#and i wanted to emphasise the 'no good deed' interpretation!! | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

boyfridged · 1 year

Text

the brilliance of jay's progression in countdown is that it gives you a promise of positive character development, and then it breaks it. and it does so intentionally, in the most diverting way, to emphasize jason's inability to escape the cycle.

or, another post breaking down the series, where i repeat myself a lot but also make a clearer argument.

there are three notable events that happen at the beginning: the subtle showcase of jay's internal conflict considering his approach toward killing (the very first encounter with duela and the monitor), jay reaching out to donna in crisis ("i guess I just wanted to be around someone else who might know how it feels…"), and finally – his helmet shattering. these scenes tell you: jason's direction as a character is changing, and it seems, for the better. he's about to abandon his trauma-based (no matter how ironic, it does remain tied to his trauma) identity, he is connecting with people, and he seems to be on a brink of understanding that his moral standing does not provide easy answers or solutions either.

and for the most part of the series, we see that narrative unfolding (even if a bit non-linear, still innocently convincing way). it is, in many ways, supported by bringing up features of his characterisation from the 80s. jason remains, of course, still unpleasant in ways typical for this era of writing, and is conflicted and disagreeable, which makes sense for his utrh/post-utrh personality. however, there are also details that bring us back to his original robin run and his cameos on ntt – we see him being responsible (e.g. #43 – suggesting to bring in other superheroes in crisis, even though he clearly is not keen on the idea of working with them), determined (#16: “isn’t that your super-power, stupid boy? too stupid to ever give up?” “maybe it is”), sensitive (half of the whole storyline, really), caring for gotham (gotham by gaslight) and people-oriented (as early as #51).

the issue that particularly signals that jason is an inherently good person and externalizes his internal conflicts regarding classic heroic vigilantism vs his cynical approach is #30, where we meet batman of earth-15 – alt jason, whom our jason attempts to punch in the face.

and on topic of batman – jason is always gravitating towards batman. in gotham by gaslight jay looks delighted to see (the foreign) bruce and suggests checking with the local bat. then, earth-51 arc arrives.

earth-51 arc (#16 - #13) is a culmination of a promise of catharsis for jason. we have already seen him as batman, as a confirmation that a different life for him is possible. and here he has a chance to come to terms with his past and overcome it. he meets a version of bruce who has done exactly what he wanted him to do in utrh: killed the joker and the rest of the rogue gallery. what is most important – he is disappointed with this version of his father. we realise that jason, deep down, has an intimate and intuitive understanding of what batman stands for; and that he shares most of his values. this is a truth that you can't ignore especially since jay is the one to inspire this hollow, cynical version of batman to go out and fight in a seemingly lost battle.

and then batman dies. right in front of him.

this is a central moment of the narrative, for many reasons, most strikingly:

the symmetry:, a premise known from the lost days, becomes literal. this "the father had lost a son, and now the son had lost the father" is a cruel parallel to a death in the family and bruce's grief. jason's death created a gap between them that jay has been desperately trying to close, with no avail – because in bruce's mind, jason remains dead. now that jason is grieving bruce, the connection closes on both sides, and there's no way for either of them to reconcile the mourning with the reality of the other being truly alive. in this sense, the arc solidifies that jason can never come home.

no good deed goes unpunished. as i have mentioned before, so far jason is established as someone good at heart, but confused; and the reader intuitively assumes that his better, honest side will win. yet, the moment jason gives in to hope, it victimises and retraumatizes him. this event, again, brings to mind his own death, when he tried his best to save sheila and ended up paying the highest price for it. so, narrative-wise, jason is always punished for his kindness.

perhaps because of the nonchalant act that jason pulls off, many readers seem to miss that everything that happens after that arc is an upshot that follows logically from it.

jason's immediate determination to leave – and later a short period of indecision that ends up with his dramatic exit, pushing his team away, makes perfect sense when you consider what intense trauma he has just gone through. admittedly, i'm not a fan of the notion that he would give up at all (i think he's always ready to give up on himself, but not on the world), but then on the other hand, if there's anything that would cause it, narrative-wise, witnessing batman dying does sound like a good incentive for that. (it also has to be pointed out that jason seems to be confident that the rest of the team can go into the final battle without him anyway; it's not like he would go back to his earth not even knowing if said earth will exist tomorrow).

it's crucial to notice that following that crisis of faith (faith in fighting for the world) is followed by him raising up for the challenge again, but now... worse and even more confused. in the final confrontation with donna, jason antagonizes the superhero community, and when we see him at the end of the series (#1) his monologue indicates that he believes the capes to be naive. (significantly, he also focuses on bruce and offends the memory of 51 earth-bruce by calling him crazy; an action that can be seen as suppression of his own guilt and invoking, once again, a cruel symmetry considering bruce's engagement in victim-blaming after jason's death). this, once again, is consistent with the "no good deed" reading – jason diminishes superhero values because he has been continuously punished for living by them. (and unlike other superheroes, he doesn't have a support system nor skills in compartmentalization that would help him deal with this trauma) every leap of hope re-traumatised him. hence, it seems to be no surprise that jason decides to abandon the mask, and in the closing scene we see him without it. the promise of the shattered helmet is pushed to an extreme – jason does not get a new alt identity. he denounces the idea of superheroism completely.

and yet, what is ultimately subversive about the ending, is that jay is not truly a civilian and he does not abandon vigilante ways. he does the same thing. we see him without a mask, but he is clearly working a case. he might have rejected the symbolic dimension of the vigilante work, but he still carries the same delusional hope for bettering the world and protecting people that the superhero community does. only now, he is even more isolated and doesn't have any identity to go by (as he is still legally dead).

as such, the ending opens a new question regarding jason's understanding of himself and vigilantism, or rather the lack thereof. is it possible that vigilantism is really at the core of jay's trauma? and why, potentially, is it something that is so destructive for him as a character specifically? (and i have some answers for that, but i'm not going to get into it here, as it's already a very long post)

so, tldr; the genius of countdown is that it establishes jay as sensitive, determined, and fundamentally good (this is what the purpose of seeing him as batman is!), and then it brutally reminds the reader that jason’s tragedy is that on this specific earth, in this specific timeline, his love doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. the story goes on as it did; one way or another, jay is trapped in the cycle of his care ironically creating rifts between him and the others, and bringing him to his own downfall.

#okay i know i said a lot of it already but it's been some time since i finished the reread and i feel like my take on it has shifted a bit #and i wanted to emphasise the 'no good deed' interpretation!!#also it's just that i've seen a lot of people saying that countdown ends with jason being a civilian.#while i think the whole genius of it is that he is not really a civilian??#have you seen civilians doing whatever the hell he is doing in the final scene?#this is arguably the element of the narrative that is by most readers missed – and i understand why #it's easy to get confused when navigating an event that spans across pretty much all of dc #fortunately for you i have worms for brain. and i have hyperanalysed it #i'm not saying overanalysed btw because i genuinely believe that this is not a case of accidental narrative brilliance #this is a pretty clear and straightforward progression once you dissect it from the rest of the series #and there are a lot of details that further cement my belief that it had to be intentional #i mean. even the recognition that donna and jason know each other is already... a lot for dc writers?#the fatal flaw #51 #no good deed #jay.zip #jay.txt #jason todd #core texts

182 notes · View notes

deathlessathanasia · 3 months

Note

Hi, I greatly admire your blog and the way you’re so good with not only citing sources but interpreting them too. your views on the gods are some of my favorite. to your knowledge, are these any passages where Zeus interacts with Hekate and Nyx and maybe emphasizes their power?

Aw, thanks for the kind words, anon! They are really appreciated.

Now to answer your question, I don't really know of any texts where Zeus directly interacts with Hekate and only of a few fragments where he directly interacts with Nyx, but there are several references to his relationships with these goddesses where their power and importance is emphasised.

In Hesiod's Theogony, Hekate's powers are greatly praised, and Zeus grants her exceptional honours: „Hecate, whom Zeus son of Cronos Has esteemed above all and given splendid gifts, A share of the earth as her own, and of the barren sea. She has received a province of starry heaven as well, And is most highly esteemed by the deathless gods. For even now when any man upon earth Sacrifices and prays according to ancestral rites, He calls upon Hecate and is greatly blessed If the goddess propitiously receives his prayers, And riches come to him, for she has the power. She has a share of the privileges of all the gods That were ever born of Earth and Heaven. Nor did Cronos’ Son violate or reduce What she had from the earlier gods, the Titans. She keeps what she had in the primeval allotment. Nor does the goddess, since she is an only child, Have any less privilege on earth, sea, or heaven, But all the more, since Zeus privileges her. Whom she will, she greatly aids and advances, And makes preeminent in the assembly, And she sits beside reverend kings in judgment. ... And so although she is her mother’s only child, She is a privileged goddess among the Immortals. And the Son of Cronos made her a nurse of the young Who from that day on saw with their eyes The light of Dawn that sees all.” During this long passage Hesiod also goes on to describe her power to aid warriors, athletes, fishermen, and to increase or diminish the number of livestock as she wishes.

Interestingly, there is no explanation for why Zeus is so generous to Hekate. He does say that he will not strip of honours anyone who joins him against Kronos and that he will give honours to those who had none before, but, unlike with Styx for example, who was greatly honoured by Zeus because she was the first to join him and she brought her children to fight on his side, we are not actually told what Hekate's role was during the Titanomachy and it is clear that she had honours under the regime of Kronos as well.

On the topic of Zeus and Hekate, it is worth mentioning that sometimes she is his daughter by Asteria (according to Mousaios), Demeter (according to Kallimachos and possibly also in Orphic literature X X), or Hera (according to Sophron). In the Kallimachos fragment it is said that Hekate excells among the gods in might and power and that she was sent by her father in search of Persephone.

As for Nyx, in the Iliad it is claimed that Zeus would not want to offend her. In book XIV, when Hera approaches Hypnos with a request to put Zeus to sleep, he points out that he has done that before and it could have gotten him into serious trouble if not for his mother: „For another time before this your command goaded me on, that day when Heracles, that overbearing son of Zeus, sailed from Ilion, having utterly sacked the city of the Trojans; I did indeed lull to sleep the mind of Zeus who wields the aegis, my sweetness poured about him, but in your heart you planned evils for his son. ... And awakening Zeus raged violently, hurling us gods through his halls, and seeking me above all others; and he would have cast me never to be seen again from the sheer clear air into the sea, had Night, subduer of gods and men, not saved me. Fleeing, I came to her as suppliant, and Zeus checked himself, angry though he was; for he shrank from committing deeds hateful to swift Night.”

This Iliad passage seems to suggest that she was a very powerful and revered deity, which is attested in various traditions that make her one of the oldest beings to ever exist (X).

In one Orphic tradition, Nyx is one of the six rulers of the universe, following Phanes and preceding Ouranos (X). She is called the nurse of the gods and has oracular powers. In relation to Zeus she plays a role similar to that of Gaia in Hesiod, minus the giving birth to a monster he needs to defeat part. According to the Derveni Papyrus, she „proclaimed an oracle about all that was right to him [Zeus] to hear” and told him what to do „so that he may rule on the lovely abode of snowcapped Olympus”. In the various Orphic fragments, Nyx gave him advice about how to subdue his father (X) and (re)create the world (X X X)

#ask #hekate #hecate #nyx #zeus #greek mythology

7 notes · View notes

celticcrossanon · 3 years

Text

BRF Reading - 25th of Sept 2021

This is speculation only

Cards drawn 25th of September 2021

Question: Will Harry and Meghan be successful in getting the money they want from the NYC 'Tour'?

Note: This is the weirdest reading I have ever done. The cards all clarified into other questions that I had, and the original question was never really answered.

This is going to be a series of small readings, as that was how it turned out with the clarifiers.

Interpretation: Opportunities to ask for investment will be available for them, but it is unsure whether they will be able to turn those opportunities into solid cash.

Card One: The Six of Swords. This is a card of moving away from what is familiar into the unknown. It is also a card of travel. The card shows Orestes sailing to to murder his mother. The Swords in the boat will be used as the weapon of the murder; they also symbolise things from the past (thoughts/deeds) that Orestes is carrying with him.

This card shows the state of things with respect to the NYC 'Tour'. Harry and Meghan tried something new; they travelled to NYC for a mini 'tour' as if they were still royals. This was supposed to create opportunities for people to invest in them/give them money by emphasising their one asset - their past connection to royalty. Like Orestes, they are carrying their past with them. Unlike Orestes, they are attempting to recreate that royal past as a way of funding their future. Unfortunately, all they have succeeded in doing is a figurative murder of their 'mother' - the BRF, who gave them their royal status in the first place - via the mockery of this pseudo-royal tour.

Card Two: The Ten of Swords. This is a card of betrayal, of being stabbed in the back, of hitting rock bottom. The card shows Orestes lying on the ground, protected from the Furies tormenting him by a wall of swords and by the goddess Athena.

In answer to will the 'tour' give Harry the money he needs, this card says No. Harry is at rock bottom money-wise, like Orestes in the card. He is being protected from his debts (the Furies) by his royal status (the goddess Athena, gods usually represent the BRF in this deck), but this can not last forever. Harry needs money to pay his debts and he does know this - if nothing else, his debtors are reminding him that he needs to repay their investment (the Furies, tormenting him by not giving him money for doing nothing but expecting a return on their investment).

This card also speaks to the success of the 'tour' in general. It is seen by the general public as Harry betraying the BRF . He has stabbed them in the back (once again) by making a mockery of their work by participating in this pseudo-royal tour when he no longer is a working royal.

The 'tour' may also end up being seen as a betrayal by harry. He put all that money and time into portraying himself as a royal, only for investors to turn around and say 'No, thank you'. From Harry's perspective: 'How dare they treat me like this! I ask and I should be given.' He feels betrayed as the 'tour' did not result in the flood of donations/spending money/freebies that he expected.

Card Three: The Wheel of Fortune. This is the first major arcana card of the reading, and as such a main energy of the reading. The Wheel of Fortune card is about a change in your fortunes. It says that life is a constant state of flux, with good patches and bad patches, and wherever you are at the moment, things are going to change. The changes are usually based on your past actions, as 'what goes around, comes around', i.e. what you put out into the universe is about to come home to you.

This NYC 'tour' will result in a change of fortune for Harry, and the change should be public (as major arcana cards usually play out in the public eye). Given that the previous card is the Ten of Swords, I expect the change in fortune to be for the worse and not for the better.

Wheel of Fortune Clarifiers: I pulled clarifiers for the Wheel of Fortune in the form of another three card reading:

Knight of Wands: This is how Harry's actions in going on this pseudo-royal 'tour' are seen - as ill-judged, badly thought out, and immature. The energy of this card is "I got my own royal tour when you said No. So there!" - a very immature, smug, 'getting back at you' energy.

Page of Swords: This is the result of Harry's actions - the gossip by the general public, and a message to the BRF of 'If you don't give me what I want (i.e. half-in and half-out), I will create it for myself with events like this.'

Knight of Pentacles: This is the card of Virgo, harry's sun sign, and as such it represents Harry as a person (as opposed to the Knight of Wands, which represents how people see Harry's actions). This says that Harry is the one seen as responsible for the pseudo-royal tour and the gossip it provoked, as well as the impact of that gossip on public opinion.

The Hierophant (underlying energy): This is the BRF. The above is how they view Harry's actions, and they will be the ones to turn the wheel of Harry's fortune.

This clarifier reading tells me that the change in fortune is coming to Harry, the person, as a result of his ill-judged actions in setting up and taking part in this tour and how it was received by the general public the gossip and the impact on the public image of Harry and especially the BRF), and that the change in fortune will come from the BRF. Whether that change in fortune is direct action, such a rebuke of some sort/ a public downgrade of status, or indirect action, such as quietly closing more doors for the Harkles, I don't know.

Underlying Energy One: The Sun. This is a very positive card, indicating optimism and success. The card shows Apollo, the sun god, standing on Mount Olympus

If this card was in the top three cards of the reading, it would be saying that Harry would get the money he wants from this 'tour'. As an underlying force, it says that Harry (the son, a homophone for sun), is very optimistic and positive about his chances of getting new investors on this 'tour'. It shows that he was the person who thought this tour would give him lots of money, and also that Harry, as the grandson of the monarch, is the main attraction for any potential investors (Apollo, the gods represent the BRF in my deck). Meghan has no attraction for them at all, as her energy does not appear in this spread.

As a major arcana card, this energy of Harry being optimistic is a major energy of the reading.

The Sun Clarifiers: I pulled clarifiers for the Sun in the form of another three card reading. Unfortunately, I forgot to record the underlying energy for this reading, so that remains unknown.

Three of Swords: This is a card of heartbreak and sorrow. It is known as the 'divorce card' as it can indicate a divorce. It can also mean heartbreaking sorrow and suffering in general.

The Lovers: This is a card about relationships and choices in relationships. You have to stay true to your values to make the right choices in your relationships. The relationships referred to are usually romantic, but can be family or friends as well. Next to the Three of swords, it is a strong indicator of a divorce.

Judgement: This is a card of past actions - facing the consequences of past actions and/or being judged on your past actions. Here it is both - the consequences and the judgement.

This clarifier reading tells me that Harry's optimism about getting money from this pseudo-royal 'tour' will somehow result in his divorce from Meghan, or at the very least pain and heartbreak in his relationships (romantic and familial), due to his choices and him not staying true to his values. This pain and heartache will come about as a result of his past actions, both with respect to this tour and earlier actions (I keep hearing the words 'promises made and not fulfilled' as I type this).

Underlying Energy Two: The Ace of Pentacles. This is a card about new beginnings in financial matters. Opportunities are available to increase your finances, but you have to take them and put in the work to make them manifest.

As an underlying energy in this reading, this card says that one of the reasons for the pseudo-royal 'tour' was to create opportunities for investment in the Harkles. The Sun card before this shows that Harry is very positive about this opportunities appearing as a result of the 'tour'. Note that these are opportunities only, not the delivery of hard cash - that depends on how Harry handles these opportunities.

Ace of Pentacles Clarifiers: I pulled clarifiers for the Ace of Pentacles in the form of yet another three card reading.

The Moon: The Moon card is lies, deception, illusions, deceit, driving people crazy by not telling the truth - not a good card to pull in relation to financial opportunities. It says that Harry has created those opportunities by lying/fostering an illusion, such as participating in this pseudo-royal 'tour', which is all an illusion (if you are nice) and deceit (if you are not nice).

The Tower: The card of having part of your life collapse into ruins, leading you to rebuild it from rubble. This tells me that these financial opportunities, based on deceit/illusion, will somehow cause the complete destruction of a part of Harry's life. For example, this could be him ending up with a mountain of debt and no way to pay it.

The King of Cups: This is the card of a water sign person, especially a Scorpio. Here it represents Prince Charles, who is currently in the midst of a financial scandal regarding the Honours List. The event indicated by the Tower card may be very similar to this.

The Knight of Cups (underlying energy): This is the card of a water sign person, especially a Pisces. Here it represents Prince Andrew, known for his dodgy financial dealings. As the underlying energy this says that Harry may have adopted similar business practices.

This clarifier reading tells me that nothing good is going to come from any financial opportunity created by this pseudo-royal tour. The opportunities will be based on lies, deceit, and/or illusions, and they will lead to a tower moment that completely destroys part of Harry's life. This tower moment will be similar to Prince Charles's current financial scandal, and it will be based on Harry following the financial practices of his uncle, Prince Andrew.

Conclusion: Harry is not going to get any financial success from this tour. It was organised because he thought it would provide him with wonderful financial opportunities. Instead it is going to be seen as a betrayal of the BRF, and Harry himself will view it as a betrayal because it will not give him the money he expected. It will cause a change in his fortunes powered by the BRF (either directly or indirectly). The lack of promised money plus the realisation that Harry is the main attraction, not Meghan, will most likely lead to a divorce. The financial opportunities that Harry wants are based on lies/deceit/illusion and will lead to a complete destruction of a part of his way of life, similar to the scandal currently faced by his father and occurring because of his adoption of the financial practises of his Uncle Andrew.

81 notes · View notes

nissakii · 3 years

Text

Significance of “Madness” in anime

We’ve already established in other posts about significant emotions and concepts in anime or specific media before. The Significance of losing or the one of visuals and metaphors in Haikyuu!! are some of those I would love to mention here, but today we shall delve into a broader topic that goes more along the lines of Makii’s thrilling post about Danganronpa and the Significance of Despair.

Today, our topic of interest is madness.

To ease your mind, in this post we will be talking about the representation of insanity and madness in some anime characters and how that reflects on the story and ourselves as an audience.To make one thing clear, a lot of the times we see overexaggerated versions of unstable characteristics in anime that aren’t realistic.

This is in no way a discussion about actual mental illnesses and not a professional approach to analysing them to our real life standards, but maybe a start to an interesting discussion about how we portray and handle what one may colloquially call “craziness”.

Now that we’ve got that out of the way, let’s start!

Artists, and no matter for example if they write or draw, use their platforms to deliver messages in cryptic ways. As humans, we have the innate ability to look at something and consume the facts through entertainment which makes us crave new media to follow and analyse.

We love to question things instead of just taking them as they are, and that is why most writers out there will play around with the perception of their audience.

You may be familiar with the common question that ghosts through your head as you enjoy the latest episode of your favorite anime.

Why did he do that? Is she a traitor? What makes them think that way?

Although one might always do it consciously, we most definitely analyse whatever media we consume and decide for ourselves if it is important enough to keep in mind for future reference.

What the writer or founder of the anime ultimately wants from the reader is a reaction.

No matter what they intend to do with it, if they enjoy the viewer getting excited or traumatised is not of importance, but a reaction is evidently one of the goals.

And as strong emotions always evoke an even stronger reaction, anime characters are often very idealized and have ideologies that make them want to do one particular thing.

Be it save the world or destroy it, we focus and look at these characters and root for them if they give us a reason to do so.

Both sides of good and bad can have deeply rooted admiration drawn out of us, and it sometimes doesn’t even matter because the more interesting part is the lovely grey area in between.

We need a balance of good and bad to enjoy both.

Empathy makes us viewers want to relate to the characters, and if the author gives us the possibility to learn why someone does something, it gets harder and harder to dislike them. That’s why tragic backstories and flashbacks are such an overused tool in anime, because with the extreme behaviour some characters show they also need equal amounts of redemption.

We attach ourselves emotionally to characters depending on our personal tastes as well.

If someone likes and relates to a strong and independent protagonist who would drop anything for the sake of justice, you will find a lot of resembling characters in shounen for example.

On the other hand, if a darker or more obsessive character manages to take over a special place in a viewer’s heart, putting them on a pedestal gets more and more interesting, because you’re not supposed to.

Contrary to that, characters with insane or dark personality traits are often very popular, again tracing this back to human instinct of emphasising with wronged characters and curiously inspecting the fully deranged ones.

As this isn't something that should be put into vague concepts, we’re instead going to look at examples of characters and entities that are seen as ‘mad’ and how they’re interpreted.

It’s not just about villains being unreasonably immoral in this post, as we look into what madness entails and how it's shown, we also have some examples of corruption to look at.

So of course there are the typical evil-thinking evil-doing villains out there.

Some of them have an actual backstory to make them more realistic and believable, some others are just pure evil. While they are often called mad for their actions to achieve their goal, the reason why they are put into that light is the stark contrast between the protagonist and the villain.

If the protagonist loves to save people and always has a smile on his face, of course he will differ from his counterpart when he finds out that his methods are a bit more vicious.

The protagonist perceives the villain as insane most of the time, but what does the viewer think?

We seek to look not only at characters that are enjoyable to watch, but also try to find similarities between us and them or draw lines in their behavior to understand them better. As mentioned before, empathy plays a huge role here as well, since whatever happens in anime doesn't have actual repercussions, we can forgive characters more easily.

For example when they are taken by Insanity as a side effect rather than being insane due to trauma, we often get an 'ally turned traitor' trope through hypnosis or brainwashing, which is just as interesting to look at.

If a person did something horrible under the influence of something they had no control over, are they still to blame?

Does Insanity only involve a separate entity that comes from evil, or are we also looking at the gradual descent into darkness when life just isn't the same anymore?

Insane and with no fear: Soul Eater

A great example of how insanity plays with characters be they good or bad is Soul Eater.

With a premise that one needs a sound mind and body to inhibit a sound soul, we obviously know that people close to becoming Kishin-eggs will have a rotten soul drenched in bad deeds, but what about the good guys?

In this instance we have a lot of different types of madness and insanity that touches multiple characters at different times, and by far the most drastic would be the black blood.

The black blood being a synthesized weapon form of blood that can change form and harden into shape, is a weapon made by Medusa and introduced for the first time with Crona. He was melded together with Ragnarök as a weapon and used the black blood in his proficient fighting style.

Soul Eater as well as Maka and other characters later come into contact with the black blood, and the consequence of the immense strength that comes with it is debilitating madness.

As explained in the anime, the madness makes one deny the soul of oneself and others and takes away your fear. Now with no fear present, the person exhibits extremely erratic behavior and is not scared to hurt others or themselves.

This is an insanity that shows how essential a person's fear is, shown by Maka in one of the latest episodes when she fights Asura. The fact that she learned how to accept her own fear and realise that humans need it to survive is why insanity in Soul Eater is merely a concept to differentiate between what is human and what is Kishin.

A Kishin kills and murders with no fear of anything.

A human protects and masters one's own fear.

The power hungry insanity: Hunter x Hunter

In Hunter x Hunter we have a lot of characters that don't exactly fit the norm of human action.

With people like Chrollo, Illumi and even Chimera Ants there is enough crazy to go around.

Still, the character we shall delve into to look at a different kind of instability is none other than Hisoka Morow.

Yes, in comparison to black blood madness Hisoka is an actual human being with no known influence outside of his own intellect. The contrary to another weapon or entity making someone insane is being shown in this anime.

Hisoka is just insane.

We have no means to see if there is anything that might have caused Hisoka to be the way that he is, but what we do know is that his character is almost too nonchalant for his own good.

His goal is to accumulate power and fight others that he seems worthy, as that is what attracts him. No person is spared if he believes he found a worthy opponent he will make that clear to them and pursue them passionately.

We could rule that the clown is just eccentric, but with the given information from the anime he definitely had some sort of mental difference next to his peers. Harming himself holds no problem to him, and his behavior is deeply rooted only to suit himself. He has no self-preservation except for when he needs to accomplish something, and he even enters the spiders just to get close to Chrollo.

Now we see a single person carry themselves throughout a story only to achieve one thing: a good fight.

After having looked at these two examples of insanity in anime, let's look at how that insanity can be portrayed visually.

A famous way to show someone's psychosis is the “Kubrick stare”. A directorial technique that got named after the director Stanley Kubrick who used a forward tilt of the head with eyes locked onto the camera to show the actors of his movies at their peak of madness. It became a very popular stylistic device and is used still very often in modern movies.

The character is supposed to look menacing, evil-plotting and absolutely unhinged.

Such devices, if used often enough, automatically invoke the message to the viewer.

If you’ve seen the Kubrick stare once in a psychotic character, you will definitely associate it with the same derangement again.

In anime we have a similar thing, and you might be aware of this already.

Familiar with the ‘eye angle just before a character goes insane’ meme?

It’s a running gag that shows multiple characters such as Asura from Soul Eater, Pain from Naruto, Light from Deathnote and Jason from Tokyo Ghoul in a frame where you can only see their eyes and it somehow looks extremely grotesque as if they were looking into different directions with their eyes.

As much as it is a joke, it is a perfect example of something extremely similar to the Kubrick stare used in anime culture. It goes so far that if any anime watcher would see a new character look like in a frame, one would assume they were about to go crazy.

Even Oikawa Tooru from Haikyuu!! was shown with a Kubrick stare in the last moments of the second Seijoh vs. Karasuno game, when his desire to win overtook him with incredible force.

Without loss there naturally can’t be any wins, and without sadness there will be no joy in laughter.

We need the different depictions of what one might call madness, to fill our stories with nuance that relies on our reality.

Be it an unknown entity, hunger for power, lack of fear or the good old fashioned thrive for world domination.

Madness is just another part of what we call life, and to be honest in healthy doses and for effect why not enjoy it in anime?

Now, do you guys know any other characters or concepts in anime that would be worth mentioning? I would love to see them in the comments!

Until then, stay sane!

-Nissa

60 notes · View notes

bluntblade · 4 years

Text

Because apparently my Kylo Ren thoughts just don’t stop coming...

I really think nowadays that the point of Kylo as Johnson wrote him was that he was a predator pretending to be prey. And yes, I’m defending TLJ again. Here we go.

Looking at his scenes with Rey in Episode VIII, Kylo's not opening up to her half as much as she inadvertently is to him - heck, when she actually gets into her grief and anger over Han (the Swolo scene), he goes straight in for the attack and the framing of the shots emphasises that.

When Rey brings up the subject of him murdering Han, Kylo advances to dominate the frame in his shots and pulls her off balance, forcing her to say the words “why did you kill him?” Rey begins to crack at that moment, and from there, Ren drives the entire conversation towards weakening her faith in Luke further. There’s genuine, calculated cruelty in this, and that’s of a piece with him torturing Poe and inflicting pain on Finn in their fight.

The hand-touch scene comes at Rey’s lowest ebb, having lost almost all hope in getting Luke back to who he was and having just found that in the dark... she’s got no one waiting for her to find them. Johnson’s admittedly talked about asking Williams to change the original, sinister music he composed for the scene, wanting the audience to feel that a friendship or romance is “possible”, but my read on that is that he’s having us empathise with Rey’s desperate, perhaps delusive mindset.

And that’s a mindset which she is forced to shake. Because it’s a delusion, and a dangerous one, to think she can fix the person who’s mistreating her.

Because then, in the throne room, he treats her desire to save hundreds of lives as an inconvenience. He screams at her for wanting to save the Resistance because it’s not what he wants to do. Sure he talks about building a new order, but the whole point of that is that it’s his order and no one else’s. There’s no desire to do good underneath it all, unless it gets him what he wants. And in all of this, the urge to control, the inability to step outside of himself and his own desires, he's fallen into what you might call the "incel trap". He's seeking external validation from control over his surroundings, but it will never solve his internal problems. So all his terrible deeds will ultimately be futile unless somehow he makes the choice to right himself... ...but sixpack, I guess, so lots of people didn't and don't register it. And Luke’s one mistake isn’t interpreted as the tipping point when “Snoke had already turned his heart”, but the one thing that turned a totally good but conflicted boy into a monster.

You might say that Johnson accidentally gaslit a portion of his audience in the process of depicting the act of gaslighting. And then with Abrams... well, Vader was redeemed in old Star Wars and we've got to be like old Star Wars. Because old Star Wars... man, old Star Wars is great. Whereas I think if you followed the trajectory of the character, you’d be fixing for Ren go down as the villain - heck, for all the many faults in Colin Trevorrow’s version of Episode IX, he recognised this. And yes, before you ask me if I’m self-plugging here, I'm most of the way into posting an Episode IX rewrite and I've gone all-cylinders on the tragic antagonist angle.

And to get meta, Joe in Looper is on a redemption arc, so it’s not like Johnson doesn’t know how to do one. Given all the evidence I say “Yer Honour, Mr Johnson clearly acted with the intent to see Kylo Ren dead with a lightsaber through the heart.”

#kylo ren #tlj #pro tlj #anti reylo #rian johnson #tros #pro the last jedi #anti the rise of skywalker #not reylo

13 notes · View notes

romancatholicreflections · 6 years

Text

19th Nov >> Daily Reflection/Commentary on Today’s Mass Readings (Proverbs 31:10-13.19-20.30-31; 1 Thessalonians 5:1-6; Matthew 24:14-30) for Roman Catholics on the Thirty-Third Sunday in Ordinary Time (A)

Commentary on Proverbs 31:10-13.19-20.30-31; 1 Thessalonians 5:1-6; Matthew 24:14-30

THIS IS, IN EFFECT, the last ordinary Sunday of the Church year. Next week, the 34th Sunday, we celebrate the feast of Christ the King. And again, as last week, we are reminded not just of the end of the liturgical year but of the end of all things and the preparations we need to make.

Last week, the story of the ten bridesmaids waiting for the arrival of the bridegroom, was about constant readiness for the final coming of Christ. Today’s Mass is rather about the preparations we need to make.

The Second Reading reminds us that the Day of the Lord will come “like a thief in the night”, when we least expect it, when we are least ready. “We do not belong to the night or to darkness, so we should not go on sleeping, as everyone else does, but stay wide awake and sober.” And what should we be doing while we are wide awake (and, hopefully, sober!) in anticipation of the Lord’s coming?

The First Reading suggests that we should be as diligent and industrious as a loyal and faithful wife. A perfect wife, Proverbs says, “is far beyond the price of pearls”. She is hardworking, mainly for her family, but she also “holds out her hand to the poor, she opens her arms to the needy”. Her value is not in her charm or her beauty but in her wisdom, that is, in her awareness of where the real priorities in life lie.

The Gospel passage, however, goes further in pinpointing the ultimate purpose of our activities. It is the parable of the talents. Literally, one talent was a very large sum of money, equivalent to thousands of dollars today. The parable contains words of advice for the interim period between Christ’s resurrection and his final return. It urges a responsible use of the goods the Master has entrusted to us so that we may be ready to face him when he calls us to account.

Distribution of talents

We see in the parable an employer entrusting his property to each of three servants to administer while he is away. They are not given the same amount and this implies that they have different abilities, or ‘talents’ as we would say today. It is also implied that different returns are expected from different abilities. People are not competing against each other, only against themselves.

The first two, of whom one received five talents and one received two talents, traded with what they had been given and doubled their capital. The third, however, the one who received the least, “went off and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money”.

In the Greek text, the word used for “gained” or “made” was used in religious contexts for winning converts. Thus the parable suggests that we are talking about the kind of “profit” a Christian is meant to be aiming at, which has nothing to do with dollars and cents. The man, therefore, who dug his single talent was guilty of keeping it purely for himself and not risking its exposure to others who could have benefited from his efforts.

“A long time after”, suggesting the long period between Jesus’ resurrection and his coming again, the employer returns to call his servants to account. He is very pleased with the first two who had done so well as to double their original capital. Because they had shown such trustworthiness and a willingness to take risks over what was relatively little, they could now be confidently entrusted with much more. They could enter the “joy of their lord”, namely the Kingdom of God.

The third man came forward and sheepishly offered his single talent. He had been afraid of his master. “I had heard you were a hard man, reaping where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered. Here is the talent; it is yours, take it back.” The employer is very angry. At the very least, the money could have been put in a bank and earned a modicum of interest. As it was, it produced absolutely nothing. One is reminded here of the branches on the vine which have no fruit and get thrown into the fire. In terms of the Gospel, it speaks of the Christian, who may be very devout, but who makes no contribution whatever to the life of the Christian community or to its mandate to give witness to the Gospel before the world (something that can be far more risky than commercial trading).

Four points

Discussing this passage, William Barclay makes four useful points:

a. God gives each person different gifts.

Despite our tendencies always to compare ourselves with others, the actual number and quality is not important. We are only asked to make full use of what we have been uniquely given and to use them for the benefit of the community as a whole. When everyone does that, the community is enriched.

b. Our work is never completed.

When the first two servants showed how much they had earned, they were not told they could sit back and rest. No, because of their trustworthiness, even greater responsibilities were given to them. “To everyone who has will be given more, and he will have more than enough.”

c. The one who will be punished is the one who does nothing.

The man with one talent did not lose it. He did not do anything at all with it. If he had tried and failed, he would have met compassion and forgiveness. (The image of the master as a “hard man” only emphasises that, if with such a person one should make an effort, all the more should one try where a loving, understanding and compassionate God is concerned.) Even the person with one miserable talent has something to offer to others. It is a sober warning that it is not just those who do evil deeds who will lose out but also those who have no positively good works to show. Saying “But I didn’t do anything!” will not get one off the hook!

d. To the one who has more will be given; from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.

It seems rather unfair, like robbing the poor to pay the rich. But Jesus is rather saying that those who share generously the gifts they have been given are likely to find themselves constantly enriched. Those who jealously preserve what they have been given, hoard it and go into their shell in fear of the outside world are likely to shrivel up and die. Those who save their lives, will lose it; those who share generously what they have with others, will find themselves immeasurably enriched. It is the law of the Gospel; it also a law of life which many of us, in practice, find hard to believe.

Refusal to change

It is in this context that another interpretation has been given to the parable. Namely, that it is a criticism of a religious tradition which refuses to develop. This is a constant phenomenon of all religions, including our own. Many of the Jews in Jesus’ time jealously protected the Law and tradition. They were opposed to any change or any development. In the process, they forgot the original spirit of the Law and naturally were opposed to Jesus, who constantly criticised this stance. In our Church today, there are people who do not want to change anything, who want to go back to the old ways of doing things. They want to bury the Spirit of God in the napkin of tradition. They want old wine in old wineskins. This is not the way to Life.

Finally, we need to spend some time reflecting – and why not today? – on what particular talents or gifts God has given us. Some of us are clearly very gifted but there is no one, absolutely no one, who can say they have been gifted with nothing. And we can ask ourselves how are we using our particular gifts in the service of our Christian community and the wider society? Any other use of them is to bury them in a napkin and render them unproductive. If we were to die today and met Jesus and he asked us, “How did you use the gifts and talents I gave you? Who benefited and how from those gifts?” What would you be able to say in reply?

And the Master is going to come back, “like a thief in the night”, so we need to be ready. If you have buried that talent or used it in only selfish ways, get out there quickly and get it working for the Kingdom.

0 notes

djgblogger-blog · 7 years

Text

Does being religious or spiritual make you more ethical at work?

http://bit.ly/2w0OWa5

India's multifaith society is a perfect example of how various beliefs are integrated into work ethics. Ben Dalton/Flickr, CC BY-SA

Can religion and spirituality promote ethical behaviour in the workplace? It’s a contentious issue, but our research comprising interviews with forty Indian top level executives suggests it might.

We found that virtues embedded within the various traditions of religion and spirituality (Hinduism, Jainism, Islam, Sikhism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism) play a role in ethical decision-making in the workplace.

Thirty three executives explained that these traditions promoted virtues such as integrity, flexibility, moral excellence, tolerance and responsibility. An executive in the automobiles sector reflected on the virtue of flexibility:

…our Islamic religion teaches us to not shut the door on others’ viewpoints. I employ this philosophy or value or whatever you want to call it in my job. I listen to my teammates. We work out our differences of opinion and come to some acceptable middle ground at all times trying to value our core beliefs.

Some executives even felt it was better to resign from their position when faced with an ethical dilemma.

Faravahar, a main symbol of Zoroastrianism where ‘Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds’ are the basic tenets of the religion. Kevin McCormick/Wikimedia, CC BY-ND

They attributed this to the embedded ethical virtues in their religious and spiritual convictions while making this tough decision. An executive from the IT sector mentioned he had left his previous organisation because his religious background conflicted with the organisation’s continuous copyright violations. He stuck by his integrity:

I could not sleep at night for several nights and approached my Zoroastrian religious advisor who advised me to seek employment elsewhere. I left the firm for the current firm and feel I dodged a bullet.

However, seven executives who did not subscribe to a religious or spiritual group suggested that non-religious based virtues with a focus on humanistic ethics and professional pragmatism should be encouraged.

India is a multi-faith society, so it was suggested that such a view would help workers remain neutral. An executive from the media sector suggested workplaces should encourage non-religious and non-spiritual individuals to rely on their own humanistic belief system:

Ethics have to be practised at a human level. Once we open it up to religious interpretation, there is scope for endless debate and confusion. Ethics to me is a secular topic. You need to be sensitive and weigh the consequences of business actions to set a code of ethical practices. Religion can provide some kind of model, but to me it is a hindrance.

In religious-based spirituality, certain inspirations from one or more religious traditions may be drawn upon as a means to an end.

In non-religious spirituality there is normally an absence of religious belief. Instead, such spirituality is based on secular or humanistic values, such as interconnectedness with others at work or in a society and serving a higher purpose in life without necessarily referring to God or a Creator.

Recent studies have linked religiosity and spirituality to corporate social responsibility, altruistic behavior; and pro-social and ethical behaviors.

Other studies have challenged these conclusions however, with evidence of contradictory findings. Some have argued that religiosity and religious-based spirituality could promote unethical behaviour. For example, discriminating against another person who does not share one’s belief system. It might even flow into hiring practices and how one treats another colleague at work.

Many religious practices emphasise empathy as a core belief. juggadery/Flickr, CC BY-ND

Nurturing ethical decisions

Our paper published in May 2017 isolated the role of religiosity in the development of ethical virtues in India. These virtues included empathy, justice, temperance, transparency, conscientiousness, wisdom and moral fortitude.

The virtues translate into competencies that help foster ethical actions. For example, empathy relates to the variety of ways to connect with employees and foster quality working relationships. Actions include “nurturing a particular individual”, “building friendly relations” and “not using seniority to get subordinates to do something unethical”.

Moreover, temperance focuses on personal integrity and and assists in “avoiding contact with someone of dubious character” and “not wavering from one’s ethical principles”.

Conscientiousness embodies the ability to behave ethically in the face of temptation. An executive in the engineering sector stated that when his peer advised him to manipulate the price of products to include unreasonable markups, he refused to do so and advised:

With my customers I will always try not to cheat them. I will see to it that they will get good quality.

Ethical dilemmas and paradoxes

Despite the rich tapestry of religions and spiritualities, unethical behaviours such as corruption, bribery, cronyism and nepotism appear to be rampant in India.

Protesters during an anti-graft march, Pune, 2011. Nizardp/Wikimedia, CC BY-ND

One conclusion might be that certain individuals rationalise their unethical behaviours as a result of external pressure to conform. Such pressure coupled with personal greed arguably override any intention to remain ethical.

Ongoing education in the form of seminars, workshops, training and case studies related to ethical virtues is important. For example, an executive with a consultancy service business explained:

“Our company has got workshops which we attend regularly and we read lot of books and journals. We come across a lot of practice related issues and what all things are happening in the world. That’s how we try to update ourselves and try to have a positive mindset towards ethical practices.”

These initiatives consequently promote ethical decision making in the workplace when the religious bases for those virtues are removed.

Several Indian multinational firms do business in multiple overseas countries and ethical standards and expectations may vary across countries and cultures.

An executive from the IT sector suggested emotional intelligence could be useful for those faced with an ethical dilemma in a cross-cultural context. That includes being aware, being in tune with others and having the foresight of how one’s actions affect others. Indeed emotional intelligence could provide the clarity needed to discern whether the decision is ethical or not. It is also a skill that is sorely needed for leadership development.

Demonstrable consistency in ethical decision-making and leading by example are necessary to ensure ethics are reinforced. An inconsistent decision-making style with a high regard for ethics by leadership one day and disregard the next only conveys that compromises are acceptable.

Globalisation and the movement of labour are rendering workplaces in both developed (Australia, Singapore) and developing (Brazil, Malaysia) economies diverse. In such multi-faith workplaces, having an ethical approach that is inclusive and relying on the core virtues embedded in religiosity, spirituality and humanity might provide consistency in ethical decision-making.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

0 notes