. This is why it’s important for us to fact check what we are telling people and cover the original text when we are making our case.

Unfortunately, some folks in fandom circles end up cherry-picking sources when discussing media--video games, movies, TV shows, books, music, artwork, and so on. Engaging in one particular fandom recently, there is an ongoing debate that fans themselves choose to keep ongoing. Even with texts, paratexts, and epitext(s) supporting one side of the argument, there are plenty of attempts to ignore what the plot of the story ultimately gave us, leading some to attempt to refute what the text gave us and what the creators intended by taking any conceivable scene, line, and written text from the text, paratexts, and epitexts out of context to support their narrative. If one wants to tell whether or not an argument is cherry-picking, they can:

1) find the original source

2) get the rest of the information from the original source, then…

3) discern the context of what’s actually going on in the first place, and see if what the original user was talking about actually lines up with the intent of the creator/original source.

However, this practice is not restricted in this type of scenario alone. If a group has found the answer themself, they could make a case using the original text to discuss what’s going on. However, I have found that there are many instances where only quotes from a paratext and epitext are addressed. So while paratexts and epitexts may support what the user is trying to claim, the user overlooked the main text in the first place. This could raise the question of, “Did you actually look at the scenes in the text?” or “did you NEED to use those supporting texts in the first place?”

And really, I am addressing two sides of this to set a better standard and show that we are not always free from fallacy. It is not necessarily our intention to use a logical fallacy like cherry-picking, but besides twisting original intent it can end up weakening our arguments for questions about the text because we did not actually bother to address the original scene. The text is supposed to provide the full context and cover what grounds it needs to. Using a paratext and epitext alone often don’t cover the full context of a text since they simply provide some support. It’s important to correspond supporting texts to the original media also, not just because of what’s mentioned before, but simply because that’s another important part of preventing misconceptions.

So, I want to provide some examples of how I’ve seen this fallacy being used that’s caused me to raise concerns. Hopefully by the end of this, you’ll understand where cherry-picking ends up being used and how we can do better to stray away from it. For reference, I will try to refer to epitext as “paratext” to avoid having to use both nouns in every sentence. But if the only paratext in question is something like an interview, I’ll use “epitext”.

And yes, I will be specific about the game and characters. I thought about being vague by making the subjects indirectly about the characters, but I do not think my point would be as effective that way. Ultimately, the intent still remains the same, so here goes.

Media to Observe

Game: Final Fantasy VII/Final Fantasy VII Remake

Book: Final Fantasy VII: On The Way To a Smile

Movie: Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children Complete

Paratext(s): Ultimania Guidebook, Interview(s)

Topic: The Nonsensical LTD between three characters (Cloud, Tifa, Aerith)

Examples

Claim: Cloud is obviously in love and prefers Aerith over Tifa because he is miserable and pining for Aerith in Final Fantasy VII Advent Children and avoiding Tifa and their family. We saw him away from his family in the beginning of the movie, and we saw Aerith appear in his head and ask for forgiveness from her. He must be asking her to forgive him for having a relationship with Tifa!

Response:

Types of Media/Text to observe: Movie, Game, Book.

Watch the movie and draw your interpretation. Then, check the prequel of the movie (In this case, On The Way to A Smile). Find any guidebooks and previous texts lining up to this continuity. In the case of this moment, there is a book and game that take place before the events of the movie. In the game, Aerith died and Cloud feels guilty about this. Later in the game, Cloud breaks down due to an identity crisis when he believes Tifa lost faith in him being real, and later in the story Tifa enters his subconscious. In this moment, as we help validate Cloud’s memories, we find out the reason Cloud did everything he did before the events of the game was for Tifa to notice him. After validating the truth of Cloud’s memories and the two of them revealing they indeed held feelings for each other, we eventually reach a scene where, before the final battle, the two of them confess their feelings for each other (will come back to this later). After the game, we have a text that covers the limited point-of-view of the game’s characters, one of them being Tifa. We learn from Tifa’s story that Cloud has tremendous guilt for not being able to protect Aerith. However, this actually is NOT THE ONLY REASON for Cloud’s guilt. In the book and movie, we get information that a new disease is spreading. Finding out there is no cure, while caring for a child with this disease, Cloud’s guilt starts to build up even more. The last straw for Cloud is when he himself contracts this disease. Ultimately, feeling guilty for not saving an important friend, feeling guilty for not being able to find a cure for the child he and Tifa care for, and receiving it himself makes him feel so worthless that he believes the best way to handle the situation is to stay away from his family, that they may not see him suffer and eventually die.

Feeling guilty for Aerith is definitely intentional by the creators and it does represent her importance to Cloud. However, when one chooses to take that one piece of writing and interpret it as the one and only reason for why Cloud is behaving the way he is, then try to interpret it as romantic, that completely neglects the full context for why he was straying away from the people he cherished. Cherry-picking one person and posting that narrative on platforms may make an audience feel inclined to take that as fact, that is why it is important that we look at the rest of the text for Cloud’s behavior, because his internal conflict revolves around failure, guilt, anxiety. Specifically, failure to protect the people he cherishes, and this does not have to be--and is not--romantic to be true. And as if this was not enough, eventually the movie received a more fleshed out version that added another very important person that Cloud feels guilty for: his close friend and comrade, who also ended up being the first love of Aerith.

Also, this is a case where you can use the paratext to support your argument against this cherry-picking. TheLifeStream contains a “3N” Interview, where the three main creators of FFVII Advent Children provide commentary about the movie. In one of the questions, Scenario Writer Kazushige Nojima has this to say about Cloud’s behavior:

At the end of FFVII, Cloud saved the world and was on the way to a happy ending but, in the two years towards AC, he returned to the way he was in the past. What happened to him?

Nojima: Cloud never had a boring personality in the first place so when he started living with Tifa and started out his job, the peaceful life that he had never experienced before made him anxious. During that time, he also contracted Geostigma so it’s to protect the ones precious to him or not, he had to face death and ran away.

Nojima: Even though it’s become peaceful, Cloud has lost many people precious to him. And from Cloud’s background, it was the first time he was in a “peaceful” environment. He’s a character that likes to think about what’s going on around him often.

Here, we are given some context on Cloud’s anxiety and guilt. Context that, in other words, is relevant to the narrative of On The Way to a Smile and FFVII Advent Children as it provides ground for another aspect of Cloud’s guilt. If what was mentioned was not enough to make Cloud feel guilty, he feels anxious for getting something he never had before: a peaceful, happy life with his family. It’s pretty easy to recognize that anxiety is not going to help with Cloud’s aforementioned problems, and all of these issues come together to tell a story about a life after conflict, and handling inevitable issues that will arise regardless. It is important to recognize all of these themes and not just cherry-pick one, because it not only misleads the audience, but also reduces the impact of the message the writers wanted us to tell us.

Claim: The Director of the game in an epitext (an interview) said, “When Cloud is around Tifa, a bit of his true self emerges. There is no other source that says this, and it shows that Cloud is only himself when he is around Tifa.

Response:

Types of Media/Text to observe: Games, Paratext.

Source for reference. Director Tetsuya Nomura’s comment:

In a similar fashion, we made it so that the way Cloud talks is dependent on who he's talking to. While talking to Aerith he stands taller and tries to act cool, with Tifa he acts more like himself, and with Jessie you can see his annoyance. Specifically with Aerith he overthinks things and ends up acting a little strange.

There are several different translations of this comment, with the sentence in question varying between “...a bit of his true-self emerges”, “...he loosens up a bit”, or “...he acts more like himself”. While there is some truth to this statement and is well-observed by one of the creators of the game, the interpretation of this epitext is generally taken too far, and doesn’t cover the full context as to what constitutes Cloud’s “true self” in the first place. This is where it’s necessary to look through the text. In this case, the text is a video game.

The truth in this statement stems that Cloud feels most comfortable around Tifa, and generally does not try to put up a facade around her. From here, one should observe traits that represent Cloud’s “true self.” When we see this side of Cloud’s character, we can observe that other characters also see through his facade, and while Cloud tries to keep distance from other characters, either fails to do so or starts to loosen up around the distanced folk. A better way to read this epitext is to take it symbolically, and see how Cloud’s loosened behavior is toward Tifa, then observe how he interacts with others. The bit of Cloud’s “true self” more or less refers to the traits of his true self’s behavior, as the game follows a plot where Cloud made up a false identity that prevents the truth of his memories from connecting with himself. Tifa is the only one who can help Cloud with this, Since this has not yet taken place in the game--which is a remake of the original game--it’s not exactly best to assume the epitext means that Cloud’s true self can consciously choose to come out around only Tifa or whenever he wants.

Similarly, there is a quote from a paratext that says Aerith “melts Cloud’s icy exterior.” This has been cherry-picked by some to tell readers that only Aerith is capable of making Cloud lose his hard-edge. Once again, if we look at scenes within the text itself, it’s pretty easy to see that Cloud’s “rude” and “icy” remarks are not constantly shown throughout the text. What this quote means is that Aerith does a remarkable job at making Cloud be a better individual to those he interacts with in communities along with his friends. It’s best to care more about what impact these characters have on Cloud than trying to perpetuate a narrative that every single one of Cloud’s moments with Tifa and Aerith are romantically motivated, whether or not they are (More often, they are not).

Claim: The Writer stated in an epitext (interview) that things would have gone better with Aerith. This is proof that Aerith was the intended couple and the one that Cloud deserved, but instead Cloud had to have Tifa as a secondary choice.

Response:

Types of Media/Text to observe: Book, Epitext, Movie.

Link to Source analysis and translated comment from FFVII Scenario Writer Kazushige Nojima:

‘Episode Tifa’… first off, there’s the premise that things won’t go well between Tifa and Cloud, and that even without Geostigma or Sephiroth this might be the same. I don’t really intend to go about my views on love or marriage or family (laughs). After ACC, I guess Denzel and Marlene could help them work it out. Maybe things would have gone well with Aerith, but I think there is a great burden from Aerith.

It is important that readers themselves read the epitext in question, as this statement is a cherry-picked sentence from a writer’s entire interview comment taken out of context. In this epitext, the writer is talking on the premise that the relationship between Cloud and Tifa has friction even without the events leading to the movie. He gives some thoughts, hoping that Cloud and Tifa’s foster children can help them work out the issue causing friction between their foster parents--in this case, Cloud’s guilt. After this, the writer gives a hypothetical possibility that, “Maybe with Aerith things would have gone well, but her responsibility is a burden, I think.” In other words, the writer is giving nothing more than a hypothetical outcome that was never in the written text, and thinks that maybe if he wrote out a relationship between Cloud and Aerith there could be a great outcome, but he also uses a keyword: “maybe.” Not only is he speaking on a hypothetical, he is also not stating objectively that Aerith and Cloud are best for each other. This is something a writer has to think about as they write their story, as what they would love to see may not necessarily be the best way to strengthen their story. Ultimately, this epitext should be treated as commentary that can leave some room for one’s own interpretation. But it does not change anything that has happened and will happen in the text.

Claim: Cloud loves Tifa because it’s stated in all of the paratexts relevant to the game, the Ultimanias. Every Ultimania that refers to Cloud and Tifa confirms that they are in love with each other. Therefore, Cloud and Tifa are the canon endgame couple.

Response:

Types of Media/Text to observe: Games, Book, Paratext, Movie.

While this statement does hold truth, it is still an example of cherry-picking; this is simply pulling quotes/referring to words in a supporting text without actually looking at what happens in the text and continuity. Specifically, any scenarios in the text that focus on Cloud and Tifa’s relationship. This is not the best way to tell your audience that the creator wrote the two folks as a canon couple because it’s not looking at the original text. As mentioned before, a better approach is to refer to scenes in the text, analyze them, and then use paratexts to support what you found in the text. As a matter of fact, take a look at the scenes in the text that make people question the canonicity, and if able, actually discuss how one of the scenes is not what some people try to deem it as (in this case, a rejection).

There is one scene that comes into mind that focuses specifically on Cloud and Tifa. Dubbed the “Highwind scene” by fans, the day before the final battle, all the other characters go to their homes to remember their main reason for fighting, leaving Cloud and Tifa with each other. They then talk about how they do not have any other place to go to or call “home.” After questioning if their mission is actually being noticed by outside forces (figurative language for, “is this fight really worth it?”) they recall their past experiences and, depending on Tifa’s affection level, give implications for what they did that night. All paratexts referring to this moment state it as a moment where Cloud and Tifa realize the depth of the feelings the two have held for each other. For the sake of transparency, I will list the quotes from several paratexts here:

When Cloud proposes that the group separates temporarily, she (Tifa) remains behind at the airship and communicates her feelings together with Cloud. The next morning, she departs for the Northern Crater along with her companions, who returned.

“Words aren’t the only thing that tell people what you’re thinking.......”

-Said to Cloud, when he is at a loss for words while they’re alone

Pg. 27 of FFVII Ultimania Omega, Tifa’s profile.

She communicates her feelings together with Cloud in the final stages of the story, and in AC and DC they live together.

Pg. 33 of Crisis Core Ultimania, Tifa’s profile.

Cloud and Tifa, who remain, reveal their feelings for each other and clarify them together.

Pg. 118 of FFVII 10th Anniversary Ultimania

Words aren’t the only thing that tell people what you’re thinking...

--Prarie: What she said to Cloud the night before the final battle when he said there were many things he wanted to talk about.

Pg. 195 of FF 20th Anniversary Ultimania File 1: Character Guide

I will cut the quotes here, but if you’d like to see a much deeper analysis on this nonsensical debate, along with these quotes and the original JP text from the paratexts, check out Squall_of_SeeD’s essay here on TheLifeStream.

Now, these all reference a very intimate moment within the game...

However, in the game there are two outcomes depending on how you treated Tifa in Disc 1 of Final Fantasy VII : One where Tifa says that words are not the only way to express your feelings, and another that does not give the same implications, instead follows Cloud saying they should get some sleep. It is the latter scene that is labelled by some as “a rejection scene,” leaving some to interpret the outcome of Cloud and Tifa’s relationship as “up to the player” whether or not Cloud ends up with Tifa. Disregarding continuity that says otherwise about the previous statement, it is important that we look at what happens in both scenes. Both Cloud and Tifa sleep together no matter what, and Tifa asks Cloud to let her embrace this moment. After this, both scenes have the two wake up and confirm that they have each other, even if no one decides to come back. Not only do the duo’s friends return, they also catch a glimpse of the duo sharing the night. Depending on what scene you get, the reaction from the crew is different, with the “good” one having Tifa collapse in embarrassment and Cloud and crew rub the back of their necks in embarrassment. With the “bad” one, Tifa walks away in frustration, while Cloud rubs the back of his neck in embarrassment. After analyzing these scenes, then you can use the paratext to support your case that regardless of the scene the player got, this was a special night for Cloud and Tifa. The depth of which they take these feelings is what changes, not their feelings for each other, as we know based on previous scenes in the game (Lifestream sequence, Cloud’s “very personal memory I have” as his reason for fighting, etc.) that the two have not only held feelings for one another, but also they made their feelings aware in some form during the Lifestream sequence, with Cloud’s sealed up secret wish revealed to us that he wanted to protect Tifa and wanted her to notice him while Tifa reveals to Cloud that she spent the last 2 years after Cloud’s departure from their hometown thinking about him, hoping to see some mention of him in the press. The big issue with claiming the Low Affection Highwind scene as a rejection scene/canon scene is that it does not provide any evidence in the game’s narrative that everything Cloud thought of Tifa and did for her is suddenly thrown out the window, especially when, despite the difference in what happens between the two scenes, a special moment between them is still shown on-screen. If this was not enough, continuity of the game has this pair, as previously mentioned, deciding to live their lives together and eventually care for foster children, forming a family of their own. If one is going to talk about the canon outcome, it is important to bring things full circle and use the text and paratext together instead of referring to paratext as the Word of God, as being a material that supports what you can already discern from the text, it is the reverse. What this claim all comes down to is the potential to become oblivious to what the text offers. Some folks may be new to the fandom, and seeing people throw around quotes from a guidebook could leave the new fans confused if one does not address what the paratext is supposed to do and how much authority it holds over the text, as if the paratext holds more authority than the text, which we know is not the case.

Conclusion

Without going through every single argument involved in this debate, I believe the examples above give an idea of what this fallacy is, how it can be identified, and how it is not doing justice to the creator’s work. The same concepts apply to any other media, and are likely practiced, intentionally or unintentionally, by fans of said media. What is important is for us to understand how to set an importance of the relationship between the paratext and text, then act accordingly for understanding the context. By doing this, we can minimize the chances that sources are being cherry-picked for the sake of spreading a warped message. OR, in some cases, corresponding sources to a main source being cherry-picked without actually referring to the main source. From here on out, let’s try to take the rest of the cherries off the branch instead of going for the prettiest pairs alone.

Special Thanks

@themelodicenigma

For reviewing my rough-draft and providing constructive feedback on the ideal approach for a topic like this. If you haven’t, I recommend checking out his essays and analyses. He has written exhaustive work on the concept of Canon and subjects of canonicity. Along with that, he also wrote about the subject of paratext, epitext, and Japanese epitext so quite a bit of inspiration from this post came from his work. Seriously, go check out this guy’s blog!

#context #cherry picking #fallacy #concerns #nonsense

15 notes · View notes

andmaybegayer · 4 years

Text

Long Poetry Wallowposting

One of my favourite poems is William Carlos Williams’ “Red Wheelbarrow” (or “XXII” if you’re being dipshit about it), not because it’s an exceptional poem, but because of the circumstances surrounding the first time I read it.

In 2015 I convinced two of my friends to join me for a multidisciplinary academic competition thing. One of the rounds was the independent essay, which has an interesting twist: your team of three gets all three essay topics (critique a given essay, write an essay on a topic, and analyze a poem) and you have 30 minutes to discuss and split the topics before a 90 minute solo writing period.

(I could write another extended post about the bureaucratic shenanigans I went through surrounding that competition, someone remind me to tell that story sometime.)

I don’t remember what the other two topics were, but the poem was to analyze William Carlos Williams’ “Red Wheelbarrow”, a poem which looks like this:

so much depends upon a red wheel barrow glazed with rain water beside the white chickens

Now, I got roped into this competition by a teacher who I did not know and who gave us no more detail other than “Get a team of 3 together and I’ll vouch for you to skip a day of school and attend this competition” so we did not know that there was actually a published list of poems, books and artpieces that you should have studied before coming to this competition, including John Campbell’s “Hero with a thousand faces” and Jeff Koons’ “Puppy”.

So we were in for this Sight Unseen, No Background. We didn’t even know who Williams was.

Fortunately for me, my friends are horrible nerds. We’re not the dead poets society but we were still the kind of people who, bored in the back of english class, would write short poems and read each other’s shitty writing and who had fun proving that the integral of e^x was e^x and we took part in OTHER competitions and would show off obscure academic skills to each other and we thought that was cool. We were not lost at sea here.

So we stare at this for a second. With zero context, what the hell does this mean. Chicken is an implicitly funny word, of course, but that’s the 2000′s talking and this must be the 1900′s sometime. The enjambment is interesting but nothing crazy here, this isn’t e.e. cummings (not a fan by the way) and so, there’s really not a lot to look at. We spent ten minutes throwing ideas back and forth before almost simultaneously coming to the conclusion. This is just a scene, being described in poetry.

We discuss this idea for a few more minutes, and we allocate the actual writing of the essay to a friend (I messaged him about this to make sure I had my story straight) and then time was up, and we turned to our individual essays.

Reader-response analysis is a school of literary theory that is, some would say, kinda garbage. It asks the reader “what did that work make you think of, what did that work make you feel” and treats that as ground truth. The reader is an active element in this, and the way the reader feels is of course very flexible, leading many people to conclude that it is useless, since the reader is an unknown quantity here. Well, reader-response analysis is not actually garbage and can be a very useful tool in your literary toolkit if used appropriately. We all found we had the same reader’s response: a clear mental image of a scene. Maybe the floor is gravel, maybe it’s grass. There is a wheelbarrow leaned up against a shed, gleaming with the last drops of rain. A chicken pecks around nearby, with more close at hand. The smell of a heavy night of rain persists, the light is the bright cold glow of a wet morning that can shine without burning off the dew just yet.

So, that’s what we found. There’s no deeper meaning here. This poem is simply conveying to you the idea. We, of course, being dweebs, took it further. Attempting to find deeper meaning in this poem demonstrates an inability to take information at face value. Sometimes the pipe is just a pipe. Sometimes the red wheelbarrow is just a red wheelbarrow.

Turns out, that analysis is correct. At the time this was written, Williams was busy doing Imagism, which means he was being economical with words and precise with meaning. The poem is short because it needn’t be long. There’s some chickens and a wheelbarrow. The Wikipedia article for this poem is hilarious, there’s a section of quotes from people who believed there was a deep hidden meaning about a dying child Williams had cared for (he was a doctor) who had a red wheelbarrow as a toy. This explanation is nonsense, and I have rarely enjoyed reading someone being wrong as much as I have enjoyed reading phrases like:

At the time, I remember being mystified by the poem. However, being properly trained in literary criticism, I wondered what the real meaning of the poem was, what it was really about. ... What is left out of Williams' poem is the fact that when he conceived that image he was sitting at the bedside of a very sick child (Williams was a medical doctor). The story goes that as he sat there, deeply concerned about the child, he looked out the window, saw that image, and penned those words.

Of course you can't figure it out by studying the text. The clues aren't there. This poem was meant to be appreciated only by a chosen literary elite, only by those who were educated, those who had learned the back story (Williams was a doctor, and he wrote the poem one morning after having treated a child who was near death. The red wheelbarrow was her toy.)

and knowing that, you’re all wrong, get fucked. It’s just a wheelbarrow. According to Williams himself, he just saw this scene in a fisherman’s backyard and wrote a poem about the scene. I looked all this up the day after the competition, and I don’t think I’ve ever felt as good about a literary analysis.

Now don’t get me wrong, the curtains are sometimes blue for a reason. But in this case, absent any information indicating otherwise, the wheelbarrow really is just red because that’s what the author saw. In some cases you can draw additional meaning out of a work but it requires just as much discipline to read deeply as to prevent yourself reading too deep. We avoided the trap.

I think about this poem infrequently, maybe once every couple months. I can still recall it from memory. It is still an influential point of reference whenever I try to write something. I tried writing some Imagist works in high school, and I had those same friends read them. They thought I might prefer realism instead. Unfortunately it turns out that most of the time, I don’t find realism to be the best fit.

XXII by William Carlos Williams is a good poem, but maybe, not for you.

#poetry #literature #the red wheelbarrow #kali's life #william carlos williams

38 notes · View notes

grandhotelabyss · 3 years

Video

youtube

Defeated by the hype, I watched the new Adam Curtis. I hadn't seen one of his films since 2007 and wasn’t enamored of the celebrated ones back then. I thought he was a more middlebrow Mark Fisher[*]: nostalgia for the welfare state cloaked in avant-garde aesthetics, which I was used to as a longtime reader of British-Invasion comics—the feeling is similar in Moore and Morrison and Milligan and Delano and Ellis (though not the genteel Gaiman)—but couldn’t as an American petit bourgeois quite appreciate. At the time, I was trying out dogmatic Marxism as an intellectual style, so I also took it as obvious that avant-garde aesthetics, for a variety of reasons, inherently degrade the social and conduce to the very fragmentation and alienation being lamented. Which Curtis does analyze as the theme of his work—and the sometimes patronizing voiceovers are like a parody of top-down state-socialist pedagogy—but his visual style, with its debts to Godard and Marker and MTV, enact in form what’s being attacked as content.

I also thought Curtis also had an air of New-Atheist-type Brit-twit reasonableness that undermines the acuity of his political analyses. He persistently portrays powerful political actors as naive psychological cases, delusive and fearful types who can’t face the facts. As a literary technique developed by Curtis’s English forerunner Shakespeare, this replacement of politics with psychology can be dramatically powerful, as in the new doc’s best thread, the tragedy of Jiang Qing; but it can also impede a more precise sense of the interests in play.

I'm no longer a dogmatic Marxist, or even a Marxist at all, and no longer think the relation between politics and artistic form is perfectly clear, so some of my objections have dropped away, even reversed—Curtis grieves that the corruptions of socialism and communism have led us to fear changing the world at all, but doesn’t his own persistent discrediting of anarchic ideas because they were co-opted by neoliberalism mirror the nouveaux philosophes?

The power of Can't Get You Out of My Head is in the nuance of the analysis. I am tempted to call it dialectical. Here Curtis does closely attend to economic motivations in recent history. Despite the banal citation of Richard Hofstadter, he also refuses to moralize and psychologize away conspiracy theory; he shows what secret agencies are known to have been doing throughout the second half of the 20th century, a record so egregious that people can be forgiven for suspecting them of more. Some of his own bland reassurances of their bumbling incompetence tripped my own paranoia—isn't that what they want us to think?—and I didn’t find his use of the JFK assassination at all compelling. Whatever you think of Jim Garrison, and I concede I was influenced early in life both aesthetically and politically by Oliver Stone, whose montage style Curtis’s also resembles, I take the Zapruder film as definitive, no-theories-needed, you-can-see-it-with-your-own-eyes evidence (“Back and to the left”) that there were at least two shooters.

Curtis places the most incendiary material in episode four, where he comes close to saying outright what I hesitated even to suggest in my Habermas post—that “humanitarian intervention” is, when we cut through the sentimentality, a mode of militarist imperialism that doesn’t even effect, and whose proponents perhaps don’t intend to effect, its stated humanitarian aims. He draws a line between the bombing of Serbia and the invasion of Iraq, but he nicely balances Bernard Kouchner with Eduard Limonov, two versions of post-political benightedness, to avoid straying into Peter Handke territory. To this he strangely adds the story of Julia Grant, the implications of which, given the rest of the film’s thesis, he mutes by creating sympathy for this person beleaguered by vicious street kids and fascoid NHS psychiatrists. Still, the inclusion of a pioneering trans activist—whose anti-feminist statements are highlighted—in a montage on the delusions of individualism will have some viewers wondering about the message. (Surprisingly, I saw no criticism to this effect on social media.)

There are vertiginous tidbits—the Boole thread connecting the Russian Revolution to managerial western democracy in the Cold War in episode one, for instance, or the fact relayed in episode five, news to me, that the director of Dr. No did western-backed propaganda for Saddam Hussein. Curtis also gives good book and music recommendations as well (but leave the sarcastic music cues—“Lady in Red” played over the radicalization of Abu Zubaydah, etc.—to Zack Snyder): I want to read My Bones and My Flute now, and the song that heads this post, which I'd never heard before, perfectly distills the epoch.

I can forgive much for Curtis’s conclusion, finally, with its exposure of the (I hope delegitimating) replication crisis in psychology and the social sciences; his satire on the squalid, hateful, maddening, and at this point almost genocidal derangement of the western liberal class, an enemy of humanity equal in its horror to its answering populist fervors, or worse because it incites them; and his call to reestablish the sovereignty of the imagination, which credo is the true part of both individualism and communism, not invalidated by what was false in those utopian ambitions, though the falsehoods in seemingly impenetrable combination are all that our present societies, from China to the U.S., currently offer.

_________________________

[*] I’ve effaced traces of this part of my life as much as possible, but I've been hanging around the weird side of cultural politics online for almost two decades now. From 2003 to 2006, I was part of the same circle of leftist blogs as Fisher—to be clear, I was a minnow in this pond—and was a contributor to a group blog that included a number of people in his milieu, notably Nina Power, who is now a member of Justin Murphy’s Salon des Cancelés. Like all left-wing social climates, this was a ruthlessly sectarian and ever-more-micro-fractionated ideological space, and I belonged to the tendency opposite that of Fisher’s. The conflict could perhaps be captioned “anti-humanists vs. radical humanists” or maybe “left-Nietzscheans vs. left-Hegelians.” I was in the camp of another still-controversial online-left microcelebrity, the figure now known on social media as Red Kahina—who was, by the way, whatever people have against her, never anything but the soul of kindness and generosity to me when I was just a 23-year-old nobody writing from a dial-up connection somewhere in Pennsylvania. Here, for instance, is Fisher’s part of one debate (the figure he variously calls with class-and-gender venom “Le Currency Trader” and “Le Opera Goeur” is Kahina). Even then, I was impressed by his characteristically electric prose: “The non-organic product of capital's ‘Frankensteinian surgery of the cities’ (Lyotard), the proletariat emerges from the destruction of all ethnicities, the desolation of all tradition, the destitution of any home.” Red’s long-defunct blog is still for me the model of the form, but Fisher’s is one of the first blogs to enter the annals of literature and will probably be regarded, not at all undeservedly, as a germinal text of our time.

#adam curtis #mark fisher #film #documentary #cinema #politics #marxism

7 notes · View notes

autumnblogs · 3 years

Text

Day 4: You eat a weird bug and don’t even care.

Starting later than usual today because I’ve been absolutely swamped with work. Let’s get down to business to defeat the Huns.

https://homestuck.com/story/644

I’ve never really gotten why John falls asleep here. Seems an odd place to fall asleep, especially with the adrenaline rush that must have been. Maybe he’s passing out from exactly that? Alternatively, maybe Vriska is putting him to sleep.

I also forgot that John Sleeps/Skaian Magicant is split between two flashes.

https://homestuck.com/story/651

Ah here we go. John has what are, if Jade is to be believed, lousy dreams. He dreams of his Dad, of clowns, of baked goods, of Fruit Gushers, of his own symbol, the weird knock-off slimer, and Harry Anderson, before finally Jade appears.

I am not a psychologist or therapist. I am not even anything more than an amateur literary critic. But let me give you my take on that. It’s clear that John is dreaming about all kinds of things that are giving him anxiety here, if Jade’s assessment about his dreams being lousy is true.

Harry Anderson is, as he’ll say later, kind of a weird mutual father figure for him and his Dad, and as a stage magician and comedian, he represents John’s aspirations.

John wants to grow up to be a great stage magician and comedian, and if there’s anything we’ve seen about the Heir of Breath so far, it’s how extremely self-critical he is of his abilities - he’s screwed up every disguise and magic trick he’s tried so far.

The other things are pretty self-explanatory - he’s anxious about his relationship with his Dad, he’s anxious about his Dad’s identity, he’s anxious about his own identity - with the exception of the gushers. Are gushers just symbolizing Sburb for John? Does he have a premonition that the gushers are tainted by the hand of his archnemesis, Betty Crocker? Maybe that one’s just silly.

Maybe they’re all just silly!

https://homestuck.com/story/652

I promise I will have more to say about Jade’s conversations once she is actually introduced, but until then, she is too enigmatic for me to talk about :^)

I will say, if the fact that John is stressing out about everything in his life and just not vocalizing his anxiety, it’s probable that he thinks Jade is just as mysterious as his pals think she is, and is just not talking about it.

I think John, like Jake, is way more intelligent than he lets on, and probably just keeps a lot of things on a simmer, thinking about them without necessarily opening up about them. He talks a lot about surface level stuff for sure, but he seems a lot more hesitant to talk about emotions, theories, that sort of thing. It actually reminds me a lot of how Kim Kitsuragi from Disco Elysium, far from his highly imaginative partner the player character, writes his thoughts down in a notebook to keep track of his through processes, hunches, case details, etc, whereas the Detective organizes everything in an interactive Thought Cabinet that serves as one half of the game’s Inventory and Progression System.

For example, John’s ability to describe and his ability to theorize is on full display in the FAQs that he writes, but when he talks, he’s often just as disorganized as he is everywhere else. Maybe John needs to take up journalling.

Huh. I wonder if Kim is a Prospit Dreamer and the Detective is a Derse Dreamer? That would make a lot of sense. Once @bladekindeyewear finishes playing Disco Elysium (which he is playing at my behest), I’ll see if he’s interested in assigning Lunar Sway, Classes and Aspects to the two of them.

https://homestuck.com/story/665

Dave Owns. The Narrative switches between character perspectives often right before there’s a major climax so that lots of characters can all have climactic encounters in sync with one another.

Eye imagery is on full display here as Dave ascends to the highest point in the building. The Sun over Dave’s house is drawn differently from other abstractions of the Sun in Homestuck, and this particular drawing of the Sun will later be juxtaposed against Terezi’s eyes as Alternia’s Sun burns them out.

The Sun as the Symbol of Light is also juxtaposed with Rose’s eyes later when she uses her seer powers, strengthening the connection between the Sun and Eyes. Near the very beginning of the comic, Rose compares the Sun moving on from the east coast to the west as him casting his lurid gaze on younger parts of the world, or the country. I’m not recalling the exact phrasing at this time.

Lil Cal’s creepy eyes are also highlighted by the Camera here. Through the vehicle of Lil Cal, Lord English is watching and quietly giving approval to all of this.

I choose to interpret the camera’s focus in this flash as giving us a glimpse into what Dave is paying attention to. And boy does Dave notice all of these eyes on him. Between seeing the sun as a malevolent eye watching him, to Lil Cal’s glassy gaze, to the Cameras bro uses to surveil him 24/7, Dave feels like he’s constantly being watched, and I think it’s safe to say it gives him the creeps.

https://homestuck.com/story/673

WV’s self-estimation isn’t much better than John’s.

https://homestuck.com/story/678

I wonder if we can get some insight into the strange minds of the Carapacians in the way that before he’s even finished receiving the commands, WV acts on them. WV is even more impulsive than John.

https://homestuck.com/story/684

Oh yeah, WV’s self-worth is way worse than John’s.

https://homestuck.com/story/685

Luckily almost as soon as his thoughts come, they go. He doesn’t spend too much time brooding over his self-loathing and survivor’s guilt, so good for him.

https://homestuck.com/story/688

A whole bunch of things that are symbolically related to the cast!

While WV’s can town playtime functions as foreshadowing for us, it serves as a replay of the extremely recent past for him, at least in terms of events that we know about.

https://homestuck.com/story/694

The light on Serenity’s belly looks a bit like the Sun, and therefore, an eye.

https://homestuck.com/story/699

The Blue Trees of Can Town call forward to Terezi’s forest, but I don’t think this is probably more substantial than something fun Andrew decided to call back to when he was writing the trolls.

IDK. Maybe Blue Trees = Democracy = Justice?

But Terezi’s brand of justice has nothing to do with Democracy.

https://homestuck.com/story/709

Tab, like GameBro, is an artifact of a bygone age.

https://homestuck.com/story/711

It’s a lot easier to become a citizen of Can Town than it is to become a citizen of the United States!

https://homestuck.com/story/714

I wonder who input all those commands before WV got on board? Maybe whoever was in charge of building these contraptions in the first place - a Carapacian Lab Rat in the Veil.

Always felt like the unseen actors making Sburb run behind the scenes were one of the nicest touches, they lend an air of sinister mystery even beyond the Guardians.

https://homestuck.com/story/721

I am not good at chess.

Maybe sometime, I will have my friend who is good at Chess analyze this game, and see how he feels about it.

https://homestuck.com/story/735

WV’s Self Esteem is very, very bad.

https://homestuck.com/story/752

Our first introduction to the laws of time travel in Homestuck - the past is a place that materially exists, and in only one specific configuration that can be interacted with. You can only bring things forward from the past if nobody else got to them before you. You can’t go back and undo things that somebody else (or you) has already done according to the canonical configuration of events.

https://homestuck.com/story/757

This is ridiculously cool.

Homestuck’s huge climactic story events are arguably one of the things that makes it so special as a story. I can’t think of a story that does such a good job of building up tension in multiple storylines before having them all converge.

https://homestuck.com/story/760

https://homestuck.com/story/765

I wonder what the exact mechanism is by which Jade is aware of the gaming abstractions and commands to the degree that she is? Is it just her Skaian dreams? This could be a one-off gag, but it could also be an indication of a degree of clairvoyance greater than that which I feel like the visions she has as the Prospitian Moon passes through Skaia.

https://homestuck.com/story/768

Jade loves to watch things grow.

It’s a Space Thing.

https://homestuck.com/story/777

According to BladeKindEyeWear’s Inversion Theory Jade’s complicated and carefully orchestrated time loops, which she uses to connect people with possibilities, is an example of her inverting under extreme stress, acting more like a Seer of Time, her opposite, than like a Witch of Space (in much the same way that Rose acts an awful lot like a Witch of Void for much of the comic’s first half!)

I expect a real Seer of Time wouldn’t need quite so many contrivances to keep track of everything going on in the past and future. Eventually, Jade stops using her colourful reminders, which is probably an indicator that she is no longer attempting to play outside of her lane.

https://homestuck.com/story/789

Pretty much all of Jade’s interests cast her immediately as someone with a pretty strong maternal instinct, something that she shares with other heroes of Space. Jade is a caretaker.

Her playthings are dolls so she can roleplay the part of a Mom. She grows oodles of plants, and seems to have a knack for it. She likes animals, and though the only animal in her life takes care of her, she puts in some work to take care of him too.

Her interests definitely mark her as the more classically girly of the two between her and Rose, and like her brother is preoccupied with manhood and Dadliness, Jade seems to preoccupied with Momliness - which is odd, considering that she doesn’t have a maternal figure to aspire to! (Maybe the White Queen?)

https://homestuck.com/story/790

Jade is not of course, only girly. The same way that Dad’s culturally out-of-place baking hobby marks him as transgressively feminine to John’s dismay, Jade’s scientific and artillerist hobbies are transgressively masculine.

Although it’s tempting to say that Jade loves the sciences because Grandpa raised her to, or because she’s aping him after he died, she’s clearly born to it. I think about the question of nature and nurture a lot in Homestuck.

I think on the whole, it falls pretty far to the side of Nature. Characters who share a common ancestry also share common character traits more often than not, even in the absence of shared cultural touchstones, shared geography, shared timeline. The same character only has a limited number of possible choices that they could have made, as Aranea will later say.

On the other hand, some characters turn out very different in one life than they do in another. Dirk doesn’t turn out nearly the psychopath that Bro Strider is by the time that Homestuck Proper concludes.

https://homestuck.com/story/795

Squiddles are, as everyone knows by now, a manifestation of the Dark Gods of the Furthest Ring, but I think there’s more going on with them too - they have kind of a horny energy that I can’t quite place. I’m going to come back to that. Any case, they seem to be one of the symbols that Rose and Jade share in common, although Rose subverts the colorful and cute squiddles into icons more of the extradimensional beasties that they actually represent.

Maybe I think Squiddles are a symbol of horny for the same reason that snakes are lewd to Cherubs - there’s definitely something phallic about tentacles, and definitely something intimate about the idea of becoming someone’s tangle buddy. The very first time I read Rose’s handle, I thought it read Tentacle The Rapist, which I suspect is kinda the point, and some of Andrew’s other works have variously described the process of interacting with tentacles as being molested and so on and so on.

Rose and Jade actually share a huge number of symbols in common between the two of them, which I think is great, but also sad - Rose and Jade clearly actually have quite a lot in common, and the two of them don’t really interact very much.

https://homestuck.com/story/797

I’m going to eventually decode Jade’s fascination with animals too, but for now I want to remark that it’s not just the idea of looking like an animal that excites Jade - it’s the idea of being like an animal that excites her. The exact same little poem is later reiterated by Serenity in WV’s nightmare, as he dreams of losing control of the power of the Ring of Orbs Fourfold and killing everyone he loves. What would be a nightmare for WV though is a fantasy for Jade. The idea of being out of control is thrilling for her.

Dave is also a furry.

https://homestuck.com/story/798

The trappings of a proper gentleman. Monocle. Pipe. Top Hat. Little White Gloves. A proper gentleman without these is a piss poor excuse for a proper gentleman indeed.

SYMBOLS.

https://homestuck.com/story/800

Another spot where Jade is able to interface directly with the audience, in some form or another.

https://homestuck.com/story/802

Jade may have fantasies of transforming into something more animalistic, but she’s not willing to indulge them.

https://homestuck.com/story/803

Jade completely rejects the symbols of witchcraft that Rose so readily embraces.

https://homestuck.com/story/804

Jade contemplates engaging in some Vriskaesque behavior. Is it just because Vriska is watching her? Maybe she’s picking up some Vriska-esque vibes through the feed as the Thief of Light practices her mind control.

https://homestuck.com/story/808

I think it’s safe to say one of two things is going on here.

Jade is either literally cognizant of the audience and interacting with them, putting her on a layer of the story that is quite a lot closer to us than you would expect of someone as innocuous as Jade (maybe the immediate presence of the Fourth Wall upstairs could facilitate that relationship?)

Or Jade has an active imagination, is extremely lonely, and likes to interact with her imaginary audience as a way of projecting a friendly and hospitable demeanor onto the world around her in sort of the exact opposite way that Rose imagines the worst of everything and everyone?

Or, as it often is in Homestuck, it could be both motherfuckin’ things.

https://homestuck.com/story/829

Did I mention Dave is a furry? Dave is totally a furry.

If we read Squiddles as a symbol of intimate contact with living things, Jade’s computer having Squiddles front and center is appropriate - it’s her point of contact to all the people in her life.

Tune in on the morrow to watch Dave’s Bro beat the shit out of him.

Until then, this is Cam signing off, alive and not alone.

#homestuck #liveblogging #commentary #disco elysium #bladekindeyewear #inversion theory #squiddles

8 notes · View notes

dariamalek · 4 years

Text

My Thoughts on “Big Mouth”

Alright, calm down.

There is so much controversy surrounding this one TV show. Many people think its inappropriate, inaccurate and is actually persuading children into sexualized acts. Others think it’s hilarious and it’s dark humour is unique and entertaining, and many could relate to some of it in their own years of puberty.

But I think we need to take a breath and calm down.

We need to remember that shows like this, Family Guy, South Park etc. are:

Meant for adults who will actually understand the references

Actually societal satires meant to draw attention to issues in society

Now before you go all crazy and say that I am condoning the behaviour that is displayed and spoken of in these cartoons, I do understand the content of these shows and here’s what I have to say about it.

I watched Big Mouth after being introduced to it by my significant other. He seemed to enjoy it, and having his sense of humour being quite similar to mine, I decided to give it a shot.

As a English Literature master’s student, I have a way of looking at all art in a way where it’s critical, and as a satirist, I immediately connected with the style. Because here’s the thing: Big Mouth, in a very satirical way, is actually brilliant - regardless of it’s “sexual” content.

Big Mouth is a show about prepubescent teens who are going through puberty and as their body changes, they’re greeted with the “hormone monster.”

The presence of the “hormone monster” itself is quite satirical. These children are influenced by this monster, who either tells them to react hysterically and convey certain exaggerated emotions, just like someone would who is going through puberty.

The sexual details in the series is meant to be there. It’s meant to piss you off.

Satire is a genre of literature that is meant to draw attention to a problem in society and thus create a call to action. Examples could be Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” or “Guilliver’s Travels.” However, more modern examples are: Family Guy or The Simpsons, even the film “Get Out” and “The Hunger Games.” You’ll notice these are all different genres as well as different forms of satire. It’s everywhere but it’s meant to be humorous in order to ridicule certain themes — sounds like Big Mouth to me.

While Family Guy is a more obvious form of satire due to the structure of each episode, but Big Mouth is more relative satire.

The reason why it pisses us off so much is that it’s displaying how society is so scared of sexualization and so focused on it, that they take something like puberty, which is a natural occurrence, and turn it into something that “shouldn’t be talked about” or something that is “frowned upon.”

The “hormone monster” in general is satirical because people think acts such as masturbation and sex are “monsterous” and people are acting like suddenly, arousal is “animalistic.” Well, we as humans are animals. It would make sense that we have the same “animalistic” urges which make total sense for sexual development and it’s almost cruel that we are spreading this message to children who are going through it thinking that these feelings are negative, when in reality they’re supposed to happen in order to develop them into healthy human beings.

However, to be fair, I think the people’s problem with this is not the act of masturbation itself (however some people have different views on this), I think the issue they have is with the privacy. What they’re lacking is that they’re just eliminating the idea of mastubation in general rather than holding that thought and introducing the idea of privacy and moderation to the picture and helping these teens understand themselves — which, when you’re going through puberty, your hormones and all these sudden changes, with the addition of school and social aspects, make for a very stressful time in an (almost) teens life. So by educating yourself, as well as the teen, on his/her hormones and the way puberty works, it could give the child a sense of reassurance and could help lessen the hard blow (no pun intended in the sexual context, see I can make some jokes) of puberty and could help them focus more on their studies and other aspects of their life.

It also displays the reaction of different genders to sexuality. For example, [spoiler] when Nick tells his friends about his, we’ll call them “sexual escapades” for the sake of professionalism (you can laugh at that if you want), the reactions from the different genders are so brilliantly executed.

For example, people were calling Gina a slut for allowing this to occur and people were praising Nick and pushing him for more information about his, well, “escapade.” Think about Jessi’s reaction as a secondary, feminist character.

It also explores something a little bit more sensitive — Jay’s bisexuality. Analyzing this was a little bit more difficult. But do you ever think about the connections between Jay’s family life, leading up to his realization of sexuality, and the development as a character to the very end of the episode. In the beginning, he was seen as this, dare I say, “strange” kid. He was picked on by his brothers. His mother wasn’t really there for him. He was then confused about his sexuality and, if I remember correctly, had a period where he stayed with Nick’s parents, who were comforting and understanding, which moved him to tell his friends and classmates freely — thus making him a more confident character. The development of Jay’s character is, not only important, but wonderfully executed (in a satiric point of view, I’m not saying all LGBTQ people are following the same development as this character, this is a literary analysis).

This is the perfect way of displaying the different parenting styles. Jay’s mom is very distant and doesn’t do much, thus making Jay feel as if there’s something wrong with him. However, the transition to how he is with Nick’s parents is much different. He doesn’t want to leave. And I believe two or three episodes after, he gains the confidence to be himself. We need to understand that we have a HUGE aspect on our children. Get to know your kids and understand them. It’s proven that the presence of a parent, and when I say presence I mean a positive presence, boosts children’s self esteem and social skills. I hate to say it — but in certain situations, parents just come off lazy. They blame it on wanting their kids to be independent but you need to understand that a child is nurtured into maturity and there are many other ways to teach them independence. This will make them feel wanted and confident and boost their confidence in ways that could help them overcome their other personal issues. Tell them that you are there for them.

Thus, this series was meant to display how truly terrified our society is of sexual development.

As soon as our daughters get their periods and our boys get their first sight of armpit hair, we are so quick to suddenly tell them that “sex and masturbation is forbidden.” Why is that?

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be. I speak so positively about virginity and the importance of saving it for the right person. I’m saying that we should take a different approach to teaching our kids about sexuality. Not scaring them, because that causes rebellion, but letting our children understand that the hair, the mood swings, the sudden urges for pleasure and arousal is all normal. And we need to understand that’s normal as well. All children face it, we do and rather than saying it’s not normal and frowned upon and absolutely the worst thing in the world and it shouldn't be done - have a chat about it. Explain it. Tell them why they feel this way. Tell them it’s normal, but at the same time tell them the dangers of some things, tell them how to deal with it.

I wrote an entire chapter about the emotional changes of puberty in adolescent stages and at this stage, children are no longer visual learners. They don’t need examples. Communication is key.

So before you are so quick to dismiss these shows, think about the message behind them. Their absurdity is to draw attention to the fact that we as people are the absurd ones.

With love,

daria xx

#satire #literature #big mouth #family guy #south park #writer #canadian author #canadian writer #canadian scholar #professor #university #textbook

68 notes · View notes

jamesmartin30-blog · 4 years

Text

What Is Academic Writing And Why Is It Important?

Academic writing is becoming an extremely essential aspect of schooling as parents and teachers understand the importance of analytical thought abilities and prepare students for college.

Nevertheless, many pupils, guardians, and even many teachers have no understanding of this field of learning and why it is so important.

As such, it is necessary in English not just to teach scholarly literature, but also to make people understand why it is crucial to produce insightful and competent students.

What Is Academic Writing?

First of all, what is scholarly writing? Some students see writing as something they only have to do as the instructor said so, so it's going to be a boring so time-consuming task. Our goal is to bring an end to this kind of thought.

Clearly stated, scholarly learning shows students how to compose essays. It seems pretty easy, but there's a lot more to it than that.

Writing essays is a means of expressing abstract concepts, feelings, or views. Writers learn to create a very complex statement or description by merging sentences into phrases and phrases of an article.

Why Should Students Learn Academic Writing? Because Writing Is Thinking

Learning how to compose powerful essays is essential not just to get a good grade or get to a decent school and you'll get a good career or something. It 's vital because, at the most basic point, it's about having your own ideas and then rendering them rational and real, first to yourself then to your readers.

It is when you take these ideas out of your head and crystallize them on paper or on a computer. They 're in a situation where you don't always have to accept them for what they really are, but other people will do so. When the theories are convincing and strong, such thoughts will become the thoughts of others. It's the crux of conversation.

In other terms, positive thoughts are equivalent to good prose. If the words are not straightforward or consistent or lack structure, they would be bad prose, and many do not appreciate or approve.

Many authors begin at a point where writing is not especially strong, but through learning writing skills, they learn how to be more better writers, which means they are better thinkers.

Practicing writing is about sharpening the thought method – the more you practice something and the better you do it, the more people can listen to you.

The other significant aspect about academic learning, of course, is that students really need it for college! This is a very realistic and simple educational talent, so if anyone is trying to be a professional student, they ought to be at least a good writer so communicator.

youtube

Skills Academic Writing Develops

Academic writing is important, but what particular skills do students have? They 're:

Strong communication

Students who can compose a persuasive and coherent article will talk in a straightforward, organized and assured manner. Not only are these people able to compose well, but they can communicate and analyze with the same techniques.

Critical Thinking And Reasoning Skills

The willingness to switch from one thought to another and to grasp the relation sounds simple, but it is shocking how few people really learn this skill. Nevertheless, learning to compose shows students how to think. In other terms, writing introduces "structured learning" to students.

Throughout fact, teaching shows pupils how to evaluate, or what scholars term "serious thought." Students tend to think, "Does what I tell make sense? "And," Is that what I read true? ”. We learn to accept facts, to understand complexity and context, and eventually to build the capacity to make up their own minds about issues. We believe that's the whole point of schooling.

Understanding An Audience

When you're writing an article, you ought to consider how it's supposed to be, what it's supposed to be, whether it's required or what it's intended to be, and how to deliver it in the most persuasive or approachable way. Through practicing writing, students know how to talk of their audience as well as how best to meet them.

Language skills

Academic research is a composite of all such language capabilities. You ought to have a good grammar. You ought to use an advanced language. You need to be able to respond to and appreciate the orders, and you will need to be able to speak freely and pose questions and voice your views. Perhaps more significantly, you need a lot of training.

If the improvement of professional English skills is something you are seeking, there is no easier way than to study academic prose.

Research Skills, Because You Learn A Lot

Finally, writing shows students how to carry out work. The truth is, students do not know the answer to any of the queries they are asked to respond in writing. It means they're going to need to go find out. The sophisticated word of "going to find out" is "study."

Through conducting research, students learn to appreciate their writing concepts at a finer level than other would would imagine. When they write on a science, cultural or literary topic, they know from doing work not only what they need to get a decent score, but they do recognize that there is a great deal to know on nearly any topic.

Types Of Academic Writing

Okay, so we may accept that writing is necessary and useful, but then what do students will need to know directly in academic writing classes? There are several types of essays with specific reasons. Here's a short sampling of a couple of them:

Persuasive essays – seeking to convince people of your view on the topic

For example: “In Praise of Idleness” by Bertrand Russell

Expository essays – explaining a topic to an audience

For example: “I’m an environmental journalist, but I never write about overpopulation” from Vox.com

Narrative essays – to convey a story in an essay.

For example: “Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell

Composite essays - Essays that inspire, justify, or reveal a tale

For example: “Politics and the English Language” by George Orwell

Compare and contrast essays – taking two subjects and analyzing their similarities and differences

For example: “Once More to the Lake” by E.B. White (this is also a narrative essay)

Cause and effect essays – Essays that describe whether something has occurred or the consequences of an occurrence or operation.

For example: “The Adults in the Room” by Megan Greenwell

Analysis – not an essay sort, but a lot of essays seek to get readers to grasp the topic better.

For example: “A.A. Gill on Autobiography by Morrissey”

Research papers – typically convincing, expository or comparing and contrasting, while often involving quotes and analysis to justify the author's statements.

Characteristics Of Academic Writing

Until we wrap up, it is necessary to consider the characteristics that characterize quality academic learning. For any piece they compose, both students and authors will look for such qualities for their writing.

Focused, clear, and logical

One of the very first things we 're telling writers is that they need to Stay On Point. As a matter of fact, we literally scream that phrase in class because it was so essential to the process of writing.

Writing needs to be about a specific subject and only about that scope. In addition, readers should be able to fully understand not just thoughts and phrases, but how they communicate to form a larger argument. In other words, academic writing needs to make sense of it.

Convincing and interesting

The concept may make sense to a person, but that doesn't imply they 're in agreement with it. Academic writing has to move beyond reasoning and still be compelling – audiences will come to believe that the speaker makes a valid argument.

In addition, scholarly writing should be engaging irrespective of the topic. Sure, academy may be boring, but it's the writer's task to make the subject fascinating and worth reading. Each of the essay references in the segment above are thought-provoking and persuasive, even though some of their concepts might be less than thrilling to all readers.

Based on evidence

Finally, scholarly writing must be real. Storytelling articles are never imaginary, but if they were, they would be short tales, which are a particular type of character.

Writers of scientific literature should give proof of their arguments and conclusions, and analytical reasoning must be focused on what is true and can be claimed honestly rather than speculation or mere fiction.

Academic writing is a must for teachers. It is necessary for practical reasons, as students will have to write an essay for tests such as TOEFL, IELTS, and SAT, college applications, and then so many once they reach college. After graduation, whatever their role is, they'll have letters, papers, interviews, and speeches to write. It's not just philosophy – academic writing skills make sure students are ready for their future.

However, scholarly writing is critical far beyond bottom line. Reading scholarly writing sharpens brains, shows students how to relate, and strengthens their analytical abilities and capacity to comprehend others. Publishing is talking around,

But every student needs to be a successful thinker.

Let the English aid them move in there.

1 note · View note