#but you must understand that is not the only or even most important lens through which to view the story yes? | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

txttletale · 9 months

Note

yo i really like your content and agree with you on most things but i don't really know what you mean with that last one. my friends from ukraine both oppose the war's existence but would rather not be violently annexed by an imperial power so of course they, with little other options, support resistance efforts.

it's really hard for me to understand what you're going for because if ukraine stopped fighting back it'd just get taken by russia. maybe i just have bad brainfog, but it's hard to understand what you're asking us to do and believe. should we try and take out both the russian and american imperialist powers at once? but that's unrealistic and unlikely to happen in the near future, no matter how much i personally support it, which i do.

i guess my question is, what's an actual realistic thing we should support in the meantime? we can't just pretend that somehow revolution will take out both american and russian imperialist interests immediately, so. it's like, well yes we should have a better world playing by better rules, but how do we do the right thing when we are bound by the rules now.

i have friends who have family who died in the war, and sometimes it feels like bloggers i otherwise trust say things that sound suspiciously close to "ukraine should stop this pointless fighting and give up." which i am aware isn't your intention, and i want to be an effective anti imperialist and have the correct and informed opinions on stuff like this, but i am having a very hard time understanding what you are trying to say.

i really promise i am not a concern troll or nato apologist or anything, i just also have personally been struggling with what to support and how to save innocent lives. i hate war and i wish we could magically create a situation in which ukraine didn't have to rely on horrible things for self defense. i just don't know what to do or believe because my friends would rightfully hate me if i said ukraine should stop defending itself.

i mean, first off: don't worry, you obviously don't sound like a concern troll or a nato apologist. this is an eminently reasonable question -- healed's law strikes again. & i certainly don't blame you for worrying that marxist-leninists are apologists for russian imperialism, because unfortunately many self-proclaimed marxist-leninists have been deceived by the frankly paper-thin figleaf of 'denazificaiton'--even as putin, puppet of the russian bourgeoisie denounces lenin & the bolsheviks & the soviet union with every speech he makes. it sucks!

first of all, i think the important thing here and the central point of disagreement is on what constitutes 'ukraine'. liberals and nationalists alike consider nations to be fundamentally one whole: that all the people of ukraine together constitute 'ukraine', and so 'ukraine as a whole' has consistent interests, and acts as a one--the ukrainian government represents this unitary ukraine armed forces of ukraine fight for this ukraine.

but the marxist analysis of the nation is completely different. from the marxist perspective, the nation is split across class lines. ukraine is not 'ukrainians', but in fact 'the ukrainian working class' and 'the ukrainian bourgeoisie'. now, of course, there are further contradictions even within these classes--there is a faction of pro-Russian bourgeoisie, and a faction of pro-Western bourgeoisie. but remember, we must apply the same analysis to these countries too: the 'pro-Russian' Ukrainian bourgeoisie do not wish to submit to Russia's working class, but to their oligarchs. the 'pro-Western' Ukrainian bourgeoisie are not opening the nation's economy to the European and USAmerican working class, but to their bourgeoisie. so the bourgeoisie are, in every case--even when split among themselves--only ever in league with other sectors of the bourgeoisie.

so, through this lens, how do we see the war in ukraine? well, i think that the union of communists in ukraine must have a far better handle on this than i, because they're living through it: so i will quote their analysis and then elucidate on it in relation to your question.

The puppet regime in Ukraine participates in this war in the interests of Ukrainian oligarchs, who have made themselves completely dependent on big capital of the West and NATO, who have turned the Ukrainian army into an advanced military unit of the Western bourgeoisie. The war is not about "the Ukrainian nation," not about "the Ukrainian language and culture," not even about "European values". It is a war for the united interests of the Ukrainian and international bourgeoisie, which coincide in their desire to destroy the economic and political power of the Russian bourgeoisie. No interests or rights of Ukrainian workers are protected by this war. Both Ukrainian and Russian workers in this war have only the right and obligation to go to the front and die so that one group of the world bourgeoisie defeats the other and gains more monopoly rights to oppress the workers, both in their own country and in the defeated countries. […] For the working class of Ukraine, this imperialist war has the most tragic consequences. It lies on the shoulders of the workers the role of "cannon fodder" and the inevitable deaths in the fighting, mass impoverishment, unemployment, complete restrictions of rights and freedoms for the sake of protecting the interests of the Ukrainian big bourgeoisie, the oligarchs and the interests of the Western bourgeoisie in destroying and robbing Russia and seizing its natural resources. This will inevitably be accompanied by the destruction and seizure of Ukrainian industrial and natural resources, including in the case of Russia's success. The same fate awaits the vast majority of the Ukrainian petty bourgeoisie. The big bourgeoisie has already bought its children out of the war and taken them abroad, just as it took its capitals out. But that is not the main point: the big bourgeoisie is profiting from the war under Zelensky, just as it profited under Poroshenko: stealing finances, making money from reselling weapons, supplying the army with uniforms, food, repair work, humanitarian aid, etc. In war the bourgeoisie makes billions of dollars, while the mobilized people have to be equipped and fed by relatives, friends and volunteers – which is clearly not enough. As in peacetime, but even more brazenly, the bourgeoisie is getting rich off the bones of the working class!

—Union of Communists of Ukraine, On the War and the tasks of the working class

that is to say--the russian army, which is funded by the russian bourgeoisie, is fighting to establish the exclusive right of that russian bourgeoisie to oppress and exploit the ukrainian people. meanwhile, the ukrainian army, funded by the ukrainian and western bourgeoisie more broadly, are fighting to maintain the exclusive right of the ukrainian and western to oppress and exploit the ukrainian people. already, ukrainian public assets are being put up in a fire sale for western buyers--(and of course, should russia's offensive have been as succesful as they'd hoped and this war already over, they'd be doing much the same thing for the benefit of buyers among the russian bourgeoisie).

this is what is meant by 'inter-imperialist' war. it's easy to say 'well, the ukrainian army isn't imperialist--it's fighting for the nation's independence!' but in terms of real economic interests there is no 'the nation'. the ukrainian army isn't fighting for the ukrainian working class (which of course includes themselves!)--the government that pays them and the states that equip them wouldn't do so out of any sense of interest in the well-being of the working class. we can see this clearly as the western imperialist powers now start to equip the ukrainian army with depleted uranium shells, which will poison swathes of ukrainian land and cause sickness and death among the people this army purports to be fighting for. the goal of the ukrainian state and army isn't to protect any working class people--only to protect its total right to the economic exploitation of those people.

it's this that the ukrainian state is afraid of when it fights not to cede territory, not the (surely real, to be clear!) brutality from the russian state that would face the inhabitants of any such ceded territory. in fact, funding nazi groups that operated in those areas before the war and will surely continue to operate afterwards, the ukrainian govenrment makes it clear that brutality against the inhabitants of its eastern provinces alone does not phase it, so long as the ukrainian bourgeoisie (& their western bourgeoisie patrons) continue to be the ones profiting off the region's people and resources.

elsewhere in the article the UCU observe the same thing that can be observed by those outside of ukraine by listening to the words of zelenskyy and the ukrainian government's allies--that even the goal of 'protecting its people' [read: protecting exclusive economic/extractive access to those people] has been sidelined by the dream of a total or partial obliteration of the russian bourgeoisie entirely--not for any moral or anti-imperialist reason, but simply so that the ukrainian/western bourgeoisie no longer have competition.

[...] the goals of warfare are changing. If at the first stage of the civil conflict the Ukrainian regime aimed to restore state control over the Ukrainian territories, where this control was lost, then at the second stage it aimed to destroy Russia as a condition for the existence of Ukraine.

—ibid.

so--now that i've really dug into the precise nature of this war and why it's being waged on both sides, i'll answer some of your points directly:

if ukraine stopped fighting back it'd just get taken by russia "ukraine should stop this pointless fighting and give up."

both of these positions, both the one you hold yourself and the one you worry about others expressing, assume that what the ukrainian armed forces with NATO backing and full-throated embrace of fascist paramilitaries is doing constitutes 'ukraine' 'fighting back' against 'russia'. but it doesn't--it represents the ukrainian bourgeoisie fighting back against the russian bourgeoisie.

so, the big question--do i think that the ukrainian proletariat should abandon armed resistance against the russian invasion? absolutely not!

genuine popular resistance against the russian invasion is heroic and commendable--i am under no belief whatsoever that in the face of imperialist war the ukrainian people should not arm themselves and fight against the imperialists. i just reject the framing of the actual war as prosecuted as constituting this, because, to go back to what i've already established, there is not in fact one 'ukraine' but two--only one of which constitutes in a mieaningful sense the ukrainian people. i don't believe (and neither do the UCU, whose analysis i base mine on somewhat) that 'the war' as you ponder 'supporting' constitutes the ukrainian proletariat arming themselves or fighting against imperialism on their own behalf, but rather being armed by the bourgeoisie and fighting on their behalf.

and obviously i'm not an idiot who's blind to the actual numerial and material realities. the communist, anti-imperialist movement in ukraine, just like in most of the world, is completely dwarfed by imperialism and its footsoldiers. 'the ukrainian proletariat as self-armed acting organization rising up and challenging both imperialisms and freeing itself from both sets of bourgeoisie' is not something that's gonna happen tomorrow, and it's not an immediately actionable plan--no ukrainian communist can wake up tomorrow and say 'well, today i shall hit the big proletarian revolution button'.

the realities are that as the meeting ground between two imperialisms, ukrainian communists have to make decisions about which one they can most ably fight, might need to temporarily align themselves with or allow themselves to benefit from the ukrainian bourgeoise state--but never support it. like any bourgeoise state, a communist should know the ukrainian state is an enemy of the proletariat. yes, the pressing material realities on the ground might well make cooperation with that bourgeoise state the best temporary option--but 'cooperation' should never mean 'support' or 'loyalty', and should be done only tactically with ultimately loyalties remaining above all else with the working class.

in fact, refusing to offer the government and army a show of support and valorization is a key element of creating the conditions--radicalization, agitation--that would allow the proletariat to effectively rise up and truly combat imperialism, rather than choose under which imperialist heel they would rather be ground into dust. don't support an end to the war on either imperialist bloc's terms, but rather on proletarian terms--understand that the state of ukraine is not on the side of the ukrainian people, except tangentially, in individual moments of necessary alliance. raise awareness of the true war, the class war, and resist the ukrainian state's claims to stand with the people when it pursues the interests of the bourgeoisie.

tldr: the anti-imperialist position is not that the ukrainian proletariat should not be fighting, or that their fight is not worth supporting. the anti-imperialist action, therefore, is to draw the most awareness possible to this division within 'ukraine' among the working class themselves, make them aware of the realities of the economic condition. this is of course the foremost anti-imperialist and communist task across the entire world, because it is only through creating organizations of the working class that will fight for the working class can international imperialism be dfeated.

i'll leave this answer off by adding what the UCU said about this very topic in the same statement i've been quoting:

We understand the complexity and danger of these tasks, which inevitably cause repression on the part of the bourgeois political regimes. That is why workers' and communist organizations will need to develop illegal forms of class struggle along with legal ones in order to set and implement such tasks. The UCU has been forced to conduct its work in illegal forms since 2014. Many workers' and communist organizations may consider these antiwar tasks impossible because of their organizational weakness and lack of influence on the working class. However, historical experience shows that a correct and honest formulation of the tasks of the working class in conditions of war – real, not momentary tasks – may not yield success immediately, but will yield gains as the revolutionary situation intensifies. Since the task of destroying capitalist social relations is an international task, the international coordination of workers' and communist parties' actions, including the joint elaboration of tasks for the struggle against the imperialist war of the twenty-first century for the sake of uniting the international struggle against this war, for a communist reorganization of society and world peace, is becoming increasingly important. Proletarians of all countries, unite!

#ask #long post #i hope this helps! i entirely understand your worries & concerns & i genuinely hoep this elucidates something about the situation for you

422 notes · View notes

luxlightly · 5 months

Text

Reading comprehension and literary analysis 101: Interpretation vs Intent vs Readings

So, after making my post about the two headed calf poem, there's been pretty extensive argument in the notes about whether or not "all interpretations are valid". The main issue causing the argument is that what we're taught (at least in the American school system, which is what I have the most knowledge of) about "interpretations" is extremely lacking if not outright false. Here, I'm going to break down what an interpretation is and how it differs from author intent, opinion, and "readings".

The first and most important thing to remember about discussion of basically any field of study is that it is meant to have a use. We learn things in the American school system to answer questions on tests, not to utilize the knowledge.

It's a bit like learning how to hold a screwdriver but never being explained that you can use it to tighten screws. You use tools for a purpose, be they physical tools or intellectual. Sure, you could use a screwdriver to hammer in a nail, but it's not going to be as effective and may even hinder your progress.

Literary analysis is also a tool. We use it to extract meaning from works and to expand our understanding of topics, of other people, of ourselves, and of the world around us. An analysis that gives a false impression of these things is, like the screwdriver being used as a hammer, not helpful and even actively hindering.

Understanding that, we should understand these facets of literary analysis, using the short example story.

"Steve eats 10 apples every day. Bob hates Steve."

1: The text

This is the exact words as they appear. Many times, the only thing we are presented with when we read a piece of literature is the text itself. This can limit our understanding significantly.

2: Context

The physical, cultural, emotional, and historical circumstances in which the work was written

3: Intent

What the author, at the time of writing, intended for the audience to understand the piece to mean

4: Interpretation

A deduction about what the piece means, what can be gathered from it, and what significance it has, based on evidence from the text.

5: Reading

A reading is an interpretation of the text through a certain cultural lens (ie: a queer reading, a feminist reading).

6: Opinion

A purely subjective judgement of the quality of a work based on individual preference

So the text of our piece is "Steve eats 10 apples every day. Bob hates Steve."

From only that, we can make any number of interpretations, supported in varying degrees by the text.

Interpretation 1: "Bob doesn't like that Steve eats so many apples." While the text does not directly tell us that Steve's enjoyment of apples is related to Bob's dislike, it's a reasonable jump of logic to make since his eating of apples is mentioned just before the statement about Bob's dislike for him.

Interpretation 2: "Bob hates apples". This is more of a jump from the text than the first, but could still be defended. We know Bob hates Steve and we know Steve eats apples. It could be argued that it's the apples Bob really hates.

Interpretation 3: "Bob likes oranges". This interpretation isn't supported by the text at all. It doesn't help us better understand the text. As a tool, it serves no purpose. Is it "valid" in the sense that you're allowed to believe it's true? Sure. But it doesn't function as the tool it's intended to be and therefore isn't useful to discussion of the piece.

Which brings us to Context.

Let's say this piece was written during the Great Apple Famine where only the very richest people could afford apples and we know the author grew up very poor during this period of time.

This changes how we understand the piece. It would be understood instantly by those reading the piece at the time of writing that Steve must be very rich to afford so many apples. It would not have needed to be stated outright in the text because the context in which it was written was the same in which it was being read.

Knowing that now, it changes what our interpretations may be. Bob may hate Steve because he is wealthy. Bob may hate Steve because he is jealous of his wealth or of the apples themselves. It could be a statement on greed. Or it could still just be about apples. But our toolbox for understanding and gaining meaning from the work has expanded significantly.

Intent:

We rarely get to know exactly what an author's intent for a work is, especially an older work where the author is no longer alive. Many interpretations, therefore, are attempts to understand the author's intent. However, they don't need to be and, in fact, can often be more useful when they are not.

For example, there's an interesting message in our example story about how the excessive displays of wealth of the rich leads to resentment from the less wealthy and how scarcity is a constructed state. These interesting interpretations help us better understand the world and other people.

But let's consider, then, that, shockingly, the author's actual intended message was "Bob likes oranges", something we've established is not evident in the text or particularly useful to discussion of the work. The author is just not good at writing.

In this case, we actually come away with something more meaningful and useful to us when we do not focus on the author's intent. Intent gives us more context for the piece, but is not the end goal of literary discussion.

A reading often entirely and purposefully discards author intent and instead identifies and recontextualizes the text through a specific lens.

For example, let's do a quick religious reading of the text.

"Apples are symbols of original sin in the Christian Bible. We can therefore read Steve as representing one who frequently engages in sinful activity and Bob as being distainful of him for his sinfulness."

It's important to remember that readings like this often are fully aware they are not the intended original meaning of the work. They're just another tool. For example, this reading might help us understand how, even without meaning to, the author may associate apples with sin or negativity. What does that say about the use of that symbolism in our society and how inescapable it is? Or maybe it wouldn't help with that. But the point is that, whether or not it succeeds, it's a tool for better understanding or world and the people in it.

As for opinions, they can't be wrong or right because they are subjective. They aren't judged on any real metric. They can be somewhat helpful in judging a work but ultimately are just a personal feeling. They, unlike interpretation and readings, are not tools for understanding.

So what does this all mean in relation to the two headed cow poem?

If the author's intent is to show how life is precious, even if it's fleeting, does interpreting it as "mankind is cruel to things that are different" really help us in understanding the work and the world around us? If the interpretation contradicts the intent so completely that it's entirely lost, then this new message is what we have to judge and does "mankind is cruel" really tell us anything true about the world or the piece? Or is it just needless pessimism? What does "valid" even mean or matter in the context of literary analysis?

At some point, certain interpretations become counter productive to discussion of the piece. No one can stop you from interpreting something a certain way, but at some point you're using a screwdriver as a hammer and you're just putting holes in the wall.

#long post #lux explains reading comprehension to the piss on the poor website

77 notes · View notes

hhorror-vacuii · 7 months

Text

In my lit theory clas we discussed a certain key in which all literature (which is also a part of the gay&lesbian theory, one of the newer schools of thought in this field) could be read, and that is a so called homotext. A homotext is a text in which there is no need to have a homosexaul/romantic character appear – the most important aspect is if the figure „speaking” to us through the text is homosexual/romantic one (a figure speaking through the text is not necessarily the narrator, nor the author, but I simply do not want to turn this post into a lit theory lecture). All we need to know now is that this figure must appear to be closely woven into the text, and try to communicate with its recipients (the readers) through so called secret signs. To be able to discover this figure and its secret language we need to be extremely careful and meticulous during our readings, to try to uncover the mystery and solve what is almost a riddle. The theory of a homotext lists 5 signs we need to look for (I’m keeping the male-centric language, because it pertains to the books I’m going to discuss later):

Male body described in a peculiar manner. It means that the body might be very improtant, or described in great detail, or be the focus of the story, or be very different (extremely ugly or extremely beautiful, disfigured, unearthly, unhuman, not in keeping with the story etc. It would depend on each specific text, I imagine).

Eros and Thanatos – Love and Death – must be linked together somehow in the story.

A love triangle consisting of 2 men and 1 woman must appear. What is important (apprently) is that the men never consumate their own desires (there is no sex or love affair in the usual sense of the word) between them.

The action of the story moves at some point from a center to outskirts/peripheries. It means hiding, or abadonement, or a mystery disappearence etc.

The two men in question must share some secret reading between them – a language that only they two understand, or reading a book together, or one teaching something to the other etc. Something that pertains to reading and is specific to them only.

Because I was already in my D’Artagnan Romances insanity era by the time I was studying this, I began to look at the trilogy through the homotext lens and you might be either surprised or delighted, but the relationship between Athos and Aramis fulfils every point on that list and then some. Here goes:

1. Dumas did not really describe his characters in great detail, but he did describe some of their features, sometimes in such a great detail it comes off as a surprise to readers. Because I cannot, for the life of me, imagine why would we need all that he says about Athos’ beautiful hands, and handsome, noble face if we don’t even actually learn his name. Yet he describes the hands and nobility radiating from Athos as if his life depended on it. Aramis, on the other hand, has a bit more attention focused on his appearance, and for a reason, since he’s the pretty one. So much so that many adaptations only focus on that, because Aramis is also so many other things, but! He is described as short, strongly built and beautiful. There is also a great amount of instances of his blushing in the first book, or of his biting his lip in the third one (to say nothing of his habit of pinching his ears so that they are read, and putting his hands upwards so that they look white, or of his almond paste he uses to make himself look, again, pale and beautiful. He is extremely foused on his appearence). He is, on the whole, percieved through the way he looks to the world, which is deceptive to the readers (and his fellow characters), because while he may look angelic, his nature is decidedly more sinister. Another amazing detail – which @widevibratobitch made me aware of in her amazing tags one day – is that, being a man in a certain epoch and place, Aramis was all but required to sport a mustache; but his’ is very small and thin (and he kept it that way even when the fashion changed, it was mentioned in Twenty Years After if I recall properly), which points again in the same direction: Aramis is a man, and does a lot of typically manly things like being a soldier, being a priest and so on. But he is also feminine-coded, and in such a way that it must have been obvious to anyone who knew him: ’Aramis, you know,’ continued Athos, ‘is naturally cold, and then he is always involved in intrigues wih women.’

2. Eros and Thanatos, linked together, are what plagues Athos from the very beggining of the first book (even if we don’t know this at first, there are signs: mostly in the fact that he does not have a mistress and is a melancholy drunk etc.), and that is the easiet point to make. But there are more. First of all, they all are linked with death by profession, but only Aramis and Athos became Musketeers because they killed someone, or believed they killed someone. Their new paths in life are therefore marked by both Eros and Thanatos – the women they were besotted with and the subsequent deaths they caused. Neither of them has a lover is what we believe at first, because Athos truly does not have anyone and Aramis plainly states he is following in his footsteps (lying through his teeth, of course). There is also another thing: while in world of the novel d’Artagnan must have learned all of his friends’ true names, presumably once he became the lieutenant, the readers were kept in the dark right until the moment d’Artagnan observes the rendez-vous beetwen Aramis and madame de Longueville. We learn his christian name is Rene through her lips (Eros), and d’Artagnan’s ears (Thanatos, since that was the decisive moement in their relationship and shifted d’Artagnan from fondness to disdain); not to mention the name itself means born again, which is as much a jab at his life and profession, as a thing linking him with death (Aramis is the only one who kills with pleasure, and one could argue intrigues – at times resulting in very violent outcomes – are his pastime). I find it interesting, that in the second book (which is when the relationship between them both starts to get truly interesting) Athos likewise has begun a new life, and that new life means for him an increased acquaintance with Aramis, with whom he stayed in contact, while the contact with Porthos and d’Artagnan was either severed or lost altogether.

3. This is arguably the funniest point on that list: Aramis is a lover of Marie de Rohan, duchess de Chevreuse, ever since the beggining of the novels, which comes about very quickly, and is even a source of amusement (plus a spiritus movens) – Athos meanwhile disdains women. But in Twenty Years After we learn that he has gotten a son, and then we learn that Raoul’s moter is Marie de Chevreuse. With whom he slept because he thought she was a man at first, but that does not change the fact Marie is the woman in this equation, linking Aramis and Athos together, linking them even more than what is needed in the theory, since they both slept with her. There is also a smaller instance of Aramis repeating the very words madame de Longueville told him at the beggining of the book to Athos at the end of it (yes, it’s a political statement, but what we focus on is that Dumas chose to repeat this phrase between two lovers and put them in an exchange of two-perhaps-lovers).

4. So we all know that at the end of the first book Aramis takes some sudden trip to Lorraine and hen he up and disapears and then becomes a priest, and Athos inherits a property and leaves Paris as well, if in less mysterious circumstances. But how does this move the plot if it happens at the end of the novel? Well, in my opinion, it moves the plot to recenter it in the second book with a much richer configuration. The whole of the first book is so to speak through d’Artagnan’s gaze, and in terms of reading and getting to see the story develop it is rather constraining. Twenty Years After – not to mention this silent, 20 years long, break they took – allows the character more movement, and it creates new paths their relations ar taking. Aramis and Athos have both moved away from the capital, and it allowed them more room for growth together – which is why they are now frondists together and honestly, in no book of the three but this one is their relationship so fully developed, folly portrayed and so interesting to discover. And in terms of just Aramis, his life changing from the king’s bodyuard to a priest (so from a sort-of public life to a more private one, moving to the outskirts of the material world) is what allows them to build his character in the third volume, which resonates with Athos’ story a little bit, because his status as a bishop with realistic expectations ofbecoming a cardinal later in life moves him a little bit closer to Athos’ status as an aristocrat.

5. This one might be a stretch, but I don’t care: they are the only two of the four who speak Latin. (But also! In Twenty Years After they exchange letters d’Artagnan is not privy to – they are even kept from him on purpose – and these letters are secret, because they are rebels.)

#go ana analyze your favourite novels now #the three musketeers #twenty years after #the viscount of bragelonne #aramis #athos #ad i did NOT include quotes to back up my reasoning because 1 it already took me 3 days to finish & 2. what are you a tumblr post police?

71 notes · View notes

insomniac-101 · 1 year

Text

I have to say, as a person that grew up watching Doctor Who and eventually lost interest, only to then pick it up as an adult again; the nuance of the portrayal of many of the relationships in the RTD era had to be one of the most surprising discoveries for me upon rewatch.

For a show that is silly ha ha for a large portion of it's existence, the human aspect of the RTD era is something I didn't truly appreciate until i watched it through my adult lens. You have such iconic companions such as, Rose Tyler, Martha Jones, Donna Noble all of which embrace both the negative and positive aspects of what it's like to be human. Their importance lies in their existence, and their ability to grow and learn from their experiences with the Doctor, who in turn is not above being portrayed as a flawed and traumatized person.

His trauma leads him to make decisions that may not always be the best, and the narrative goes out of its way to show that he's not always in the right. They affect his relationships to said companions, and in the end, it's these decisions he makes that lead him to regenerate alone. Because by not sharing the burden of his duties with the people that love him, he punishes himself to never truly heal from all the baggage and he pushes them away.

I believe this is why, although heartbreaking, it only made sense why the 10th doctor ultimately ends up alone.

He tells himself that he is cursed to live a lonely existence. That no one will truly ever understand what it's like to live as the last of his people, and although he may have a point in thinking that rules of his existence are drastically different from that of a human, he is wrong in assuming that we too don't also suffer from the same burden. And so, this is why him ultimately choosing the fates of those around him, against the wishes of those affected, is so unfair (and why he's often punished for it).

Not every human lives the entirety of their life span. It's the very short lives we live (in comparison to that of a time lord, I mean) that help us put into perspective what is truly important. We live our lives knowing that any day may be our last, but instead of wallowing in it, we continue on because that is one of the strengths of humanity: our ability to keep going. We don't forget our pasts, we confront it and carry it with us.

An aspect of humanity that we see him envy through out the run. The slow path, a simple life that is deprived of all the danger he loves but carries the security he lacks. He puts up a front, alienating himself from his companion's lives because he claims they're not worth the time of a time lord but in truth, he can't help but get involved regardless. Because he is not above the basic desire of companionship and love, and by attempting to deprive himself of it (by not being honest about his feelings to himself and those around him) out of an act of self preservation, he is left to wonder what would his life had been had he given in. Would his separation from them been any less hurtful than it was in his final moments: left to watch them live their lives from afar as he returned to a console room empty of the people who loved him? Perhaps, but the undeniable truth is that in never allowing it, he'll never know and that must hurt a lot more in retrospect.

This is ultimately why Tentoo gets his happy ending. Him, being an amalgamation of all the human traits the time lord tried so hard to stunt through out his run. It's this version of himself that is able to be honest with the people around him. He feels fear, making an impulsive decision to end a threat out of the need to protect those he loves. In doing so, ignoring his duty as a time lord to conserve the wellbeing of the universe. He is able to tell the woman he loves that he wants to spend his life with her. Give her the choice to decide what her life would be, even if it didn't include him without the threat of permanent separation. He may have been born out of war and hatred, yet the reason why he exists is because the doctor wished to have more time with that very same woman. Putting his regeneration energy into his hand as a means of not changing into a man unfamiliar to her and potentially losing all of the feelings he held for her in the process. This version of himself, was also born out of the love he had for humanity but what makes him different, is that he embraces it (symbolically and literally lol). Which is why, his time lord self resents him.

His story is a cautionary tale. A reminder of why it is important to treasure the people who come into our lives and to respect their ability to make their own decisions. To live in the moment rather than hide in fear of what the future must bring, because the pain the unknown will bring will never erase the joy felt in those precious memories spent with the people we love.

He realizes this, in his final moments. How much more terrifying it is to be alone than with his beloved friends, in spite of knowing how much it'll hurt to lose them one day.

"I don't want to go"

His final words are a testament of the tragedy/irony of his situation. A man born out of the love he has for humanity, yet he loses his way by not embracing the very thing that once saved him.

#tenrose #doctor x rose #10th doctor #rtd era #retrospective #some rambling #I have to post my thoughts otherwise I will go crazy #might as well share them with the world since talking to my wall just ain't cutting it anymore #tentoo x rose #tentoorose #doctor who #tenth doctor #dr. who

95 notes · View notes

pansythoughts · 8 months

Text

Back with more meta, got a curious cat asking for my thoughts on Herman Balsa. I, predictably, had a lot to say.

Oh, boy, have I got Herman analysis.

I want to be really clear up front that I have two caveats to any Herman analysis that I could do that readers must keep in mind. The first is my strong bias here—I don’t care for Herman as a character as he presented in both Luca and Alva’s narratives. The second is that with that, I exclusively ship Halva as a thing that happened in the past. I do not have thoughts or feelings on Halva as an evolving ship or thing I actively enjoy; all my halva thoughts are part of my Alva character analyses and color the way Alva thinks about his current story relationships (which for me usually means alvaluca, platonically or romantically).

That said, the most important thing in my read of Herman is that he was a very selfish man. The kind of selfish where you are incredibly self-involved, and have no idea that you are. He didn’t think he was a bad person, he wasn’t trying to be cruel or malicious, and he genuinely thought his work was going to change the world and that’s why he sacrificed everything to it. But it cost him every relationship he had, all his money and time, and eventually his life.

Herman, I think in his own perspective, always thought he was doing good, or at least doing what was expected, but didn’t concern himself with the people around him or how they were feeling about his actions. You can see that in Alva’s story, about how he doesn’t bother to tell Alva about his family, or where the money for their research is coming from, or about his more dangerous experiments. He valued Alva as a research companion, and calls him the only one who understands him, but doesn’t let him in—largely, I think, because he never thought to. I think it never occurred to Herman to let Alva further into his life, because he was so focused on his own work and desires to pay attention to Alva’s.

And we see this more with Luca, from how Herman treated his son and his wife. From everything we have, Herman was a neglectful father—he doesn’t seem to be around, and her certainly doesn’t seem to be providing for his family. Neglect is a form of abuse, and Luca’s story and reactions to his father in both the main narrative and events make a lot of sense looking at him through the lens of abuse survivor. And here too, I don’t think Herman ever intended to abuse his son, because he didn’t consider himself a bad person. But he didn’t care about his son or his wife and their lives as much as he cared about his desires and his work. He wasn’t around to care about them, and didn’t think of how spending all of their family’s money would affect them, because they were always secondary considerations.

The fascinating thing about Herman is he’s the ultimate villain in both Alva and Luca’s stories, right? He fucked up Alva by holding him with guilt and withholding information, and then dying before he could ever make it right. He fucked up Luca by never being there in the first place. And that difference reflects how both men feel about him—Alva resigned and bitter but missing him, and Luca forever angry about him even as he longs for him and follows in his footsteps. Herman’s flaws are so utterly human, and it makes him compelling and believable. I can see why people are drawn to the sketch of a character we get from the holes he left in Alva and Luca’s stories, even if I’ll never like him.

#idv #identity v #luca balsa #alva lorenz #cari does meta analysis #herman balsa

27 notes · View notes

dogsliampaynedoesntinstagram · 27 days

Note

Do you believe it's morally right for us, strangers to and fans of celebrities, to discuss their private lives? Is it fair game for us to do so since they're putting themselves in the public eye. Is it simply a matter of a line that shouldn't be crossed. Harmless talk about who they're dating being ok vs. their medical history not. Think Kate Middleton who had to make a video about her cancer diagnosis, probably before she was ready to, simply to quell conspiracy theories and maybe to get ahead of the medical breach that would leak her diagnosis. Where does talking about a celebrities sexuality and their sex lives land on that line of what's acceptable to talk about and what's not?

This is what I meant when I said that I'm understanding all my anons through the lens of anxiety at the moment.

Because the first sentence has been rolling around in my head ever since I read it - 'is it morally right to discuss celebrities private lives'. I think that framing - suggesting as it does the options that either something is righteous or people should not engage in it - reveals a huge amount of what is a problem in fan behaviour.

One of the impacts of this black and white thinking is shown in the next sentence. If someone's starting point is that everything that they do must be right - then if someone doesn't like what they do - they need to be proven wrong. The idea that some kind of action of celebrities could make everything we do 'morally right' - allows for the complete erasure of any discussion of harm or consent.

To suggest that some topics of discussion could be harmless is absurd to me - we have no idea about people's lives - we have no idea about the impact that our words might have.

I think a lot of the problem comes from starting in the wrong place - if you start thinking your actions must be righteous - you will very quickly have to insist that other people are wrong and minimise harm.

Instead I'd suggest a different model - where very few things are absolutely morally right or morally wrong. Rather than getting into a more full discussion of what this would mean in all circumstances - I'll focus on what it means for discussion of other people's lives - particularly celebrities.

To me the key thing is acknowledging that discussing other people's lives, even to a relatively small audience, could do harm (to the person you are talking about or to other people). And only proceeding if you accept the risk of that harm. My suggestion is that the ethical way of proceeding is not to insist that you are perfect and could not possibly harm anyone - but to acknowledge and accept that there is risks to what you do and (if appropriate) think about how you might minimise those risks (most obviously by limiting the audiences you talk to).

There's lots of other things I could say about this - but I just want to make a couple more points. I think the Kate Middleton case is an important example - this speculation is far more likely to do harm if it's right than if it's wrong. If nothing had been going on and she had just been recovering from surgery and having a break - the impact on her would have been minimal. It was because she was dealing with a serious health issue that it will have caused so much additional stress (and the same is true if any of the speculation about what might be wrong was true).

I've made this point before - but the same is true with Harry and Louis. Larries are far more likely to have done harm to them if we have been right, than if we have been wrong. It's not enough when thinking about the ethics of what we do to think 'but what if we're wrong' (although I do think that's important). It's also important to think 'what's the worst impact that this could have if I'm right.'

This is also my approach to wider fandom - I think it's important to acknowledge that we could be doing harm and we wouldn't know. I was thinking this with the meeting in airports/being outside hotels discourse. Most of the time that's going to be fine - but there is also always a risk that it will ruin an artists day or have an impact on their mental health. Anyone who has themselves been too stressed to deal with other people - can imagine how dealing with a lot of strangers who want things from you might make things worse (and if it is it's very unlikely an artist would feel free to say that). I think whatever fans do we need to do with an understanding and acceptance of the ways that it might be harmful to the artist.

#the more we understand that fans are separate from artists #and that our interests are different #the more capable we are of making the actual ethical decisions involved

7 notes · View notes

jadelotusflower · 8 months

Text

Rewatch: Stargate (1994, dir. Roland Emmerich)

What to do when there's so many shows and movies on the to watch list? Revisit shows and movies I've seen many times before of course! Maybe I'm just in need of some comfort viewing right now.

I can't remember when I first saw Stargate. It certainly wasn't at the cinema, but probably rented from the video store (yes, I am an Old) and was certainly keyed to my preteen interests: mythology and Soft(TM) male protagonists.

Over the years and though several rewatches, online fandom, and my love of behind the scenes featurettes, director's commentaries, and retrospectives, I've also gleaned quite a bit of background tidbits and trivia, and I have many thoughts! Most of them through the lens of nostalgia, but that can't be helped.

Are you ready to go back to Titanic Stargate?

The much maligned Pharaoh's head, but it makes for a symbolic opening, trying to find the meaning to the different patterns before the whole picture becomes clear.

David Arnold's theme remains a banger. One of the GOATs.

I'm watching the Extended Edition/Director's Cut, which opens in the North African Desert 8000 BCE to depict Jaye Davidson being abducted, which is only seen in flashback in the theatrical cut. It's atmospheric, but it does tip the hand of the narrative a bit. The stronger opening is probably:

Giza, 1928, where the Stargate is unburied. Even this scene is extended, where the fossilized head of an Anubis is also found. It reveals the sinister undertone far too soon, imo, and it was the right choice to cut it.

Present Day! Love of my life Daniel Jackson ruins his career by arguing that the Egyptian pharaohs of the IVth Dynasty did not build the great pyramids. He does not claim (as the show later does) that aliens built the pyramids. Important distinction!

"Is there a lunch or something, that everybody...?" lol, James Spader is great. This was the first role I ever saw him in, and didn't realise this was actually playing against type a bit, but I have been a fan of his ever since.

Shoutout to Viceca Lindfors, who plays Catherine with steely grace.

Jack O'Neil (one L) aka Kurt Russell (two L's), in a great character introduction that is ruined by some voiceover exposition. We get everything we need to know from his scene without it, except that Tyler shot himself with Jack's gun, but honestly it would have been more impactful if that detail was held back from the audience and revealed in the later scene with Daniel.

The great Richard Kind everybody! He will later appear in an extremely tone deaf episode of Stargate: Atlantis, but here he's Dr Gary Michaels, aka the guy Daniel gets to show up by swanning in and correcting his translation.

Daniel: That's a curious word to use, isn't it? Michaels: ...Yeah

Rae Allen plays Barbara Shore - you may remember her as reporter Gloria Thorpe in Damn Yankees. It's a shame neither of these characters ever turned up in the show, I like them both.

"You must have used Budge, I don't know why they keep reprinting his books." LOL, Daniel with his petty academic grudges. Although as I understand this is a valid criticism, as Budge's translation methods were very much outdated by the 90's. But Budge conceivably could have been a contemporary of Catherine's father, which is interesting to think about.

Jack arrives with his haircut to correct Daniel's assumption that the hieroglyphs are 5000 years old - they're actually 10,000 years old, which Daniel ironically finds ludicrous. To pick some nits, according to the opening Ra arrived on Earth in 8000 BCE which is presumably where the 10,000 number came from, but doesn't take into account Ra establishing a culture and ruling on Earth for however long before the rebellion, which is when the coverstones would have been carved.

Leon Rippy plays the General West and his utter disdain for Daniel despite him solving "in fourteen days what they couldn't solve in two years" kind of gives me life. His surly "any time" and passing over the reference materials without looking at them is so great. Fantastic performance in a tiny role.

Several people are smoking in this scene, including Jack and Barbara. It's easily forgotten just how common casual smoking was back in the day - 1994 seems a little late for it to be so prevalent, but it gives the room that atmospheric haze.

Emmerich was also a big smoker, so ...

Unrealistic that Daniel would be presenting his theory without running it past Catherine and the team first, but hey it's a movie, dramatic effect and all that.

Important to note that Daniel's contribution isn't only realising that the symbols were star constellations, but the purpose of the symbols, being a map to determine a course. He also deduced that seven symbols were needed, realised that the seventh symbol below the cartouche not inside it, and then identified the seventh symbol on the gate itself.

This is a really nice illustration to Daniel's core strength - he's not just a repository of knowledge, he's a puzzle solver.

Some small character beats - Michaels questions Daniel twice, while Shore reaches out to pat Katherine's hand in victory when West orders Daniel be shown the Stargate. Again, they should have been brought back for the show!

There's a star map in the control room, implying that they had at least an idea that the Stargate was a transportation device, making the team look even more foolish for not figuring out (in two years!) that a) the symbols were star constellations, and b) that seven symbols (address + point of origin) were needed.

Daniel assures West that he can decipher the gate on the other side in a stunning display of hubris - a character flaw that will stay with him in some form through all ten seasons of the show.

Although West doesn't actually ask Daniel how he will make the Stargate work for the return trip, so that's kind of on him.

Jack correctly deduces that Daniel's full of shit, then goes to look at the Anubis head found in the Giza sequence. Again unnecessary inclusion imo, Jack's motivation works better as ambiguous at this point.

Everyone has their own little character moment before going through the gate - Jack grits his teeth and raises his gun, Brown looks back to the others, Porro kisses a St Christopher medallion.

Daniel toying with the event horizon was a Spader addition (much to the chagrin of the VFX supervisor!)

Foreshadowing for the Abydos point of origin symbol.

"That's a nice tent! Oh, we each get a tent, that's nice."

A snarky Ferretti (the great French Stewart) throws Daniel's suitcase at him, scattering his books on the sand. Daniel is completely nonplussed, starts to gather them up and then sits down to munch on a 5th Avenue bar. I love original recipe Daniel. Don't get me wrong, I love show Daniel too, but the OG, man, just 100% unbothered when antagonised.

Although to be fair, Ferretti's frustration is justified (if not his reaction) so that probably is a factor in Daniel's (lack of) response.

Daniel feeds a mastadge chocolate and gets dragged across the dunes and slobbered on for his trouble. But he doesn't hold a grudge, because he goes from "get away from me" to patting the creature on the snout in about three seconds.

Sha'uri, my beloved!

Important to note that while the other water-bearers keep their eyes downcast, Sha'uri is the only one bold enough to look up and make eye contact with Daniel, who smiles at her.

Daniel, in return, is the only one to say thank you.

She's also very wary of Daniel at this stage, here and on the walk back to Nagada - she laughs at Skaara and Nabeh taking his handkerchief, but tenses up when he looks her way. Does she know at this stage that he has been earmarked as her husband?

It makes me curious, because I don't think that it's ever explicit in the film that Sha'uri is Kasuf's daughter and Skaara's sister (although it's implied), but it makes sense that she is the daughter of the chief and would therefore make a high status offering (ugh I feel gross typing that) for an emissary of Ra.

We know that Ra surrounds himself with child slaves (the creepy implications of which I don't want to think about), and it's unclear how old Sha'uri is meant to be (Mili Avital was 22), but I wonder if the reason why she was not married already is that this was always the role intended for her - to serve Ra in some capacity, perhaps (in tv show timeline) as a host for one of his underlings.

If so, it makes her fate in the show even more tragic.

Brown takes a picture on their approach to Nagada which is a nice little character beat - I wonder where that camera ended up? Derek Webster also had bit parts in Devlin/Emmerich joints Independence Day and Godzilla, fwiw.

"Ferretti, say again." Great line reading from Russell - he gets flack for being humourless/not being Richard Dean Anderson, but I think he has great presence in the role and character at this point - RDA!O'Neill is the product of Russell!O'Neil's experience in this film.

A sandstorm approaches and in the extended sequence there's a miscommunication that Skaara (Alexis Cruz) defuses. I like this addition, as it gives more scope to the connection between Jack and Skaara - he sees that Jack is the one in charge, but also that he's willing to listen, and Jack sees that Skaara is brave enough to face a threat, but also clever enough to diffuse the situation.

"Well that would have been an excellent reason to shoot everyone." lol, and people say snarky!Daniel was a show-only thing.

Trying to learn the word that means "sandstorm" from Kasuf and the incredulous/frustrated little laugh after is a nice touch too.

Erick Avari steals every scene he is - he was also in Devlin/Emmerich's Independence Day ("what's with the golf balls?!?" was an ad-lib), and of course he's great in The Mummy ( the delivery of "Do you really want to know, or would you prefer to just shoot us?" is perfection.)

He was only 42 during this movie! Hasn't aged a day since.

A great deal of Kasuf came from Avari as well - the role was only a few lines in the script and was mostly developed during rehearsals - the same was true for Alexis Cruz as Skaara.

While "tastes like chicken" was in the script, the clucking like a chicken came from Spader.

Pivotal scene, because it really shows Sha'uri's courage - her fear is palpable, first at her duty to offer herself to Daniel then at what his rejection may mean for her and her people. She is confused by his behaviour, delighted when they are able to exchange names, but guarded again when he draws in the sand. At this point she doesn't know if he is an emissary of Ra testing her resolve, but she takes the chance and fixes his drawing to make the symbol from Earth, then takes him to the hidden catacombs.

Sha'uri's leap of faith here is underrated I feel - she's been watching Daniel so closely and makes a very correct judgement about his character - there is something in him that she recognises, and decides that she can trust. At this stage she probably knows that she is safe with him, but she wants to go beyond that and actually connect with him.

Also she's wearing red here, the same colour as Kasuf and some of the other elders wear, which does imply it's a colour of status.

LOL, this scene would never happen today.

This was almost cut from the movie! The studio's focus was on the action and wanted to eliminate a great deal of the character stuff, resulting in the film testing very poorly. Devlin/Emmerich redid the cut to put everything back in and (surprise surprise!) the next audience screening was much more favourable.

Because Jack's character arc doesn't work without this scene! We need to see Jack actually bond with Skaara, to gift him the lighter, be amused when Skaara mimics him and takes a drag of the cigarette, then for things to turn when Skaara innocently reaches for Jack's gun and he blows up.

"I guess the word dweeb doesn't mean anything to you guys, does it?"

Too good! Too pure for this world!

The hidden catacombs fascinates me - the entrance is blocked with rocks so she presumably Sha'uri hadn't been there for some time. Is it something she came across as a child? Was it secret information handed down through the generations, perhaps from her mother?

The symbol for Earth is only visible from inside so she must have explored the catacombs at some point, perhaps wondering what the paintings meant, and she must have been aware that at one point writing wasn't outlawed. I do like the idea that both Sha'uri and Daniel have this great curiosity and yearning to understand - they also share a great capacity for trust and willingness to take leaps of faith that makes them very well matched.

The backstory with Ra changed very late in the process - originally the Egyptian boy was merely appointed as a proxy for the alien creature to rule Earth, not possessed by the alien. This is unfathomable to me and really don't think it could have worked - where's the menace if Ra isn't the actual alien being but just some guy who works for him?

Presumably, it means Spader came back to do reshoots for the tale of Ra's origins, and if you notice he only mentions possession in a closeups where the lighting is slightly different. The frescos in the wide shots also don't match the closeups, which Emmerich himself did.

Brown is the one who gives Daniel a gun. RIP Brown.

Djimon Hounsou as Horus!

The Anubis/Horus/Ra disappearing headgear was one of the few noticeably CGI effects - most of the film was done practically and it shows (in a good way). I will take puppets and props and extras every day over CGI, there's just something more visceral about films made this way.

Daniel dies for the first - but certainly not the last - time.

The extended edition has Daniel walking through Ra's ship after being revived - there's a cat on Ra's throne, and we see more of Ra getting bathed and dressed by his child slaves just to notch up the creepiness.

Whatever happened to Jaye Davidson?

Apparently he had difficulty with the role, no doubt because as written it made no sense, which is why they had to change it in editing, adding the flanges and the glowing eyes.

Davidson was concerned he'd ruined the movie, and apparently was relieved rather than upset to see the final film. I actually think it's a great performance, and Ra really has a menace that feels genuinely dangerous.

The Abydonian langauge was based on Ancient Egyptian as developed by Egyptologist Dr Stuart Smith, and apparently great care was taken to make it as authentic as possible. I...don't think the same can be said for the show.

Dr Smith also consulted on The Mummy.

O'Neil, Kawalsky, Ferretti, and Guy Who Will Soon Die (Freeman).

Is is Kawalsky or Kawalski? The credits say Kawalsky, but his uniform at the beginning of the film says Kawalski. I personally prefer the latter.

The extended edition has an extra scene following the escape - Jack and Daniel jump on a mastadge which takes off and separates them from the group as Sha'uri and Skaara look on thinking "where are those idiots going?"

They get stuck in a sandstorm where Daniel collapses, and they're only found because the mastadge is so upset about his new friend he wails - this explains why Daniel is coughing and spluttering when they get to the cave.

Many a slash fic has started this way, I'm sure.

I really like Kawalski in this scene - "these kids don't have anywhere else to go" really hits me for some reason. He's bonded with them too.

"I don't want to die, your men don't want to die, and these people here don't want to die. It's a shame you're in such a hurry to."

The pivotal Jack and Daniel scene - this where the reveal about how Jack's son died should have been, so we find out when Daniel does. Then we'd think back on all the previous interactions - Jack knocking the gun from Skaara's hand, being unable to shoot the kids Ra uses as human shields - and be able to read new meaning into them.

A tender moment that I kind of wish they'd let play out a little more, although Avital captures Sha'uri's vulnerability so well. This was her first scene!

While I do love the Daniel/Sha'uri romance, I think she gets unfairly dismissed as just the love interest when she's so much more. Sha'uri is the one who starts the Abydonian rebellion - she's the one who decides that "we can no longer live as slaves" and rallies the boys to save Jack and his men - she's the one who passes on the knowledge of Ra's true identity.

At that point it's unclear if she thought Daniel is dead or just captured - her reaction following the massacre in Nagada perhaps implies the former. When Skaara tells her that Ra has called an execution she's been looking at the cave paintings, so clearly rebellion is already on her mind, and she's willing to go against everything she's been taught to try and save - maybe Daniel - but maybe only his friends, to help them overthrow Ra.

Interesting costume change for Kasuf here - he no longer has his outer robes or headdress, nor is he riding a mastadge - has he been stripped of his leadership role? Horus is now in charge.

Also nice little character beat - while the other have their guns pointed at Horus, Daniel is looking back at Sha'uri.

I do love Skaara's defiance - telling the others not to bow when Kasuf orders them to, and later he'll be the most reluctant to surrender, throwing down his gun in disgust before kneeling.

Sha'uri carries a gun into the pyramid, but I think it would have been better to at least see her try and shoot at the horus guard before she is killed.

Ostensibly this is a plot necessity to get Daniel up into the ship to give him a final faceoff with Ra and setup using the rings to deliver the bomb, but I think it's also needed for the Daniel/Sha'uri relationship - if he hadn't almost lost her and been willing to risk his life to save her, I don't think his choice to remain on Abydos with her at the end would have rung as true.

"I am no longer amused." idc, Davidson is great.

The first - but certainly not the last - time Daniel will get his brain friend by the hand device.

Ra's ultimate downfall is his hubris - if he'd never revived Daniel to make an example of him it's likely he never would have been overthrown, or at least not in the way he was. Yes he may still have had the public execution, and Sha'uri and Skaara may have still tried to rescue Jack and the others, but without Daniel to shoot his staff to set off the disturbance it may not have been successful. Jack wouldn't have been able to properly communicate with the Abydonians to form a plan, Daniel wouldn't be there to reveal Horus as a mortal not a god to Kasuf, etc.

It's interesting to me because as I said above hubris is also Daniel's main flaw, although it manifests differently, but that's what really draws me to these kind of characters - people who are a force for good but in such a way that their idealism and drive could easily tip over into ruthlessness/villainy in the right circumstances, and we definitely see this explored a few times in the show.

Also interesting is even though Kurt Russell gets top billing, it's really Daniel who is our protagonist - he's the one who is the true adversary to Ra, they share the relationship and confrontational scenes - Jack's antagonist is really Anubis.

Kasuf arrives with the uprising, and ultimately I do love that all three of our Abydonian family - Sha'uri, Skaara, and Kasuf - play a vital role in overthrowing Ra, even if Jack and Daniel get the credit for actually killing him.

We're meant to be la la la don't think about it re: the child slaves who were presumably still on Ra's ship when it blew up.

And I'm a sap! Skaara and the boys saluting Jack, and getting his salute in return always gets me.

Kawalsky and Ferretti too!

It's very important that Sha'uri is the one who instigates the kiss with Daniel, to balance the earlier scene where he kissed her.

Because it's a relationship that could very easily veer into problematic or feel unearned, but by this point having saved each other's lives, having communicated and bonded and come to understand one another, they do seem to be genuinely falling in love rather than there being any sense of obligation.

I think there might have been an alternate ending - on the bts there's footage of Daniel and Sha'uri walking with the Abydonians. Daniel looks back, presumably at the pyramid, as if reckoning with his decision to stay and a last look back at his life on Earth. Then he puts his arm around Sha'uri and they blend into the crowd as Daniel becomes part of the Abydonian people.

And then they both lived happily ever after and no one ever bothered them again! I choose to see the movie and the show as very similar but different universes/timelines, so hold true to my headcanon that this version of Daniel/Sha'uri got that long and happy life together on Abydos.

But as it is, we get our goodbyes - Skaara gets a handshake of respect from Jack, and Daniel gets some nice closure on his relationships with the three surviving members of the team:

Ferretti - goes from "Isn't there something you should be doing right now? Like getting us out of here?" (throws suitcase) to "I always knew you'd get us back"

Kawalski from - "You're a lying son of a bitch!" to "Thanks Daniel"

And Jack, from "He's full of shit" to "I'll be seeing you around...Doctor Jackson."

Of course this was setting up the sequel in the planned trilogy, but it works well moving on - as I will be - to the show.

#stargate #stargate the movie #stargate rewatch #nostalgia rewatch #jack o'neil #daniel jackson #sha'uri #kurt russell #james spader #90's movies #dean devlin #roland emmerich #jlf posts #long post #rambling #meta

21 notes · View notes

gffa · 2 years

Photo

This has been one of the strong issues of Pak’s Darth Vader so far for me, probably because it feels like a retread of Soule’s Darth Vader: Dark Lord of the Sith and because it’s possible that it’s just complete word salad nonsense or it might be something genuinely meaningful. One of the things that explains so much about a lot of Anakin stories--especially ones that center around his destiny and his choice to become Darth Vader--is that, if you look at them through the lens of the Force taking a rolled up newspaper and bapping him on the nose with it, trying to get him to actually search his feelings and face himself and understand. That’s what the Mortis arc reads to me as being all about, everything that happens there is the Force trying to get Anakin to face his own guilt and anger, to let them go, so that he can fulfill his destiny, that’s why the Force works so hard to play out these things around him. To get him to think. And that’s what happens again and again and again in Dark Lord of the Sith, where the Force literally slams a vision into his head, clears the dark side out from his vision, his eyes are blue, and he sees Obi-Wan in a field somewhere, that he would lower his lightsaber and say Anakin’s name, if Anakin would only go to him and ask for help. And every single arc after that is the Force showing him a path he could have taken. He could have let go of his attachments and stayed in the light and saved Jedi knowledge for the next generation like Jocasta Nu. He could have fallen to the dark, but still helped the future generations like Ferren Barr did. He could have just walked away all together and lived a life away from all of it like Eeth Koth did. Instead, he rejected them all, “No. This is all there is.” he says of the path he has chosen. He chose to be frozen in time and to hold onto his fear and hate like Darth Momin did, to try to force his will onto the rest of the galaxy. And he failed. He couldn’t bring Padme back to life and he couldn’t move on, because he refuses to look within himself and truly face himself and what he wants. So along comes the Force again. Yet one more time, through another dark-side-laden cave, where a mysterious creature pelts him with visions of himself and the people that mean the most to him, you see Obi-Wan, you see Luke, you see Sidious, you see Anakin himself, it goes on for twelve pages. Vader is just stomping his way through enemies and crumbling stone perches over lava, already battered and barred from using the Force, while this creature asks him, What does it mean to be chosen? Who chooses? What do you want? What do you need? If you could choose, would you be chosen? Have you decided? Yet, Vader ignores it all. He’s heard this kind of thing before, he dismisses it as just a test from his Master, he refuses yet again to think through his own wants and needs, to find the path that’s truly meant for him. Instead, he just punches and kills and murders his way through things based on his own anger and anything that gets in his way will be destroyed. Is it possible that the Webbish Bog is manipulating him, rather than genuinely trying to help him? Yeah, of course. It’s holding a Sith Wayfinder and lives on Mustafar, the whole reason Sidious sent him here was to punish Vader and make sure that he was still steeped in the dark side. But even dark side caves show you things that the Force wants you to acknowledge. Luke’s visions in the cave on Dagobah are similar--he sees Vader’s image, strikes him down, and then sees his own face in Vader’s helmet, because it wasn’t about Vader at all, it was about his own fears and confronting them. It’s like the caves of Ilum that the Jedi have as their most important tradition--you’re shown the things you fear, and you must let them go, you must face them and pass through them, you must let go of the prisons you’re keeping yourself in, each of them unique to the individual, each of them meant to be about a Jedi looking to understand themselves. In that confrontation on Dagobah, Luke struck out in fear, he failed the test set before him because he couldn’t face his feelings. And we know how he goes on to fail when he leaves Dagobah, because he doesn’t trust his friends, because he fears for them, rather than because they truly need his help. He spends weeks, if not months in a tailspin after the revelations and how wonky his connection with the Force is. He has to work so hard and face so much of himself to get back to the path that’s right for him, that he’s destined for. In this confrontation on Mustafar, Vader strikes out in anger and he’s powerful enough (and these are real, rather than visions), that he stomps his way up to the Webbish Bog and makes it through on sheer power alone. “Do you think you passed this test... or failed it?” There’s no definitive answer, because the Force doesn’t really care about whether or not het gets the Wayfinder, it’s about whether or not he looks within himself. He passes Sidious’ test, he stays trapped in the dark and his own hate and pain and fear, but he fails the Force’s test to look inside himself, the face himself, to understand himself, and to let go of all that pain. It will still be so much longer before Vader can truly find the path he’s meant to find in the Force, because he still refuses to even look inward to what he really needs.

#obi wan kenobi #anakin skywalker #luke skywalker #sheev palpatine #mustafar #the force #comics #meta #reading comics: darth vader vol 3 #long post

340 notes · View notes

stuffgoeswrong · 1 year

Note

Yes i 100% agree with you on what you said about soukoku but now i MUST ask you to talk about odazai as well if you're up for it because i love them too. They are so important to me

Yes, absolutely! Sorry I didn't get to this sooner, it was past midnight last night and I've had classes all day. Odazai has become my OTP to end all OTPs, like it is unfathomable how much I love them. I could literally talk about them all day, so I'm sorry this got so long. I'm so happy you're a chill member of the fandom and love them too! By the way, I wanted to say I totally agree with your opinions on Kousano and respect your Chuuaku ones too! Kousano very much feels like a "these two are cool, put them together" kind of ship without a lot of concern for their development and similarities. While I do love Kouyou as a character, I don't have fond feelings for her when she's presented just by herself (as opposed to her other canon relationships like with Kyouka), and liking both parties of a ship is pretty much a requirement for me. Luckily, this happened with Odazai!

In general I do view this ship through a Dazai heavy lens because I relate to him hardcore and it's hard for me to understand/get attached to stoic characters like Oda. This is weird because I'm probably more like him irl than Dazai lol. I always feel like I'm not looking as deeply into Oda's character as I could be, and I try to be conscious of not lessening his role in comparison to Dazai's, but keep that in mind and judge me if you want as you read this lol.

What made you ship it?

The fact that Dazai showed the most emotion I've ever seen on his face and in his voice (amazing job by Miyano Mamoru) around Oda and the later realization that Dazai was Oda's first and one of his only friends. Not to say other characters *coughcoughchuuyacough* haven't made a significant impact on Dazai. I try not to compare these two ships a lot cause they are both meaningful in their own ways to the story and the characters. But anyway, I cried like a little bitch before Oda's big fight/death scene even happened, when Dazai just is begging him not to go throw away his life and trying to relate to him on a deeply personal level to get him to stay. That really showed to me how much he cared for Oda and how different that relationship was to him whether he knew it or not. Someone also edited the Dead Apple scene beautifully to be more shippy and I can never forget it. Also, Scarlet Sky playing every time Oda is talked about or Dark Era is referenced in the main storyline got me sobbing. I guess what truly made me ship Odazai is just the abundance of a suggested romantic connection (very obvious on Dazai's part). Dark Era (confronting Mori about this massive betrayal and leaving the mafia feels like "you have destroyed everything that was ever important to me, bye"), how Oda thinks of Dazai, not Ango or the orphans, when he believes he's dying after getting poisoned, Dazai literally ruining peoples' lives that he holds dear in the present just so Oda can live and be happy even without him in Beast, Dear Prince (a love song) playing when Dazai recalls that moment in Dead Apple and in the flashback later on, "Was it someone you loved?" and dodging the question LIKE HOW OBVIOUS can you get!!

2. As I fell further into the rabbit hole. . .

So I joined an Odazai discord server around a year ago, love it there, everyone's so creative and lovely, here if interested: https://discord.gg/tnA3mzyB. There's also a lot of analyses on Odazai on Tumblr that make sense! This post about Oda and Dazai being each other's regrets (from Dark Era light novel, Oda says, "Ango and I could stay by Dazai's side because we can understand the loneliness that revolves around Dazai. Even though we are by his side, we would never step within. But now, I'm a little regretful that I never stepped into that loneliness impolitely." Oda just say you wanna hold his hand lol), this whole post about them filling each other's unmet childhood needs, this which basically puts all Odazai moments and mentions together, I absolutely love this theory that there's a physical change in Dazai's ability after he meets Oda, there's just so much to love about them.

3. What I don't like:

Putting this here cause I don't want to end on this note. This ain't even about Oda and Dazai, it's just about the fandom. I don't think any of us who like this ship like the people who complain about the 5 year age difference. It's not a lot at all, especially when you take literally everything else about their relationship into account and the fact that it's fictional and fun. But since side A and B have come out (which I haven't read) I've seen people kind of using it as further evidence that the age gap is a problem and let it cloud their judgement on Oda and Dazai's respective personalities and boundary abiding tendencies. In addition to that I always see the, "but Oda calls him a child and views him like that in the novel" argument, which I don't really get. I watched some YouTube video a while ago that was like, why do partners call each other baby or babe? It's because those words represent a yearning to take care of the other and foster a better, more committed relationship or something like that. Saying your friend has a hurt expression like a lost kid doesn't necessarily mean you think of them as significantly younger or immature compared to you. This especially applies in fictional writing where it can just be used as a helpful visual for something that will be adapted to a screen. I don't have a problem with fans who dislike Odazai romantically, but I do when they completely deny their equal footing. Come on, Oda mixes up his fairytales and Dazai is insanely smart, their relationship would never be abusive on an age basis. Anyway.

4.. What are your favorite things about the ship?

Well for one, I'm a sucker for angst and pain and two, I love childhood friends/best friends to lovers so so so much. Add in the possibility of enemies to lovers in Beast and they have it all. I guess I like the ambiguity and flow of how their relationship could go too. Like, they both would think moving in with each other is totally natural friend behavior, and then there'll be this phase of realization and it'll just pass by like yeah, we're married now. From Dark Era, we get that Oda, Dazai, and Ango can all be friends outside their different ranking mafia positions because they all feel that they think similarly and understand each other. They're all on equal ground, so Dazai and Oda having a profound connection built off that is something I think can be an accurate reflection of real life. At their cores, both want the best for each other. Oda wants Dazai to have a life meaningful to him and suggests that path through what he knows, Dazai wants Oda to live out his dream, helping him to do that in whatever way possible. They are separated by time and space, yet so closely linked by what they've found with each other it hurts. There's literally already a family there with the kiddos too! These two seem to get dumber in each other's presence like SSKK also does and I find that amusing lol. I appreciate that Oda is serious about the people he cares about and doesn't take Dazai's suicide obsession as lightly as a lot of other characters, as some shippers speculate because he has also had depression at one point or another. I love that in several peoples' minds, Odazai would only have conflict when they're upset the other isn't taking care of themself properly. I love that Oda is such an oblivious himbo. I love that people speculate Dazai's bolo tie reminds him of Oda's eyes and that he picked the spot for the grave that overlooks a beautiful view even if he didn't know Oda loved the ocean. I love that they both realize they care about each other when it's too late, that they will meet in the afterlife.

I have many feelings and thoughts. Thank you so much if you listened to me rant and read this whole thing!

#okay but where the fuck did beast dazai get that picture of oda that's shown in the official art when he jumps off the building #asks #ships #bsd ships #bsd #odazai #and my dad doesn't understand why i want a tattoo #i don't know if i'll get something specifically odazai related in the future #but i definitely want a spider lilies design with “goodbye my love” in chinese or japanese kanji to remind me of them #dazai osamu #oda sakunosuke

51 notes · View notes

thewolfisawake · 4 months

Text

"I can be quite strange upon pondering becoming the Vizier. In a darkly humorous sense, I became what I feared the most," the thought had him reflective

"Despite the grim circumstances I have been placed in, few unnerved me quite like the presence of the Vizier at the time and the Seelie’s counterpart of adviser. Perhaps it was simply being young and naive to the bravado and tactics of such men. Or perhaps even then I understood how my life was hanging dangerously close to their blades.”

“Hilariously but unsurprisingly, both had wanted me gone. After all, what was one life to the peace of their land? And I do mean their land as I see there is a care or selfishness to an adviser when it comes to their advice. In the Seelie, the Cliathadh were historically important but not prominent family. And the Gallochbar were present, neither a major player but also not a weak link. Likely in their eyes there was nothing lost with the banishment nor execution of a child.”

“But by some fortune…the Seelie King did not care of my fate once the Cliathadh rejected keeping me. Even though I am certain there was some protest on Lord Allanach’s end. While they had deliberated, it was as though he wanted to ensure that I could not return as a bane to the Seelie later. So much for the more ‘benign’ Summer Court,” Risteard chuckled, “but in retrospect, he is quite thorough. Makes for an excellent adviser, it also makes for an excellent schemer. A true snake, borrowing from the Protector.”

“Which only makes the engagement with our counterpart immensely interesting. It seems the adviser has managed to remain beside the throne. And shifted from the lens of a child, I simply view a man with keen observation and staunchness towards tradition. If his subtle displeasure with our presence was anything to offer. Though I could almost sympathize with having an ear where words go in one but out the other. But as it stands, Lord Allanach is but a fleeting memory and shaping to be one I must deal with due to my profession. Nothing more, nothing less.”

Risteard shifted as he recounted, “While I am, in a sense, eager to revisit an old recollection with the wisdom of age…I am disappointed, possibly indignant at the loss of such an opportunity within the Unseelie. While the Seelie took their usual position once I left their land, it did not mean my woes ended. No, that led to the contention with the Vizier at the time. A man faceless yet no less intimidating of an aura, that is Lord Rathais.”

“He blatantly called for execution. He had not wanted to allow the affair between my parents to go as long as it did. And he–albeit rightfully–did not believe the fabrication painted for my father’s death. His cursory instigation threatened to unravel me. I can recall trembling under the weight of his–assumedly–disdainful gaze. Like a bird of prey threatening to claw into a hapless snake or mouse. Had he had the opportunity to question fully, I have little doubt my ruse would have crumbled.”

“Fortune chose me again as the gentry–either by some bribery by the Gallochbar or their whimsy–denied the Vizier’s notion. I was allowed to go. However, that did not seem to stop Lord Rathais’ passive disdain. While I cannot be certain, I suspect he believed I held far stronger ties to the Seelie and…..and it only speculation, that I was a blemish in the Court. Not the only one, mind you, but one that existed. Persisted. As I attempted to prove myself to the Unseelie, I have little doubt he was a part of those that wanted me far from gentry agendas.”

He gave a breath, “Funny how you need not a face to understand contempt. And how through words and presence alone, he could make one feel so small. Feel unworthy. It was a feeling that gnawed as greatly as the lovelessness of my family. It was a feeling I sought to overturn…to struggle against. Yet, that was not to be. After all, Lord Rathais is not longer here. He perished in a massacre within his own manor. A rogue that seemed only to be interested in bloodshed. So it is only a grudge I hold with no receiver.”

“Though some days I feel that grudge is reborn anew,” Risteard admitted, “the Royal Protector and I have no love lost. He has such a murderous presence and cutting words yet it invokes similar feelings as Lord Rathais. Perhaps it is why I continue with his provocations and in turn provoke him. It is the closest I get to engaging with an opponent I was unable to face when I was ready.”

“Or maybe it simply is because he prods where I disdain the most. And through his barbed tongue, I must grapple with…am I truly any different from those I feared…those I hated…? A snake he calls me and all I think of is Lord Allanach’s sharp gaze. So precise in knowing where to cut a loss. That contemptuous tone and I recall Lord Rathais that stripped me of any worth and whose influence plagued me long since his death. Yet I so candidly, so openly denounce the Protector to his king of his presence as I view it dangerous. A threat to the land–my land–and how I would do anything within my power to keep it safe. In many ways it makes me feel sick.”

“Yet, so much of my life has been that. Sickness. But sickness is necessary when dealing in a poison. It is a sign of taking in too much. A teetering towards death. And it is only by enduring…suffering through the symptoms and the pain does one eventually recover. And comes out stronger in the end. At least, that is all I can console myself with.”

#long post #{Risteard Headcanons #this actually came #from one night Kristen being like #how does he even feel about having the job #of the guy that almost got him murked #as well as like #mutually noticing parallels #with him and Mhoirbheinn #ironically in different circumstances #they might've been in understanding with each other

5 notes · View notes

oathofkaslana · 17 days

Note

hi lee!! i saw someone pair army dreamers (kate bush) /w himeko. and you are the most honkai pillled person i know;; so I thought you’d probably appreciate it and be able to understand it (and. be sick over it) a lot more than me.

I hope you have very very nnice day 💜

HI I HAVE THOUGHTS ON THIS FIRST BEING THAT YEAH. MY GOD YEAH THAT IS SUCH A HIMEKO SONG YEAH....

as you know, one of my favorite ways to analyze himeko is through an anti-military lens. several things i like about this:

fits in w moon shadow and that doctor's guilt over sending children to the battlefield, thus creating a story w anti-entropy and schicksal about military. schicksal deals with so much exploitation ofc but the ones most relevant to this are its use of valkyries as warriors and how the artificial stigmata they are given will eventually corrupt their body and kill them + the fact that valkyries can only biologically be young + common themes of like. romanticizing heroship and martyrdom to an extent which are extremely common in military propaganda + otto's ulterior motivations that he used schicksal for.

adds layers into her backstory w her believing her father actually loved her more than his work and applying to his field after welt lied to spare her feelings..... Fuck. my god. do you see........ footprints of a father............... himeko being used as a tool by her father to get closer to welt for his own gain................

the way it fits in w kiana and mei's story when it comes to sacrifice. <- obviously not to a t. their conflict is more about watching someone you care for make difficult decisions with potentially difficult outcomes and supporting them because its something they truly genuinely believe in w their entire heart.

makes particular lines like this particularly interesting: Fu Hua: Sacrifices are inevitable in the war against the Honkai. Fu Hua: You know that better than I, Major. Showing mercy to the wrong people can be disastrous. Himeko: You have no idea what “sacrifices are inevitable” even means. Himeko: The tragedy is not how many people have died… Himeko: …But how we’ve grown accustomed to the idea that people must die for others to live. ^ particularly kills me bc i think it demonstrates what hi3's commentary on sacrifice is! hi3 isn't really making a moral stance on sacrifice imo. i think it moreso tries to examine how we think of sacrifice and how we're weirdly desensitized to it (again, text above + this one particular interaction on kiana's first mission where himeko explains the protocol that if any of them are corrupted, their teammates are expected to kill them without mercy) and the motivations behind sacrifice (of course much of it coming from a love and want to make the world better, but theres also this theme against sacrifice being someone's duty and sacrifice as a product of someone's own guilt.) hi3 makes a point to distinguish those types of sacrifices versus an action born out of a genuine and deep love and understanding of the world and it's beauty (particularly present in, of course, elysia; kiana; himeko; and ragna*)

also prev quote. cmon man. classic military shit do you remember how in second eruption otto wants to kill siegfried and cecilia bc he realizes they could be a threat to him?????????

*from chapter 25. himeko quoting ragnba:

Himeko: “We fight for the good in this world and things we deem important.” Himeko: “They may seem small, insignificant, but that’s only because they are seeds.” Himeko: “These seeds that are destined for something good will one day blossom and thrive into a beautiful garden.” Himeko: “So, don’t cry for me, comrades.” Himeko: “I have died, but my death will fertilise the soil that grows hope.” Himeko: “And the flowers of the future will one day find something they want to protect.”

#i have a lot of thoughts on this that i dont think we articulated well enough.....#hnk3 #asks #TY CREPE I REALLY REALLY REALLY ENJOYED THIS!!!!#I HOPE YOUR DAY IS REALLY RESTFUL FOR YOU <<333

3 notes · View notes

incorrectcoldflashblog · 5 months

Note

☔️

Hi, anon! Sorry it took me a while to answer, I had to try a couple times to make sense of this particular AU, haha.

Is there a fic concept you have that you'd like to just explain and share because you're not sure you'll ever write it? If so, what is it?

Maybe I’m being overly optimistic but I still have hope I’ll be able to share ALL of my current WIPs eventually, lol. The only one I don’t actually think I’ll end up writing, and I’ve talked about it on here before, is my Genie AU, which was a mix of canon and AU where Barry is still the Flash but Len is a genie. Putting this under a read more because it got a bit long.

The idea originally came to me because I love genie/djinn lore but I’m not a huge fan of ‘The master falls in love with the genie and in the end he sets them free’ because IMO it doesn’t matter if your masters are kind or cruel, they’re still trying to master you. So I knew I wanted Barry to break Len free of the lamp in the very beginning, without giving in to the temptation of making any wishes, just because it’s the right thing to do, or maybe even because this is a Barry who went through a version of Flashpoint and is wary of whatever alteration of reality Len is offering. Meanwhile, Len is the one who is wary of freedom and doesn’t see why his purpose in life has to be ruined just because Barry doesn’t have any self-control. But we know how stubborn Barry can be when he genuinely thinks he’s doing the right thing so he frees Len from the lamp and *that* is when things turn to shit, lol. Len immediately starts decaying and comes to Barry being basically like, you broke it you buy it. Fix it or I’ll burn your house down with your family inside. So much for trying to do the right thing.

So yeah, the first part of the fic would be Len being pretty much the world’s worst house guest and trying to understand how the human world works now that he has to live in it full time thanks to SOMEONE, while Barry and his team (which in this fic was going to be Caitlin, Cisco and Hartley, with Hartmon as a side pairing because Cisco got tricked into making a wish before the lamp was destroyed and now he and Hartley have a baby and must raise it despite very much hating the sight each other, or do they) try to get information on the lamp, and the curse, and djinns, and try to unearth the mystery of Len’s origins. And of course during that time forced into close quarters Len and Barry were gonna fall in love^^ Not that they’d ever admit to it, especially not Len. There would be tropes galore, such as being forced to take care of Cisco and Hartley’s dumb baby together, or Barry teaching Len to read, but that one was gonna be a slooooow burn, mostly because I had plans for this version of Len to be somewhere on the asexual spectrum? Or at least it was gonna be strongly implied because humans were always just kinda there to him, and in any case he wouldn’t sleep with someone who kept him in a lamp when they weren’t using him.

I had plans to insert a bunch of references to Len’s canon appearances, including the fact that Barry would’ve found the lamp during a robbery of the Kahndaq Dynasty expo at the Central City museum, and Len was going to blackmail him into forging a new identity for him (as opposed to destroying his records like on the show). So, Leonard Snart was going to be his fake human name, although most characters just referred to him as Cold. Cold was literally constantly scheming in the first half of the fic and one of those schemes was gonna get Joe killed and force Cold into taking responsibility and sacrifice himself to bring Joe back. And that was gonna be the end of Part 1 because. Pain.

Part 2 was gonna start after a time jump and Barry still having no idea that Len is dead because, again. Pain. He thinks Len just took off, even though he promised him he wouldn’t leave. Joe never told Barry the truth because Joe never tells his kids the important things (yes, I’m still salty he told Iris her mother was dead, why do you ask). Meanwhile, Len has been sulking in the afterlife for four mortal years and the only people he’s got to talk to are some of his former Masters (namely Lisa and Ray) and Death (Sara, of course, who else), who he eventually tries to make a deal with: Undo the spell. She can have Joe West back. So Death is like, well, okay, that was dark even for you but if you really want to go through with this, do it yourself because I’m not going to do some insignificant mortal’s dirty work, I’ll give you one day because you entertain me. And Len sets out to do just that but of course he can’t, because once he’s back on Earth he immediately runs into Iris and tries to use her to get to her father but the thing is that Len/Cold HAS changed during the time he spent with Barry. He never meant to, but he did. So he basically just tells Joe to have a nice life and resigns himself to leave and go back to his little corner of eternity.

But not before Barry sees him.

And then—well admittedly I hadn’t really written too much past that point, haha, but I’m sure you can guess that Barry is furious with Joe and finds a way to go to the afterlife to get Len back, and I guess it turns into the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice for a while, although I would never give my boys an unhappy ending so I did plan for the fic to have a happy ending and have Len and Barry leave the afterlife together. However, it was by that point that I realized this would take waaay too many chapters and way too much worldbuilding to write this story in a satisfying manner so I got discouraged and gave up XD But yeah, that was basically the whole plan for this giant project that will probably never happen, although I guess you never know!

Thank you so much for the ask, anon. I can only hope I haven’t bored you to death <3

Send an emoji and I’ll answer

#coldflash

3 notes · View notes

xiyao-feels · 1 year

Text

One of the things that drives me nuts about the 'their name means the same thing' thing, for nie//yao, is that—

even assuming it's meaningfully true, which is really not obvious to me—

But taking for granted that it's meaningfully true, what a stupid damn thing to hang a shipping analysis on.

Like, first, these kinds of details can be meaningful but their meaning must be analyzed through context! Do I think the description of the gentians with "their petals adorned dew like stars" in the Lotus Seed Pod extra is meaningful in a xiyao context? Yes—but only because of the relationship between LXC and JGY which is actually established elsewhere in the text. I don't start thinking Xi//cheng must be real because the gentians are purple! These kinds of details can be fun but they're not in themselves arguments, in the way "nie//yao have names that mean the same thing!" often seems to be treated. If WWX and LWJ and Lan An and his wife and Jiang Yanli and Jin Zixuan all had names that meant the same thing, then you'd absolutely have a case for understanding this as evidence that the relationship was romantic or at least should be interpreted against those relationships. But of course that's not the case! And relatedly—

Secondly, if I were going to interpret this as meaningful, which again I am not convinced of.... I think the natural point of reference isn't romantic at all, but instead a pair of brothers famously known as the Twin Jades. Which I do actually think is an interesting and meaningful lens for NMJ&JGY's relationship! I've spoken about this before so I won't go into depth here but if you look at, for example, NMJ agreeing to the sworn brotherhood because it will give him "the status and the position to urge Jin GuangYao, like how he disciplined his younger brother, Nie HuaiSang" (ER trans ch 49, emphasis mine) followed immediately by the flower banquet which is the one scene where LXC and JGY are present but don't interact on the page but where the brother-pairs LXC&LWJ and WWX&JC are quite significant, and where NHS is of course not present; I might throw in LXC talking about going to help LWJ during the teacups scene during Sunshot, when MY was serving NMJ, though of course that would have to be examined in more detail in a proper analysis; and just in general consider the ways in which LXC and LWJ's relationship seems the best and most functional fraternal relationship we see, and the ways in which NMJ comparatively fails as a brother against that model for both NHS and JGY—

In any case, I do think that's an interesting lens through which to examine NMJ & JGY's relationship! And if I were going to interpret NMJ and JGY's names as meaning anything, I'd interpret it as pointing, narratively, to that parallel and contrast. But you'll notice that the argument from the actual scenes they're in is the important part; the names might highlight it or draw our attention to it but they cannot substitute for an argument. I would never say, "why do you ship nie//yao? Their names both mean jade and they're sworn brothers so obviously they're paralleling the Twin Jades, so it can't be romantic!" Because that would be a ridiculous argument.

16 notes · View notes

reflections-in-a-critical-eye · 2 years

Note

Jeez. So much buzz about Color: Freedom. Do you think it might be a nice balance between self-reflection on gender norms and a lil spicy LGBTQ+ hint just to create some space for discussions and interpretations? Because gosh, people are shouting either THAT’S BAITING or HE’S BISEXUAL. Nothing in the middle 😌

I'll briefly talk about this because I'm saving a more detail analysis once I look into gender identity/sexuality/masculinity and Jimin.

You said something really important here which is the idea that the concept can create space for discussions and interpretations. Which is great. It should be like that. Except a debate on social media usually turns into something ugly because everyone thinks they know better, there is only one interpretation, the other camp is either projecting or dismissing. When in turn it shouldn't be like that. Unfortunately we are at a stage in which nuance is a notion long forgotten and rejected.

As to the subject at hand, well let me tell you. It's not that complicated if we remember this incredible thinking tool we have on our hands called semiotics. We all know about it, we all operate with it unconsciously even if we don't know the exact definition and its academic purposes. Because semiotics, to put it simply, is nothing but the study of signs and how they create meaning. The easiest and first example anyone gives is the one with the traffic lights. When it's red, we know we stop and if it's green, then it's good to go. The color green does not have in its core definition the meaning of being allowed to do something or able to continue, but it's a meaning that has been attributed to it due to social norms. Social norms that have to exist in a functional society. We attribute meanings to objects, signs and so on. We are in a constant process of decoding what we see around us and once we get familiar with a meaning that becomes unanimously acknowledged, the decoding process becomes instantenous. And why is it important to understand the purpose of semiotics? Because – and I found this really easy explanation somewhere – semiotics is a tool to ensure that intended meanings are unambigously understood by the person on the receiving end. That's why we all must know that a red at a traffic light means we need to stop and there is no room left for ambiguity. But, to nuance this discussion as well, cultural context is relevant here. A thumbs up can mean ok in most cultures, while in other situations it can have a different meaning. So we always need to keep in mind the bigger picture.

Now, why did I took this theoretical detour to answer your question? Because by using semiotics, it becomes much more easier in trying to decode and interpret the signs in the photoshoot. If a certain combination of colors are turned into a recognizable symbol for people part of a community, then the meaning of it is decoded based on that knowledge. To put it simply, it's fine and expected if some can interpret the colors in The Freedom photoshoot as being a symbol associated with bisexuality. At least. And then there are people who can come and say that they only thought the colors are pretty without thinking more about it. That means they didn't go through the process of decoding because they symbol is not universally acknowledged or is an essential part of every person's life, like the traffic light for example. But that doesn't mean that those who were able to decode it are just exaggerating or attributing some meaning to it that is supposedly non-existent.

The truth is, there were several ''symbols'' and markers throughout time until this photoshoot which add context that is adding to the possibility of looking at the photoshoot through the lens of self reflection on gender and sexual identity.

But the issue that I see now (without having yet the time to fully explore it) is that people need verbal confirmation. They refuse to use their semiotic skills in order to interpret what they see. It's either they're not confident in their interpretation or they refuse the possibility of that interpretation to be real, so they want a verbalized message. Otherwise they call it queerbating. Which in that sense, it shows that they don't really care about the person they are supposedly interested in. It's more about their satisfaction and confirmation and not the actual real life. And that can be frustrating because people should be allowed to express their thoughts on their identity however they want. And just because others can do it loudly, it doesn't mean everyone can.

Then there's also the moral standpoint reason which is when fans say that it's wrong to look at the photoshoot through that lens because it's projection on part of LGBTQ+ fans, and sexuality shouldn't be assumed. In one way or another (or multiple) we as humans, assume. We look at someone and through our own life experience and the markers we are able to identify and decode based on our personal knowledge, we end up assuming someone's sexuality. It's just that assuming someone is straight is considered by fans more morally acceptable, while assuming any other sexual identity is wrong.

But this last aspect also needs to be nuanced. Our perceptions that lead to us assuming can be influenced by stereotypes. Stereotypes do have a base in reality, but they are also used to make negative judgments about people.

We also need to take into consideration cultural differences. Which is a double-edged sword. Fans can use this argument in order to better understand that an artist from an East Asian country does not automatically align himself with Western understandings of queerness and its symbols, but it also doesn't mean he's completely oblivious in this very globalized world that combines elements and knowledge from different parts of the world (I mean, all those Koreans at Seoul Pride must know what a rainbow flag means, as they do use it. You understand my point?). And then there is the other side who uses this argument in order to create this image of the artist who is ignorant because of its cultural background. Because if he's not from a queer-friendly Western country, then first of all, he is not gay and second of all, he doesn't have the knowledge of the superior Western thinking. That's an orientalist point of view (which is harmful, in case it's not obvious).

The conclusion to all this is yes, there needs to be space for interpretation because we have the tools to do it. But we also have to be willing to do it. And not everyone wants to go there. Either they choose to be ignorant, or they don't have the appropriate knowledge and they don't want to learn, or it makes them uncomfortable. Fans like to to speak in the name of the artist they like so often, but they also fail in listening and paying attention when that artist tries to express himself the way he wants.

This is a very long discussion and quite a complicated one because it's a huge topic in the fandom. And I'm not referring only to this photo-folio, but the way fans see Jimin is something to be studied. I think it's hard for them to wrap their head around who this man is and what he tries to say. He's obvious and ambiguous at the same time, which is hard to stomach for those who need everything to be very clear and delivered in a digestible way.

#bmt asks #jimin #jimin photofolio #jimin freedom concept #bts fandom reception

51 notes · View notes