#at translating those themes and general concept into this new context | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

warsofasoiaf · 3 years

Text

Writing Characters With Believable Military PTSD

I typically write these writing and worldbuilding essays from a dispassionate perspective, offering advice and context to prospective writers from as neutral a point of view as I can manage, with the goal being to present specific pieces of information and broader concepts that can hopefully improve writing and build creators’ confidence to bring their projects to fruition, whether that be writing, tabletop gaming, video game programming, or anything that suits their fancy. While writing this essay though, I struggled to maintain that perspective. Certainly, the importance of the topic to me was a factor, but ultimately, I saw impersonality just as a suboptimal presentation method for something so intensely personal. I do maintain some impartiality particularly in places where historical or academic context is called for, but in other respects I’ve opted for a different approach. Ultimately, this essay is a labor of love for me, love for those who suffer from military PTSD, love for those who love those who suffer from it, and love for writers who want to, in the way that they so choose, help those two other groups out. Thus, this is a different type of essay in certain segments than my usual fare; I hope the essay isn’t an unreadable chimera because of it.

This essay focuses on military-related PTSD. While there are some concepts that translate well into PTSD in the civilian sphere, there are unique elements that do not necessarily fit the mold in both directions, so for someone hoping to write a different form of PTSD, I would recommend finding other resources that could better suit your purposes. I also recommend using more than one source just in general, trauma is personal and so multiple sources can help provide a wide range of experiences to draw upon, which should hopefully improve any creative work.

And as a final introductory note, traumatic experiences are deeply personal. If you are using someone you know as a model for your writing, you owe it to that person to communicate exactly what you are doing and to ask their permission every step of the way. I consider it a request out of politeness to implore any author who uses someone else’s experiences to inform their writing in any capacity, but when it comes to the truly negative experiences in someone’s life, this rises higher from request to demand. You will ask someone before taking a negative experience from their own life and placing it into your creative works, and you will not hide anything about it from them. Receiving it is a great sign of trust. The opposite is a travesty, robbing someone of a piece of themselves and placing it upon display as a grotesque exhibit. And if that sounds ghoulish and macabre, it’s because it is, without hyperbole. Don’t do it.

Why Write PTSD?

What is the purpose of including PTSD in a creative work? There have been plenty of art therapy actions taken by those who suffer PTSD to create something from their condition, which can be as profound for those who do not have it as it is therapeutic for those that do, but why would someone include it in their creative works, and why is some no-name guy on the internet writing an essay offering tips as to how to do it better?

Certainly, one key element is that it’s real, and it happens. If art is to reflect upon reality, PTSD suffered by soldiers is one element of that, so art can reflect it, but what specifically about PTSD, as opposed to any other facet of existence? Author preference certainly plays a factor, but why would someone try to include something that is difficult to understand and difficult to portray? While everyone comes to their own reason, I think that a significant number of people are curious about what exactly goes on in the minds of someone suffering through PTSD, and creative works allow them a way to explore it, much the way fiction can explore scenarios and emotions that are either unlikely or unsafe to explore in reality. If that’s the case, then the purpose of this essay is rather simple, to make the PTSD examination more grounded in reality and thus a better reflection of it. But experiences are unique even if discernable patterns emerge, so in that sense, no essay created by an amateur writer with no psychological experience could be an authoritative take on reality, the nature of which would is far beyond the scope of this essay.

For my own part, I think that well-done creative works involving PTSD is meant to break down the isolation that it can cause in its wake. Veterans suffering may feel that they are alone, that their loved ones cannot understand them and the burden of trying to create that would simply push them away; better instead to have the imperfect bonds that they currently have than risk losing them entirely. For those who are on the outside looking in, isolation lurks there as well, a gulf that seems impossible to breach and possibly intrusive to even try. Creative works that depict PTSD can help create a sense that victims aren’t alone, that there are people that understand and can help without demeaning the sense of self-worth. Of course, another element would be to reduce the amount of poorly-done depictions of PTSD. Some creative works use PTSD as a backstory element, relegating a defining and important element of an individual’s life as an aside, or a minor problem that can be resolved with a good hug and a cry or a few nights with the right person. If a well-done creative work can help create a bridge and break down isolation, a poorly-done one can turn victims off, reinforcing the idea that no one understands and worse, no one cares. For others, it gives a completely altered sense of what PTSD is and what they could do to help, keeping them out, confusing them, or other counter-productive actions. In that sense, all the essay is to help build up those who are doing the heavy lifting. I’m not full of so much hubris as to think this is a profound piece of writing that will help others, but if creators are willing to try and do the hard work of building a bridge, I could at least try to help out and provide a wheelbarrow.

An Abbreviated Look At The Many Faces and Names of PTSD Throughout History

PTSD has been observed repeatedly throughout human history, even when it was poorly understood. This means that explorations of PTSD can be written in settings even if they did not have a distinctly modern understanding of neurology, trauma, or related matters. These historical contexts are also useful for worldbuilding a believable response in fictional settings and scenarios that don’t necessarily have a strict analogue in our own history. By providing this historical context, hopefully I can craft a broad-based sense of believable responses to characters with PTSD at a larger level.

In the time of Rome, it was understood by legionnaires that combat was a difficult endeavor, and so troops were typically on the front lines engaged in combat for short periods of time, to be rotated back for rest while others took their place. It was considered ideal, in these situations, to rotate troops that fought together back so that they could rest together. The immediate lesson is obvious, the Romans believed that it was vital for troops to take time to process what they had done and that was best served with quiet periods of rest not just to allow the adrenaline to dissipate (the "combat high"), but a chance for the mind to wrap itself around what the legionnaire had done. The Romans also recognized that camaraderie between fellow soldiers helped soldiers to cope, and this would be a running theme throughout history (and remains as such today). Soldiers were able to empathize with each other, and help each other through times of difficulty. This was not all sanguine, however, Roman legions depended on their strong formations, and a soldier that did not perform their duty could endanger the unit, and so shame in not fulfilling their duty was another means to keep soldiers in line. The idea of not letting down your fellow soldiers is a persistent refrain in coping with the traumas of war, and throughout history this idea has been used for both pleasant and unpleasant means of keeping soldiers in the fight.

In the Middle Ages, Geoffroi de Charny wrote extensively on the difficulties that knights could experience on the campaign trail in his Book of Chivalry. The book highlights the deprivation that knights suffered, from the bad food and poor sleep to the traumatic experience of combat to being away from family and friends to the loss of valued comrades to combat and infection; each of these is understood as a significant stressor that puts great strain on the mental health of soldiers up to today. De Charny recommended focusing on the knightly oaths of service, the needs of the mission of their liege, and the duty of the knight to serve as methods to help bolster the resolve of struggling knights. The book also mentions seeking counseling and guidance from priests or other confidants to help improve their mental health to see their mission through. This wasn’t universal, however. Some severely traumatized individuals were seen as simple cowards, and punished harshly for their perceived cowardice as antithetical to good virtue and to serve as an example.

World War I saw a sharp rise in the reported incidents of military-related PTSD and new understandings and misunderstandings. The rise in the number of soldiers caused a rise in cases of military PTSD, even though the term itself was not known at the time. Especially in the early phases of the war, many soldiers suffering from PTSD were thought to be malingering, pretending to have symptoms to avoid being sent to the front lines. The term “shell shock” was derived because it was believed that the concussive force of artillery bombardment caused brain damage as it rattled the skull or carbon monoxide fumes would damage the brain as they were inhaled, as a means to explain why soldiers could have physical responses such as slurred speech, lack of response to external stimuli, even nigh-on waking catatonia, despite not being hit by rifle rounds or shrapnel. This would later be replaced by the term “battle fatigue” when it became apparent that artillery bombardment was not a predicative indicator. Particularly as manpower shortages became more prevalent, PTSD-sufferers could be sent to firing squads as a means to cow other troops to not abandon their post. Other less fatal methods of shaming could occur, such as the designation “Lack of Moral Fibre,” an official brand of cowardice, as an attempt to shame the members into remembering their duty. As the war developed, and understanding grew, better methods of treatment were made, with rest and comfort provided to slight cases, strict troop rotations observed to rotate men to and from the front lines, and patients not being told that they were being evacuated for nervous breakdown to avoid cementing that idea in their mind. These lessons would continue into World War II, where the term “combat stress reaction” was adopted. While not always strenuously followed, regular rotations were adopted as standard policy. This was still not universal, plenty of units still relied upon bullying members into maintaining their post despite mental trauma.

The American military promotes a culture of competence and ability, particularly for the enlisted ranks, and that lends itself to the soldier viewing themselves in a starkly different fashion than a civilian. Often, a soldier sees the inability to cope with a traumatic experience as a personal failure stemming from the lack of mental fortitude. Owning up to such a lack of capability is tantamount to accepting that they are an inferior soldier, less capable than their fellows. This idea is commonly discussed, and should not be ignored, but it is far from the only reason. The military also possesses a strong culture of fraternity that obligates “Don’t be a fuckup,” is a powerful motivating force, and it leads plenty of members of the military to ignore traumatic experiences out of the perceived need not to put the burden on their squadmates. While most professional militaries stress that seeking mental health for trauma is not considered a sign of weakness, enlisted know that if they receive mental health counseling, it is entirely likely that someone will have to take their place in the meantime. That could potentially mean that another person, particularly in front-line units, are exposed to danger that they would otherwise not be exposed to, potentially exacerbating guilt if said person gets hurt or killed. This is even true in stateside units, plenty of soldiers don’t report for treatment because it would mean dumping work on their fellows, a negative aspect of unit fraternity. Plenty of veterans also simply never are screened for mental health treatment, and usually this lends to a mentality of “well, no one is asking, so I should be fine.” These taken together combine to a heartbreaking reality, oftentimes a modern veteran that seeks help for mental trauma has often coped silently for years, perhaps self-medicating with alcohol or off-label drug usage, and is typically very far along their own path comparatively. Others simply fall through the cracks, not being screened for mental disorders and so do not believe that anything is wrong; after all, if something was wrong, surely the doctors would notice it, right? The current schedule of deployments, which are duration-based and not mission-based, also make it hard for servicemembers to rationalize their experiences and equate them to the mission; there’s no sense of pairing suffering to objectives the way that de Charnay mentioned could help contextualize the deprivation and loss. These sorts of experiences make the soldier feel adrift, and their suffering pointless, which is discouraging on another level. It is one thing to suffer for a cause, it’s another not to know why, amplifying the feelings of powerlessness and furthering the isolation that they feel.

Pen to Page - The Characters and Their Responses

The presentation of PTSD within a character will depend largely on the point-of-view that the author creates. A character that suffers from PTSD depending on the presence of an internal or external point-of-view, will be vastly different experiences on page. Knowing this is essential, as this will determine how the story itself is presenting the disorder. Neither is necessarily more preferable than the other, and is largely a matter of the type of story being told and the personal preference of the author.

Internal perspectives will follow the character’s response from triggering event to immediate response. This allows the author to present a glimpse into what the character is experiencing. In these circumstances, remember that traumatic flashbacks are merely one of many experiences that an average sufferer of PTSD can endure. In a visual medium, flashbacks are time-effective methods to portray a character reliving portions of a traumatic experience, but other forms of media can have other tools. Traumatic flashbacks are not necessarily a direct reliving of an event from start to finish, individuals may instead feel sudden sharp pains of old injuries, be overwhelmed by still images of traumatic scenes or loud traumatic sounds. These can be linked to triggers that bring up the traumatic incident, such as a similar sight, sound, or smell. These moments of linkage are not necessarily experienced linearly or provide a clear sequence of events from start to finish (memory rarely is unless specifically prompted), and it may be to the author’s advantage to not portray them as such in order to communicate the difficulty in mental parsing that the character may be experiencing. Others might be more intrusive, such as violently deranged nightmares that prevent sleep. The author must try to strike a balance between portraying the experience realistically and portraying it logically that audience members can understand. The important thing about these memories is that they are intrusive, unwelcome, and quite stressful, so using techniques that jar the reader, such as the sudden intrusive image of a torn body, a burning vehicle, or another piece of the traumatic incident helps communicate the disorientation. Don't rely simply on shock therapy, it's not enough just to put viscera on the page. Once it is there, the next steps, how the character reacts, is crucial to a believable response.

When the character experiences something that triggers their PTSD, start to describe the stress response, begin rapidly shortening the sentences to simulate the synaptic activity, express the fight-flight-freeze response as the character reacts, using the tools of dramatic action to heighten tension and portraying the experience as something frightful and distinctly undesirable. The triggering incident brings back the fear, such as a pile of rubble on the side of the road being a potential IED location, or a loud firework recalling the initial moments of an enemy ambush. The trauma intrudes, and the character falls deep into the stress response, and now they react. How does this character react? By taking cover? By attacking the aggressor who so reminds them of the face of their enemy? Once the initial event starts, then the character continues to respond. Do they try to get to safety? Secure the area and eliminate the enemy? Eventually, the character likely recognizes their response is inappropriate. It wasn’t a gunshot, it was a car backfiring, the smell of copper isn’t the sight of a blown-apart comrade and the rank odor of blood, it’s just a jug of musty pennies. This fear will lead to control mechanisms where the victim realizes that their response is irrational. Frequently, the fear is still there, and it still struggles with control. This could heighten a feeling a powerlessness in the character as they try and fail to put the fear under control: "Yes, I know this isn’t real and there’s nothing to be afraid of, but I’m still shaking and I am still afraid!" It’s a horrifying logical track, a fear that the victim isn’t even in control of their thoughts - the one place that they should have control - and that they might always be this way. There’s no safety since even their thoughts aren’t safe. Despair might also follow, as the victim frantically asserts to regain control. Usually with time, the fear starts to lessen as the logical centers of the brain regain control, and the fear diminishes. Some times, the victim can't even really recall the exact crippling sense of fear when attempting to recall it, only that they were afraid and that it was deeply scary and awful, but the notion that it happened remains in their mind.

Control mechanisms are also important to developing a believable PTSD victim. Most sufferers dread the PTSD response and so actively avoid objects or situations that could potentially trigger. Someone who may have had to escape from a helicopter falling into the ocean may not like to be immersed in water. Someone who was hit by a hidden IED may swerve to avoid suspicious piles in the road. Someone buried under a collapsing ceiling may become claustrophobic. Thus, many characters with PTSD will be hypervigilant almost to the point of exhaustion, avoiding setting off the undesired response. This hypervigilance is mentally taxing; the character begins to become sluggish mentally as all their energy is squeezed out, leaving them struggling for even the simplest of rational thoughts. This mental fog can be translated onto the page in dramatic effect by adding paragraph length to even simple actions, bringing the reader along into the fog, laboriously seeing the character move to perform simple actions. Then, mix in a loss of a sense of purpose. They’re adrift, not exactly sure what they’re doing and barely aware of what’s happening, although they are thinking and functioning. In the character’s daily life, they are living their life using maximum effort to avoid triggering responses; this is another aspect of control that the character can use as an attempt to claw back some semblance of power in their own lives. Even control methods that aren’t necessarily healthy such as drinking themselves to pass out every night or abusing sleeping pills in an attempt to sleep due to their nightmares, are ways to attempt to regain a sense of normalcy and function. Don’t condescend to these characters and make them pathetic, that’s just another layer of cruelty, but showing the unhealthy coping mechanisms can demonstrate the difficulty that PTSD victims are feeling. Combined with an external perspective, the author can show the damage that these unhealthy actions are doing without casting the character as weak for not taking a different path.

External perspectives focus on the other characters and how they observe and react to the individual in question. Since the internal thought process of the character is not known, sudden reactions to an unknown trigger can be quite jarring for characters unaware, which can mirror real-life experiences that individuals can have with PTSD-sufferers. In these types of stories, the character’s reaction to the victim is paramount. PTSD in real life often evokes feelings of helplessness in loved ones when they simply cannot act to help, can evoke confusion, or anger and resentment. These reactions are powerful emotions with the ability to drive character work, and so external perspectives can be useful for telling a story about what it is like for loved ones who suffer in their own fashion. External perspectives can be used not just in describing triggering episodes, but in exploring how the character established coping mechanisms and how their loved ones react to them. Some mechanisms are distinctly unhealthy, such as alcohol or prescription drug abuse, complete withdrawal, or a refusal to drive vehicles, and these create stress and a feeling of helplessness in characters or can impel them to try and take action. Others can be healthy, and a moment of inspiration and joy for an external perspective could be sharing in that mechanism, demonstrating empathy and understanding which evokes strong pathos, and hopefully to friends of those who suffer from PTSD, a feeling that they too, are not alone.

As the character progresses, successes and failures can often be one of the most realistic and most important things to include within the work, since those consumers who have PTSD will see parts of themselves in the characters, which can build empathy and cut down on the feelings of isolation that many victims of PTSD feel. A character could, over the course of the story, begin weaning themselves off of their control mechanisms, have the feelings of panic subside as their logical sides more quickly assert control, replace unhealthy coping mechanisms with healthier ones, or other elements of character progression and growth. Contrarily, a character making progress could, after experiencing significant but unrelated stressors, backslide either into unhealthy coping mechanisms or be blindsided by another attack. This is a powerful fear for the victim, since it can cause them to think ‘all my progress, all my effort, and I am not free!’ This is often a great fear for PTSD users (people with depression often have the same feeling) that find methods of coping are no longer as effective, and the struggle is perceived as one that they’re ultimately doomed to failure. This feeling of inevitable failure can lead to self-harm and suicide as their avenue of success seems to burn to ash right as it was in their hands. More than one soldier suffering from PTSD has ended up concluding: “Fuck it, I can’t live like this,” as horrible as that is. Don’t be afraid to include setbacks and backsliding, those happen in reality, and can be one of the most isolating fears in their lives; if the goal of portraying PTSD accurately is to help remove that feeling of isolation, then content creators must not avoid these experiences. Success as well as failure are essential to PTSD in characters in stories, these elements moreso than any other, I believe, will transcend the medium and form a connection, fulfilling the objective we set out to include in the beginning paragraphs.

Coming Back to the Beginning

It might be counterintuitive at first glance to say “including military PTSD will probably mean it will be a long journey full of discouraging story beats that might make readers depressed,” because that’s definitely going to discourage some readers to do that. I don’t see it that way, though. The people that want to do it should go in knowing it’s going to be hard, and let that strengthen their resolve, and put the best creation they can forward. The opposite is also true. Not every prospective author has to want to include any number of difficult subjects in their works, and that’s perfectly fine. Content creators must be free to shape the craft that they so desire without the need to be obligated to tackle every difficult issue, and so no content creator should be thought of as lesser or inferior because they opt not to include it in their works. I think that’s honestly stronger than handling an important topic poorly, or even worse, frivolously. Neither should anyone think that a content creator not including PTSD in their works means that they don’t care about those who suffer from it or for those who care about them or who simply don’t care about the subject in general. That’s just a terrible way to treat someone, and in the end, this entire excursion was about the opposite

Ultimately, this essay is a chance not only to help improve creative works involving PTSD, but to reflect on the creative process. Those who still want to proceed, by all means, do so. Hopefully this essay will help you create something that can reach someone. If every piece of work that helps portray PTSD can reach someone somewhere and make things easier, even if ever so little, well then, that’s what it’s really all about.

Hoping everyone has a peaceful Memorial Day. Be good to each to other.

SLAL

#essays on writing and worldbuilding #ptsd

156 notes · View notes

thexfridax · 4 years

Photo

Translated interview

Adèle Haenel: Figurehead of the new French Film

by Daniel Kalt, in: Die Presse, 13th of December 2019

Additions or clarifications for translating purposes are denoted as [T: …]

Adèle Haenel talks about her new film, gender roles and a new cinema by women, which oddly doesn’t give much space to men. [T: 😊]

Adèle Haenel came to Vienna for the Viennale [T: annual Film Festival, here: 24th of October to 6th of November 2019], playing the lead role in the opening film ‘Portrait of a Lady on Fire’. It’s one of those hot almost summer-like autumn days, prior to the photo shoot Haenel is sitting in the scorching heat on the terrace in front of the studio and greets a purring cat, which is passing by, in German. Haenel is the daughter of an Austrian translator, and grew up in [T: Montreuil, in the Métropole du Grand] Paris. According to her, she spoke the [T: German] language as a child, but forgot about it later on, ‘as is often the case’. Only for her role in Chris Kraus’ film ‘The Bloom of Yesterday’, where she plays alongside Lars Eidinger, did she relearn German. [T: Now] in Vienna, the actress, who is one of the most celebrated in contemporary French cinema, is a bit tired after a long promotional tour for her film, which [T: all] began in Cannes. The uproar, which Adèle Haenel will cause a couple of weeks later, when she accuses the French director Christophe Ruggia of sexual harassment that took place during the shoot of her first Film ‘Les Diables – she was still half a child then [T: !?] – preceded Vienna and is therefore not mentioned here. Because of her film projects and her statements as a prominent creative artist it seems obvious to ask whether she considers herself a feminist, to which Haenel responds in a heartbeat: ‘Yes, absolutely. And in capital letters, go ahead and write down FEMINIST.’

Adèle Haenel plays young Héloïse in her new film, which is now shown in cinemas across Austria, and is directed by Céline Sciamma (the two women were a couple for some time, it is their second joint production). After the death of her sister, [T: Héloïse] was brought back from the convent to her family’s home on an island in Brittany. The story takes place in the late 18th century, Héloïse is supposed to be married off to Milan. But first, it’s necessary to send a portrait to her future husband, which should please him. Héloïse refuses the gaze of the painter – the ‘male gaze’ –, who was commissioned to paint her. So, her mother resorts to a trick and hires another artist [T: called] Marianne: She should spend a couple of days with Héloïse as her companion, without revealing her [T: secret] mission. Through gazing at her furtively and catching glimpses of details – lips, an ear, the position of hands –, will she piece together a portrait of Héloïse. But tension builds between the two young women, which leads to a short-lived and passionate affair.

Interviewer: Your new film takes place in the late 18th century – how did you prepare for the role?

Adèle Haenel: This wasn’t my first period film, ‘L’Apollinide’ [T: House of Tolerance, 2011] for example is also from the same era, just before the French Revolution. Besides, I have mainly tried to create the character of Héloïse around a certain concept, a certain image. The historic perspective wasn’t key for me to prepare for the role. Playing in costume was mostly to place this [T: film] in a certain time. But it wasn’t my top priority to lend credence to my character by putting it in a historical context.

I: What is the main theme for you: love, art, liberty, the liberty of art?

AH: The film is mainly about love and particularly about what love can be. It is about desire, the pleasure of intellectual exchange and a blossoming friendship. And then there is also the aspect of art and artistic expression, which leads to an extraordinary relationship between the two main characters. Another important point was also to show love that’s different to what you usually see in films: It is not love at first sight, no ‘coup de foudre’ [T: repeats the same phrase in French], but emotions that are developing slowly and in which you immerse yourself, because they are connected with deep admiration. The film also explores in-depth the central theme of the ‘female gaze’ as counterpoint to the dominating male gaze, which has been prevalent in cultural products for a long time.

I: Does it make a difference for you to be ‘directed’ by a female director, as the term ‘director’ implies in English?

AH: I’d like to state here that I’m an extremely political person. That is why it is important to me to describe the relationship between the actress and director [T: the female form of director is used here] accordingly: It is not a vertical relationship for me, where I’m directed by an opposite, but an equal exchange. We developed this film together, conceptualising love in a way where one character does not dominate the other. I also have a responsibility to carry as an actress, especially in a film like this, which is constructed around the gaze and the person who is looking [T: both genders are included here]. My character is not a passive muse, we tried to break this idea. In fact, it is not the story of an artist [T: male form is used here], who enters a room and sees a woman who inspires him, but something completely different.

I: Would you say that Héloïse is at first motivated by anger about the situation?

AH: You could talk about anger, but this means to break down the bigger issue of resistance to an individual level. It’s not mainly about the anger of this character, but it’s about how she as a woman reacts to her specific situation. Society often denies women the right to live as we want to or our own projects. That’s why I think it’s better to talk about resistance against the entirety of the patriarchal system.

I: How did you express this in the way you acted?

AH: In the beginning Héloïse’s gestures and facial expressions are quite restricted, very much contained. The love story then takes up more space over time, likewise my acting is becoming more generous. That also makes sense from a political point of view: At first there’s the question how to resist the ruling order: Either you sacrifice yourself, because you’re caught up in the system. Or alternatively, as I chose to do for Héloïse, through absence and withdrawal. This means, I negate my existence and I’m only present as detached figure – as object, so that no one comes close to me as subject. My absence is therefore a way to resist.

I: Was this the first time you’ve structured a role like this?

AH: Yes, although I always ask myself profound questions when preparing for a role. That’s the main theme for me, how to create feelings and emotions that leave behind the screen.

I: Do you have a desired impact in mind with your craft?

AH: I would like to spark off something like a mimetic reaction among the audience, which goes beyond the feelings and emotions in the film. [T: 🔥] Let’s call it a vibration, which resonates in real life and which I would like to set off. That’s all the more important, because it allows for new storytelling. In ‘Portrait of a Lady on Fire’ we make fun of the patriarchy. A conscious decision was made to almost entirely exclude men from the picture. We don’t convey a political message openly, but instead are very concrete by not showing something.

I: Do you consider yourself a feminist?

AH: Yes, absolutely. And in capital letters, go ahead and write down FEMINIST. And you, are you a feminist? I see the reluctance to openly support feminism among men rather than women. There are of course women who are sometimes reluctant to support feminist demands. But this is the result of a specific system, in which women are oppressed. There was and still is an expectation for us to subordinate ourselves, or even become extinct. The time for women to speak is always less than for men, irrespective of the context. And this is despite the stereotype of women talking more in general: Gloria Steinem quite rightly says that it’s not about the actual time that women are speaking, but about the silence that is expected of them.

All pictures by Elsa Okazaki

#Adèle Haenel #Austrian interview #Portrait of a Lady on Fire #My translation #Thanks for breaking my brain Adèle #FEMINIST in all caps #Musings of a Woman that wouldn't have it any other way #long post

511 notes · View notes

rigelmejo · 3 years

Text

I’ve read parts of this article on Pride and Prejudice translation three times now and so I suppose I should share it.

Misinterpreting Jane Austen? A Feminist Perspective on the Chinese Versions of Pride and Prejudice

http://jasna.org/publications-2/persuasions-online/vol38no1/yi/

It really makes me think about how easy it is to have huge themes in a work just lost or muddled intensely if they aren’t paid particular nuanced focus to during translation. How each line could have more nuance to it then a surface level “any synonym will get the point across” and how just lacking cultural context can cause big points in a sentence to be abandoned in translation (the use of “rational creatures” in Pride and Prejudice is a huge reference to bringing up feminist thoughts, but read literally could be translated as ‘i think’ or ‘i’m reasonable’ or ‘i’m regular’ and could miss a big chunk of meaning being conveyed). Meaning is usually lost somewhat in translation because its hard to maintain the nuance of the original words, even if you know all the context and are prioritizing themes in each sentence! So of course its a struggle.

I just think its something to be mindful when engaging with translations in general. And certainly webnovel ones where so often the translators are fan translators with various skill levels in language and/or translation and/or in meaning of the deeper themes of a text, and paid translators on big webnovel sites, often translating under time constraints to do a job Fast rather than ‘as close to accurate as possible’ which could take a lot more time. That’s not even getting into the machine translations (and cleaned up mtls) of webnovels, that some actual webnovel sites use (which can have very little if any editing done), and some fans do when its the best/fastest chance to ever read the novel (in which case even if its edited by people for improvements over time it will be constrained by the original mtl translator program’s failures in word choice and unawareness of story nuances). It’s already a mess to judge a work of art made in another culture, without being aware of that culture’s artistic goals and norms and expectations etc. Those values must be acknowledged, because to judge it as something outside its context removes so much. That applies to translations too - which can maybe be interpreted on their merit as localizations. When there is one - like maybe Drakengard 3 and if its localization changes were a good or bad thing for its story in the context of an english speaking market? or if Final Fantasy XV localization changes were? which i imagine the localization teams themselves had to judge its work on. On the case of like “how does this work as a localization” but still the questions of its original context in its original lanuage, intent, comes up. Do you get rid of ramen in favor of a different food? Do you get rid of San and say “Mr” - what is kept, why is it kept, does it require outside understanding of context, is that worth keeping even if it does?

Like perhaps the pride and prejudice translator changed “rational creature” to “ordinary person” because they wanted to abandon explaining the feminist idea of “rational creature” altogether, considering that context too far removed from a translation, and instead decided on making the line mean more broadly “like a normal person my rejection is serious - i’m not playing a silly game with you.” which is roughly fair in meaning, but has lost the concept of “i’m rational like Any Person, even though you consider women irrational that is incorrect.” I see why the translation could have made sense to do - and its what i’m sure localization translators deal with deciding every day - “what do we keep for overall story’s meaning understood by this new target audience?” versus “what details do we abandon at the cost of nuance, because it might make it harder for this target audience to connect to the overall story?” etc.

My point i suppose is just, sometimes I see arguments about webnovels and their meanings as understood BY the translation. And many people much better with words than me have made good points that one can’t judge a work based on english speaking culture standards when it wasn’t made in that context, was not aimed at that target audience, and has context surrounding it that in general an english audience will not be aware of. Just to add to that - the translations themselves.

The translations also are going to have context missing, or have changed some context and nuance to translators tastes. Like localizing to try and make it more comprehensible to the audience, or because the cultural reference needs some ‘equivalent’ the translator thinks the english audience will be more likely to know - i immediately think of Word of Honor choosing “chevalier” for “daxia” and “river of lethe” and greek myth metaphors, instead of the actual concept the dialogue refers to (and Word of Honor was professionally translated). Even among professional differences - just look at The Untamed that has different versions translating “zhiji” as bossom friend, good friend, soulmate, and gongzi as Childe, and names as just a whole range of weirdly varying ones different from what’s actually said. A lot of webnovels are not professionally translated (and of the ones that are, if they have speed deadlines they also might not get an ideal amount of time to decide how to ‘most accurately’ maintain the nuance, if that’s even a goal of a specific translator because different translators have different goals).

Not only is it not something created in the english audience culture (so why compare it on those specific cultural expectations it wasn’t made for), but also each translation is not going to be a fully accurate depiction of the original. Every translation will vary. Some translations will leave out cultural nuance, or even change it, or just not notice it was there to begin with. Word choice alone will change the meaning of some sentences and dialogue - and it can be as simple as one seemingly straightforward word change (like “rational creature” in Pride and Prejudice). Translation changes can affect the meaning you get from a story when its done professionally, when its been done and tried different ways multiple times for decades! Surely translations done for webnovels are going to have points where its like... to judge it is to at most interpret this translator’s work. Because there isn’t a full picture of the original work, a translation can’t give you that. Like others have said, its not great trying to expect works from different cultures to match up to a different culture’s expectations/aspects, but then also translations themselves will fail to retain aspects - or will all highlight such aspects in different ways and also in different ways for the reader to interpret (leaving more original context with footnotes, simplifying details and removing authors nuance, changing context to try and come up with an equivalent the reader might understand easier, etc). And that doesn’t even cover how any machine translator usage is going to also be destroying so much nuance, context, meaning, and even changing it in random ways - if its used for any of the steps, before the translator’s personal goals even start affecting the translation’s shape and meaning etc.

I have a huge newfound respect for the people translating Haruki Murakami... if Pride and Prejudice is this easy to change themes on/interpret differently even though its overall a very straightforward novel structure, I can only imagine how hard Haruki Murakami’s meanings and themes are to preserve...

#rant #april #translations #i just think about this a lot.#1 its a big reason i'm considering reading the mdzstranslations group's version of mdzs - i suspect #a number of complaints about mdzs come from translation choices. because that's been true with much of mxtx's writing #i saw the 'simple' svsss translation (which is fine and i like it) and a newer one ppl did and the newer one is WAY MORE NUANCED #and its like reading a trashy pulp novel to reading an Actual Novel with Depth and that could actually make me cry. All cause of translation #choices. Priest's writing too... i can thankfully read it in chinese (tho i still miss a ton of cultural nuance obviously)#and in english its translation is SO simplified it misses so much atmospherically and in mood. it makes priest feel like a 'less great write #' but then i read Mo Du/Silent Reading? And edanglarstranslations is one of my FAVORITE translators #i have the chinese novel and when i read? or listen to the chinese audiobook? it matches up wording wise and feeling wise so WELL with #EDanglar's translation of the novel. so translating work affects so MUCH how the story is interpreted. and nuance lost is like seeing a #masterpiece through blurry glasses and fog. u can make out the main impression and if its good then it will touch ppl even in translation.#but the style of translation/choices will effect how BLURRY the audience sees it - whether its black and white or blurry colors. whether its #50 ft away or a mile. it will always be blurry unless read in its original language AND by someone who gets its context/culture. but some #parts can be clearer depending on what translators choose to do. and Which parts are clearer depends on them.#its part of why i usually want to learn to read the languages i Do read? because i hate the blurry picture lol. i want to make it clearer to #myself what they originally intended. even tho its still blurry to me In the language. i at least get more of the original Feel even if #details still get lost on me.#just... whenever i think of this article it reminds me how MUCH translation is an art form with choice #and also how much a translator works - none will likely capture and retain everything in their goal even IF they want to cause #they're all bound to miss some things or have to sacrifice some things #perhaps i should say. we see a blurry image of the original IN a translation. but the translation itself is like an artist REDRAWING a #masterpiece FROM a blurry reference. the translators work IS crisp but details are off/changed/less nuanced/differently nuanced #to see a translators work as identical to the original is wrong because like. no its like an artistic rendition with creative liberties of #a reference image they cannot replicate (because they're using paint and paper and the original is clay with paint missing the translator #cant guess the exact colors of and the translator only has 3 photos of the sculpture. and the translator cant sculpt so they must draw #and a 2D painting just isnt the same u know.

35 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 3 years

Text

Christ The Terminator: Half Man Half Machine

“I’ll Be Back”

By Author Eli Kittim

End-Time Visions of the Messiah’s Robotic Enhancements

What if Jesus paid a steeper price for our salvation? What if Christ is “revealed at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1.20 NJB)? What if his sacrifice “in the end of the world” (Heb. 9.26b KJV) is more costly than previously assumed?

In his vision, the prophet Ezekiel saw certain heavenly creatures who “were of human form” (1.5 NRSV). Notice what he says about their legs (1.7):

Their legs were straight, and the soles of

their feet were like the sole of a calf's foot;

and they sparkled like burnished bronze.

As you read further, you will come to realize that this imagery runs throughout the entire Bible. Remarkably, Ezekiel’s description sounds very much like modern bionic prosthetics, which redefine and enhance human amputees. Let’s not forget that the heavenly figures whom Ezekiel had seen were supposedly human. Two other interesting clues were that “their legs were straight” (unlike human legs that bend) and that “their feet were like . . . burnished [Hb. קָלָֽל׃ qalal] bronze [Hb. נְחֹ֥שֶׁת nechosheth].” This is a running theme throughout the Bible whose imagery is associated with the end-time Messiah! Similarly, in Revelation 1.13-15, John describes his vision of Christ as follows:

I saw one like the Son of Man, clothed with

a long robe and with a golden sash across

his chest. His head and his hair were white

as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were

like a flame of fire, his feet were like

burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace,

and his voice was like the sound of many

waters.

Notice the imagery pertaining to Christ’s “feet [which] were like burnished bronze [Gk. χαλκολιβάνῳ].” By comparison, in Daniel 10.1 we are told that “In the third year of King Cyrus of Persia a word was revealed to Daniel.” Remember that, in the Bible, Cyrus represents the Messiah (see Isa. 45.1). Daniel sees a vision of the end times, described by a glorious man who looks awfully similar to John’s “Son of Man” (Dan. 10.5-6):

I looked up and saw a man clothed in linen,

with a belt of gold from Uphaz around his

waist. His body was like beryl, his face like

lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his

arms and legs like the gleam of burnished

bronze, and the sound of his words like the

roar of a multitude.

Daniel gives us additional information by saying that “his arms and legs [were] like the gleam of burnished [Hb. קָלָ֑ל qalal] bronze [Hb. נְחֹ֣שֶׁת nechosheth].” In other words, it wasn’t just his legs, but his arms as well were seemingly made of burnished bronze! It sounds like a combat soldier who had lost all his limbs and was wearing a metallic or robotic prosthesis. And Daniel employs the exact same Hebrew words for “burnished bronze” that are used in Ezekiel’s vision. Furthermore, in Revelation 2.18, Christ himself identifies with this biblical image, demonstrating categorically and unequivocally that it refers to him and him alone. Christ says:

And to the angel of the church in Thyatira

write: These are the words of the Son of

God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and

whose feet are like burnished bronze.

Chalkolibanon: The Messiah’s Feet Were Like Burnished Bronze

καὶ οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ ὅμοιοι χαλκολιβάνῳ

https://biblehub.com/greek/5474.htm

The Greek word chalkolibanon is translated as “burnished bronze” and refers to “a fine metal,” such as “fine copper, bronze or brass,” similar to what the Hebrew term for bronze (i.e. nechosheth) represents.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5178.htm

These images that are therefore uniquely related to Jesus strongly suggest that they’re part of his human makeup and physical appearance. Why else would the Bible contain these metallic images? All these prophets from both the Old and New Testament seem to suggest that the Messiah’s “sacrifice” entails the loss of his limbs, which are replaced by modern metallic substitutes, turning him into a kind of Cyborg. An article from the Australian Academy of Science expounds on this type of modern technology:

What’s different about the new generation

of prosthetic limbs is their union with bionic

technology, and the way they combine

fields of study as diverse as electronics,

biotechnology, hydraulics, computing,

medicine, nanotechnology and prosthetics.

Technically, the field is known as

biomechatronics, an applied

interdisciplinary science that works to

integrate mechanical elements and devices

with biological organisms such as human

muscles, bones, and the nervous systems.

https://www.science.org.au/curious/people-medicine/bionic-limbs

Incidentally, a wide variety of materials are used to create artificial limbs, including aluminium bronze and titanium bronze alloys, which are shiny metals. Copper, iron, silver, and gold have also been used in the past. Surprisingly, these are the exact metallic descriptions that we find in the aforesaid passages of the Bible (cf. Dan. 2.32-33: “head of . . . gold . . . arms of silver . . . thighs of bronze. . . legs of iron . . . feet partly of iron and partly of clay [human]”).

Robotics for Human Augmentation in the Visions of Daniel

Dual fulfillment is an important principle of Biblical interpretation. It’s associated with the concept of messianic typology in the Hebrew Bible. It refers to the notion that there are certain prophecies in the Bible that may have both an immediate and a long-term fulfilment. The gigantic statue of a man made of four metals, in the Book of Daniel, is such a prophecy, that might be a clue to the endtimes Christ. It has a short-term fulfillment in terms of the succeeding world-empires that will arise and rule on earth. However, Daniel 2.44 suggests that the prophecy also refers to the end of days (a long-term fulfillment) when God will set up his kingdom once for all! Daniel 2.31-33 (NRSV) explains Nebuchadnezzar’s dream as follows:

You were looking, O king, and lo! there was

a great statue. This statue was huge, its

brilliance extraordinary; it was standing

before you, and its appearance was

frightening. The head of that statue was of

fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its

middle and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron,

its feet partly of iron and partly of clay.

Let’s not forget that Daniel addresses the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar as if he’s the the king of kings, the Messiah (2.37-38):

You, O king, the king of kings—to whom the

God of heaven has given the kingdom, the

power, the might, and the glory, into whose

hand he has given human beings, wherever

they live, the wild animals of the field, and

the birds of the air, and whom he has

established as ruler over them all—you are

the head of gold.

There are messianic overtones, here, that go far beyond the historical context of the passage and suggest a future fulfillment. The dream features a towering statue of a man (Daniel 2.32-33):

The head of that statue was of fine gold, its

chest and arms of silver, its middle and

thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet

partly of iron and partly of clay.

Once again, we get the feeling this is more of a machine than a man. Notice that the legs were made of iron and bronze. What if Daniel 4.13-15 represents God’s judgment on the Messiah? (cf. 2 Cor. 5.21; Gal. 3.13):

I continued looking, in the visions of my

head as I lay in bed, and there was a holy

watcher, coming down from heaven. He

cried aloud and said: ‘Cut down the tree

and chop off its branches, strip off its

foliage and scatter its fruit. Let the animals

flee from beneath it and the birds from its

branches. But leave its stump and roots in

the ground, with a band of iron and bronze,

in the tender grass of the field. Let him be

bathed with the dew of heaven, and let his

lot be with the animals of the field in the

grass of the earth.’

Conclusion

There’s a running narrative throughout the Old and New Testaments that includes thematic parallels and verbal agreements between the visions of various prophets. The terminology has not only been surprisingly consistent from prophet to prophet, but its meaning has also been uniform from one language to another. For example, both Ezekiel and Daniel use identical Hebrew terms to describe what appears to be a Messianic figure, whose feet were “like burnished [Hb. קָלָֽל׃ qalal] bronze [Hb. נְחֹ֥שֶׁת nechosheth]” (Ezek. 1.7; cf. Dan. 10.6)! Astoundingly, the exact same meaning (i.e. χαλκολίβανον; burnished bronze) as applied to the Hebrew Old Testament is employed in the Greek New Testament (Rev. 1.15; 2.18) to convey a similar idea. This suggests that the Biblical books are inspired and in dialogue with one another.

Accordingly, the arms and legs of the purported Messiah do not appear to be human. Rather, they appear to be robotic metals for human augmentation, what we today would call modern bionic prosthetics in redefining and enhancing human amputees. The consistent thematic material (i.e. the canonical context) in the visions of the prophets, especially those of Daniel, is exegetically significant and cannot be simply explained away. What if Daniel 4.14 represents God’s judgment on the Messiah to cut off “his arms and legs”? (cf. Dan. 10.6):

Cut down the tree

and chop off its branches.

Given that the “tree image” in Dan. 4.10-12 is of paramount importance and immersed in messianic metaphors (cf. Jn 15.5; Rev. 22.2), it could certainly represent the Anointed one. All these prophets from both the Old and New Testament seem to suggest that the Messiah’s “sacrifice” entails the loss of his limbs, which are replaced by modern metallic substitutes, turning him into a kind of Cyborg or Bionic Man! The same shiny metals that are referenced in the Bible are the exact same alloys used in prosthetic limbs and modern robotics for human augmentation (i.e. human-enhancement technologies). A close reading of these end-time visions suggests that the Son of Man is part man part machine. This is called “transhumanism,” the merger of humanity with artificial intelligence. This would imply that Christ’s suffering on Judgment day is far more intense than previously thought, which also reflects the profound depth of his love for us!

7 notes · View notes

windstormwielding · 3 years

Note

How did you come up with Kotaro's zanpakuto? (i really love the bird theme of his attacks!) did you go through a lot of changes when coming up with names, abilities, and the general concept?

{ ooc } bUCKLE UP KIDDOS ‘CAUSE IT’S TIME FOR SOME LONG OVERDUE GODDAMNED KŌTA META-

Kōta’s zanpakutō was essentially conceived out of my own love for great big storms and heavy winds – and yes, I have a story to go with that! On one occasion many years ago, I hopped on a bus to visit a friend in town, but I was ill-prepared in that it was about to rain heavily and I had jack shit but a jacket. No raincoat and not even an umbrella. I thought I would make it there on time, buuuuut evidently, I did not. It already started raining and thundering hard by the time I walked out of the bus and had to walk a few blocks by myself.

And honestly, Plouton, looking back? I would not have changed a single little detail that day. Those several minutes I spent outside at the mercy of a live thunderstorm left such a huge impression on me! The incessant rain keeping me tethered to the ground, the sheer volume of deafening thunder cracking so hard and so loudly that the air around me quaked... pair that with times I’ve enjoyed feeling myself at the mercy of heavy winds, or even the smell of the outside after rain falls...

...pretty much all of that served as the biggest source of inspiration behind the wind and storm-oriented zanpakutō, and I wanted Kōta to embody that himself.

Besides, aside from Senna herself in Memories of Nobody, the Gotei 13 lacked a dedicated air-manipulating shinigami barring Kensei’s unique take on the topic with Tachikaze, and we’ve only seen antagonists use this power (Dordoni of the Arrancar within the main story, Kariya if you want to go filler with the Bounts... whom I’ve honestly forgotten about prior to creating Kōta WHOOPS) in the traditional sense. Not to mention, air as an element is SUPER malleable and there’s so much you can do with it if you get creative?? So, given we’ve got some real powerful element-leaning shinigami already with water (lbr Kaien would’ve been a beast had he not been nixed), fire (Yama), snow (Tosh), and electricity (Sasakibe), why not keep adding to the idea?

With that, we’ve got the main concept locked down. Powers and general theme? Check. Bird-like zanpakutō spirit? Check. Defined attacks? ...noooooot quite there yet—in fact, those were a fairly late addition well after the blog reboot. As for what led to it, this never took off since the other mun blipped on an indefinite hiatus, but our thread would have likely turned into a fight thread between our muses and uh...

...yeah, I realized named techniques are kind of an important thing to have, especially when writing within the context of an action-oriented series like Bleach. It wasn’t just about the cool factor, but having a readily available kit for reference (for myself, my writing partners, and folks reading in) was a must, not to mention it helped better define just what his main friggin’ weapon is capable of like those of most of the existing cast. In case a fight thread does come around in the future, it’d be an ideal thing to have ready to go and bring him further up to par with other fighters!

Just like that, I subjected myself to extra homework. Coming up with the moves themselves came to me simply enough, in seeing how air was played with in other media I was familiar with (key ones being Sonic the Hedgehog, The Legend of Zelda, and Avatar: The Last Airbender) and fashioning some of my own spins on top of some original ideas. I knew I wanted to lean hard on the bird motif since his zan spirit is a tengu, and given the wide variety of things the element of air/wind can do, I thought to make full connections between the two by theming each special move after certain species of bird! Creating those moves and naming them were the easy parts.

Naming them, that is, in English. Naming them all in Japanese was, by far, the hardest part. Why? Parce que je ne suis pas japonais, et aussi parce que je ne parle pas la langue, you see. On top of language barriers, the Japanese tongue operates on a whole other set of rules, compared to the Latin/Germanic-based ones I’ve grown used to with English, French, and (at one point) German. I did take some Japanese classes as an elective back in university, but that was only in first year – my own understanding, as a result, was threadbare and surface level at best, so that was not going to get me anywhere. I did not want to half-ass it with romaji and I love Bleach too much to not want to do these ideas justice.

I am a stickler when it comes to detail and canon-compliance, so getting the naming right by abiding to the proper conventions as best as I possibly could became my topmost priority. Google Translate was not going to fly because lord knows it’s no good without proper context between wholly different languages in English and Japanese, and it only gets wilder once you throw Chinese into the mix, given I’m supposed to use kanji. Thus, the name of the game here turned out to be “reverse engineering,” and I had to go in accepting I probably wasn’t going to get it 100% right the first time.

“What rules do zanpakutō names and special attack names follow?” “How do I apply on- or kun-reading in spelling out a group of certain kanji?” “Where are the common denominators in those rules that I can identify?” “Which language conventions have I already picked up from watching god knows how much anime over the years that I can replicate?” “Which set of words best conveys this particular English word that has no direct Japanese translation?” “How does [x] roll off the tongue? Does it sound right and fluid enough, or does it still feel super stilted and weird?” It was a loooooooot of this until I was finally satisfied with each individual end result!

Tl;dr: Jisho.org and Wikipedia were godsends during this whole process. I also want to thank @tigrextoque who gave me some helpful pointers after the fact!

ALSO... the ones on the Battle Info page aren’t even all of the ones I’ve thought about. Because I’m a glutton for punishment apparently, I purposely went and submitted a request for a certain ask meme on an ask meme source blog, JUST so I could play around with more ideas that came or would come to mind. This time, however, it was through the form of COMBINATION ATTACKS (which, by virtue alone, are honestly peak awesomeness). Those that implicated other shinigami got new bird motifs to meld the aesthetics of both muses, while I did get a couple of Quincy ones (with their referenced attacks actually using romaji as a base! Whoo-hoo for saving me the effort!) as a bonus to mix things up!

I’ll link them all right here (and later on the Battle Info page) for your convenience:

Noboru no mai, Shiro Fukurō (騰の舞・白梟, Rising Dance, Snowy Owl), with Rukia Kuchiki

Ahōdori Kyōka: Flying Battery (群烏強化: フライングバッテリー, Albatross Strengthening: Flying Battery) with Bambietta Basterbine

Muragarasu Kyōka: Galvano Volley (群烏強化: ガルヴァノボレー, Flock of Crows Strengthening: Galvano Volley), plus upgraded variant Muragarasu Kyōka: Galvano Storm (群烏強化: ガルヴァノストーム, Flock of Crows Strengthening: Galvano Storm), with Candice Catnipp

Hagetaka Rinbu (禿鷹輪舞, Vulture Round Dance) with Rangiku Matsumoto

Senkō-fū: Kitsutsuki (穿孔風: 啄木鳥, Drilling Wind: Woodpecker) with Nemu Kurotsuchi

Gyaku-fū Fūsa: Benizuru (逆風封鎖: 紅鶴, Headwind Blockade: Flamingo) with Byakuya Kuchiki

Hikuidori Hinshō (火食鳥頻傷, Cassowary Frequent Cuts) with Ueno Chie

Yes, “Flying Battery” was a deliberately written Sonic the Hedgehog reference. No, I will never apologize for that.

...might I reblog that meme again in the future though...?

...probably not right away.

So, uh... Plou, I should probably apologize for giving you a lot more than you likely bargained for, but hey, I just didn’t want to leave any stone unturned! Thank you so much for sending me your three questions, I enjoyed writing these little deep dives into my Bleach OC, and thanks for taking interest in Kōta! I hope all of my responses have been both enlightening and to your satisfaction.

#deivorous #{ i’m falling free in the wind ☁ headcanon ☁ }#{ cut for length }#{ whispers in the wind ☁ replies ☁ }#{ beyond the sky ☁ ooc ☁ }#{ ooc: we hope to return to our regular programming tomorrow-! }#{ i just could not focus much until i answered all of these hahahaha- }

7 notes · View notes

analyzing-the-rebellion-story · 4 years

Text

The Rebellion Story Analysis Addendum

It’s been four years since I finished the analysis, and a lot of my views have changed! Here are my revised opinions!

In italics is something I said in the analysis.

In plain font is my updated interpretation.

I highly doubt that Kyubey has a biological need for sleep, so I guess that means he’s just been lying there all night. Contemplating.

Another possibility is that he’s communicating telepathically with the other Incubators. After all, what better time would there be to discuss their plans?

Sayaka is a raspberry. Raspberries are soft, but have a strong and distinct flavor. That describes Sayaka pretty well, I think.

Kyoko is an apple. Apples are sweet and wholesome, but their seeds have traces of cyanide. This suits Kyoko well because, while she’s generally nice nowadays, she can be kind of a jerk sometimes.

Homura is a pumpkin. The pumpkin is a delicious and fulfilling produce, but it can be twisted into something frightening (like a Jack-o-Lantern). Considering Homura’s mutation later in the film…

Mami is cheese, a dairy product made from milk. The purpose of milk is to nurture young, and Mami is easily the most nurturing of the girls, so the cheese is referencing her motherly personality.

I wasn’t very serious about these interpretations to begin with, but in hindsight, there are far more straightforward connections between the girls and their respective foods:

1) According to the Madoka Wiki, raspberries are known as “healing fruit” in Japan. I couldn’t find a source for this, but if it’s true, then the connection to Sayaka should be obvious.

2) Kyoko being an apple is probably an allusion to her religious background (think forbidden fruit). This is reinforced by the fact that she stole a bag of apples in the original series.

3) The pumpkin is another one of Homura’s witch symbols, like the newts and owls.

4) Mami is cheese because Bebe eats cheese, and… well…

…Yeah.

This part makes no sense. The figures start crowding around Homura and Kyoko, and don’t leave until Kyoko agrees to keep a lid on things. Homura’s emotions influence the Gemworld, but all she wants is for Kyoko to keep a low profile. This would mean that Homura wants Kyoko to avoid drawing attention to herself, but at the same time is unconsciously willing attention towards Kyoko. What?

The figures surrounding them probably reflect Homura’s fear of causing too much of a disruption. When Kyoko agrees to keep her head down, the fear is assuaged and the figures leave them alone as a result.

The Incubators should’ve spent more time beta testing their memory-altering tech, because it’s proven to be very easy to awaken the girls’ memories of the real world.

Originally I assumed that the Incubators had wiped the girls’ memories so that they wouldn’t catch on to their plan. However, there’s a distinct possibility that it was Homura altering everyone’s memories, which would explain how she recovered her own so readily (and this is supported by the fact that her new world ability is memory manipulation). Kyubey does explicitly state that he wants Madoka to remember her purpose, so unless he thought that her amnesia was some sort of technical failure, I’m gonna place my bets on Homura.

WHAT THE-?!

This... This thing randomly appears behind Mami and displays a walnut, presumably for cracking purposes. I honestly haven't the tiniest clue what this is supposed to represent. Is it symbolic of Mami's dormant memories "cracking open"? Is it foreshadowing Homura's transformation into the Nutcracker Witch? Just... what the heck?!

Since this happens immediately before Bebe is ruled out as the witch, it’s probably just vague foreshadowing without any real symbolism. It could be argued that the uncracked nut represents the unsolved mystery, but since Homulilly is incapable of cracking nuts to begin with, that feels like a stretch.

A rune briefly flashes. It translates into, “you”. As in Homura.

This is supposed to be an answer to the question, “Who is dreaming?” from earlier. I’m sure most of you already knew that, but I feel as though I should’ve pointed it out anyway.

(If you don’t remember this part, it happens right before Homura does her witch test)

The pink spool reappears, only to be kicked away by the Clara Dolls. Not even Madoka’s influence can save Homura from this despair.

Another possibility is that, in her mind, Homura deliberately defied the Law of Cycles (hence the spool getting kicked). It isn’t until Kyubey opens his telepathic mouth that she realizes this isn’t the case.

Shouldn’t Homura’s parents be wondering where she is? Does she even have parents?! I’ve been wondering that since the original series…

I can’t believe it never occurred to me that Homura didn’t invite her own parents into the labyrinth. That’s pretty strong evidence that they’re either dead, or put her up for adoption at a very young age.

Seeing Kyoko at a diner makes me wish there was a spinoff series exploring the personal lives of the girls (preferably with drama-comedy themes). Also, those familiars are giving me chills.

Another thing that flew over my head is that those familiars were sent to kidnap her. Same with Mama, Hitomi and Kyousuke.

Mami summons a train, and unsurprisingly, it has a teacup motif. The deer are kind of random, though…

Since Mami primarily fights with guns, the deer are most likely a reference to trophy hunting.

The runes translate into, “The Eternal Feminine”. This is probably a reference to Faust, a poem that apparently served as an inspiration for Madoka Magica (it’s about a man who trades his soul for unlimited power. Sound familiar?). Here’s a snippet for context:

“Everything that can be perceived is only a symbol; the imperfect, which cannot be realized, here makes itself reality; that which cannot be described, here finally completes itself. It is the eternal feminine, always attracting us to the higher.”

Homura is definitely drawn to “the higher”, though the underlying theme of salvation kind of gets subverted in the end…

While I still agree with this interpretation, I don’t think I did a very good job at describing/contextualizing it. At the end of Faust, the main character’s soul is saved from damnation and guided to Heaven by Gretchen*. This achievement is attributed to the Eternal Feminine, a female essence that draws humans to salvation. This is precisely what Madoka accomplishes at the end of the TV show and is attempting to do with Homura in this very scene.

*The namesake of Madoka’s witch form.

When the explosion the over, the magic forms this symbol. I’m not sure what it’s supposed to be, though? It vaguely resembles the portal to Magical Heaven, but the color effects make it hard to tell. It might also be a wheel, but the contours are very crystal-like.

Don’t know if this was intentional, but the symbol bears a loose resemblance to a dreamcatcher. “Who is dreaming?” is a recurring question throughout the movie, and at this point in time, the world Homura “dreamed” inside her soul gem is becoming a reality. From her perspective, she’s also preventing a “nightmare” by relieving Madoka of her duties and returning everything she sacrificed.

I’m not sure where else they would go, Homu. You didn’t make a new world, you just rebuilt the old one.

She’s probably talking about the Law of Cycles Dimension/Magical Heaven/Land Without Cheese/whatever you want to call it. Homura only took the part of the Law that contained Madoka’s original identity, but since it was the original Madoka that wished for the Law in the first place, her removal caused the entire system to collapse and expel her angels, too. This is why she says that Sayaka and Nagisa “somehow” got dragged along too even though she only wanted Madoka.

In other words, Homura pulled the wrong block from a Jenga stack.

Lastly, I want to point out an observation I made about Demon Homura’s world. When she unravels the Law of Cycles and renders it inaccessible, but also forces the Incubators to shoulder humanity’s curses, the end result is a “middle ground” between the previous two worlds. Think about it: In the first world, Magical Girls are doomed to become witches, while in the second world, they’re ultimately saved by Madoka. In Homura’s world, however, neither of these things can happen, which means she essentially created a world where there is neither salvation nor damnation. I really hope the eventual sequel explores this concept further; it’s very interesting.

Aaaaaaand that wraps it up! I hope you enjoyed this little bonus round as much as I did!

#analysis #madoka magica #the rebellion story #addendum

71 notes · View notes

beneaththetangles · 3 years

Text

Newman’s Nook: What’s in a Name?

I first watched Neon Genesis Evangelion as an 18 year old, new to the anime medium. Bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, I was just enthralled by all the large-scale combat between the angels and the Eva units. With the series dropping on Netflix, I decided to re-watch the series in 2020. Let me tell you, now as a Dad in his thirties, my focus shifted from the action toward the themes of depression and acceptance, instead, as well as to the heavy use of Christian symbolism. This got me to wondering something—what’s the deal with the name of the series? So, I decided to dive further into the meaning behind the name and what I found was interesting.

Neon

Neon is one of the basic elements of the periodic table of elements. However, that’s not the “neon” being described in the title of the series. This iteration of neon is akin to the English language prefix neo. Both the prefix and this “neon” have their roots in the classical Greek word “neos.” Neos generally translates into English as new, fresh, or recent. We see this prefix used in English in words such as neonatal (location of new birth), neoliberalism (modern liberalism), or Neolithic (literal meaning “New Stone Age”).

So, from a literal word root perspective, the first word in the title can basically be inferred to mean “new.”

Genesis

Genesis is a bit of a loaded term. Christians and Jews will recognize it as the first book of the Pentateuch or the first of the “Books of Moses” in the Bible. From a Biblical perspective, it is the beginning.

Merriam-Webster defines “genesis” as, “the origin or coming into being of something.” The genesis is the origin or beginning point of something. In the Biblical sense, that’s the beginning of all things as well as the beginning of scriptural canon. In a cultural context, the SEGA Mega Drive was branded as SEGA Genesis in the United States, as Sega of America wanted to convey in the name that the console was a “new beginning” for gaming.

From a title perspective, it appears that “genesis” in the title has something to do with a beginning or origin point. So far, we have “new beginning” as a general translation of the title.

Evangelion

Evangelion is a difficult word as it does not exactly have a direct translation. In the English language, its roots are similar to the Christian terms, evangelical or evangelism. Both of these words as well, as “evangelion” itself, have their roots in the classical Greek word euangelion. In most modern translations of the Bible, this has been transliterated into classic English as the word “Gospel.” In it’s classical definition, euangelion means “to bring good news.” In a very literal breakdown of the classical Greek word, euangelion is broken into the the two parts: “good” (eu-) and “messenger” (ángelos). This form of the word generally shifts from a meaning of good messenger to good message or news.

What becomes interesting then is that the term used throughout the series as applied to the biological-mech fusions that are used to defeat the angels is “Good News.” The angels in the series are, in a sense, being defeated by good news.

How does it apply to the anime?

Now I know what you are thinking: “That’s a real fine name you got there; however, how does this very specific name apply to the anime?!?” Let’s dive in.

The plot of the series is about a group of teenagers who pilot humanoid-machine hybrids (cyborgs) known as Evangelions. Each of these teens are literally piloting “good news,” employing the Evangelion units to defeat monsters known as “angels” that are trying to destroy the world. Simultaneously, much of the series involves the various characters dealing with their own personal struggles, with a major focus on depression. The series ends with a new beginning for Shinji and Asuka after the Third Impact and implementation of the Human Instrumentality Project.

In essence, the plot lends itself to a series of new beginnings (Neon Genesis). There are simple new beginnings, such as when Shinji or Asuka arrive in Tokyo-3. There are also incredibly complex new beginnings, such as the End of Evangelion film, where the world is remolded with Shinji and Asuka serving as the proverbial Adam and Eve.

In another more literal sense, the “good news” of world peace is provided through the advent of a different new beginning from Human Instrumentality. As all sense of self is taken from humanity through instrumentality, peace is achieved in a new, united beginning. While it is debatable if this beginning truly is good, it is in fact, a “Neon Genesis.”

Professor of Media Analysis, Mick Broderick, wrote a detailed analysis of the series and came to a conclusion that the series serves, in many ways, as a retelling of the Book of Genesis. He writes, “Anno’s project [Neon Genesis Evangelion] is a postmodernist retelling of the Genesis myth, as his series title implies—Neon Genesis Evangelion. It is a new myth of origin, complete with its own deluge, Armageddon, apocalypse and transcendence.”

However, there’s another school of thought on the title of the series. Hideaki Anno has said on a few different occasions that part of why he pulled in the Christian and Jewish mysticism symbolism was because he thought it was unique and interesting. While the name may derive a meaning from an analysis of the series’ plot, there is also a very distinct possibility that the true reason this series was named Neon Genesis Evangelion was purely because Hideki Anno thought the name was neat.

How do Christians respond?

For non-Christians, the title and the series symbolism can provide entertaining and educational value, but for Christians, we may be called to respond: What do we do with Neon Genesis Evangelion?

Now, I could post a barrage of links of various thought-pieces across the internet about the series. Instead, though, I want to bring us back to the beginning. What is this series really about and what’s in that name?

There are flashes of religious symbolism across Evangelion. Names of beings and entities derived from Jewish, Gnostic, Christian, and Islamic mysticism are scattered throughout. Crosses are commonly shown, and the topic of the soul as a separate entity from the body is discussed. However, the series has little or nothing to say about the nature or reality of God or Christ. Instead, it’s a very human narrative that focuses heavily on the depression of its main character, and with a human solution on solving the suffering caused by humanity. In many ways, this is the reason behind the Human Instrumentality Project, which again is a means whereby all the souls of humanity are merged into one and combined into a single, physical being.

Instead of having individuality, there would be sameness.

Instead of unique consciousness, there would be oneness.

The Bible embraces notions of unity, but rejects notions of sameness. Never is that more clear than in 1 Corinthians 12, where the apostle Paul discusses that idea of the church being united as the body of Christ. However, in doing so, he rejects the idea that individuals have the same purpose, instead uplifting the unique characteristics that make us different. I have different spiritual gifts and talents than you and you have different spiritual gifts and talents than your neighbor. Some of us are gifted teachers, other brilliant public speakers, and others are good cooks. Each of those unique characteristics are important and make us who we are. The Lord loves us as we are.

A similar emphasis on individuality finds its way into the end of the Evangelion series, which finds Shinji rejecting the concept of instrumentality. While all others appear ready and willing to join into one, united consciousness, Shinji desires to remain unique. Despite his flaws, despite his pain, despite his depression, Shinji recognizes that he is loved and deserves said love.

In a way, there is good news in the series in the form of Shinji’s eventual recognition that he deserves love as well as the individuals recognizing their desire for unity. Well, good news depending on your perspective.

Conclusions

With that in mind, consider these concluding points in deciding how to respond to the series as a Christian:

While recognizing that there is much symbolism throughout the the show that partly reflects the Christian faith, Christians should also acknowledge that said symbolism is mostly meaningless in that it does nothing to really explain what we believe. It is mostly window dressing.

Accept this story as a human narrative about human experiences trying to seek the divine to deal with their own problems. While on the surface, the story portrays humans protecting the world from monsters with their own monstrous, giant cyborgs, a deeper thematic dive reveals the truth of how depression terrorizes individuals and the challenges and ways one may respond to it.

Take away the idea that depression is real and a support system is important.

Unity is important and good, but is distinct from sameness, an idea that can easily find its way into churches and church culture We must embrace our uniqueness.

Christ’s Good News is better than any good news of Neon Genesis Evangelion. The oneness of Human Instrumentality pales in comparison to unity in Christ.

But don’t just take my word for it. There are layers upon layers in Neon Genesis Evangelion and two people may watch it and glean wildly different things from the series. Watch it yourself and feel free to comment below on how you feel Christians should approach this landmark show.

=====

Neon Genesis Evangelion can be streamed at Netflix and is available for purchase on Amazon.

#Anime #Christianity #Shin Seiki Evangelion #Neon Genesis Evangelion #Newman's Nook #Articles #Author: MDMRN

6 notes · View notes

timetocode · 4 years

Text

master/slave terminology and alternatives, a reflection

I've got a piece of software floating around on npm called master-server. It's a server that is used to orchestrate other servers. I make all other servers connect to it so that I can tell which machines are working and what their status is. I also released it as open source.

While coding the api I struggled with the naming. 'Master' seemed unambiguous enough, and every developer would know its role relative to the other components of the architecture. But it's a term that I wondered about. What meaning of master was this? A teacher? A leader? The most senior/important of the servers ('mastery')? Oh such optimism. Or was it the meaning of master that would be paired with slave? Would it evoke thoughts of American slavery? I was certain the usage was popularized by master/slave hard-drive and database replication, wherever that came from. That's just the actual technically-correct hardware terminology, right?

When I got to writing the actual api I couldn't bring myself to write an API that had the word slave in it. I know this may sound naive, but I was sitting there telling myself "hey, it's just a hardware/software term, the word means exactly what this piece of software is supposed to be and has nothing to do with human slavery." So there I was trying to talk myself into typing “slave” so I could finish the api. Well I failed. And now we have my exceptionally awkward api consisting of 'master.Server' and 'master.Connector'. I guess I was fine with the term "master" which I left all over the code, and was only sensitive to "slave."

Some time later (4 yrs ish) this type of terminology became publicly challenged in the context of git and GitHub. People expressed that the default branch of git repos was called “master” and that this was politically incorrect. And this criticism was/is occurring in a piece of software that doesn't even have a part called slave. The words used around git repositories are words like trunk, branch, push, pull, and merge. Git is themed around trees (or graph/node structures, technically) and moving stuff around. So what gives? Why “master,” and is it a troublesome word?

Well I did some research on the word master and the history of that word is a rollercoaster. The use of a master in a context with servants or subordinates is ancient (and the subordinate could be many things including students, employees, servants, or slaves). It has been used to refer to men of varying age and rank… at times it was actually for workers (not elites), at other times it was “respectable gentleman” and for a period of time it was exclusively used for boys under 12 (...). The word was specifically male-only for a very long time, and eventually a female equivalent sprung up which is Mistress. This was an honorific. There is a several hundred year usage of master and slave relating to the slave trade. Over time some uses of master without a gender appeared (Master of Ceremony, masters degree). Master is also popularly the translation of [Chinese] shifu/sifu and [Japanese] sensei in martial arts movies. The word has a usage in audio recording where the original is called a master. This meaning of master is an example where the master is data and not a human male. There’s also a multi-decade role in master/slave hard-drive, database, and other data-replication scenarios which is presumably the closest these terms get to me, a developer.

So in a best-case optimistic scenario one could argue that “master” when used to denote a more important branch/server/data hearkens back to a word for a teacher in charge of students. That sounds somewhat innocent. It’s ancient Greek culture or something. However is that likely…? Do us English speakers often run around referring to masters and their pupils? Americans certainly don’t. Also it’s not called “master/pupil” replication in software+hardware which perhaps is the only clue we need regarding our usage of these words (and a shame too, because master/pupil would make a lot more sense for data replication!). But we -- the cultural descendants of slave owners -- used the term(s) master/slave.

I can only conclude that I used the word master because I’m desensitized to slavery. I learned git, thinking nothing at all when I encountered the “master” branch, and I myself have written software with “master” components. It wasn’t until I literally typed “slave” that my mind engaged enough to say, “what exactly is with these names…?” And I still only resisted half of the terminology.

In case you haven’t guessed by now, I’m displeased with this outcome. So I’ve been collecting new terms and new concepts to use going forward.

The winner for the piece of software that started this whole thing for me, is the word “hub.” Hub refers to a center of a wheel where the spokes join. It’s also already in frequent use in networking, where it already carries the context of being a central point for communication. A server to whom multiple other servers connect is a hub server! I can’t wait for the next version.

And here are more terms, some of whom have already been adopted by software companies long before the git controversy.

Context: central unit or controller

Hub, main, center, core, list, inner, base, home, local, server, nexus, source, authority, origin, server, principal, provider, primary, store

Context: horizontally scaled unit or peripheral service

replica, copy, clone, worker, actuator, node, helper, client, spoke, proxy, doer, delegate, broker, handler, operator, executor, recipient, agent, branch, fork, remote, secondary, outer, consumer, service, instance, api

Some of those make a lot more sense in different contexts, and I’ve deliberately mixed words for data and services.

And here are some particularly great combos, some already in frequent use:

primary/replica

original/copy

server/client

source/remote

primary/secondary

main/proxy

hub/client

Also for anything non-generic it makes sense to mix in domain-specific vocabulary, such as gameClient, primaryAuthenticator, terrainGeneratorFork, etc.

#programming #master #slave #git #GitHub #terminology #blm

9 notes · View notes

auntarctica · 4 years

Note

When it comes to your inspiration for Reboot and Original DMC, what calls to you to help build the world, scenarios and characterizations of Dante and Vergil? And do you intend to write more of both?

Interesting. Thank you so much for dropping me a note! Easy question first: yes, absolutely; I am writing more of both DmC Reboot and DMC classic. I’m primarily an original writer, but this is my one actual fandom, and my one true pairing. I’m definitely an institutionalized lifer in that respect; got in early and I’m never getting out. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Here’s what I’m working on: Reboot-wise, I have the next chapter of Do Not Speak Against the Sun well underway, and there will be at least one more chapter after that, if not three(?). (Haven’t decided whether to save those ideas for a different fic or use them here – I know every writer in the world can relate.)

Classic-wise, I have underway:

- an interstitial, Dante-centric flashback-heavy fic that loosely spans the period post-4 up to V’s appearance in 5 in vignettes, with occasional forays into nostalgia and his past with Vergil, which is called Donec Gratis Eram Tibi (In the Days When I Was Dear to You).

- Confraternity, the post-5 fic that will follow that one.

Both of those are continuations of the Opera Omnia.

(Now I feel weird because whenever someone asks what I’m working on I always want to know what they’re working on but since you are a wild anon I cannot do the requisite social dance and it consternates me…) As for inspirations, like regrets, I have a few. I’m sure that a great deal of my Weltanschuuang is informed by my past as an opera singer (before I quit to write full time), and being a dual citizen of the US and the EU, straddling the Old and New worlds – which is part of why the backdrops of both Classic and Reboot are equally appealing to me.

History, philosophy, psychology, classical mythology, art and human nature are all sort of baked into DMC, no matter the iteration, and I think that those of us who are drawn to it tend to already have those interests; a pre-existing passion for those subjects. In seeking to augment those worlds, it’s only natural to draw on what’s already in the narrative and flower outward from there. The way my mind strains it, DMC Classic is ultimately a classical/gothic fantasy with nods to modernity, and DmC Reboot is ultimately a modern fantasy with nods to gothic classicalism, so that tends to really inform some of the choices, both maximal and subtle, that I make when I go to write in one or the other. For instance, if I had chosen to name a DMC Classic fic Do Not Speak Against the Sun, I would have named it in the original Latin. But Reboot is not as neoclassically or gothically weighted as Classic, (even if we can absolutely assume Vergil’s Ivy League classical education) which is why I feel the translated phrase works better. I really tend to like resonance – self-referentialism, themes that call back to themselves, or reappear like leitmotifs, gaining greater significance as they go, and foremost, this idea that everything in existence is interleaved and cantilevered and nothing is irrelevant. Although Reboot and Classic each have very different approaches, and thematic aspects the other lacks, there are also a lot of themes that they share – and it’s fun to play within both those congruencies and the discrepancies.

One thing I really like is the idea of toying with resonances between the universes - things that might surface in the narrative in both worlds, but in completely different contexts.

For instance, there were a few places in Do Not Speak Against the Sun where I saw a chance to incorporate a turn of phrase or piece of dialogue from my longstanding DMC classic fics - one example would be in Consanguinity where Vergil surveys the overgrown courtyard of the manor and remarks in the narrative that “the topiary [is] growing unchecked”. Reboot Vergil actually says this sentence out loud, but the context is (cough cough) rather different.

So I peppered in quite a few things like that.

I think of them as cryptic little love notes to repeat readers – the ones who maybe know your words even better than you do. It’s a really gratifying interaction when someone picks up on one of the little callbacks, or remarks on the architecture – writing is largely a solitary pursuit by nature, so those interludes of mutuality are all the more valuable.

I ended up doing it with some lines from the games, as well – subverting the infamous “how about a kiss from your little brother” - which also, intriguingly, necessarily changes the speaker of that line, purely because Reboot changed the canon.

Things like that, I think, add to the general idea that both sets of Dantes and Vergils can coexist in the greater Zeitgeist, in parallel, never even knowing when their universes graze up against each other in those odd little moments - and that’s a parity I like, these resonant and recognizable moments - the familiar subverted. It is both new and old, recognizable and surreal.

(Though that’s a fic I’d like to write too, some day - after all, the Yamato is already capable of opening interdimensional portals; canonically it’s not much of a stretch for any of them to wind up in the others’ world - and I’m sure that crossover has been done many, many, many times, but hey, the world can tolerate one more stab at the ol’ canon… ;) ) I think it’s rather to the credit of the developers of Reboot that while they changed the canon significantly, the characters are still recognizable – as they should be, in any good fanfic AU (which, let’s be fair, is basically what Reboot is). While different circumstances have emphasized different aspects of their personalities – and their resultant relationship dynamic and evolution - the core values and motivations of the characters remain intact. In DMC 5, Vergil posits a rhetorical question, addressed to Dante, as he sits beneath the Qliphoth awaiting him – I’m probably badly paraphrasing here, but essentially he says, “If things were reversed that day, would I have your life, and you mine?” It’s an interesting moment, because it seems like an almost wistful musing from him—and yet an uncharacteristically simplistic one. Vergil seems like a guy who believes in multifactorial influences, and not apt to think it could be as simple as “Dante got all the breaks”, so we can surmise that perhaps he summarily mentally answered his own question with a wry, chagrined, “no”. He cannot ultimately let himself believe he is a pawn of fate, and that he had no hand or control in his own destiny—that would be contrary to his entire worldview and self-concept.

And while it would be a convenient and face-saving philosophy to blame fate, or Dante, and he allows himself to entertain the thought, briefly, I believe he rejects it.

What I find interesting is that Reboot actually sort of also answers that question, by having Dante be the one who was disenfranchised and Vergil the one who had all the breaks, and we see that lives are shaped by more than mere circumstances, and that Vergil’s core personality, the parts that remain consistent across universes – curiosity, impulsivity, innovation, creativity, ambition, individualism, idealism – will always lead him through a more dramatic arc than Dante, and subsequently a more resplendent redemption.

There’s a famous Teddy Roosevelt quote that suits what I see as Vergil’s general philosophy, in either universe:

“The credit belongs to those who are actually in the arena, who strive valiantly; who know the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spend themselves in a worthy cause; who at best know the triumph of high achievement; and who, at worst, if they fail, fail while daring greatly, so that their place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.” And I think that intuitive consistency across universes is what I rely on most heavily when I go to write either one - the rest is all set-dressing; superficial, and circumstantial. Even if Vergil’s personality is different, or expressed differently, his character is consistent; his theory of mind, his worldview. Same goes for Dante. All that said, I’m not sure I actually addressed what you asked, so if there are more specific questions or things you wanted to know that I completely elided, please feel free to shoot a follow-up. I am at your disposal!

#my asks #dmc reboot #dmc #devil may cry #dante #vergil #characterization #meta

13 notes · View notes

tommyshelbyob · 4 years

Text

true power is in development

Oh how I miss precedented times. Rip. ☹️

Hey, what’s up? Hello!

Welcome to my tumblr page! It’s actually my first encounter with it so please do bear with me. Know that I appreciate you all for taking the time to visit and interact with my blog. 😁👍🏿

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To start off, I’d love to share with you all a few readings that I’m sure you’d want to read if you’re into development like me. These are:

-Terms and Definitions in Communication for Development and Social Change by Jan Servaes

-Development Communication Primer by Nora Cruz Quebral

-Development Communication: Communication for or of Development? by Dr. Mrinal Chatterjee

These first three scholarly works altogether is an accumulation of development studies concepts translated into new yet familiar development jargons. Some of these include development communication, development journalism, and other schools of thought. After roughly half a year of being idle with school and academic learning, it was a satisfying refresher to have read academic articles that are aligned with my chosen course. The particular readings allowed for new insights and an in-depth analysis of development notions, and I’d like to share a few here.

The flow of discussion for the three readings starts with Servaes’ work that primarily focuses on concepts related to development work. These include the social implications of culture and identity, ideologies, social change, and substantially more. However, it was difficult to understand the presence of culture in development communication. The various definitions for what constitutes culture were quite confusing and its diversity only broadens the levels of understanding. I do believe that, despite it being complex, understanding certain communities’ culture is attainable through a grassroots development approach. On the note of definitions, this is where my most significant insight resides. Defining development itself is the determining factor whether or not following courses of action would be really successful and sustainable. Other than defining development, it is as important to consider who’s defining it. The general rule of thumb here, as discussed in Dev 100.1, is that the different definitions for development should always come from the developing communities and not to be dictated by development interventionists. There is power in defining development and this power should rightfully be within the control of the community.

Moving forward with the Development Communication Primer by Noral Quebral, the author made an attempt to define development which was heavily focused on economic development. It was difficult to grasp the idea that economic development was always put first when talking about developing countries. I do understand that the economy is part of the identity of any nation, but I disagree that development should begin with economic development. Referring back to my previous point, power lies behind defining development. A fitting example here would be the APECO project. The previous Aquino administration established the Aurora Pacific Economic Zone and Freeport (APECO) in Casiguran, Aurora to supposedly boost economic progress and transactions. In doing so, a tribe of Dumagat people and other fisherfolk were displaced from their homes. The main point of argument here is that the development the government was pursuing for the people in those communities was definitely not the development they actually needed. Evidently, the power in this situation sided with the ruling class that had the means to define development.

Another problematic approach to development, other than the politics behind defining it, is the use of development communication to further personal agenda for development. Adding to the main theme of the discussion, there is power in defining development and this is guided through development communication. As discussed in Dev 100.1, developed countries imposed economic policies on developing countries under the guise of development only to advance the former’s economic interests and abuse the resources of the latter. Without the appropriate context-specific and culture-based tools for development communication, these developing countries experienced centuries of bullying from developed countries. Incidentally, not long ago when development communication was used to advance political agenda in the Philippines during the 2016 presidential elections. Communities of people living in poverty were promised rightful access to quality social services and numerous other things only to be robbed of their vote by a candidate who continues to fail on his promises upon being elected. However, when used in good faith and executed well, development communication would essentially be a huge asset in attaining social cohesion and participatory development. As discussed in Dev 100.2, the synergy of development communication and participatory development would be efficient propagators of development wherein communities and governing institutions would collaborate for efficient and context-based public policies, decision-making processes, and transactions. This particular approach would allow for a bottom-up or grassroots level development that eliminates unnecessary interventions from irrelevant parties.

With modern times come modern technology. Development communication takes many forms of media and not all would be in good nature. There would also be countless development projects that pose as capacity building initiatives to bring forth social capital, when in reality would only be charity works to boost public relations and image. Therefore, we must stay critical. Likewise, other than the pandemic we’re currently experiencing now, we must also stay vigilant and analytical of multiple waves of historical revisionism, circulation of fake or manipulated news, and people who willingly turn the other cheek only to sustain their seat at the table. Power is concentrated in their positions and we must make sure to hold them accountable.

2 notes · View notes

ill-will-editions · 4 years

Photo

AUTONOMY AND COUNTER-POWER: RETHINKING THE QUESTION OF ORGANIZATION AFTER THE YELLOW VESTS MOVEMENT (2020)

First published in ACTA, January 6th, 2020.

Translated by J.R. and Ill Will Editions.

This text stems from a talk given by the French journal ACTA during an international congress organized by the Catalan magazine Catarsi in Barcelona last December. Now in its third iteration, the congress facilitates the exchange of intellectual reflection and militant experience between different countries, touching on themes such as unionism, urban struggles, the realities of fascism today, and the stakes of political communication in the digital age.

We take this opportunity to develop a report on the sequence of struggles in France and across the globe in recent months, considering both its novel characteristics and its strategic impasses. Our aim here is to place the question of organization back on the table, while also proposing a rough sketch of what the seemingly-obscure concept of victory might look like today. -ACTA

The year 2019 witnessed a new wave of uprisings on a planetary scale. Dozens of countries around the world watched as their cities erupted into violence, their economies were paralyzed, and the legitimacy of their governments was challenged in the streets. Despite obvious differences in context, the majority were popular mobilizations centering around common issues: worsening precarity, social regression and fiscal austerity – the result of several decades of unchecked liberalism. Added to this was the corruption of elites, the disrepute of the political class, and the authoritarianism of the State.

A common element in a majority of these cases is the collapse of institutional mediations. Many of these movements formed at arm's length from parties and unions — when they were not openly hostile toward them. In France, the skepticism of the Yellow Vests toward any form of representation is evident to anyone, while the more recent movement against the proposed pension reforms has crystallized a tendency among the more combative union bases of acting autonomously from their bureaucratic leadership. We see this at several levels: for instance, in their decisive insistence on December 5th as a strike date, in their will to take control of how the strike will be handled (i.e. a “renewable” rather than a “pearled,” or slowdown, strike), in their experimentation with more conflictual forms of action, and in their refusal to obey calls for a truce (even when they emanate from trade federations themselves).

The Yellow Vests phenomenon casts a stark light upon a basic feature of our time, namely, that traditional representative bodies are no longer in a position to capture the energy of protest, let alone direct it. From here on out, those who face down the State are on their own. From Paris to Santiago, by way of Beirut, popular revolt is shattering the recognized frameworks of struggle, fleeing in every direction. At a planetary level, its principal weapons are the blockade and the riot.

While this reduction of the antagonism to two terms may in some cases safeguard the people against the betrayals and intrigues of politicians and the various other apparatuses, it is no less problematic when one considers its long-term consistency and its possible outcomes — we will return to this later.

To be sure, several of the recent movements have succeeded in winning tactical victories: the abandonment of the new taxes at the root of the revolts in France and Lebanon, the suspension of the public transport fare hikes and the promise of a constitutional referendum in Chile, the abandonment of the austerity plan in Ecuador, the withdrawal of the extradition bill in Hong Kong, the resignation of Bouteflika in Algeria, etc.

States everywhere have bowed to popular pressure. Yet, with the exception of a few, the movements have kept going beyond these tactical achievements, and still continue today. In fact, it is this continuation, precisely, which reveals a major difficulty that cuts across every struggle in the current period: we have no shared conception today of what a victory might be, at either a tactical or a strategic level. (Insofar as a victory, in our view, is always the inscription in history of a point of irreversibility.)

We cannot see clearly what victory looks like. For us, the concept of victory is obscure.

By contrast, the twentieth century had at its disposal a relatively clear understanding of victory, one widely accepted by revolutionaries throughout the world. To be victorious meant to seize State power. This was to be done either by classic electoral means or else through an armed insurrection. Those “progressive” formations that came to power by respecting the rules of bourgeois democracy wound up either abandoning any prospect of social transformation, under the weight of institutional constraints or because of the intrinsic corruption of state structures, or else they found themselves vulnerable and powerless in the face of the reaction of the propertied classes and their imperialist allies. As for the revolutionary seizure of state power, historical experience has shown that, by itself, it in no way guarantees a general advance toward communism and that, consequently, a successful insurrection alone cannot define the concept of victory. (In other words, we cannot remain satisfied with a strictly “military” definition of victory.)

But we have not yet been able to put forward a new concept of victory adequate to the novelty of the movements that have shaken the world in recent years and which have everywhere run up against the same strategic impasses.

The question of victory is directly related to the question of organization. The determination of this or that hypothesis of victory leads us to adopt a certain type of organization adapted to the success of this hypothesis. Lenin’s theory of the vanguard party (endowed with military discipline and committed to the objective of taking state power) issues directly from his analysis of the failures of the revolutionary uprisings of the nineteenth century—foremost among them being the Paris Commune. Thus was he led to delineate a new type of political organization capable at last of leading the proletariat to victory. And if the Leninist party-form imposed itself as the canonical form of revolutionary organization during most of the 20th century, it is largely owing to the prestige derived from their 1917 victory. The hypothesis had, in a way, proven itself.

Designed for seizing state power, the Leninist party certainly showed its formidable insurrectional efficacy; however, it proved to be radically deficient in the exercise of this power when it came to the post-revolutionary phase and the achievement of the strategic objectives of communism. As Alain Badiou wrote, “The Leninist party is incommensurable to the tasks of the transition to communism, despite the fact that it is appropriate to those of a victorious insurrection.”

Throughout the 1970s, French Maoists and Italian autonomists had (among other things) counted the overcoming of the traditional Leninist paradigm among the essential tasks of the politics of emancipation. It is this problem that we have inherited today.

We cannot help but notice the general disorientation that runs through the whole of our camp on this issue. Whereas some have decided to sweep away the motif of organization completely, on the pretext that it is, in and of itself, synonymous with a mortifying alienation, others have been content to carry on with the ossified model of the avant-garde party. The former glorify the movement, and perhaps even pure movement itself, reducing their political practice to following each of its new figures. Although they often display remarkable tactical activism during sequences of acute conflictuality, their fetishization of an affinity-driven approach condemns them to retreating during non-movement periods. As for the latter, they remain rigidly loyal to obsolete organisational models, and this prevents them from truly entering into and becoming internal to the movements in question, leading to a growing disconnect with the new dynamics of struggle.

We believe that the problem of organization is once again an open question, one that demands to be taken up anew by revolutionaries. The Yellow Vests movement has been a formidable testing ground for the relationship between mass movement and organized subjectivity. For us, one of the essential lessons of this sequence is that activists must be in the movement “like fish in the water.” They must be truly internal, that is, actually in the movement. This means participating in its basic assemblies, establishing connections with its local groups, carrying out investigations, upholding its main deadlines, and allowing the novelty of its forms of struggle to “contaminate” them—in short, putting themselves in the school of the masses. They cannot remain content with a posture of exteriority, or even worse, of scorn, which was something too many leftists fell into at the onset of the 2018 winter uprising. As Marx put it in the Manifesto: “Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order.” That being said, however, the position of revolutionary militants cannot be purely one of tailing or following along [suivisme], for it is not merely a question of accompanying the movement, or even of disappearing into it, but of intervening in it politically.

This brings us to the fundamental point: political intervention always leads to a division. What unites a movement, especially at the beginning, has a negative dimension: different sections of the people come together in common opposition to a particular government, a particular bill, a particular aspect of the dominant order. The follower mentality treats this unity as something to be preserved at all costs and regards any effort to introduce political divisions as tending to weaken the movement itself. On the contrary, we believe that the negative unity of a movement always covers up important (sometimes even antagonistic) contradictions and that it is precisely the role of revolutionaries to intervene where these contradictions exist—and thus, to accept the division. For it is only through this work of division that true, affirmative unity can be built.

This kind of work has been undertaken within the Yellow Vests movement, for example around the question of antifascism. There is no doubt that the presence of the extreme right, whether in terms of diffuse reactionary opinion or the violent activism of small groups, was notable at the beginning of the movement. Nationalist, neo-fascist, or Pétainist formations felt comfortable enough to unfurl their banners at the Étoile roundabout, to strut down the Champs-Élysées, to beat up leftist activists—until the brutal attack on an NPA contingent on 26 January 2019. The organization of an explicit antifascist response made it possible to rout these nationalist groupuscules, which were de facto excluded from the marches. At a deeper level, the early construction of an antiracist front bringing together organizations based in working-class neighborhoods such as the Adama Committee, local Yellow Vests groups, and various autonomous collectives allowed the contradictions of the movement to be worked on politically, helping to develop its watchwords and thereby gradually marginalizing its reactionary component.

It is also clear that the movement’s political maturation process was accelerated by an early collective experience of police and judicial repression (that is, of State authoritarianism) at levels that had previously been reserved exclusively for the racialized populations of working-class neighborhoods—yet which have now become the default mode of repression meted out to the entire social movement.

We argue that the task of organized militants during a movement is not only to provide tactical support for mass action but also to carry out a properly political intervention within the movement, which in most cases will entail a deepening of a certain number of its internal contradictions.

But if the organized must be sensitive to the irruptions of events (rather than obsessing over the maintenance and reproduction of their own organized process), getting organized does bring with it a duration proper to revolts by crystallizing their most advanced political contents. This other sense of time is what allows organized revolutionaries to continue the political work even in sequences of low conflictuality. They get organized by taking root in a territory; by opening and running accessible, public spaces; by establishing durable structures, spaces for self-education, and tools for propaganda and debate; and by deepening theoretical elaborations—in short, by practicing a militant program.

As Marx observed, since they capable of imagining the next stage of the political process, communists are not satisfied with following the pure present of revolts. In particular, they cannot be satisfied with a succession of tactical gestures (however spectacular) lacking any strategic interrelation. Here again we have detected a recurring weakness: although we, in France, have been living in a period of exceptional and almost uninterrupted social conflictuality since 2016, we have observed the fragmentation and the inconsistency of revolutionary organizations. A short-sighted “movement-ism” seems to be preventing any long-term recomposition.

The Yellow Vests movement has confirmed this: any politics of emancipation is today practiced at a distance from the State and its institutions. As a result, any organized process committed to emancipation can only be autonomous. The Yellow Vests have learned to rely on their own forces, they did not need any trade union or any political party to bring about a level of social antagonism unseen for over half a century. To borrow from Negri in his 1977 text, Capitalist Domination and Working Class Sabotage, it could be said that they combined a political destabilization of the regime (through the Saturday insurrectional riots) with the material destructuring of the system (through logistic blockades, the occupation of roundabouts and their territorial spread). Albeit in a fragmentary and incomplete way, they practiced larval forms of a popular counter-power.

This brings us back to the strategic considerations set out above. What do we mean by “counter-power?” Counter-power is the preliminary form of autonomy: it is both “liberated space,” a field of experimentation prefigurative of all other social relations, and “conflict zone,” a particular point where the reproduction of social command is blocked. Here positivity cannot be dissociated from negativity, nor creation from antagonism. For “the latencies of the future contained in the present are not limited to existing in ideological representations and political programs. On the contrary, they already manifest themselves in the eruption of the revolutionary process, externalizing themselves in the most surprising and unexpected configurations made possible by the successive puncturing of the dominant forms of relations,” as Curcio and Franceschini wrote in their 1982 text, Drops of Sunlight in the City of Specters.

To the extent that we must do away with the idea that nothing is possible prior to the conquest of central power; to the extent that the decline of the State must become not only an historical horizon but a principle visible in the present through political action itself—to this extent, counter-power is today the elementary reality of any emancipation process.

(France dotted with “yellow communes”—those occupied roundabouts and other innumerable pockets of self-organization which, in addition to the metropolitan riots, allowed thousands of proletarians to rediscover the meaning of fraternity while also laying the material conditions for a mass economic blockade—the France of last winter was undoubtedly a life-size approximation of this process of constituting, from below, an other power, a popular power that sets up its own institutions).

Whether one looks to the ZAD of Notre-Dame-des-Landes, or to the Yellow Vests themselves, recent experience shows that any dynamic of counter-power must confront the problem of self-defense and of protecting this counter-power. This issue is all the more pressing in the context of an authoritarian turn by the State whose repressive methods have become increasingly unhinged. We must likewise consider the possible forms in which a strategic (and not only tactical) negativity might be exercised—one committed to the destruction of bourgeois law, that foundation of the dominant order, a destruction that the capillary expansion of counter-power alone cannot ensure.

What then are the stakes of putting the question of organization back on the agenda? It is clear that only historical practice will allow us to make real progress on this issue. And that theoretical elaboration can only serve—but this is already a lot—to formulate problems.

We must get organized in the field of self-defense, which likewise determines offensive capacity. In this sense, to borrow an intuition from Tronti, it is a tactical function of mass antagonism. For, as we have said, the accumulation of popular power necessarily runs up against the “prohibitive power” of the State. Once it reaches a certain threshold of strength and temporal consistency, every emancipatory experiment confronts this “prohibitive power” that puts its very survival at stake. To envisage this as a linear process would be the height of naivety. Here is precisely where the role of organized political subjectivity lies: to “remove the obstacles” that oppose the growth of popular power, to break up the enemy’s command structure: “to strip capitalist domination of its hope, its possibility of a future,” as Scalzone put it in 1978. It is unclear, otherwise, how the emancipatory elements that developed “in the womb of the old society” could ever in fact be actualized, ratified, and generalized.

But this function alone does not exhaust the issue. Another essential aspect of any organizational process is its multiplicity. It cannot be “one dimensional.” This was, moreover, the principal error of the fighting formations in the 1970s cycle: the military function ended up absorbing all the others, reducing the specter of political practice to this one partial dimension. On the contrary, the organized must seek to combine and articulate different forms of struggle, different terrains, and different modes of intervention. As one agent of the Imaginary Party pointed out, “People forget, but the party has always been both legal and illegal, visible and invisible, public and conspiratorial.” Its richness and potentiality reside in this plurality.

Organization must therefore also take on the role of political recomposition. Today, there are a variety of trajectories of struggle in the movement that act on specific terrains and claim relative autonomy. This is the case, for example, of feminist and antiracist movements (which are themselves traversed by major fault lines). The question of organization, at present, is therefore just as much a question of organizations. Hence the motif of the front that has been circulating recently, which is one possible form that this recomposition could take. What would be at issue is a space necessarily open to internal contradictions, within which revolutionary militants would have the task of working toward a determinate programmatic synthesis: to foster connections between centers of struggle and different social subjectivities, to thwart the risk of paralysis or fragmentation by affirming a communist projectuality as an evaluative criterion for real situations.

Since 2016, and more intensely in recent months, egalitarian alliances have been formed between combative union chapters, autonomous collectives, local Yellow Vests groups, working-class neighborhood organizations, radicalized ecological militants, and high school bases — our task today is to ensure that these alliances survive beyond mere movement temporalities, that is, to build a space of organization and coordination that might create the bases for a new type of popular unity.

[Photo credits: Maxwell Aurélien James, for the Collectif ŒIL]

#France #giletsjaunes #YellowVests #Revolt #Organization #Theory

20 notes · View notes

necropsittacus · 4 years

Text

I got a request for an Infodump Post on the Revelation imagery in King of the Monsters and tbqh one of my love languages is being asked about my Ghidorah opinions so Here We Go

note: I’m using the New International Version of the Bible, and also I have not rewatched KOTM for this (although I may end up deciding to do that) and am going on memories of my approximately three and a half past viewings. Other note: most of this is going to be me presenting specific Bible quotes and then talking about them a bit. Be prepared for that. also this feels super unfinished to me and shorter than it should be to treat the topic properly, and like i need to rewatch the movie and write an essay

The whole movie, and Ghidorah in particular, is very focused around apocalypse imagery--the end of the world, the rebuilding of a cleaner, better new world, the breakdown of that attempt to rebuild a better world. This has to do with the Book of Revelation’s focus on the destruction of the world as we know it and the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven.

except that here the attempt to destroy and remake the world (which, in Revelation, is an act of God, with the Devil as a major part of the narrative but not the prime mover) A. fails, and B. isn’t treated as a good idea to start with by the narrative. While the ending, and specifically information we get in the credits, does show us progress towards a better, brighter future for the world, it’s more “gradual healing” than “apocalypse and rebirth.” The burn-it-all-down apocalypse-and-rebirth style of fixing the world is rather associated with Ghidorah, and the people who release/awaken him. The human villains want to purge the world of humanity’s sins.

This is one of those places where the religious commentary mixes with commentary on environmental/climate change issues...Alan Jonah’s plan is standing in for, well, y’all know what kind of environmental rhetoric, the “humans are the plague, burn it all down so the earth can heal” type. They’re making a point about the inviability of that kind of goal, that you can’t just kill everyone and start over and hope the earth will fix itself, because it won’t (and, here, trying to make it work like that actively makes things worse--Ghidorah has no interest in *fixing* anything), and that gets mixed with the religious imagery in fun ways.

It could also have to do with the “false king of the monsters”/“Antichrist stands in the place of Christ” idea--Ghidorah is taking the role, as the one breaking and remaking the world, that in Revelation is assigned to God, but he’s more the Devil.

And that plays into the image of Ghidorah as the false Christ, the false prophet, the Antichrist--releasing him is supposed to cleanse the world of “humanity’s” sins (and this movie doesn’t explicitly go into the problems with that kind of approach--that it’s not humanity it’s capitalism--but I might argue that it’s implicit--that killing off humanity as an approach is explicitly criticized, it doesn’t work, it fails spectacularly), it just...doesn’t work that way, actually

Revelation 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

I’m inclined to link this (and the idea is repeated a few times in Revelation, and elsewhere in the New Testament, this is just the clearest example) with the “they were here before us and they’ll be here after us” theme in KOTM.

One of the major things that happens in Revelation is the opening, one by one, of seven seals on a scroll, each opening followed by a new disaster. I’m inclined to link this to the unsealing and release from stasis of the Titans (supposed to be one by one, although of course Ghidorah disrupts this).

The Storm Theme

Luke 10:18 I saw Satan fall from heaven like lightning.

Rev. 11:19 Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm.

Rev. 8:5 Then the angel took the censer, filled it with fire from the altar, and hurled it on the earth; and there came peals of thunder, rumblings, flashes of lightning and an earthquake.

It’s not clear from that quote, but what’s happening here is the opening of the seventh and final seal (mentioned above).

While Ghidorah’s primary weapons were originally gravity beams, here they more resemble lightning or electricity (or that has consistently been my impression, anyway). This image is reinforced by his/their identification with a tropical storm. I may be reaching with this, but in context of what I’m talking about below I don’t think it’s unfair to bring up the Luke 10:18 quote in this context, as well as the storms and lightning tied to apocalypse more generally.

This is, or leads into, one of the places where I really like how the climate change apocalypse symbolism I’ve been assured by other people is in there is folded in with the religious apocalypse symbolism.

Ghidorah represents both something that is unnatural, not part of the established order, a destructive force the planet is not prepared to handle (specifically in the form of destructive weather patterns--which has been pointed out to me as climate change imagery, although I didn’t initially pick up on it myself) and as both Satan and Antichrist from the Book of Revelation.

First, Ghidorah-as-Satan:

The motif of a fight against a multi-headed dragon is in itself arguable as Revelation imagery; Satan primarily appears as a dragon.

Rev. 12:3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. 4 Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth.

...

Rev. 12:7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

Here specifically we get the notion of a malevolent, multi-headed (and crowned--this one’s more metaphorical but checks out with the “false king” thing) dragon being thrown down from the sky, and also the forces more sympathetic to humanity triumphing over the dragon. Also, there’s more “star(s) falling from Heaven” imagery elsewhere that feels at least as relevant, but that gives me feelings.

Ghidorah as Antichrist

It’s not explicit in the Bible verses I’m working with (or particularly anywhere in the Bible), but I should have a little bit here before I start talking about it too much about what exactly the Antichrist is. The Christian concept of the Antichrist is someone who opposes Jesus and sets himself in the place of Jesus/God, and thus leads the world astray.

Wikipedia: “Antichrist is translated from the combination of two ancient Greek words αντί + Χριστός (anti + Christos). In Greek, Χριστός means "anointed one" and the word Christ derives from it.[6] Therefore, an antichrist opposes Christ by substituting himself for Christ.”

I want to point out the “substituting himself for Christ” piece here especially, in relation to Ghidorah’s status as the “false king of the monsters.”

Also, it should maybe be noted that a lot of interpretations don’t have one singular Antichrist figure (or even two), but rather an institution, a group, or many people can be meant by the Antichrist (e.g. in a lot of heretical and Protestant traditions the Catholic Church may be Antichrist). Here I’m treating the term Antichrist as referring to one singular figure, who is interchangeable with the Beast, because in the movie we get a specific character in the role. ALSO, the term “Antichrist” is never actually used in Revelation, and may or may not refer to the same thing as “the Beast;” my interpretation, a fairly standard one, is that the Beast is the Antichrist, but YMMV on that.

For convenience’s sake, I am going to be using “Antichrist” or “The Beast” interchangeably

and “the False Prophet” for the other beast; the terms are a little wigglier in actual usage. Additionally, the figure I’m calling the False Prophet is often conceptualized as a second, lesser or “mystical” Antichrist whose coming presages the “great” Antichrist (the Beast).

One of the slightly off things about these parallels is that while in Revelation there are three separate figures, Satan/the dragon, the Beast, and the False Prophet, in KOTM there are only two, Ghidorah and Rodan. Thus, Ghidorah derives his authority from himself alone, and not from an additional external figure (which also jives with the Satan connection, IMO; Satan’s whole thing in some interpretations is claiming authority for himself).

I’m going to repeat the introduction we get to the Beast here in full. There’s not a ton of physical similarity between the description we get of the Beast and Ghidorah besides the multiple heads, and, as mentioned, Ghidorah grants himself authority, not any external power, but there are other significant parallels:

Rev. 13:1 The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. 2 The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority.

13:3 One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast.

We get this explicitly, which is the first piece of Revelation imagery that was pointed out to me--Godzilla bites off Ghidorah’s third head, which regrows (right before he claims the throne fully).

4 People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?” 5 The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months. 6 It opened its mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. 7 It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.

This is, again, Ghidorah fully claiming the title of king, and being obeyed/followed by (most of) the other Titans.

Rodan as False Prophet

Rev. 13:11 Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon. 12 It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. 13 And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people.

Here we do get something for the physical description; I think it’s interesting that KOTM Rodan doesn’t quite resemble older material!Rodan (who as far as I can tell, and certainly in Jurassic City which is the other thing I’ve seen with him in it, tends to be basically just a weird red giant Pteranodon, “giant bird” comments from characters in-universe notwithstanding) as much as the other non-original characters. For the most part they just made him a lot birdier, and I don’t think “match the Bible description of the second beast” was like, a driving force in that, but he does sort of have horns. That’s mostly beside the point, anyway; if we’re taking Ghidorah-as-the-Beast as a given, Rodan is clearly the other Beast acting as essentially a second-in-command and herald to the first one. The fire coming down from heaven thing is significant; you could also take “coming out of the earth” to apply to his emergence from a volcano.

14 Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15 The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. 16 It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, 17 so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name. 18 This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666.

Most of this doesn’t really say anything new for the parallels I’m reading into it, and there’s no equivalence to the idolatry or the Mark of the Beast, I just really like the false prophet as a figure, and it reinforces the “given authority under the first, higher-ranking Beast” thing.

Miscellaneous other things

Thessalonians 2:7 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the breath of his mouth, annihilating him by the manifestation of his coming.

“The lawless one” is another common descriptor for Antichrist. I want to point out “destroy with the breath of his mouth” in context of the ending and Godzilla’s atomic breath.

Additionally, Godzilla’s own rise from the brink of death (after having been nearly killed while acting in a capacity helpful to humanity (fighting Ghidorah), at that) parallels a very central motif in Christianity (the rise of Jesus from the dead).

Rev. 5:15 Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and everyone else, both slave and free, hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains.

This gives me feelings re everyone who can going to hide in bunkers.

I’m not going through the whole movie again looking for illustrations for this, it’s probably long enough as is, but I have this one saved anyway and I think it makes the Christianity theme REALLY blatant:

Just the framing of the shot here, the cross in the foreground, and Ghidorah’s pose kind of mimicking it, is telling.

I also want to point out this verse in terms of the visuals here:

Rev. 8:12 The fourth angel sounded his trumpet, and a third of the sun was struck, a third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of them turned dark. A third of the day was without light, and also a third of the night.

We very much do tend to get dark sky.

Rev. 8:7 The first angel sounded his trumpet, and there came hail and fire mixed with blood, and it was hurled down on the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up.

this feels like More Rodan Imagery Things

Rev. 8:8 The second angel sounded his trumpet, and something like a huge mountain, all ablaze, was thrown into the sea. A third of the sea turned into blood, 9 a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed. 10 The third angel sounded his trumpet, and a great star, blazing like a torch, fell from the sky on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water— 11 the name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters turned bitter, and many people died from the waters that had become bitter.

The first part of this, and the bitter waters, feel reminiscent of the Oxygen Destroyer idea (though that was taken from the original Godzilla, so I don’t think they stole this bit outright so much as they found a place they could mix Bible parallels with the older material they were working off). Also, there’s a volcano, probably. And “star falling from heaven” is again always a Ghidorah vibe for me, given the whole “alien descended to earth” thing; same thing with this next line:

Rev. 9:1 The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. The star was given the key to the shaft of the Abyss.

And also, I can’t remember if the thing about his responsibility for the K-Pg extinction event I’ve seen around a few times is a fandom thing or suggested in the movie, but if it is canon--that’s another place that folds the Biblical imagery in with the scientific mass extinction imagery.

Rev. 9:19 The power of the horses was in their mouths and in their tails; for their tails were like snakes, having heads with which they inflict injury.

This isn’t necessarily actually a Ghidorah vibe but “tails like snakes used to inflict injury” does make me Feel Some Things in that regard.

There’s also some other stuff I Think might be readable in that direction, but I’m not as certain about any of it and this is really long as is.

My conclusion is basically just...they went fucking ham with the Revelation imagery in this movie, both to play into the more major theme of environmental destruction, and I honestly speculate as a response to the criticisms of some other American Godzilla stuff as “taking the God out of Godzilla”--if that’s the case, they’d be putting a sense of spiritual reference into the movie that would be more familiar to a lot of Western audiences compared to the hints of that in the original Godzilla. and i love it and i’m always a slut for the book of revelation

Thank you very much for reading.

#mine #kaiju content #ok to rb if you want #though i still feel like it's unfinished

7 notes · View notes

hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger · 5 years

Text

Spider-Man: Far From Home Thoughts Part 3 a.k.a. Iron Man Junior: Far From Spider-Man

This will be the final part of this essay series and here I’m going to go through how this film holds up as an adaptation of the source material.

Shockingly the answer will be that it’s fucking awful.

I’ve already made what must be over a dozen posts about how terrible Far From Home is as an adaptation and representation of Spider-Man but screw it let’s go over it more!

Before I start to rant let me qualify something.

When you are adapting a character as famous, iconic and beloved as Spider-Man you don’t have to be a 1:1 translation of the source material. But you 100% do have to respect the spirit of the source material as much as practicality will allow. You have to respect the essential ideas, original intention and core themes and concepts underpinning the character and his world.

That is the root of my objections in this post and so many others.

Homecoming and Far From Home misunderstand Spider-Man on a fundamental level. Or worse they do understand him and actively chose to ignore what he’s about, what he represents.

He’s all about great power and great responsibility within the context of being a relatively relatable Average Joe.

This isn’t making him an everyman the way Bilbo Baggins or Luke Skywalker are. For Spider-Man he has to much more accurately reflect the average person and the world the average person lives in. He has to live in a real city, he has to worry about bills, laundry, studies, getting a job, holding a job, maintaining friendships and romantic relationships. He just has to be Spider-Man ON TOP of that and that must clash with his normal life. Being Spider-Man is one more additional responsibility he must juggle.

Before I rip this film to shreds for so aggressively NOT doing that let me get a few scant positives out of the way.

First of all the action scenes were not just generally improved from Homecoming, but honestly felt more like Spider-Man. I could easily see the way Peter and Mysterio attacked, defended, countered, etc, being something from the comics. Particular praise must go to the Berlin action sequence.

For many years Spider-Man fans have understandably claimed that Mysterio would be the perfect villain for the big screen due to his skill set being about generating great visuals. And we were right because we get not just a classic Mysterio action sequence in Berlin but outright one of the all time best ones from any version of Spider-Man. The film even drops us some appreciated fan service, firstly by putting Peter in his red and blue costume so it feels like the comic come to life and secondly via the giant Mysterio hand ripped straight out of ASM #66-67. The snow globe sequence in particular, if it wasn’t from a comic (and off the top of my head I can’t recall it being so) was simply inspired.

Equally Mysterio’s look was a different yet ultimately brilliant realization of the comic book. To an extent Mysterio is also a spiritually faithful rendition of the comic book character. In the comics he was a special effects master, stuntman and failed actor who craved fame and was frustrated by the lack of recognition he got.

In the movie he created highly realistic holographic technology, was frustrated by it’s small scale use, the lack of recognition he got for it and with a whole crew of helpers fabricated his Mysterio identity in the hopes of becoming the most famous superhero in the world, although he was himself rarely in the costume.

Traditionally Mysterio is a practical effects guy and this makes the most sense given how he physically fights Spider-Man, but the updating of that to holographic technology is fine and dandy because CGI has, for better or worse, supplanted practical effects. Even in the 1994 cartoon when that wasn’t the case the showmakers gave Mysterio holographic tech.

Him not being a stuntman is more of a mixed bag. On the one hand being a stuntman is what enables him to sort of fight Spider-Man himself, but on the other hand outside of his debut Mysterio’s usually been more effective when not physically fighting people but rather tricking them and manipulating them. So if you are focussing more on that aspect of the character dropping the stuntman angle is fine.

In fact one of the two things (and we will talk more about the other later) which does spiritually undermine this version of Mysterio is his lack of explicit connection to Hollywood. However he is still an actor just not a professional actor in the film or TV industry. And a great actor at that as he is so capable of fooling everyone.

We might also argue that having a crew of helpers undermined Mysterio’s independence and intelligence, but I think it works for the movie fro 2 reasons. First of all in a movie for general audiences suspension of disbelief doesn’t stretch as far so savant characters are less acceptable. Mysterio is 100% a savant. He’s a skilled actor, stuntman, manipulator and technician who knows holographic technology, robotics and all manner of things like that. In the movies you could maybe buy someone having a grasp of the purely technical side of things, but even Tony Stark wasn’t an expert on biology or chemistry, maybe he knew enough to get by but remember he needed to read up on stuff in Avengers 2012.

By giving Mysterio a group supporting him it makes it more believable that this villain is capable of all these things. More poignantly, and you can see this especially when they were ‘rehearsing’ for the London attack, it renders Beck something of a director, thus subtextually giving him yet more connection to the world of film. Again it’s just a shame this was not more explicit and instead his abilities and motives stem from...well we will get there.

On a final note Mysterio can in truth be one of the creepier Spider-Man villains and you don’t really get that vibe outside of the Berlin fight scene (and even then only a little bit). I think that’s fine as he was still manipulative which is one of Mysterio’s better skills in the comics.

So there is a lot this version of Mysterio has going for him, he’s faithful in the idea but not in certain details. Unfortunately those details sink this take.

Other positives include the set up of Chameleon as the stoic and silent agent Dmitri within SHIELD. This will not only pay off in MCU Spider-Man 3 but will is also a great example of irony and foreshadowing. Chameleon was introduced as a saboteur and enemy agent so him being a mole within SHIELD lends itself well to his character and the fact that he is an imposter amidst imposters (the Skrulls) is deliciously ironic.

Also this movie gave us the best version of Ned and Betty’s relationship ever because no one died or got cheated on. Finally I liked Aunt May running a homeless shelter. It gives her something to do and is a very fitting role for her.

I want to go back to Mysterio for a moment though as this isn’t really a positive or a negative of his character.

He’s a very tricky character to adapt. In his debut he is pretends to be a powerful new superhero who wants to bring down Spider-Man whom he’s obviously framed.

In a movie I can understand how framing Spider-Man might not sustain a 2+ hour movie.* However the bigger question to ask is whether or not you bother with having Mysterio framed as a hero or not.

In the 90s it was easier as Spider-Man and his mythos wasn’t so prevalent so people simply know a lot of stuff via osmosis, and in the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon the showmakers simply present him as a criminal off the bat.

If you do go with him pretending to be a hero it’s tricky to pull off without feeling like you are going through the motions.

All of which is me saying the movie is faithful to the comics in presenting Mysterio as initially pretending t be a hero but I don’t know how good of an idea that is. I don’t know anyone who walked into the movie not knowing he was the bad guy.

That’s about it for positives.

So...FUCK THIS MOVIE!

Once again in this Spider-Man movie everything revolves around Iron Man.

I’ve written in posts past how this undermines Spider-Man’s agency simply as a character in a movie but as far as adaptations go this is beyond insulting.

Spider-Man was in part created to be an independent superhero. In part created to literally NOT have the kind of relationship he has with Iron Man in this movie.

I cannot describe how much of a fundamental misunderstanding of Spider-Man’s character it is to have Iron Man be utterly integral to who everything about him.

He’s so goddam integral that Peter’s alleged character arc in this movie is about becoming him (in the most obnoxious of ways too, see Part 2) and he is the wellspring from which 99% of this movie springs from even though he’s fucking dead. I mean my god the plot device everyone is after is Tony Stark’s glasses!

Spider-Man doesn’t get to be his own man even when Iron Man is literally not alive!

Shit even Mysterio is motivated and built to be a dark reflection of Iron Man. And this kills his character not just because it denies him independence because it makes his ambitions entirely too big scale to work as a Spider-Man villain. His motivation is to gain access to Tony’s magic glasses. At least Vulture with a tweak could have worked as a regular Spider-Man villain. He had the working class down to Earth and relatable ambitions and lifestyle down. Mysterio is doing everything to both spite Tony and become him.

Jesus, even Iron Man’s dead weight and most irrelevant supporting character Happy Hogan is not just in this movie but plot relevant...for the second movie in a row! He’s even dating Spider-Man’ aunt. At this point given how she’s never even mentioned him is Uncle Ben even dead in this universe or did he just run off with a somehow even sexier 50 year old?

Oh...and let’s talk about Uncle Ben, whom I was naive enough to think was going to be referenced when that gravestone appeared but noooooope, fucking Iron Man again.

From Endgame onwards disgusting posts and articles were written about how Iron Man’s death now truly makes him MCU’s Uncle Ben. Because you see he was Peter’s father figure and he died...so that’s the same thing. Nevermind that he didn’t die because Peter was inactive and selfish, or the fact that his death didn’t widow his aunt, or anything like that. Shit Peter doesn’t even seem that upset about it beyond 1 or 2 scenes. And yet that’s one or two scenes more than we’ve ever seen Uncle Ben get referenced. Think about that we’ve seen Iron Man mourned more than Uncle Ben in a SPIDER-MAN movie!

We see that more than we see Aunt May even. Aunt May is just there in the MCU movies which is not just a waste of Tomei as a talented actress but it is again insulting as an adaptation. Even in Spider-Man 3 and ASM2 she had more to do and delivered a good scene or two. In these movies she’s eye candy and nothing more. She is more relevant as a punch line about how men are attracted to her than as her own character.

And now that we are on the subject of supporting characters, I talk about this more in other posts, but Michelle is so bad. The romance comes out of nowhere there is no justification given for their respective feelings for one another and to say she’s not Mary Jane would be redundant.

She fails to be anything like Mary Jane on any level beyond her nickname. This is not okay for several reasons. Among them is the fact that the Spider-man movies have had a problematic habit of treating the love interests as interchangeable characters as opposed to being their own distinct characters. Worse we’re screwing up Mary Jane not only a second time on film but worse than before. This is the Lois Lane of the Spider-Man mythos, she’s an iconic beloved character integral to the over all story of Spider-Man. And we’re treating her as so insignificant as to able to present an OC with her initials and claim that’s good enough.

As for the other supporting characters they continue to be broken. Like how the fuck did Betty Brant wind up the relatively most faithful character? Ned is just a repurposed Ganke except now they’re writing him as a lame Disney Channel sidekick character so he’s not even got the depth of comic book Ganke and Flash...oh Flash. He’s not just irrelevant to the movie, he’s not even really a bully in this film. He’s just a preppy docuchebag no one takes seriously and in fact gets treated as the butt monkey on more than one occasion. The only redeemable moments for his character were when he sang Spider-Man’s praises and was stoked that Spidey follows his social media channel.

All the characters feel like shallow attempts to make Spider-Man ‘about youth’ which as I’ve said countless times in the past, he provably isn’t about and never was. But this film not only continues to lean on that misinterpretation but lean harder on it. Like the premise of this movie is literally about Spider-Man trying to enjoy his summer vacation and school field trip.

But the film fucks up Spider-Man’s defining values in so many other ways.

Of course there is the blip.

People were so hype for Spider-Man to be in the MCU but hindsight is painful because that fact just hurt Spider-Man movies on a fundamental level.

In Marvel comics, we never know for sure if any of Spider-Man’s friends or family died in the Infinity Gauntlet and no one remembered it happening anyway. It also didn’t happen in a Spider-Man story so it could be safely ignored as is the nature of a shared universe.

But in the movies Far From Home acting as MCU Chapter 23 creates an ongoing problem for these Spider-Man movies. The fact that Spider-Man and everyone he knows died and came back but also there were some people who are five years older than him now creates a fundamental dissonance undermining the more grounded, relatable angle of his character. The only solution of which is to simply wilfully ignore the elephant in the room that represents that dissonance. In short these Spider-Man movies would’ve been better off not being connected to the MCU or at least being on it’s fringes.

This applies to even the post credits scene of the movie as now in our movies that are supposed to be about the grounded and relatable hero we have fucking aliens! And they were there the whole time. The movie even gleefully plants its flag in rejection of the idea of having a more grounded Spider-Man by saying Spider-Man ISN’T a friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man by virtue of having gone to space. I was okay with that in Infinity War as that was not a Spider-Man movie but by actively rejecting that idea in this movie it showcases how the film makers treat Spider-Man as a more generic hero who can be anything and everything...and therefore nothing. There are no definitions to the type of things he will get involved with.

You might counter outside of the opening school scenes and post-credit sequence the alien involvement isn’t that much of a problem because all the interdimensional and alien stuff wasn’t real in the movie.

But that leads us to the next problem. Spider-Man as a globetrotting super spy agent. Again...this is not Spider-Man. Spider-Man is more domestic, more down to Earth and sans space travel there is nothing less grounded and down to Earth that globetrotting and secret agents. There is a reason James Bond is indulgent escapism!

Worse the spy stuff essentially hijacks the movie, it’s not even something that flows out from Peter’s character or world, it comes out of nowhere to appropriate his story.

Speaking of which...SHIELD have to hijack Spider-Man because...Spider-Man doesn’t want to get involved...

...what?...

I will repeat that.

Spider-Man, the character defined by a low level burglar he chose not to stop who then killed his uncle thus teaching him that having super powers gives him a responsibility to use it to help others...chooses to not help out against giant elemental monsters threatening all life on Earth...because he wants to enjoy his vacation...

...words simply cannot do justice to how beyond broken that is as an interpretation of Spider-Man.

This isn’t even a case of he quits because being a hero has taken such a toll on him and he’s had a wobble.

This is him still deciding to be Spider-Man but actively tries to avoid it because he wants to have fun for an extended period of time. MAYBE that’s okay. MAYBE him deciding to not take his suit along on vacation could be justified and in character.

But when presented the means to be Spider-Man and a major crisis that requires his help (it isn’t like there is a small group of equally or more powerful heroes to cover for him) for him to simply reject it, to have to be forced into helping and when he reluctantly does only doing the bare minimum until he realizes people he cares about are in danger...no.

Just no, whoever was responsible for that characterization you should not be allowed to write for Spider-Man.

It’s not even consistent with Homecoming’s already misinterpreted version of Peter Parker. In Homecoming Peter was screwed up because his intervention made everything worse near 100% of the time but even that’s better than presenting Peter as choosing to not intervene at all for purely selfish and unsympathetic reasons. And to rub it in our faces when he does choose to intervene he does it with more high tech Stark crap. No him making the suit himself doesn’t make it okay, Spider-Man shouldn’t be using technology from other people like that nor consistently having access to such high-tech. It goes against the idea of him being independent and of being grounded.

The Stark tech crap is also relevant to what is a major contender for the single worst scene of any Spider-Man film to date. The drone strike on a bus.

In this movie about the superhero who’s supposed to be relatable and like us, Joe Average, we have a scene where he uses a pair of high tech bequeathed to him by his dead superhero father figure accidentally to launch an orbital drone strike on a fellow school student on his bus because he’s about to ruin his chances with hooking up with a girl. Then he has to engage in wacky hijinks to save the kid and everyone else.

Do I need to say more about that scene? To call it jumping a shark would be an insult to other shark jumping moments. It shatters the verisimilitude of the movie maybe even more than the blip.

Let’s switch back to Peter’s personality in this movie. I’ve already talked a lot about it in prior posts but I do have two more things to point out.

The first of these is that we have less quips than in prior Spider-Man movies. And I don’t just mean the most recent ones I mean of any of the movies going back to 2002. And by less I mean 0. Spider-Man NEVER quips or jokes in this movie. Ever. It’s like they’ve grown to understand Spider-Man even less than in the last movie!

The second and more significant is how stupid Peter is when it comes to his secret identity. In the comics Spider-Man is famously secretive about his identity, to the point where it’s almost paranoid.

Here though he isn’t concerned about SHIELD or random SHEILD agents knowing who he is, or Mysterio, or everyone in a bar or anyone looking at the bridge in London where he unmaskes makes out (awkwardly) with Michelle.

The movie pretends like it cares about this aspect of his character by having Peter point out if he goes out as Spider-Man abroad people will deduce it’s him.

Not only is this an attempt by him to weasel out of hero duties but it’s moot because Betty immediately figures it out (leading to the cringe Night Monkey gag which doesn’t even make sense since monkeys don’t crawl on walls or shoot webs!), Michelle figures it out and Peter was cavalier with his identity before and after that scene.

All culminating in just everyone knowing his identity which like in the comics fundamentally fucks up the idea of him as the everyman even more. Forget space aliens and spy shit now he’s a celebrity. Celebrities are the exact opposite of the everyman, that’s why they’re friggin celebrities!

Big take away from this movie as an adaptation?

It was fucking insulting for it to have been dedicated to Lee and Ditko.

Fuck this movie. Fuck this direction for Spider-Man. Fuck Marvel for ruining Spider-Man again.

*That being said I did once hear a brilliant pitch for Spider-Man 4 wherein Mysterio frames Spider-Man and the police call in aid from Kraven the Hunter to catch him.

67 notes · View notes