#but it is also just as valid for a character to find religion to be a healing and positive experience
Note
"the tendency of this fandom to only engage with what THEY want these characters to be#as opposed to what their creators are trying to do and the stories they want to tell" slap this on a bumper sticker, you just summed all cr discourse (about PCs at least) in 2 sentences
It truly is maddening (and it's not by any means exclusive to the CR fandom). The reason why the discourse always goes the way it does is that at the end of the day, the loud fanwanky people only see what they would do, if they were self-inserted into the story, as a valid choice; and they are, more broadly, fundamentally disinterested in what others think or feel. There are several examples of this, and the variety of spaces within the fandom that produce these ideas is an indicator that this isn't endemic to one specific group of people.
-Keyleth is an important character whose feelings and choices are validated by the other PCs and cast even if they still disagree with them, in spite of how she and her preachiness get in the way of the Murderhobo Jubilee? It's not because the cast are all friends and they genuinely believe Keyleth is valid and are interested in how these discussions and choices can guide the story. It's because Marisha is the DM's girlfriend, and also here's my totally unbiased theory that my pet favorite players Sam and Travis secretly hate Marisha and Keyleth.
-Vax's presence is still felt and nodded to in the post-canon VM oneshots? It's not because he was an important character who mattered. It's because Liam wants to make everyone talk about his tragedy because he has Main Character Syndrome. Scanlan Wishes for Vax to appear at the wedding? It's not because he cares about Vex or because Sam and Liam wanted a sweet tribute to Vex and Vax's relationship and by extension Liam and Laura's friendship. It's because Liam thinks Vex's life should always revolve around Vax, and Sam wants to enable him and jerk himself off as the one who facilitated it.
-Beauyasha and Fjorester become canon? It's not because the players wanted it and it happened naturally. It's because there was a secret behind-the-scenes push to "force" those ships to become canon instead, and like, Dani Carr is some sort of shipping puppetmaster who made the players do it, and "they" (whomever "they" is) decided to sink Beaujester or Widojest because it was "obviously" going to become canon before the pandemic hiatus gave them time to "make the corporate-approved ships happen".
-Beau and Caleb try to reform the Empire and dismantle the Cerberus Assembly from within? It's not because it makes sense for their stories or that people who would take this position regarding a corrupt government might have a valid perspective that differs from your own. It's because the people at Critical Role Productions LLC are all spineless neoliberal cowards who won't commit to real activism. The best activism, after all, is violent, and violent revolutions have always resulted in stable aftermaths, and the real world has never demonstrated that this mindset is foolish.
-Relatedly: Caleb doesn't kill Trent personally? It's not because the most poetic justice would be to deny Trent the thing he wants most from Caleb. It's because "Limo Brain" is too obsessed with tragedy to have the stones to do "what needs to be done".
-Asmodeus, DnD Satan, turns out to also be CR Satan? It's not because it fits with the cosmology and the lore; it's because Matt Mercer is too attached to the "establishment", and the Prime Deities should have actually turned out to be the bad guys because of my personal baggage about Western religion and Christianity they're a little mean to my blorbo sometimes.
There's a pattern here: fans had expectations that they'd built up for themselves after projecting and building up fanon and deciding what players meant before they explained themselves fully, and when the players strayed from that, they were derided for all manner of reasons. I think we're seeing that same pattern play out in C3 as the story progresses in a way that fans dislike, and in fact we have seen fanwank spread whenever someone does anything that interferes with personally catering to a) the favored ship and/or b) the favored philosophy. (Orym, Ashton, FCG, Percy, Pelor...all valid when they affirm the Fandom Opinions and all disdained when they don't.)
Don't get me wrong, I think there's a place for comfort stories that deliver a personal catharsis. And I'm not going to dismissively say "well if you want it so bad make your own" because, as an artist, I am very familiar with the fact that creating is hard and draining and sometimes you just need to consume instead. But when you become so wrapped up in yourself and your feelings to the point where your perspective is the only valid one, someone else's feels like a betrayal when it isn't. It's always "They aren't doing what we wanted and here's why they're terrible people because of it" and never "Hmm, why is this what the cast wants? Let's examine that."
This isn't a new phenomenon, but I think it ultimately stems from not assuming that other people can differ from you in major ways in good faith. There are a lot of reasons for that (some more understandable than others), but I think you rob yourself of the potential to enjoy something new when all you do is demand what you already want. No matter what you're doing or where you are in life, you tend to become a better and wiser person when you open your mind to what other people have to say, no matter how mundane the subject matter. Sometimes the stories people have to tell are challenging—and the only healthy way to deal with that is to engage with them on their own terms.
#critical role#cr discourse#asks#long post#for the record i think VLD fandom became such a shitshow partially for this reason#but also. and admittedly i'm biased. VLD was basically a show for no one#this by the way is part of why a faction of fe3h fandom capes so hard for crimson flower (which is basically a glorified bonus route)#and absolutely abhors the idea of byleth being religious and enjoying her job as a teacher#and why some cr fans are so vehemently opposed to the prime deities being good and characters being connected to them#religious trauma that leads a character to reject religion and that being framed as a valid choice is okay to want to see#but it is also just as valid for a character to find religion to be a healing and positive experience#seriously 'gods bad' stories are not that difficult to come by. they're just not doing that in THIS story and you're mad about it#instead of doing the work of finding a story that WILL do that meaningfully
297 notes
·
View notes
Text
We Need To Talk About Danny's Power Level.
I was hesitant to make this post, but the more I think about it and the more I see... We really HAVE to discuss this. Generally speaking, I really don't want to be seen as someone who is trying to ruin people's fun within this fandom. I want to inform, and while I have issues with some of the very prevalent ideas in this fandom, I don't want to tell people what they should or should not be making! I want people to follow what they find fun to create! But this power level thing...? I think that it has some rather concerning implications to it that need to be examined and discussed! This is an actual, decently serious problem, and after considering it for a time, it occurs to me that I may be one of the few people in this community that recognizes this issue as an actual issue and has the authority to speak on it...
You NEED to stop making Danny so incredibly overpowered in the DPxDC space.
Now please don't misunderstand me. I understand the value of a good fun power fantasy and making Danny more powerful than God can be fun and cathartic if you have a negative history with the Christian faith. But this insistence on the Ghost Zone being The Most Important Thing Ever and Danny being The Most Powerful Entity Within It is actually actively warping how people interpret and think about DC canon as well as certain characters within its canon to the point of unrecognizability as well as robbing characters of what makes them interesting, the point of their stories, and their agency within it. But most importantly of all, all of this is just... Generally, genuinely dismissive and shitty towards most religions, cultures, beliefs, and faiths that people practice, ESPECIALLY the faiths of POC and other minorities. And this is specifically an issue that DC does not have and that people within this space are making an issue by refusing to let the Ghost Zone and Danny have some limitations.
So that you understand where I'm coming from, please understand that I'm a person of color (I'm half Filipino) and that I'm Buddhist (a religion that I decided to convert to and embrace after a lot of thought and soul-searching, even if I'm not very good at practicing it). It also needs to be stated that in the DC universe, all religions and faiths are true and real at the same time, and they all have more or less equal footing as any other faith or religion or mythology explored in this multiverse. Christian heaven and hell are real. Reincarnation is canonical to the DCU. The Greek Pantheon is real and they are just as real and powerful as the Norse Pantheon. (By the by, just to let you know, yes, people in the real life modern day do actually actively worship both of these pantheons today.) Different alien planets have different faiths, and there is precedent for them being real as well. (Hey! Fun fact! Kryptonians are polytheistic!) It does seem that some form of animism is real within the DCU (within concepts of The Red and The Green)! And there is even representation for indigenous African faiths and beliefs within this shared universe! One of the genuinely wonderful things about the DC universe is that all of these faiths are real, they're all valid, and they are all more or less on equal footing to one another! If all the religions and afterlives and gods of each pantheon went to war with one another, it would genuinely be difficult to know who would win, or who would even stand a chance of coming out of this conflict alive!
In fact, a lot of characters and storylines within the DC universe are actually DEPENDENT on all of these faiths existing and being equally valid at the same time. Do you know where Billy Batson gets his powers from? The phrase "SHAZAM," if you didn't know, is actually an acronym for the names of the gods and heroes that he derives his powers from. (Solomon, Heracles, Atlas, Zeus, Achilles, and Mercury.) And it's implied that each person with SHAZAM powers has different heroes and gods that they derive their power from! (Black Adam derives all of his powers from the Egyptian Pantheon. Mary Marvel derives all of her powers from female gods and heroic figures.) Many of Wonder Woman's stories involve her interacting with various different pantheons. Xanthe Zhou gets their powers from traditional Chinese folk ancestor-worshiping practices. Ragman is a Jewish character whose suit is a powerful Jewish artifact- a suit made out of the souls of sinners that was created to protect the Jewish community. Sun Wukong is an actual character in the DCU and he is JUST as overpowered and immortal ×500 as he should be! And there are like... At least 3 entirely different characters that either are iterations of, claim to be, or pull their powers/inspiration from Anansi! DC celebrates a lot of faiths and religions and are bringing in more beliefs and faiths into their universe all the time! TONS of characters derive their powers from their religions, faiths, and beliefs! And DC celebrates them all as being real and valid to all who practice them! ... And you want them all to be forced to be under the same umbrella and less important and powerful as Danny and the Ghost Zone...
Bringing up ideas of ghosts and afterlives are always going to be loaded subjects because they often inherently rub up against actual living people's practiced religions and beliefs. But a belief in ghosts and dimensions better suited for them is also a valid belief that real life people have. And there is precedent for these beliefs also being real within DC canon. But DC only manages to get away with crossing over as many faiths as it does by saying that they are all real, valid, and while you might see less of some pantheons and more of others, they all exist and are doing their own thing just like they do in real life, just off panel... Are you beginning to see what the problem is...?
In the DPxDC fandom's eagerness to incorporate Danny into the DC universe and to make him powerful enough to go toe to toe with the likes of Superman, it seems that most people immediately overcompensated and that no one has really thought to slow down, stop, and actually think about what they are implying. Because the most common headcanons that I have seen regarding the Ghost Zone and other afterlives and religions? It's that they are all parts of the Ghost Zone, but are all ultimately subordinate to it. And since Danny is the Most Powerful and Important Person in the Ghost Zone... This implies that all religions, faiths and beliefs are less important and are indeed subordinate to the Almighty Danny. That all deities and the people following them should just bow down to Danny's might. This is something that DC, in spite of all of its flaws, has managed to avoid. These religions are REAL religions! Actual faiths practiced by actual people! We are NOT talking about dead, irrelevant pantheons that no one alive worship anymore! We are talking about living, active faiths and religions, some of which colonizers have tried to eradicate from the world! Some of these faiths have been suppressed! Some of the people who practice these beliefs have faced genocide for them! And so saying that the Ghost Zone is bigger, better, and that Danny is more important than any single other faith and afterlife...? THAT'S A SHITTY THING TO DO! You are literally doing the shitty Christian missionary thing, but with a fictional afterlife that consists of fictional characters that you know are not actual religious beliefs! You're landing on the sandy polytheistic shores of the DCU and declaring that the Ghost Zone is actually vaster than every faith already in the DCU and that Danny is more powerful and has authority over your gods! That your beliefs and faith and religion should just take a backseat to the Danny power fantasy! That your real, lived religion is not more important nor should it be respected when Danny is in the room! Of course the Buddha should bow down to Danny! Of course the Jewish people should renounce their faith and worship Danny instead because he's better and more powerful than the Jewish God! Why should people pray to their ancestors when Danny ultimately gets to decide what happens to everyone's ancestors!? If they want good things to happen to their ancestors in the afterlife, they should pray to Danny instead! Not like any form of prayer works or matters in this universe anyway because Danny is Almighty! And he doesn't hear the prayers! By making all faiths subordinate to Danny within these stories, you are saying that anyone who practices these beliefs and faiths within these stories are not valid in their beliefs. The only belief that matters and is real in this universe is the Ghost Zone and whatever will appease Danny the most. And while the characters in these stories are not real, the religions, beliefs, and practices they engage in ARE. And so you are implying that real people's faiths and religions don't matter. You are just dismissing real faiths and beliefs as not something worth thinking about or respecting within your works! You are saying that this fictional American white teenage boy and his goopy green land is more important to you than just being respectful of real people's faiths, beliefs, and religions. That your power fantasy is more important than saying that a person is valid for holding on to their beliefs. That when it comes down to it, that you would rather people choose your Danny power fantasy over their religion being portrayed as important and valid. That is honestly insulting. And really alls that you've done is impose monotheism onto the DC universe. You're just enforcing monotheism on people with extra steps. But instead of it being the Christian God, you've put Danny in that position. THIS IS A SHITTY THING TO DO! THIS SHOULD NOT BE THE DEFAULT HEADCANON THAT PEOPLE HAVE IN THIS FANDOM! PLEASE STOP!
Please understand. I know that you didn't do this on purpose or mean to imply this intentionally. I know that you didn't realize that you were insulting and undermining actual faiths and religions by pushing these ideas on the fandom. If one or two people had these thoughts and headcanons and didn't think very much about what they are implying, this would not be a problem. But for this to be the default is VERY disconcerting! As a Buddhist, it does feel genuinely shitty and insulting to imply that Danny has authority over the Buddha and that he outranks and is more powerful than Sun Wukong. It's not fun to think that my beliefs matter to you less than continuing to play with your Danny power fantasy. That you don't think that the pursuit for enlightenment and inner peace is real or worthwhile. That you would find my pursuit of compassion over everything else to be silly, stupid, and laughable when stood next to Danny. I know that you don't mean it. I know that's not what you meant to imply. But it is what you imply by making every faith subordinate to the Ghost Zone. And as someone who has a faith that is so often seen as subordinate to others and just a silly little play fantasy that doesn't matter and isn't real, it's depressing and uncomfortable to see this community as a whole unknowingly echo these sentiments. People in real life don't think that my faith is valid. People don't believe me when I say that I'm Buddhist. And as someone who is Filipino on top of that, I can't help but to think about the utter tragedy of my ancestors being forced to convert to Christianity or die. To forget their beliefs, pretend they never mattered, and embrace Jesus. To be forced to believe that their indigenous beliefs didn't matter. And so many of those indigenous beliefs are now lost and forgotten to their living ancestors (including myself) for it because to the Christians, their belief in Jesus was ultimately more important to them than just letting the Filipino beliefs and religions peacefully exist as they were. It's uncomfortable to me that you would rather I just embrace this view of Danny and let him be more important than and be an authority over my religion. That I should just be comfortable in Danny being more important and better than every religion that people actually practice in real life. That I should just forget the insult to my and any other religion that you make by placing Danny as more important than, and to "just have fun." But I can't. And these ideas are everywhere in this fandom. Even in stories where it shouldn't matter or doesn't need to be present, it's there. This reminder that you don't take my faith seriously- these ideas that Danny is more important than my faith are ubiquitous to this community. An issue that wasn't present in either of the original source materials. Because they thought about it and so went out of their way to not imply it. But here, people are just not willing to make that courtesy for even a second.
But it doesn't have to be this way. You can do better! I know that you can do better. And it isn't even difficult to do! All that you need to do better is to simply... Just... Think about it. When you imply or say "all afterlives are part of the Ghost Zone" actually think about ALL afterlives! Christian and Atheist and Greek ones, yes. But also Asian and Native American and African and South American ones too! Is that kind of thought fair towards Native American faiths, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Palestinians, Hellenists, Animists, and every other person and group that practices a faith? Or does this have majorly fucked up implications towards some or all of these people? If the answer is yes, you can proceed, but you need to be mindful of that fact and just think about it, even if only a little. Even if it's just a small acknowledgement that you don't know what you're talking about or that you are choosing to ignore some of the fucked up implications you're making here for the sake of the story in the tags. I just want you to take a moment and think through the implications of what you are making, and to make a choice on whether you should proceed or reconsider things. If you choose to proceed with the fucked up implications, that's fine. It means that you can do so with other mindsets in mind and can possibly use these ideas in interesting ways! At least you made a stance to possibly be shitty towards some people for the sake of your fun. At least you made the choice to say that some people's beliefs just don't matter to your story. This is a neutral statement. Some works of art are just not made for some kinds of people. And that's fine. But it is always better to knowingly acknowledge and make that choice than to pretend that it isn't there. And if you didn't realize that's what you were doing? If you reconsider and choose to turn back on this idea? At least you made that choice and didn't just passively follow the rest of the crowd to get here. Hopefully, thinking about it will make you more mindful about your art in the future and therefore make it better! The only thing to do about it is to acknowledge that you weren't thinking about the implications, but that you changed your mind, and move forwards with your life.
Now just to be entirely clear, I'm not telling you that I want you to feel guilty about being inconsiderate towards other faiths. That doesn't really do anyone any good. I won't get any satisfaction from you feeling guilty about it or internally punishing yourself for it. Just actually give what you might be implying more thought in terms of religion next time and do better. It's alright to make mistakes. We are all just human and we all make mistakes. Sometimes we don't even realize when we've made a mistake. Just strive to do better next time, be more willing to let go of these ideas that you're so attached to, allow yourself to see things from another perspective, and move on. Sometimes, it's better to just leave things alone. Sometimes you shouldn't meddle and try to rework ideas that were perfectly good on their own to begin with. Sometimes nothing that you personally can add will be a positive contribution. Sometimes the only thing that interfering will do is over-complicate things and rob the idea of what made it so interesting and powerful in the first place. But it's okay to leave it alone. It's going to be okay. I'm not angry. Just disappointed and a little frustrated. But it's better if you are able to just drop these things and move forwards with mindfulness in the future.
As an alternative, I think that it would generally be better for the Ghost Zone to just be its own thing separate from the other afterlives. Equal to other afterlives and not all-encompassing of them. It can be connected or related to other afterlives, but being greater than them as a whole is just a very uncomfortable and cruel implication. You don't need the Ghost Zone to be the most important thing in the multiverse. And Danny does not need to be the most powerful thing in existence. Please. It's okay to have power fantasies. But the invincible overpowered stronger than all Gods Danny should not be the overwhelming norm here to the detriment of everything else. It's only when you let go of Danny NEEDING to be the MOST important thing in the multiverse can you start to really dive into some of the more interesting sides of characters on their own terms and not on yours! Like... Did you know that there is one ghost character in DC called The Spectre and that he's the literal personification of the wrath of God? Did you know that Xanthe Zhou as a spirit envoy is actually half dead and half alive? Did you know that The Wizard Shazam is actually, secretly an aboriginal god? Did you know that in the DC universe that Judas Iscariot still walks the Earth to this day, doing vigilante work to atone for his betrayal of Jesus? Did you know that Ra's Al Ghul's mom has met and hung out with some of the demons that Sun Wukong fought against in Journey to the West? Hell, did you know that Damian is Buddhist!? Imagine that. Danny coming in and telling Damian that he's more important and more powerful than Damian's entire religion. That the Buddha is just a lackey of his and that he rules over all afterlives, including nirvana and cycles of reincarnation. I'm certain that Damian would take that very well and accept it wholeheartedly! Don't you agree with me?!!?!???!
I personally think that all of this is better and more interesting if characters, their religions, and ideas in general are able to interact with Danny's world on their own terms without being forced to fit within Danny's box! You don't need to try to force everything within DC's universe to fit inside Danny's. DC wouldn't ask for Danny's universe to conform to theirs! They would just add everything that Danny's universe has to offer on top of everything else they already have! And trying to fit the entire DC multiverse within the scope of Danny's universe... It's too small a box for too large of a universe! Sometimes you can just let things not be deeply connected. And sometimes things don't need a complicated explanation and it can literally just be magic. There's nothing wrong with trying to tie everything together in a neat and succinct way. But sometimes you need to pull your view out a little and look at what you're doing and genuinely ask yourself if what you're doing actually adds depth, or if it does more harm than good and makes everything worse, make less sense, and more complicated or not. It's okay to fall down the rabbit hole sometimes. I completely understand that happening and do it all the time! Just remember to be mindful about it!
Either way, if you're going to insist on desperately clinging onto these ideas of Danny being the Most Important and Powerful Thing in the Multiverse to the detriment of literally everything else, that's fine. But just be honest with what you're doing and why. This isn't a Ghost King Danny AU. Kingdoms don't have unequivocal power over other and all kingdoms. It's a God Emperor over all Gods Danny AU. Nothing wrong with that concept in of itself. Just tag it properly as something like "God King Danny" so that I don't have to deal with it and the implications you're making about my religion with it. That would be enough! I would be happy with that! Just make your choice. Think about what you're doing, why you're doing it and choose. If you choose to keep going, that's fine! All the more power to you! Have fun! But be honest about what you're making. I may not like it and think that it's an overdone, overplayed idea at this point, but you're free to do it! So go forwards and make what will bring you joy! But now that you've thought about it a little, hopefully you'll continue with a little more knowledge and foresight. And hopefully that will make your work even more interesting and better for it! And if you decide to change course, I'm glad that I was able to sway you and get you to see things from my perspective and come to my side on this. At the very least, hopefully this will help to vary up ideas within the fandom a bit and you won't just take ideas that are happening in this space entirely for granted and as givens! I have so many ideas on interesting ways that these intersections can go and characters that you can use, and ways to look at this community that offer so so SO many interesting story directions! I'm so happy that you've decided to come with me on this journey! You're going to make something great, I'm certain of it! So let's make something wonderful together! I believe in you! There's a lot of fun to be had! ^.^
#ghost king danny#dcxdp#infinite realms au#god king danny#dpxdc#dp x dc crossover#dp x dc au#dc x dp#dp x dc#danny phantom x dc#religion#religious discussion#religion tw#religion talk#danny phantom
255 notes
·
View notes
Note
hey, i find your posts about historical fiction pretty interesting, do you have any recs?
anon this is the most beautiful and validating ask i have ever received. absolutely of COURSE I have recs. not gonna be a lot of deep cuts on this list but i love all of these books and occasionally books do receive awards and acclaim because they are good. in no particular order:
the cromwell trilogy by hilary mantel. of course i gotta start with the og. it’s 40 million pages on the tudor court and the english reformation and it will fundamentally change you as a person and a reader
(sub rec: the giant, o’brien by hilary mantel. in many ways a much shorter thematic companion to the cromwell trilogy imo. about stories and death and embodiment and the historical record and 18th century ireland. if you loved the trilogy, read this to experience hils playing with her own theories about historical fiction. if you are intimidated by the trilogy, read this first to get a taste of her prose style and her approach to the genre. either way please read all four novels ok thanks)
lincoln in the bardo by george saunders. the book that got me back into historical fiction as an adult. american history as narrated by a bunch of weird ghosts and abraham lincoln. chaotic and lovely and morbid.
the everlasting by katy simpson smith. rome through the ages as seen by a medici princess, a gay death-obsessed monk, and an early christian martyr. really historically grounded writing about religion and power, and also narrated with interjections from god’s ex boyfriend satan. smith is a trained historian and her prose slaps
(sub rec: free men by katy simpson smith. only a sub rec bc i read it a long time ago and my memory of it is imperfect but i loved it in 2017ish. about three men in the woods in the post revolutionary american south and by virtue of being about masculinity is actually about women. smith did her phd in antebellum southern femininity and motherhood iirc so this book is LOCKED IN to those perspectives)
a mercy by toni morrison. explores the dissolution of a household in 17th century new york. very different place and time than a lot of morrison’s bigger novels but just as mean and beautiful
(sub rec: beloved by toni morrison. a sub rec bc im pretty sure everyone has already read beloved but perhaps consider reading it again? histfic ghost story abt how the past is always here and will never go away and loves you and hates you and is trying to kill you)
an artist of the floating world by kazuo ishiguro. my bestie sir kazuo likes to explore the past through characters who, for one reason or another (amnesia, dementia, being a little baby robot who was just born yesterday, etc), are unable to fully comprehend their surroundings. this one is about post-wwii japan as understood by an elderly supporter of the imperial regime
(sub rec: remains of the day by kazuo ishiguro. same conceit as above except this time the elderly collaborator is incapable of reckoning with the slow collapse of the system that sheltered him due to britishness.)
the pull of the stars by emma donoghue. donoghue is a strong researcher and all of her novels are super grounded in their place and time without getting so caught up in it they turn into textbooks. i picked this one bc it is a wwi lesbian love story about childbirth that made me cry so hard i almost threw up on a plane but i recommend all her histfic published after 2010. before that she was still finding her stride.
days without end by sebastian barry. this one is hard to read and to rec bc it is about the us army’s policy of genocide against native americans in the 19th century west as told by an irish cavalry soldier. it is grim and violent and miserable and also so beautiful it makes me cry about every three pages. first time i read it i was genuinely inconsolable for two days afterwards.
this post is long as hell so HONORABLE MENTIONS: the amazing adventures of kavalier & clay by michael chabon, the western wind by samantha harvey, golden hill by frances spufford, barkskins by annie proulx, postcards by annie proulx, most things annie proulx has written but i feel like i talk about her too much, the view from castle rock by alice munro, the name of the rose by umberto eco, tracks by louise erdrich
#honestly will probably be coming back with additions bc this is just based on whats currently on my bookshelf#made this post while staring at the copy of mirror & the light i keep on my desk as some kind of hilary mantalisman#send me your address so i can explain my passions etc etc#histfic
161 notes
·
View notes
Text
Luke Skywalker in 'The Last Jedi' (1/2)
Luke in The Last Jedi... love it or hate it, it's a difficult subject.
I personally stand somewhere in the middle. I don't think Luke was "ruined"... I'd argue that, from a purely in-universe perspective, his subplot actually tracks with what was previously established in the original films.
There are issues, but I think they are mainly found on an out-of-universe/structural level (which I'll get into in post 2/2). For now, let's take a deep dive and unpack why this portrayal isn't all that problematic.
The most commonly-heard argument is that:
"They ruined Luke's character! He would never go into exile or abandon his sister and friends!"
Simply put, Luke used to be:
an optimist
so brave he'd risk his life to save his friends,
aspired to become a Jedi.
Whereas, in The Last Jedi, he's:
jaded and depressed,
hides/abandons his sister and friends, like a coward,
says the Jedi need to die?!
Now the fact is... Luke is 24 years older when he goes into exile, 30 years older in The Last Jedi. People change, with age.
In Luke's case, he matured from an impatient kid who'd rashly run to save his friends, like in Empire Strikes Back, to a grown-up who makes hard choices and restrains himself from doing that, even though he desperately wants to.
Luke tells himself this is a self-sacrifice, this is for the greater good.
"Because he’s the last Jedi and a symbol of that it then becomes this self-sacrifice, he has take himself out of it, when he knows his friends are dying, when the thing he’d most like to do is get back in the fight."
- Rian Johnson, The Empire Film Podcast, 2018
And Rian Johnson didn't want Luke to come across as a coward, so he also gave Luke an argument that initially seems to make sense:
The Jedi way is flawed and inevitably leads to arrogance.
Proof: the Sith originally came from Jedi. His own new order is no exception to that rule, even if he thought it was (in his arrogance, he believed his own legend).
So if he leaves and stays in exile? No more Jedi, no more Jedi-turned-darksiders that can mess up the galaxy.
The Force will keep trying to balance itself and a new, worthier source will appear (in the form of Rey).
But while his reasoning that "the Jedi are inevitably arrogant" seems sound and reasonable... it's wrong.
Just like Dooku's reasoning that "the Jedi are corrupt" seems sound, but is ultimately wrong.
Just like Anakin's rationalization that "the Jedi are evil" seems sound nope, that one doesn't even seem sound, it's just plain wrong.
Where is it wrong, in Luke's case?
Well, he's rationalizing his actions by blaming the Jedi religion, instead of admitting his own failure.
"The notion of, 'Nope, toss this all away and find something new,' is not really a valid choice, I think. Ultimately, Luke's exile and his justifications for it are all covering over his guilt over Kylo."
- Rian Johnson, The Art of The Last Jedi, 2017
"In his own way, [Luke is] trying to disconnect, he’s trying to throw away the past, he’s saying 'Let’s kill [the Jedi] religion. It’s the thing that’s messing us up, thins thing right here, let’s kill it.’ And the truth is, it’s a personal failure. It’s not religion, it’s his own human nature that’s betrayed him."
- Rian Johnson, The Empire Film Podcast, 2018
He fucked up, plain and simple.
But it's not because “he’s a Jedi and that made him arrogant and the Jedi mentality is flawed”, as he claims early on in the movie.
He failed because he's flawed. Luke is human and had a moment of weakness where he was scared shitless and acted on instinct.
Yoda's spirit helps him realize this, and he fixes his mistake by allowing Leia and the resistance to save themselves. And as he does it, he acknowledges the importance of the Jedi and their teachings.
And it's also why, in The Rise of Skywalker, he has the maturity to admit that he wasn't staying on the island out of some self-sacrificial gesture, as he kept telling himself. Truth is, he was afraid. Afraid he'd screw up again.
Do the movies go about this in an emotionally-satisfying way? That's debatable. But, on paper, I don't think Luke's behavior in The Last Jedi is too much of a shark-jump considering how
THE ORIGINAL IDEA CAME FROM GEORGE LUCAS!
In the couple of months after the Disney sale, Lucas developed the Sequels with Michael Arndt in late 2012/early 2013, and concept art was made by artists like Christian Alzmann.
Note: the image on the left got a “Fabouloso” stamp of approval from Lucas!
Lucas’ sequels would feature a Luke Skywalker who was a figure like the jaded, reclusive Colonel Kurtz in the movie Apocalypse Now (which, fun fact, Lucas helped write and was originally set to direct).
The reason why Luke was in self-imposed exile wasn’t specified, all we know is that he was:
hiding from the world in a cave,
haunted by the betrayal of one of his students,
and spiritually in a dark place.
Other concept artists, like James Clyne, tried to illustrate the First Jedi Temple and some of the designs were approved by Lucas, such as the one below.
Eventually, Kira the female Jedi-wannabe protagonist (who eventually became Rey) would seek him out so he can train her.
This Luke would be a much more prominent part of Episode VII (instead of only appearing at the end) but still died at the end of Episode VIII.
For sources and more information about George Lucas’ plans for the Sequel Trilogy, read this post.
The only part that wasn't detailed by Lucas were the specifics of why he went into exile. But all in all, this sounds pretty similar to what we got in The Last Jedi.
"Luke would never try to kill Ben!”
I agree. And he didn’t try to kill Ben. He stopped himself.
And this version of the event?
This didn’t happen.
What Kylo tells Rey is his version of the story. And he thinks he’s telling the truth... but his recollection of the event is warped as this was obviously a very traumatic event for him.
"I don't think he's lying actually. In my mind, that was his experience. [...] I think that it's probably twisted a little bit by Kylo's own anger and his own prejudices against Luke, but I feel like he's actually telling her the truth of his experience."
- Rian Johnson, Star Wars: The Last Jedi commentary, 2017
The narrative frames the third version of the story as the one that’s objectively how events went down. Because Rey believes him, and Rey is both the protagonist and a stand-in for the audience.
Now, if you think Luke’s word is unreliable and you have an easier time trusting Kylo’s version of the story, go to town.
But I think that if you actually believe would Luke would never try to kill Ben, you’d take Luke's second retelling of the story at face value.
I know I do.
“Okay, but he would never consider killing a child, like Ben. He saw the good in Darth Vader!”
First off, Luke refers to Ben as "a scared boy" because, he's a middle-aged man. But objectively, Ben was 23 years old.
But also, I mean... with Vader, Luke actually had the luxury ignorance.
Do you think would have truly gone on that Second Death Star if he had actually witnessed Vader:
choke his Padmé,
kill Obi-Wan,
actively try to kill Ahsoka,
murder Jedi younglings,
betray and hunt down his other Jedi brothers and sisters,
and cold-bloodedly kill countless innocents, one by one?
There’s a difference between watching him kill Ben Kenobi (who still ‘lived’ as a ghost and talked to him seconds later) and hearing a couple of rebel pilots get blasted in the trench run, and actually seeing all the horrors he’s committed.
Don't get me wrong, Luke knows Vader is evil, absolutely. But if he had seen this side of Vader, the needlessly cruel side...
... I'm not sure he'd have been as compassionate.
Proof: Obi-Wan, someone who deeply loved Anakin (to the point where he could never bring himself to kill him), someone that genuinely wishes that Luke can redeem him... also feels that, realistically, attempting to do so would be pointless.
And hell, even without really seeing all the massacres Vader committed, the second the latter threatened his sister, Luke went berserk and almost killed him!
So the question becomes:
“What could make Luke - trained Jedi Master, long-time optimist and overall compassionate to a fault - consider killing Ben?”
All we’re told is that he looked into Ben’s mind and saw darkness and the destruction, pain, death, and the end of everything he loves.
The specifics are left to our imagination. They could include:
the sight of Kylo slaughtering his parents and Chewie with a smile on his blood-smeared face,
the smell of Han's burning flesh in the air,
the wails of Chewbacca as he's run through by Kylo,
the faint sound of Leia's tears hitting the ground,
the destruction of the New Republic's citizens and planets.
Whatever it may have been, it was intense. Because Force-induced visions are vivid as hell, as has been shown throughout the franchise.
It's not like watching something on a TV, you're there, all your senses are affected in an extremely powerful way.
And the vision Luke experienced scared him so much that even shortly after it, when looking at a sleeping young man, all he sees is that evil monster from the vision. So he tremblingly draws his saber.
But it's evident that Luke wasn't thinking clearly or rationally.
His base emotions had taken the wheel, he was being tempted by the Dark Side.
"He doesn’t give in to the Dark Side, it’s a moment of temptation to the Dark Side. It reminds me very much of when Vader is tempting Luke, when Luke is underneath the stairs in [Return of the] Jedi, lit with that very beautiful half-and-half, the duality of these two sides of him being pulled. And that’s really what that moment is for me, it’s a moment of temptation to the Dark Side for Luke."
- Rian Johnson, IGN, 2017
And yet despite seeing all that... Luke catches himself.
It's not the first time that Luke almost does something horrible to a family member and catches himself. Again, 24 years prior, he almost murdered his own father in a fit of rage.
The scene in Ben's hut intentionally parallels that outburst he has in Return of the Jedi.
A terrible future is presented before Luke.
He reacts instinctively, is tempted by the Dark Side.
He snaps out of it.
Even the angle and framing of the shot is designed to match:
tumblr_video
"Some of these parallels are just “it’s a close-up of the same character” but this one was very intentional. It’s why I had him look down at his mechanical hand holding the saber."
- Rian Johnson, Twitter, 2019
The only real difference is that, in Return of the Jedi, Luke only comes to his senses after a frenzied onslaught during which he actively tried to kill his own Dad.
24 years later, despite having witnessed that terrible future even more vividly than he did on the Second Death Star, he catches himself merely seconds later. Instead of going on a whole rampage, he stops the moment the lightsaber turns on.
I'd call that "progress".
"But Luke should've learned his lesson and known better than to give in to the Dark Side!"
Resisting the temptation of the Dark Side is by no means a one-and-done thing. It's not a power-up that you get, it's a constant struggle.
"I think it disrespects the character of Luke by treating him not as a true mythic hero overcoming recurring wounds & flaws, but as a video game character who has achieved a binary, permanent power-up."
- Rian Johnson, Twitter, 2019
Dave Filoni says so too.
"In the end, it’s about fundamentally becoming selfless, moreso than selfish. It seems so simple, but it’s so hard to do. And when you’re tempted by the dark side, you don’t overcome it once in life and then you’re good. It’s a constant."
- Dave Filoni, Rebels Remembered, 2019
Hell, even George Lucas stated something along those lines:
"The Sith practice the dark side and are way out of balance. The Jedi aren’t as much out of balance because they’re the light side of the Force. They still have the bad side of the Force in them, but they keep it in check. It’s always there, so it can always erupt if you let your guard down."
- George Lucas, The Star Wars Archives: 1999-2005, 2020
Learning the lesson once doesn't mean you've learned it forever. Especially with the Dark Side, which poses a never-ending battle.
In-universe examples:
Anakin learned to let go of his attachments during the “Padawan Lost” arc of TCW.
A year and a half later, he’s butchering kids because he can’t let go of his attachments.
And during wartime, Yoda found himself repressing his darker instincts and ignoring their existence. Thus, when he had to face them, he struggled to acknowledge and control them.
So considering Luke didn't go "rampage mode" with Ben, as he did when he tried to kill Vader, I think he deserves some credit.
Finally, I've heard this insane argument many times, as a response to the above points:
"Yeah but Luke wasn't actually trying to kill Vader! He was holding back, he was trying to keep him alive!"
And, uh... no. He wasn't.
He lost his shit, folks. And almost killed Vader.
Like, right here?
⬆️ If Vader hadn’t moved his saber to intercept Luke’s blade, Luke would’ve stabbed Vader in the face.
⬆️ If Vader hadn’t held his sword up in time, SWISH, there goes the top of his helmet AT LEAST, if not the rest of his head.
⬆️ If Vader hadn’t dodged he’d be chopped in two.
⬆️ If Vader’s arm gave out slightly sooner, if his blade faltered just a little lower, if he loosened his grip on his saber a bit, Vader would be cleaved in two.
My point is that if you swing at someone with a lightsaber? They’ll get chopped. And if you aim for the head or the chest? You’re trying to kill them.
Before Luke got a grip, throughout that whole rampage, the only thing that kept Vader alive was his own skill.
Otherwise, Luke would’ve murdered him in a fit of rage.
If Luke was holding back, then the theme of "resisting the Dark Side" completely falls apart.
There's no indication that he was restraining himself, in he script.
And just look at the imagery.
Luke is surrounded by darkness, symbolizing how he's being seduced by the Dark Side, he's being tempted to give in to his anger towards the man who hurt his friends and took his hand.
Then Vader threatens Leia.
And the next time we see Luke, he's silhouetted, his face is all black.
Luke was originally trying to hold back and talk Vader down, but fails to control his instincts and gives in to fear, to anger, to the Dark Side... and goes all out.
He swings at his father furiously and keeps swinging, until he cuts off Vader's hand... and he is about to deliver the final blow…
… when he sees Vader’s mechanical hand and realizes that by giving in to his anger, that path will inevitably lead him to become exactly like this half-machine half-man laying at his feet. That’s where the path to power leads.
And so he makes a decision:
He’s a Jedi. Like his father before him. His compassion for Anakin is stronger than his hate for Vader.
That's the narrative intent.
It has to be.
Because if he had been "holding back" throughout that entire bit, then the stakes are lowered immeasurably, John Williams' saddening score is misplaced, the lightsaber choreography is misleading, etc.
For the above-listed reasons, I think Luke's portrayal in The Last Jedi doesn't really contradict anything in the previously-established lore. It works, it's the typical "old cowboy needs to get back in the saddle" trope. Frankly, I can defend this subject all day long... so where's the problem?
The problem comes in at an out-of-universe level. While it's not inconsistent... it's also not satisfying.
The thing is, if you...
... take one of the most brave and optimistic characters in the franchise, then open the film saying "well, now he's jaded and in hiding", without giving us context on how he became that way...
... take a character whose arc was specifically about controlling his emotions, then show him be ruled by those emotions without providing context for what made him do that...
... then that kills the suspension of disbelief, for a lot of fans.
And, as such, they'll have a much harder time going along with what you're saying.
Because "show, don't tell" is one of the most basic principles in visual storytelling. And we weren't shown:
"Ben being increasingly violent during training",
"Luke sitting Ben down and having a talk with him, only to be ignored" or
"the horrors Luke saw in Ben's head".
I have no doubt that those things happened, in-universe.
But if we're talking about a movie-going experience, many were left emotionally-unsatisfied.
Because all that stuff was in there... but only subtextually. It was up to the fans to imagine on the details.
Normally, I'd argue that's what Star Wars is all about: allowing fans to dream and think outside the box. But in this specific case, I think many fans would've rather had a more complete and explicit story. Because it's Luke Skywalker.
And yet... even these structural and writing issues had a logic behind them, and if you ask me... there was no other direction that this story could be taken in.
We'll explore this in more detail in part 2/2.
#Luke Skywalker#The Last Jedi#Rian Johnson#Star Wars episode VIII#star wars#jedi order#meta#long post#Ahch-To#in defense of the jedi#episode 8#Ben Solo#Kylo Ren#Mark Hamill#star wars sequel trilogy
245 notes
·
View notes
Text
STANLEY PARABLE AU
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
[-end is never the end is never the-]
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
AU: Religion AU
Description: The Cult of Narrative is a fictional cult which worships the God Diegesis. Stanley, a high priest of the cult, is the four hundred and twenty-seventh sacrifice given to the God. However, when Stanley is taken at the sacrificial alter to the inter-dimensional realm Diegesis uses to test the faith of sacrifices, Stanley finds himself face to face with the manifestation of his faith — and finds the God lacking.
Other Information: The AU primarily deals with the Narrator and Stanley’s relationship, which will eventually lead to romance between them — and a lot of hardship. However, other characters such as Mariella and the Curator will appear as secondary characters with their own side stories. The goal of the au is to explore the relationship between Stanley and the Narrator through a religious lens, discussing the complexities of human emotion and the existence of higher beings. And, of course, there will be smut!
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
[-end is never the end is never the-]
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
The Narrator | Diegesis
The Narrator is a god of the known universe, and the main recipient of the worship by the Cult of Narrative. He is a god who uses the name Diegesis, which is derived from the Greek word which means “to tell”. It is a word often used to describe stories which have an over-reliance on narration to tell their tales. Diegesis feels that it is important to tell a story, so that an audience — or the universe — may beat witness to the whole truth of the tales spun by fate. He is a petulant god, one who is arrogant about his craft and rather manipulative in telling it. As a result, he can often come across as narcissistic seeing as he has no need to concern himself with human emotions. However, he does crave a good story more than anything else — even if he believes the best stories have always sprung from his mind. Diegesis also craves validation for the things he enjoys and creates, often fishing for compliments or even overcompensating just to satisfy the desires of another person. He does not take criticism well. Diegesis has two forms — a human form and a spiritual form.
Stanley | High Priest of the Cult
Stanley is a High Priest of the Cult of Narrative, born and raised within the confines of the cult itself. He is mute, having never been able to articulate himself through verbal communication. Communicating entirely through sigh language and writing, Stanley was often considered a false priest for not being able to fully participate in the cults ritual practices. When he was picked to be sacrifices to Diegesis — as the 427 sacrifices, no less — he felt he could finally fulfill his purpose in the cult. Stanley feels he is a rather boring person, even if that is quite the opposite. He has a defiant personality, often making choices based off of disobedience or stubbornness. He is quick to anger, but also quick to please, often following his emotional response to problems when confronted with conflict. Stanley is always one to commit full heartedly to a cause no matter what it entails. He also quite loves taking care of others, even at the cost of himself.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
[-end is never the end is never the-]
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
The Curator | Mimesis
The Curator now takes on the name Mimesis and acts as the primary counterpart to the Narrator, or Diegesis. She will likely be taking on an antagonistic role, who acts as a foil to how the Narrator looks at the world. Mimesis, coming from the Greek word meaning “show” rather than “tell”, is essentially the opposite of Diegesis. She would have a subplot involving attempting to recruit Mariella as her avatar, leading to their own relationship which mimics Stanley and the Narrators.
Mariella | High Priestess of the Cult
Mariella is a High Priestess of the Cult of Narrative, having been born into the cult and raised as a believer. However, an incident in her adult life lead to her developing deafness in both her ears. No longer having the ability to hear meant she was no longer able to follow her religious teachings. Isolated from her peers and family, she finds solace in Mimesis — the concept of “show, don’t tell”, and the Curator who teaches her the beauty in silent narratives.
The Timekeeper | Paratext
The Timekeeper represents a being outside of the narrative, which means they exist as an entity beyond the story. As a result, they are a god called Paratext, who deals with the elements of the universe which build its foundations for storytelling. Paratext comes from the literary interpretation of materials surrounding a text. This includes cover pages, forewords, footnotes, back matte, and other information not created originally by authors. Paratext, as an entity (and the name of this universe’s Timekeeper), does much the same. They have created the stars, the planes, the trees, and the vehicles of free will. Where Mimesis and Diegesis create and weave the fate of the world into a cohesive story, Paratext gives that world context. In a way, they are a being above Mimesis and Diegesis, as the two concepts would have no perceived meaning without Paratext.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
[-end is never the end is never the-]
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Authors Note: Please feel free to ask questions or comments about these characters! I am likely gonna expand the au some more as time goes on, but as of right now this is the most I’ve got. Hope you all enjoyed!
#vonderful rambling#alternate universe#tsp au#the stanley parable#tsp stanley#tsp narrator#tsp timekeeper#tsp mariella#tsp curator#tspud#tsp fanart#tsp
27 notes
·
View notes
Note
Do you know about the 5 love languages? (Quality Time, Physical Touch, Words of Affirmation, Gift Giving and Acts of Service) What is the order of importance for each Akatsuki member? :)
Note: Physical Touch in this is used non-sexually overall. Like hugging, cuddling, forehead kisses, etc
Im color coding, so you can find what you want faster 👍
Sasori: Words of affirmation above all (and intelligent conversation)! I mean, he dislikes attention in general, so it’s hard to imagine him liking much else 😂 If you can think of a gift he would like, he would very much appreciate that. Under specific circumstances, like AUs, Sasori would also love physical touch (canon 35 year old Sasori really has no interest in relationships in general). He would find acts of service demeaning- he can do it all himself, and in his mind, better. He likes quality time, but also disappears for days on end working on his corpse puppets or killing people to make them into corpse puppets 😍 You gotta be cool with that and tell him they’re awesome.
Deidara: Physical touch, words of affirmation, and quality time- he is literally a princess and requires constant attention 😂 There aren’t many services he would expect from you, he just wants you to tell him he’s amazing and rub his back for hours (maybe that’s the act of service lol). He also would love gifts, and definitely enjoys giving them! Very easy to please and validate!
Hidan: Words of affirmation and quality time! He is a dog! He loves physical touch too, but feels religious guilt for it 😂 His religion is founded on worshipping destruction, and I think love and sex are the opposite of that and frowned upon. Hidan wouldn’t appreciate a nice gift enough, so don’t waste your time (unless it’s a trip to the hot springs or pomade). He would appreciate an act of service like cooking meat for him, or converting, so he doesn’t have to kill you 👍
Kakuzu: Acts of service and, if he trusts you, physical touch (he is very deprived of real affection and would dislike it initially). Kakuzu would also appreciate the gift of a good book! He does not require a lot of attention to maintain his interest if you got him, and though quality time is nice, it isn’t something he values much (once a month lol). He values intellectual conversation more than actual affirmation. Note, a hookup with Kakuzu is easy, and I’m referring to vulnerable physical affection, like snuggling.
Itachi: Gifts, quality time, and lastly, physical touch- he will feel more comfortable receiving physical affection after you spend lots of time convincing him he deserves it. Words of affirmation must be used in small doses or he will reject them. He would like giving gifts more than receiving them, same with acts of service. He is emotionally sensitive and considerate, so he will mirror what you give him and more.
Kisame: Quality time and physical touch. Kisame is a good boyfriend who is generally content and if you’re just nice to him, he’ll be ecstatic. Like Itachi, he might need some small doses of words of affirmation before accepting them as truth. Expect lots of bear hugs and being carried around! The only gifts he cares about are good food, and time with you! He expects no acts of service, but would appreciate you caring for him- all of these people have had hard lives and are comfortable doing everything themselves.
Konan: Gifts and acts of service. Physical touch is earned with her. She is a queen, so she already has whatever she wants, so sentimental gifts are best (but she would love designer). Honestly, she would care more about acts of service you offer to others more than herself. She is attracted to people who display character. Quality time is also nice, but not the top. You have to be good in bed to date her, and she likes giving caring touch to her partners, as well as receiving it. Words of affirmation are appreciated, but don’t overdue it. She’s heard it all, and likes action more than talking.
Nagato: Words of affirmation and quality time. Nagato has a god complex, so just nod and agree with whatever he says, and he will feel so valued 😂 He will shower you with gifts, but won’t expect any in return. Like Sasori and Kakuzu, intelligent conversation is also the key to his heart. Nagato would also value acts of service towards his people. Acts of service involving himself would make him feel guilty. If we are going for sickly Nagato, he would struggle with physical touch at first, but accept it gladly after you gain his trust.
Obito: Words of affirmation, physical touch, acts of service . Also has a god complex, so just tell him whatever he wants to hear and treat him like a king. Before he went nuts, he was a golden retriever, so he probably loves head scratches and tenderness. A good gift might make him giddy as well. Quality time is not his top, cause he’s too busy trying to plan mass genocide, but of course you will have endless time together in the infinite tsukuyomi, so no worries! I’m throwing shade cause he would be a taker instead of a giver 🤪
Orochimaru: Gifts, of course! Weird taxidermy, expensive wine, statues of snakes for his lair, live snakes, stolen research, etc. You will be favored if you give lots of words of affirmation. He has no time for quality time, and you will always be sad and lonely while he experiments on children. He doesn’t feel like the type care much about physical touch, but acts of service are great!
Zetsu: Gifts (corpses of course!) Quality time feels like a favorite of theirs, they seem content to sit around and chill. Don’t be surprised if they kill you, they aren’t quite human anyway. Acts of service are also appreciated! Perhaps some gossip? Zetsu doesn’t seem like the type to value words of affirmation too much (especially Black Zetsu), and hcs for physical touch can go opposite directions.
#akatsuki#deidara#itachi uchiha#sasori#kisame#Konan#Nagato#orochimaru#Obito#itachi#hidan#Zetsu#naruto#kakuzu#text post#asks#my headcanons#Akatsuki Headcanon Collection
47 notes
·
View notes
Note
genuine question, how can you be a system and not have dissociative disorder or vice versa? isn't "seperate identities/people/minds/ what have you" both of those things?
also, what exactly distinguishes DID from just being a system?
Hey, it definitely is possible to both be a system without a dissociative disorder and to have a dissociative disorder without being a system. This is a huge question that has lots of different angles... but we'll give our best shot at parsing a response.
Preemptively going under a cut because we just know this is going to get long.
Being a system without a dissociative disorder:
There are many, many forms of plurality besides just DID. DID absolutely is not just “separate identities/people/minds”… rather it is a mental disorder based in repeated childhood trauma. Lots of systems out there aren't even disordered at all, don’t have a history of repeated trauma in childhood, or their system is disordered, but doesn't qualify for a DID diagnosis. Here's some examples of systems who wouldn't have DID, but are still absolutely plural:
Someone who created imaginary friends who views those imaginary friends as separate beings who share their mind together. They might have created these imaginary friends in childhood and they just never went away, or they might have created them later in life. If someone with imaginary friends likes the plural label or thinks the presence of imaginary friends makes them a system, they're plural and their system is valid.
Someone who consciously created a headmate through practice or using guides to aid in this process found online. There are lots of websites out there where folks have put together resources for creating a headmate from scratch, from daemonism to "tulpamancy" and more. If someone who consciously chose or created a headmate feels like they're sharing their mind with another being, and if they want to use the plural label, they're more than welcome to.
Someone whose system was created through trauma, but who doesn't qualify for a diagnosis of a dissociative disorder. Many systems find that they are trauma-formed, but they don't experience amnesia or dissociative barriers, or perhaps while their trauma responses are disabling or disordered, their plurality simply isn't. A person's system doesn't just disappear if they don't qualify for a dissociative disorder. Many systems may have created headmates to cope with trauma consciously or unconsciously. They're still plural as long as they wish to identify this way.
Someone whose cultural or spiritual beliefs include plurality, or who considers their plurality spiritual in nature. Many systems may find their plurality inherently connected to their religion or spiritual practices and beliefs. Whether they believe they're sharing their mind with angels, spirits, deities, ghosts, or anything else, these folks are still welcome in the plural community. As far as we understand, there are many cultures and religions outside of the west where spiritual plurality is commonly practiced and understood.
These are just a few examples. We could continue this list infinitely (eg writers who share their minds with their characters, patients who use the Internal Family Systems model to build self-esteem, etc etc). If someone feels like they're plural or more than one, or finds the plural framework useful for them, they're welcome to identify as plural. So there are nearly limitless ways to be plural or a system without having a dissociative disorder.
Having a dissociative disorder without being a system:
It is also entirely possible to have a dissociative disorder without being a system.
First of all, some folks with dissociative disorders may start out as systems, but reach a state of oneness through healing, recovery, and fusion. These people still absolutely have dissociative disorders, but through a process of healing, are no longer systems.
Also, many folks with dissociative disorders may technically qualify as systems or plural, but don't benefit from using that language to describe themselves. So while they may have separate parts, they prefer to call themselves "A person with (DID/OSDD/etc)," use exclusively "I/me" pronouns, refrain from naming their parts, and/or their parts may identify with their own body at different ages rather than having their own separate, distinct personalities. Even if a system with a dissociative disorder HAS alters with distinct and separate personalities, they don't have to identify as plural or a system if they don't want to. We firmly believe these are opt-in labels.
Further, there are more dissociative disorders than just DID and the type of OSDD which presents with alters. There are many ways that OSDD may manifest, and it is absolutely possible for some folks to be diagnosed with a dissociative disorder without being a system. They may have less distinct parts, they may lack amnesia, they may feel like one person who's fractured or in pieces rather than "sharing their mind with others," and they may not feel fractured at all, but still have lots of problems with dissociation. There's also DPDR (depersonalization/derealization disorder), which is a dissociative disorder that is not characterized by having parts or alters at all. These folks still definitely have a dissociative disorder, but they're more impacted by depersonalization and derealization and don't have separate parts or alters at all.
(note: depersonalization and derealization are both symptoms of dissociation and are almost always found in those with dissociative disorders that DO present with alters like DID. But it is possible to have a disorder where the DPDR exists without alters or parts.)
Hopefully this was able to demonstrate how DID does not = system, and how system does not = DID. There so much diversity within plurality, and there’s so much diversity within those struggling with dissociative disorders, and those two things (plurality and dissociative disorders) don’t always overlap.
At the end of the day, we’re just one system sharing what we believe. If you’d like to learn more about dissociative disorders and other forms of plurality, our resource post for questioning systems might be a good place to start. It’s not exhaustive by any means, but there’s plenty of resources included for a jumping off point.
Let us know if you have further questions or if this response doesn’t make much sense, and we’d be happy to try and elaborate further. Also, to others who read this, feel free to correct us if we’ve been misinformed or if something we said here is inaccurate.
💫 Parker and 🐢 Kip
#did#dissociative identity disorder#osdd#other specified dissociative disorder#did osdd#plurality#trauma#not sure if there should be more tags here… sorry
61 notes
·
View notes
Note
Random KHR headcanon, aka the characters playing D&D!
Tsuna is a willing forever DM that is infamous in the Naminori D&D circles for being fucking ruthless, yet fair, when it comes to it. He will take an eye or limb from your character, but only if it makes sense for that to happen. Makes very detailed maps.
Hayato: Enjoys cycling through the various classes, but likes the Ranger class the best. Tends to go for more open ended backstories to let Tsuna mess around with them for plot reasons. His one Bard became the next campaign's BBEG and he regrets nothing.
Takeshi: Tends to stick with the Rogue and Fighter classes, and occasionally plays as a Sorcerer when he wants to spice things up. Keeps him backstories simple to avoid Tsuna milking them for emotional damage. Sometimes fails but he sure does try.
Ryohei: Mains Monk, Barbarian and Fighter, and occasionally multi classes into other classes if it makes sense. Tends to give his characters amnesia or a mysterious origin that they don't know of because otherwise he has no clue how to do backstories. Fully aware of the fact that said tendency has caused some of the most harrowing story moments and does not care.
Hibari: Ranger and Druid main, and does not give a shit about the other classes. Very thorough with his backstory because the one time he made it exploitable for plot everyone came out of that particular arc a little traumatized and Tsuna wouldn't stop grinning about it for weeks afterwards.
Mukuro: Sorcerer and Wizard main, and fully embraces making Tsuna's job as a DM both easier and harder via elaborate backstories he can work into the campaign. Tsuna gets his revenge via always ensuring his character suffers because of that fact.
Chrome: Cleric and Warlock main, sometimes multi classes into both because of the chaotic potential. Her backstories tend to be ones that are all like "Yeah it happened, but it can't follow my character" and honestly she is valid for it.
Reborn: Paladin and Artificer main, his backstories are wildly different in terms of content for the challenge of it. Of course, apparently as a trade off the more convoluted his backstory is, the worst his luck is. No one knows how that's a thing. The current theory is the universe is balancing him out.
Everyone else: Guess or one shot players. They tend to cycle through classes due to not playing as much. Kyoko one time accidentally made a very overpowered Cleric that proceeded to kill everything and convert a Red Dragon Adult to their religion through fear and respect so there's that.
Tauna would be the “I’m gonna kill that dog 🤪” kind of DM and I am cackling about it tbh. He would also take the time to not only make incredibly detailed maps but specific relevant props for each player. Is infamous for tpk’ing a party in session zero when they all fucked around too hard and didnt think they would find out. Spends half his time ripping his players hearts out of their chests with incredibly small details that become massive later on and literally begging for them to stop trying to break his dungeon and just go inside already.
(So the unholy alliance of Brennan Lee Mulligan and Anthony Burch tbh)
It balances out because any of his usual party would be a nightmare at any other table but his. Their feral levels always seem to just resonate in all the right ways
#the elf talks#reborn#katekyo hitman reborn#I would also argue that Chrome and Mukuro’s characters are almost always related#it’s really funny when he’s a warlock and she’s a cleric and they’re the bitchest set of twins
35 notes
·
View notes
Photo
Monsters Reimagined: Celestials
BE NOT AFRAID
Angels and their kin have been a common request in my inbox for some years now, but It’s taken me some time to actually write this post in no small part because I needed to come to terms with how I wanted them to work in my own world.
The problem was finding a balance in the “all angels are good, if not nice” angel, and the “gritty, singleminded zealotry” angel that’s become the default as generation after generation of creator has pushed back against an oppressive religious culture and wanted to see the icons of that religion dragged through the mud as a means of validation.
As I’ve discussed with my post on fiends, I don’t like how d&d does alignments: not just as moral absolutes, but as universal constants that leave no room for debate or faith or contradiction, as belief is systematized and taxonomized, with each good and bad deed having a corresponding outsider and designated parkingspot in the great cosmic wheel.
Here’s my pitch then: Just as demons embody mortal vices gone awry, and fey embody the natural world, celestials embody ideals, pure concepts that exist one step removed from the practical considerations of physical reality. Not only does this allow you to keep your usual “justice”, “kindness” angels on theme, but it also lets you square concepts that would seem to be contradictory without making hard and fast moral judgements about things that can be good in some cases but not in others. An angel of feasting and good cheer might disagree with an enlightened master of ascetic self discipline, especially about whether their mortal wards should really help themselves to a third round of dessert, but neither would fault the other should the decision go their way. Good is not absolute after all.
That said, there’s plenty of different types of celestials, some of whom might disagree on that non-absolutist take, but to find out about my personal taxonomy, you’re going to have to keep reading under the cut
Angels: While all celestials embody some kind of ideal, the angels are out there being the good they want to see in the multiverse. Just like devils actively work to find fault with mortals or punish them for their transgressions, angels wish to extol and foster their virtues. Including angels in your adventure will typically have them picking someone (possibly a PC, possibly a side character, maybe even a villain) and nudging them towards their better nature. Some angels may even be created when someone’s goodness outlives them, or called into being when a collection of goodness coalesces over time. Angels are not the direct subordinates of gods, as gods exist in an even further removed state of idealization, they do however have closer contact with gods, more akin to that of a higher level cleric.
Fallen angels: just as medicine can become poison depending on the dosage, virtuous behaviour can become a vice if taken to its extreme. Righteousness can become wrath, love can become obsession, selflessness can become martyrdom. Little better than demons at their worst, angels that lose the ability to compromise or see other points of view are at risk of becoming something destructive.
Archons: Embodiments of laws by which people are governed, these celestials were placed in charge of mortals during the chaotic dawn age, in an attempt to give the fledgling cultures and civilizations they cared for a scaffolding to build off off. The arcons were despotic tyrants horever, caring little for the wellbeing of their charges compared to the enforcement of the systems they personified. These draconian despots have long been banished to their own little corners of the multiverse, and adventures involving them will likely revolve around an archon trying to reobtain power, or the unearthing of cruel artifacts they used to maintain it.
Lesser Graces: What could be called “Feral Angels”, these spirits represent minor or incidental forms of benevolence removed from coherency or greater morals. The Reverence of moths towards a lamp, a child’s dream of flying free, the protective spirit of a community of feral cats. These are the celestials most likely to be encountered by players in the early stages of their adventures, stumbling upon them incidently as they explore the untouched places of the world.
Psychopomps: Though often spooky or grisly, the shepherds of the dead play an important role in seeing the souls of mortal to their final destination, whether that be in the keeping of a god or the great resting place of the underworld. A party is most likely to encounter psychopomps after someone kicks the bucket, though minor spiritguides may linger around graveyards and tombs, looking to escort lingering souls and dismiss the undead.
Indescribable: From a distance the light of the sun warms the world and nourishes growth, but on a greater scale it can scorch a land to lifeless desert and at its maximum is it nothing but thermonuclear oblivion. Such is the case with the indescribable, celestial entities that take concepts like “purity” or “sanctified” and turn it to the absurd. Ethanol is pure after all, but that’s because it kills any microbial life that it comes in contact with. Indescribables tend to exist beyond the reality of the multiverse, or else carve off very specific territories within it, and adventures involving them likely involve some holier than thou idiot who’s decided to take an ethical system and drive it into an omnicidal ditch.
439 notes
·
View notes
Text
Why the Altmeri Commentary on Talos is Important to Lore Discussion (Even if It Isn't the Thalmor's End Goal)
Originally posted on r/teslore three years ago. To be clear, important in this context means if you're trying to guess where TES might go in the future. And as the years go by, and we now have an almost complete turn-over of developers at Bethesda, it may be less relevant. Still, the new developers will have all these old ideas to rummage through.
This begins with a split among fans, though I don't think it has to be a nasty split. There is a very strong opinion in /r/teslore that Out-of-Game texts are valid if you want them to be, if you find them interesting enough for your Tamriel. And there's another very strong opinion that only official lore is really valid for theorizing. To be completely honest, we all probably dabble in one or the other at different times. Sometimes we are more creative and speculatory about Tamriel, other times we are arguing out the Lowest Common Denominator of agreed-upon lore. (It's never actually agreed upon, but that's part of the fun.)
But there's a third possibility: examining Out of Game texts for the perspective they can give us on In-game lore. A really good example of how this works would be the document: On the Nords' Totem Religion. It was a design document for Skyrim which was not incorporated into the game directly. However, the document gives a lot of insight into the little we do see in Skyrim of the ancient Nord religion. It is useful in interpreting the game itself.
It's also useful for going forward. When ESO returned to Skyrim this year, we could bet that the devs would be taking a closer look at the local religion, as they had in Elsweyr last year. And we could also guess that they might turn to that unofficial Skyrim design document which best explained the original ideas for the Nord religion. As of a few weeks ago, much of the Totem Religion document's lore has been added to the official lore as in-game books in ESO.
The totem religion document is as uncontroversial example of this process as you can find. Most everyone in lore circles has regarded it as a very useful document. You won't find that agreement about all OOG unofficial writings. But I'd like to make the argument for why the Altmeri Commentary on Talos is worth knowing and discussing even if you don't end up thinking it's true.
So, I'll begin with quoting the whole thing. It's pretty short.
What appears to be an Altmeri commentary on Talos
To kill Man is to reach Heaven, from where we came before the Doom Drum's iniquity. When we accomplish this, we can escape the mockery and long shame of the Material Prison.
To achieve this goal, we must:
1) Erase the Upstart Talos from the mythic. His presence fortifies the Wheel of the Convention, and binds our souls to this plane.
2) Remove Man not just from the world, but from the Pattern of Possibility, so that the very idea of them can be forgotten and thereby never again repeated.
3) With Talos and the Sons of Talos removed, the Dragon will become ours to unbind. The world of mortals will be over. The Dragon will uncoil his hold on the stagnancy of linear time and move as Free Serpent again, moving through the Aether without measure or burden, spilling time along the innumerable roads we once travelled. And with that we will regain the mantle of the imperishable spirit.
What it doesn't say: Nowhere does it say it's a Thalmor document. Nowhere does it mention the Towers. Those two points are pretty well-known in lore circles, but they come up enough to make it worthwhile to point out.
Second thing to notice: its date.
Submitted by Lady N on Sun, 09/19/2010 - 19:53
Obscure texts
Author: Michael Kirkbride
Librarian Comment:
Many of these are in-character snippets taken from various forum posts.
It doesn't have an exact date; the old forums have been deleted. But we do see that it was re-posted on the Imperial Library on 09/19/2010, the year before Skyrim came out. This important detail is glossed over in a lot of the discussion of its relevance. It is not a document written after Skyrim trying to put a creative spin on some details in-game. It's a document published before Skyrim came out, and hence a window on the discussions that were going on in the development of Skyrim. We need to look at the stuff in Skyrim with the question: Does the Altmeri commentary shed any light on what's going on here?
Well, the fact that the Altmeri Commentary suggests that Talos needs to be erased from the mythic makes it very relevant. Maybe this is not the reason for the Thalmor's Talos ban in the game that eventually was released. But it's evidence that during the development of Skyrim, the reason was being kicked around by someone in discussions with the devs. It's that context that finally informs the two lines in-game that might refer back to the Commentary.
The first and most often quoted is Ancano's boast:
You think I can't destroy you? The power to unmake the world at my fingertips, and you think you can do anything about it?
It's pointed out that he can simply be boasting of his power there, without any reference to a supposed greater plan. And yes, that's true. But remember, we aren't interpreting that line in a vacuum. There was a development-related post that brought up a fanatical Altmer idea of unmaking the world before Skyrim, and it's just a coincidence that a fanatic Thalmor member boasts of having the power to do so in the game? These things have nothing to do with each other?
And then there is the other line from Esbern which I think is even more significant.
I don't suppose they want the world to end any more than we do. Or at least, they'd prefer it to end on their terms.
Esbern's statement does not confirm this is the Thalmor's plan. What it does is confirm that the idea this is the Thalmor's plan exists in-universe. And Esbern is not some random conspiracist; he's a lore-master. Dragons were his hobby but we also know from his dossier that the Thalmor consider him responsible for two of the most damaging operations on Dominion soil. He knows his stuff when it comes to the Thalmor. His opinion may be affected by paranoia, he may not even hold the opinion very strongly (suggested by how he corrects himself there), but he is not some random guy in the pub with a conspiracy theory about the Thalmor. If it's a conspiracy theory, it's an important one in-universe.
So, we have a timeline that suggests the Commentary is important, and two references in the game of Skyrim to the idea presented in the Commentary. The references are independent, coming from ideological enemies, Ancano and Esbern. I'd say that makes a very strong case for the Commentary's ideology existing within the universe.
If this concept exists within the universe, the Commentary is important even if it does not represent the Thalmor's ultimate goal accurately.
But where does one go with that? With Michael Kirkbride's historic and ongoing influence on the TES franchise, elements of the Commentary are quite likely to make it into future games. On the other hand, the Commentary may be a window on an idea in development that was tossed around and ultimately abandoned. Maybe it's not Thalmor belief, really. It could even be Blades propaganda. Maybe Ancano believes in it, but he's actually a fanatic who's out of step with the Thalmor in general. etc. etc. etc.
Acknowledging that an Out-of-Game source is relevant does not mean accepting it as the Truth Bound To Be Revealed by TES VI. TES fandom has had enough of that over-certainty already. I think we've all met someone who takes some random developer's post as The Gospel Truth that cannot be questioned. That's frustrating, for sure. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. It doesn't make sense to ignore it completely in discussions about the Thalmor's ultimate goal. There are enough sources to make it worth looking at, both inside and outside the universe.
This post was about the relevance of the Commentary, but if you're interested in how the Commentary's ideology could function within the Thalmor, I can never recommend enough this old /r/teslore post: Analyzing the Altmeri Commentary on Talos.
Additional reply in comments:
I thought I'd hedged enough on my statement. I won't claim Esbern as an expert on the Thalmor's ontological goals, although he definitely is more knowledgable about the Thalmor than the random guy at the pub. I do think, however, that his statement confirms that some people within the universe think this is the Thalmor's end goal. I see his statement there as he's not certain himself of it.
In the comments of the original post, a user who has since deleted their account posted a very interesting timeline of the development under discussion. I also recommend this discussion with Misticsan about the post and whether fans give the Commentary undue importance in contrast to other sources on the Thalmor.
This was only the beginning of a very involved journey into the weird fandom status of the Altmeri Commentary and the Towers Theory. It's a lengthy saga, and I've put off formatting it for tumblr but I do mean to eventually copy all the teslore posts over here.
34 notes
·
View notes
Text
with the rising popularity of the show Loki after season 2’s release, i’m sure it will draw a lot of people into the Pagan Path of worshipping the Norse God, Loki Laufeyjarson (The Lokean Path). if that is you, please keep reading!
tldr: research Loki Laufeyjarson, and please help preserve Norse Paganism!
first of all, welcome! finding Loki Laufeyjarson from loving Loki Laufeyson is valid, despite what the naysayers claim.
i know this from first hand experience, because the same thing happened to me over 2 years ago. i’m autistic, and my comfort character became Loki Laufeyson after i saw season 1. to make a long story short, one simple Google search for “Loki” made me realize who my new comfort character was actually based on.
‘based on’ is the key phrase. the way i see it, Marvel’s character Loki Laufeyson is their fan fiction of Loki Laufeyjarson. he’s a modern take of the God with Marvel’s own spins. a lot of the attributes line up to the real God due to who they are. i think it’s because their vibrations are high, and their presence is easily and accurately transparent in this realm through the span of centuries.
my advice to you: one, learn everything you can if you choose to walk The Lokean Path. people say Paganism is “the reading religion” for a reason. it’s important to learn the rich history involving the God, Loki Laufeyjarson. the cultural history needs to be preserved because much of the information hasn’t been passed down well (the first documentation was made by a Christian dude). read the myths, take in people’s analysis of them, and never stop collecting new information. be especially careful when getting into runes and oaths.
two, accept that Loki Laufeyson and Loki Laufeyjarson are not the same individual. learn what Loki Laufeyjarson is the God of, and what being a trickster truly means. it’s not only disrespectful to deny Loki Laufeyjarson’s actual identity, but you’d also be missing out on someone extremely life changing to worship.
you are not a bad person if you love both Loki Laufeyson and Loki Laufeyjarson. it can be done, believe me, because it’s been my life for a long time. just do your research, and welcome in the true God as they are if that’s what you wish.
#loki#marvel loki#loki season 2#loki laufeyson#lokius#loki season two#tva loki#loki series#loki laufeyjarson#norse paganism
27 notes
·
View notes
Text
you can see more than a few similarities between the “original gamergate”, the DOA “gamergate 2” and what’s been happening with the misogynist men freaking out about 🤏 in South Korea. This time the western gamergate incels hate “woke” and “cultural Marxism”, before this it was “SJWs”. In practice their hatred is targeted on the same groups no matter what the year. In SK it’s “megal femi/ feminists” (megalia feminists) and “PC” (politically correct). These men pretend to care about things like “ethics in gaming journalism” or “extreme misandrist feminists”, the topics are smokescreens they use to legitimize their violent hatred of women, minorities, lgbt, the disabled, etc. as shown above with the quote from the Discord chat. I think the shock for many people regarding the Korean incel situation is that the companies they target very often will grovel and beg for their forgiveness, thus validating the delusion of some radical feminist boogeyman placing secret signs in gacha games or cartoons.
for the western gamergate men, their white supremacy is also a huge factor. They form communities and shape their own identities based on hatred and fear.
The “threat” in this case of “gamergate 2” is Sweet Baby Inc.
From the way social media is set up now, it’s easy for these men to rapidly fall into extreme echo chambers. They are angry about the hardships of life and are champing at the bit to direct that anger at an easy, identifiable cause. Can’t find a job? It’s too hard to recognize and understand the force and destructive nature of capitalism, it’s not a concrete thing you can attack right now and they have typically already been indoctrinated to believe anything criticizing capitalism is some scary evil communist ploy. So they turn their ire to an easily identifiable group, like immigrants attempting to live and work in the US. Why are these people trying to escape their countries? Don’t think about it! Can’t get a girlfriend? Surely it can’t be that you need to improve yourself, socialize and not see women as conquests? No, it’s the fault of those damn feminists! Of course these are flippant simplifications of issues that can be studied and analyzed in regards to society, family, religion etc and how propaganda from these sources can beget the type of male who is primed for indoctrination as well but I’m trying to be brief. A lot of this hate and fear also comes in tandem after any type of hard won victory (no matter how small) for any demographic these men are not a part of, they see it as some catastrophic loss of power because they are so used to absolutely everything being made for them or in their power. They think society runs “correctly” because they hold absolute power, so they push back (often violently) on anything they deem an challenge to this. In terms of videogames, this is why they believe just having a main character who is not a white male means “society hates men”or “games are not made for ‘us’ anymore”. You can see this type of attitude emerge in Korean men as well, regarding backlash to more women entering the workforce and gaining more rights. the following is just one example-
After a short period of time, men in these spaces get so indoctrinated that actual facts are false to them if it goes against what they WANT to believe. They don’t want to challenge and evaluate their own thoughts because it’s easy to keep hating.
If you’re from the US (or familiar with its political landscape over the past decade+) and this reminds you of the alt-right playbook, it’s because Steve Bannon saw the original gamergate and utilized the force of these angry males.
As the excerpt stated, these men see videogames as “a final escape for a generation of angry young white men,” essentially power fantasies that still reinforce and flatter their sense of importance over the “other”. (Of course the Korean incel demographic is not white and is not living directly in a white supremacist western society so this isn’t a 1:1. regardless that does not stop them from being racist.) In some ways this is from lack of inclusion of some demographics, in some ways it’s reinforced by having the “other” be in what these men see as their rightful place in society. So because of this, you see a LOT of these men foaming at the mouth when they believe a female character design is not “sexy” enough, because her job is not to be a character in a story, it’s to titilate the male viewer while he plays he game. She is made FOR him, for his pleasure first and anything else second. If she isn’t hypersexualized then she does not exist, she is failing the one job she has in these men’s eyes. You can see this in the way men talk about the upcoming “Stellar Blade”game from the developers of the gacha game “NIKKE”. Gaming presents this “sanctuary” for men, many eventually cutting themselves off from reality to live in this fantasy world- an act that can be dangerous for those around him.
Anyone who is new to gacha games, I need you to understand this is how the typical male gacha gamer views an all-female cast especially- they are there to titilate the perceived male user while he “buys” them, gives them orders in gameplay and reads the story. It’s still their male power fantasy, this is why tensions are extremely high when they think a “feminist” works on the game, and/or they think a male character looks “weak” or is sexualized in the same way women are sexualized. They want a clear divide of the sexes (designs of powerful men VS very thin, highly sexualized women), and this type of design threatens that. You can read more on gacha designs here on this blog, I don’t want to rewrite that whole post here. When they think a character is not sexy enough, they will illegally mod the game to change that, you can see in this image the Genshin Impact (a game the korean incels have now dubbed as a “femi game”) character “Shenhe” whose outfits were not deemed sexy enough, so the men modified the clothing on the left (costume and original outfit) to the “clothing” on the right while also increasing her bust size significantly.
This isn’t meant to be an analysis but rather a basic overview and reiteration of some aspects that made up the western “gamergate” situation using plain language. I linked the sources for everything directly on the images. Whenever I do an actual analysis there of course will be more sources and less copy&pasting directly from them lol
15 notes
·
View notes
Text
gonna go off a bit on the subject of the "he's me fr" school of character analysis. Because while it's absolutely fine and good even to relate to fictional characters and see aspects of yourself in them, it's also important to recognise the difference between your interpretation based on your experiences and what is actually shown on the page or screen.
humans are primed to recognise patterns. We are strongly inclined to contextualise things to suit our existing worldviews. We don't like contradiction and we don't like things we don't understand. It's so natural for us then to reframe anything we find confusing or contradictory that we often don't even notice we are doing it.
this is bad! This is dangerous! This is how you get bigotry and hatred!
a lot of people reframe things they don't understand (other races, cultures, religions, genders) into Other and Other is frequently Bad or even Evil. It's relatively easy to spot when other people do this and to understand that it is wrong. But surely, you may then say to yourself, if i am reframing things into what is familiar to me that's good, right? i'm Relating and that's a positive thing!
and i guess, yes and no. Yes because finding connection can be validating and because there's a reason that representation in media is so important--that reason being largely because it gives a wider range of people the opportunity to see others like them on screens and in pages. But also that act of relating to something you know is in fact an act of bias. You are biased in favour of recognising that thing because it is You. It's important to you as part of your identity but you should be aware that this can lead you to overcompensate and to misinterpret things because you are seeking that connection so intensely. And honestly i think this is also fine so long as you are able to recognise the difference.
there's a difference between saying "i identify in X way and demonstrate Y characteristic. This fictional character demonstrates Y characteristic therefore i am going to interpret them as identifying in X way" and saying "this character MUST OBVIOUSLY identify in X way because I DO and I SAID SO and this is now a VALID TEXTUAL INTERPRETATION."
maybe it is. Maybe it also isn't. Maybe Y characteristic is something that supports many different interpretations and "because they're totally me and i said so" is neither a strong argument nor a healthy way to process the world.
let me give a real world example. i am acespec, something i didn't understand until relatively recently and definitely couldn't have defined when i was in college because that was like 1997 and the language i needed really didn't exist then. Or at least it didn't exist in my corner of the american midwest. Anyway. i had a friend in college who was gay. He had come out at 18, which in the late 90s rural midwest was a big fucking deal. He was very proud of his identity, to the point of being aggressive about it and one of his big things was trying to encourage other people to explore their own sexual identities.
which is fine, right? Good, even. People should be able to do that and his intention was to be a safe space for his friends. His intentions were good! What wasn't good was the way he absolutely targeted me as someone who didn't date and didn't "chase men" <-this was literally the way he phrased it to me. He said "you don't chase men and you don't want to date them therefore you are a lesbian just admit it."
he absolutely would not accept that i wasn't gay too. He used to get mad at me for arguing with him about it. The way his world was framed you were either gay or straight (reminding folks this was the 90s) and so if you weren't demonstrating Accepted Straight Behaviour, ie dating and lots of sex, that must mean you were closeted gay and should just come out already, otherwise what are you some sort of homophobe?
he wasn't able to recognise that his interpretation of the characteristics i showed were not the only possible interpretation. Even if i weren't acespec i could just not have met anyone i was interested in! (this was also true). There were at least half a dozen other explanations for it but he insisted his was the only way because it was His identity and His experience and he was i think genuinely trying to relate to me on that level. Instead he ended up alienating me because i knew the choice wasn't as simple as "gay or closeted and probably homophobic" but there was absolutely no convincing him of that.
obviously there is a difference between what he did and fictional character analysis. Obviously fictional characters are not going to be hurt by people interpreting them as whatever the way i was hurt by my friend's behaviour. But i put it to you that the same inability to differentiate between what is real and what is your own interpretation based on your personal biases is a negative thing and something people need to be aware of. If you are capable of imposing traits on fictional people based on your own identity and recognising that doesn't necessarily mean they have those traits then great, more power to you, go forth and fanfic. But if you interpret a character in X way and genuinely, deeply believe that your interpretation is the only right and valid one based on nothing more than your own experiences then i strongly urge you to examine your biases and learn to do textual character analysis. For yourself, for your own metacognition skills, but also for the people around you. Believing you are right and there is no other way to think is the quickest path to intolerance and hatred that there is.
#yes this is about crazy ass takes on the gay pirates#but i will not tag it as such because i don't want the drama#getting it off my chest on a blog no one reads anyway#behave in the notes or you are blocked
17 notes
·
View notes
Text
ridiculously long Sopranos post I swear I tried to keep it concise but this is as short as it's going to get
One pattern among Sopranos viewers that I find baffling is the veneration of Dr. Krakower, the therapist in “Second Opinion” who tells Carmela flat-out that she’s obligated to leave Tony and refuses to take her “blood money.” I’ve seen him described as one of the only truly moral characters in the whole show, if not the only one. I agree that his integrity is truly admirable, but I think a lot of viewers overstate the value of that integrity. Granted, this is partly just me being the biggest Melfi apologist imaginable (I’ll get to that in a second), but I also think that I have an objectively valid point to make. One of the biggest themes of The Sopranos is how difficult it is to make a substantive change in one’s life, and that’s partly a matter of human frailty, but it’s also a matter of circumstances and environment. The Sopranos understands that, for most people, willpower will only take them so far because people don’t exist in isolation. To take an example from the last episode I watched (6x17, “Walk Like a Man”), Christopher has been trying so, so hard to stay sober, but he ends up getting drunk and murdering a guy, and while that is ultimately on him, it might never have happened if he hadn’t endured years of mockery from the very people who insisted that he get sober in the first place. It’s this interconnectedness, this imbrication of people, that makes morality so complicated—and so insufficient. Virtue and vice are unfortunately never the only factors at play in human behavior.
Bringing this back to Krakower: his integrity is undeniably admirable, but what good does it do? Carmela doesn’t take his advice! I saw a YouTube comment that said that the best thing Dr. Melfi ever did for the Soprano family was to refer Carmela to Krakower, but how can that be, when the net impact of that referral was nothing at all? Is throwing moral clarity at a morally murky situation really the objectively right thing to do, when it’s so unlikely to accomplish anything material? Not to mention Carmela's religion teaches her that she’s obligated to stay in this marriage, which is an absurd belief IMO, but it is her belief nonetheless. Of course he’s not going to get through to her if he doesn’t meet her where she’s at. I’m not saying integrity doesn’t matter. I’m just saying that in Sopranos World, as in the real world, you don’t have a good/bad effect on the world just by having good/bad morals. I think it’s best to have one foot firmly planted in morality while also being willing to engage with immorality, but even that approach to life isn’t guaranteed to do good, because sometimes, no matter how hard you try, it’s out of your hands. The world is just too complicated.
One of countless things I love about Melfi is that she’s one of the few characters who I see making a fairly consistent effort to walk the line between principles and pragmatism. Obviously she makes mistakes, she’s as human as the rest of them, but damn it, at least she’s trying! I think a lot of viewers don’t give her enough credit for that. If Krakower deserves credit for his moral intransigence (and he does!), surely Melfi deserves credit for trying to strike an effective balance. I just don’t understand how viewers of this show, which takes such a realistic look at the limits of how far an innate sense of right and wrong can take you, can see one therapist who tells his patient that she has to do something she’s almost guaranteed not to do because it would be enormously difficult both psychologically and logistically (he tells her to “take the children” and go—how’s that supposed to work? They’re not toddlers who she can just scoop up and carry away!) and then sends her away, and one therapist who tries to build a relationship with her patient through which they could theoretically work together on shaping him into a more functional person, and declare that the former is doing it right and the latter is doing it wrong. Sure, her strategy ultimately fails, but so does his, and I think hers was a lot more pragmatic! It would have worked with a patient who was more willing to try. Like me, for example. I would be the best patient she ever had and I would never let her down and she would be so proud of me.
Okay, I had written some additional paragraphs switching gears and focusing on Melfi’s approach to treating Tony and explaining some of the reasons that I will always stan her, but this post is so long already I think I’m going to end it here. Sometime soon I’ll make a separate post with the Melfi paragraphs. She deserves her own post anyway. Have I mentioned that I love her? Have I ever mentioned that???
#The Sopranos#x#thank you if you read all 800+ words of this I simply could not make it any shorter#Anna watches tv#Anna watches The Sopranos#analysis#I have many thoughts
17 notes
·
View notes
Text
Guide To Sleeby:
I can write sometimes and do silly doodles. (This will be updated occasionally so be sure to double check)
Masterlist
This is an 18+ blog. Minors I do not want you following me or interacting with my nsft posts thanks.
I now block ageless blogs. Please check you have an age indicator in your bio before following me.
Also please for the love of all that is unholy if you follow me, please change your profile picture and backdrop. Give me something to show you aren't a spam bot, you are an actual person with likes and interests because I block bots on site.
I’m fine with writing nsfw—following boundaries are below.
Please don’t ask about piss, shit, or vomit kinks in my ask box.
Religion is a touchy subject for me so I will be avoiding writing about most religious matters.
Now I’m personally Aroace—so I find much of my own writing to be understood as hypothetical. I do understand not everyone will read it that way and that’s perfectly okay. If I see anyone commenting amatonormative things on explicitly stated aromantic characters, I will not be pleased. Go read any of my other fics.
If you are considering sending me hate specifically over my writing: please go outside, it's not that serious. If I bother you that much just block me. You are accountable for your own internet exposure. If you do send me hate, I will just troll you back and then block you. So the only person getting any satisfaction is me.
I really appreciate comments in my askbox, it’s a huge plus to my day. (I'm a sucker for validation so even an illegible keysmash is appreciated)
I’m less appreciative about comments asking me to update or when the next part is coming out. I’m an adhd full-time college student with three part-time jobs. I find these requests in poor taste.
If I accidentally misspeak or say something in poor taste, please for the love of god call me out on it. Hold me accountable. I'm still learning and unlearning. The last thing I want is to make an escape designed to forget about reality an unsafe space.
30 notes
·
View notes
Note
Hello!!! I am new-ish to Dungeons & Dragons and would like to play a cleric. Seeing some of the responses to the gods in campaign 3, I'd really like to avoid some of those same attitudes from the anti-fc anti-god crowd, and just in general try to keep my own feelings on Christianity out of it. Do you have any tips?
So the underlying concepts of this are very difficult to answer, and I’ll talk about why. I also think that, to be totally honest, if you’re playing a character yourself, you will necessarily feel empathy towards them and prioritize their perspective, and in doing so, will not fall into those patterns I described re: FCG. The whole thing with FCG is immensely complicated in that it’s tied up in both very black-and-white anti-religious behavior, but also, on another level, profound resentment towards a character who many people believed earlier on was to be little more than a robot butler in Imogen and Laudna’s dream cottage, but instead ended up having a full character arc of their own.
The question of “how do I engage with cleric if I have complicated and at times negative feelings about religion” is a good one, but also, a very broad one, and I don't know if I'm the best person to answer because while I do have complicated and at times negative feelings about religion, I think this is very personal and situational depending on your specific issues and my experience may not apply. I’ve put some thoughts on how you can, well, interrogate that thought process below the cut. On a practical level, some starting points; feel free to ask me if you have more specific questions since this is necessarily very general.
The first thing to do is talk with your DM. If they have a world in mind, with gods and means of worship, that may inform you. It might be that your DM wants to show a world in which the gods or religious institutions are ill-intentioned or harmful (see: gods in The Silt Verses, The Trust in Midst, the Orzhov Syndicate in the Ravnica setting) and playing a cleric who either is perpetuating that harm, or who is themselves conflicted, would be totally reasonable for the story! The three works I mention above all have churches that are heavily tied into government and economy and are incredibly exploitative (as religious institutions can be in real life!) but also explore why someone with good intentions might be drawn to those institutions nonetheless. It’s your table. My thoughts on Critical Role don’t necessarily apply.
If you do want to play a character engaging with religion in good faith (pun unintended), then my advice is really just normal character creation advice. Why does your character find religion meaningful? Are they part of a larger institutionalized tradition, or are they practicing independently? If the source of their powers is a god, how did they find this god, or did their god find them? How do they feel about their god? If the source of the powers is conceptual, how did they come to worship this concept? Again, go back to your DM: how do they see the gods in this world? What is their role?
The even more general stuff below the cut:
The biggest ways to avoid falling into the hateful pitfalls I’ve talked about is to recognize that not all religion is the one in which you were raised (which you’ve done, which is, frankly, more than a lot of people do!), and that your personal experience is valid but not universal, and that for many people, including many Christians, religious expression is often heavily tied into their cultural heritage, sometimes in complicated ways. This is easy to talk about in relation to Judaism and Islam and indigenous spiritual practices, but I think it is also important to realize that, for example, the majority of African Americans descended from enslaved people are Christian and this is incredibly important to them culturally, even though the reason they’re Christian is due to it being forced upon their ancestors. This is also true about Catholicism among many people from countries formerly colonized by Catholic powers: since we’re talking about Sam’s character, it’s worth noting that, it was important for his wife, who is Vietnamese, that he convert to Catholicism, even though Catholicism was introduced to Vietnam via colonialism. (If you are yourself a nonwhite former Christian then apologies for explaining it; the attitudes towards religion I’ve found particularly difficult this campaign have primarily come from white Americans who were raised in a strict right-wing Christian background.)
Basically: religion is like politics: it’s a neutral system that exists, like or not. There’s ways to abuse power and use it in terrible ways; there's also ways to use it to help people. On its own, it is a concept without context. Or more bluntly, as a Jewish person, whether it’s the Spanish Inquisition forcing Catholicism, or the Soviet Union forcing non-religion, the result to Jewish people under this control was similar: assimilate or die.
Within Critical Role, we’ve seen religion as the oppressor (Hearthdell) and the oppressed (Schuester family). Destroying a temple can draw comparisons to tearing down the chapel of a residential school; but it can also draw comparisons to the Selma church bombings. Framing and context is absolutely everything.
38 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
flyaudio-shop-blog
FlyAudio-Shop
optimisticbasketballwolfangel
Untitled
ruvik-haunting-eyes
I see everything...
uzomaka
|oo.zo.mah.ka| noun. a beautiful way
thotfullcandids
Untitled