#because his actions are directly facilitating the villain’s actions and he’s very much not being a good guy in that moment a | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

gascon-en-exil · 4 years

Note

Your view on fandom is fair enough. I'd like to add that while Edelgard would make a good villain (and does on two routes), Dimitri, in his madman phase, makes an even better villain. I didn't enjoy his redemption arc because it was clumsily done and an absolute drag to actually play through, so instead I enjoy the idea of a formerly kindhearted man losing himself to the point of becoming an irredeemable beast.

This doesn’t work very well however, in large part because, like Claude, Dimitri just isn’t important enough to the plot outside his own route.

In VW it’s treated as a major reveal that he’s still alive at Gronder, but after you defeat him he’s killed offscreen by Edelgard’s forces and that’s that. He’s an almost random obstacle and not even the focal point of that chapter, and his motivation is then posthumously validated by Dedue taking it up and reappearing in Enbarr to help Byleth’s army and take his revenge. In SS Dimitri’s only Part 2 appearance is Byleth (probably) dreaming/hallucinating him being remorseful for his behavior after the offscreen Gronder battle, which is even less villainous and more tragic because he never opposes the player. It is considerably more random however, and as such Dedue carrying out the same role that he does in VW feels less natural although one could infer the same events happened to trigger it.

CF has Dimitri fully sane, with the easy visual symbolism of him still having both eyes, as he was never separated from Dedue and forced to go on the run by Cornelia. It would be overly generous to call him a hero antagonist however, as - again like Claude - he’s only relevant to the one chapter and gets no development outside it. There’s a symmetry to Edelgard getting to finish the hit she ordered in the Prologue by killing both of the other leaders, and Dimitri gets to shine in the tragic role of a leader defending his homeland from conquest via his reactions to the deaths of the other Lions and especially his secret death scene with Dedue, but he’s still not important or developed enough to be an antagonist much less evil enough to be a villain. One of CF’s structural problems is that its conflict lacks focus, with only Rhea even somewhat established as an overarching threat outside of the chapters where you fight her. That’s exacerbated by the route’s short length and breathless pacing, not to mention the hype for the postgame war against the Agarthans which is narratively unsatisfying to say the least. It really is just Edelgard and her precious teacher vs. the world, with Hubert having the supervillainous time of his life in the background.

With all that in mind I don’t see where Dimitri works as a villain. The opposition between Byleth and Edelgard is always front and center because the concept of an Avatar and lord fighting was the basic concept the game was built around. Even in AM where Byleth matters least and the protagonist/antagonist relationship works much better because Dimitri and Edelgard are both actual characters, the self-insert still plays a disproportionately large role in shaping events. This is a much bigger issue with AM than its pacing, which is easily the best of the routes and ends on a much stronger note of finality compared to VW and SS which have to keep going after Edelgard dies even though her war drives the plot of every route. That’s why she’s the antagonist for 3/4ths of the game, and why her being the source of the main conflict makes her villainous through her methods and the methods of her allies.

Dimitri and Claude are bit players outside their respective routes, but one of the big reasons that people praise AM’s writing is that Dimitri’s character arc directly ties into the opposition between him and Edelgard through their history and her alliance with the people who perpetrated the Tragedy of Duscur. (This stands in contrast to Claude whose arc and motivations have nothing whatsoever to do with Edelgard, leaving her as only an obstacle to his ambitions with awkward implementation on account of VW being mostly a copy and paste of SS.) Parts of Dimitri’s development are rushed, but there’s an appreciable back-and-forth between him and his advisors as well as his established support network of full characters (read: not Byleth) who can criticize his actions and facilitate his growth. There’s also his framing, which is that of a traditional FE lord from start to finish with the subversive detour in the middle through his mental deterioration and eventual recovery. In their ending tapestries Edelgard is the red-draped conqueror with the smirking sorcerer in black behind her throne, Claude the yellow (in FE terms, neutral) statesman, and Byleth literally deified as the full realization of the self-insert fantasy - but for Dimitri the blue lord his ending involves playing with orphans in an image as benevolent as it is mildly saccharine.

And at least Dimitri has an arc; Claude has the aforementioned problem with his goals not aligning with the main conflict of his route, whereas if Byleth or Edelgard ever change at all they’re done by the end of Part 1 and after that they’re just seeing their stories through to the end. Another common critique of CF is that no one ever seriously questions Edelgard’s actions or challenges her in a meaningful way: Randolph and Ladislava’s death are almost comically unimportant, her response to the nuking of Arianrhod pivots not on the people who died or the betrayal from within but on her immediately lying about it to the Strike Force to further scapegoat Rhea*, and while before the final battle she raises the potential for conflict with Byleth being connected to the goddess and her children nothing comes of it other than Sothis’s Crest stone disappearing at the end for no apparent reason and Edelgard still getting her happy ending with Byleth anyway. While all that may be preferable for a power fantasy compared to AM repeatedly beating Dimitri over the head with his failings until he grows as a person, it’s not great for characterization. I also maintain that Hubert is a better center for CF as a power fantasy anyway, as he’s much more straightforward about his morally bankrupt actions and lacks the tonally dissonant scenes Edelgard has that are intended to play up her romance with Byleth. (He has comparable scenes of course, but they’re all confined to the support system where that sort of thing normally occurs and aren’t part of the main story.)

So to sum up, everything in FE16 outside of CF frames Edelgard as its main antagonist, and even in CF despite some commitment issues the signs of her villainy are still present. Dimitri by contrast is too secondary a character outside AM to ever be a proper antagonist, and too morally undeveloped and tragically framed in them to ever be a villain either.

*While CF Chapter 16′s title, “Lady of Deceit,” superficially refers to Cornelia, there’s some heavy irony in that it could just as easily apply to Edelgard herself considering it contains the most blatant instance of her lying to her supporters. Even before that, the chapter only happens because she feints toward Fhirdiad but secretly plans to besiege Arianrhod instead, to the confusion of several in the playable cast.

#Fire Emblem #FE16 #Fire Emblem Three Houses #Dimitri Alexandre Blaiddyd

39 notes · View notes

crystalelemental · 4 years

Text

Antagonists of Elibe

When I was writing up the Limstella character piece, there was a point I wanted to fit in but couldn’t find a good way to introduce without breaking the flow. My wife insisted I should make a separate post about it, so here it is. The main point is that, across both Elibe games, a big emphasis seems to be placed on empathy and understanding the other side of things, and how that ties in to the antagonists, how they’re presented, and why each outcome is so impactful to me, personally.

Empathy in Elibe Starting with the main prospect, I think empathy is kind of a central theme for Elibe. Not in a specific sense, but in the broad sense of having empathy and compassion for all life, not just your own. Our protagonists, Eliwood and Roy, are almost entirely defined by their kindness, understanding, and acceptance of others.

Eliwood’s supports with Ninian are entirely around this. Ninian is hesitant with him at first, and with others, given her history. Her mother was killed in a war with humans, the remainder of her people were driven into exile beyond the dragon’s gate, and as a high-profile oracle in their world, she deals endlessly with the dragons who seek revenge upon humans to reclaim their world. Dragons and humans have always seemed to have bad blood for one another. Yet here’s Eliwood, who can honestly tell her that her background doesn’t matter.

Ninian: “It’s strange. All of you treat my brother and me so...normally. Doesn’t it bother you? Our powers, our looks. We’re different from...people...” Eliwood: “Has that been bothering you? What’s wrong with being a bit different from other people? When I look at you, I don’t see other people. I see Ninian. A normal, kindhearted girl.”

The entire basis of their relationship is because they can look past the differences, and find commonalities. They’re able to see the good in the other, and that in turn paves the way for Roy.

Roy is similarly able to see the good in everything. He comes to the aid of others, and seeks to protect all life, not just his own. This culminates in his battle with Zephiel, his proclamation of faith in the good in humans, and finally his decision to protect and save Idunn. The entire focus of these games is about a family starting to correct the ills of the past, and reaching out to the other side in friendship. Sound familiar?

I feel like Fire Emblem, as a series, really likes to play with this. It’s the entire basis for the Tellius games, and is the central theme of Fodlan, which is why I believe Claude’s route is the true route. But that’s something for another day. The main reason I bring this up is to shift into the antagonists, and how their actions and histories play with the central theme.

Zephiel I’m gonna start with Zephiel, since I have the least to talk about with him. Zephiel’s history is that, as a child, he excelled as a leader, a soldier, at pretty much everything. Yet his father only hated him for it. He believed that Zephiel could not possibly be his legitimate heir, and felt jealousy toward Zephiel’s accomplishments. So much so that he tried to have Zephiel assassinated. Twice, if Binding Blade’s explanation if different from the event in Blazing Blade. Zephiel has grown up surrounded by hate, even within his own race. Humans from different countries can’t even get along, and everything with them is about seizing power and siding with those who are strong. The entire progression of Biding Blade is to accentuate Zephiel’s point: every minor antagonist sides with Bern for selfish motivations. Humans can’t be trusted, so we should turn leadership over to dragons, who will do a better job.

Roy disagrees, and because we’ve lived the adventure with him, we can see Zephiel’s point, but we also see Roy’s. Whenever something has gone off course, humans corrected the problem. Turning leadership over to dragons to rule is just keeping the same problem, but changing which hand is holding it. Dragon leadership alone would be no better, and the true ending route confirms this belief. We learn about the earthly dragons, how they chose to lead and respond to the Scouring, and the lengths they went to. They’re no better than humans. They were willing to torture a child into becoming a living weapon for them, claiming survival. But we know from Blazing Blade, if survival were all they sought, they could have fled beyond the Dragon’s Gate. This was an act of domination against humans, and Zephiel’s aim was to facilitate that dominance.

Zephiel serves as a villain because he fails to empathize with the full picture. He’s simply lashing out at humanity, which has done awful things to him, in fairness. But he’s willing to deny any wrongdoing on the part of dragons, and willingly uses Idunn as a tool of war, just as the dragons did before. That’s the villain path. Even if Zephiel truly believed that humans are better off living under dragon control. Even if Zephiel believes that dragons were less cruel than humans. The fact that he’s willing to sacrifice and use the lives of others to achieve an ambition is where he’s gone wrong. Life cannot be sacrificed for a greater good, and that alone is what sets Zephiel up as the villain.

Nergal Nergal is very similar to Zephiel, but in a different direction. For those not familiar with his history, Nergal was alive at the time of the Scouring. He was a practitioner of the dark arts, who had married a dragon, and even had two children with said dragon. However, when the Scouring was picking up, his wife was captured by humans. Nergal set out to get her back, but left his children on the Dread Isle near the Dragon’s Gate, and told them to pass through it if he hadn’t returned in ten days’ time. Though he sought to keep them safe if he failed, the end result was that Nergal was too late to save his wife, and then too late to return to his children. His family was gone. For hundreds of years, he wandered the world, until he met Athos, a hero of the Scouring. They traveled together for a time, and eventually found Arcadia, a hidden oasis in the desert where humans and dragons lived in harmony. It was here that Nergal found the secret art of manipulating quintessence, known only to dragons, and likely divine dragons. Using this art, Nergal would kill living creatures, and began to create Morphs, entities with human likeness, but allegedly no emotion or drive beyond serving their creator. I talked a lot about whether this is true in the Limstella analysis, so please refer to that for the rebuttal.

The point is, given the history, Nergal is set to be a sympathetic villain, much like Zephiel. He lost his entire family to a meaningless war, found a way to possibly revive his wife, then loses his reason for this and seeks only power. It’s a tragedy, right? Well, yes, but honestly I think there was no other outcome.

When you dig into Nergal, there’s one thing that’s clear: Nergal steadily lost himself. It wasn’t all at once. When Athos confronts him, it’s unlikely he’s lost himself completely by this. And even if he had, starting out, Nergal knew what he was doing. He weighed the choice, and determined that sacrificing other life to bring back his wife was a good trade. There’s no empathy for other life, only its use for his own purposes. He doesn’t see past his trauma.

What’s more, Morphs clearly have souls. They think and feel. Limstella’s dialogue makes this clear, Kishuna’s existence makes this clear, Canas and Renault’s supports make this clear. Yet it’s very directly stated that Nergal creates his Morphs, then abandons them. Unless they’re part of his ultimate goal, he has no use for them. And he makes a lot. When Kishuna was created, he was, I believe, #252. This was when Nergal still had care for his successful creations, as opposed to the later flashback where he’s telling Kishuna to rot as a worthless creation. Even before Nergal devolved to the point of only seeking power, he was creating life and casting it aside, as if it were nothing. He even tells Kishuna that “it won’t do to refer to you as a number,” implying that most of his creations are just numbers. He thinks very little of other life, even from the start. There was never enough care for others, and thus this path to villainy was almost guaranteed.

The Limits of Empathy The previous two antagonists bring up a compelling thought: what are the limits of empathy? When has a person gone too far to give consideration to the past and circumstances that led them here? I think Eliwood’s confrontation with Nergal sums it up nicely:

Nergal: “It confirmed some things for me. That trust brings betrayal. That friends bring weakness!” Eliwood: “If that’s what you learned from your encounter, then you are a fool. Do you believe for a moment, than when Athos struck down his dearest friend, he felt nothing?! His heart was torn in two, and yet you refused to understand that! Nergal! I will defeat you! Here! Today! But, even now there is no hatred in my heart. You, who were born human. You, who lost the heart that defines your humanity... For you, I have nothing but pity.”

There are two answers. One is “never.” Even at the end of their conflict, Eliwood never holds hate for Nergal. After everything, there’s still a level of human connection that triumphs over hatred. The second is, when they become dismissive of other life. Nergal was always dismissive, and when Athos fought against him, all he learned was that friends betray you, rather than that his actions were wrong.

I’ve only played Binding Blade once (as opposed to the like 50 times I’ve played Blazing Blade), but I don’t recall Roy holding any hatred for Zephiel, or anyone else, either. Rather, he recognizes that what they’re doing brings harm to people, and seeks to stop them because he must.

That’s the limit these games suggest. When someone is actively endangering life, using life as a tool for their own gains. That’s when you can’t let understanding of their circumstances stay your hand. But it’s equally important to never lose that empathy, that heart that defines humanity.

Idunn Idunn is the odd antagonist out, and my personal favorite of the three. Idunn’s history is...honestly the opposite of the other two. She embodies the first answer but neglects the second. Idunn is a divine dragon. During the Scouring, the earthly dragons sought aid from the divine dragons, requesting the creation of War Dragons. They were losing the war because dragon reproduction is significantly longer than human reproduction, and so they were essentially outnumbered. War Dragons could be spawned by divine dragons, likely in a similar fashion to the creation of Morphs, and could turn the tide of the war. The divine dragons refused the request, and left Elibe entirely. Except one.

Idunn was the only one to hesitate. As it’s explained in the endgame of Binding Blade, she felt empathy for the earthly dragons, and worried about their circumstances. This allowed them to catch her, and subsequently destroy her soul, creating the Demon Dragon that would obey their commands to flood the world in War Dragons. When the dragons lost the war anyway, Idunn was sealed away for 1000 years, until Zephiel awakened her. Zephiel then used her to again bring War Dragons into the world, in an effort to turn the world over to dragons.

Idunn is such a unique case to me, because the only defining personality trait we get from her is her empathy. She couldn’t just abandon the earthly dragons without attacks of conscience. Yet because of that, she was captured and betrayed. The divine dragons were right to leave the earthly dragons behind, knowing what they would do. Perhaps it’s because Idunn was young, or perhaps it’s because she was a divine dragon and had never associated with the earthly dragons or humans, but she didn’t understand that some people could be cruel. She didn’t realize that, despite feeling that empathy for the dragons, there was a good reason to turn them down.

It also established another important point. Jahn, the last dragon standing with Idunn, expresses that dragons don’t have emotions, and that dragons and humans could not possibly live together because of these differences. He calls Brunnya incomprehensible, and seems to look down on emotion as a weakness exclusive to humans. Yet we see that empathy from Idunn, we’ve seen Arcadia where humans and dragons do coexist, and in Blazing Blade we see Ninian and Nils, who are definitely expressive. Jahn seems to have internalized this sense of hatred toward humanity, such that he rejects any possible similarities to connect with. Jahn is a symbol of the hatred the dragons had toward humans, and likely that humans felt toward dragons. Idunn and Jahn together paint the picture that dragons and humans are more alike than they seem, and that the earthly dragons made a choice to continue the fighting, and to continue hating humans.

This isn’t lost on Roy, either, whose final act is one of compassion. In absolute threat level, Idunn is a bigger risk to keep around than Zephiel ever was. Zephiel started a war, but Idunn had the potential to endlessly flood the world with war dragons, and end humanity entirely. Yet in applied threat...Idunn was never a threat at all. She was a victim of the war, someone who never sought to hurt anyone, and never had a choice in her role. Comparatively, Zephiel and Jahn both cast aside consideration for her and others, and sought to use her as a weapon for their own ends. Roy’s final act is stopping Idunn from carrying out her orders, but then saves her life, bringing her to Arcadia to restore her soul. Chronologically, this is when the mistakes of Elibe’s past are finally righted, and relations between humans and dragons can begin on a grander scale. In any other circumstance, had someone cast aside empathy when doing what needed to be done, Idunn would be killed and a threat removed. It is specifically because Roy maintains empathy toward others, even his enemies, that old wounds can finally heal.

Conclusions Elibe is still my favorite. Blazing Blade may have been my first game, but I really feel it holds up, even now. While there are people who say the stories aren’t that strong, or that the casts aren’t that strong, I feel like what stands out with Elibe is how it integrates its themes and the understandable nature of their villains. A lot of games in the series either don’t go for sympathetic villain, or try in a way that doesn’t quite hit home. The Blades games manage to present villains with a compelling and sympathetic history, while simultaneously expressing that some people are beyond redemption. And I think that’s a good balance to strike. It’s important to always consider what impacts another, and what their lives were like. But there have to be limits in what’s tolerated based on a sympathetic past, and sometimes you do have to stand against someone who’s wrong, no matter what they’ve been through. But at the end of the day, the one thing you can’t abandon is that empathy for others. Even when taking a stand against evil, hate can’t be the reason you do so.

#fire emblem #fire emblem binding blade #fire emblem blazing blade #idunn #nergal #zephiel #the nergal section is what I wanted to work into the limstella analysis #but I couldn't find a way to do it without breaking the flow

11 notes · View notes

empty-movement · 7 years

Text

Id, Ego, and Superego; Freud and the End of Utena

by Yasha, who else? ❤️

Someone in the forum dredged this old thing up and stuck it in the Empty Movement Discord. I’d forgotten I wrote it entirely. Maybe I should put it on the site? Oh well, here it is. And message/email me if you want an invite to the Discord.

Man, I can’t believe I handed this in to my psych prof lol

Shoujo Kakumei Utena, known in North America as Revolutionary Girl Utena, is steeped in surreality. Apples are whole one moment, and then inexplicably sectioned into pieces and perfectly laid out in a circle in the next. Planets and galaxies are seen to hang directly outside of dorm windows. Cars race along the boundaries of an arena perched atop an endless staircase, and in the sky above, a fairytale castle is suspended upside down, rotating there with nothing to anchor it. Sword duels are fought in this arena, and surprisingly, a depth of human emotion and motivation is exposed through these duels-- a condensed version, perhaps, of the emotions and motivations people experience every day. In effect, the duels and events of this series investigate the workings of the human mind, much as Freud investigated them. The Freudian influence on this series is not merely confined to the blatant visual symbolism, but also invests the many characters in this complicated series. Three of them in particular stand out. The three characters, Utena Tenjou, Akio Ohtori, and Anthy Himemiya, represent various aspects of Freudian tradition and depict growth of the human mind, as illustrated by the last two episodes of Shoujo Kakumei Utena.

The hero of Shoujo Kakumei Utena is, of course, Utena Tenjou herself, a girl whose childhood experiences instilled in her the desire to become a Prince. Throughout the series, this memory is referenced often; however, Utena herself remembers very little of it, keeping the idea of strength, nobility, and her goal of Princehood foremost in her mind without understanding that the bulk of the memory is buried in her unconscious. The motivation for her Princely actions through the greater part of the series is nothing more than a strong but vague desire to live up to the standard set in her memory. The memory is eventually revealed in all of its full horror, and in the last two episodes, Utena is functioning with complete knowledge of the repressed memory. She has attained insight, in the Freudian tradition, and has reconciled the events of her past with the person she wants to be. The person she wants to be, however, has been created by outside influences, specifically Akio’s machinations. Utena’s only goal is to be a Prince, and that has been carefully reinforced by the environments she has been exposed to, the people she has interacted with, and the center of her Prince fixation, Anthy. In this way, she is a representative of the superego; she is an accretion of the ideals and moral strictures of her environment, she strives for perfection over her own pleasure, and concerns herself most with the moral aspiration of becoming the archetype that Shoujo Kakumei Utena terms as a ‘Prince’. Utena is the distillation of the superego, an aspirant to the ideal of a Prince, and all her life has led up to that goal.

The villain of Shoujo Kakumei Utena is Akio Ohtori, a smooth-talking, long-legged older man with a penchant for manipulation and a complete lack of morals. At the current point in the series, he serves as the Acting Chairman of the academy Utena attends. This character’s origins and nature are unclear, except that he is either the more matured version, or the equal opposite of the original Prince archetype, Dios. Throughout the series, Akio displays a stunning lack of regard for social mores, morals, and human kindness, preferring instead to use others for his own gain. His list of sexual conquests includes, but is not limited to, his fiancee’s mother, his own sister, and Utena herself. His cruelties include manipulating one of his students into performing a ritualistic sacrifice of a hundred of his other students, and crushing the spirits of those involved with the dueling game he runs. He has convinced them that the things they desire lie in the castle, and though they do not realize their striving only serves his ends, they fight desperately for their chance to inherit eternity, miracles, or simply power. Akio is representative of the id; he denies himself nothing, and no amount of attachment, emotional or otherwise, can stand in the way of his desires. He follows the pleasure principle, gratifying his needs as he sees fit. One could also make a strong argument for his use of the primary process, forming images of the objects of his own and others’ desires through use of his illusions. Despite his lack of morals, he does indulge in rationalization, denying the existence of the Prince figure and implying that to be an adult, one must recognize the value of his machinations. Akio’s villainy sets him up as the perfect foil to Utena’s heroism; in essence, the id and superego in conflict.

Akio and Utena do not only represent the id and superego. They are also representative of Eros and Thanatos, the life and death drives. The drive toward life, Eros, is metaphorically represented by Akio. The swords of humanity’s hatred are meant to destroy the Prince; Akio, the only one with even a small claim to being a Prince, is their focus. He escapes this fate by allowing Anthy to shield him from the swords, and not only that, but makes a pretense of trying to rescue her from her suffering, but never actually moves toward it. He preserves his own skin first and foremost. He is also very much involved in pleasure-seeking, and gratification of his libido. Utena, on the other hand, represents Thanatos, the drive toward death. Within the strictures of the show, the Prince archetype is one that is destined for death; the Prince spends his life rescuing others, and wears himself down doing it, but his own life is less important to him than that of others. Utena comes to represent this drive because of her aspiration to be a Prince; her efforts will lead her to destruction, but she does not attach any importance to her own survival. Curiously enough, the duels Utena fights are challenges on the way to her achievement of the Prince archetype, and in the Freudian tradition represent the aggressive urges that spring from the thwarted death drive. Utena wishes to be a Prince-- to achieve death-- but before she does, she must first face challenges of aggression. It is possible that, in a psychological sense, Akio forced her into those challenges to test her willingness to be the human embodiment of the drive to die. Akio and Utena provide a perfect set of conflicts; Eros and Thanatos, and id and superego.

The center of this tangle, and the most important character to both Akio and Utena, is Anthy Himemiya, Akio’s sister, and Utena’s best friend. Her role requires some explanation; she is the Rose Bride, the prize of the dueling game, and the subject of Utena’s repressed memory. Thus, she is the catalyst for Utena’s desire to be a Prince; her suffering at the hands of humanity moves Utena to swear that she will grow up strong and noble, so that she can someday rescue Anthy. On Anthy’s part, her motivations are very rarely distinctly her own; outside of Utena’s influence, she serves as the mechanism by which Akio obtains his gratification, whether sexual or in manipulating others. Both Anthy and her brother consider her to be ‘a doll without a heart,’ meant to facilitate his interaction with the world and his ability to gain the things he desires. Her ego does not exist for herself, but for his use. Utena puts Anthy’s ego to different uses. Utena’s influence allows Anthy to strive for something better; morality, and existence as something other than the adjunct of the id. Utena’s presence also allows her to act in a way very similar to the secondary process, delaying and averting the id’s gratification. In the last two episodes, especially, Anthy is portrayed as having very little will, or ego strength, of her own. She is treated as an incomplete person, while the other two characters are treated as representatives of the structures of the mind. Furthermore, her history implies that for a lengthy period of time, her only function has been to serve the desires of the id, which, if taken as a pattern for the functioning of a real human’s personality, would place her at a point before the development of the superego. Anthy serves as a representative of the ego; she is also a depiction of a human being.

The climax of Shoujo Kakumei Utena is where the most meaningful interaction between the characters takes place. Akio and Utena engage in combat, much as the id and superego would do if the ego were absent, or as Thanatos and Eros do. It is interesting to note that most of the attacks Akio makes on Utena are moral attacks, questioning her moral superiority and her fitness to question him. In effect, this questions her right to be what he has crafted her to be; she, however, overcomes his attacks, not because she does not believe him, but because she is more concerned for Anthy than she is for herself, thus proving her to be both the keeper of morals, and the inheritor of the death drive from the fallen Dios. In the midst of this battle, she comes near to achieving death when Anthy, in her role as facilitator for Akio’s desires, stabs her through the stomach, allowing Akio to take the sword formed from her soul and use it to gain the power he desires. To put it in Freudian terms, the ego and id have sided together, and the superego cannot force its more moral desires on the two of them. Akio’s bid for power fails, of course; by the internal logic of Shoujo Kakumei Utena, the power of a Prince cannot be wielded by one who is not a Prince, and Akio is only someone who used to be a Prince. Utena, however, continues on in her self-imposed quest for Princehood, crawling to the Rose Gate where the power rests, and finding there, instead of a gate, a coffin containing Anthy, who reaches out to her for the first time. Utena’s struggle to rescue Anthy has finally touched Anthy in a way that is more than superficial, and though Utena fails to save her, Anthy stops functioning as an ego caught between the superego and id, and starts to function as a person. Her eventual desertion of Akio, and her insistence that Utena is not dead is a part of this functioning. Anthy has reconciled her own id, strengthened by years of Akio’s id-driven bidding, and her superego, newly-fostered by Utena, with the help of her own ego, no longer siphoned off to do the bidding of others but functioning for her alone. The other two characters have achieved their just ends; Utena has died, or at least disappeared, fulfilling the drive to Thanatos, and Akio is left alive to survive on his own and do as his libido drives him, though without his sister’s help. In the end, they all fulfill their roles; Akio and Utena as representations of mental structures, and Anthy as the integrated, fully functioning person who has learned the worth of both.

These characters and their situation fall neatly into Freudian psychology as representations of drives and structures comprising a whole person. Each of these three characters has a developmental purpose, and a role to play in the growth of Anthy Himemiya. Freud’s theories, as well as his symbolism, are strongly represented in Shoujo Kakumei Utena, through the symbolic visuals, and through the intense investigation into the way minds, emotions, and personalities work. There may be completely surreal moments in the series, such as trains running across balconies, or disappearing walls of pinwheels, but there is also deep exploration of the human psyche. This deep investigation is the core of both Shoujo Kakumei Utena and Freudian psychology; the series entertains, Freud’s works inform, and both connect strongly with real life.

#Utena #Utena Tenjou #Anthy #Anthy Himemiya #Akio #Akio Ohtori #Analysis #Meta #Discussion #SKU #RGU #Shoujo Kakumei Utena #Revolutionary Girl Utena

38 notes · View notes

hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger · 7 years

Text

The Vindication of Venom Part 3: Expectations

Part 2

Part 4

Now its time to get down to the real business of this essay and tackle the most vocal and frequent criticisms of Venom. Namely his original host Eddie Brock and his motives for hating Spider-Man. The first step to doing this though is to establish the expectations fans had for the character vs the actual intended concept behind him.

In part one I listed what I feel are the major criticisms of Venom and how I intended to address them one by one. In really thinking about it though I’ve realized that course of action would prove too difficult to properly dive into my points about Brock. Many of the criticisms surrounding him and many of my counterpoints to those criticisms are too interlinked with one another to be separated out like that.

As such I’m just going to talk about Brock more generally.

But as a reminder here are the points about him which I listed in Part 1:

· Eddie Brock’s motivations for hating Spider-Man are weak and make no sense

· Brock’s origin story involves rewriting events from the Sin Eater storyline to facilitate his fall from grace

· Brock was a previously unknown character who is unconnected to Peter Parker’s life in or out of his costume.

· The reveal of Brock as Venom, especially in light of previous two points, is a bad resolution to the mystery story seeded in issues leading to ASM #300

· Other versions of the character (such as Spider-Man the Animated Series, Spider-Man 3 and the Spectacular Spider-Man Animated Series) all make Brock to be a much better dark reflection of Spider-Man than the original comic book version

In my introduction I stated that my thesis for defending Venom was that he was more poorly communicated and readers projected unwarranted expectations onto the character. Brock is really where those two aspects come to the forefront.

Venom visually looks like Spider-Man, or rather how Spider-Man had looked for a few year before ASM #300 given that he’d off and on been wearing the black costume. In ASM #300 Venom also displayed enhanced strength and speed as well as the ability to wall-crawl and generate webbing. Half of Venom came from the alien symbiote which had in the past granted other hosts abilities similar to Spider-Man.

And of course Venom’s primary colour was black, a colour commonly associated with evil in Western cultures.

It is my belief that all these things combined caused readers upon learning someone else had the symbiote and consequently in seeing Venom himself, to expect the character to be a kind of evil Spider-Man, a dark reflection of the character.

This expectation coupled with his shadowy build up and debut in ASM #299-300 heightened fan anticipation for the character to be a big, big, big deal. Far bigger I think than if he had debuted in any given issue of Spider-Man that wasn’t a milestone of some kind, especially if it happened in Web of Spider-Man (the youngest Spider title) as originally intended.

After all, an evil version of the hero is a time honoured tradition (especially in superhero comics) and one that for Spider-Man had never directly been instigated in his then 25+ years of publication. The lack of such an archetype in the series for such a long time might possibly have further enhanced fan anticipation to finally see such a character in the pages of Marvel’s flagship character. And for that type of character to debut in such a momentous issue as ASM #300 meant readers were hyped to say the least.

Given these expectations it is no wonder that the character on the page proved disappointing to them.

Furthermore, readers from later generations would have their own set of expectations for the Venom character.

For many fans of Spider-Man of my generation (I was born in the early 1990s), we learned of Venom from the numerous merchandise he was featured on and more importantly from the 1994 Spider-Man animated series. Among the things the cartoon innovated when it came to Venom was the ideas that the costume brought out the darkside of its host, that Eddie Brock was an established member of Spider-Man’s supporting cast before he became Venom and that he blamed Spider-Man for ruining his life due to a series of misunderstandings.

So impactful and definitive was this version of Venom that elements from it were featured in consequent adaptations (including Spider-Man 3 and the Spectacular Spider-Man TV show) and various comic renditions of the character (e.g. Ultimate Spider-Man).

In fact the 1994 cartoon version made such a potent impression that there are long time Spider-Man fans who were around during the original debut of the black costume who believe that those original comics contained elements from the 90s cartoon’s take on the symbiote, chiefly the notion of the costume as a corrupting influence on Spider-Man.

For those fans and the ones of consequent generations Venom is on the Mount Rushmore of Spider-Man characters and villains, definitively standing alongside Green Goblin and Doc Ock as the A-listers of Spider-Man’s rogue’s gallery.

Now something very important to note going forward is the fact that adaptations such as Ultimate Spider-Man, Spider-Man 3 and the Spectacular Spider-Man Animated Series all played Venom/Brock as something of a dark reflection of Spider-Man/Peter Parker.

In USM and the Spec cartoon Peter and Eddie were childhood friends who’s fathers worked together and died in the same plane accident, both later following in their fathers’ footsteps becoming science students themselves.

In USM whilst Peter was presented as a pretty nice kid still very much in love with his recent ex-girlfriend Mary Jane Watson, Brock was presented as a college aged creep who tried to take advantage of the underage high schooler Gwen Stacy (who’d recently lost her father) and derided her as a ‘tease’.

In this version of the story, the alien costume is actually a lab created ‘suit’ Peter and Eddie’s fathers were working on, based upon Richard Parker’s DNA. When Peter wears the suit it mostly works fine but affects his emotions and transforms him into a monster resembling Venom. When Brock wears the suit, partially due to it not being based upon his DNA and partially due to his own mind and emotions, he becomes an even worse monster with even less control than Peter had.

Meanwhile in the Spec cartoon a stark difference is drawn between Peter and Eddie by virtue of, following the deaths of their parents, Eddie being raised alone whilst Peter had Uncle Ben and Aunt May and by extension Eddie becoming somewhat ‘in love’ with death whilst Peter came to appreciate life.

In Spider-Man 3 Eddie Brock was a Bugle photographer like Peter Parker (who was around a similar age), interested in Spider-Man pictures and also loved a beautiful woman from afar (Gwen Stacy), which was not dissimilar to Peter’s feelings for Mary Jane in the previous two films.

What must be remembered going forward was that the 1994 cartoon despite having Brock work at the Bugle (as a writer, not a photographer, although in one episode he did take a few photos) did not play Brock in any of the ways described above as far as being a dark reflection of Peter/Spider-Man is concerned. He wasn’t particularly concerned with chasing stories about Spider-Man, his attitude towards women was not compared or contrasted to Peter’s, he and Peter did not have any personal history, his parentage was never mentioned and he was most definitely not involved with science.

With these portrayals in mind and his impact/legacy within the franchise as a whole many fans going back to check out the character’s true beginnings have been unpleasantly surprised to find Venom and his origin a far cry from what they knew or expected.

I think this plays a very major role in the derision Venom’s origin story has within the fandom as essentially many fans hold Venom in contempt for not being like their wider pop cultural understanding of the character. Or at least not like the version(s) they like and/or are familiar with from adaptations.

In the comics the symbiote never acted as a corrupting force upon Spider-Man, Eddie Brock was not established ahead of his debut as Venom, was not someone Peter had a friendship with, there was no established animosity between the two characters, the symbiote did not act as a corrupting force on Brock turning an already bad person monstrous and Brock was never someone who operated as a dark reflection in the ways outlined above. The absence of all these things results in disappointment from readers who come to ASM #300 expecting to see them in some capacity.

Whilst I feel a lot of these ‘unfulfilled expectations’ are not intentional on the part of fans it is nevertheless very unfair as a point of criticism. After all why should a character or story be regarded as bad because adaptations based upon it went in different directions? If anything, wouldn’t it be at least equally valid to lambast those adaptations of Venom from deviating so significantly from the source material?

Regardless, my point is that Venom in ASM #300 fails to meet the expectations of fans from before and after the issue’s release for different reasons and that disappointment from both camps contributed to the dominant narrative of his origin being simply inherently bad.

My proposal however is that those expectations projected onto Venom’s debut were misplaced and as such not fair criteria to evaluate the character against.

That is to say I not believe Venom was ever conceived to be:

a genuine traditional mystery character

a dark reflection of Spider-Man (not in the way adaptations play him anyway)

someone who’d make a massive impact upon Spider-Man’s life

someone who’d hold an inherent connection to him.

Think of it like this.

When an audience member believes the piece of media they are consuming is (or is trying to be) one particular concept or genre they then (knowingly or otherwise) evaluate it based upon what they feel are the common tropes and ‘rules’ of that concept/genre.

For example someone watching a romance movie will be judging it based upon how believable the romance at the centre of the story is, the chemistry between the actors, etc. But if someone walks into an action movie expecting it to be a romance film and continues to believe it is trying to be a romance movie, the movie is going to seem bad to them. All because they missed the fact that it was never a romance movie to begin with.

This is what I believe is what happened with Venom.

Through some unclear writing and quirks of fate a lot of people just missed what the intrinsic ideas behind the character were and in doing so used the wrong set of criteria to judge him by.

Which raises the question of what exactly were the concepts underpinning the character then? For that you’ll have to read Part 4.

Part 2

Part 4

#Venom #Spider-Man #Eddie Brock #Peter Parker #David Michelinie #spectacular spider-man animated series #marvel #marvel animation #marvel comics #symbiote #symbiotes #venom symbiote #Ultimate Spider-Man #Spider-Man 3 #sony #sam raimi #greg weisman #Brian Michael Bendis #The Vindication of Venom

32 notes · View notes

hermanwatts · 4 years

Text

Sensor Sweep: Legion of Time, Creepy Asimov, Fletcher Pratt, Lost Worlds

Gaming (Modiphius): Today we’re delighted to announce the release of Conan the Adventurer in PDF a major new sourcebook for the acclaimed Robert E. Howard’s Conan Adventures in an Age Undreamed of RPG. Conan the Adventurer is the definitive guide to the lands south of the Styx River, including serpent-haunted Stygia, Kush, Darfar, Keshan, Punt, Zembabwei, and that vast region known to the folk of the Dreaming West as “the Black Kingdoms”. Rife with mystery and ancient, long forgotten cultures and ruins, this region is brimming with potential for adventure and intrigue.

Science Fiction (John C. Wright): LEGION OF TIME was first serialized from May to July of 1938 in Astounding Magazine. It concerns one Dennis Lanning, who, as fate would have it, is the lynch pin on whose actions the existence of two mutually-exclusive future worlds hinge. The visions reveal that some future act of his will grant one of the two futures certainty, and abolish the other into impossibility. The impact of this tale on the science fiction readership of the day is easy to underestimate, and that for several reasons. Foremost, because it is hard to remember or imagine how new the central conceit of the story had been.

Asimov (lithub): By 1969, Asimov himself reported, he was being described by longtime friend Frederick Pohl as someone who “turned into a dirty old man at the age of fifteen.” Asimov, by his own account, was “perfectly willing to embrace the title; I even use it on myself without qualms.” He wasn’t kidding. Two years later, he published The Sensuous Dirty Old Man.

Review (Eldritch Paths): I never know what to expect from author Brian Niemeier. His works always seem to subvert my expectations while exceeding them. Strange Matter, his collection of short stories is no different. All the stories are just weird and different, and they range from fantasy to sci-fi to weird fusions of genres. In short, it’s awesome. Here are my thoughts on each story.

Culture War (Walker’s Retreat): Independent author Misha Burton had a good Twitter thread (starting here) that identifies why contemporary fiction sucks harder than a Hoover on overdrive. Reproduced below; emphasis mine. There is a significant difference between fantastic fiction of the form “what if I fought a dragon” and “what if I were a dragon”. For this discussion I don’t mean “dragon” literally–it could be magic spells or handwavium mutant superpowers.

Comic Books (13th Dimension): Marvel has been producing high-end omnibi collecting this classic run but in June, the publisher is scheduled to start making the stories available in the more affordable Epic Collection paperback format. Roy Thomas and Barry Windsor-Smith’s Red Sonja debut might be the main selling point — but check out the other artists represented in this volume: Gil Kane and John Buscema. Beauteous.

Fiction (DMR Books): The last ninety-plus years have seen Haggard’s star slowly fade. There was a massive shift, in many ways, immediately after World War Two. A large percentage of the authors writing for the pulps and Men’s Adventure Magazines after WWII were influenced by HRH either directly or indirectly. However, there was a zeitgeist in the air which said that all those titans from the time before the Bomb were somehow wrong, and that a “better way” could be found…or just hadn’t been tried. Thus, the gradual memory-holing of H. Rider Haggard.

Gaming (Monsters and Manuals): In adventurer-dense settings, you get an adventurer-friendly infrastructure developing. Institutions arise to facilitate what adventurers do, from your bustling inn brimming with hirelings and rumour, to your adventurer’s guild, your market in ancient treasures and exotic weapons, your sages willing to shell out fortunes for rare collectibles, and so on. (Arguably, the true potential of adventurer-dense settings has never come close to being fully explored; would a system of adventurer insurance come into being? How about hireling labour exchanges?

Tolkien (Tor.com): We’ve come now to the end of Fëanor’s story: to the infamous Oath and the havoc it wreaks on Valinor, Middle-earth, and especially the Noldor. In the title of this series of articles, I’ve called Fëanor the “Doomsman of the Noldor” for this reason. Mandos is known as the Doomsman of the Valar because he is the one who pronounces fates, sees the future, and is especially good at seeing through difficult situations to their cores. I’ve named Fëanor similarly because it is his Oath, his set of ritualized words, that bind the Noldor in a doom they can’t escape.

Fiction (Goodman Games): The Appendix N is a list of prolific authors of science fiction and fantasy. But Fletcher Pratt is not one of them, at least not in comparison to most of the authors on the list. He primarily wrote historical nonfiction about the Civil War, Napoleon, naval history, rockets, and World War II. So why is Fletcher Pratt listed in the Appendix N and why does he have the coveted “et al” listed after The Blue Star?

Sherlock Holmes (Pulp.Net): I’ve posted several times about Solar Pons, a popular character inspired by Sherlock Holmes that was created by August Derleth, continued by Basil Copper and more recently by David Marcum. (I think calling him a pastiche doesn’t do him justice.) We’ve gotten reprints of the original works and collections of new stories, and recently we got the return of the scholarly journal on Solar Pons: The Pontine Dossier.

Video Games (Rawle Nyanzi): No one plays video games anymore. It can sure feel that way when no one purchases the indie game you worked so hard on. All those sleepless nights, all that time, effort, and money — all of it is ignored. You feel like you did nothing of value. But I’m not here to talk about video games, I’m here to talk about books. It’s easy to think that no one buys your book because “no one reads anymore,” but I believe that perspective is very mistaken.

Manga/T.V. (RMWC Reviews): In June of 1972, Nagai’s Devilman manga began, and in July an anime based on it began airing. A horror-action series that would become one of his flagship franchises, the anime was significantly toned down for television. The same year, on October second, Mazinger Z debuted in Weekly Shōnen Jump and a subsequent anime series from Toei Animation would begin airing on December third.

Publishing (DVS Press): Tradpub is a facade, but perception matters. You have to think about who you are facing, in what arena you are facing them, and what victory means. Yes, traditional publishing is in trouble right now due to store closures and paper supply problems, but that doesn’t mean they are dead. Most normal people don’t spend a second thought on the entire industry, and they certainly aren’t looking at any numbers to see what the problems within the industry are.

Biography (Interstellar Intersection): Mark Finn penned what has become the definitive biography on Robert E. Howard in the 21st century, titled “Blood & Thunder: The Life and Art of Robert E. Howard.” Published by MonkeyBrain Books in 2006, a second edition with revisions was later furnished by the Robert E. Howard Foundation Press in 2012. Finn, a scholar from Texas, was nominated for a World Fantasy Award in the Special Award — Professional category in 2007 for his biography and scholarship of Howard, highlighting how desperately the genre fiction community needed new scholarship of Howard, as his creations outshined him.

Fiction (Paul McNamee): Hugh “Bulldog” Drummond is ex-SAS with a problem–he’s easily bored. Civilian life holds nothing interesting for him. He places ads for excitement. Once he’s sifted through the dross, he finds himself pulled into an international plot set on destroying Great Britain as a world power. Only Bulldog and his team of former comrades-in-arms can save the day, weaving between the law and the villains. I.A. Watson brings us a modern Drummond. This novel is as high-octane as any action movie out there today. The novel is wall-to-wall action, does not let up, and leaves you breathless.

Art (DMR Books): The three stories in “Castaways” were all good to varying degrees, but the Frazetta art, every single plate of it, is what really sticks in my mind decades after I laid eyes on it. What I didn’t know until much later was that Frank had just finished up his first ever paperback gig doing ERB covers for Don Wollheim at Ace books. The Canaveral Press edition of Tarzan and the Castaways was Frazetta’s first chance at illustrating a book in the more prestigious hardcover format. Like the major league ballplayer he very nearly became, Frank swung for the fences.

Fiction (Legends of Men): The lost world genre centers around exploration. The land that comprises the setting has been lost or is legendary to the European characters in the stories. They often have something valuable like diamonds or gold. Those valuables compel the characters to search for the land, which is always hard to find and traverse many dangers in the process. The protagonists are usually forced into the role of explorer, even though it might not be their primary skill. For example, in King Solomon’s Mines, the protagonist is an expert elephant hunter who undertakes an exploratory quest.

Gaming (Old Skulling): Due to their importance and influence on the sword and sorcery adventures, Factions can effectively be treated as characters and, as such, can influence the events of the campaign in a myriad of ways. But how do we resolve the outcome of their actions in a fair and neutral way? This system proposes assigning them scores in 4 main Attributes similar to those of the PCs: Warfare, Subterfuge, Machinations, and Influence.

Sensor Sweep: Legion of Time, Creepy Asimov, Fletcher Pratt, Lost Worlds published first on https://sixchexus.weebly.com/

0 notes

swipestream · 6 years

Text

Make It Personal

What is it that separates the games that we tell stories about for years after we play in them from the bulk of adventures that are fun but disappear from our memories? How can we guide the opportunities for roleplay and storytelling towards those special moments? There are many answers, more than I will know about, but there is one thing that has set me up for success more often than not; making it as personal as possible. Bringing in the personal feelings and motivations of the characters into your campaign or convention game rewards everyone. That probably seems like a no brainer, right? The path to get there isn’t always an obvious one.

What is personal?

If I watch the news I see stories about strangers that are in need of help, kindness, or maybe just a chance to succeed. The hosts talk about the world’s villains, its leaders, and about the chess games played by the elite power brokers. Many RPGs focus on these kinds of stories too. You are the world’s last best hope at salvation. Characters, regardless of genre, are the unknowable power that protects the innocent.

Sometimes when I watch the news a story will hit home in a personal way. They are often smaller stories about things like a family being robbed near the holidays, a sick kid in need, 3d printed prosthetics given away free, or a lost pet. They connect to me because of my life experiences, family, or interests.

Those smaller stories where authentic human connections happen and they can be brought to a gaming table to tell personal stories. It helps create the feeling that our character’s actions matter to the world directly around them. That feels personal to me every time.

Session zero

You and the players can set the foundation for personal storytelling before the campaign officially begins. A session zero, a planning session for the upcoming game, is an often overlooked tool in a game facilitator’s toolbox to create story hooks that matter to players.

Before the campaign officially starts you all meet up to make and/or plan characters and create relationships between the characters (and the players too if I’m being honest). This is also the perfect place to ask question about the people and places that the characters care most about. You’ll use the things that they tell you about and tie them into the story when appropriate.

In a session zero for a short noir police procedural campaign that I ran for my regular group one of the players added, “There is a cop bar call Petrofski’s. It’s where we hang out every night.” They told me that the bartender’s name was Rosie. Rosie and the bar became central to the game and she even started dating one of the officers. It meant that much more when they realized that she was the mobster pulling the strings and discovered the reasons behind everything she had done. I loved that game.

In a one shot it’s a more difficult to bake that into a kind of tailored story because you don’t know who is going to be at your table. There is very limited time to talk about the world and still play a full story so it requires a different setup.

I give the characters something that they care about it and add it into the brief backstories that I write. It’s just enough to hit on the idea of who the person is. I drop story hooks into my adventure that feed into the things that they care about. It’s always gratifying when a player picks up the little details and runs with it.

Give the story room to grow

Having a well thought out world and a compelling plot is something that I value in the traditional RPG adventures that I facilitate. Having a tight storyline doesn’t preclude having enough space inside the narrative to make their experience a unique one.

I listen to the players during the game and make adjustments based on their choices and where I see their interests heading. I realized a long time ago that my favorite games are the ones where we collaboratively tell an amazing story and we all see a piece of ourselves in it when we’re done.

There is a lot of responsibility on the GM’s shoulders during a game but that shouldn’t let you hold the reins so tightly that you choke your player’s creativity. Leave space for them to be amazing and you’ll find that sometimes they will rise to and even exceed your expectations.

The refrigerator vs personal motivations

No matricide, spouse’s head in a box, or kidnapped betrothed needed!

Share1

Tweet1

+11

Reddit1

When a character has people in their life that they love and care for my first reaction isn’t to threaten or kill those loved ones. I use those ties to inspire the characters to greatness and possibly sacrifice.

There is no need to force a player into, “You come home and your entire family has been murder by the King’s guards.” Instead I would tie the instinct to protect family to the people in danger.

“In the middle of the chaos you see a small child in tears. He is clutching a small dragon doll to his chest. The toy reminds you of Cedric the dragon that you made for your own daughter. One of the King’s guards points at him and says, ‘put that one in the cart!’

What would you like to do?”

As a player and as a character that would be all that was required for me to do everything in my power to make sure that the kid never ends up in that cart. I don’t even know if getting into the king’s cart is a bad thing but I’m not going to take any chances. Inspire you players to care about the imaginary people that they interact with in the world. Give them a reason to be heroes that transcend their selfish needs.

Ending on a personal note

There are usually plot threads that end up getting dropped during the course of play in both one shots and campaigns. The players decide what is important and edit the story though play. Take note of the things that they keep coming back to and make sure that they pay off in an emotionally satisfying way in the game’s conclusion.

Whenever possible I give players cinematic moments of personal connection. If the characters rescue and take the child with them from the earlier example they have created a space for an impactful family reunion. Imagine witnessing the moment were a presumed orphan is instantly transformed back into the son of a loving family. For me, that’s powerful. If they chose not to take the child with them then maybe that scene changes into the characters coming across a family working on building a new house far away from the original battle. The sound of joyful laughter is something that they’ve not heard in a long time but it’s coming from a nearby field. In the field is the child playing with his dragon, pretending to battle evil foes, and repeating words that he heard from his heroes; the characters that saved him.

Make their actions matter in a positive way and feel like they matters to the people around them.

Do you have any tricks that you use to create personal moments at the gaming table? What are some of your favorite experiences where it really felt like your actions mattered?

Make It Personal published first on https://medium.com/@ReloadedPCGames

0 notes

kayawagner · 6 years

Text

Make It Personal

What is personal?

Session zero

Give the story room to grow

The refrigerator vs personal motivations

No matricide, spouse’s head in a box, or kidnapped betrothed needed!

Share1

Tweet1

+11

Reddit1

There is no need to force a player into, “You come home and your entire family has been murder by the King’s guards.” Instead I would tie the instinct to protect family to the people in danger.

What would you like to do?”

Ending on a personal note

Whenever possible I give players cinematic moments of personal connection. If the characters rescue and take the child with them from the earlier example they have created a space for an impactful family reunion. Imagine witnessing the moment were a presumed orphan is instantly transformed back into the son of a loving family. For me, that’s powerful. If they chose not to take the child with them then maybe that scene changes into the characters coming across a family working on building a new house far away from the original battle. The sound of joyful laughter is something that they’ve heard in a long time but it’s coming from a nearby field. In the field is the child playing with his dragon, pretending to battle evil foes, and repeating words that he heard from his heroes; the characters that saved him.

Make their actions matter in a positive way and feels like matters to the people around them.

Do you have any tricks that you use to create personal moments at the gaming table? What are some of your favorite experiences where it really felt like your actions mattered?

Make It Personal published first on https://supergalaxyrom.tumblr.com

0 notes

pabluesman · 7 years

Link

The latest rant:

Look familiar?

So the Comey hearing came and went and, much like that trip to Disneyworld you took when you were a kid in 1974, it didn't quite live up to all the hype. The left has been crowing that it is an indictment of trump and proof that he is a dastardly villain, missing only the black cape and handlebar mustache. The right has been shrieking about how trump has been completely vindicated, the Russia story is completely made up, and Democrats are nothing more than a bunch of crybabies. Both of these groups are wrong, and both of them are indicative of the fundamental problem with our government these days. In addition to casting some much-needed sunlight on the shadowy dealings of the trump administration (fewer than liberals want, more than conservatives care to admit), it highlighted the basic dysfunction of our government: that every action, hearing, press conference, photo opportunity, floor speech, legislative debate, and so on is less about running the country than it is about scoring partisan points. I realize at this point there are probably a bunch of you out there saying "Well, DUH," like I have taken complete leave of my senses and lost all capacity for critical thinking. To which I say, this is my blog, dammit, and I can say what I want. Moving right along ... Of course, I can't expect you take my word for it, can I? Therefore, I am going to go through the hearing (I read the transcript. Twice. And took notes.) and present my thoughts on each observation. But first, the cast of characters. There is James Comey, of course, and donald trump, and Loretta Lynch and Bill and Hillary Clinton make guest appearances. Then there's the Senate Committee on Intelligence, in alphabetical order: Roy Blunt, R-MO, present Richard Burr, R-NC, Chairman, present Susan Collins, R-ME, present John Cornyn, R-TX, present Tom Cotton, R-AR, present Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, Former Chairman, present Kamala Harris, D-CA, present Martin Heinrich, D-NM, present Angus King, I-ME, present James Lankford, R-OK, present Joe Manchin, D-WV, present John McCain, R-AZ (Ex officio), present Mitch McConnell, R-KY (Ex officio), absent Jack Reed, D-RI (Ex officio), present Jim Risch, R-ID, present Marco Rubio, R-FL, present Chuck Schumer, D-NY (Ex officio), absent Mark Warner, D-VA, Vice-Chairman, present Ron Wyden, D-OR, present So now the stage is set, and we can dive right in. First observation: every single one of the Senators, with the exception of Marco Rubio, Martin Heinrich, Angus King, Tom Cotton, and John McCain took a moment to thank Comey for appearing, and most of those took an extra moment to acknowledge his service to country (some, like Jack Reed, were fine with a simple "Thank you for appearing," while others were more effusive). However, Rubio, Hienrich, King, Cotton, and McCain simply dispensed with all niceties and jumped right in to the questioning. Whether this is a good or bad I will leave up to the reader to decide. What follows is a member-by-member accounting of what happened. I will attempt to remain as factual as possible; where I veer off into the realm of opinion I will very clearly identify it as such. So, in order of appearance ... Richard Burr, R-NC (Chairman) Senator Burr took several minutes to a) thank Director Comey for appearing to testify, b) provide an overview of the Senate Intelligence Committee's mission in general and in terms of this hearing in particular, and c) to provide the basic framework under which the other members would be operating (seven minutes for each member, and so on). He then turned things over to Senator Mark Warner. Mark Warner, D-VA (Vice-Chairman) Senator Warner took the opportunity to go into a little more detail as to the nature of the hearing: what it was about, what the committee hoped to accomplish by holding the hearing, and a brief summation of the relevant events up to that date. Richard Burr again Burr swore in Comey and advised him that he is now under oath. He recognized Comey and granted him the floor "for as long as you might need." James Comey, Former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Comey gave a brief history of events and expressed his confusion and concern over the multiple stories coming from the White House concerning the reason for his firing, after which the questioning began. Richard Burr some more Burr pretty much kept to hard facts. He asked if Comey's written testimony had been reviewed and/or edited by the Office of the Special Counsel (it hadn't). He asked if Comey had any doubt that Russia was behind the intrusion into the DCCC's and DNC's computer systems (he didn't). He asked if he had any doubt that Russia was behind cyber intrusion into state voter files (he didn't). He asked if he was confident that no votes in the 2016 were altered, either electronically or otherwise (he was). Comey also testified that, while trump was not directly under investigation, Comey was not able to get unanimous consent from his leadership in the FBI to publicly state this. The reasoning here is that the investigation was ongoing and one could never tell where it would lead (a la the Starr investigation into Whitewater which lead to the whole Lewinsky thing). In Comey's words, "when you start turning over rocks, sometimes you find things that are unrelated to the primary investigation that are criminal in nature." In short, Burr confined himself to things that could objectively be verified. Unfortunately, this would be one of the only times we saw this even-handed approach, as several of the other Senators appeared to have axes to grind and viewed Comey as the perfect sharpening stone. But more on that as we come across it. My opinion: non-partisan. Mark Warner again Senator Warner took a more partisan approach, albeit in the cloak of objectivity. His questions were respectful and factually based, but his overall tone suggested that he was trying to convict trump in this hearing and get it over with. My opinion: Somewhat partisan James Risch, R-ID Senator Risch was the first to really dive into the weeds. The first part of his seven minutes was spent trying to discredit a February 14th article from the New York Times in which the Times alleged connections between Russian operatives and trump associates. He asked why Director Comey did not issue a statement to correct the article. Comey replied that it is considered common practice to not do so when the investigation involves sensitive material as it might compromise security. Risch spent the rest of his time parsing the word "hope" in the context of trump asking Comey "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go." Comey maintained throughout that, given the fact that it was the President of the United States saying this in the Oval Office, even though it was not a direct order it would reasonably be taken as such, given the context. Risch replied "You don't know of anyone ever being charged for hoping something, is that a fair statement?" My opinion? Blatantly partisan, trying to get trump off the hook in much the same way Warner was trying to hang him on it, but the partisanship was much more naked here. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA Feinstein started by asking Comey why he thought he had been fired from his position as Director of the FBI. Comey responded that he didn't know for sure but that, based on what trump has said, he was fired as a result of the Russia investigation. Feinstein continued by acknowledging and paraphrasing what Comey had said to Risch: that the Oval Office could be an intimidating place, especially when the President is making a direct request. She then asked "But why didn't you stop and say, Mr. President, this is wrong. I cannot discuss this with you." Comey replied "I was so stunned by the conversation that I just took in. The only thing I could think to say, because I was playing in my mind -- because I could remember every word he said -- I was playing in my mind, what should my response be? That's why I carefully chose the words." My opinion: Feinstein's focus seemed to be mainly centered around wrongdoing on the part of the trump administration. I rate her as being mildly partisan. Marco Rubio, D-FL Rubio seemed to be focusing on the asks from trump of Comey:

Asking for Comey's loyalty.

Saying that he "hoped" the Flynn investigation would go away. Not a formal ask, but when the President says he hopes something happens, and he says this in the Oval Office, it's not a stretch of logic to interpret this as a strong request, if not a direct order.

Publicly state that trump personally is not being investigated.

To his credit, Comey did not comply with any of these. My opinion: Rubio was trying for a partisan advantage, but his line of questioning turned out to be a dead end in that area and it didn't pan out for him. I rate this as non-partisan, but not for a lack of trying. Martin Heinrich, D-NM Senator Heinrich was the slickest of the bunch in that he was able to score partisan points without appearing to be partisan at all. To start, he gave Comey the opportunity to make the following statement: "The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did with purpose. They did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts. It was an active measures campaign driven from the top of that government. There is no fuzz on that. It is a high confidence judgment of the entire intelligence community and the members of this committee have seen the intelligence. It's not a close call. That happened. That's about as unfake as you can possibly get." Heinrich then shifted focus to the trump team attempting to "set up a sort of backdoor communication channel with the Russian government using their infrastructure, their devices, their facilities." Comey testified to this point that, in a hypothetical sense (he refused to comment in an open setting as to specifics), it was easier for the Russians because "[y]ou spare the Russians the cost and effort to break into our communications channels by using theirs. You make it a whole lot easier for them to capture all of your conversations."

My opinion: Heinrich created a partisan result from a non-partisan line of questioning. Kudos for skill on this one, but it still misses the "trying to be objective about this whole thing" point. I rate his performance as partisan.

Roy Blunt, R-MO

In one of the most blatantly partisan approaches of the entire hearing, Senator Blunt attempting to cast doubt on Comey's credibility by asking why he continued to take calls from trump even after he told Attorney General sessions that all communications should go through the AG. Apparently Blunt has never heard of the notion that when the President calls, you pick up.

He then sought clarification as to whether Comey's notes were official documents or personal ones. Comey said they were personal, and nobody else seemed to have an issue with this.

My opinion: Blatantly partisan, and in a particularly clumsy and inartful fashion.

Angus King, I-ME (he caucuses with the Democrats, though)

Senator King jumped right of the gate with a question as whether, in Comey's opinion, the Russian interference in the election was a one-and-done thing, or would we see future attempts. Comey testified that "it is a long-term practice of theirs. It's stepped up a notch in a significant way in '16. They'll be back."

King then sought clarification as to whether or not the dinner with trump was trump's idea or Comey's. Comey said that it was initiated by a phone call from trump, and manages to get in a shout-out to his wife when he said that he had been forced to break a date with his wife to have dinner with trump (again, when the President calls, you pick up), saying "I love spending time with my wife and I wish I would have been there that night."

King's approach seemed to be to cast doubt on trump's veracity (not that this would take much), by asking Comey whether it was true that Comey had called trump, as trump had claimed. Comey said "I never initiated a communication with the president."

My opinion: King, being an independent, is by definition non-partisan. However, because he caucuses with the Democrats, we have to view him in that light. That being said, I would rate his performance as slightly partisan in questioning, moderately partisan in results.

James Lankford, R-OK

Senator Lankford, apparently, was the Designated Republican Shill for this hearing. He started his questioning by asking Comey why he thought trump's "I hope we can drop the Flynn thing" statement was such a big deal when it was never mentioned again by trump, the White House staff, the Director of National Intelligence, the Attorney General, the Department of Justice, or the head of the National Security Administration. He followed this line of reasoning to a (flawed, obviously) implied conclusion that a) either trump never said this, at which point Comey is lying (forget that he's under oath and all that), or 2) it was never a big deal in the first place and Comey is overreacting.

Lankford is also trying to paint trump in positive light by pointing out that, even though he has the authority to stop the investigation, he has not done so. Granted, there is a very real possibility that trump is not aware of this ...

My opinion: Lankford was noting more than the token Wild-Eyed Republican whose main goal of the hearing was to vindicate trump of any and all accusations of everything and show everybody that he's really an awesome guy and if everyone would just let him do his thing the country would be great again and everybody wold have money, and fame, and more money, and fancy cars, and the world would be a wonderful place.

Of course, this only applies to rich white male Republicans. Everybody else can go screw themselves, because they don't matter.

I rate Lankford's performance as ludicrously partisan.

Joe Manchin, D-WV

Senator Manchin was lobbing softballs. He asked Comey about trump's interest in the Russia investigation (almost identical to the question asked by Senator Angus King), giving Comey the opportunity to wax poetic about how this was not a Democrat or Republican thing but an American thing, that "this great experiment of ours is a threat to them," and that "as difficult as we can be with each other, we remain that shining city on the hill."

He then asked about Robert Mueller, and whether or not he would be "thorough and complete" in his investigation as Special Counsel. Comey replied by saying that he would indeed, and that Mueller is "one of the finest people and public servants this country has ever produced."

My opinion: Manchin is, to some people, a DINO (Democrat In Name Only) in that he has pretty strong conservative creds and there have been rumors that he may defect to the GOP. Given that, I don't know if we can tag him as being partisan; if anything, he was anti-partisan, slightly boosting the Republican case that trump is NOT a serial liar, philanderer, and cheat. Therefore I will rate this performance as non-partisan.

Tom Cotton, R-AR

Tom Cotton is one of the most partisan members of the Senate, but without the intellectual power of someone like Mitch McConnell (who isn't really the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but who is very canny and shrewd). Cotton's questioning began with trying to get Comey to state that there was no connection between Russia and the trump team. Comey didn't fall for it, and that line of questioning fell flat.

Cotton's next gambit was to focus on a New York Times article form February 14th, headlined "Trump campaign aides had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence," by asking "Would it be fair to characterize that story as almost entirely wrong?" Comey replied in the affirmative.

My opinion: First, the tactic of trying to exonerate trump failed, and failed big. Second, the focus on the NYT article is irrelevant ... it's not the first time a major paper got a story wrong (remember "Dewey Defeats Truman?"). I would rate this performance as not only wildly partisan, but also flat-out stupid. Not that I would expect anything else from Tom Cotton.

Kamala Harris, D-CA

Senator Harris asked many questions of Comey, all of which got the same reply: "I cannot answer that in an open setting." It seemed like she was going for the spear that would slay the trumpian dragon, but fell short. Of course, once the closed session began, she may have gotten something ... we won't know for sure unless the hearing transcript is declassified.

My opinion: Harris was going for the jugular, partisanship-wise. The fact that she failed had everything to do with her asking about sensitive material. I rate her performance as highly partisan.

John Cornyn, R-TX

Cornyn started his questioning with a legit question: if an FBI agent becomes aware of criminal activity, is he or she under a legal obligation to report it? Comey replied that he did not know about a legal obligation, but there is certainly an ethical one.

Cornyn then focused the rest of his time on the Clinton email thing, hammering the point that a special counsel was not named despite repeated requests from Congress to AG Loretta Lynch to do so (including from Cornyn). Comey said that he decided a special counsel would have been "unfair" because "I knew there was no case there."

He finished up his questioning by asking "Do you think it's unreasonable for anyone, any president, who has been assured on multiple occasions that he's not the subject of an FBI investigation, do you think it's unreasonable for them to want the FBI director to publicly announce that, so that this cloud over his administration would be removed?" To which Comey replied that it was a reasonable point of view, but that it was inadvisable because of the possibility of "a duty to correct."

My opinion: John Cornyn has always had a naked hatred of the Clintons, and saw this as an opportunity to beat that dead horse one more time. I rate his performance as off-the-charts partisan, and also a bit ridiculous.

Jack Reed, D-RI

Senator Reed asked Comey if the direction in which the Russian investigation was headed could include the president. Comey said in theory, yes, but was not willing to make a definitive yea/nay statement.

My opinion: Reed appeared to be trying to convict trump right off the bat, but was derailed by Comey sticking to the facts as he knew them. I rate is performance as highly partisan.

John McCain, R-AZ

Senator McCain's questioning was not quite as unhinged as everybody is making it out to be. Yes, he asked why the investigation into Clinton's email server was closed while the trump investigation was not, but seemed unable (or unwilling) to grasp the concept of the Clinton investigation being completed while the trump investigation is still ongoing. Comey explained that the Clinton investigation had run its course and did not turn up any prosecutable offense, but the trump investigation is still in the early stages and it is too soon to draw conclusions.

McCain then asked about Clinton's involvement with Russian interference in the election by saying "you made the announcement there would be no charges brought against then-Secretary Clinton for any activities involved in the Russia involvement and our engagement in our election." Apparently, the fact that Clinton had no involvement with Russian interference -- except, of course, as the primary target and intended victim -- didn't register with him.

My opinion: Yes, he came off as a little nutty, as that crazy old uncle that keeps getting invited to Thanksgiving even though nobody really likes him and all he does is rant about irrelevant topics, but he was also using blunt-force partisanship to try to cast doubt on Comey's testimony. I rate his performance as highly partisan, and possibly as an indication of impending dementia.

So there you have it. The entire hearing, wrapped up in a nice little package. Now, I would like to make some observations here.

First, I find these public hearings to be more than a little ridiculous. Let's face it, with subject matter like this, nothing of substance is going to come out of a public hearing because so much of the relevant information is classified and forbidden from public consumption. These hearings are nothing more than political theater, a chance for some Senators to get some face time on camera and burnish their partisan reputations. Out of the two and a half hours of testimony, all we heard was what Comey had written in his seven page initial testimony, released a few days ago ... it was just massaged and tilted this way and that to show different faces.

Second, this hearing points to a larger issue: both parties are concerned more with the balance of power within Washington than they are concerned with the lives of those outside the Beltway. This is actually nothing new; it's only the prevalence of social media and the 24/7 news cycle that has given it more visibility. However, the fact remains that, in any given situation, Congress is going to act according to what is best for the next election cycle, or what will bring in the most campaign donations, or what will make the other side look as ineffectual and ridiculous as possible, and everybody who is not a member of Congress of a big donor to their campaign coffers ... well, if it works out in their favor, it is sheerly by accident.

Third, the fundamental thing that everybody seems to be overlooking here is that trump is not a legitimate president. Yes, he won the Electoral College, but only because a foreign power put their finger on the scales. He lost the popular vote. He has alienated virtually every world leader, so much so that the leaders of European countries are going to bypass the President and the White House and go directly to the states when it comes to the Paris Climate Accord. He has approval ratings that would make Nixon gulp.

donald trump is turning the United States into a second-rate Third World nation, and the Republicans are doing nobody any favors by going along with it in the name of bolstering their short-term agenda. The Democrats aren't helping, either, by painting all trump supporters with the same broad "they're all a bunch of idiot yokels" brush.

The partisanship has to come to an end. Republicans and Democrats need to put party aside for a bit and focus on country, and the people therein. Otherwise we are all doomed to an endless display of petty bickering and constant games of one-upmanship, and the people of the United States -- you know, the ones for whom these clowns are supposed to be working -- are going to bear the brunt.

Please like and share my page at http://ift.tt/2rN4zTA for more.

#IFTTT #Blogger

0 notes

politicalfilth-blog · 7 years

Text

Demonizing Russia: The Psychology And Consequences Of Neo-McCarthyism

We Are Change

The American public is being conditioned to fear and hate Russia, but why?

Article via SCG

This article is not intended to alter your position in regard to Donald Trump in any way. Whether you love him or hate him isn’t an issue of global importance, nor is his political survival relevant to this analysis. Some of the tactics being used in the push to take Trump down however, are.

The Stakes

Before we dive into the quagmire that the topic of of Russia, Trump and the 2016 elections has become, it behoves us to anchor to the stakes: Russia is a nuclear power. The demonization of foreign nations is a precursor to war, and even a limited conflict between the United States and Russia would kill millions (if not billions) of people; rendering much of the planet uninhabitable for decades. Using U.S. Russian relations as a political football in this context is foolish and irresponsible.

The Trump Variable

Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign made tying Trump to Russia a central pillar of their messaging strategy. This line of attack was predicated on comments made by Trump over the years expressing respect for Putin. For example:

“Look at Putin – what he’s doing with Russia – I mean, you know, what’s going on over there. I mean this guy has done – whether you like him or don’t like him – he’s doing a great job in rebuilding the image of Russia and also rebuilding Russia period,”Trump to Larry King on CNN – October 2007

“I think I’d get along very well with Vladimir Putin. I just think so.”Trump – July 31, 2015

Clinton used these and other statements to weave the narrative that Trump is “Putin’s puppet”. The mainstream media, and left-leaning blogosphere took that narrative and ran with it. Those who didn’t were labeled “fake news”, and attacked as collaborators. The goal was to capitalize on existing anti-Russian sentiment by attaching it to Trump and his supporters (and to pressure those on the fence distance themselves).

This wasn’t just innuendo. Take this headline from Buzzfeed for example: Trump Supporters Love Russia And Think CNN And The New York Times Are “Fake News”. Or this one from TheWeek: Why are Republicans so blindly backing Trump over Russia?

This is an age-old political tactic. Guilt by association and honor by association (aka acquired equivalence) may be logical fallacies, but they are highly effective… most of the time.

Studies have shown that not only does guilt by association transfer negative sentiments from an individual who is disliked to the target in question, but also to anyone associated with them.

The pairing of a target with a (dis)liked person not only affects the evaluation of the previously neutral person but spreads to other individuals who are (pre)associated with the target (spreading attitude effect).

This line of attack got plenty of traction on the neoliberal left, and from the old neocon contingent led by the likes of John Mccain (which have long pushed for a confrontation with Russia) but elicited virtually no response from Trump’s base. Why? Because Trump supporters don’t view Putin as the boogie man the corporate media has worked hard to depict him as. They view him as a conservative, a brilliant strategist, and a strong leader. They don’t see him as perfect, but they consider him to be better than Obama (and by a long shot).

Obviously a lot of “progressives” take issue with that perception, and have found it very frustrating that they were unable to roll over that obstacle as if it wasn’t there. Their response to this, and to other similar failures, has been to declare that we are living in a “Post Truth Era”. That’s a topic in and of itself, but for those who have paid close attention to geopolitical developments over the past eight years, the irony is thick.

The Russian Hacking Allegations

When the 2016 election didn’t go as expected people were looking for someone to blame. Of course blaming Hillary for being a terrible candidate (any honest progressive will acknowledge this), or for running a terrible campaign, was out of the question, and of course they couldn’t acknowledge that the backlash over the DNC’s shut down of Bernie Sanders played a role. So of course they blamed Russia.

Now playing loose and fast with the facts for political purposes is a mainstay of American partisanship, but when foreign policy gets thrown into the mix, and “leaders” start accusing a nuclear power of “an act of war” the facts matter.

As of today, many months after the election, no one has put forth any evidence that Russia hacked anything related to the election whatsoever. None. The closest thing anyone has even resembling evidence is the word of CrowdStrike, the company hired by the DNC to investigate their servers, after someone released emails showing that Democratic party officials had been working behind the scenes to discredit and disable the Bernie Sanders campaign.

There are several problems with the CrowdStrike angle however. The first problem, is that the DNC refused to allow the FBI to look at the servers themselves. The FBI instead just took their word for it. The second problem is that CrowdStrike has a SIGNIFICANT conflict of interest in this situation. Google is a major stakeholder in CrowdStrike, and Eric Schmidt the Executive Chairman of Alphabet (the parent company of Google) was working directly on the Clinton campaign effort. He was providing tech assistance, he drew up her campaign plan, and he was even photographed wearing a “staff” badge in an exclusive area during election night.

Eric Schmidt wore "Staff" Badge at Clinton Election Night Party https://t.co/UEcDfjBNAg pic.twitter.com/SkiBpHDr5v

— LeslieP (@less_tx) November 16, 2016

This doesn’t pass the smell test, at all.

Furthermore, the anti-Russian angle peddled by CrowdStrike was premised on the “fact” that the malware used in the attack was of Russian origin. As any security expert will tell you, once malware is used in the wild, anyone can pick it up and use it (including other state actors).

CIA steals other groups virus and malware facilitating false flag attacks #Vault7 https://t.co/K7wFTdlC82 pic.twitter.com/Z0nat1Lqsv

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) March 7, 2017

To bolster their claim, CrowdStrike attempted to draw parallels to a supposed hack on Ukrainian artillery communications that used the same technique. That however, blew up in their face when both the Ukrainian military and the International Institute for Strategic Studies came forward to debunk their assessment.

Then there is the fact that Wikileaks has been very clear about the fact that their source was NOT Russian.

“We can say, we have said, repeatedly that over the last two months that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party,”

The rabbit hole on this topic goes deeper, and clearly there is room for a lively debate, but it takes a willful act of intellectual dishonesty to treat it as a slam dunk case where the villain is clearly defined.

Anyone who has studied crowd psychology knows that one of the most important principles of ideological contagion is repetition. It doesn’t matter if something is true or false. If you repeat something enough times people will start believing it. Once an idea becomes an accepted belief, it takes on characteristics of religious orthodoxy. To question becomes heresy.

The quote below is characteristic of the anti-Russian rhetoric and conspiracy theories that have been parroted endlessly after the election.

But what would be illegitimate, and perhaps even treasonous, is an effort to soften American policy toward Russia’s actions in its near abroad without a clearly stated policy rationale and in return for help from Russian intelligence in defeating a domestic political opponent. “Promise to help us in Ukraine and we’ll help you win against Hillary Clinton by releasing stolen emails that make her look bad”: That and other possible acts of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign are what the FBI is investigating.Damon Linker – The Week

The trouble with these kinds of accusations, is that once enough people believe them, they have a way of taking on a life of their own. Demands for investigations into Trump’s links to Russia were made, and balls got rolling, but they didn’t find what they were looking for.

“On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all. There’s no little campfire, there’s no little candle, there’s no spark. And there’s a lot of people looking for it.”Former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell – (A prominent Clinton Backer)

The Ukrainian And Syrian Variables

The demonization of Russia didn’t actually begin at the Ukrainian crisis of 2014 or even during the Syrian crisis. There were always a few crazies in the back of the room (like John Mccain and Mitt Romney) pushing the narrative, but no one was listening to them.

However Russia’s successful defiance of the U.S. in Syria and Ukraine triggered the equivalent of a temper tantrum on the part of the U.S. and European ruling elite. Obama in particular got egg in the face several times during these crises, and this created an emotional link for those who were committed to supporting the Obama administration no matter what. Russia had made their leader look bad. Therefore Russia was an enemy. This phenomenon is an expression of the pack instinct. The Alpha must be protected at all costs.

The counterattack became a question of repetition and psychology, rendering the facts irrelevant. Rather than acknowledge that over 95% of the Crimean people voted to reunite with Russia in a referendum that no one has been able to discredit in any meaningful way, or the fact that under international law, the right to self determination is a valid premise for such a reunion, the mainstream media blurred the issue with a simple slur, parroted endlessly: Russian aggression, Russian aggression, Russian aggression.

The Long Term Consequences

The short term political utility of tying Trump to Russia has blinded many on the left to the long term effect such a strategy is bound to have. Consider for a moment the implications of an entire generation being raised in the United States right now marinating in news and commentary which frames Russia as enemy number #1 (or #2 depending on where Trump supposedly fits). The facts and specifics won’t matter to these formative minds. It all boils down to sentiment. This sentiment can (and likely will) be used in ways that those fomenting it never imagined.

A recent poll by Reuters found that a stunning 82% of Americans now view Russia as a threat. This is a ticking time bomb.

It is a strategic error to assume anti-Russian propaganda will always work in the favor of the political left. Remember the original Mccarthyism. Neocon Republicans like John Mccain and Mike Pence would like nothing more than a chance to clip Putin’s wings, and in the right context that’s exactly what they would attempt to do. By linking Russia to Trump (arguably one of the most hated political figures in American history) the left is unwittingly laying the psychological groundwork for war.

If and when the moment comes where a Republican president decides to escalate tensions with Moscow (by direct or proxy intervention), “progressives” will find themselves in an extremely uncomfortable dilemma: either they get carried along with their enemies in the wave of anti-Russian sentiment they helped create, or they try to reverse tack and play opposition.

Reversing tack wouldn’t be easy under any circumstances, but it the midst of a crisis it would be all but impossible, and such protests would be easily shot down with snippets of their own words. Hypocrisy is after all, a vulnerability in and of itself.

This article first appeared on StormCloudsGathering.com and was authored by Aaron Hawkins.

The post Demonizing Russia: The Psychology And Consequences Of Neo-McCarthyism appeared first on We Are Change.

from We Are Change https://wearechange.org/demonizing-russia-psychology-consequences-neo-mccarthyism/

#We are Change #We Are Change

0 notes

s0023329asfilm · 7 years

Text

Post D. Textual Analysis Final Draft

Explain how the theme of coming of age is portrayed in The Fault in Our Stars (Boone, 2014) and The Spectacular Now (Ponsoldt, 2013) as unconventional teen films.

These two American teen films, The Fault in Our Stars and The Spectacular Now, one thing that you might notice after watching them is that they’re simultaneously very conventional and unconventional as teen films at once, based on Driscoll’s teen film conventions. Both of them present what it’s like to be an adolescent very well using typical coming of age conventions such as romantic and sexual relationships with heterosexuality, peer groups, parents and alcohol. Meanwhile, although they contain lots of those conventional factors, they’re still distinguishable from other typical teen films because what they focus on throughout the whole movie is how characters address their perceived imperfection and instability in order to mature, rather than normal rites of passage. According to representation theory, in general sense, media representations are the ways in which films portray particular objects from a particular dominant perspective. In these movies, the narratives get developed based on the ideological perspective concentrated on highlighting negative space, and the way they portray those alternative representations of teens for coming of age theme would be the point which will be covered in this essay.

The First film to discuss is The Fault in Our Stars (Boone, 2014). The movie is classified as romance and drama genre. The key themes are coming of age, loss of innocence and virginity, love, family, death, grief, and loss. The film is about a girl named Hazel who’s got cancer, meeting a boy named Augustus, who’s also a cancer patient, and building a relationship with him. A protagonist is technically Hazel, but Augustus is also a very large part of the movie since he’s the one who encourages Hazel to lead her life and gives her meaning of life that she was losing. I can’t really find any antagonist among the characters, which presents how grounded and realistic this film is, because in our normal life, it’s hard to find merely bad people around us. In the real world, everyone is a protagonist in their own lives. However, if an antagonist is not only limited to humans, cancer can be an antagonist in the film, which is an another unconventional feature.

The next film is The Spectacular Now (Ponsoldt, 2013). The movie is classified as comedy, drama, and romance genre. The key themes are coming of age, loss of innocence and virginity, love, family, hedonism and man vs himself. The film is about a high school boy named Sutter who only lives in the present. However, through meeting a girl named Aimee and finding his long lost father, he started to change. The protagonist would probably be Sutter, but simultaneously he’s also shown as an antagonist. Throughout the whole movie, the story is entirely built around Sutter, which tells that he’s obviously a protagonist, but all the hardships he needs to go through have been caused by him, and that setting reinforces the theme of man vs himself.

In this chosen scene in The Fault in Our Stars, there are some points that we can find some important relevance to the chosen macro concept from.

The first crucial aspect of cinematography in the scene is the use of ELS. Hazel and Augustus visually take very small part in this shot, which makes them seem to be quite powerless and even unimportant. It’s significant in relation to the theme because it connotes that although they feel extraordinary about themselves, still they’re just tiny parts of this enormous world.

The second aspect of cinematography is the use of off centre frame. They put Hazel and Augustus on the left quite small to show the contrast between them and the kids playing in the playground. It means more than it seems like because during the first half of the movie, there was a scene that Hazel and Augustus went to picnic together to the same place, and at that point, they were part of those kids because both of them were much more stable physically and emotionally. It fragmentarily shows how vulnerable their mental and physical status has become compared to their past. However, in a positive way, it also can be interpreted as being more mature than before.

The last aspect is the use of MCU. Instead of using LS to show their entire look, the director chose to focus on Hazel’s hand helping Augustus getting up and his facial expression. It emphasizes Augustus’s feeling about his own health condition which is very precarious and facilitates comparison with how he normally acted like before his cancer got worse. It also portrays how different he is from other teenagers because normally teenagers don’t need help when they get up. This relates to my focal macro concept because it shows how much people can change due to circumstances and how hard it is to overcome when you face adversity which can never be overcome.

Meanwhile, in The Spectacular Now, cinematography is used in quite different way from the previous one.

The first aspect to focus on is the use of low key tone. While Sutter is driving his car on his way back home, light only comes from the outside of the car so that we only can see Sutter’s vague silhouette in the dark. It represents pessimistic attitude of life that he has at that moment and that he’s being emotionally closed due to fear and despair. It’s strongly connected to the theme because it portrays adolescents’ insecurity appearing when they’re having a hard time to control their feelings.

Next significant aspect is the use of Dutch tilt. When Sutter is parking his car, it seems to be slanted which gives us some vital clues to, psychologically, the angst of his mind, and physically, his drunkenness, which both are related to stereotypes of teenagers. Therefore we can get the idea that he’s quite out of his mind because of the trouble he’s got with Aimee and his dad.

The third aspect is the use of a face in half shadow. It’s one of the cinematographic aspects in the movie that clearly represent Sutter’s characteristic as both hero and villain. It also shows the inner conflict that he’s having and confusion of his identity formed after he met his dad and found himself from his dad’s careless behaviour.

Firstly, in the chosen scene of The Fault in Our Stars, one of the significant factors of mise en scene is those two characters’ costumes.

While Hazel is wearing jeans and jacket like a normal teenage girl, Augustus is wearing a sweatshirt and sweatpants with a woolly hat in order to keep himself warm and we immediately can notice that he’s a patient from his outfit. It directly represents their health status, especially how sick and depressed Augustus is compared to Hazel.

The second factor to focus on is a champagne bottle. In this scene, the champagne complements what Augustus talks about his anxiety about getting forgotten after death, since alcohol in movies generally has an image of distress and instability, both mentally and socially. It also means that as opposed to his obsession of being remembered, he wants to look away from his own life through drinking because it’s not what he wanted to get.

The last key prop is Hazel’s oxygen tank and Augustus’s wheelchair. While they’re talking to each other, the tank and the wheelchair keep being shown in the frame and they remind us that those two kids are sick and different from other ‘normal’ teenagers. It’s important in relation to the theme because they’re medical assist devices that directly show us incompleteness of the characters.

In The Spectacular Now, the first mise en scene that catches our eyes is the colour.

Since the frame is quite dark overall, the yellow colour of the traffic light, traffic sign, the car’s headlight and rear light seems to be very conspicuous. In this case, the colour yellow represents negative images such as cowardice, egoism, and madness. It implies what kind of emotions that Sutter will express in the following shot, which also can be interpreted as ‘warning’.

The second factor is Sutter’s costume. He’s wearing a t-shirt that is very crumpled, greyish, and obviously not quite clean. It tells us that what we expected about Sutter’s emotional status from the previous shot was exactly right and gives more plausibility to his words and actions.

The last mise en scene to analyse is the location of the scene when Sutter’s mom soothes him crying. The kitchen represents Sutter’s mom since she’s the only person who generally uses it and the fact that he’s crying in her area symbolizes that he’s wanted to rely on her, express his feeling and show his weak inside to her. It also means that he finally got to merged into the family since a kitchen is occasionally called the ‘heart’ of the home.

The chosen sequence from The Fault in Our Stars is a plain scene that mainly shows a relaxed conversation between characters. Only non-diegetic sounds in this sequence are two pieces of score, one that comes out at the beginning and the other one at the end. The first one named ‘Funky Bones 2 Part 1’ gives the whole scene sad and gloomy atmosphere and implies the idea of how their conversation would go. The music stops right before the dialogue starts. The following dialogue, especially when Hazel says “You think that the only way to lead a meaningful life is for everyone to remember you. For everyone to love you. Guess what, Gus. This is your life. This is all you get.”, emphasises the theme through showing that teenagers commonly think themselves as a protagonist of the whole world and expect something greater than others in the future, but inevitably they only get their small world just like others. At the end of the dialogue, Hazel says “But it’s not nothing, because I love you, and I’m gonna remember you.” and it tells you that although that tiny world it all you get, it’s eternally meaningful to you because the world will always be there for you till the end. Then the second background music named ‘Funky Bones 2 Part 2’ comes out and changes the atmosphere of the scene more delightful and hopeful.

We can find almost exactly same composition of sound in the chosen scene of The Spectacular Now as well. There are two pieces of background music at the beginning and at the end, which are only non-diegetic sounds in the scene, and in the middle, there’s a long dialogue between the two characters. The first piece of music functions as a factor that gives the scene tension and anxiety. It reaches its peak when Sutter runs into the mailbox and makes huge banging sound. After that, they start their conversation and it lets us know what kind of kid Sutter was, for example when Sutter’s mom says “You love everybody. You have the biggest heart of anyone I know”. He seems to be quite defiant and indulging at the moment but he’s actually very caring person, except that it’s not being shown well because of his identity crisis. His mom reminds him how special he is to her and a song named ‘Song for Zula’ that suggests feeling of hope and delight comes out at the end of the scene and gives us hint at the way the rest of the film would go.

Since neither of the chosen scenes used dramatic and various editing techniques, there’s not much to analyse about what kind of editing technique has been used. One noticeable editing skill that I found from both of them is that they followed 180 degree rule very well, which relates to the theme because it helps showing argument between the characters with more tension and intensity. It cements the realism of the films and therefore immerses the audience in narrative as well. Also they both use shot reverse shot during conversation, and it helps us to see the characters’ reactions to each other, especially Augustus’s and Sutter’s, since they keep venting their stress and negative emotions through their verbal and facial responses.

As I mentioned above, The Fault in Our Stars and The Spectacular Now are very similar films in many ways. They have similar narrative structure, characters, and themes. However, through this essay, we found out that although they have a lot of things in common, still the way they’re being presented can be quite different. I think the difference might be mostly caused by the fact that The Fault in Our Stars was produced by 20th Century Fox, one of the biggest movie production companies, with 12 million dollars of budget, and The Spectacular Now was produced by an independent film production called Andrew Lauren Productions, with 2.5 million dollars. In relation to my focal macro concept, the most effective micro feature was mise en scene for both films in my opinion. Sometimes things placed in the frame tell us more than actual words do because they can be interpreted in so many different perspectives. Since everything in the frame is placed for the right reason, they all got messages to tell us and we can derive one big theme from those messages.

0 notes