#both the bigoted aspects of it and the simply bad writing aspects | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

ruthlesslistener · 10 months

Note

not to come into your house after asking an incredibly basic question, but your response is very interesting to me? Interesting feels like the wrong word but it's also v late for me. Most thoughts I hear about the gerudo are either just in it for the Ganondorf lore and thus gloss over other things about them, or only have positive things to say in a way that feels kinda oblivious? Or on rare occasions, people thoroughly tearing them apart. So, seeing your response aknowledge the things people usually tear into nintendo for but still come away liking them pretty wholesale was interesting in a good way! Like a breath of fresh air that hadn't occurred to me. anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts, if you can't tell already they kinda tipped the way I think about the gerudo pretty topsy-turvy in a way I'll examine later when it's not midnight. sorry if this is overstepping or smthn after starting with a two sentence ask. I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on them when both of us have more brain power.

Glad that it got you thinking about things! I don't think you're overstepping, but I do want to point out that I really don't have much experience with the nuances of the Zelda franchise, so I might not have very insightful commentary on it. I've never played the games myself, I only watched BOTW, Twilight Princess, and Wind Waker playthroughs/speedruns and am partially through smallant's TOTK 100% vods.

The way I think about it, though (and this applies to anything except Harry Potter), is that you can acknowledge the flaws in a piece of media while also enjoying aspects of it that are not flawed, because nuance is a thing and what matters most is not internalizing the bigoted shit you might see and allowing it to influence how you treat/write others. Additionally, it can help you learn about the pitfalls that other writers might fall into, and whether or not it was intentional or not, because different sterotypes/problematic troupes will crop up in different ways in different cultures, and intention makes all the difference between deliberate propaganda and yet another cultural oversight that needs to be addressed, but can be corrected later on. Stories are written by human beings and human beings are inherently flawed entities, so dismissing any and all enjoyment you might find in a story simply because it has problems just isn't reasonable (though blindly defending it isn't great, either).

(The reason why HP is an exception is, of course, because the author directly benefits from its publicity and uses that benefit to actively harm minority groups, so there really is no ethical way of engaging with that shit)

The Gerudo are very much a flawed concept drawing off of the fallacies of Middle Eastern stereotypes, and there's much to be said about the imperialist undertones that run through TOTK with the kingdom of Hylia and its expansion to other territories (though this might not be intentional- Japan is notorious for being pro-imperialist and glossing over all the horrors of imperialism or their past crimes with it. Then again, America is just as bad, if not worse, so I'm hardly on a moral high horse here). There certainly is a lot more to be said about the racism inherent to making the Big Bad Evil of the series a brown man, and then trying to mask that by turning his skintone green, or black, or just generally trying to dehumanize him. Not to mention the fact that a man is born to the Gerudo once every hundred years, and that he automatically becomes their king for whatever reason (with Ganon, I can see it's because he's power-hungry, but still). But you can also enjoy the flashy decor of the Gerudo, the buff warrior woman society with their codes of honour, and the badassery of their chieftans that can call down lightning, because at the same time, the Gerudo are so fantastical that they end up being just that...fantastical.

So while I'm sure there's a lot of nuance that I'm missing given that I'm more of an observer of new games in the Zelda series than anything else, imo I think its fine to enjoy them while still being aware of the racist elements to their story, because while the racism isn't great they're also so different from like, actual irl human beings that it's not too bad. It's more that they were spawned from racist stereotypes that is the direct issue, if that makes any sense

#anon #reply #again! i only really know botw canon so i am missing a whole lotta context #but yeah i think you can enjoy something while also knowing that its got shitty elements to it

8 notes · View notes

aromantic-misguide-to-romance · 1 year

Text

Yandere Cendris

Content warning: kidnapping, imprisonment, persecution

This contains pretty dark stuff, because Cendris is simply evil and infatuation is only going to make him worse.

I hated every second of seeing him on screen, so obviously writing 2600 words of imagines about him spiraling into being even worse is a reasonable conclusion, kek.

Note: since Roman’s and Liora’s routes basically have the same plots used, including MC’s memory wiped, MC breaking the memory spell and coming back, and Cendris’s bigotry, I tried to make this headcanon with both routes’ continuation in mind. However, due to the fact that Cendris is much more villainous, evil and cunning in Roman’s route, that’ll be his characterisation.

Two endings, good and bad.

In Cendris’s opinion, sending MC back without memories was more merciful and lenient than optimal. And so was the law that did not foresee a necessity of eliminating such liability permanently – but it was better than nothing.

He could finally get some rest, without his thoughts constantly running in circles around that human that snuck in where she didn’t belong.

But not for long. Soon, he found that MC somehow returned to her partner – with all the memory spell in vain, all the procedures tricked, he knew he had to act to prevent any further hostile action from humans. The law failed already once and it was time to take matters in his own hands.

It crossed his mind to find a way to get rid of MC quickly – on the other hand, MC’s comeback was a mystery and an extremely dangerous precedent. He couldn’t just remove the threat while ignoring a much bigger disaster that would surely follow, but something had to be done.

Since he was involved with anti-human extremists already, he used them to kidnap MC from the cafe – but no, he wouldn’t let them have her. It was only so her disappearance would cause as much trouble for the cafe as possible, without the repercussions and scandal that would undoubtedly break out if the human was found dead. He secures a way out and re-kidnaps her from her captors – and fakes her death to them, so she’s off their radars.

This also lets MC believe that he saved her and that he really means well by keeping her under key. After all, there are bigots after her life out there. She’s not stupid enough to buy it entirely, but she’s be incomparably more stubborn and uncooperative if she knew the truth. And Cendris needs her to cooperate at least to some degree.

As he tries to figure out the mystery of her memory coming back and outsmart her to get her to slip the information out, and now that there’s no pressure of time or any external disturbances, he find himself enjoying the conversations. It’s more of interrogation than an actual talk, and doesn’t actually make MC any more keen to share what she knows though, but Cendris believes he’s getting somewhere with his investigation and starts looking forward to it.

When he analyses MC’s expressions and body language, when he analyses her words, he focuses his attention so entirely on the task, that the world seems to disappear around him.

But when he’s getting more at ease, MC is getting more and more suspicious. His true views show no matter how he tries to convince her that he’s not her enemy. She’s wary of him, even when he tries to pretend to show goodwill. He can’t exactly hide what he thinks. Not when a large chunk of his worldview and his motives are down to the fact that he thinks of himself superior to Roman or Liora. Roman was led astray and has fallen from an upstanding member of elite forces to a convicted criminal – maybe that ugly aspect had always been hiding in him. It must have been. And Liora? The woman who seemed to be captivated by the idea of sneaking antisocial, possibly harmful element back to society? Oh no, Cendris has morals – unlike her!

MC – who’s observant on one hand, and doesn’t exactly have anything else to think about – picks up all the cues. Her resistance grows more and more with every passing week, just as Cendris’s attachment grows too.

But she doesn’t exactly have any options for escape, so her main coping strategy becomes just closing herself off. She’s already tired and mentally worn out by all the mind games Cendris tries to play to make her slip – to the point of complete exhaustion. She doesn’t know when he’ll be in the mood to torment her again, whether he will keep her in constant vigilance for the whole day, or will he just get bored after a few questions. She grows distant, barely paying attention to him – she just gives up the thought that feigning cooperation would eventually lead her anywhere closer to freedom. She stops talking to him.

And that change frustrates him to no end, but he doesn’t know why. He takes it out all on her, but as she curls silently, expecting a hit but not trying to fight it, it’s an even more bitter sight.

Like a battered dog, it crosses his mind – and fills him with even more anger. But he doesn’t think of MC like of a pet, no. Pets can be loved and pampered by their owners and he hates the implications of affection towards a mere human. Even if it infuriates him that he’s not getting any of her attention anymore.

An implication of a pet rubs him the wrong way for one more reason, but he would never admit that, not to anyone, not to himself. He wants MC to reach out to him, to see him – during their conversations, he knew she was looking at him, that she was observing him as carefully as he observed her So he wanted her to look at him as intensely as before and more than before, to be attracted to him like to another person. Even if he himself doesn’t consider her a person.

He can’t get her to react to his words, he can’t get her to look at him again – and it makes him experience feelings he’s never going to acknowledge. As her silent resistance grows, so grows his anger. His benevolent mask drops and every time the longing for her gets almost, almost recognisable, he punishes MC for that, which leaves a bitter aftertaste every time his outbursts meet nothing but passive fear. That’s not the reaction he wants to get, but in general, he does not know what he feels to MC and what he wants from MC, and he’s making it MC’s problem.

MC can’t make heads or tails from his behaviour – he’s become completely unpredictable. Her character is breaking under the conditions, and she’s just trying to obey quietly, avoid provoking him in any way, but it’s not helping – she does never know if her silent compliance will get him to leave or lash out. There seems to be no pattern, and he’s only getting moodier and moodier with time. The uncertainty and stress starts eating MC’s mind, on top of the distress she was already experiencing enough for her to lock herself in her own head.

His mind is getting more and more chaotic and out of control. He can’t be home without thinking of her, but at the same time his work is suffering from his constant lack of focus. He’s frustrated, and the frustration only grows as he can’t process his more and more uncomfortable feelings. He blames MC – and humans. The constant state of anger and blaming everyone around for his misery makes him only more radical and more vicious. The more and more he desires MC, the more and more he loathes everything that led to her staying in the magical world – he cannot accept his own feelings, so he goes to extremes to take it out on everyone whom he considers guilty, and as a part of law enforcement and a respected officer with good reputation, he has virtually unlimited opportunities to sabotage his enemies, as long as he remains stealthy and makes sure that no pattern in his arrests shows. He believes his morals are growing stronger, obviously – the vengeful drive is, in his mind, righteous and noble. He devotes himself to the most extreme movements he was avoiding earlier and brings his anti-human campaign to the full swing – and as he earlier preferred to work from shadows, he wants to make a statement now and needs everyone to watch it. Only this way he can change the whole society to be the way he wants it to be.

His first target is obviously the cafe – Sweet Echantments are not only the reason why MC was there, the cafe is the stain on the world for helping criminals. For him, whoever committed a crime, even a small one, is irredeemably evil and does not deserve any personhood – even his old friend. Allowing criminals back to society is one of the most dangerous ideas, second only to the idea of the existence of humans.

But while the cafe is his first target, it’s not his first victim – it’s the last of his plans, its downfall shall be the cherry on top of his successful plan.

When the time comes, his first arrest could be Liora – the perpetrator and the saboteur of the safety of the magical world – or Roman who was a wolf in sheep’s clothing all the time Cendris believed they were friends. But he doesn’t frame them immediately.

There’s a better one to start with. Emeril.

She is an exceptionally easy target considering her lost brother, even if she technically didn’t commit any crime before. But he’s eager to show that he’s able to send even someone like her to prison. In the meantime, as he prepares to frame her, he starts weaving a net around the regular staff – he needs it to be already in motion when he makes his first move more openly. He knows that if he leaves Liora too much room for defence, she’ll fight like a lioness. But what he needs is her walking right into his trap in attempts to save her staff and her cafe.

His visits become a nightmare for MC as he’s always bringing horrifying news. And he wants MC to watch the world she loved burn to ashes on her eyes.

If things end up badly:

Cendris not only manages to frame the key personnel, his plan to bring down Liora works better than he expected. Sweet Enchantments closing completely disgraced, even after Liora used all the means she had to save it is seen as an excellent display of competence. There is a lot of meticulously prepared “evidence” to support the arrests and trials, and the success gives him a reputation of a hero who isn’t afraid to investigate, even if the subject is highly connected to influencial people and even against the misguided public opinion.

Liora’s downfall means also that all her morals become disgraced – if an anti-magical conspiracy was made out of drive to make the magical world more hospitable and less hostile to the disadvantaged, anyone wishing the same is risking being subjected to the outrage of moral panics and accusations of treason.

Cendris becomes a star overnight.

But doesn’t let this sudden fame just happen and pass though – he uses it. A mix of framing his opponents, with his new position of a moral authority is a way to powerful combo for a small opposition to fight. He starts actively engaging in magical politics.

The regulations he pushes are not just strictly targeting humans, but also focus on the enforcement– to the point of inadequacy of the persecution. The existence rare half-human magicians is criminalised soon too – so Silvain is forced to run and hide due to his half-human blood and is never seen again. But at least there’s hope he survived – many of those living in secret didn’t, especially when the secret town of Zaville finally fell into hands of the government.

This all is what he gloats about when he’s tormenting MC again. In his vengeance he makes sure she knows what happens to people who were taking care of her – or even just were nice to her briefly. He wants her to know the disasters she brought upon them, and the tragedies her sole existence caused.

If he can’t have her, he’ll destroy her.

When she cries and breaks down, it’s because of him – and the fact that his actions are affecting her that deeply that she mentally breaks to pieces, is the closest he can get to have her think of him, forever.

The disappointment and yearning dulls over time as he grows to savour her pain, until she’s nothing but an empty shell.

But an empty shell can’t think of anything. And this way nothing can distract her from him.

If things end up favourably to MC:

Cendris’s bigotry starts to put off some, and some find his scheme to be too sketchy. As his more and more extreme and violent actions started being frowned upon and it’s more and more clear that he doesn’t care about law in his hatred anymore – this gives Liora a chance to strike back, with Zola’s help.

While there’s not many to stop him, he’s being watched from all sides, either by those concerned by his obnoxious extremism, or those who try to profit from his failure, and he eventually makes a mistake that leads to his ultimate downfall.

His final operation is really karma striking back at him – he commits a good deed by tracking down human traffickers and leading Bejana to them, trying to link Sweet Enchantments to them. He would have been deemed a hero for “saving helpless humans”, but Elyscia has already collected enough evidence on him to tear the red carpet from under his feet. And yes, she got the information from the corrupt magician oligarchs that didn’t like him sniffing around their illegal businesses.

With his reputation in shambles and his frauds coming to light one after another, Zola manages to win Liora’s case and soon all of the Sweet Enchantments staff gets a chance to have another trial – when it comes to the dates of the trials, media have already made them into helpless victims of Cendris’s villainy. There’s no other way but to declare them innocent.

The last – but the most condemning – evidence is MC.

Cendris could easily slip away from the growing list of offences admitted to his name, but the sole thought of MC getting back to her partner makes him see red. In spite of Bejana sniffing around his house he attempts to sneak MC away, but his arrogance leads to his downfall. The missing human is found locked up in the oh so reputable Mr. Swiftbane’s home, Bejana catching him red-handed.

MC is finally freed.

She returns to her partner, their reunion moving the hearts of many magicians struck with the tragic love story with a happy ending. The ending isn’t as happy in reality – MC might be (relatively) free but is just a shadow of her old self and the medial buzz doesn’t help her recover, so she’s given protection – first as an important witness, then is given a choice – to let them wipe her memory and return to her world without the trauma or stay as and apply for citizenship with her partner. The choice is hers and she weighs her options carefully – even if her previous self would just immediately reject the memory wipe, now she’s giving it a serious thought.

Cendris’s trial and conviction makes many seek for more fair approach to humans, challenging outdated and unfavourable. While it doesn’t happen overnight, and the outrage at Cendris’s deeds doesn’t bring a breakthrough after it calms down, the magical world does get a push to become more open and more supportive to both its citizens as well as those who want to become citizens.

From behind the bars, Cendris can only watch the world change the opposite way he desired, and clench his fists reading toothrottingly sweet articles about MC’s seemingly happy life with her partner, first upon her return, then about her as a naturalised wife of a magician.

But no matter how much he’d rage about it, he can’t hurt her anymore.

#sweet enchantments #cendris swiftbane #lovestruck #no one writes #dark scenarios

3 notes · View notes

writingwithcolor · 3 years

Text

Jewish author writing about antisemitism; should I include racism too?

anonymous asked:

Hi! I'm a white Jewish person who's writing a story set in a fantasy world with a Jewish-coded culture. It's important to me to explore antisemitism in this distanced setting, and explore what the Jewish diaspora means to me. I have a lot of people of color in my story as well. I don't know whether I, as a white person, should include racism in a story if it isn't necessary, but I also don't want to erase the aspects of many mildly/moderately assimilated cultures that are affected by racism, and I also don't want to imply somehow that antisemitism is a more serious issue than racism, which is obviously not the case. I was thinking that bigotry might be more culture-based rather than ethnically or racially based, but again, I'm not sure how or whether to write about bigotry against cultures + groups based on cultures + groups that I'm not a part of, and people of color in the story would obviously have their own cultural elements. Is acknowledging bigotry necessary?

It's okay to focus on antisemitism

Other mods have important advice on what exactly might be helpful or applicable to include in your story and how. I want to take a moment with the anxiety you express that focusing on antisemitism and not talking about other types of xenophobia will imply to your readers that you think antisemitism is “more serious” than other forms of bigotry. I hear and honor that anxiety, especially since “Jews only care about Jews” is a stereotype that never seems to go away, so I’m going to say something revolutionary:

It’s okay to center Jews in a story about antisemitism.

There, I said it. But I’m not making the case that you shouldn’t include references to or depictions of other types of bigotry in your story. There are a lot of great reasons why you should, because of what it can do for the complexity of your characters, the depth of your worldbuilding, or the strength of your message about the nature of xenophobia, diaspora, etc.

- How your non-Jewish-coded characters react to the things they experience can affect whether they sympathize over or contribute to the antisemitism at the heart of your story.

- How other types of xenophobia do and don’t manifest in your world can help explain why your world has antisemitism in the first place, and what antisemitism consists of in a world that also contains other minorities outside of the fantasy mainstream culture.

- Including other real-world xenophobia can help you set your antisemitism in context and contrast to help explain what you want to say about it.

Both your story and your message might be strengthened by adding these details. But if you feel the structure of your story doesn’t have room for you to show other characters’ experiences and you’re only considering doing it because you’re afraid you’ll be upholding a negative stereotype of yourself if you don’t, then it might help to realize that if someone is already thinking that, nothing you do is going to change their mind. You can explore antisemitism in your story, but you don’t have the power to solve it, and since you don’t have that power you also don’t have that responsibility. I think adding more facets to your story has the potential to make it great, but leaving it out doesn’t make you evil.

- Meir

Portraying xenophobia

As someone living in Korea and therefore usually on the outside looking in, I feel that a lot of people in Western countries tend to conflate racism and xenophobia. Which does make sense since bigots tend to not exactly care about differences between the two but simply act prejudiced against the “other”. Sci also makes a point below about racialized xenophobia. I feel these are factors contributing to your confusion regarding issues of bigotry in your story.

Xenophobia, as defined by Dictionary.com, is “an aversion or hostility to, disdain for, or fear of foreigners, people from different cultures, or strangers”. You mention “thinking that bigotry might be more culture-based”, and this description fits xenophobia better than most other forms of bigotry. Xenophobia can be seen as an umbrella term including antisemitism, so you are technically including one form of xenophobia through your exploration of antisemitism.

I understand your wariness of writing racism when it doesn’t add to the plot, especially as a white writer. Your concerns that you might “erase the aspects of many mildly/moderately assimilated cultures that are affected by racism” is valid and in fact accurate, since exclusion of racism will of course lead to lack of portrayals of the intersections between racism and xenophobia. I want to reassure you that this is not a bad thing, just a choice you can make. No one story (or at least, no story that can fit into one book) can include all the different forms of oppression in the world. Focusing on one particular form of oppression, particularly one you have personal experience with, is a valid and important form of representation.

You also comment that you “don't want to imply somehow that antisemitism is a more serious issue than racism”, but I honestly feel that doesn’t need too much concern. Much like how queerness and disability are two separate issues with intersections, racism and xenophobia form a Venn diagram, with large intersections but neither completely including the other. A story focusing on autistic characters that doesn’t also have queer rep doesn’t imply queer issues are less serious. Likewise, a story focusing on antisemitism doesn’t imply racism is less serious.

I am slightly more concerned that there might be an accidental implication of antisemitism being a more serious issue compared to other forms of xenophobia. Of course, exploring antisemitism alone is completely valid representation, and there’s no need to go out of your way to try and portray other forms of xenophobia. A microaggression or two, or maybe a mutual bitch out session with a gentile but marginalized friend should be enough to show that antisemitism isn’t more (or less) serious compared to other forms of xenophobia.

-Rune

Avoiding racialized xenophobia

I think one thing you have to be careful with here is racialized xenophobia. Are your characters of color getting disproportionately more xenophobia than your white characters? You might be falling into the trap of racialized xenophobia, which falls under racism, which you want to avoid. An example would be “all Chinese scientists are untrustworthy, but not you, you’re one of the ‘good ones.’” Although this is technically xenophobia, it is also racism.

--Mod Sci

In the case you choose to include even small snippets of other forms of xenophobia in your story, attempting to portray xenophobia without the complications of racism can be a difficult process when they often go hand in hand (especially to a Western audience). So here are a couple of suggestions I have of portraying xenophobia without racism.

First and the simplest method is portraying xenophobia between people of the same race. For example, there is definitely xenophobia against Chinese and Japanese people in Korea, but it would be difficult to claim there is a racial component when all of us are East Asian. (Something you might want to be aware of here is intersections with colorism, where even within the same race, lighter skin and other more westernized features are considered more desirable. I suggest looking through our colorism tag for more details)

Another idea is to include microaggressions for specific cultures rather than something more broad. For example, calling Korean food stinky because kimchi has a strong scent is specifically xenophobic against Koreans, while commenting on small eyes can be directed against Asians in general.

Finally, while antisemitism is a form of ethnicity-based xenophobia, it is also a form of religion-based xenophobia. Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus can absolutely be xenophobic against each other with no racism involved. Should you choose this method, particularly if religious xenophobia is only shown in a shorter scene, I suggest you try and avoid portraying any of the above religions as the Bad or Oppressive ones. As a Christian I will unironically tell you that Christianity is a safe choice for a religiously xenophobic character, as we’re far less likely to face backlash compared to any other religion, and inspiration should unfortunately be overflowing in real life.

-Rune

Other forms of ethno-religious oppression

Here is my TCK perspective as someone brought up in diverse environments where there are often other axes of oppression including religion, ethnicity and class:

Racism and xenophobia can definitely be apples to oranges, so creating a universe where racism no longer exists or has never existed seems doable to me. Perhaps in your fantasy world, structures that buttress racism, such as colonization, slavery and imperialism, are not issues. That still won’t stop people from creating “Us versus Them” divisions, and you can certainly make anti-semitism one of the many forms of xenophobia that exists in this your story. Meir has hinted that your reluctance to declaratively show the harm of anti-semitism indicates a level of anxiety around the topic, and, as someone non-Jewish but also not Christian or Muslim, my perspective is as follows: I’ve always viewed anti-semitism as a particularly virulent form of ethno-religious xenophobia, and while it is a unique experience, it is not the only unique experience when it comes to ethno-religious xenophobia. I think because the 3-way interaction between the Abrahamic religions dominates much of Western geopolitics, that can be how it looks, but the world is a big place (See Rune’s comments for specific examples).

To that effect, I recommend prioritizing anti-semitism alongside other non-racialized forms of xenophobia along ideological, cultural and class-based lines for both POC and non-POC characters. Show how these differences can drive those in power to treat other groups poorly. I conclude by encouraging you to slowly trace your logic when depicting xenophobia towards POC characters in particular. Emphasize bigotry along axes of class and ideology, rather than traits linked to assumed biologically intrinsic features. Ultimately, I think recognizing commonalities between forms of ethno-religious oppression as a whole will help make you more comfortable in depicting anti-semitism with the seriousness it deserves without feeling as though you are trivializing the experiences of other groups.

- Marika

Worldbuilding ethnically and racially diverse cultures

As has been mentioned by other mods, I think it’s completely fine to focus your story on antisemitism and not portray other forms of bigotry if that’s the focus and scope of the story you want to tell. My fellow mods have also offered several valuable suggestions for writing about “culture-based bigotry” in general if that’s what you want to do, while making sure it’s not coming off as racially based. One element I can add is that from a worldbuilding standpoint, it will also help to have your fantasy cultural groups be ethnically and racially diverse. After all, this was common historically in several parts of the world, and depending on which cultures you’re basing your coding on, you could absolutely have fantasy cultures in your world that include characters we would read (according to our modern-day standards) as white, and others that we would read as people of color, within the same fantasy culture. All these characters would face the same culture-based bigotry (such as xenophobia or religious oppression), even though they are read by a modern audience as different races.

As a note, the reason I say “read as” and “according to our modern-day standards” is that the entire concept of whiteness as we know it is very specific to our current cultural context. Who is and isn’t considered white has changed quite a lot over time, and is still the subject of debate today in some cases. Your work will be read by a modern audience, so of course, you need to take into account our current understanding of race and the dynamics surrounding it. However, it’s also helpful to remember that our modern racial categories are fairly new in the context of the many millennia of history of humankind, and that they are certainly not inevitable. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking a fantasy culture has to align itself entirely with modern-day racial categories.

- Niki

#Asks #fantasy #worldbuilding #anti semitism #xenophobia #racism #Judaism #Jewish

384 notes · View notes

ilikekidsshows · 3 years

Text

The Marinette and Kagami Sub Arc Breakdown

Okay, it's finally done, the big analysis, where I tackle a topic I've wanted to write for simply because it's a topic I personally find interesting and fun, AKA, The Best Sub Arc in the Entire Series So Far, AKA, How Marinette Proved Without a Shadow of a Doubt that She'd Never Be Like Chloé And We Stan.

One of the most interesting parts of the Marinette and Kagami rivals to friends sub arc is that it's one of the aspects of the show that directly connects to Marinette's past as a victim of bullying and is, in a way, about her overcoming that past. Not many things in the show remind us of the revelation in 'Origins' that Chloé had been bullying Marinette for years before the show's timeline, especially since Chloé became pretty declawed as a school level threat as the series went on to the degree where I think many people watching forgot that she used to hold a lot more power, and Marinette used to be wary of her.

But, the reason why Marinette being a bully victim is important in her arc with Kagami is this: people who have been victimized don't necessarily recognize it when they're victimizing others, and I believe that Marinette shows signs of this mentality in the show, particularly in season three. I'll illustrate how Marinette's ex-bully victim mindset informed the early stages of her relationship with Kagami and how Marinette overcame her internal biases when it comes to Kagami and her behavior towards Kagami.

In 'Origins', when Alya quotes Majestia's by now immortal line, she also says something that is very much what someone who has been victimized would identify with: "That girl over there is evil, while we are the good people." While Alya was very accurate that she and Marinette are good people, she didn't really know much about Marinette at this point, so she was actually pretty much guessing. The reason why this line is important is because it relies on an assumption that a moral binary exists on the bully-victim scale, instead of these roles being dynamic and socially formed. If you’re a victim of a bully, the bully is evil and you are a Good Person.

Some people who've been systematically victimized think on some level that them being victims means that they can never be instigators, that they're automatically morally pure because the person who victimizes them is the evil one. This is a very typical argument in social justice circles, where a person who is victimized for one thing might say bigoted things about another group and claim that they can't be a bigot because they suffer from bigotry. The simplest example I can give is white women refusing to accept that something they've said about black women could be offensive to black women specifically, because "how could a victim of sexism be racist". Now, what happens between Marinette and Kagami in the show is nowhere near this level of victimization switcheroo, but it still has that false binary in that Marinette thinks that her actions have more moral justification than they actually do.

The interesting thing about how Kagami is introduced is that her future role as a love rival was downplayed in ‘Riposte’. Her Akumatization was because of family issues and the idea that she might be attracted to Adrien came from Marinette's jealous grumblings while she was rescuing him from Riposte (I'm mostly referring to the "She doesn't deserve you" line). Outside of that little bit, 'Riposte' comes across as a pretty standard Victim of the Week episode, instead of setting up a romance sub arc. As such, Marinette already viewing Kagami's Riposte form as a romantic rival serves more as foreshadowing rather than it actually forming their relationship.

Then we get to 'Frozer'. Marinette doesn't really know much of anything about Kagami at the start of this episode, as we can see in her mental image of Kagami as a cackling mean girl. Because Marinette doesn't really know Kagami at this point, when Adrien tells her he's thinking of asking Kagami out, her mind gives a placeholder mental image of her, seemingly based off of Chloé, another rich girl with a (supposed) crush on Adrien. This is the episode that establishes Kagami as a romantic rival to both the audience and Marinette, and Marinette’s negative mental image of Kagami establishes the idea of this rivalry being antagonistic. However, because this setup happens in Marinette's headscape, it's actually a one-sided antagonism.

Kagami isn't actually antagonistic towards Marinette in 'Frozer', but there is a certain assertiveness and physical presence to her in the episode that Marinette, as a former bully victim, might find imposing. Kagami gets in her personal space, because she's telling Marinette something she's sure Marinette doesn't want the boys to hear, but to Marinette, the body language could have come across as threatening. The way Marinette stares at Kagami throughout the scene with a deer-in-headlights look can indicate more general startlement or a sense of foreboding. And the episode ends with Kagami kissing Adrien on the cheek, establishing her as a threat in Marinette's eyes. From Marinette's view, Kagami's behavior in 'Frozer' confirmed her fears about Kagami, that she was a rich bully.

This interpretation of Kagami informs a lot of Marinette's actions in 'Animaestro'. Here we see just how much Marinette has started to view Kagami as the new Chloé in her mind. Even when the actual Chloé shows up, Marinette is more ready to side with her than Kagami. And why this happens is because Chloé actually accidentally enforces the idea that, because Marinette is a Good Person, any person who works against her happiness is a bully and a Bad Person. While we could argue that Marinette has no reason to listen to anything Chloé says, we have to remember that Marinette has been lowkey hoping Chloé would become a better person in episodes like 'Antibug' and 'Zombizou'. When they both agree that Kagami has to go, Marinette could have taken it as another sign that Chloé's not all bad, or Marinette could have simply come to the conclusion that Kagami is actually worse than Chloé, and so teaming up with Chloé to take her down is justified.

It's important to note that 'Animaestro' chronologically takes place right after 'Chameleon', another episode where Marinette thinks she's morally justified in practically bullying someone because they're acting in a way she disagrees with. Because Lila was revealed to be able to dish back the same, if not even worse, that Marinette could unleash, Marinette never learned that her behavior at the start of the episode was bullying and therefore bad. Lila "justified" Marinette's actions after the fact because she was actually a bad person all along, so Marinette doesn't need to feel bad about basically harassing her. If Lila had just been someone who fibs for fun, with no malicious intentions, Marinette's behavior would have been completely out of proportion.

This is why the approach Chloé and, by extension, Marinette take against Kagami is so vital. With Chloé hatching a scheme that was so much like one Marinette would put together, the lines between Marinette and Chloé were blurred in this episode. Simply because it was such a convoluted plan might have also been why Marinette didn't seem to realize the implications of what she was trying to accomplish. I mentioned during my liveblog of this episode that Marinette doesn't seem to consider that, since the plan was to publicly humiliate Kagami, the plan working would have meant hurting Kagami really badly. I also pointed out that, because the trap triggered for the wrong target, this fact didn't really register with Marinette completely, since she merely noted that of course Chloé would have a bad plan. The plan was bad because it failed, not because it was morally wrong.

However, even though we didn't see it happen in the episode itself, what happened at the movie premiere did alter Marinette's perception of Kagami. Most likely it was contrasting Kagami to the actual Chloé and realizing that she had been mistakenly attributing Chloé's traits to Kagami. The change in Marinette's perception is clear in her panic spiral when she realizes Kagami is her partner for the game in 'Ikari Gozen': "She's brilliant, strong, cute!" Marinette would never spell out all of Chloé's better features in such a way, which means her stance on Kagami has moved away from seeing her as The New Chloé.

Even though Marinette doesn't see Kagami as a bad person at this point anymore, she does still consider her strictly opposition. She refuses to work with her, preferring instead to sabotage her and her chances with Adrien, just this time without the attempted humiliation. This is mostly because Marinette sees Kagami and thinks she has it all: looks, confidence, influence, a connection with Adrien. Marinette is absolutely convinced that if they won the contest, all attention would be on Kagami and she'd be sidelined in favor of her. It's easy to think that a little bit of sabotage is okay when Kagami seems to have such an unfair advantage.

Unfortunately for Marinette's peace of mind, the point of 'Ikari Gozen' is to dissuade her of the notion that Kagami is fortunate in every way possible. We can see that Marinette thought that sabotaging the game was fine because Kagami had so many advantages because, as soon as she discovers that Kagami is friendless and has no connection to Adrien outside of fencing, she feels very bad for what she was trying to do. Marinette didn't actually want to hurt or upset Kagami. In 'Animaestro', Marinette didn't think about Kagami's feelings at all in relation to how Chloé's scheme might make Kagami feel, but this time she is thinking about them, she simply misjudged them at the start. She thought her purposefully throwing the contest would be a minor setback to Kagami, not what it ended up being: a betrayal by someone she was hoping to befriend.

I noted during my liveblog of this episode that Marinette's relationship with Adrien also started with a misunderstanding where Marinette first saw Adrien in a more negative light before that impression was proven to be false and they became friends. The development in 'Ikari Gozen' mirrors what happens in 'Origins' in that Marinette first has a false impression of Kagami, but is ultimately proven wrong in her assumptions and becomes friends with her. Marinette nominating herself as Kagami's friend even in her phone call with Tomoe suggests that Marinette recognized a similar need for friends in Kagami that she's seen in Adrien.

Marinette has gotten over seeing Kagami as an opponent in 'Desperada', where we see how Marinette reacts to Kagami and Adrien enjoying an inside joke together: she is miserable. Marinette recognizes the similarity between Kagami and Adrien and, rather than making her mad with jealousy, it makes her feel defeated. While Marinette's perception that Kagami was put together and perfect was taken down in 'Ikari Gozen', 'Desperada' shows us that she still thinks she can't measure up against Kagami, although now it's for the reason that she can see the connection between Adrien and Kagami and doesn't think she has what it takes to compete with that.

'Love Hunter' is the episode where this new sense of insecurity comes to a head. When Marinette's hair falls out of its usual style, it signifies her letting down her guard and enjoying both Kagami and Adrien's company, because Adrien and Kagami are both her friends at this point. However, when Marinette is reminded that there are things that Kagami and Adrien experience that she can't relate to ("It's not every day we can escape from everything they expect from us"), she hastily ties her hair back into the usual twintails, her insecurity forcing her to put her walls back up again.

Marinette is in emotional turmoil throughout the episode, allowing Adrien and Kagami to have what could constitute as an ice cream date alone at first, only to interrupt Kagami's attempt to kiss Adrien a few minutes later by whisking Kagami away to help solve the Akuma situation. This is why Marinette wanted André to pick the ice cream blend, because she started to project her relationships with Adrien and Kagami onto the ice cream too much. Marinette values her friends' happiness very high, high enough to stand aside when Kagami refers to their similarity as the reason she and Adrien are made for each other. Marinette does respond to Kagami that choices can be hard, so her standing aside is also about Marinette simply not acting at all, either to allow Kagami to go for Adrien unchallenged or to pursue Adrien herself. The choice between Adrien and Kagami was too much for her. Marinette being indecisive is of course a major character flaw I've discussed on this blog repeatedly, so the idea that it might have played a role here too makes sense from my perspective.

So far the Marinette and Kagami arc has been about Marinette learning not to subject other people to the kind of treatment she gets from Chloé, overcoming the temptation to turn into a bully to protect herself, and also making friends along the way. But there is still more ground that can be covered with this immensely interesting relationship. This is actually why I feel we really need to see Kagami and Marinette interacting after Kagami and Adrien break up. Because Marinette still has unresolved feelings about Kagami and not just Adrien after the season three finale.

#miraculous ladybug #miraculous tales of ladybug and chat noir #marinette dupain cheng #kagami tsurugi #ml meta #long post #popular

225 notes · View notes

spiltscribbles · 3 years

Note

Prompt: remus and lily as siblings or half siblings or biological family in any capacity pls 🥺

Oh God!!! Baby!!!🥺🥺😭 This is such a favorite AU of mine!! I’m literally— sorta— writing a To All The Boys I’ve Loved Before AU right now and they are the bestest siblings in that!!! They share a little sister and they are just so cute!! And Petunia is conveniently off in university oaiwefjoiaswejfiogreghoij And I just love Remus and Lily both so much it hurts!!! And so I wanna spit out a bullet point Ficlet at you! And I’m not even sorry just because I love you so endlessly for tossing this into my inbox foiwaeifmkaeoirfgjieoarujoidkioweajgh

So like in my head, becs that Voldy bitch doesn’t know how to actually world build, the Muggle born children who get their Hogwarts letters, are also invited to join this like support group for ordinary folks with magical children. It’s like a thing that’s held in the Ministry of magic over in London once a month, and the parents are taught about the Wizarding world while their children kind of go to this separate room to intermingle and read Hogwarts; A History with one another, and just vibe, because pure bloods and those close to that have always sorta known one another and such, so this is a nice way for the Muggle borns not to feel so excluded.

So the thing is, obviously Lyall was a wizard, but also we all know I don’t fuck with him lmfao. So I picture that after he leaves for the final time when Remus is around nine, and finalizes the divorce with Hope, she— being the bad bitch that she is, just marches to the ministry with her half-blood, werewolf son, and demands to learn everything about the world he’s part of, because she refuses to let him be deprived of anything.

Eventually she becomes one of the tutors for the adult section because she’s such a quick study— being a professor herself back in Cardiff and just being an all around bombshell tbh. So one day, in February of 1970, there’s this ginger haired, northerner who stumbles in with his daughter who looks so much like him that it’s crazy— dimples and smile and upturned nose. Though she has her mother’s eyes, who had past away when she was only seven from a freak car accident.

And when he first shake’s Hope’s hand, he’s like kind of mind boggled over how beautiful she is, and thinks that maybe all wizards just put on some sort of charm to look unearthly, till he finds out that she’s as Muggle as he is towards the end of his visit. And he is just entirely love struck tbh.

And for the next couple months or so, he kind of just yearns from afar, and then spends the ride home to Cokeworth listening to Lily’s excited chortling about her friend Remus who’s apparently a half blood and who likes the same treats as her and knows how to draw things so amazingly, and it isn’t until like May, when he ambles to the other room and realizes that Remus is actually Hope’s fucking son, and he already knows that she said she began this group after separating from her husband who was a wizard himself. So Lily’s father— Nate— quite literally just shoots his shot and asks if Lily would like to get ice cream with her new friend since Petunia won’t be coming back from there Grams’s house till late, and Hope sorta smirks from over the kids’ heads because she sees exactly what he’s doing and is impressed that he’s finally done something for fuck’s sake.

And like obviously they fall hard for one another, and they probs get married like Lily’s second year at Hogwarts.

Wait, just Lily’s you ask??

Yes my beautiful duckling, because plot twist!! (We lovee plot twists!!!)

In this AU i picture that McGonagall kind of visits during the summer months leading up to the children’s first year at Hogwarts, just to give them some supplementary readings and answer the questions for their future schooling, and when Dumbledore tells her about Remus’s full situation with his lycanthropy and all, she does some research, and figures out how Beauxbatons is much, MUCH more accommodating to “dark” creatures, and she’s already pretty chummy with Hope and knows that she’s actually a French citizen herself, the daughter of Algerian immigrants. So Remus technically has the possibility to attend Hogwarts or Beauxbatons, and so Hope and Remus talk on it long and hard, and she knows he’s already become fast friends with Lily and their thick as thieves with one another, but it’s also just so much safer for him.

So the week before Lily is set to go off to King’s Cross, they fly over to France and they get Remus settled in his dorm abroad.

I think while they’re away, Lily and Remus actually somehow become closer, because their parents are still dutifully dating and neither of them are all that familiar with their surroundings, so they send one another so many fucking letters through that first term, that the owls of their schools always give them the dirtiest looks lmfao. And they really catch on like a house on fire, like it’s one of those relationships that is just innate? Like you know when you have a best friend you guys kind of just slip into one another lives? Like even when you don’t talk for a while or whatever, it’s just natural<3 <3

So neither of them ever spend the hols of winter or spring in Hogwarts/Beauxbatons, becs that’s when they really get to vibe.

They tell one another the different cool charms they’ve learned, and hate that they can’t show them with their actual wands yet. And they watch all their favorite films and almost adopt this secret language that’s only the quirk of their brows and twitch of the lips, and Petunia hates how freakily attuned they are with one another and sneers at them for being such freaks in all aspects. Also in this AU Lily fucks off from Snape wayyyy sooner, because instead of having to deal with that nasty, bigoted, slime ball she has the cutest and funniest and most amazing bestie in Remus!

And before Hope and Nate exchange vows in the winter of their second year, the little family of five go to this tiny park that’s all lush grassland and a shiny jungle gym and a pair of swings tucked away by trees, and they sit at this picnic table, and Hope— with her steady, ever buoyant voice, explains to them why she and Remus decided to send him to Beauxbatons instead of Hogwarts, and Petunia is like gawking in fright, and Nate looks sort of distressed, but Lily just cocks her head and shrugs her shoulders, because it’s still Remus— her closest companion Rem— and nothing could change that. So she takes his hand from where it’s fiddling with a splintered piece of wood on the tabletop and she squeezes it tightly, watches him glance up at her with the late summer wind billowing in his tawny curls and the fear in his honey eyes, and she simply tells him that it doesn’t matter. And Lily will never forget the way his features spasm at that, going suddenly loose and bright and thankful, and then Nate probably tousles his hair and kisses Hope’s temple and shyly asks how they should accommodate once they move in with one another.

And that park becomes sorta special tbh.

It’s in that alcove with the swings and trees where Lily and Remus go when things are becoming too much, or they would just like to escape the world by one another’s side.

It’s where they tried their first cigarettes that Remus had gotten from an older bloke in Beauxbaton’s when they were thirteen and feeling adventurous. And where they go to listen to the releases of their favorite albums, and when Remus told Lily that he’s gay for the first time before leaving to both their fourth years and it’s like one of those spots they both think of and feel golden.

Oh God! Imagine how cute of a celebration that Nate and Hope hold for them both becoming prefects!!! Hope and Nate definitely insist on some sort of summer todo! And they invite their friends and all that jazz and OMFG what if Lily’s wearing some sorta powder blue sundress that matches Remus’s oxford shirt and they both are grimacing in all the photos and are just not thriving foieajfoierjgiearfoijsdkgxh But like they would be doted on rotten that whole day! This is so cute! OMFG! And this probs means James became Prefect as well and so Remus gets to tease her when he sends her some sort of congratulations letter and she’s totally blushing and trying to hide her grin, and Lily retaliates by kicking his ankle tbh bahaha

Okay also now I’m thinking of like Lily’s like fifth year, and her Muggle studies class is doing some sort of seminar to see if these idiots can actually survive in a totally Muggle area without a lick of magic, so like it’s spring hols, and guess who she’s partnered up with???

Cookies for you because we all know she had to work with James and Sirius lmfao!!!

And she’s totally still trying to hide her crush on James— who’s nearly always leering and winking her way— and she might actually punch Sirius’s face simply because he’s such a smug bastard, and being from a working class family like herself, she’s like always ready to fight preppy rich boys tbh

So James and Sirius decide to plan out the simulation in her house that’s right outside Cardiff and Remus is cackling the entire morning before they’re set to arrive because she’s so pissy about it lmfao

Okay so like obviously the boys end up taking the port key and land in front of her place and it’s Remus who answers the door, still painted with humor because Lily was just screaming about “if Potter brings that insufferable snitch here I’ll bloody shove it up his arse” and James is immediately on the defense because Lily’s only ever talked about her sister and brother who live with her at home, and this dude is golden where she’s pale and has curls over her straight hair and just, obviously they’re not related by blood at all. And for his part, Sirius is like *Oh! Oh! Oh! Pretty!!! Pretty boy!! Muggle boy? Pretty Muggle boy!*

But Remus obviously knows who they are straight away, so he like waves them inside before rounding to the stairs and calling for her to stop clogging the toilet or something else mortifyingly embarrassing, and Lily promises to put like pickles in the next set of face masks that they do because she knows how fucking allergic he is to them, and she wants her chuckles damn it!!

“Potter— Black,” is how she greets them with a derisive sort of glower that Remus can completely see through, so he has to excuse himself while laughing over to the kitchen. “You’ve met my delightful brother I see.”

And James’s entire posture relaxes and he’s back to grinning like a dope, and the only weird part is that Sirius has got on the very same face, *Pretty Muggle boy is Evan’s brother* So like they are both scary levels of elated, rip.

But sucks to be Sirius because Remus leaves after that to meet up with a friend from town who’s also the best dealer tbh, and so he has to deal with James’s awful levels of flirting with Lily while they scrounge up their itinerary to send their professor for the seminar type thing, and he doesn’t even have a pretty distraction XS

But Lily does force Remus to come along with her on the trip to London because “On God, if I spend a day alone with those bellends by myself I will punch a wall”

And it is literally the worst, but best double date/first date that’s full of Sirius and James fucking up with everything— including asking some poor Tesco employee where are their fudgeflies and giving a homeless man a hand full of galleons and James’s snitch somehow ending up in the meaty hands of some kid at the tube. But also tbh it’s hella cute when Lily lets James give her his jacket when they’re walking along the Thames and it’s getting chilly, and when Remus lets Sirius share his stick of cotton candy and they both sorta stare at the sugar on each of their lips.

But then they go to some tiny museum, and while they’re looking at a impressionist piece, Sirius is totally trying to show off to Remus and is explaining how he could turn the bench their sitting on into a really nice bouquet of Lupins, and in the middle of his stupid showboating, Remus lightly corrects him on some facet of Gamp’s law, and Sirius freezes— shocked still— and he’ sort of gaping like an idiot, before Lily stops his blustering with a scoff “He’s a damn wizard also you arse.”

And Sirius is floundering for the rest of the evening, and he has so many questions, but they all die on his lips every time he glances over at Remus and he’s just smirking at him with this electric glint in his golden eyes

So obviously when they’re back at Hogwarts he pesters Lily every second of every day about Remus, and why he’s not at Hogwarts. “None of your fucking business.” And asking where Remus goes instead. “Beauxbatons, thankfully far away from you.” and he asks her about a thousand other questions that Lily either scoffs at or simply cuffs him around the head for daring to even try getting his address.

And she pokes fun about the situation to Remus and tells him how much more of an idiot he’s acting like, and how hilarious it all is. And she’s shocked when he responds to her letter merely by saying, “Hah- he’s cute.”

And so obviously she shoots back a reply that’s a letter of all his worst traits, mainly that he’s an arrogant toerag, and that he’s a posh idiot who could probably live off his inheritance for three lifetimes without blinking, and about how he doesn’t date anyone for longer than a couple months, and how he’s practically brothers with James bloody Potter, and yet again, Remus just tells her, Hah- he’s cute, before mildly moving to talking about his latest charms paper and how he’s been asked to be their DADA’s professors TA next year, and how Andrew keeps trying to try again with him but Remus would rather poke his eyes out with a spork.

So Lily is totally fuming when she recognizes that she’s lost and begrudgingly gives Sirius Remus’s info, after telling him lowly and with her most menacing glower, “IF you fuck around with my brother I will murder you without a flinch.” And she’s quite literally five feet nothing to Sirius’s broad, six-foot frame, but he knows that she could do it with a snap of the finger, and he promises that it’s not just a gag on his end. And Lily actually believes him.

So Remus and Sirius begin writing to one another a sickening amount, like so steadfastly that it gives Lily a complex whenever she finds Sirius waiting at the Owlry every Wednesday morning for the bird that arrives with two letters tied to it’s leg, one for each of them.

And God, one time, right before they let out for summer hols, Lily accidentally takes the one marked for Sirius— and holy christ!!!, She did not need to know just what exactly her brother has been getting up to in the sex department of things— like she legit contemplated using a memory charm on herself JFC

And Sirius probably ends up on their doorstep again in late July, with James at toe, and somehow their is a small harmony painted between the four of them, and it’s by Christmas of sixth year when James and Sirius begin talking about how amazing it’ll be when they’re actually in-law brothers, and Lily blames Remus for everything when she’s pretending to be cross over it, but then James puts his arm around her shoulders, and she sees how gentle Sirius is when he twines his fingers into Remus’s own, and it feels good, feels right.

It feels like something that can be forever.

Send Me A Prompt/Chat With Me💜 | My Wolfstar FIC Masterlist

#WOLFSTAR #JILY #REMUS LUPIN #SIRIUS BLACK #JAMES POTTER #LILY EVANS POTTER #LILY EVANS #MARAUDERS #WOLFSTAR FLUF #THE HARRY POTTER SERIES #HARRY POTTER SERIES #HEADCANONS #HEADCANONS BY LEN #spilt ink

121 notes · View notes

hb-pickle · 3 years

Text

Frozen 2: Dangerous Secrets Review Essay

Why Sensitivity Readers Are Always Necessary

Before I start, I would like to make it very clear that this review only critiques the aspects of colonialism and representation in Frozen 2: Dangerous Secrets. I will not be discussing the romance, side characters or anything else like that. Also, I would like to make it very clear that none of this review is meant to personally attack or berate the author @marimancusi . I firmly believe that none of the cultural insensitivities in her book were intentional, but were simply the result of a non-indigenous, white author writing about experiences she could not personally relate to. My only goals for writing this review is to show the author how her book unintentionally perpetuated many harmful and outdated ideas about racism and colonialism, and to convince her and Disney to contact and hire sensitivity readers before they create content about vulnerable racial/ethnic groups.

I would also like to state that I am an African American woman and not indigienous, so I have personal experiences with racism and colonialism towards black people, but not towards indigenous communities. So if any indigenous people see problems or inaccuracies with my review, I would be happy to listen and put your voice first.

- - -

To summarize quickly (with full context), Frozen 2: Dangerous Secrets is about Iduna, a young indigenous Northuldra girl (oppressed racial/ethnic minority) who was suddenly and violently separated from her home and family when her people were betrayed and attacked by the Arendellians (colonizing class). As a result of the massacre battle between the two groups, Iduna is permanently separated from her home (caused by a magical and impenetrable mist) and forced to spend the rest of her days in the kingdom of Arendelle, where she lives in almost constant fear of being exposed as a Northuldran (for the townsfolk are violently bigoted against them). Naturally, this book contains many many depictions of racial hatred and bigotry along with exploring the mindset and fears of a young girl dealing with the brunt of colonialism. Unfortunately, it tends to fumble the seriousness of these situations (out of ignorance or out of a desire to keep the book lighthearted/to center the romance plotline), which results in an overall detrimental message to the audience. The missteps I specifically want to unpack are as follows.

- (1/5) Severs Iduna’s connection to her culture before the story even begins (making us feel less empathetic for the Northuldra’s plight)

I’m not 100% certain, but my understanding is that the purpose of making Iduna a double orphan was to make her more sympathetic and to give her a reason to save Agnarr’s life (to have compassion for a stranger, the same way her adoptive family did for her). In theory this is perfectly fine, quickly establishing that the audience should like Iduna is smart and so is rationalizing her most important, life changing decision. But in practice this only functions to distance Iduna from her culture and family and make the reader care less about the Northuldra. This is because it takes away Iduna’s chance to have a strong, palpable relationship with a specific Northuldra character, which would humanize their entire group (even if only in memory). The only Northuldra characters that Iduna mentions more than once is her mother and Yelena. Both of these characters are mentioned rarely, neither have a close relationship with Iduna (her mother dying 7 years before the events of the story), nor do either of them have any specific personality traits or lines of dialogue (Yelena has exactly one line and it is about knitting). The goal of a story about a child unjustly stolen from her home should be to explore why those acts of violence were so horrific. The very first step of exploring that is to humanize the victims. After all, why would a reader care about the injustices done to a group of people who barely exist? How are we, the readers, supposed to feel bad for Iduna and mourn her family like she does, if we barely know them?

We needed more of Iduna’s memories. We needed to learn about her friends, her family, her mother and Yelena. What were they really like? How did they love Iduna? What were their last words to her before she never saw them again? Didn’t Iduna care for them? Did she worry about their well being and miss their comforts? We need to hear about how she bonded with them, how they made her feel, how they made her laugh or cry. How they taught her to hunt, forage, and knit so that when we hear how the Arendellians speak of them, with such ignorance and contempt, we are as truly disgusted and offended as we should be.

- (2/5) Equates Iduna and Agnarr’s suffering, aggressively downplaying the brutality of colonialism (even to the point of prioritizing Agnarr’s needs)

First things first, I understand that Dangerous Secrets is a modern day romance novel for older children/teens so an equal power balance between Agnarr and Iduna is preferred (which I agree with). But, this balance extends past the romance and personalities and into attempting to portray Agnarr and Iduna’s suffering as equal. This is best exemplified in these lines of internal dialogue by Iduna:

I did not deserve to be locked away from everyone I loved. But Agnarr did not deserve to die alone on the forest floor because he’d had a fight with his father. Whatever happened that day to anger the spirits and cause all of this, it was not his fault. Nor was it mine. And while we might be on different sides of this fight, we had both lost so much. Our friends. Our family. Our place in the world. In an odd way we were more alike than different. (Page 67)

All of this is technically true, up until the very last line about them being “more alike than different”. Agnarr and Iduna’s lives are nothing alike. Iduna is a poor, indigenous girl who had everyone she ever knew or loved either killed or permanently taken away from her, stolen from her home and forced to spend the rest of her life living in a foreign kingdom rife with people who actively, consistently threaten her safety. While Agnarr, on the other hand, is a white male member of the royal family, heir to the throne, and extremely wealthy. The novel doesn’t shy away from this (at least on Agnarr’s part), and doesn’t hesitate to show us that Agnarr is royalty and will never experience what Iduna has to endure. But it behaves like Agnarr’s relatively petty, temporary, and incomparable ills are just as heartbreaking as Iduna’s and focuses significantly more time and energy building up empathy for him and his woes. This extends from small things like the book asserting that the few times Agnarr needed to stay in his castle, to avoid political assasination was comparable to Iduna’s family being trapped in the mist (against their will for 30+ years); to more concerning issues like claiming Agnarr’s separation from his parent’s is just as distressing as Iduna’s separation from her entire people. Now fleshing out Agnarr and his relation to parents is a good thing, since it can provide crucial character motivation and make him more of a well rounded character. But when Agnarr’s suffering is presented as more relevant and worthwhile discussing than Iduna’s it, by extension, implies that the frustrations of an affluent life and being separated from parents that did not value you in the first place (Runeard and Rita) is somehow more or just as pressing as facing the brunt of the most violent and terrifying forms of colonialism. Agnarr’s story may be tragic, but it is nowhere near as horrific as Iduna’s and the book should acknowledge and reflect that.

- (3/5) Has a rudimentary understanding of racism and how if affects the people who perpetuate it

Dangerous Secrets’ understanding of racism (and how to deal with it) is summed up very concisely in a conversation between Lord Peterssen and young Prince Agnarr. Agnarr asks his senior why the Arendellian towns people are so obsessed with blaming magic and the spirits (magic and spirits being an allegory for real world characteristics that are unique to one culture or people) for all their problems, and the following exchange insues:

“People will always need something to blame for their troubles”, he explained. “And magical spirits are an easy target-since they can’t exactly defend themselves… “So what do we do?” I asked. “We can’t very well fight against an imaginary force!” “No. But we can make the people feel safe. That’s our primary job.” (Page 132-133)

Though Lord Peterssen is supposed to be a flawed character, who puts undue pressure onto Iduna and Agnarr to uphold the status quo of Arendelle, this line is (intentional or not) how the book actually views racism and how it expects the characters (and reader by extension) to deal with/understand it. Bigotry is portrayed as something that is inevitable and something that should not be quelled or disproven, but accommodated for. Agnarr, as king next in line, should not worry about ending the unjust hatred in his kingdom, or killing the root of the problem (the rumors). Instead he should tell his people their suspicions are correct, and put actual resources and time into abetting their dangerous beliefs. Even later on, at the very end of the novel, Agnarr treats the prolific bigotry and magic hatred of his people as an unfortunate circumstance he has found himself in, and not something that he, as king, has the power or civic responsibility to change.

This could have been an excellent line of flawed logic, representing how privileged people tend to avoid/project the blame of racism, and prioritize order and peace over justice. Which would work especially well for Peterssen and Agnarr since they are both high class nobles with the power to actually make a difference, instead choosing to foist responsibility onto Iduna (in the case of Peterssen) who was only a child, relatively impoverished, and the one with the most to lose if she spoke out. Or, in the case of Agnarr, they do disagree with the fear mongering, but only for personal reasons (Agnarr because his father used it as an excuse for his lies); refusing still to actually work to improve his society. But the key detail is that this needs to be portrayed as wrong, which this book fails to do. Agnarr nor Peterssen are ever expected to disprove the townsfolk’s bigotry in any meaningful, long lasting sense, Peterssen is never confronted seriously for his cowardice and victim blaming, and Agnarr is never criticized for his anti-bigotry being based entirely on his own personal parental issues and not in the fact that he knows with 100% certainty that the Northuldra are innocent.

This flawed understanding of bigotry also applies to how the book depicts the Arendellian townsfolk, who are awarded no accountability whatsoever for their actions. The townspeople spend the entire book threatening to kill any Northuldra they find and Peterssen, Agnarr, and Iduna are constantly afraid that they would immediately destabilize the government if they found out their king was close to one. But somehow this does not translate into any contempt or distrust in our protagonist or the reader. In this novel, we meet only four openly bigoted individuals: the two orphan children playing “kill the Northuldra”, the purple/pink sheep guy (Askel), and the allergy woman (Mrs. Olsen). The orphans are dismissed wholesale because they are literal children who also lost both of their parents in the battle of the dam (so they were killed by Northuldra; somewhat justifying their anger). And the other two townsfolk are joke characters, whose claims are so unbelievable that they aren’t supposed to be seen as a serious threat. Not only that but Askel is rewarded for his bigotry when Iduna offers he sell his pink sheep’ wool (which he thought was an attack from the Northuldra) as beautiful pink shawls. These are the only specific characters that show any type of active bigotry in the entire kingdom besides Runeard, whomst is dead. Every other character is either an innocent and friendly bystander (the woman at the chocolate shop, the new orphans Iduna buys cookies for, the farmers Iduna sells windmills too, the people at Agnarr and Iduna’s wedding), has no opinion at all (Greda, Kai, Johan), or is portrayed as someone who is just innocently scared and doesn’t know any better (the rest of the townsfolk, especially those who fear the Northuldra are the sun mask attackers). Even the King of Vassar, the most violent and dangerous living character of the story, doesn’t even hold any prejudice against the Northuldra, and simply uses their imagery to scare Arendelle into accepting his military rule.

So according to this book, bigotry and racism come not from the individual, but from society and the system you live in, but also not really because the people in charge of that system (Peterssen, Agnarr, and eventually Iduna) are also virtually guiltless. This, of course, is not true at all. Racism is a moral failing which exists on all levels of society, from individuals who chose to be bigoted, to others who tolerate bigotry as long as it doesn’t inconveniance them. It's not just an inevitable fear of what you don’t understand, but an insidious choice to be ignorant, fearful, and unjust to the most vulnerable members of society. It is malicious and irrational, and the more you tolerate it, the more dangerous it becomes.

- (4/5) Presents Iduna’s assimilation to the dominant culture as a positive

As the romance plotline of Dangerous Secrets really starts to get underway, Iduna’s life seems perfect. Her romance with Agnarr blossoms, she has her own business, and is becoming accustomed to her new surroundings (in order to make the coming drama more exciting). This is her internal dialogue as she returns to town one day:

I couldn't imagine, at the time, living in a place like this. But now it felt like home. It would never replace the forest I grew up in… But it had been so long now, that life had begun to feel almost like a dream. A beautiful dream of an enchanted forest… There was a time I truly believed I would die if I could never enter the forest again. If the mist was never to part. But that time, I realized, was long gone. And I had so much more to live for now… And my dreams were less about returning to the past and more about striking out into the future- (Page 128-129)

Again, I understand that the point of Iduna being content with her life like this is to be the “calm before the storm” of the romance arc, but the fact that Iduna is almost forgetting her old life, and that it is presented as a good thing, is extremely distressing. At only 12 years old Iduna lost everything she ever had besides the literal clothes on her back; she would never forget that. Not only that, but the real world implication that a minority should cope with their societal trauma by spending the rest of their life working for said society that unapologetically wants to kill them (and get a boyfriend) is horribly off putting. It strikes a nerve with many people of color and indigenous readers because telling minorities to “get a job” or “get a life” (especially when said jobs ignore/are separate from their own cultures) is commonly used by privileged folk to blame them for their own dissatisfaction/unhappiness with the society they live in. The idea is that minorities should continue to suffer, but busy themselves, so they stop criticizing dominant culture and defending/uplifting their own. This is part of cultural erasure, and the book plays into it, by commending Iduna for “having more to live for” than cherishing/wanting to return to her original home, for prioritizing Arendelle over herself, and for forgetting her heritage/playing it off as nothing but a dream. Devaluing indigenous culture like this, especially through an indigenous character, is extremely disrespectful.

Not only that, but it’s completely antithetical to Iduna’s character, since she claims to be proud and unashamed of who she is, but happily assists the townsfolk who hate her, and rarely mentions her heritage besides when she’s caught in a lie or actively being persecuted. This is another failing brought on by the lack of understanding of how racism affects its victims. Being a minority plays into all the decisions you make and all the interactions you have; it’s not something that you can just turn off unless directly provoked. Iduna’s would be constantly fretting about who she talks to, and who she is with because if she gets too close to the wrong person, she could have put herself in serious danger.

Nowhere is this lack of realism more obvious than the scene directly after Iduna rejects Johan’s proposal. Iduna spends a long time thinking about whether marrying Johan or Agnarr would be better for her, and not even once does being a Northuldra play into her decision making. This should’ve been front and center because your husband can be your strongest ally or your greatest enemy. If Iduna was outed, what could she do to defend herself against or alongside her partner? If she was ever going to consider marrying for anything other than true love, her chances of survival should have been her first priority.

What I’m not saying is that there needs to be a complete overhaul of Iduna’s personality, or that she needs to be frightened and suspicious at all times. Iduna can project strength and caution. She can be kind to the townspeople, but reserved in order to keep a safe distance. She should cling to the few pieces of her culture she has left, despite what society tells her to do. Or, on the exact opposite side of the coin, Iduna’s personality could be kept relatively the same, but the book needs to acknowledge that this is a terrible thing. Iduna is being assimilated against her will to a society that doesn’t value her and that is a tragedy. In a futile attempt at survival, Iduna buries her culture away and lives her life as a perfect, contributing, model Arendellian citizen, but they terrorize her regardless.

- (5/5) Negatively depicts the indigenous Northuldra as murderous invaders

In Chapter 34 of Dangerous Secrets it is revealed, during a flashback, that Iduna lost her parents and her entire family group in an attack by a separate group of Northuldra invaders. This scene is completely unacceptable regardless whatever narrative/story purpose it was supposed to achieve for several reasons. Firstly, because this book is about colonialism, which we as a society already know the consequences of and how colonizers, in an attempt to rid themselves of blame, react to it. One of the very first things a colonizer/privileged class will do to make themselves feel less guilty for the atrocities they perpetuate is bring up acts of violence/wrongdoing on behalf of the oppressed. The sole purpose of this is always to make the victims look less sympathetic and less deserving of justice, equality, or attention because “they’re not so innocent, they did wrong things too, so maybe we shouldn't feel that bad for them/maybe they got what they deserved”. And of course this mindset is absolutely horrific and unforgivable when you’re talking about a group of white colonizers actively trying to destroy and indiscriminately slaughter a large group of indigenous people, including their children.

The second reason is because the author is a non-indigenous white person, and therefore benefits directly from the downplaying of indiginous pain. I’m sure this wasn’t intentionally malicious on her part, but that’s what she wrote; these are the consequences.

((Also the fact that one of the Northuldra groups are murderous invaders means that Iduna was actively lying the entire book about the Northuldra being peaceful.))

- - -

In conclusion, any book that incorporates the culture and experiences of a group the author is not a part of, should absolutely hire a sensitivity reader to ensure accuracy and respect. As a Frozen superfan myself, I actually enjoyed this book a lot and I was delighted to see the lore, worldbuilding and romance. I loved Agnarr, Lord Peterssen, and Princess Runa and certain pieces of dialogue and imagery were beautiful. This novel just desperately needed someone to check it. All this book needed was a bit more of a critical gaze on some of the character decisions and motivations (I truly believe Agnarr and Peterssen would have been even more intriguing and likeable characters if they were actually called out, and given time to reflect on their hypocrisies) and it would’ve been much stronger and more palatable to diverse audiences. Some elements did need to be cut out completely, but a sensitivity reader would’ve easily been able to point this out and offer alternatives that preserved the spirit of the novel, without including any offensive and distasteful implications.

#dangerous secrets #Frozen 2: Dangerous secrets #agduna #iduna frozen #agnarr frozen #iduna #agnarr #frozen #frozen 2 #dangerous secrets review #frozen reviews #frozen review #frozen analysis #frozen 2 analysis #Frozen 2: Dangerous Secrets Review

71 notes · View notes

girldraki · 3 years

Note

sorry, didn't mean to imply the 049 article was well written! just meant that that's where the horror aspects kinda come from (or where they would come from if the creator knew what he was doing and didn't write the blandest fucking shit) and it's weird that people are romanticizing a character whose closest analogue in the real world is bigots. like 049 doesn't say that people are infected and Then They Suddenly Get Sick, it says they're infected and thus ruined even though they're just themselves and then tries to "fix" them in a way that destroys their personhood (you can probably see the connection there?). and honestly it's amazing that djkaktus is such a bad writer he managed to fuck that concept up.

also dunno if we said in the last ask but yeah it's obvious the connection wasn't intentional. we just saw it anyway

the thing is 049 as an entity is not a piece of writing and analyzing fandom behavior around 049 based on the existing text is doomed to fail because 049 is, like, first and foremost a sociological phenomenon (LIKE WE SAID. PRETENTIOUS AS HELL.)

scp containment breach came out in 2012 and, as we said previously, immediately became the single strongest force in scp fandom. it is in no way exaggeration to say cb has done more for scp than the mainsite ever has. there are HUGE numbers of cb fans who call themselves scp fans and have never even been on mainsite. so, first of all, we have to account for that segment of the 049 fucker demographic. they arent taking the article into account because they're never gonna read the goddamn article.

second of all. the raw numbers. cb is from 2012. the 049 rewrite is from 2018. collectively, 049 has existed for 12 years, 3 of them pre-cb, 6 of them post-cb and pre-rewrite, and 3 of them post-rewrite. in this entire time, this connection did not exist, because 049 was practically a non-character (we reproduced the original article over here in a google doc. there's very little going on there). the strongest thing about him was "my cure is most effective", which you'll note is like... absolutely nothing? dust.

so point is the collective canon of 049 thirst/fixation has six heavily active years prior to the rewrite and three semi-active years prior to cb being built upon. even post-rewrite content is often heavily predicated on pre-rewrite fanon, and some people just actively refuse to acknowledge the rewrite for reasons of personal preference.

so, like, logically, there's this preexisting and vast community of people who are into 049 in a way that has absolutely nothing to do with the rewrite, and have no interest in altering their behavior to take it into account, and all available information indicates them to be the majority both chronologically and by number.

analyzing 049 fandom based exclusively on the article is doomed to miss out on a huge amount of nuance because the article is not the primary source of fandom in the same way as, say, you still really have to read meri's article to Get what's up with meri past just "clef's daughter". so you cant... really go "isnt 049 basically about bigotry so fucked up how people wanna fuck him" because the thing is. to most of the people who wanna fuck him. no hes not and they (blessed souls) dont even fucking know what a djkaktus is, thank you very much, let alone read that newfangled article that takes away his connection to 035. we're sure there's an official word for it, but it's analysis based on the idea that people are acting on data (a very specific reading, no less) that, to be honest, most of them simply do not have

#ask #anonymous #long post #AND WEVE GOT A WHOLE OTHER ESSAY ABOUT THE READING BUT. THIS IS LONG ENOUGH HUH

7 notes · View notes

canchewread · 3 years

Photo

Editor’s note: this post is part of the Recommended Reading series here on Can’t You Read; an ongoing and evolving feature that combines an easy to swipe info-graphic, a short journal, and a link to an important related discussion I’d like to share with readers.

A Culture of Predation Can’t Stop Fascist Pig Violence

In the wake of the frankly surprising (but extremely welcome) guilty verdicts in the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd, I’ve tried very hard to reign in my cynicism. After all, the conviction of a cop for murder “in the line of duty,” let alone a white cop who murdered an African American man with an impoverished background, is about as common as a goddamn unicorn fart, and on that account alone the verdict is worth commemorating, if not necessarily celebrating.

While it would be unspeakably obtuse to suggest that the verdict represented some sort of positive justice, it’s also undeniable that many feel this moment may indeed be a starting point; a chance to at least begin to imagine what a positive justice for African Americans might look like. In particular numerous observers have pointed to the very public crumbling of the proverbial “blue wall” of silence, the fact that Chauvin’s fellow police officers passionately testified against him with the whole world watching, as a positive omen for the future of police reform.

Unfortunately I (and many other observers) have doubts about this position. I don’t mean to be a downer, but the truth is that nobody, not even immunized murderpigs and their commanders, can justify the horrifying video of Chauvin mindlessly executing George Floyd over the course of nine and a half minutes. Faced with the choice of openly embracing their own “little Eichmanns” in front of an outraged public, the Blue Meanies decided that ultimately it wasn’t worth protecting a fuck up like Derek Chauvin. The cost, both to his fellow thug cops, and the profession of policing as a whole, would simply have been too damn high to justify the reward.

The sad and horrifying truth here is that if Derek Chauvin had simply shot George Floyd, instead of casually kneeling on his neck for almost ten minutes, he’d probably be a free man today; just like so many cracker murderpigs before him. Furthermore, even this smallest of concessions probably wouldn’t have happened without months of nationwide protests conducted under a state of constant assault by violent, openly rioting police officers. That last reality is certainly not lost on fascists and neoliberal authoritarians; why else do you think reactionary lawmakers are rushing to pass legislation that criminalizes mass protest against racialized police violence?

Still, you can’t blame folks for hoping; hope can be a good thing if it gives you the strength and courage to continue a seemingly impossible fight for actual justice. Perhaps some long day from now we will look back on this moment and say “and the conviction of Derek Chauvin was the point when the wave ultimately broke, and the tide of cracker police violence finally rolled back” - even if it’s clear that these convictions, by themselves, do not have the power to enact the change we so desperately need.

Where I can and will find fault however, is with those deluded and disingenuous souls who have used this moment to once again champion the doomed cause of police reform; blithely ignorant or willfully oblivious to the fact that police reforms already failed to prevent the murder of George Floyd, and so many others like him. The bald truth is that the current establishment movement towards police reform is about maintaining the power and funding of the very same violent uniformed thugs who’re murdering poor people on behalf of the capitalist state in the first place; that’s why nobody is talking about removing qualified immunity for police officers, and that’s why even some cops themselves are coming around to the idea of reform at this late a date. In many ways, the real importance of the movement to “Defund the Police” is that the mere threat of taking away the sweet filthy ducats that pay murderpig salaries has already shifted the carceral establishment’s position towards bargaining; albeit, in bad faith.

The road to neofeudalist hell is paved with dark intentions however, and what establishment reformers, even and perhaps especially those who’re prepared to acknowledge the fundamentally racialized aspects of police violence, aren’t prepared to discuss in the open is the nature and purpose of policing itself in a capitalist society. There is no public examination of why it is that we keep hiring folks who turn out to be violent white supremacists to be police; and there certainly will be no discussion about the ways class relationships intersect with race through the designed function of racialized policing.

Despite the pro-police propaganda you’ve been fed all your life to suggest otherwise, the vast majority of what police actually do in America is to protect the wealth, property, and feelings of affluent white people and the corporations they own. Far from solving major crimes and preventing violence, modern policing in the Pig Empire revolves around nuisance violations, so-called broken windows policing, and other methods of harassing poor people for minor infractions of the law; remember, the police encounter that lead to the murder of George Floyd started over the purchase of cigarettes and a dodgy twenty dollar bill. The reason murderpigs can get away with violently assaulting protestors and journalists who threaten the established order is because that is precisely what they’re being paid to do, and indeed what their predecessors before them have always been paid to do.

On the surface, this class and capitalism analysis may appear to create a tension with the narrative that white supremacy and racism are also driving the crisis of police violence, but that’s really just about the same old establishment spin. As I’ve discussed in numerous prior essays, you simply cannot separate capitalism from white supremacy, or even racism, because bigoted ideas are propagated and spread for the specific purpose of marking out certain marginalized groups for exploitation and highly-lucrative (for some) repression.

Do you want to know what systemic racism in policing really looks like? It looks like hiring murderpigs to repress the poor, knowing full well that due to centuries of slavery and exploitation, the nonwhite and particularly African American population will be vastly overrepresented in the targeted communities. It looks like a supposedly colorblind war on drugs, the ongoing use of demonstratively racist stop and frisk practices, and expanded powers for your community’s “gang squad” in pretty much any neighborhood that just happens to be predominantly Black. It looks like literally profiting from these practices in ways that are sometimes extremely brazen and obvious, but sometimes hidden from everyday sight; even if they’re hardly much of a secret. The fact that the police are ultimately enforcers for the capitalist ruling class, also makes them enforcers of the white supremacist order that capitalism is so dependent upon in our society; there is no contradiction involved here.

Look; you don’t get rid of fascist murderpigs and white supremacists in law enforcement by throwing more money at nazi cops. Joe Biden can summon up all the pretty words he likes, but you can’t address the racialized nature of police violence without fundamentally altering either the racialized nature of inequality in American life, or the very purpose of policing in our society; and he’s sure as shit not talking about doing any of that at all. Thus, no matter how surprised and hopeful I am after the Chauvin guilty verdicts, that sense of positivity is ultimately tempered by the realization that “nothing will fundamentally change” - and that includes cracker thug pigs executing unarmed Black men on camera.

Although they might finally be better than openly fascist Republicans, the Democrats still don’t have answers to the problem of racialized police violence because ultimately, they don’t have answers to the crisis of capitalism itself. It’s not a question of reform or changing the law; murder is already illegal, even if you’re a white cop. Inequality, and the security force violence necessary to maintain it, is a festering sore inside the American body politic, and there are indeed consequences for essentially ignoring a crisis now so obvious and enraging to the public at large.

What kind of consequences? Well, let’s ask researcher and professor Temitope Oriola who provides one terrifying answer in the public journal, The Conversation:

“The United States is at Risk of an Armed Anti-Police Insurgency“ by Temitope Oriola

Or, you know, we could just abolish the murderpigs first; your call really - but don’t expect Palooka Joe to be much help, either way.

- nina illingworth

Independent writer, critic and analyst with a left focus. Please help me fight corporate censorship by sharing my articles with your friends online!

You can find my work at ninaillingworth.com, Can’t You Read, Media Madness and my Patreon Blog

Updates available on Instagram, Mastodon and Facebook. Podcast at “No Fugazi” on Soundcloud.

Inquiries and requests to speak to the manager @ASNinaWrites

Chat with fellow readers online at Anarcho Nina Writes on Discord!

“It’s ok Willie; swing heil, swing heil…”

12 notes · View notes

juuls · 4 years

Text

Pinned: Writing Updates

Hiya folks! ^_^ With this new pinned post feature, I figured it would be a good spot to put updates on how my writing is going (or not). As most of you know, mental and physical illness and recovery keep me from writing either quickly or easily, and I know that bothers or puts off some of you. Believe me, I feel guilty a lot of the time I’m not writing, but I know that nobody wants me to feel like this is a job, that I should enjoy what I do, and I try my best to just relax and let the writing come to me. It has always been a grueling task for me, and my words fight me, but I choose to see this as a labour of love. Thank you, everyone, for your support (and for holding up my fragile, rebuilding, self-confidence/ego :P). Managing chronic pain and illnesses along with fairly rapid-cycling Bipolar II makes things a bit messy, but I keep pushing because writing (and you amazing readers) means so much to me. 💜

UPDATE September 4th: see below “Read More”

Previous update, August 21st: Still only about 2400 words into chapter 28 of Cross, and I deleted Hurricane due to reasons but will be working on it bit by bit to instead post it as a single-chapter fic later on when people aren’t so busy anymore. Means I can focus on Cross though, which is all people want from me anyway. S’all good! Looking forward to moving that story along anyway.

Still have @grlie-girl’s Mansom fic, which is an MTH-adjacent fic. But then that’s it! Then I’ll start back up on Deliverance, my Stuckony kidfic, and keep moving Cross along. :) I’ve also been doing quite a lot of brainstorming for my original fiction series, which will be a combo SciFi-Fantasy series with magic and tech both, along with an eventual triad relationship! I’m really excited for it, even if it takes me decades more to write. xD

Works in Progress:

Hanging From a Cross of Iron: Fem!Tony Stuckony, time travel and soulmate AU. Just posted chapter 27 on July 19th! Yay! I’m about 2400 words into chapter 28 and I’m forging ahead as mental and physical health allows. But I think... maybe before the end of August? Thank you, everyone, for your kindness and patience!

Stony MTH fic for @ishipallthings: Fem!Tony Stony, Pacific Rim AU. Natasha Stark/Steve Rogers (Earth-3490) Get Together fic. @sparkly-angell is awesome and helping me by being a soundboard and beta. 5-15k. Will post it all together at a later date instead of chapter by chapter.

Deliverance: Stuckony kid fic, post-Avengers but in the alternate timeline that occurs after Avengers: Endgame. Have not forgotten about this, but it dropped in priority once I sorta over-committed myself to MTH, whoops. I’ll be back to this, though. :)

Gift fic for @grlie-girl, Mansom: (Marta/Ransom) from Knives Out. Dirty, filthy, femme!Domme Sugar Mama post-canon oneshot. I may need a second account to post this pile of filthy hot lava. ;)

Recently Finished Works:

Thread Work: Stuckony wingfic featuring Tony’s sister Darcy, written for MTH.

Ten Days: PepperStuckony bodyguard AU written for MTH for @tehroserose and @astudyinsolitude-writes.

Bad: a ShockStuckony get-together, meddling matchmaker Darcy fic, written for MTH.

I will try to keep this up to date but sometimes I’ll forget. Check back occasionally to see if I’m any closer to updating! I love all of my readers and commenters, and am so blessed to have you choose to read my work. Thank you so much. So so much. I’m sorry for the wait, but I’m a comeback kid, I promise. Sending love, and be safe and healthy and good to those around you.

Love, <3 Juulna

UPDATE September 4th: I’m going to put up a separate post, probably, but what’s going on is this... I obviously have Bipolar II and have learned to ride the ups and downs pretty well in recent years, even if some things still surprise me on occasion. But what I’ve never been able to properly treat or learn to deal with is anxiety. I’ve always had GAD (general anxiety) but it’s been untreated since I had so much other shitty health to focus on. Prioritization, right? And I needed all my faculties to not end up dead at the hands or by the gun of my ex. Then, after I left, I was making strides in recovering from the severe abuse and trauma at my ex-husband’s hands, sharp tongue, and actions from July 2017 until... well, it’s still an ongoing process, but this whole year, part of 2019 too, has been a lot better on the healing front. The strides I was making helped me focus on things other than my anxiety, but after dealing with those things, the anxiety started crawling insistently in.

Didn’t help that I finally felt up to checking out what was going on in the world more often. And it’s been good for me, it has... in that I’ve become better educated in the awfulness of the world, which has allowed me to call out racists, ‘Truthers’, and other asshole bigots who remind me of my ex. The downside of all that is that I am way over-empathetic and am appalled at the absolute.... *makes incoherent helpless noises*... just, appalled at EVERYTHING. And I am afraid. And worried. And angry. And a slew of other words that I’m sure every one of you get. You’re all intelligent; you know what’s going on in the world.

And sometimes I devolve into apathy, sometimes sleepless nights (I get about 16-20 hours of sleep a WEEK right now, which should be in the 40-60 hour range, frankly), increased pain on top of the fuckton I’m already in, worsening migraines, dizziness, and the intrusive thoughts of my bipolar depression keep telling me there’s an easy way out of this all. That’s when I knew I needed to do something. So sitting down with my loving father and my caring psychotherapist, I put together a list of my symptoms, what I wanted to tackle most, what I was willing to let go, how all of it interacted (cocktail medications, which I’m already on, can be dangerous and deadly), and then put together a proposal for my doctor, who’s been my family practitioner for two decades.

When you hit the point of panic attacks weekly, and not being able to sleep, even with a double dose of your sleep medication... when you don’t want to watch the things that bring you some modicum of joy for fear of aspects reminding you about the real world... when you wish you simply didn’t exist anymore... you need help. I needed help, and I won’t shy away from discussing that in a public setting, for the simple fact that someone who reads this might need to hear that it’s not the end all be all, not the end of the line, not the end of your life. So with the support of my father and my therapist, who I spoke to last night and this morning, respectively, in advance of my doctor’s appoint this afternoon... My doctor listened attentively to me and gave me permission to go on benzodiazepines again. I will be taking one daily, the one that doesn’t have nearly as great a spike of effect, but lasts longer and steadier, and will also be taking the other, spikier one, as the equivalent of a rescue inhaler for the next panic attack.

I’m not trying to hide from what’s going on in the world. But there is a line I need to learn to respect in how much news I look for, how I consume it, and how I let myself run away with myself at any injustice I see. And fuck, there is a lot. I will still be keeping abreast of the news, still educating myself, still engaging in discussions with people I trust to be kind to my mental state as best they can in the situation, and other things. This will simply make it so I don’t devolve into an incoherent mess of a breakdown/panic attack, and most importantly it will keep me from suicide. It’s never been much of a threat for me, but lately...? Let’s just say I am a bit more concerned than usual.

Gotta love brains, eh? Mental illness sucks. But this is one way I can take control. Other ways include the Nutrisystem diet I recently started, going for regular walks with my pupper and dad, reading 42 Sci-Fi/Fantasy books and counting in 2020, breathing exercises, removing harmful elements from my life even if that pains me in the moment... I’m making progress in other areas.

But what does this mean for my writing? Well. Good question. The last few times I took the stronger of these two medications (on a more daily, vs rescue, basis), well, I didn’t write hardly at all. I have hopes for being able to write during this, with the more steady medication, but I also have to feel happy to write, and the state of the world isn’t going to give me much opportunity to feel that for months yet, if not years (go and goddamn vote)... so yeah. But I realized that I don’t put myself first in big ways like this. And this time I need to. If the writing happens, that’s wonderful. If it doesn’t? Well, I’ll settle for less anxiety and not being dead, and I hope that that’s okay with y’all. I know it’s frustrating when a favourite author takes ages to update, and I’ve always been fairly guilty of that... but you all know that I ALWAYS come back. That’s what I do. I love this community, this fandom, my beta, my readers... you make it all worth coming back to.

So please, all I ask is that you be patient with me. I’m experiencing a pretty severe mental health crisis and not holding on too solidly. But I’m thinking of you. Thinking of all of you, and just how much I appreciate you.

With love,

Juulna / Meg

#my writing #stuckony #stucky #stony #female tony stark #hanging from a cross of iron #deliverance #firecracker #marvel trumps hate #updates #status update #masterpost #of a sorts #hurricane #mth 2019

32 notes · View notes

yesperfahey · 4 years

Text

i would like to start by cutting to the chase: to all the members of any minority group i might have offended, especially people of colour, i am deeply and genuinely apologetic. as a person of colour, looking back, i definitely see the issue with what happened, and if i could take it back, i would. since i can’t, an apology shall have to suffice for the time being alongside the assurance that in the future, my actions will be better planned and better thought out.

it was not mine (or tessa’s) intention to hurt anybody. we understand why the hurt occurred, and once again, apologise for it, but the blog was never created with malicious, supremacist or derogatory intentions. it was created as a platform to reclaim and redeem the ‘pureblood’ group in hp. read: this is not me trying to explain away anything, or justifying my actions. they are still condemnable, and i take accountability for them. it is simply me trying to say that though the action wasn’t well thought out, we didn’t intend to cause any harm to any community.

i am certain hp fans know, that in most cases, the hp fanbase is vast and varied. there are headcanons for every character, fics written for every trope with every pairing, fanart created for almost all imaginable scenarios. the hp fanbase is impressive in that it takes characters whose names were but a passing mention in a comment and fleshes them out, gives them personalities, makes them beloved by the entire fandom. this creative liberty has been taken by almost every single hp fandom content creator or reader, and it is one of my absolute favourite parts of fandom.

for us, it was something similar. while we are aware that jkr represented the white supremacist groups through the pureblood ideology, we wanted to make the characters within the group more multidimensional than a troupe of slytherins brainwashed into following tom riddle’s ideology. we created mottos for every member family and we came up with houses to represent them better. read: this is still not me justifying anything, simply explaining. our plan for the blog was not to reblog a lot of posts and create a platform glorifying pureblood ideology, but to show that fandom has given these characters more dimensions through ocs, through hcs, through fanart and through imagination.

looking back, that is not a good enough reason to call it the sacred-28. the sacred 28 is in itself an ideology perpetuating a racist metaphor. it was worse taste perhaps to use toujours pur as a description. it wasn’t a well thought out decision, simply one made for the aesthetics, and for that we are sorry. it was also in incredible bad taste to have not taken the political climate into consideration, a political climate which both tessa and i are passionate about. i think that since we separate fandom from reality to a great extent, the reality of real world politics did not translate into the fandom universe within our heads. this was another unplanned decision for which we take accountability. there is no excuse, it was our fault.

there have been a lot of assumptions:

that we did this for followers. we did not. we did it because there are certain characters we are extremely passionate about, and we wanted an umbrella tag to fit them that would be unique to us and settled on this. again, it was not well thought out enough, and whether we ignored the implications subconsciously or didn’t register them is beyond my understanding. this blog was not created to say bellatrix lestrange’s pureblood mania was ideal, it was for tessa to share her love for narcissa malfoy to a wider audience, for me to develop upon sirius, for many other projects. it was to promote ocs created by our friends. it was to support lesser known blogs. the point that we missed was that we could have done all those things without delivering a message that was violent towards poc and other minority communities.

that we are white supremacists. we definitely aren’t. i am a person of colour from a previously colonised nation (which does make my ignorance on the subject of this matter doubly terrible) and my cultural identity is extremely important to me. i do not want to speak for tessa, but from what i know of her, she is far from bigoted or exclusionary.

that the only reason we took the blog down was because enough people complained. to an extent, this is true. if it had been an errant anon message, we might have passed over it. every tumblr blog has at some point received anon hate, and we might have passed it off as the same thing. i reevaluated my stance on a lot of things because some people reached out with resources, others made valid points, and because i was being deemed ‘unsafe’ for a fandom which has been my safest space. that is not something i want for anyone in this fandom: to feel unsafe, least of all because of something i have done. i encourage you to reach out in the future to people with resources, with messages which are assertive and well structured. it worked on me, and i have faith that it will work on other misguided individuals too. note: i did not write this to mean that my opinions are still the same as they were before. i meant to say that the outcry against my actions helped me see the error of them because it caused me critically reevaluate my stand on things.

that we are issuing apologies and reaching out to people because we want everything to die down and calm down and go away. that is not it. i understood where my mistake lies and i wanted to gain perspective, which is why i reached out to some people to say that i have understood and that i will try to do better. in those messages i did not apologise as i did not want my apology to be issued in two words on another person’s blog.

that we did not delete the blog because we want to come back with the same theme once more. again, not it at all. once we realised we had misstepped severely, we realised that there are definitely some very valid points in the arguments presented to us which we had failed to account for. i did not delete the blog because we put in an insane amount of work into coming up with certain aspects of it (not ideological aspects, aesthetic aspects) and i did not want all of that to disappear. if we do bring the blog back, it will not come back with the url sacred-28, the description ‘toujours pur’ or a theme so hurtful to so many. what i meant in my previous posts/dms/asks when saying the blog is ‘down for now’ is that this is probably not the end of the journey for tessa and i working as co-creators. i did not mean that it is down for now and when the political scenario improves we’ll put it back up. i meant that sacred-28 as most of you saw it, is down permanently, and the blog itself might go back up, but not as what it was– not with the same ideology or theme.

as a person of colour, i am deeply, deeply remorseful. we did not think, we acted with our excitement instead of our brains. there is no excuse, and i am not looking for one. i do take full accountability for what happened and my role in it. to the people i have hurt: i am deeply regretful.

once again, i apologise. i have actually learned and grown from this experience and i hope i do not ever repeat any aspect of this in any capacity. thank you for helping me grow,

geets.

#response #geets talks #text #apology #racism*

5 notes · View notes

adventures-in-a-world-of-fiction · 4 years

Text

Practicalities of Censorship

Every so often I see a thread cross my dashboard arguing about censorship with relation to AO3 - in particular people claiming that AO3 is bad because it allows basically any story regardless of content, that people are bad for supporting it, or that AO3 should implement some method by which problematic fics get taken down. These complaints are usually met with explanations around the history or AO3, why it was implemented the way it was, and why thinking that AO3 is fine the way it is does not equal being a pedophile. I want to tackle this from another angle - practicality.

Let's assume for the sake of this post that the people making these arguments are correct and that there are some things which shouldn't be allowed on AO3 (or an an alternative fic platform set up to be a better version of AO3 without all the bad stuff - I'll mostly be taking about "fixing" AO3 in this post but the same problems would apply to setting up a new and "safer" fic site). There are a lot of arguments against censorship to do with quality of works produced and whether this results is less good art when people are scared to produce things that might get banned, or whether there is artistic merit to works that display despicable actions. Let's just imagine for the moment that the whole argument is settled and the "let's purify AO3 for the sake of the children" crowd are correct. What would need to happen next? This isn't something I've seen addressed in these posts.

There are a lot of problems with censorship. Skipping over the ethical discussion of whether censorship is good or bad and in what circumstances it should be accepted, let's focus on two practical aspects: deciding what should and shouldn't be banned, and how you would implement such a ban. Let's start with problem one: where do you draw the line?

Let's assume we have some scale of rating from absolutely sickeningly awful deserving of destruction to perfectly clean and innocent with not the slightest thing wrong with it. Somewhere between these two endpoints is a line and everything to one side of it is bad and should be banned/blocked/deleted from AO3, etc. Everything on the other side of the line is fine and should be left available for people to read. Some things may seem easy to define. Fic A is incest porn, where a child is graphically raped in a way that's cleanly meant to titillate rather than horrify and the abuse is glorified and justified in text, and it's full of poor writing, spelling and grammar mistakes, and has no artistic merit as a work (how you judge artistic merit would need a few thousand words to explore as a subject on its own right). Let's stick that on the bad side of the line since that's the sort of thing that people on Tumblr are crying out to be banned. Fic B is a fluff fic where a character makes another character soup because they're feeling ill and they watch movies together. Nothing remotely sexual, just two adult characters being sweet to each other. So we'll put that on the good side of the line, right?

But the problem comes in deciding where that dividing line should be and what should be done about the things that sit close to the line. You could come up with some simple rules. Let's say, "Everything involving underage incest is on the bad side of the line." Seems straight-forward. But what if you have a story dealing with someone's recovery from incest and CSA? The story has a character who was abused in the past and the narrative deals with them getting therapy and overcoming their trauma. None of the abuse is shown in the text of the story, it all happens off-screen as it were, and the story sends a message that incest and CSA are bad but offers hope to former victims. Surely that story would belong on the good side of the line? So maybe we amend the rule to, "Everything involving graphic incest is on the bad side of the line." That would let us keep the story about overcoming the trauma on the good side but block anything that uses incest as porn. But is consenting incest between grown adults treated the same as abusive incest?

And what if you get a story that's more about the trauma but that has a handful of flashbacks about the rape that would count as graphic. These flashbacks are meant to be horrifying not sexually exciting. Would that be okay? Is it the intent of the scene that matters? But in that case, what happens if the author writes a scene that's intended to be horrifying but a reader interprets it as arousing? Would it be okay if the author includes a disclaimer in the notes saying that this is a terrible thing and shouldn't be done in real life? Is it the intensity of the scenes shown directly in the story? In which case, where do you draw the line between something described explicitly and something merely eluded to? Is it the precise terms used? Which terms? Or how many times those terms are use? Is a subtle allusion to an event okay? In which case, what happens with a slightly less subtle allusion?

The stories that are far away from the line are easy to place, but the ones close to it become a challenge. Any attempt to define straight-forward rules starts to fall apart quickly and you get to the point where you have to argue on a case-by-case basis for each story, which would involve a massive amount of time invested to check each of these stories and decide whether or not they're allowed. Once again the practicalities of "how would you enforce something like this?" rear their ugly head but that's a question we'll address later.

We also have the problem that where I might draw the line between the bad and the good might be different from where you would draw the line, and would be different from where someone else would draw the line. Let's go back to Fic B as described above, our perfectly innocent fluff story. I might think that's perfectly acceptable, but if those two characters are both the same gender, there will be some homophobic people who will say that it's wrong and corrupting innocents because it sends the message that homosexual relationships are good. Or even if the characters are different genders, some highly religious people might think it sends a bad message if those characters are unmarried and living together in a relationship, even if nothing explicit happens within the story. Or what if the characters are married but it's an interracial marriage? A KKK member might say that sends a bad message. Different people have a different idea of what counts as bad content.

In the real world, there have been cases of books that address racism being banned because they use the n word. Harry Potter has been banned by religious groups. According to the website www.banned-books.org.uk a sweet children's book about two penguins hatching an egg was banned by a lot of schools and libraries in the US because the two penguins are both male - even though this story was actually based on a true story. The book Black Beauty, about the experiences of a horse, was banned during the Apartheid in South Africa simply for including the word "black" in the title. If you look at that site, a lot of books have been banned for a lot of different reasons and a lot of good literature has ended up caught up in the censorship usually because religious groups objected to in on moral grounds.

You could say "don't let the bigots and racists be in charge of the censorship," but historically, when censorship has come into play in the past, the people who tend to end up the worst for it are minorities. LGBTQ+ groups and people of colour tend to get censored more than straight, white men. Stories about their experiences often deal with problematic issues and therefore they get banned. The groups that generally end up making decisions about what is and isn't okay tend to be the groups that have the most power to begin with, and the end result is silencing of minority voices. This is one reason I'm very wary of anything to do with censorship, because the people who usually end up the worse for it are those who most need their voices heard.

But let's imagine all of these problems are magically overcome and we come up with a perfectly clear set of rules about what counts as good and bad fic and the dividing line is agreed by good, rational people who aren't remotely bigoted and who are able to define the criteria for what should be banned in a way that will only ever block the harmful stuff.

We still have to deal with the practicalities of enforcement we set aside earlier. We've built our perfect set of rules to define good and bad fics and now we want to put them into practice to ban any of the awful stuff. How would you go about doing it?

We could try and get machine filters to do censorship by looking for keywords and particular tags or using more complex algorithms to judge what a piece of content is about, but this ends up with chaos like Tumblr auto-flagging a lot of perfectly clean content, or YouTube blocking videos that just happened to be by/about LGBTQ+ people. Any software based implementation would struggle because someone talking about a thing as a problem contains the same words as someone glorifying that thing, and machines tend not to be great at picking up tone. You would get a massive amount of errors with things being falsely flagged as bad and things being falsely let through despite breaking the rules.

And people would be sneaky. Someone wanting to include their graphic story wouldn't tag it as for over 18s because tagging something as for over 18s would get it banned, so they would tag it as something else. The terms "lemon" and "lime" used to describe fics by older members of fandoms started from exactly this sort of thing. Websites decided to not allow adult content so people continued to post adult content but they used the citrus scale for tagging it so people would still be able to find it. Which works when people know the terms to look for or avoid, but which doesn't work for people not in the know. Is a "lemon" or a "lime" fic more explicit? Do you know what a fic being tagged as "grapefruit" would mean? By their nature, these tags are coded, which is not great for clarity.

Any sort of system that just blanket bans key words or tags would result in people just not using those keywords and tags but posting the stuff anyway. It would actually make the situation worse because there would still be incest porn and the like, only now it wouldn't be tagged. As it stands on AO3, people use the tagging system very well and people who don't want to see the incest porn can do things like exclude that tag from searches, or just not open fics they see that have the tag. If there were rules in place to not allow anything with that tag, then people would stop using the tag, which would actually mean more people would see incest porn they didn't want to because it would no longer be tagged properly, or it would be tagged using code words which only mean something to the inside group. It would be much harder to avoid the things you don't like.

So let's say we don't let a computer decide what's breaking the rules. Let's say there is a system by which readers can flag a fic as being inappropriate to get it banned. Human beings get to decide, but what's the threshold? Does a thing get banned as soon as someone reports it? Or does it need to be flagged by multiple people to be banned? In which case fics written in tiny fandoms might slip through the cracks because not enough people are reading it to them flag it. This is also open for exploitation. Someone who takes a dislike to a particular person might encourage others to flag their fics as inappropriate, regardless of whether or not they are. Someone might create fake accounts or log in anonymously over proxies to spam a fic with flags.

And even if no one acts maliciously to abuse the system, not everyone will be careful about checking the precise and perfect rules defined to mark the difference between acceptable and unacceptable work. People will flag things incorrectly, based on their own viewpoints of what should or shouldn't be allowed, which we've already said is a problem because everyone will draw the line in different places based on their own beliefs.

So what's the alternative to a community-driven method for managing content? You could have specific people whose job it is to go through content and decide whether it adheres to the rules. Maybe a computer system or community flagging could funnel fics into a review channel where human beings check every one carefully. These people would understand the rules and be certain to always judge fics accurately according to the magically perfect rules defined earlier, which are guaranteed to only ever block bad fics but never block a good fic.

So problem solved, right? We have our perfect rules perfectly implemented.

Except where humans are employed to check whether content is acceptable or not, it involves a large number of people checking through basically the worst content out there. Some social networking sites do this sort of thing now and it can be hugely traumatising for people who do that work. It's not good for them mentally to have to be exposed over and over to the worst content being put up online. There tends to be a high turnover in those jobs because they burn out fast, and that's where people are being paid for this stuff.

A site like AO3 relies on volunteers so it would require a large number of people to volunteer to look at the darkest most gruesome content and decide if it breaks the rules or not. Either you have people who hate those sort of fics doing this out of a sense of duty to maintain the purity of the content, in which case they will probably struggle with having to read a load of stuff they really, really don't enjoy. Or you will have people volunteer because they really like those fics and this is the way for them to read them. And that probably defeats the point of doing this, because it means that the people who would be seeking out those stories anyway would be the ones reading them to see if they break the rules.

There are a lot of problems with censorship, both ethically and practically. Even if you are fully on the side of censorship from a moral standpoint, you have to address the practical concerns if you want to propose an implementation.

As it stands, I think the current system works. There is stuff on AO3 that I would not in a million years want to read, but I don't have to. AO3 is brilliant for its tagging system and I can look at the tags and nope past fics that are full of my personal squicks or that I think endorse something terrible. Readers can exclude tags they want nothing to do with or just not click on ones that include elements you dislike. You can curate your own experience, which actually works with the whole idea of everyone drawing a line in a different place. You and I will have different stories we want to avoid, and we can both choose to avoid them based on author's tagging for them, rather than some other person decreeing what is acceptable for either of us to see.

If you still think that AO3 should be blocking or banning certain content, have a think about how this would work in reality. Because when ideas like that are implemented in the real world, all manner of problems happen.

I think the fact that this post is still a couple of thousand words long with me skipping over several parts of the debate is a sign that this is not a simple problem that can be easily fixed.

#censorship #long post

9 notes · View notes

the-desolated-quill · 4 years

Text

Watchmen - Movie blog

(SPOILER WARNING: The following is an in-depth critical analysis. if you haven’t seen this movie yet, you may want to before reading this review)

A movie adaptation of Watchmen had been in development in some form or another since the graphic novel was first published back in 1987. Over the course of its two decade development cycle, being passed from filmmaker to filmmaker who each had their own vision of what a Watchmen movie should be, fans objected to the idea of a movie adaptation, describing Watchmen as ‘unfilmmable.’ Alan Moore himself condemned the effort to adapt his work, saying that Watchmen does things that can only be done in a comic book. But where there’s a will, there’s a way, and in 2009, Watchmen finally came to the big screen, directed by Zack Snyder.

I confess it took me a lot longer to write this review than I intended and that’s largely because I wasn’t sure how best to approach it. Snyder clearly has a lot of love and respect for the source material and tried his best to honour it as best he could. Snyder himself even said that he considers the film to be an advert for the book, hoping to get newcomers interested in the material. So how should I be looking at this film? As an adaptation or as an artistic tribute? More to the point, which of the three versions of the film should I be reviewing? The original theatrical cut, the director’s cut or the ultimate cut? Which best reflects Snyder’s artistic vision?

After much pondering, I decided to go with the director’s cut. The theatrical release was clearly done to make studio execs happy by keeping the runtime under three hours, but it comes at the cost of major plot points and character moments being chucked away. The ultimate cut however comes in at a whopping four hours and is arguably the most accurate to the source material as it also contains the animated Tales Of The Black Freighter scenes. However these scenes break the narrative flow of the film and were clearly not intended to be part of the final product, being inserted only to appease the fans. The director’s cut feels most like Snyder’s vision, clocking in at three and half hours and following the graphic novel fairly closely whilst leaving room for artistic licence.

Now as some of you may know, while I’m not exactly what you would call a fan of Zack Snyder’s work, I do have something of a begrudging respect for him due to his willingness to take creative risks and attempt to tell more complex, thought provoking narratives that don’t necessarily adhere to the blockbuster formula. Films like Watchmen and Batman Vs Superman prove to me that the man clearly has a lot of good ideas and a drive to really make an audience think about what they’re watching and question certain things about the characters. The problem is that he never seems to know how best to convey those ideas on screen. In my review of Batman Vs Superman, I likened him to a fire hose. Extremely powerful, but unless you’ve got someone holding onto the thing with both hands and pointing it in the right direction, it’s just going to go all over the place. I admire Snyder’s dedication and thought process, but I think the fact that his most successful film, Man Of Steel, also happens to be the one he had the least creative influence on speaks volumes. When he’s got someone to work with and bounce ideas off of, he can be a creative force to be reckoned with. Left to his own devices however, and his films tend to go off the rails very quickly.

Watchmen is very much Snyder’s passion project. You can tell a lot of care and effort went into this. The accuracy of the costumes, staging and set designs speak for themselves. However there is an underlying problem with Snyder trying to painstakingly recreate the graphic novel on film. While I don’t agree with the purists who say that Watchmen is ‘unfilmmable’, I do agree with Alan Moore’s statement that there are certain aspects of the graphic novel that can only work in a graphic novel. A key example of this is its structure. Watchmen has the luxury of telling its non-linear narrative over twelve issues in creative and unorthodox ways. A structure that’s incredibly hard to translate into any other medium. A twelve episode TV mini-series might come close, but a movie, even a three hour movie, is going to struggle due to the sheer density of the material and the unconventional structure. Whereas the structure of the graphic novel allowed Alan Moore to dedicate whole chapters to the origin stories of Doctor Manhattan and Rorschach and filling in the gaps of this alternate history, the structure of a movie doesn’t really allow for that. And yet Snyder tries really hard to follow the structure of the book even though it simply doesn’t work on film, which results in the movie coming to a screeching halt as the numerous flashbacks and origin stories disrupt the flow of the narrative, causing it to stop and start constantly at random intervals, like someone kangarooing in a rundown car.

Just as Watchmen the graphic novel played around with the common tropes and framing devices of comics, Watchmen the movie needed to play around with the common tropes and framing devices of comic book movies. To Snyder’s credit, there are moments where he does do that. The most notable being the first five minutes where we see the entire history of the world of Watchmen during the opening credits while ‘The Times They Are A-Changing’ is played in the background. This is legitimately good. It depicts the rise and fall of the superhero in a way only a movie can. I wish Snyder did more stuff like this rather than restricting himself to just recreating panels from the graphic novel.

Which is not to say I think the film is bad. On the contrary, I think it’s pretty damn good. There’s a lot of things to like about this movie. The biggest, shiniest gold star has to go to Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. While the movie itself was divisive at the time, Haley’s portrayal of Rorschach was universally praised as he did an excellent job bringing this extreme right wing bigot to life. He has become to Rorschach what Ryan Reynolds is to Deadpool or what Mark Hamill is to the Joker. He is the character (rather tragically. LOL). To the point where it’s actually scary how similar Haley looks to Walter Kovacs from the graphic novel. The resemblance is uncanny.

Another standout performance is Jeffery Dean Morgan as the Comedian. Just as depraved and unsavoury as the comic version, but Morgan is also able to inject some real charm and pathos into the character. You believe that Sally Jupiter would have consensual sex with him despite everything he did to her before. But his best scene I think was his scene with Moloch (played by Matt Frewer) where the Comedian expresses regret for all the terrible things he did. It’s a genuinely emotional and impactful scene and Morgan manages to wring some sympathy out of the audience even though the character doesn’t really deserve it. But that’s what makes Rorschach and the Comedian such great characters. Yes they’re both depraved individuals, but they’re also fully realised and three dimensional. They feel like real people, which is what makes their actions and morals all the more shocking.

Then there’s Doctor Manhattan, who in my opinion stands as a unique technical achievement in film. The number of departments that had to work together to bring him to life is staggering. Visual effects, a body double, lighting, sound, it’s a truly impressive collaborative effort, all tied together by Billy Crudup’s exceptional performance. He arguably had the hardest job out of the whole cast. How do you portray an all powerful, emotionless, quantum entity without him coming across as a robot? Crudup manages this by portraying Manhattan as being less emotionless and more emotionally numb, which makes his rare displays of emotion, such as his shock and anger during the TV interview, stand out all the more. It’s a great depiction that I don’t think is given the credit it so richly deserves.

Which leads into something else about the movie, which will no doubt be extremely controversial, but I’m going to say it anyway. I much prefer the ending in the film to the ending in the book.

Hear me out.

In my review of the final issue of Watchmen, I said I didn’t like the squid because of its utter randomness. The plot of the movie however works so much better both from a narrative and thematic perspective. Ozymandias framing Doctor Manhattan makes a hell of a lot more sense than the squid. For one thing, it doesn’t dump a massive amount of new info on us all at once. It’s merely an extension of previously known facts. We know Ozymandias framed Manhattan for giving people cancer to get him off world. It’s not much of a stretch to imagine the world could also buy that Manhattan would retaliate after being ostracised. We also see Adrian and Manhattan working together to create perpetual energy generators, which turn out to be bombs. It marries up perfectly with the history of Watchmen as well as providing an explanation for why there’s an intrinsic field generator in Adrian’s Antarctic base. It also provides a better explanation for why Manhattan leaves Earth at the end despite gaining a newfound respect for humanity. But what I love most of all is how it links to Watchmen’s central themes.

Thanks to the existence of Doctor Manhattan, America has become the most powerful nation in the world to the point where its disrupted the global balance of power. This has led to the escalation of the Cold War with Russia as well as other countries like Vietnam being at the mercy of the United States. It also allowed Nixon to stay in office long after his two terms had expired. The reason the squid from the book is so unsatisfying as a conclusion is because you don’t buy that anyone would be willing to help America after the New York attack. In fact it would be more likely that Russia and other countries might take advantage of America’s vulnerability. Manhattan’s global attack however not only gives the whole world motivation to work together, it also puts America in a position where they have no choice but to ask for help because it was they that effectively created this mess in the first place. So seeing President Nixon pleading for a global alliance feels incredibly satisfying because we’re seeing a corrupt individual hoist by his own petard and trying to save his own skin, even if it comes at the cost of his power. America is now like a wounded animal, and while world peace is ultimately achieved, the US is now a shadow of its former self. It fits in so perfectly with the overall story of Watchmen, frankly I’m amazed Alan Moore didn’t come up with this himself.

It’s not perfect however. Since the whole genetic engineering stuff no longer exists, it makes the existence of Adrian’s pet lynx Bubastis rather perplexing. Also the whole tachyons screwing with Doctor Manhattan’s omniscience thing still doesn’t make a pixel of sense. But the biggest flaw is in Adrian Veidt’s characterisation. For one thing, Matthew Goode’s performance isn’t remotely subtle. He practically screams ‘bad guy’ the moment he appears on screen. He has none of the charm or charisma that the source material’s Ozymandias had. But it’s worse than that because Snyder seems to be going out of his way to uncomplicate and de-politicise the story and characters. There’s no mention of Adrian’s liberalism or his disdain for Nixon and right wing politics. The film never explores his obsession with displaying his own power and superiority over right wing superheroes like Rorschach and the Comedian. He’s just the generic bad guy. And I do mean bad guy. Whereas the graphic novel left everything up to the reader to decide who was morally in the right, the film takes a very firm stance on who the audience should be siding with. Don’t believe me? Just look at how Rorschach’s death is presented to us.

It’s very clear while watching the film that Zack Snyder is a big Rorschach fan. He gets the most screen time and there’s a lot of effort dedicated to his portrayal and depiction. And that’s fine. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with that. As I’ve mentioned before in previous blogs, Rorschach is my favourite character too. However it’s important not to lose sight of who the character is and what he’s supposed to represent, otherwise you run the risk of romanticising him, which is exactly what the film ends up doing. Rorschach’s death in the graphic novel wasn’t some heroic sacrifice. It was a realisation that he has no place in the world that Ozymandias has created, as well as revealing the hypocrisy of the character. In the extra material provided in The Abyss Gazes Also, we learn that, as a child, Walter supported President Truman’s use of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and yet, in his adult life, he opposes Adrian’s plan. Why? What’s the difference? Well the people who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren’t American. They were Japanese. The enemy. In Rorschach’s mind, they deserved to die, whereas the people in New York didn’t. It signifies the flawed nature of Rorschach’s black and white view of the world as well as displaying the racist double standards of the character. Without the context of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Rorschach’s death becomes skewed. This is what ends up happening in the movie. Rorschach removes his mask and makes a bold declaration to Doctor Manhattan, the music swells as he is disintegrated, defiant to the last, and his best friend Nite Owl screams in anguish and despair.

In fact the film takes it one step further by having Nite Owl punch Adrian repeatedly in the face and accuse him of deforming humanity, which completely contradicts the point of Dan Dreiberg as a character. He’s no longer the pathetic centrist who requires a superhero identity to feel any sort of power or validation. He’s now the everyman representing the views of the audience, which just feels utterly wrong.

This links in with arguably the film’s biggest problem of all. The way it portrays superheroes in general. The use of slow motion, cinematography and fight choreography frames the superheroes and vigilantes of Watchmen as being powerful, impressive individuals, when really the exact opposite should be conveyed. The costumes give the characters a feeling of power, but that power is an illusion. Nite Owl is really an impotent failure. Rorschach is an angry bigot lashing out at the world. The Comedian is a depraved old man who has let his morals fall by the way side so he can indulge in his own perverse fantasies. They’re not people to be idealised. They’re to be at pitied at best and reviled at worst. So seeing them jump through windows and beating up several thugs single handed through various forms of martial arts ultimately confuses the message, as does the use of gratuitous gore and violence. Are we supposed to be shocked by these individuals or in awe?

Costumes too have a similar problem. Nite Owl and Ozymandias’ costumes have been updated so they look more imposing, which kind of defeats the purpose of them. The point is they look silly to us, the outside observers, but they make the characters feel powerful. That juxtaposition is lost in the film. And then there’s the Silk Spectre. In the graphic novel, both Sally and Laurie represent the changing attitudes of women in comics and in society. Both Silk Spectres are sexually objectified, but whereas Sally accepts it as part of the reality of being a woman, Laurie resists it, seeing it as demeaning. The only reason she wore her revealing costume in A Brother To Dragons was because she knew that Dan found it sexually attractive and she wanted to indulge his power fantasy. None of this is touched upon in the film, other than one passing mention of the Silk Spectre porn magazine near the beginning of the film. There’s not even any mention of how impractical her costume is, like the graphic novel does. Yes the film changes her look drastically, but it’s still just as impractical and could have been used to make a point on how women are perceived in comic book films, but it never seems to hinder her in anyway. It’s never even brought up, which is ridiculous. Zack Snyder’s reinterpretation of Silk Spectre is clearly meant to inject some form of girl power into the proceedings, as she’s presented as being just as impressive and kick-ass as the others, when the whole point of her character was to expose the misogyny of the comics industry at the time and how they cater to the male gaze. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the graphic novel did it perfectly, but it did it a hell of a lot better than this.

Die hard fans have described the film over the years as shallow and ‘style over substance.’ I don’t think that’s entirely fair. It’s clear that Zack Snyder has a huge respect for the graphic novel and wanted to do it justice. Overall the film has a lot of good ideas and is generally well made. However, as much as Snyder seems to love Watchmen, it does seem like he only has a surface level understanding of it, hence why the attention and effort seems to be going into the visuals and the faithfulness to Alan Moore’s attention to detail rather than the Watchmen’s story and themes. While the film at times makes some good points about power, corruption and morality, it doesn’t go nearly as far as the source material does and seems to shy away from really getting into the meat of any particular topic. Part of that I suspect is to do with marketability, not wanting to alienate casual viewers, but I think a lot of it is to do with it simply being in the wrong medium. I personally don’t think you can really do a story as complex and intricate as Watchmen’s justice in a Hollywood film. In my opinion, this really should have been a TV mini-series or something.

So on the whole, while I appreciate Snyder’s attempt at bringing the story of Watchmen to life and can see that he has the best intentions in mind, I don’t think this film holds a candle to the original source material.

#watchmen #dc #warner bros #zack snyder #review #spoilers

21 notes · View notes

buzzdixonwriter · 4 years

Text

You Don’t Say

For me, one of the unforeseen benefits of Facebook and other social media is that it gives me a chance to do rough drafts of ideas, assembling my thoughts and getting feedback before committing to more permanent form.

And sometimes, like asteroids colliding in space, two separate ideas / posts slam into one another and either create something new and unexpected, or else shatter themselves and reveal interesting aspects of their nature heretofore hidden from view.

That happened recently with a pair of Facebook posts I made on Dennis Prager and Harlan Ellison.

Let’s get the turd out of our mouth first.

. . .

Dennis Prager is a purveyor of herpetology lubricants admired by many on the right-leaning-nazi side of the spectrum, primarily because he keeps his mouth closed when chewing. Half of what he says is repackaged self-evident truths of the “Don’t eat the yellow snow” variety, a quarter is opinions that if not startling original are at least not genuinely harmful, and the remain quarter is egregious bullshit for which he deserves a public pants down spanking.

Hmm, what? Oh, yes; purely metaphorically, of course.

I long since wrote off Prager as a. utterer of inanities, but recently his turdmongering was forced on my attention by someone who posted a link to Prager’s argument that the “left” (i.e., basically anybody who thinks Auschwitz was a Bad Idea) is inflicting harm on both the American body politic and the universe at large by denying people like Prager the right to drop the N-bomb whenever they feel like it.

As some of you no doubt already knew, Prager is a member of what polite bigots used to refer to as “those of the Hebrew persuasion”.

That a person from an ethnicity that historically suffered hatred so vicious and specifically targeted that a special word had to be created for it (“anti-Semitism” because the original word -- “Jew-hatred” -- was too damned ugly even for bigots to use) now has his knickers in a twist because he’s “not allowed” to use the only other word of equal or greater impact -- also coined specifically by oppressors for expressing unrestrained hate and contempt against those oppressed -- is so rich in irony that all I can do is swipe a phrase from Jim Wright over at Stonekettle Station and say Dennis Prager has “all the self-awareness of a dog licking its own asshole in the middle of the street”.

First off, he’s lying: Neither the “left” nor American law prevents him from dropping the N-bomb whenever he feels like it and I invite him to go down to the intersection of Normandie and Florence in South Central and drop it at the top of his lungs for as long as he is able and please make sure to take plenty of video recorders along because I really wanna see what happens next.

Second, why the fuck would you want to say that? Seriously, other than in an evidentiary context (a cop giving testimony in court, a journalist reporting what some bigoted politician says, etc.), who today gains anything from repeating the word other than inflicting unjustified distress on people who have done nothing to deserve it?

(This is the point where a bunch of alt-right trolls are gonna jump up and say “but whatabout all the times when black people say it?” and to those trolls I’m gonna say STFU & STFD; if you can’t grasp the difference in context then you’re too damned stupid to be allowed out in public except at the end of a leash and with a ball gag in your mouth.)

It’s a word specifically created and designed to be used to brutally oppress people who did nothing to deserve that brutal oppression. Why would anybody outside that group use it except to participate in that brutal oppression?

. . .

Least there sit any in the cheap seats who presume the above rant was targeted at Dennis Prager simply because he was Jewish, guess again, ya yutzes.

Few writers enjoyed as brilliant and as incendiary a career as Harlan Ellison, and I count myself privileged to have been one of his friends.

Ellison, as many of you know, also was Jewish, a damned tough little bastard, singled out for hatred and abuse as the only Jewish child in his backwater Ohio school, growing up with nerves & balls of chromium, a bona fide Army Ranger, and a writer so honest and fearless that when he wrote about juvenile delinquency in the 1950s he did so by infiltrating and joining a street gang to get first hand experience and insight on the kids who ran in that crowd (and as icing on the cake, James Caan played him in the TV version!).

Top that, Dennis.

Harlan’s electric eclectic career features many highpoints, but the one I want to focus on is his brief 4-year run as TV critic for the legendary Los Angeles Free Press (a.k.a. The Freep) from 1968 to 1972.

What’s interesting is that Harlan did this while at the same time at the height of his demand as a TV writer.

You got any idea how hard it is to make a living while you’re gnawing on the hand that feeds you?

Harlan may have been crazy, but damn it, he was honest.

Back to the issue at hand.

Recently I’ve been re-reading his TV criticism columns, collected in two volumes, The Glass Teat and The Other Glass Teat.

The depressing thing is that all the evil we see today was in place back in those days, and the same smug pious frauds and their dimbulb marks kept congratulating themselves how wonderful they were as things continued to spiral out of control.

Oh, we've had good moments when we made changes that improved the lot of people who'd previously been marginalized, but the core cancer is still there. Harlan was no cock-eyed sentimentalist -- he was often filled with anger and could vent it spectacularly at deserving targets -- but he did have hope that somehow we could keep nudging the ball further towards the goal lines.

The columns make fascinating reading; they are nowhere near as dated as one might suspect. Sometimes they offer diamond-like brilliant dissections of a particular instant in the cultural gestalt, other times they examine the unseen (well, to most audiences, that is) tides of Hollywood that shape our media, sometimes he turns his attention to bear on seemingly insignificant and forgotten local programming only to show with McLuhan-esque clarity how that tiny piece of seemingly insignificant fluff is symptomatic of a much wider, much vaster, and far more serious problem.

One entry caught my eye in particular, the March 7, 1969 column on a failed ABC pilot called Those Were The Days.

Harlan sat in the studio audience watching the taping of that pilot, and his column praised the courage and insight of producers Norman Lear and Bud Yorkin, the brilliant performances of Carroll O’Connor and Jean Stapleton, and the raw honesty of the pilot’s sharp comedy and writing.

Those of you not in the cheap seats have already realized this was the second failed pilot for what would eventually become All In The Family over at CBS (there was an even earlier original pilot called Justice For All back when Archie and Edith’s last name was Justice, not Bunker.)

I remember the hoopla when All In The Family finally aired in January of 1971 as a mid-season replacement.

You might count Archie Bunker as the white Dolemite insofar as the comedy sprang from the shock of all the crude and vulgar things he said.

Lear and Yorkin were mocking that mindset, belittling bigotry, exposing the Babbittry of millions of “good” Americans who lacked either the self-awareness or the courage to take a long introspective look at themselves and realize how badly they were failing as citizens of this country.

Audiences weren’t supposed to like Archie Bunker.

And that’s where Lear and Yorkin made their fatal mistake.

No, audiences didn’t like Archie.

They loved him.

. . .

Asteroids collide, and sometimes they form new planets, and sometimes they shatter and expose what lies beneath.

Prager’s modern day Babbittry crashed into Harlan’s half-century old anti-Babbittry, and from the explosion a stark truth revealed itself.

It’s almost impossible to make an outlaw a villain in popular media.

No matter how many banks they rob, stages they hold up, sheriffs they shoot, the mere fact that somebody wrote a song / dime novel / movie about ‘em makes them into heroes.

Demi-gods.

People to be admired.

Emulated.

Professional wrestling knows this.

You can never be so big a heel that you won’t have a legion of followers.

And you can turn a heel into a baby face in the blink of an eye and none of the fans will remember the despicable acts the wrassler did just last week.

You put an Archie Bunker on TV, you do not get millions of people to recognize themselves in his hateful / hurtful behavior and change their ways.

Oh, hell no; you get millions of people to applaud him for saying and doing what they say and do in private.

And now that it’s all big and bold and brassy on TV, why it becomes even easier to say it in the privacy of your own home, then over the fence with the neighbors, then in the bar down the street, then on the street itself, and then against people who have done you no harm, who have committed no sin other than the heinous crime of not being exactly like you.

I remember watching and liking All In The Family when it first came on because I, like millions of other Americans, got the joke: Archie was no hero.

But it wasn’t long before the voices cheering Archie began to drown out the voices laughing at him.

Lear and Yorkin tried undoing their damage with Maude and The Jeffersons and Good Times and other spinoff shows, but the bigot was out of the bottle.

Archie Bunker, even though written in a way to ridicule his use of bigotry and stereotypes, became a champion and defender of those who clung to said bigotry and stereotypes.

So tell me again why you want to drop that N-bomb, Dennis.

Explain to me -- even while you talk out of both sides of your mouth and claim even if everybody can use they word maybe they shouldn’t use the word -- how that does anything to help anybody…

…other than bigots and hate mongers.

Your argument is as circular as the thumb and forefinger gesture white supremacists use to signal one another, a gesture deliberately chosen because it lets them transgress openly by lying about the truth meaning of their gesture.

And Harlan, you were right about Those Were The Days as it began evolving into All In The Family. Absolutely brilliant -- but absolutely deadly.

Not airing All In The Family wouldn’t have eliminated racial / ethnic / sexual prejudice in the United States…

…but it would have denied those ideas a voice.

The narcissist always proclaims, “I don’t care what they say about me so long as they spell my name right.”

Well, that’s what we got with Archie Bunker.

None of the bigots cared if we made fun of their ideas…

…just so long as they got their ideas out there.

Because ideas are made legitimate by their presence.

Now clearly, this is a bade that cuts both ways.

Ideas once unthinkable -- liberty and justice for all in the form of racial and gender equality, f’r instance -- need to be championed in public.

But we need to shout down and stamp out the bad ideas.

The United States took their foot off the neck of the defeated white racists after the end of the Civil War, and as a result jim crow came roaring back, and things did not change for millions of Americans for another entire century.

We allowed bigots and hate mongers and slavers to be whitewashed and glorified and forgiven for their crimes against humanity…

…and in the process we allowed them to continue victimizing African-Americans more and more.

Every song about the Ol’ South, every novel glorifying plantation life, every movie showing happy field hands, every statue commemorating murderous traitors as men of honor and principle, every single iteration of that idea made millions of people’s suffering not just possible but inevitable.

. . .

Now this is the point where the alt-right trolls are gonna jump up and ask “did you ever drop the N-word?”

Not in casual conversation, no.

I was born and raised in the South (Appalachia, mostly); my father’s side of the family were almost all Southerners.

Almost all.

My paternal grandmother was born and raised in New Jersey and met my grandfather when both served in the U.S. Army medical corps in WWI. When my grandfather died in his 40s, my grandmother originally moved back to New Jersey, but her three children (dad and two aunts) felt heartbroken at having to leave their Southern cousins and friends behind so even though she carried no particular love for the South, my grandmother moved her family back and stayed there for the most of her life (she and one of my aunts moved out to California to be near us, but that’s another story for another post).

One thing my grandmother absolutely refused to tolerate was use of the N-bomb anywhere near her, especially under her roof or in the homes of her children.

This included both the -er and -ra variants, because Southern racists who didn’t want to appear as uncultured and as boorish and as bigoted as their backwoods cousins preferred the second pronunciation because they could claim they were actually speaking respectfully about “colored people”.

So I grew up in the rare white Southern home where the N-bomb merely wasn’t used, it was actually denounced as wrong.

Now, don’t go thinking my grandmother was some great paragon of virtue; she wasn’t (she was hell on wheels, in fact, but that’s another story for another post).

But she did recognize there was something wrong with the use of the N-bomb, and whether she demanded her children never use it in any form to keep them from appearing to be boorish, bigoted louts, or whether she just thought it was simple good manners of the golden rule variety not to use it, I dunno.

But I do know we never used it, and when my parents heard our neighbors or schoolmates use it, we were reminded in no uncertain terms that we were never to use it.

But that doesn’t mean I haven’t used it.

A couple of decades ago I wrote a screenplay based on the life of Robert Smalls, in particular his incredible escape from Civil War Charleston by hijacking a Confederate gunboat and sailing it right past Ft. Sumter to join the Union fleet, bringing his wife and several other escaping African-Americans with him.

As a skilled harbor pilot, Smalls enjoyed certain privileges other enslaved African-Americans didn’t.

For example, he was allowed to go about the streets of Charleston unescorted…

…provided he wore a big diamond shaped brass tag around his neck.

Like a dog.

The tag indicated to slave catcher patrols that he was one of the “good” ones, that he could be trusted because he was helping his masters in their struggle against the Union by guiding blockade runners into the safety of Charleston harbor.

But knowing Southerners the way I do, and knowing the kind of low class good ol’ boy types they recruited for such jobs, I couldn’t imagine the slave catcher patrols being particularly courteous to him, even when they knew they had to let him pass because clearly he had the protection of some high positioned muckamuck.

And I could easily imagine them flinging the N-bomb at him with great glee, taunting him, daring him to act “uppity” so they could beat the crap out of him and teach him some manners and remind him of his place.

So I used the word in their dialog in my script.

Would I use that word today?

Probably not.

It’s not that crucial to the story, and if the viewer doesn’t grasp the concept that these are bigoted bully scum from their actions and attitude, then I’ve failed my job as a writer.

Have I ever quoted people who dropped the N-bomb?

Yeah, I have, in the past.

I’ve quoted Richard Pryor and Blazing Saddles and Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction.

I would excuse it then as the aforementioned evidentiary context but ya know what? I don’t quote those lines anymore.

I still think Pryor is hilarious and will recommend his routines to anyone I think might be interested, but he as a member of the African-American community at large (because like any other ethnic group, African-Americans have numerous sub-cultures and sub-communities among them), he could say things in a way neither I nor any other white person could say them.

(And, yeah, there’s a big debate going on to this very day among African-Americans about the appropriateness of that word and you know what? Whatever decision African-Americans reach for themselves is their business and should not involve any input whatsoever from we white folk; we not only can’t use the word, we can’t even comment on how they choose to use it. Period. Full stop.)

Blazing Saddles when it came out used the N-bomb to be deliberately transgressive, to make a sympathetic point re how unfairly African-Americans were treated.

All well and good.

But nine years earlier there had been a movie called A Patch Of Blue and while it wasn’t a raucous comedy like Blazing Saddles it tried making a point about race relations in America and it was a really. Really good movie and it made some important points but today is virtually unwatchable not because of any flaws in it but because the times have changed.

Ditto Blazing Saddles.

We don’t need to approach the problem that way any more.

Quentin Tarantino? I really like what he does as a director and a screenwriter but his use of the N-bomb to show us how transgressive his characters are is really shallow. I have a strong feeling his movies are going to be considered embarrassingly passé’ in a generation or two, much the same way as benign-yet-stereotypical characters in 1940s movies render many of them passé’ today.

Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction lose nothing by changing the N-word to something else.

Maybe an argument could be made for its use in Django Unchained or The Hateful 8 but even there I think substituting another word wouldn’t significantly change the tenor or tone of either movie.

So I stop quoting those lines from Tarantino’s films, at least not fully.

I can admire his skill / talent / craft without signing off on his problematic elements.

Let me offer an analogy: If a creator can get the same dramatic effect by pretending to shoot somebody but not actually blasting them with a gun, then they can get the same dramatic effect by using something evocative of the N-bomb without actually dropping it.

(By the way, for those who may be curious, my mother was from Naples and a bona fide card carrying member of Mussolini’s Fascist Youth Brigade, but that’s another story for another post.)

. . .

We are plunging into a new cultural conflict -- and while I think there will be violence, I don’t see it being violence on the scale or level of political organization as the Civil War -- and we can only win by refusing to let the bigots and the hate mongers spew their bullshit in the marketplace of ideas.

There is no compromise with an oppressor.

Stand up to it every time you encounter it.

Make it unthinkable, never acceptable.

#racism #race relations #morals #ethics #Harlan Ellison #Dennis Prager #N-bomb

2 notes · View notes

kendrixtermina · 4 years

Note

Since you seem to enjoy analyzing stories I was wondering if you have any advice on what to do when your mind narrows in on critical aspects? I usually really enjoy analyzing media but recently I found that my mind tends to hyper-focus on aspects that I don't like even when I'm actively trying to ignore it and focus on what I do like. So I was just curious if you have tips for dealing with it and/or getting out of this mindset. Thanks and I apologize if this isn't the right blog for this!

Ugh. This is a big question and I’m not sure I’m qualified or immune to complaining. But I consider myself honored, I’ll try my best to answer it.

There’s three things you can do here

a) Try to find out where it’s coming from.

Cross-examine yourself active listening wise. Your reactions can generally come from two places: What you’re actually looking at, or yourself.

Is everything annoying you as of late because you are angry? Are you having a bad week because of something in your private life? Are you sensitive because some larger tendency in RL/society is pissing you off? Is it even anger? What are you feeling and why? Does it really have anything to do with this movie etc?

Or is it something about the work itself? Does it remind you of something that happened to you? Does your displeasure come from a value that is important to you or a pattern that you believe to be a bad influence on society.

Really try to put into words what it is that makes you feel this way while keeping in mind that your feelings, your reaction to the work and the work itself are separate entities.

I’d remain open to the possibility that you have a legitimate gripe here. If you personally can’t enjoy a work either because a subjective factor or an objective flaw that’s a dealbreaker for you, you shouldn’t force yourself to like it because your friends do or because it didn’t do anything “unforgiveable”. Deciding that it’s not your cup of tea needn’t be a moral judgement on everyone who made the work or everyone who likes it.

On the other hand you might find it easier to enjoy it if you acknowledge the flaw and put it into definite words, tell your inner critic that you heard them and then continue. If you try not to think about something you automatically end up thinking about it.

b) Keep in mind that there are many valid stories and that all of them are worth telling

A lot happens on this green earth. Consider the following cases:

A1: A small, lithe person is mistreated by a big strong one

A2: A small, lithe person mistreats a big strong one and pretends to be the victim appealing to their small ness

B1: An eccentric kid is labeled as disordered just for being eccentric and because the teachers don’t want to deal with her

B2: A serious-minded kid has an actual anxiety disorder and experiences stigma because of it and people not understanding that it’s real and debilitating

C1: There is a socially awkward, nerdy character. She is eventually revealed as autistic and her friends accept her just as she is.

C2: There is a socially awkward, nerdy character. She comes out as aroace and all her friends support her. It is emphasized that she is actually as affectionate as everyone else and preconceptions to the contrary were just bigoted misunderstandings.

C3: There is a socially awkward, nerdy character. She finds a significant other who loves her even though she is socially awkward, and her love leads her to discover more communicative passionate sides to her personality.

Clearly, for each of these scenarios, there are going to be people who relate to some but not to others. If you’ve got an anxiety disorder you’re going to relate to the story with the anxiety disorder, and if you were mis-labeled by incompetent teachers you’re gonna relate to that. But both actually happen in real life. B1 is me B2 is one of my sisters. You might even say they’re caused by some of the same intolerant attitudes.

So ask yourself: Is any of these intended as a “fuck you” to the people who would rather have the other ones? If in one particular story the character was mistakenly labeled by incompetent teachers and never had a real disorder, it it saying that no one has real disorders? If the small and lithe character turns out to be the victim, does it mean that big and strong characters are never victims? No of course not.

- You can criticize it if the story outright makes such statements and it is vital to do so (see next paragraph), but if the point in the story is just that this particular character was wrongly labeled, or this particular small character was the victim, then it’s simply telling a different story, not at all making a point about whether real disorders or big strong victims exist.

What’s cathartic or empowering or meaningful to people is as different as people themselves. There’s a good chance that there won’t be an exact match between you or any given authors.

Often the problem is not the stories that are there, but the ones that are missing. It’s not per se bad to have “girl gets rescued by prince” stories, it’s only bad if they’re the ONLY stories. The solution is more stories.

Obviously there are exceptions to that like stuff that outright includes negative stereotypes or unquestioned bad behavior treated as good,

c) Focus on constructivity and context instead of loaded labels

The above was more about perceived flaws this one is about real indisputable flaws. Flaws that are important to point out.

The number one goal here, if you really care about stopping harm and not anyones egos, should be to get people to stop doing it.

Sometimes in extreme cases making someone out to be a bad person and warning of them is exactly how you stop harm, but often time its not and getting obsessed with “punishing bad people” while losing sight of “preventing harm” does zero to help the people actually being harmed. Or worse than zero, if you associate a worthy cause with frivolous squabbles.

Some people just don’t care and will never change their ways but you won’t ever convince those. You need to convince everyone else. All the ones who are maybe just ignorant and didn’t know better, or never had to form an opinion about this. Even if the maker themselves won’t change opinion, you can sway those.

Imagine a bigoted religious person. how are you more likely to convince them? Get them to stop being religious, which is probably a part of their identity? Or try and argue that equality is, in fact, compatible with their religion? If you step on people’s egoes they will be attacked and block/dismiss all you have to say. Not only will they not change, they’ll dig in their heels. In the worst case, they’ll now start thinking that your Reasonable Position is incompatible with their identity.

Again some people are determined to have their egoes stepped on and will be insulted no matter what, but those are not the target.

This isn’t about appeasing assholes, it’s about creating change, because that will stop harm. So instead of throwing negatively changed emotional labels at people (which activates the ego and the emotions) try talking about cause and effect and consequences, to talk to their reason. Explain how the consequences happen.

For similar reasons, try to think of solutions. You don’t want to destroy the work, you want to make it a better work that more people can enjoy without being distracted by unnecessary flaws.

Avoid:

“X is a [negative label] who [buzzword] a [sympathy-drawing label]!!! Why are [entire social group that contains people you want to convince] like this?!”

Instead:

“I know that this was probably supposed to express [intention], but it comes off like [unfortunate implication] and given [harmful social tendency] it might have been better to do [alternate redendition] “

Example #1: “The intention in scenes like in the original Blade Runner, several James Bond Movies or in the Original Star Wards trilogy where the original male characters was probably that these protagonists being suave guys know that the girls really want them to screw/kiss them. The authors know this because they created the characters, but IRL you cannot actually read anyone’s mind and what often happens IRL is that person A proceeds without really making sure that the other person is comfortable, and then they freeze up in fear though they don’t want to have intercourse, and ends up horribly traumatized. There’s not enough general knowledge about the “freeze” part of “fight-flight or freeze”, or good consent education and it would be irresponsible to make this worse.

All it would literally take to fix it is to have the girls explicitly show that they want to kiss/have sex.”

Example #2: “A lot of horror fiction slaps the names of real diagnosable conditions on what are basically violent monster villains. It’s only natural to wonder what’s going on in the minds of killers and monsters and try to want to contextualize this, but it is vital to keep in mind that there is currently a lot of stigma against people with mental ilnesses, and that depictions like this can make it worse and make it hard for actual real-life people to get jobs and housing.

If you’re going to use the names of real-life diagnosable conditions you should be committed to researching them and writing the characters realistically while being mindful of the stigma and the social impact that wrong renditions would have and not make a freakshow out of it.

Alternatively, if you just want to do an unrealistic horror movie killer, don’t use the names of real conditions that real people have.”

d) Refresh Button.

Especially because you’re saying that this isn’t your default mode and that it feels like some recent thing that you don’t really want.

- take a break, busy your mind with something else, give the subconscious time toprocess and old perceptions time to settle. Then come back to it.

- Try sort of looking at it from a new perspective, to deconstruct it from the bottom. What dothing really mean? What are we really told about the characters and events? Try processing it all new from the ground up without “common widom”

- Things that aren’t explained on screen aren’t necessarily plot holes. There’s a difference between a contradiction, something that can’t fit together, and something that can fit together you just don’t know how. Deduce. Speculate. This is where your logic and imagination come in.

- Maybe watch a new person react to it for all new input like a reaction vid on youtube

e) Outside Data.

Same as above - People are basically really sophisticated Boltzmann machines/ statistical learning algorithms. I#m the least to want to admit that but to a degree we’re all influenced by the Data we take in.

If you’re surrounded by a lot of material and soucres that pick apart every little thing in media, it’s natural that it would arise as a thought.

If you don’t really want that in your life, filter it out.

I hope this was of some sort of use. But I stress again that I’m no kind of authority on any such things and that many others might pick this apart as blasphemy.

2 notes · View notes

voidsung-icefire · 5 years

Text

Is shipping ok?

I’m sorry if this might evolve into something really different about half way through. I am very frustrated by things I have been seeing for a while now and I just want to get it out of the way.

So shipping. Yes. Taking fictional characters and imagining them in relationships of various sorts. There are so many different reasons to ship, from thinking that the pairing has a lot of potential in canon, to simply thinking the two characters look attractive and wanting to enjoy some spicy art of them. There are as many different reasons to ship as there are ships. So...is shipping ever a bad thing?

It can be. It can definitely be in certain situations. The first being using it to taunt someone. If the only reason for your ship is so you can shove it in the face of someone you know doesn’t like it, then this is wrong. An example of this would be some people who ship Tracer with Soldier76 only so they can “fight back” against the LGBT community by annoying them with their art work. These shippers are not good. The second situation is a bully shipper, a person that goes and imposes their ship as if it had supreme value over others. Attacking people with different ships online, going as far as to attack creators of the original work because they believe their ship is somehow more important than what the original creator of the characers feels. An example would be certain Lapidot shippers who bullied a Steven Universe writer over the internet relentlessly because the characters were shown to be only friends in an episode she had a hand in writing. These behaviours are unacceptable.

But are their ships the same?

No. Of course not. The reason behind these specific shippers shipping, and the behaviour they had towards others are wrong, cruel and entitled. But others may like these pairings for different reasons and behave in a well mannered, polite and kind way towards others. It is not wrong for them to like these things. It is not the ships that are bad in this case, it is the behaviour of the people that is wrong.

Overall, shipping is ok. It is not canon. It is a fan creation. One can recognize the canon, appreciate it, and still make art of a different ship on the side for a multitude of reasons. And that’s ok. Maybe a canon pairing wasn’t to your taste, like how Katara ended with Aang in the Last Airbender. Maybe you would have liked her to be with Zuko more. You know that Aang was the one to get the girl in canon. You respect that. You can still make art and AU fanfiction where Zuko gets her in the end.

What about McHanzo? Big Overwatch ship. Entirely non-canon. The two characters have never met. McCree displays a very seductive personality with several lines particularly directed towards women. And although he can be bi, he himself stated one of the reasons Ashe was never his type is because she’s rich. And Hanzo is very much rich. And even has that rich kid snooty attitude. Nowhere near a canon ship. But it’s everywhere. And it is allowed to be. People are not doing anything wrong by making their own worlds where these characters can be together.

Maybe Widowtracer? Widowmaker was brainwashed and no longer feels most emotions, including love. Tracer currently has a very lovely girlfriend in canon. So Widowtracer is very much non-canon. But it is still ok to ship these two. For a number of reasons. Some just find them hot. Some want a Widowmaker redemption and see Tracer as a way for her to move on from her past. Some want the three ladies together as an OT3. You can write up various scenarios where Emily leaves Tracer for various reasons, and that is completely fine because that’s what fanfiction is all about. It’s your take on the scenario presented for you.

Maybe Pharmercy? Ah. An interesting one. Also entirely non-canon, but for a reason some more..distasteful people...seem to ignore. We have a bit of a Lapidot situation here, because, you see, Mercy is intended to be with Genji in canon. The two write letters to each other in the Christmas comic (the same comic that revealed Tracer to be gay, first showed Torb’s wife Ingrid, had Jack holding a picture of his ex Vincent, showed Ana’s ex Sam, showed possibly Reyes’ daughter he had with his ex, showed Widowmaker at her late husband’s grave...) and were intended to get voicelines during Valentine’s Day where they would exchange chocolates. A very romantic gesture. Well...some Pharmercy shippers threw a fit, bullied the creators and now those voicelines have never been pushed to the live game. But they still exist. So these specific shippers had bad manners and are thus wrong, but Pharmercy as a ship is still completely fine. If you recognize the canon, respect it, but still want to make art of these two ladies together for a number of reasons, that is completely acceptable.

And what about intercanon pairings, pairings that go as far as to break the boundries of fictional universes to bring characters together. Like Jack Frost with Elsa, or Merida with Hiccup. Characters that will never meet because they are from different worlds made by entirely differnet companies. And those are also ok. Completely fine. Go express yourself. Make art.

Now here’s why I was upset enough to write this. I have long been witnessing immense levels of hypocrisy in the shipping community. Where some ships are put on holy pedestals and considered to have some sort of moral superiority. And all other ships are somehow inherently wrong and the people who ship them, terrible people.

So here’s the question: is it ok to ship a canon gay character in a straight relationship?

And to that I answer...is it ok to ship a canon straight character in a gay relationship?

If you answer no to one but yes to the other....why is that? Why is it okay for one way but not the other, when both are exactly the same. Yes, canon, breaking canon...most shipping is breaking canon. All fanwork is breaking canon in some way because only what the creators create and declare is canon is, well...canon. So why is some canon breaking considered ok when others are not?

I’ve heard the justification that you can’t ship a gay character in a straight ship because that is just a too important trait in a character to break. But why would the other way be ok then? Why is it ok to break the sexuality canon with straight characters but not gay ones? What about genderswaps? Would all rule63 fanart be inherently wrong because you’re breaking an important canon aspect?

What about all the reboots with different looking people in the lead? So let’s say...should Miles not exist because Spider-man was originally white? All the films that cast a woman to play a character that had always been established as male? These reboots have a right to exist. It’s artistic expression. It’s remix. It’s perfectly acceptable. Of course, there will be some backlash, there always is when you reinvent an established character that already has a sizeable fanbase. But ultimately, it is a matter of opinion on if someone likes the new version of the character or not. The new version its self is not right or wrong. It just...is. It just exists and does its own thing in its own way.

There are people who act like certain characters are inherently a certain way because a certain group somehow has....ownership...of the character. That Spider-man can only ever be white because he was white and belongs to white people. That’s not how that works. A character does not...belong to whatever arbitrary group because they have certain characteristics in common.

A character...is personality. It is actions. It is feelings. A character...is someone anyone could potentially relate to. That anyone can potentially like and dislike. It always just...baffles me when people act like they can only like and relate to a character if that character is an exact mirror of themselves. When I was a kid, I liked to watch Danny Phantom. And I thought he was cool. I liked how he had super powers. I liked how he fought the ghosts. I never once thought I couldn’t like him because he was a boy and I’m not. In Overwatch, I main Reaper. He’s an older latinx American man that I headcanon as bisexual. I am literally none of those things. He’s still my favorite. Soldier76 is gay. I’d say since most of the population is straight, it’s safe to assume most Soldier mains are straight. Should they stop playing this character because he’s gay and is somehow now off limits to straight people? No, of course not. Everyone can like or dislike any character.

Everyone can ship any character with any other character.

And some people don’t like that. Some people think...that certain groups...should have different sets of rules.

That’s not how it works. That’s not how equality works.

We are all human beings. If it works one way, it has to work the other way in return. A white character can be reimagined as black, a black character should be able to be reimagined as white. A male character can be rebooted as a female character, a female character can be rebooted as a male character. A straight character can be in a gay ship, a gay character should be able to be in a straight ship.

Some people think that certain groups should have different sets of rules. And that is unacceptable. You are not inherently better or more special or more important than others based on arbitrary traits you have had since birth.

If you think that certain people should have fewer rights based on the color of their skin, you are a racist. If you believe that certain people should have fewer rights based on their gender, you are a sexist. If you believe that certain people should have fewer rights based on their sexual orientation, then you are some form of bigot.

We are all human beings. We are all equal. We have the same rights, we play by the same rules. And if you advocate for something other than that, then you are not advocating for equality, so stop using that as your excuse.

Like the only group that should have special preferential treatment is people with disabilities because they simply cannot function properly if everything was left the same as it is for the majority of people. People in wheelchairs cannot use stairs. They need better access. That’s a given. But even they have the same laws, the same rights.

If you really still think that you deserve special treatment, that you should have additional freedoms, that certain people inherently deserve less than you and should have more restrictions placed on them, based on arbitrary traits they were born with and had no control over, then you are a terrible person. If you are going through a whole load of mental gymnastics and reaching out to find justifications for why you somehow deserve more than other people based on these traits, then you need to get out, talk to some real people and reevaluate certain things. If you can justify giving less freedom to others based on these arbitrary traits, you are opperating on the same mindset as genocidal tyrants.

And freakin read Animal Farm. If you haven’t, I’ll give you the TL:DR

Human farmer is an oppressor to the animals. The animals kick him out and establish equality. The pigs, after some convoluted stuff, decide that they deserve preferential treatment. The pigs thus become the oppressors over the other animals. The cycle continues, implying the pigs will be one day driven out and some other group will find some bs excuse for why they deserve more rights than the rest. Featuring the iconic line:

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

#shipping #racism #sexism #reverse racism #zutara #kataraang #lapidot #tracer76 #gency #pharmercy #widowtracer #mchanzo #jack frost x elsa #hiccup x merida

33 notes · View notes