#its he rejects the structure and being used essentially by the weak | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

cruelfeline · 4 years

Text

One of the aspects of Hordak that strikes me so significantly when compared to other characters is the unexpected, terrifying escalation of his situation.

We don’t really see this happen with anyone else: generally speaking, our other characters are very much a case of “what you see is what you get.” Adora is perhaps a bit of an exception, seeing as her status as “First Ones gun trigger” is used as a plot twist in season four, but her general background and the overall nature of her situation remain fairly consistent throughout the show.

Same with Catra. Same with Glimmer and Bow. Mermista, Perfuma, Scorpia, Frosta... everyone else receives a backstory and, barring minute elaborations, stays true to our first impressions of them. Our understanding of who they are and what they are about doesn’t really change.

Hordak is not this way.

Hordak starts off as a pretty standard, one-dimensional evil warlord character. Season one finds him very much delegated to the background, supposedly pulling the strings behind the scenes as other characters have their dramas play out center stage. He is well-designed and frightening, an imposing individual with a stoic personality and a sense of reason and logic that marks him as an effective commander.

We get no backstory at this point, and the initial impression of the character (at least for me) is “capable evil leader, little to no depth beyond what is absolutely necessary.” And that’s fine. At this point in the story, there’s no suggestion that Hordak will have any sort of role save for serving as an ultimate antagonist for our heroes, so a backstory is largely unnecessary. He appears properly built to provide powerful opposition, and that’s all we need.

This is Hordak’s starting point. It is a serviceable starting point. It is also stunningly different from his end point, and at this stage in the series, there is zero indication that there is going to be any alteration, let alone such a dramatic one.

Seasons two and three see Hordak gaining actual development. Significant development. Development that provides him with a painful, sympathetic reason for waging his war. Suddenly, Hordak is not an all-powerful, untouchable warlord. Suddenly, he is a vulnerable individual with significant physical ailments and resulting emotional trauma.

His situation has escalated.

We see now that his body is falling apart, that he is sickly and weak and dependent upon armor and bravado to maintain control over his subordinates. We see that he is not the stoic, omnipotent man presented to us in season one.

Instead, we learn that he is a manufactured clone with deep emotional wounds linked to past rejection and trauma, that he comes from a society where his illness is scorned enough to earn him rejection and what amounts to a death sentence. We come to understand that he views himself very poorly, and that a significant number of his negative character traits are rooted in shame and fear and a desperate need for validation.

we also learn that he has cute lil ears that can wiggle and droop when he’s sad

To these significant developments we add his budding friendship with Entrapta, and we find that Hordak is very much capable of desiring, forming, and maintaining a positive, affectionate relationship with someone. His character thus becomes even more complex.

Now, something to keep in mind at this point: thanks to revelations provided by his backstory, we can view Hordak as a more vulnerable individual with legitimate feelings and insecurities. That said, there is still a certain dangerous edge to him. At this point in the series, we have been told, by Hordak himself, that he was a top general in a much larger version of the Horde.

This supposed fact somewhat tempers his vulnerability. We get the sense that, while he is suffering from the shame and subsequent rejection brought on by his disability, his ultimate goal of rejoining his brother still involves a certain level of power. There is this idea that, though he wants validation and acceptance, he is also seeking to regain a position that, theoretically, grants him greater power and authority than the one he holds now. Hence why he doesn’t just settle for conquering and ruling Etheria: being lord of Etheria does not hold a candle to the power granted him by regaining his rank as Horde Prime’s top general.

One can look back at the fandom during late 2019 to fully appreciate this: fanfiction from this time period often features headcanons of particularly accomplished clones holding respected positions in Prime’s empire. High ranking clones have names and titles. They have ships. They have their own planets and their own armies. Even though they serve Prime and are, sadly, purpose-bred clones, they have power and status that provide them with a certain level of agency.

Essentially, there was the idea that a traditional Horde military structure exists, and Hordak held privilege within it.

So, while Hordak’s situation has escalated in emotional poignancy from “evil warlord wanting to rule the world” to “defective clone seeking validation,” there remains an unsympathetic aspect to it. There is still some degree of potential power-hunger that one can attribute to him.

This changes, very suddenly and traumatically, in seasons four and five. And this, friends and neighbors, is where I begin to become very emotional.

Our first indication that things are about to wildly change comes during the season four finale. We meet Horde Prime. We see how submissive and terrified Hordak is in his presence. We witness Prime’s distaste not only for the state of him and his failed conquest, but for Hordak daring to take a name.

It is Hordak’s name being a problem that plants the seeds for an upheaval of our preconceived notions regarding a clone’s function in the Galactic Horde. Those seeds germinate abruptly and violently in the next few moments as Prime lifts Hordak by the throat, declares him an abomination, and viciously violates and erases his mind.

And oh, friends and neighbors, now we know that something is wrong.

We don’t quite know the specifics yet, but we know that there is some sort of discrepancy between what Hordak told us and the truth he has lived. At no point in the narrative did Hordak say anything about names being inappropriate. At no point did he say anything that might have prepared us for the suspiciously religiously-coded language Prime is using. At no point did he say anything to suggest that there was anything wrong with what he was doing beyond trying to compensate for a physical disability.

And then, alongside all of these dark little surprises, there are the hauntingly blank stares of the clones standing besides Prime’s throne.

All of these factors instill a sense of dread that culminates in the chilling reveal of the Galactic Horde’s true nature come season five.

It is a cult. An honest-to-the-gods, played-absolutely-straight religious cult.

The Galactic Horde isn’t a traditional army, or an aggressive nation, or even a standard imperialist empire. It is a cult, with Horde Prime as its god and countless clone acolytes acting as its horrifically willing members.

We never see a top general, or any generals at all. We never see any sort of military hierarchy. We never see clones leading armies, or owning ships, or holding ranks, or commanding anyone or anything.

What we see instead is clones blindly worshiping their Brother. We see them doting on him, sacrificing their own life force to maintain his form. We see them forfeiting control of their bodies to him whenever he feels like using another’s form. We see them chanting the virtue of suffering to achieve purity. We see them blank and emotionless save for religious zealotry, a purpose-bred cohort of completely brainwashed followers. We see that there is no apparent escape from this life, for Prime sees their minds and controls every aspect of their existence, and we see that there is no desire for escape among them, so utterly indoctrinated are they.

We see Hordak reduced to one of these cowl-wearing acolytes: nameless, powerless, ready and willing to endure physical agony in order to forget his shame and relinquish his self to his Brother in the hopes of... well, certainly not of regaining some exalted military rank, or of reclaiming some previously-held status. These things do not exist. Not in this actual religious cult.

Hordak’s true situation is now fully apparent, and it is so far removed from our views of him back in previous seasons: rather than being a calculating warlord, or even a defective clone seeking to regain military glory, Hordak is a manufactured soldier-slave who was born into a religious cult, so indoctrinated and bound to his Brother that he risks his own life in order to win Prime’s love and approval.

Because that’s what this final realization confirms: Hordak was never after any sort of power or prestigious military status. They never existed. Hordak was, in the end, an abused slave trying desperately to win love from his loveless master. He truly was just after validation and affection and a feeling of secure belonging. All things that he was deprived of because he was born a slave-acolyte in a godsforsaken cult.

And that’s... that’s such a vastly different state of affairs than the one we accepted in season one. It completely rewrites our understanding of Hordak’s power, of his vulnerability, of his true wants and needs and desires. Said understanding shifts from a purely villainous one to one steeped in self-loathing and control and lifelong victimization. It is absolutely shocking to see a character’s circumstances completely transform the way Hordak’s do between the show’s beginning and its finale. It is utterly bewildering to witness this intensity of change.

As I stated at the start: this doesn’t happen to anyone else. Oh, other characters develop and grow and undergo their arcs, sure, but by and large, Catra remains a scrappy catgirl. Adora remains an orphaned heroine. Swift Wind remains a revolutionary winged steed.

Only Hordak undergoes a transformation as dramatic as shifting from “all-powerful conquering warlord” to “defective clone seeking validation... but maybe also galactic power” before finally settling, tearfully and painfully, on “shamed, love-starved cult victim.” Only his situation, his true identity and our understanding of it, escalate so shockingly and to such terrifying levels.

I’m still not over it. I still cry about it. I still feel light-headed sometimes, knowing that Hordak's circumstances revolve around being born into and abused and thrown away by an actual cult. Even though we're over two months out from SPoP's finale, it's still that emotionally powerful to me, and the shock of the difference between seasons one and five only make it more so.

#hordak #horde prime #she ra

414 notes · View notes

leutik · 3 years

Text

Literature between Political Correctness and Cancel Culture

(Analyzed through Walter Siti, Natalie Wynn and Rick DuFer.)

(buckle up, because if you're gonna read this, it's gonna be long)

«Today is much easier to mistake an author’s personal stances with the content of their works, and then make the author pay for the work’s sins.

Today I look around and I have the sensation that literature is no longer taken seriously: that the way to interpret literature the way I knew it, depth-focused, focused on the power of words to reveal truths otherwise concealed to their own author, is disappearing — substituted by a conception of literature that has to serve a list of good causes.

When some writers of the “neo-effort” (Siti’s neologism) insist on the fact that words are decisive, and that it’d be urgent to change the words in order to change reality, I’m suddenly reminded of those old Marxist authors: they explained that the structure, which is what lays under society, determines what lays upon it, that is words and ideology. Thus, changing the name of something doesn’t change the thing the word stands for at all.

Literature has been considered throughout time the most indicated form to make resurface the part of ourselves — often, the least pleasant — that we’ve exiled in the shadows of our subconscious: a process that often happens without the author’s acknowledgement of it.

The authors of the neo-effort believe they have the duty to spread their ideas to the largest possible number of people and that, in order to do so, they have to simplify as much as they can what they write, sacrificing on the altar of efficiency the style, considered useless. The aim is to do good, namely gain an effect, what does it matter if it’s good or bad literature? Literature used to “take root”, to influence; put at the service of pre-established ideas, and not to venture into the discovery of something we don’t know yet. This way, it gains an ancillary role. And it’s a humiliation of literature — which can truly be useful, instead, only then it hurts.

Sartre’s “Nausea” doesn’t align with his political stances. For Sartre, the effort was the individual reflection of a society in perennial revolution, substantially a school of liberty, whilst for neo-effort the role of literature is to reassure.

Their attitude, their rejection of style, their low consideration of literature, tends to isolate the good writers out there, marginalizing them in a niche that looks like a convention of obsessed aesthetes in the public’s eyes.

I see it in the writing courses I teach: more and more young people whose main interest isn’t to write to learn something about themselves or society, but it’s to write to gain the title of writer and place themselves on the market, detecting the most profitable sector at the moment, which might be fantasy, crime, or effort-centred writing: it doesn’t matter, what matters is for it to be trending and to be reassuring to the reader, in a more and more therapeutic conception of writing.

Literature isn’t immediately therapeutic, this is the difference. When “The Sorrows of Young Werther” was published, copies of this book were burnt, because of the suicides it inspired. Today we read it at school. How much time has passed? I don’t refuse knowledge’s benefit, I refuse that knowledge can benefit instantly, painlessly. When I went to a psychoanalyst to face my neurosis, the psychoanalyst made me suffer for months, and only after I took benefit from it. What would have happened if they had welcomed me with a pat on the back and said “Don’t worry, stop thinking and go help African children”. Probably I would have had an immediate benefit, but all my neurosis would have stayed there, intact.

The Literature I talked to you about is depth-centred, and literature hasn’t always existed: thus it can disappear, sink for many years. Who said that it’ll survive, despite everything?

In Pasolini’s trial he was acquitted because Ungaretti was called to testify. He wrote a letter where he wrote that the formal value of Pasolini’s work turned into literature even those scenes that the prosecution deemed obscene. Law couldn’t do anything but recognize the critical judgement and welcome it. Web’s tribunal, today, would have burned Pasolini at the stake, and Ungaretti with him.» (via Walter Siti’s interview with the Huffingtonpost)

In other words, we can summarize Siti’s view with the sentence «novels aren’t the cure to the world’s evils.» They aren’t, because they don’t have the power to be, and more so they aren’t even supposed to be: writing is a form of art, and art has primarily an end in itself. Literature isn’t a political marketplace, even if it can be used to be — it’s not a crime to turn it into one, but by doing so, one loses Literature’s nature. By doing so, the harm could be mistake literature’s primary aim (that is being a form of art, that is style, that is the pursuit of the truth) with what they turned literature into: a marketplace to defend the author’s ideology.

Siti’s powerful image of the Web’s tribunal, the Web’s court finds an echo in Natalie Wynn video Canceling: in a sense, what Siti calls “neo-effort writers” fall under the same line of thoughts of Cancel Culture perpetrators.

«Like the guillotine, [cancelling] can become a sadistic entertainment spectacle.

Now there's a version of this conversation that's already been had to death, and it goes like this: On the one side are a bunch of male comedians who constantly bitch about how Cancel Culture is out of control, you can't joke about anything anymore without these Millennial jackals trying to get you in trouble.

And the other side is mostly progressive think-piece authors who argue that there's no such thing as cancel culture, it's just that powerful people are finally being held accountable for their actions and they can't fucking handle it, so they go around bitching about cancel culture.

Now unfortunately, neither of those viewpoints is quite as correct as some people might hope.

What Cancel Culture does, [is to] take one story and transform it into a significantly different story.

Presumption of Guilt

There's a traditional understanding of justice according to which, before you condemn or punish a person, you hear the accuser's side of the story and the accused's side of the story. You allow both sides to present evidence and only after everyone involved has had a chance to make their case do you pass judgment and punish the convict.

But cancelling does not abide by the law. Cancelling is a form of vigilante mob justice. And a lot of times, an accusation is proof enough.

Abstraction

Abstraction replaces the specific, concrete details of a claim with a more generic statement.

Essentialism

Essentialism is when we go from criticizing a person's actions to criticizing the person themselves. We're not just saying they did bad things. We’re saying they’re a bad person.

Pseudo-Moralism or Pseudo-Intellectualism

Moralism or intellectualism provide a phony pretext for the call-out. You can pretend you just want an apology; you can pretend you're just a “concerned citizen” who wants the person to improve. You can pretend you're simply offering up criticism, when what you're really doing is attacking a person's career and reputation out of spite, envy, revenge.

No Forgiveness

Cancelers will often dismiss an apology as insincere, no matter how convincingly written or delivered. And of course, an insincere apology is further proof of what a Machiavellian psychopath you really are.

Now sometimes, a good apology will calm things down for a while. But the next time there's a scandal, the original accusation will be raised again as if you never apologized.

The Transitive Property of Cancellation

Cancellation is infectious. If you associate with a cancelled person, the cancellation rubs off. It's like gonorrhoea, except doxycycline won't save you this time sweetie.» (via Natalie Wynn's Canceling video transcript)

Natalie Wynn describes and formalizes the phenomenon of Cancel Culture in those steps:

I only listen to the presumed victim,

I abstract the context to a vague idea,

I equate the action to the actor’s very essence (as if such thing even existed),

I say I’m acting in favour of morals or truth,

I accuse every person the presumed abuser ever came in contact with to be an abuser as well,

and I either reject every form of apology at the moment, or bring up the issue as if no apology was ever made at their first misstep.

Now, in this post I’m not trying to perpetrate any concept of charity, not only because it’s an attitude that takes a lot of work to inherit, but also because the negative aspects that might bring one to be a neo-effort writer or a Cancel Culture perpetrator are part of the very human nature (or, very stupidly, they wouldn’t be humans.)

The self-evidence rises here: those negative parts of human nature can be channelled everywhere, and literature or any other form of art is the healthiest way to do so: you’re not going to get rid of your anger, or your sadness — the best thing you can do is learn to control it and suppress it, but how is it going to work in the long run? It’s going to act past your good judgement, or even cloud your good judgement, clouding it into thinking you’re defending some pseudo-moralism or pseudo-intellectualism, when what you’ll be doing is just venting on someone else.

This is one way to see it: when one forgets what proper thinking is and falls into those quick and gut-feeling “thoughts”. Or one could even take advantage of this Cancel Culture, of this ground of poor thinking to instrumentalize this lack of critical judgement to attack someone else.

On instrumentalization and its dangers, Rick DuFer says:

«Political correctness works when its aim is to protect the weak from abusers, but when it favours every little susceptible sensitivity it turns dangerous.» (via Rick DuFer’s podcast DailyCogito)

Rick DuFer talks about a shared responsibility that happens during offence: shared between the offender and the offended. The problem with offence, as opposed to harm, is that it isn’t quantifiable, so the offender is guilty in regard to their intentions, and the offended is guilty in regard to the instrumentalization they can enact with the situation.

And again we find “instrumentalization”: if one destroys my property, I can quantify the damage, but if one insults me, how can I quantify how offended I truly am? This is when I can twist one person’s words and turn them into an offender, this is when sensitivity becomes a mask and no longer a virtue (or, for the toxic masculinity’s thought, a vice.)

Now, to wrap things up:

These people take the (s)word of this school of thought (which some other dichotomists may, generalizing it, call it “Strong Thought” or “Unique Thought”), perhaps without even knowing there’s an alternative, while there are multiple, actually: as many as the human beings right now populating Earth.

They may do it out of a dualistic and very childish view of society — divided into good and bad people. And if that’s your view of life, you’re not gonna want to be associated with who others deem as bad, following a gut feeling and nothing more. (And I say “gut feeling” to avoid saying “very poor thinking”, because that’s what absolutization, essentialism, and the rest is.)

Your thoughts aren’t really yours, and you become a vessel for something that belongs to someone else, someone who crafted those thoughts in a very different context, or with instrumentalization in mind. You don’t want to risk criticizing those thoughts because you don’t want to be isolated, or because you’re a sane person who deems it important to act rightfully (even if you’re letting others tell you what “right” is.)

And for how problematic moral relativism is, it surely is better than any form of absolutization: better than rejecting your status as “sapiens” and stopping thinking altogether, passively accepting what others taught you to be right and wrong, maybe even out of fear, or a stupid rush for glory and sympathy.

So I wouldn’t call this moral relativism, strictly, but rather moral subjectivism, or context-centred morality. A morality in which people still have a brain to separate a piece of work from an author’s ideology (against essentialism) and to still take into account the context in which an action was performed (against abstraction). A morality in which “good” and “wrong” aren’t seen in black and whites, but rather into lighter and darker greys; a morality which systematic use can slowly dress into the habit of charity towards one another, into kind teaching rather than cruel instrumentalization.

And is it really utopistic, is it really unfeasible, if we’re not falsely annihilating the suffering and the negative parts of the Human Experience?

This whole discourse could be turned into a political marketplace of rights and lefts, of conservatives and progressivists — but my aim here is much smaller (or bigger, if one is a humanist): to make the reader question their critical thinking, and just that.

(We love some self-doubt.)

I believe moral acts aren’t supposed to be a badge to share on one’s vest — to renew your status as “approachable person” (as if saying “don’t worry, you can talk to me, you’re not going to be deemed as bad for it”) or to be praised for. Moral acts are the only acts that raise humans from other species, the acts where the “sapiens” shows its evolution, the acts where our negative aspects aren’t hidden but channelled into arts, without the fear that someone might call us bad for it. (Immoral, even, whilst acting in the most moral way possible, exorcising those negative parts of us in the least harmful way possible.)

So, at the end of this unnecessary rant, my question is: is it better to be a minion in a culture where you have to watch your mouth, as if it wasn’t yours, or to be a person who’s engaged in researching how right and wrong truly manifest?

#the first and last sources are in italian #i did my best translating them #rant #philosophy #literature #cancel culture #cancelled #politically correct #controversial #opinion #thoughts #very open to discuss civilly

14 notes · View notes

hankwritten · 3 years

Text

TFComics Rewrite

I am currently plotting an outline for a TFComics, and I want to get my thoughts about fixes to canon and possibly get feedback. Since this is a rewrite there’s really no *spoilers* or anything, so I’m willing to answer all questions about what I plan to do. Also some characters I’m not so sure about how I want to retool them, so if your have ideas for your fav let me know!

Disclaimer:

This rewrite is intended to critique the content/choices made in the construction and telling of the Team Fortress 2 comic series. It is not a personal attack on the artists/writers/directors or any of the creatives that made contributions to this series, nor is it meant to substitute or replace the official release. This work is transformative in nature, and relies on an understanding of the source material to be understood. TF2 and its characters belong to Valve.

TFCR is working on the assumption that the audience has read the original comic, and as such will skip over scenes and plot points that are unchanged from the original. I don’t think it needs to be said, but this fanfiction will not make sense if you are not familiar with the source.

I also recognize that there are strengths within the comic’s writing and weaknesses within my own. Namely, that Valve writers are gods in the realm of comedy, and I’d rather not try to match them in the regard. As such, I will state up front that these will not be as funny as the TFComics. That is not to say there won’t be jokes (either ones transplanted from the source or some of my own) or that the tone of this will be terribly grimdark, only that my focus will be on improving story structure and character development as those are what appeal to me.

The Broad Strokes

The goal of TFCR is to give a more engaging story for all the mercenaries we know and love, as--let’s face it--the TF2 mercs are side characters in their own damn story. These are some of the planned improvements.

There will be reason for each of the mercs to actually be there. As it stands, the motivations for almost every character besides Pauling and Saxton Hale are vague and unsatisfying. We’d usually say something along the lines of “money” for hired killers, but clearly Scout doesn’t even know if they’re getting paid, and some of the other characters are even worse. The hunt for the Australium is, therefore, boring. MacGuffins usually are, but at the very least the characters should care about the item even if the audience doesn’t. This work aims to give each of the nine mercs a motive and a reason to be in the story instead of just replaceable joke dispensers.

Explain what “Team Fortress” means, and how it relates to RED and BLU. Long and short: the nine mercenaries we see on the team are not from either RED or BLU but rotate between the two, and were the individuals selected to fight the robots. That means all things do happen to all characters. As Valve pretty much goes with “whatever is funniest at the time”, it’s very hard to make a cohesive theory about “where the hell is BLU team?”, but I’ll do my damndest. We’ll also examine Team Fortress’s relationship with the other capital T Teams, and why they’re considered the “rejects” of the bunch.

Comics 1 & 2 will be removed from the timeline as they serve no purpose, only taking what needs to be known about the plot’s setup and jumping straight to A Cold Day in Hell.

We will introduce the Classic Mercs right away so they can generate threat and play against the TF mercs when they do actually meet head to head.

We will not be killing off Gray Mann. (Not preemptively anyway.) In fact, there will be more focus on him and Olivia as villains facing off against the Admin, providing her foil as the TF2 and TFC mercs provide foils for each other.

I considered waiting until the final comic was out to begin working on this, but that may never happen. Jay Pinkerton said he may reveal what plot they had in store eventually, but considering it took Half Life over a decade to get the “I was once a Valve writer but my NDA has expired and now I can go buck wild” treatment, I’m not holding my breath. The main reason I wanted to do this is that the Administrator’s motivations are not interestingly foreshadowed, to the point where there aren’t even any good fan theories out there. That said, WritingDispenser and Riddle of the Sphinx helped come up with a pretty fun one, which was actually the inspiration for me to get off my butt and start plotting this.

There will be no queerbaiting. This refers both to HeavyMedic (which has been simultaneously used as wink wink nudge nudge joke many times and as encouragement for fans to play their stupid hat game) as well as lesbian Pauling (since femme lesbians are the preferred method for front facing LGBT representation across almost all media, but video games especially). If you need to understand why lesbian Pauling is an issue, Sarah Z coined the term “queercatching” in order to describe word of god confirmations on characters sexualities that are not followed up on in the text. I recommend the full video on it.

Due to the importance of immortality in the theming of the comics, respawn will not be a thing. Deaths we think should have happened previously will be explained as close calls, or that Medic can heal a short time after death. Medic and Scout’s deaths will be cut in the story itself, as after Sniper died and came back, them doing the same thing kinda lost their punch.

Scout

There will be no ScoutPauling hints. It doesn’t make sense to give screentime to this relationship because Valve obviously doesn’t think it’s going to go anywhere so why make Scout turn down advances from other hot women? I mean I get Expiration Date was a Thing but it feels like Scout’s whole motivation shouldn’t be reduced down to chasing a girl who doesn’t like him back.

He’s here because he lost his life’s savings in bad investments and needs the money. That’s it. Which is still somehow more than his canon motive which is question mark question mark question mark

He, Soldier, Spy, Demo, and Pyro all start the adventure with Miss Pauling.

Engages with Heavy on a genuine level when they go to collect him, Heavy doesn’t blow him off when he tries to level about dead dads.

There will be no DadSpy reveal. The way Spy treats Scout has never been “deadbeat dad feels bad about abandoning his kid” but more “this is someone I would kill without a second thought if I felt like it” which makes his reveal in comic 5 feel very disingenuous. I don’t think Valve even had this plotline in mind until comic 3, as #2 still has Spy seeming only to care about Scout’s Ma and not Scout himself. It also makes “seduce me!” retroactively weird.

Uhhh hooks up with Zhanna. This one isn’t critical I just think it’s funny.

Soldier

Soldier is going to be the Ur example of the Admin not treating her people well, as we’re going to lean into the whole “Soldier was only mildly messed up until the whole lead poisoning” thing.

He’s here because he’s blindingly loyal to the cause. He’s actually going to very little from canon because of this actually.

Might be the reason Team Fortress has a reputation of being the lower tiers of the Teams, but that doesn’t mean he’s damn good at his job. Fatal flaw is that he’s unstable, and even though the courthouse plotline won’t be in this fic, it should be noted that he actually does cause problems for the other protagonists due to his short temper. He’s a risky asset, but still essential.

There will be a minor explanation for the WAR! Comic, but I think that’s better saved for Demo’s analysis.

Pyro

Pyro is the character you could cut entirely from the comics and have the least change. Now, they’re going to be Pauling’s right hand. Let me explain.

Engineer and Pyro are implied to live together, and Pyro doesn’t have anything better to do than go with Engie after Team Fortress is disbanded. Rather than having a reveal, we will see some of what is going on with the Admin and friends early on, and see what leads up to her sending Miss P the note that kicks off the whole plot. However, while Engie needs to stay and look after her, Pyro’s skills aren’t useful here, and they are sent as a direct messenger to help Pauling.

They’re loyal, and unlike Soldier rarely mess up orders. They’re also partially mute, making them ideal for handling sensitive info. Pauling trusts them to handle the burning of “Elizabeth’s” paper trail.

Will be using they/them in the narrative voice, but other characters will refer to them as he/him. I considered going with it/its because that’s bubbled up in popularity again, but ultimately I decided against it.

We’ll get glimpses to their train of thought, but like the comics they will remain virtually silent.

Demo

Demo’s role in the cast is going to be very similar to Spy’s. The events of WAR! involved him nearly dying and Soldier taking the win, and he’s very bitter that after all those events *apparently* mercs can just be switched around teams willy nilly and don’t have to kill each other anymore. (As the audience, we know this is because the Admin found out the “make them so angry they won’t ask questions” wasn’t a long-term viable solution, and instead brought TFI forward as a neutral third party that was pretending to mediate the gravel wars.) But Demo’s suspicious, and is only along because he really has been miserable since he lost his job.

This conflict will eventually come to a head, more on that in the Sniper section.

Is fairly forgiving with his teammates. Doesn’t like Sniper but I’m willing to drop a little angst during that submarine scene. Is glad to see Medic actually. Here to be some glue to hold this merry band together.

The Eyelander will not be forgotten after 2 comics because I love this character concept and I think it was underutilized.

Drunk jokes will be kept to a minimum. What I liked about WAR! and Bombinomicon was that it took Demo and showed that they knew how to make him funny without making him one note, which they sort of did in the early TFComics but stopped in the later ones in favor of him….being asleep for the whole plot. I promise 100% awake Demo in my rewrite.

Demo likes Pauling on a personal level, but has trouble reconciling her with his feelings on TFI.

Doesn’t get knocked out by moonshine because. Seriously? Poisoning the Demoman with alcohol? In what world does that work.

Heavy

Not too much to change. Scout doesn’t accompany him when he goes to look for the secret Australium cache, and he engages with Mags and Saxton (which will be when the audience finds out what they’ve been up to) and actually cares about what’s going on with them. He thinks Darling is up to something. Which he is, he’s attempting to unseat both Gray and Helen due to long family history.

Will at least mention Medic. Their reunion falls a little flat since it mostly relies on Meet the Medic for context, as they don’t really interact in the comic. There can be a bit of a flashback to what it was like as all these mercs broke up.

I know uhhh Valve seems to think found family is really dumb, and that these murderers could ever like each other is silly or something, but the mercs do? Like each other? For the most part anyways.

Bronislava and Yana come alone for adventures, not just Zhanna. Again, no real reason, but sometimes I get to have tacky fanfic stuff in my own fanfic because I Wanna.

Engineer

Engie ruminates on his family history of allowing all this bullshit to happen and just kind of shrugging. Basically Moss’s analysis of the Conagher themes.

Has put a lot of time, sweat, and tears into BLU and now TFI, isn’t willing to let it fall now, even if Admin is basically living on borrowed time. He’s doing this because of the ‘ole sunk cost fallacy.

Also we get to see more of Pauling and Admin’s relationship through his eyes.

Medic

Congrats on being the one merc with an actual arc, Medic! As a reward, you will not be changed much.

I’m actually going to use Medic’s section to say that the Classic mercs will be referred to by their first names in order to differentiate them, and we’ll get little previews of what they’re like from Medic’s perspective before we actually see them fight Team fortress. The battle at the submarine will be more of a fight in this sense, working it out so it seems like surrender is the only option after Sniper is killed.

Final fight with Cheavy will be...not blocked so awkwardly. I mean this is now a textual medium so my work is already halfway done, but still the pacing is so weird. Shudder.

Sniper

These are the big guns. Most changes, even more than Demo. He’s been actually hunting for New Zealand/the Australium cache on his own, and doesn’t want Pauling interfering, saying for a he knows she could have been the ones to kill his adoptive parents.

(She hasn’t, but the Admin did actually order them killed in an attempt to stop Sniper because she thought she could prevent the exact thing that is going on right now which is that Sniper is considering trying to get at it.)

Sniper doesn’t know this, but Pauling, Demo, and Spy eventually convince him to share his findings and help them get to New Zealand.

Spy

Similar to Demo but is less conflicted about it. He knows just because he likes someone doesn’t mean he won’t have to kill them later.

Spy knows about who killed Sniper’s parents, and tells Demo, sort of as a test to see where his loyalties lie. He also knows that Pyro is Pauling’s confidant for certain things.

Demo questions him about what he’s doing here, whose side he’s really on. But you know. Spy is Spy and he was never really on anyone’s side but his own. When it comes down to it, it might be exactly as Scout thinks: that he’s ditched them all and run off when he had the opportunity. But, big damn hero, comes back in the end.

He’s here mainly to “keep an eye on things.” Also maybe because his gf asked him to keep an eye on her son :)

#tf comics rewrite #tf2 meta

23 notes · View notes

miraculouscontent · 4 years

Note

I just saw Felix, I am enraged beyond belief, and right now, I want someone to tear this episode and Astruc a new one. And who better than the Salt Fairy?

s-sALT FAIRY?? JDNGKFDG

WELL, WHO AM I TO DENY SUCH A REQUEST?

[Vanilla Graham Crackers]

So, I totally understand the idea that making new models is hard and it’s best to cut corners where one can, but that should only be done if it can be used in a way that doesn’t - you know - reuse two important character models and add almost nothing new to them.

To start off, you have Amelie, Emilie’s twin sister who they obviously reused Emilie’s model for.

Then you have Felix, whose mother’s genes must’ve kicked the tar out of his father’s genes (and the same must’ve happened to Adrien unless Gabriel’s model is reused for Felix’s father’s too if we ever get a flashback/picture but we’re not getting into that) considering that Felix looks like Adrien’s twin rather than Adrien’s cousin (if they pull some sort of thing about Felix actually being Adrien’s twin just as some sort of cheap “gotcha,” I swear–though I doubt it because Amelie has a line about them looking “just like twins” which would be strange for someone who would’ve already known they were twins unless she doesn’t know that they’re twins either because some weird things happened and–I’m getting off-topic…).

Already, these are both new characters who are being introduced in this episode that are edited versions of previous models we’ve seen on the show.

The thing is that I don’t care much if the models are reused, but they should at least have facial structures that look different enough to make them their own characters. At least reverse Amelie’s hair, gosh darn it.

Even Felix, like–I don’t even think any of the characters would find it odd if the “Adrien” in the video had different cheekbones or a different jawline. Felix could even have blue eyes but edit the video to make his eyes green (and then make an excuse as to why his eyes are blue when the villains show up). The Adrien model could be reused but still adjusted so he at least has a different freaking eye style, since those are usually the big thing that gives away the feeling of, “oh, the model is just reused.”

I mean, it makes sense for Felix’s name to be in the title of the episode, but that’s only because he actually got different hair and a different outfit, since even the people who get akumatized in this episode are reused.

Lady Wifi, who’s been seen multiple times in Season 1 and 3 now.

Princess Fragrance, who’s been used the least out of everyone else but has still been seen multiple times (counting scarlet edition Princess Fragrance).

And Reflekta, who’s been used multiple times even if you’re only counting Season 3. Reflekta even makes the least sense out of all the characters since she’s a bad combination with the others. Dark Cupid would’ve even been a better pick since Lady Wifi could freeze someone and then either Dark Cupid could get a clear shot or Princess Fragrance could force them to inhale her perfume.

They don’t even have a proper unique theme to them, like a design that they all share to show that they’re a team. It’s just a repeat of their past akuma forms except Lady Wifi doesn’t have to worry about being defeated in the same way as before I guess (not that they try it anyway)? I don’t question Alya being the only one to get an upgrade because the tablet is hers, but when we’ve already had an episode where a tablet was used as a “hey akuma, aim here” object, and the people who held it combined in that one because they had a shared goal, only to have this one be different and just turn them into separate forms?

Yeaaaah, no, that’s weird. That’s just weird. It’d be one thing if they were sure that there were two Adrien around and they needed to be separated so they could cover multiple people, but they’re not aware that Felix is around nor that he disguised himself as Adrien, requiring them to cover multiple grounds (and even then, that doesn’t need three of them).

I’ll say again that I don’t mind repeat akuma, but it has to make sense. Stormy Weather 2 and Gamer 2.0 made sense to come back even though I didn’t like their episodes or the messages behind them, but Reflektdoll and the Trio of Punishers here?

No, just–no.

(this is also once again keeping the “girl squad” quota in place which everyone knows I dislike; I just want the boys to be more involved sometimes and not have anyone’s involvement be based on what gender they are)

(also also, Ladybug defeating all of them in a few seconds demonstrates how incompetent they are as a team; defeating Nathalie is not a high bar for efficient villainry)

So, already with that, the episode is bland and doesn’t provide anything interesting; even Felix disguises himself as Adrien perfectly later on, so the model that was edited in any sort of significant way changes back to its oRinGaL fOrM partway through the episode just for the like, two viewers who couldn’t tell that he’s a duplicate of Adrien structurally.

Heck, and even once Felix does disguise himself as Adrien, he’s still making very “Adrien” faces. The camera switching from Adrien to Felix (disguised as Adrien) when the villains show up is a perfect example.

Same face, same pose. It’s like they’re the same person at times (and no, I don’t believe that Felix is that good of an actor when he just got jumped by three teenage girls in outlandish clothing who came out of the phone in his hands).

There’s also the plot with Gabriel and the twin rings. Firstly, the opening is basically the one from “Chat Blanc” with the ring detail added. I remember seeing “Chat Blanc” and then being weirded out when “Felix” hit like, “Wait, is this–?”

Even disregarding that, there’s a certain awkwardness to Gabriel’s behavior. Of course, we all know that Emilie is actually alive and (un)well, so Gabriel being upset with Adrien isn’t entirely wrong (since, to Gabriel, it sounds like his son is supporting him having an affair), but for Gabriel to lash out in an almost childish manner when we’ve seen Gabriel hold Nathalie/Mayura tenderly and we can see that they have something going on, it seems extremely unprompted and just an excuse for Gabriel to not have to tell Adrien that he’s Hawk Moth.

It also brings up the question as to what changed between Gabriel saying that he already wished that he could tell Adrien what he was doing since Adrien would understand, compared to now where Gabriel is completely okay with telling Adrien.

Everything’s too up in the air, too vague, and nothing hits like it should. The episode throws five shots at its viewers at once (”Amelie and Felix,” “The Twin Rings,” “Gabriel Almost Telling Adrien That He’s Hawk Moth,” “Three People Getting Akumatized at Once,” and “Marinette Successfully Sending a Confession to Adrien”) but none of them strike properly. They’re all fighting for screentime to the point where we don’t even see Alya’s more detailed reaction to “Adrien” rejecting Marinette’s confession (she looks slightly more annoyed than everyone else, I guess) when Alya had made such a big deal about Marinette confessing beforehand (I’ll forgive her just this once for flashing her tablet, unprompted, in Marinette’s anxious face since Alya largely does nothing bad outside of that). The episode tries too hard to be big and impactful but misses the mark because none of the things it’s trying to do can play out in a way that makes it feel like they’re important.

Amelie and Felix don’t have original models.

The twin rings haven’t been brought up in any significant way before.

Gabriel and Nathalie talk about Adrien knowing about the Hawk Moth thing once and then presumably give up with no explanation as to why Gabriel isn’t going to try again since Adrien clearly just misunderstood him.

The three people getting akumatized end up turning into forms we’ve seen before, all of which have been in this season, even if it was sparingly.

Marinette’s confession doesn’t even get misinterpreted by Adrien; it’s viewed by Felix and promptly deleted.

Oh yeah, and then there’s THAT scene…

[Consententious]

Alright, so I can’t really talk about this scene without talking about the supposed reason for why this episode exists.

For the 0.01% of people who aren’t aware, Felix is the original Adrien from the Miraculous PV, which is what Miraculous Ladybug used to be before it became the show it is now. Astruc has said, time and time again, that he did not like this character and that was why Adrien had replaced him.

The fandom clung to Felix, however. People were still interested in the “what-ifs” and “what could’ve been”s, especially as situations rose in-show where people felt like Felix would’ve reacted in a way that was different/better than how Adrien would have reacted.

Astruc was the one most known for disliking Felix, but another thing he was known for was lying to people in order to keep future things in the show a secret.

You know that scene in “Kwamibuster,” where Tikki keeps something from Marinette, and when she then tries to explain something else to Marinette, Marinette points out, “You see, the problem now is that I’m always going to wonder if you’re lying or not”?

Yeah, that’s basically the fandom with Astruc. Whether Astruc’s behavior was justified or not, it’s harder to believe what he says when he openly admitted to lying to everyone.

This brings us back to Felix. In terms of what Astruc has told us on him, it’s been inconsistent, to say the least.

He claimed that Adrien was created because Felix wasn’t an interesting character, then said that Felix was interesting even though he wasn’t fit to be a hero despite later claims of Felix being a weak character who was more of an anime cliche, which was then further uprooted by outright stating that Felix was bad/evil.

Essentially, regardless of what has been said about this episode’s existence, this entire episode feels like a response to the side of the fandom that firmly believes that Felix would have been better than Adrien, and that looks bad because such episodes tend to never go over well with the fandom.

- Felix is shown as cold and unfeeling whereas Adrien is understanding if a bit solemn.

- Felix and Adrien are compared directly by both having a dead parent who died recently.

- Felix reacts negatively to Adrien’s behavior whereas Adrien tries to excuse Felix’s actions and be a good person.

- Plagg (who Felix would’ve had in the PV) is given a MUCH bigger input on things than he usually is, even to the point of comparing Felix and Adrien directly. The episode also has Felix ruining a piece of cheese in Plagg’s stash, whereas Plagg is typically not directly affected by the actions of other characters.

- Felix’s actions of rooting through Adrien’s things may or may not be a comparison to Lila (another character that Astruc doesn’t like) from “Oni-chan,” who riffled through Adrien’s things while Adrien was distracted. This is further supported by Plagg calling out both of these to Adrien and Adrien excusing both of them.

- Felix literally disguising himself as Adrien and Marinette not only noticing the facade straight away, but proclaiming angrily that Felix!Adrien is “not Adrien.”

- Felix implied to even be emotionally weaker than Adrien by his face at Chat’s comment about him not having many friends, his face in response to Marinette’s confession, and Adrien asking him to call if he needs support.

And then, we have the big scene where Felix (disguised as Adrien) tries to force a kiss on Ladybug, in which there’s a clear “no means no” message followed by a punch to Felix’s face.

Now… first off, yes, this is obviously yet another jab at the comparison between Felix and Chat. Felix tried to force a kiss on Ladybug whereas Chat has–

…well, he’s never gotten one off, at least, and stops when something happens (either Ladybug gets pulled back into the fight or she stops him with a hand/her words).

This is also shown by how Ladybug states post-punch that “Adrien would never be so pushy,” immediately followed by Chat Noir showing up and insulting Felix.

…Yeah, I’ll tackle the message first.

While this idea of “no means no” is nice and all, it ignores the nuance of what actually means “yes.” The forced kiss still would have been wrong if it’d been towards someone like Juleka, who would’ve locked up at the sight of someone trying to force themself on her, or someone like Rose, who may’ve been completely oblivious as to what the forcer would’ve been doing until it was too late. It might seem like a small thing, but just saying “what part of ‘no’ did you not understand?” leaves the obvious loophole of “WELL, if they DON’T say ‘no’ then that makes it okay.”

As for Chat, well… the setup not only didn’t make sense as a comparison to him, but it doesn’t function as a comparison in the episode itself.

See, the setup is wrong because Felix is not doing this because he’s a creep. He’s not someone who’s crushing on Ladybug and disguised himself as Adrien in hopes that she would favor him and let him kiss her.

In fact, Felix is fully aware that kissing someone without their consent is wrong; the reason he’s doing it is to ruin Adrien’s reputation.

Would Felix actually do that if he were lusting over Ladybug or crushing on a girl legitimately? We don’t know, and that’s exactly why Felix and Chat’s actions are not comparable.

This isn’t a case of, “Character B and C are attracted to Character A. Character C stops when told/prompted to stop whereas Character B continues despite those things.” Chat and Felix have entirely different motives when trying to kiss Ladybug.

Chat leans in for a kiss multiple times and is stopped by either Ladybug or whatever’s happening around them. Even if he stops when told/prompted to, he starts back up, whether it’s later in the episode or in a later episode beyond it.

Felix’s actions are wrong and I will not deny that, nor will I compare him directly to Chat and say that one is worse than the other.

I will just say: Felix is aware that he’s doing something scummy and is doing so to make someone he dislikes look bad. Chat may be aware that he can’t proceed with a kiss if Ladybug denies it or prompts him to back off, but he still tries over and over to flirt and/or lean in for a kiss in hopes that she’ll return it eventually. Whatever form of “no” Ladybug gives him (as it can come in many forms), Chat still believes that trying again later is perfectly fine and that asking is not necessary no matter how many times she’s denied him or rejected his feelings.

As for why the setup doesn’t function, it’s because we, in this episode, do not have a direct comparison between Felix’s advances and Chat’s. Chat isn’t given the screentime to properly flirt with Ladybug or try to make any sort of advance on her, so there’s no “that was Felix, this is Chat,” moment.

Is that because the writers were aware that Chat’s behavior is still not up to speed with how people should act in reality? Maybe, maybe not, but the point is that they didn’t have it.

Now, that said, there indeed was a character in the episode who made it very clear (both through his body language and through his words) that he respected the actions, space, and choices of the one he was in love with.

But, who was that again…?

O O P S

Like, look, I’m not getting into Luka’s role in the episode (though I’ll just say that, while I adore the boy, this wasn’t the episode for him and - had I not needed to go into other subjects - I definitely would be rambling about the disservice both he and Marinette get in general), but I’m just pointing out the very obvious misstep taken. If this episode was a response to the fandom, I guess one could argue that this is knocking any idea of Felix being Marinette’s other love interest instead of Luka, but when people think of “someone trying to kiss Marinette/Ladybug,” Luka is not going to be the first one who comes to mind; that’s gonna be Chat and the writing dropped the ball entirely because it couldn’t pull it off without having to address his behavior or risk sending an, “only no means no,” message.

Oh, and speaking of dropping the ball, even Felix doesn’t get dropped entirely, because the writing didn’t even do Felix dirty CORRECTLY.

[Failing Felix]

Just for a moment, let’s roll (completely roll, this time) with the idea that this entire episode is a response to the side of the fandom who really liked Felix and preferred him over Adrien.

By that logic, the standard thing to do would be to make Felix as evil and possible and make everyone hate him, yes?

However, that “standard thing” is completely missing from this plot.

Felix, by the end of the episode, already has two motives.

The first is stated outright by the end, though could also be inferred early on as well: Felix wanted to get the twin rings back for his mother. In addition, it is not for his own selfish gain, as he isn’t even aware that his mother wanted to get the rings back so she could give them to him.

Felix wanted to get the twin rings back because his mother had told him that they were part of their family, not Gabriel’s, and Felix sought to retrieve them himself.

The second motive is for his actions outside of Gabriel, which is him judging Adrien and trying to ruin Adrien’s reputation.

Even Felix’s bitterness towards Adrien is showcased, though in small doses.

When Adrien apologizes to Felix for not going to his father’s funeral, Felix retorts with,

“You always do everything your father tells you to do?”

Right there is Felix’s problem with Adrien: he views Adrien as a doormat (a common fan complaint anyway tbh). This is not helped when Adrien excuses his father’s actions with a smile (which may come off as insensitive; Adrien, be UPSET by your father, not sheepishly smiling about what he did) by saying that his father is “very protective.”

Felix only initiates his stealing of Adrien’s things after this scene takes place; immediately after this takes place, as a matter of fact.

The other key interaction that takes place is when Felix enters the mansion. He reaches out for a handshake, but Adrien goes in for a hug.

Adrien doesn’t know that a hand reaching out in a handshake gesture isn’t consent.

Already, Adrien has come off as touchy, unable to read Felix’s gestures, and possibly insensitive.

Further on are Felix’s comments on the things he finds in Adrien’s phone:

Adrien’s obvious crush on Ladybug - Felix sees it as idiotic which… yeah, it would look like a childish celebrity crush without context

Nino’s video - 90% sure the reaction there was the “teenage” version of how Gabriel judged Nino in “Bubbler;” pretty standard rich boy judgment

Rose’s video - …I’m sorry, I can’t blame Felix for that one; that was so overly gushy and cheerful that I winced

Max’s video - Felix doesn’t seem like the type to like jokes and he also thinks that whole thing is weird (also not knowing that Markov is “real”); could go either or on how out-of-place his comment was.

Chloe’s video - Felix doesn’t like Chloe and I can’t blame him for that one either.

Marinette’s video - Felix has a different reaction to this one and I imagine he either thinks that Adrien is dating Marinette (and could think it’s pathetic for a variety of reasons from “Adrien is already crushing on Ladybug” or “the doormat boy has a girlfriend”) or thinks that Marinette confessing over video is pathetic

Even when Felix goes against Ladybug and Chat, he’s probably realized at that point that impulsively impersonating Adrien won’t get him anywhere close to sleight-of-handing Gabriel’s ring away. Also, Ladybug punched him (regardless of her reason why) and Chat insulted him despite only knowing things about him from what he heard from someone else.

None of this excuses any of Felix’s actions, but it is a reason that is introduced within the episode where said actions take place.

Unlike, say, Chloe, whose mother was shown off in the season after Chloe herself first appeared, giving us no context, reason, or motive for her behavior outside of “she’s a spoiled brat.”

Felix also did manage to come up with a convincing enough apology to get Gabriel to shake his hand, allowing Felix to safely snatch one of the twin rings away to return to his mother.

I don’t think anyone is complaining about Gabriel getting screwed over after “Chat Blanc,” just saying.

Even athletically, Felix scores a one-handed point in basketball with his back turned to the hoop, and he can go toe-to-toe with three akuma at once.

He even has a hobby in doing magic tricks, said hobby allowing him to steal Gabriel’s twin ring. Characters having hobbies is an important thing for fleshing them out, and Felix weirdly just… has one, and one that benefits him.

So, is Felix’s presence in the show an insult due to having a repeated character model and being used as a forced comparison to Adrien? Yes.

Does that mean he’s not workable in any form and can’t be used for the fandom’s desires?

Not really, no. At least, I certainly don’t think so.

The reality is that Felix was never a warm person, PV or otherwise, and his initial reaction to Adrien (”I don’t like you. You hugged me without my asking you and you let your father walk all over you.”) is honestly something I’d expect of him.

It’s when combined with the already terrible ideas of the episode and the convoluted nature of things that everything (including him) turns into a problem.

#category: salt #category: crtique #episode: Felix #category: long post #word count: over 3000 #other: ask and answer #((I'm with Punch on this one.))#((The episode itself is bad but Felix isn't as bad as he could've been.))

730 notes · View notes

popwasabi · 4 years

Text

Civilization is coming: “Black Sails” and when rage is justified

(SPOILERS ahead! You’ve been warned...)

There’s a moment late in the first episode of the highly underappreciated series “Black Sails” that hints not only at the troubled past of its lead character Captain Flint but also describes the larger theme of the story.

Flint has gotten himself into trouble. Along with his crewmember Billy “Bones,” in an effort to secure the financing he needs to capture the gold from the Spanish warship known as L’Urca de Lima, his recklessness has gotten Nassau’s governor shot and injured and his plans all but evaporated. Billy feels they are now in too deep and they should not only turn back but perhaps new leadership is needed for Flint’s crew. It is here that Flint reveals a bit where his true ambitions lie.

youtube

(Toby Stephens, ladies and gentlemen.)

On the first viewing, Flint ominously declaring the pending arrival of “civilization” to the new world could mean anything from simply the imperialistic tendencies of the British and Spanish empire, to the draconian rulership of the crown or just “taxes” as he makes light mention of in this speech. But as the series progresses, especially in the second season, “civilization” begins to take a darker, more personal meaning.

The story begins to reveal that the dangerous pirates of Nassau are not at least inherently dastardly, although certainly violent, but victims of their various circumstances; a former slave turned prostitute turned keeper of secrets in Max, a neglected daughter becoming the bookkeeper of the pirates with Eleanor Guthrie, another former slave turned ruthless pirate captain in the vicious Charles Vane, and an abused woman turned deadliest pirate on the island Anne Bony, and none more painfully revealing than that of Flint himself.

You see Flint didn’t always go by this name, he used to be a prominent officer in the British navy named James McGraw until he met Thomas Hamilton, a wealthy proprietor tasked with solving the problem of the pirates of Nassau many years prior. Thomas had the radical idea of pardoning the entire island to bring them back into society, to avoid violence and bloodshed, and to better understand the people who would turn to piracy.

As James gets to know him more and his revolutionary philosophies of empathy and enlightenment the two unexpectedly fall in love and thus seal the fates of both their downfalls from “civilized” society.

With England unwilling to see any other way to end the pirates without exterminating all of them and looking to exploit weaknesses in Thomas to Parliament, he is outed and imprisoned. James along with Thomas’s wife Miranda, who lives in a polyamorous relationship between the two, are persona non-grata-ed and the two flee to Nassau to finish what Thomas started in an act of rebellion.

(This is seriously one of the most heart-wrenching, tragic reveals I have ever seen on TV. I totally knew it was coming at the time and I was still not prepared for how it was delivered.)

There are few things as personal as love and “Black Sails” uses this to show how far society can go to villainize people. Flint wasn’t born a monster, and he is not one for loving Thomas; he is a monster because “civilization” wanted him to be one.

As our own civilization enters a timeline that may promise great change, people who have been othered and victimized by society are finding themselves grappling with their pain and grief in the same way as Flint. People have tried peaceful reconciliation and conformity into society to avoid violence throughout history despite the labels they have been given for no other crime than being who they are, but civilization’s need for a monster always brings people down no matter how hard they try to do it the “right way.”

(Tell me if you see a justice system in this picture that looks interested in listening...)

Native Americans tried playing by the white man’s rules when America began moving west. Compromising over and over again and yet they were killed and still killed and neglected today for it.

African Americans tried becoming rich like their white counterparts in places like “Black Wallstreet” in Tulsa, Oklahoma and were still bombed and massacred for it.

Asian and Latin Americans immigrated here to flee war and death largely caused by white imperialist countries, to survive and work jobs white Americans would not. Both are othered as foreigners, face violence from the state, and are deported everyday.

Poor working-class Americans try fruitlessly to keep their head above water as they become mired in debt, fighting a pandemic on slave wages essentially, all while our government cuts wealthy companies a fat paycheck annually with our own tax dollars. And anyone who fights back finds themselves without an income and health insurance during a recession and a pandemic.

And the LGBTQ+ community ask for the dignity to be left alone and treated normally but not only are they harassed for it but they are beaten, tortured, and killed for being different.

(Remember, Stonewall was a riot.)

Flint, himself, tries one last time, toward the end of season two, to peacefully resolve his vendetta with England and save Nassau from a war with them but instead finds himself facing the gallows anyways by the Charlestown government.

As they read out his charges, many of them real heinous things he did but also many that were fabricated, Flint stops them from proceeding any further and delivers a final act of defiance to the court.

“I have one regret,” he begins to the court of high society folks who are only interested in seeing him punished before the masses. “I regret ever coming to this place with the assumption that a reconciliation could be found. That reason could be a bridge between us. Everyone is a monster to someone. Since you are so convinced that I am yours, I will be it.”

It is at this point in the story that Flint, perhaps like other revolutionaries of the past, recognize that the system doesn’t want to reason with him, that these people aren’t looking to understand or empathize with him or even try for that matter. They wanted a monster, they made one in him, so he decides there that “civilization” as he had noted in the series first episode is not worth reconciling with and certainly not worthy of forgiveness.

And Flint spends the rest of the series in bloody war with them.

youtube

(From season 3. Again Toby Stephens, ladies and gentlemen)

“Black Sails” is about queerness, race, social politics, and the way conformity by force is used against it. It’s about the rage that boils underneath many of us as we are wronged over and over again by society, while being exploited to no end, and what happens when someone finally says “enough.”

Anyone who has experienced what it is like to be othered can find something deeply personal with the anger that Flint carries around with him in each scene of this series. We feel his pain of rejection by society, his grief for feeling ashamed of himself when he and the audience know he shouldn’t.

It's what makes the eventual reveal of his relationship with Thomas so cathartic, as we see the rage-filled guard of Flint drop as he reads Thomas’s words left for him in a book they both loved and shared.

(Again, I cannot emphasize enough how much of a gut-punch this reveal was watching this...)

"Know no shame” is so important to growth of this character and the message of this story. Civilization and those who wish to keep the status quo want those who do not fall in line with their authority and judgments to feel shame for who they are. They not only want monsters, they want you to feel like one and the reason Thomas line speaks so much to both Flint and the audience is that it reminds us there is no shame in who we are.

The country we live in is a powder keg right now experiencing the same rage that Flint feels and more specifically how he felt at the end of season 2. Though this country’s racist attitudes and subjugation of the vulnerable hardly started with this presidency it cannot be argued that it has brought all that hatred in our government and the people who support those views painfully to the surface. When people peacefully protest, peacefully assemble, and peacefully try to cast their vote and are still met with resistance, still met with hatred and violence, people have to start to wonder if operating within the system’s rules can actually affect change.

A lot has been made about the way protesters may have violently lashed out over the past three weeks, with media talking heads and privileged elites asking unironically why they couldn’t do things peacefully but more has been done as result of the rising tension than the previous 50 years combined. You can tell people to “#vote” all you want but it doesn’t change the fact that people have been trying that for decades and people are still getting quite literally killed for it.

(Again, I gotta ask, who is this protecting? Who is this serving?)

If there’s one takeaway I hope a viewer gets from “Black Sails” is that revolution, no matter how serious you are about it, should never be off the table when confronting systemic inequality. A racist, sexist, classist, and/or, in the case of Flint, homophobic power structure does not concede their power if you play to their convenience and when people are being put down, beaten, and often killed for showing their anger at this, calling for “law and order” becomes a slap in the face to the victims.

A government or system that treats you unjustly doesn’t deserve peace.

I’ll say it again.

A government or system that treats you unjustly doesn’t deserve peace.

No one wants it to get this far, I definitely don’t, and certainly not every peaceful mean has been exhausted yet in this fight perhaps but this country was literally founded on violent rebellion after being slighted all the same by out of balance power structures. I’m not advocating for violence or to take up arms against the state right now BUT no one should ever rule it out when the social contract keeps being broken and broken and broken again by those in charge who clearly don’t want to listen.

A government should always feel the threat of an uprising if it keeps wronging its people.

(See my blog post about “Do the Right Thing” if you need help understanding this quote.)

As the more fiery weeks of the protests seem to be in the rearview mirror and we find less activity and calls to action on our social media timelines, I want to remind you all to not let up with whatever you are choosing to do to help and keep fighting back out there. The people who stand to benefit from having angst of the general public leave and dissipate from our collective consciousness want us to forget how angry we are, they want us to feel fatigued and disinterested in continuing the push forward because “this is how they win” as Flint would say.

youtube

(Again, Toby Fucking Stephens, everyone.)

We have so much more power than we realize, just look at how much got done just by everyone uniting behind one marginalized group finally over the past three weeks. When we realize we are fighting essentially in the same battle for respect and dignity, justice in our society can be achieved. It can be done, and maybe just maybe we can finally change the world. Afterall who else has been as close to achieving it as we are right now?

Fight for your dignity and respect and stand in solidarity with others in their own fights as well, and always remember “know no shame.”

Raise the colors and Happy Pride, everyone! (credit: Luluxa on Tumblr)

62 notes · View notes

whitehotharlots · 4 years

Text

It’s impossible to square the circle of #BelieveWomen

Let’s think back a month ago, to what turned out to be a pivotal moment in the 2020 campaign: Elizabeth Warren’s bizarre claim that Bernie told her a woman could not win the presidency.

The dishonesty of the attack on Sanders was so manifest that the takes barely need to be re-enunciated: her campaign was stalling so she lied about Sanders, hoping to re-focus media attention on herself while riding the most cynical aspects of MeToo into a poll bounce. Bernie faced an accusation, and since the only properly woke response to an accusation is immediate and uncritical acceptance, he was going to be dinged no matter what happened afterward. (Only, hilariously, he was not dinged. It was actually Liz whose campaign was ruined by the stunt. And this signals, I hope to god, an end to this bullshit).

This is all very basic. Good writers have already covered it. You don’t need me to rehash it any further.

I would like to talk, however, about how this highlights larger and more fundamental problems within the #BelieveWomen/#MeToo cinematic universe--problems that must be confronted if the people who seriously believe in the goals of these movements wish to accomplish anything other than securing book deals for a handful of shitty writers. My framing device here will be a concept introduced by Rogers Brubaker and Frederick Cooper, in their 20-year-old critique of identity politics. This has to do with the split between hard “identity,” a fixed and firm conceptualization of identity that carries immense rhetorical weight but does not hold up to theoretical scrutiny, and soft “identity,” which views identities as protean and constructed--a more theoretically sound concept that has very little purchase in everyday discourse.

To start with an aside: it’s important to note that the malignant strains of identity politics presently infesting liberalism have been around for decades. It’s just that they didn’t have much utility until the Obama years--when it became clear that the promises of Hope and Change really just meant more means testing, more austerity, mass deportation, the wanton destruction of the planet, and an acceleration of our Forever Wars. The Democratic Party had to shift gears. In response to a crushing defeat in the 2010 midterms, their media apparatus decided to aggressively pursue identitarianism. This came with two benefits: 1) It allowed them to differentiate themselves from Republicans and motivate supporters while still sharing 98% of the GOP’s policy positions (this is where we get the logic about it being, like, so important for kids to see Black Panther); and 2) it provided an easy means of discrediting any material politics (“if we broke up the banks tomorrow, would that create more trans CEOs?”). Very little has changed within cultural studies-based understandings of identity over the last 20 years, as will be demonstrated from our review of Brubaker and Cooper’s piece.

Brubaker and Cooper posit that

“Identity,” is both a category of practice and a category of analysis. As a category of practice, it is used by ‘lay’ actors in some (not all!) everyday settings to make sense of themselves, of their activities, of what they share with, and how they differ from, others. It is also used by political entrepreneurs to persuade people to understand themselves, their interests, and their predicaments in a certain way, to persuade certain people that they are (for certain purposes) ‘identical’ with one another and at the same time different from others, and to organize and justify collective action along certain lines. (4-5)

As a category of practice, identity is morally neutral--its goodness or badness depends upon what ends its evocation is utilized toward. The trouble is when this category of practice is spun into a foundation of analysis, at which point the conception of identity becomes reified, made to appear as sort of an inatlertable given. “We should,” the authors note “avoid unintentionally reproducing or reinforcing such reification by uncritically adopting categories of practice as categories of analysis” (5).

Now, you may be fine with the notion that identity markers are un-transcendable, that they serve as the primary or perhaps even exclusive determining factor of a person’s being, worth, or moral stature. That’s what’s called an essentialist point of view. There’s trouble, though, because essentialism is (at least nominally) rejected within most bodies of academic thought. The more prevailing frame is called constructivism, which posits (correctly, I feel) that there’s nothing magical or inevitable about identity groupings, that they are instead social constructs and can therefore eventually be transcended even if their present-day effects are very real. This, the authors note, points to the fundamental contradiction of how identity is actually understood:

We often find an uneasy amalgam of constructivist language and essentialist argumentation. This is not a matter of intellectual sloppiness. Rather, it reflects the dual orientation of many academic identitarians as both analysts and protagonists of identity politics. It reflects the tension between the constructivist language that is required by academic correctness and the foundationalist or essentialist message that is required if appeals to ‘identity’ are to be effective in practice. (6)

Basically, “identity” has been formulated in such a way that it can be utilized in a essentialist sense even while its purveyors issue rote denials of its essentialism--like how someone can shamelessly use the #VoteLikeBlackWomen tag while claiming to not regard black women as ideologically monolithic. Or, more generally, by asserting that social problems can only be addressed by listening to Oppressed Group X or Y, (which is done most commonly as a response to left-materialist suggestions for change), as if all members of those groups would understand each issue identically and would suggest the same response. This is a dishonest and incoherent approach to politics, but it prevails because of its utility--that is, because it poses no real threat to existing power structures.

Here we find a rhetorical move that is foundational to contemporary identity politics: leaning on popular but theoretically indefensible understandings of terms and slogans while claiming that we actually understand these terms and slogans in obscure ways that are unpopular and rhetorically weak. Simply put: this is a lie.

Brubaker and Cooper go on to explain that “weak or soft conceptions of identity are routinely packaged with standard qualifiers indicating that identity is multiple, unstable, in flux, contingent, fragmented, constructed, negotiated, and so on. These qualifiers have become so familiar--indeed obligatory--in recent years that one reads (and writes) them virtually automatically. They risk becoming mere place-holders, gestures signaling a stance rather than words conveying a meaning” (11). And the parallels here to Intersectionality are manifest--like how class is perfunctorily nodded toward but never substantially engaged with, or how what is purported as a means of understanding a multitude of identity positions is, in practice, a victimhood hierarchy that’s used to determine the (in)validity of people’s actions and observations. As long as we keep allowing people to hide within this double-conceptualization, we will continue promulgating an understanding of social problems that contradicts itself so fully that it cannot lead to any actionable analysis.

This is fairly obvious now, in 2020, with identitarians having taken control over our liberal institutions and failing miserably at enacting any but the most superficial of changes. But in 2000, Brubaker and Cooper pointed out the simple fact that “weak conceptions of identity may be too weak to do useful theoretical work. In their concern to cleanse the term of its theoretically disreputable ‘hard’ connotations, in their insistence that identities are multiple, malleable, fluid, and so on, soft identitarians leave us with a term so infinitely elastic as to be incapable of performing serious analytical work” (11). And so they wondered, naturally, ““What is gained, analytically, by labeling any experience and public representation of any tie, role, network, etc. as an identity” (12)?

I find the answer pretty simple: leaning on an intellectually dishonest understanding of identity allows writers to cosplay as radicals without giving up any comfort, status, or power. Liberal leadership (by which I mean, those with power in academic and media spaces, as well as the center-right mainstream of the contemporary Democratic party) embraces this charade, as they realize it poses no threat of disruption or upheaval. Conservatives (Republicans, and more generally those in power in business and finance sectors, as well as the military), however, despise this, and are ideologically unaware enough that they regard it as an actual threat, and react to it with physical and fiscal violence (mass shootings are domestic terrorism are conspicuous examples, but selective austerity is much more commonplace and causes more harm on the whole). But now, most terrifyingly, a whole generation of young humanists have found themselves inculcated into this belief system but utterly unable to interrogate its foundational contradiction. They don’t realize it’s a grift.

This is why the left-leaning criticisms of Warren’s’ campaign stunt fell so flat, even when they were being issued by writers with whom I usually agree. Warren was accused of cynically misappropriating the #BelieveWomen mantra. Writers explained that, actually, everyone knows that we shouldn’t seriously believe every claim by every woman, that the hashtag is instead meant to encourage people to simply be more empathetic and less dismissive to women who claim to have suffered abuse. This is the same fundamentally dishonest contradiction we find in the split between hard and soft identities. The hashtag isn’t #BeSomewhatLessIncredulous. It’s #BelieveWomen. It a blunt mantra, a demand so intense and absolute that no one could possibly take it literally--that it sometimes comes packaged with some post-facto qualifiers does not change this; it just makes its purveyors seem dishonest.

Warren’s stunt failed because most people could see through it. We recognize self-contradiction as easily as we recognize cynicism and hypocrisy, and unless someone has an awful lot of charm we tend to react negatively to all of those traits. A movement founded on such a flimsy edifice is never going to attract outsiders and is never going to achieve anything of value. It’ll elevate a small number of people and make everyone else even less likely to engage with social justice going forward.

23 notes · View notes

jemej3m · 5 years

Text

Venom au p.2

for @instantseokjin who made me laugh. i took some artistic liberties with this

here’s p.1!

“Maybe this isn’t such a good idea,” Neil muttered, pressed against the wall.

Nonsense, Kevin said, with his hiss-like caliber. He was just as curious as Neil was, edging him closer to peering around the corner.

Matt - he and Neil had grown close enough to establish a first-name basis - had theorised together for countless hours about symbiote-human fusion. He was, other than Minyard, obviously, the only person knew there was a parasite living with Neil.

There were four symbiotes. Two were contained within the Moriyama Lab, placed under even more restrictions and protection since Dr Boyd and Neil had ventured within and accidentally released Kevin. Kevin was constantly writhing in the small pockets he found within Neil’s body. And the fourth? Well.

When being medically examined by Matt, Kevin had leaked out of Neil’s palm to look up at Matt with unblinking green eyes, letting his tongue reach out and curl around Matt’s wrist, checking his pulse and probably his intentions. Satisfied, Kevin drew back and smiled.

The fourth symbiote’s name is Riko. It is more powerful than the others combined, with weaponry you could only dream of.

“Wicked,” Matt murmured, looking at Kevin’s figure. The symbiote hissed and withdrew into Neil’s body.

“Of course the symbiote we’ve lost is the most dangerous.” Neil grunted. “Now what?”

Matt’s eyes glittered. “Now we release the other symbiotes from the Moriyama lab, let them find their hosts, and team up against Riko to contain it.”

Neil frowned. “Kevin, will the others work with us?”

Jean will be difficult, but Natalie will convince him. I dislike working collaboratively. It seems like a waste of time.

“It’s fine, then.” Neil remarked. “I’ll just sit here without qualms about letting countless people get fucking murdered.”

“Well,” Matt coughed awkwardly. “It’s not like you don’t murder people.”

“It demands to be fed!” Neil claimed indignantly. “I have zero control on what it consumes!”

The buzz from the doctor’s pocket caught their attention. Matt shook his head at Neil, almost affectionately, and pulled out his phone to answer the call. “Hey, Andrew. Yeah, I’m with Neil, what is it? Oh - I’ve run a diagnosis and health check-up. Kevin’s not doing Neil any damage, just - coexisting with him, I guess. We’ve got a plan.”

And that was how Neil ended up here - for the third time in his life. The first? To interview the main researcher, Ichirou Moriyama. The second, with Boyd, for an exclusive peek at the symbiotes after being kicked out of the facility for ‘invasive questioning’. And the third, being now.

“I’m going to kill Boyd.” Neil muttered.

Seconded. Kevin returned.

Ichirou Moriyama marched through the facility’s foyer, flanked with armed guards that kept their barrels propped up, ready to shoot. It was already established that Kevin wouldn’t let Neil die whilst inhabiting him - his father had shot him, to no avail - but Neil would still rather not have dozens of bullets fired at him, regardless of his dubious invincibility.

“Shit!” Neil hissed as the Moriyama scientist waved the squadron towards the hallways where Neil stood. Kevin reached out and yanked him upwards, plastering him to the ceiling. After they’d passed, Neil glared accusatorily at nothing in particular. “If I’d known we could just slither across the walls, I wouldn’t have attempted the faulty key-card access plot in the first place!”

It’s not like you trust me, Kevin argued. You humans are so fickle.

Neil rolled his eyes, letting Kevin move him across the walls and ceilings of the facility. Other than Moriyama and his guards, it was deathly quiet, this late in the evening. Neil, for once relieved for his small size, wriggled through the airvents till he arrived at the lower-access levels.

It smelled like burning human flesh, something Neil was all too familiar with. He dropped down from the vent to see similar glass cages that Kevin was kept in, their subjects propped upon tilted medical beds and strapped down.

One symbiote had completely rejected its provided host, eating the body from the inside out. Holes appeared on the purpled skin, boils and puss oozing from the rotting corpse. The symbiote slithered towards the glass at Neil’s presence and Neil shuddered.

“Gross,”

Don’t be rude. That’s my - what do you humans call it? Brother?

“Oh.” Neil squinted at it. “I guess I see the family resemblance.”

Idiot.

“Can’t argue with that.” He moved onto the next cage. The woman appeared to be sleeping, but was largely unharmed except for a blackened eye. Neil pressed his hands to the glass - he recognised the woman.

It’d be hard not to, as a journalist himself. Stephanie Walker had done some incredible work in her time, but Neil never thought he’d see her in the flesh. Or, at least, not like this. She must have truly pissed off Moriyama to get herself locked up like this, when even Neil’s invasiveness had only resulted in him being turned around.

Natalie has found a suitable host. Like you and I, Kevin said. We must free her first. She will escort Jean to his new host and convince him to rejoin with us afterwards. Open the door.

Neil grit his teeth and picked the padlock that kept the controls hidden, flipping the switch. The door slid open and the lights flickered on: Stephanie awoke, albeit in a dazed and wary fashion.

“What do you want?” She demanded, standing up off her table. “Wait - Aren’t you Neil Josten? The one who was trying to uncover the truths of this place?”

“I got a little more than I bargained for.” Kevin oozed out of his skin, the other symbiote moving to match. The strange, parasitic extensions from both Stephanie and Neil’s chests met and mingled in the middle, communicating out of the realms of human communication. “I can see that you did too.”

“I was luckier than the other guy.” She jerked her head. Natalie seemed to retract, curling around Stephanie’s neck like a pet snake before reabsorbing through her skin, tendrils thinning till they vanished. “You were the cause of the last break-in, weren’t you?”

“I assure you, I just wanted some information.”

Bitten off more than you can chew, might you say? Kevin jeered.

Neil frowned. “Shut up, Kevin.”

“Natalie says I need to take the other symbiote to find its appropriate host.” Stephanie was weak and spindly but determined nevertheless. Neil admired the grit of her jaw. “Where should I meet you?”

“Palmetto square, midnight, two days.” Neil said. “Don’t eat good people.”

Stephanie paled. “Wait, I’m going to what?”

Sirens blared overhead, lights flickering on and blinding Neil before he had the chance to shield his eyes.

I suppose that’s our cue, Kevin guessed. Neil stumbled back, nodding. He waited only to make sure that Stephanie freed the other symbiote before disappearing into the air-vents. He scrambled till he’d made it out into a foyer and dropped onto the floor, sprinting as fast as his legs would allow him.

Minyard was waiting behind the wheel of his car a little ways away from the facility, sitting with the engine on as he smoked. The lazy trails of smoke from his mouth were elegant as they curled around the window frame, but Neil was largely too frantic to appreciate it.

“Fucking drive,” He panted, throwing himself into the passenger car.

A deafening explosion sounded from within the facility. Neil watched with dismay as fire leapt from the enormous glass windows, shattered glass spraying out like automatic gun fire. Smoke plummaged from every opening of the building.

“The building was rigged to explode purposefully.” Andrew said flatly as the structure began to implode. “You’d never get that much instant damage otherwise.” Neil glanced at him, only to see him arch an eyebrow. “Did the others get out?”

“I don’t know.” Neil muttered. “I guess we’ll see in Palmetto square in two nights.”

We perish in fire. The chances are small.

“Your pervasive optimism is really uplifting.” Neil grit out, curling into a ball and resting his head against the cool glass of the lawyer’s fancy car.

Andrew looked straight ahead as he drove. “I’m not sure I’ll ever get used to you talking to yourself.”

“You don’t have to stick around,” Neil offered. Neil had gotten him fired and had essentially thrown his life into chaos as a result. Andrew didn’t need to risk himself.

Andrew glanced at him. In that moment, Neil thought his hazel gaze could pierce through every wall he’d erected to protect himself whilst running from his father, the walls he couldn’t seem to get rid of despite his father’s demise.

“Yes,” Andrew said, hands gripping the steering wheel tighter. “I do.”

uhhh *throws it at you* have fun?

#venom au #andreil #p.2 #andrew minyard #neil josten #matt boyd #moriyama #venom!kevin #renee and jean r here!!!#also how do i write them making out without kevin awkwardly interjecting and ruining everything lmao #all for the game #jem writes

122 notes · View notes

flash-impact-for-good · 4 years

Text

“You’ve come a long way, baby”

This slogan, “You’ve come a long way, baby”, was splashed across the glossy magazines of my youth, vaunting women’s progress – via their rights to consume products that had once been reserved for men only. The issue of women’s progress in the business world is another debate entirely: the proverbial glass sometimes seems to be filling gradually (e.g. , according to the French secretary of state in charge of equality between men and women, women held 45,2% of positions on SBF120 management boards in 2019); but the glass moves slowly at the top (21,4% of positions in Exco or equivalent). And these broad numbers hide huge disparities. As mentioned by Guy Le Pechon, MBA INSEAD 69, head of Gouvernance et Structure, and a data specialist on equality between men and women, three corporations among the CAC 40 don’t have any woman at their Exco; and only one reaches the ratio of 40% for this entity.

Yet forward movement is undeniable. I would like to offer here a random walk through some 15 years of experience designing, delivering, and observing initiatives to strengthen the representation of women in companies. Along the way, the useful question I hope to explore is what we have learned about fostering gender balance, and how these insights may help us move further down the road towards greater gender balance.

When several large French companies signed the “Charte de la Diversité” in 2004, our Head of Human Resources asked me to develop a program that would support women’s career development in the organization. I looked at the market to see what was available and was struck by the way that many training firms seemed to assume that women had to be “fixed”, taught to overcome “weaknesses”, or trained in more masculine behavior. This did not feel right – how could we “strengthen” our pools of female talent by focusing on what women might be “doing wrong”? We chose instead to tackle the issue indirectly: I set up a training program led by a specialist in career management for high potentials – a brilliant older man. “Female issues” were never addressed directly in the program – it just so happened that all the (very interesting and carefully selected) participants in each session were women. (What we didn’t know then was that in this way successfully avoided triggering a dangerous unconscious bias about women’s competence, sending instead the message that anyone, and of course women, could benefit from enhancing their career management skills). My first learning: don’t “fix” people who aren’t “broken” – build their strengths.

Interestingly, it was a member of what one could call the “old guard” – a highly successful gentleman in a very powerful job – who made another significant contribution to levelling the playing field. “We have lots of women entering the pipeline,” he told me, “but after a first role, the men all ask to lead a sales team, while the women want to move into marketing – jobs do not give them line management responsibility and credibility.” To counter this, he carefully mapped and measured something which had previously been intuitive: what were the key career steps that opened the way up the corporate ladder, and where relative to those steps were the pools of female talent? The corporate “ladder” actually looked more like a vertical maze; often several steps along a same level were necessary before one could climb to the next rung on the ladder. But like any maze, it was easy to get lost. Second learning: By providing clear experienced-based information about the critical steps on any given level, this gentleman basically “injected information” into the career management process – not to tell women what to do with their careers, but to offer more effective advice, starting early on.

Driving for more women in management eventually began to provoke some pushback: some male colleagues would quietly ask me, “Do I have a future in this organization? Will there always be a woman ahead of me on the promotion list?” Hearing men share such concerns troubled me: if you are promoting a worthy idea and yet generating a sense of unfairness, then the idea needs to be reviewed – not rejected or reduced in ambition, but re-examined. This is when we clearly understood that we had to change not only the way that women looked at themselves in the organization, but also how the organization looked at its people.

A conversation at a conference on diversity with a woman who held a very senior position in her organization gave me additional insight. Asked about her success, she pointed to the “pairs of eyes” that had watched her work over the years and could vouch for her. It was as though her capabilities had to be cross-checked – which was of course equally true for her male colleagues, who intuitively moved around and got themselves “seen” by several potential sponsors. Long before “sponsorship” became a popular concept, she had realized that it was easier for one person to say, “She is ready for the next job!” if someone else could back up the statement.

Waiting for this to happen through multiple-year job rotations, we realized, would take much too long. Then I encountered a talent manager in a small financial services organization who had crafted a clever process to respond to precisely this issue: he organized “walkabouts” for talented individuals, setting up a series of meetings for each with high-level executives who might never meet that young woman (or man) until it came time to make a key staffing decision – which was too late. By putting rising potentials in front of senior management, this talent manager was transforming them from names on a CV to real humans whom the senior executives could get to know. Again, this practice plays to our human nature – no amount of data on a page can replace the power of what we learn from interacting with someone. This learning could be called, “you have to be seen to be believed”.

Despite the value of all these approaches, these actions remain focused on shifting individual mindsets. At some point, on a topic as complex as gender balance, institutions, not just individuals, need to change. And I still did not have the answer to my vague discomfort, my concern that some people felt our efforts to level the playing field were potentially unfair.

Interestingly, it was ideas from INSEAD research, adopted into our organization, that gave us some of the keys. Most INSEADers are familiar with Kim and Mauborgne’s work on “fair process” – the concept that a fair, well-run decision-making process will lead to better acceptance of the outcome, even by those who do not obtain what they want. This work made its way into our organization: the “fair process”, in which all the voices relevant to a decision were heard and considered before that decision was made, became institutionalized as an essential feature of our people management. A fundamental part of the fair process is feedback: because it embraces the full variety of perspectives on a topic or a person, the process makes it possible to provide feedback to the person, so that the individual can continue to learn and grow. Next learning: good process and good feedback confirm that both your intentions and your decisions are fair.

In 2018, INSEAD celebrated 50 years of women at the school and hosted a Summit to showcase research from its Gender Initiative. One presentation by Ivana Naumovska, Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship, particularly caught my attention. She had performed meta-analysis of multiple diversity initiatives across companies and sectors and had teased out lessons about what did and did not work.

The two areas identified as having greatest positive impact were mentoring programs and network-building initiatives: mentoring because it enabled the participants to understand the rules of the game, how their organization really worked (this was true for both mentees and their mentors), and network-building because it cultivated awareness in the individuals of what opportunities – for jobs, projects, useful partnerships, and even just information sharing – were available across their organizations, especially outside their silos. I was pleased to see these conclusions: they were an academic validation of the intuition which had led us to set up mentoring and networking for communities (not just individuals). In other words, by creating groups of mentors or mentees and getting them to coach each other on how to take up these roles, we let people see that this was simply part of “how we do things around here”. Next lesson: if you want to change institutions, not just individuals, give people shared responsibility to build something new together.

Beyond creating “institutions” that support diversity, what has emerged over time is a culture shift. In the way we pursue gender balance, we are really striving to make good use of the organization’s talent to adapt to changing organizational needs. There are ongoing challenges: how well do all these changes resist a major economic crisis, or a corporate reorganization? As we move out of a public health crisis and towards a difficult economic situation, we need to remain vigilant about topics like diversity. Looking further ahead, I wonder how the “recipes” described above will stand the test of time. Traditional management is being replaced by agile tribes, collectively-managed feature teams, and networked organizations. Millennials have shifting expectations about the meaning of work. What will be the secrets to career success for women (and men) in the organizations of the future? Time will tell, but it is a safe bet that attention to individual mindsets and corporate culture will remain key.

Jocelyn Phelps, MBA INSEAD 93D Program Director, Leadership and Organization Development at Société Générale

#INSEAD #INSEADFORGOOD #BusinessForGood #WomenInBusiness

1 note · View note

calliecat93 · 5 years

Text

Top 5 Things I Liked About RWBY Volume 2

(Top 5 Dislikes)

I’m gonna be honest, I think that V2 is a pretty good volume. Sure, it doesn’t have much in terms of story and that’s its biggest weakness as well as having no true accomplishments. But what it makes up for is it’s character writing and development. V1 was our intro, and V2 begins to flesh out many of them. If someone like say… Weiss didn’t appeal to you in V1 cause of her being mean, this one puts her in a much more positive light, for example. I was worried that I would dislike the volume more upon rewatch… but my opinion is pretty much the same as when I watched it in 2014: I really enjoy it.

I had to stretch hard for the Dislikes post. I did not, however, have to stretch at all for this post. So let’s waste no time and go over the Top 5 Things I Liked About RWBY Volume 2~

#5. Improved Pacing/Runtime

One of the biggest problems with V1 was it’s pacing. It could feel all over the place, and the reason why was due to chapter runtimes. With a few exceptions, the majority were under ten minutes. This could cause storylines that in the current standard could have been done in one or two episodes, like Jaune’s Arc. But since it got stretched out for four weeks with short runtimes… yeah, it annoyed people, to say the least. CRWBY got the hint since I remember before the volume began, they mentioned how the extended the runtimes. It came at the cost of fewer episodes, but honestly? That was for the best?

Volume 2’s runtimes range from 12-15 minutes on average, with the longest being 17 minutes. This has essentially been the standard ever since for the most part, and it was a very good change. It also helps that instead of going for a more episodic approach as they did in V1, they told one continuous story. It can be divided into three sections with the first four episodes, the Dance Arc covering 5-7, and Mountain Glenn covering 8-12. But they all connect with each other and flow together much more naturally. As such since unlike V1 I watched V2 episode by episode, I never felt like it dragged or anything overstayed it’s welcome. It’s one of the best-paced volumes, to be honest.

I’m pleasantly surprised that it flowed so well. Pacing in recent volumes have been an issue, mainly with 4 and 5, but that’s due to the split storylines. Something that I think that Miles and Kerry have learned was maybe a little too ambitious afterward and have gone back to this kind of formula. They pretty much use this three-act structure in V6, and it worked amazingly there. T seems to be what works best for RWBY, and this volume is what kicked it off. So yeah, good work CRWBY~

#4. Jaune and Pyrrha Relationship

I love these two. They have always been my favorite ship in RWBY, and still is despite… certain events. While I was kinda harsh on Jaune in the last post due to how cringey he was regarding Weiss, his relationship with Pyrrha is what saved him. He’s gotten a lot of flack in the past for not noticing Pyrrha’s feelings, but… I don’t really blame him. Pyrrha never tried to tell him herself or really let on that she had romantic feelings for him. Jaune isn’t a mind-reader, he can’t just magically know if Pyrrha won’t say anything. Nora practically points it out when Pyrrha advises Jaune to just go and ask Weiss out without any stupid gimmicks and just speak from the heart. “Practice what you preach.” indeed. That’s not to be harsh on Pyrrha because it’s clear why she doesn’t. She knows that Jaune likes Weiss and wants him to be happy, so she tries to be content with just supporting him with his pursuits and his training. She’s just that nice of a person.

It’s not like Jaune is careless regarding Pyrrha either. We see in Chapter 5 that he appreciates Pyrrha helping him train and in Chapter 7, he is shocked that no one asked her out. I mean, is everyone blind? Pyrrha is an amazing person? How could no one ask her out? Well… it’s because she’s Pyrrha. She’s a world-class fighter. Too many, she’s out of their league. Remember in Chapter 5 when Mercury calls off the fight, saying that Pyrrha’s out of his league? We all know that was a lie, it was because he got the info that he wanted about her Semblance, but you can see how much that hurt her. It reminded her how she can’t really be normal or form real relationships because of her fame and status. The only person to treat her like a real person? Jaune. He didn’t even know her name when they first met. And it’s after that when Jaune pretty much throws his own needs out the window, puts on that dress with no shame, and dances the night away with Pyrrha.

These two have such a beautiful relationship. Pyrrha helped Jaune find value in himself and grow not just as a fighter, but as this volume shows as a person. Pyrrha got to find happiness and a sense of normalcy through Jaune, which let her form friendships and find love. Even if she still can’t say it out loud, she got to be with Jaune, and that was enough for her even right to the end. Jaune still doesn’t know that Pyrrha has feelings for him and IDT he fully realized his own feelings, but he was still willing to be humiliated just to give that girl a good time at the dance. Because she earned it more than anyone else in that moment. It makes their relationship that much greater, and their ultimate end that much more tragic. But this volume really demonstrates them at their best. It shows Jaune mature and recognizes his friend’s feelings, hence why I can forgive his cringe. It’s painful to see, but he got over it. I just love it so much, and it’s still a bright spot of this volume.

#3. Blake Development

I love Blake. She’s gotten so much hate in recent years because of utterly stupid reasons. While I had issues with her in V4, I’ve always loved her and her story. V1 got me interested in her story after the final two episodes, and this one made me love her even more. You can tell that the White Fang is getting to her, and it makes sense why. We don’t know the whole story, but we do know that the WF was a peaceful group when she was younger, and when it became a terrorist group she broke away. So seeing them act with a human, something that she knows that they would never due, would understandably catch her attention and make her obsess over it as well as reawaken any negative feelings.

In V1 while she was reserved, she clearly was capable of opening up and clearly did want to be friends with these three girls. Some say that she was OOC in The Badge and the Burden, but I disagree. She was trying to form a new life and tried to adjust to her new teammates, so yeah her being a little light-hearted and silly makes sense to me. But with the WF back in her life, it puts her back in a bad place. It makes her obsess over what they’re panning because it can’t be anything good. She tries to close herself off until Weiss reminds her that she promised to open up to them. She does, and her friends are on board with her pursuits.

Then we get the Dance Arc, where the WF obsession is actually affecting her health and performance. Her grades are slipping. Her attitude is at it’s lowest. She doesn’t care about the dance because she’s worried about the WF doing who knows what with them all utterly unprepared. Her harsh dismissal of Sun and her rejecting her team’s help despite them assuring her that they’re going to make sure that everything is fine demonstrates this. Blake feels guilty for her involvement int he WF and doesn’t want anyone to get hurt. To her, she feels like she has to stop them and like it’s her weight to bear. And this is before we know anything about Adam, which she starts to open up about him as well as why she left the WF to her team in Mountian Glenn. But we’ll get to that later.

It’s why Yang’s interference is so important. Yang understands that Blake is getting obsessed to an unhealthy point because she went down the same road. She and RUby almost got killed because she made a dumb decision and went out on her own when she found out about Raven. When talking to her one-on-one doesn’t work, she makes Blake realize that her unhealthy state means that she can’t fight before finally hugging her and essnetially asking her to stop and to trust her and the others. It’s a really beautiful scene that really does make Blake see reason. While I myself don’t see anything romantic in this scene, at least no more than Blake and Sun’s scenes in this arc, there’s a reason why so many care about the Bumblebee ship. Yang genuinely tried to reach out to Blake because she understood where she was coming from, and wanted to help her when no one else could. She didn’t have to, but she did because he wanted to. They’re teammates. Partners. That’s what they’re supposed to do.

This was when Blake truly began to trust Yang. To trust her team. She goes to the dance and has a fun time. It makes you wonder how long it had been since Blak ever relaxed. How long it had been since she laughed. She got to have one night where she could just have fun, makes By the end of the volume, she’s in a better place and is clearly happy with her friends. Even though they don’t stop the WF or uncover their overall plans, she’s okay with what they did manage to do and isn’t obsessing or driving herself to exhaustion anymore. Without that progress, then who knows if she’d have been able to bounce back after what happened in V3. Blake here is great, and I loved seeing it again… despite how much it hurt due to what happened next. But that’s a tale for another day.

#2. Mountain Glenn Arc

This arc was fantastic. By far, the best part of Volume 2. First, it has Doctor Oobleck. We saw him once in V1, but all we learned is that he talks and moves fast. This volume gives him much more character. She’s certainly quirky and not the image of a badass Huntsman, but he’s freakin’ great. One, he’s funny and really adds to the RWBY dynamic to the arc. He’s intelligent and knowledgable on history and tracking. But most of all, he’s insightful. He’s clearly a good teacher as he subtly gives guidance to these girls and gets them to question their motivation and dedication to the paths that they’re on. He may not be teaching them cool fighting skills, but he is teaching them about life essentially and prepping them for the harsh life of being Huntresses. With what happens later down the road, that was a good thing. He’s just great. Also his coffee urn weapon? Best.

But speaking of motivations and dedication, that is what makes this arc so great. It answers an important question and was one that I was surprised by when this arc started, why did the RWBY girls decide to be Huntresses? And we find out here. Yang did it for the thrill, Weiss did it as she felt it was her duty, Blake did it to do good in the world, and Ruby… well… she actually doesn’t get questioned. Why? I’ll go into that in a bit. But having their motivations questioned really shakes up WBY quite a bit, making them reflect on their reasonings on choosing the paths that they took. Which is good, because it allows us to learn more about them and their characters.

We see WBY talk about their motivations deeper. Weiss chose to be a Huntress because she recognizes how much her father has ruined her family name and the company and she wanted to change things, but not in Atlas. She decided to do it as a Huntress. Blake opens up about Adam and how she felt that the WF fell, so she became a Huntress to do good. But she hadn’t thought past that and is afraid of not being able to make up for her mistakes and end up running away again. Yang doesn’t really have anything driving her, she just wanted to have the adventurous lifestyle that being a Huntress would give her and didn’t really think anything else of it. Safe to say, none of them I think really expected Huntress life to be the way that they experienced it here.

But where does Ruby factor into this? Well as I said, Oobleck never questions her motives. We do hear about his though. He became a Huntsman because when he looked at history, he saw lives that could have been saved. He wants to pass that history and knowledge onto his students so that more lives can be saved and not end the way that Mountian Glenn did. As for Ruby herself, she’s always wanted to be a Huntress, Even as a child, this was what she wanted. She didn’t do it for thrills. She didn’t do it to redeem her family name. She didn’t do it to make up for any past sins. She did it for one simple reason: to make the world a better place. Her dedication has always been clear and later volumes have shown this. Even after V3, she got up and pushed on anyway. During V6, even after all the secrets and The Apathy messing with her mind, she remained dedicated to the cause. Why? Because her dedication has never wavered. He chose that life, the other three needed to understand what they had chosen as well.

The arc offers really good character insights and makes the girls more three-dimensional. It is what made me love all four of them. It showed that they were just more than their anime stereotype. They felt like real people who were trying to figure their lives out and what it is that they truly wanted. Ruby may have known what she wanted, but the other three weren’t 100% sure. This is when they began to understand. V6 would more solidly solidify it when it became even more than anyone bargained for, but this was still a very good step. It was such a joy to rewatch, and it is still a highlight for me.

There were me other great things too. First, Zwei! Zwei is best~! We got some good info on the Grimm and how they aren’t just brainless monsters. The Goliaths especially are fascinating with how Oobleck describes them, but also terrifying because the waiting just for the right moment to strike. We get word building in how Mountain Glenn was a disaster but shows how people tried to make lives within the world of Remnant and deal with Grimm. There were fantastic fight scenes and the train battle was especially super fun. Especially with how we got our first taste fo Raven in it. The finale is... well, not the best-received thing in the world, but was still fun to watch. Just an overall super enjoyable arc with plenty of comedy, badassery, and most of all heart.

But speaking of Team RWBY!

#1. Team RWBY Becoming a Team

V1 is when Team RWBY formed, but it’s V2 is when they actually felt like a team. It might be because while half the volume was on the forming the team and the other half on school hijinks, this one keeps the four center stage. There’s a real sense of friendship and sisterhood that comes off them in this volume, and I love it. There’s the food fight, the card game in CHapter 2, them all devoting themselves to investigating the White Fang, them trying to get Blake help, the Mountain Glennmision, a lot of things. Even just their interactions show off their comradery so well. They all play off each other very well and are honestly at their best when together.

It was just so much fun to see the girls working together, laughing together, supporting each other, etc. From the team attack names to just silly banter, you get the feeling that these girls are friends. That they’re a team. After how long they were separated in recent volumes until V6, it was so much fun to focus on just them. As I said, this volume is what got me to love these four as their own characters. It’s also true int hat it got me to love them as a team. After how much RUby and Weiss bickered in V1, they feel like genuine friends here. Weiss kept her word about improving herself as a teammate and not caring about Blake’s Faunus status. Blake started to open up more and trust int hem. Yang acted motherly and comforting to everyone. Ruby pretty much acted like the little sister of the group, but also acted as the leader when it was necessary like coordinating the previously mentioned team attacks.

It just works so well. The chemistry between the four is fantastic. I think it really was something that we missed in V4 and 5, and I’m so glad that we got it back in V. I expect that V7 won’t be lacking in that area either. Seeing Team RWBY again during the simpler times was really nostalgic and got me to appreciate them so much. For that, this will always be my favorite thing about V2~!

Okay, so… I’m supposed to do Likes/Dislikes for V3 next. But… well… check back tomorrow cause lets just say that it’s gonna be slightly different with that one.

#rwby #rwby reviews #top likes/dislikes

3 notes · View notes

screaming-skvll · 5 years

Text

The Deep Claim, the Final Shape, and the Will to Power: Nietzsche and the Hive

A Comparative Analysis of Key Ideas from Nietzsche and the Books of Sorrow

I am not a Warlock, but bear with me.

The key concepts in Hive philosophy, as articulated in the Books of Sorrow, are reflected or paralleled in the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche. Below, we shall examine the two central ideas in the Hive worldview, the Deep Claim and the notion of the Final Shape, consider pertinent excerpts from Nietzsche, and evaluate how these ideas inform how one should exist according to the Hive-Nietzschean perspective.

The Deep Claim is the foundation of Hive philosophy: “Existence is the struggle to exist” (Books of Sorrow 1:8, 2:3). Nietzsche never writes exactly so simple a characterization, but he expresses the same outlook:

we must beware of superficiality and get to the bottom of the matter, resisting all sentimental weakness: life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, overpowering of what is alien and weaker; suppression, hardness, imposition of one’s own forms (Beyond Good and Evil section 259).

Elsewhere, he puts it more poetically:

And life itself confided this secret to me: “Behold,” it said, “I am that which must always overcome itself. Indeed, you call it a will to procreate or a drive to an end, to something higher, farther, more manifold: but all this is one, and one secret.

“Rather would I perish than forswear this; and verily, where there is perishing and a falling of leaves, behold, there life sacrifices itself—for power. That I must be struggle and a becoming and an end and an opposition to ends—alas, whoever guesses what is my will should also guess on what crooked paths it must proceed.” (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, “On Self-Overcoming”)

For Nietzsche, as for the Hive, the essential quality of existence is the contest between each subject or form against all others. He would find the Deep Claim familiar and agreeable. Likewise, as the Hive (and the ambiguous Darkness or Deep which they serve) regard this contest as an amoral fact, Nietzsche too repudiates the very notion of any higher moral or ethical structure that might cast a shadow of condemnation on this harsh view of the universe. “Verily, men gave themselves all their good and evil”, he says. “Verily, they did not take it, they did not find it, nor did it come to them as a voice from heaven. Only man placed values in things to preserve himself—he alone created a meaning for things, a human meaning.” (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, “On the Thousand and One Goals”)

If the Deep Claim is Hive philosophy’s foundation, then the Final Shape is its pinnacle. As the Hive worm gods remind Oryx: “Existence is the struggle to exist. Only by playing that game to its final, unconditional victory can we complete the universe.” (Books of Sorrow 2:3) ‘Completing the universe’ means achieving the Final Shape: a form of existence impervious to destruction because it has destroyed everything other it has ever encountered. It is that which has struggled to exist against all else that existed, and prevailed.

Says the worm god:

Don’t you want to build something real, something that lasts forever? Our universe gutters down towards cold entropy. Life is an engine that burns up energy and produces decay. Life builds selfish, stupid rules—morality is one of them, and the sanctity of life is another. These rules are impediments to the great work. The work of building a perfect, undying creation, a civilization everlasting. Something that cannot end. If a civilization cannot defend itself, it must be annihilated. If a King cannot hold his power, he must be betrayed. The worth of a thing can be determined only by one beautiful arbiter—that thing’s ability to exist, to go on existing, to remake existence to suit its survival. (Books of Sorrow 2:7)

Or, as Oryx reflects: “The only way to make something good is to make something that can’t be broken. And the only way to do that is to try to break everything.” (Books of Sorrow 4:4)

Like the Deep Claim, the Final Shape is not subject to external moral condition. The Deep itself says, in complaint to Oryx, “they call us evil. Evil! Evil means ‘socially maladaptive.’ We are adaptiveness itself.” Far from being evil, pursuit of the Final Shape is merely “the universe figuring out what it should be in the end.” (Books of Sorrow 4:2) It is not a question of achieving a good end, but rather a question of existence or nonexistence—and since existence at any cost is the only end to strive for according to the Deep Claim, it is therefore the only possible good.

From Nietzsche comes a parallel concept, perhaps of less cosmic scale, but no less all-pervasive importance in his view: the will to power. We find the best, clearest definition of this often misunderstood concept in Beyond Good and Evil (section 13): “A living thing seeks above all to discharge its strength—life itself is will to power; self-preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent results.” In other words, will to power is not merely the desire to accumulate power or grow stronger. Rather, it is the urge for the action of power, the use of strength, in and of itself, for its own sake. Whereas the notion of the Final Shape points toward the ultimate outcome of the contest of every form of existence, the idea of the will to power describes the drive to participate in that contest as a naturally inborn feature of living things.

Accordingly, Nietzsche regards following the will to power as a good in itself. Oryx would heartily agree when Nietzsche asks and answers:

What is good? Everything that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself.

What is bad? Everything that is born of weakness.

What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.

Not contentedness but more power; not peace but war; not virtue but fitness...

The weak and the failures shall perish... And they shall be given every possible assistance.

What is more harmful than any vice? Active pity for all the failures and all the weak (Antichrist, section 2).

Here Nietzsche’s sentiment is eerily similar to the rejection of civilization proclaimed by the worm gods and the Deep. In the universal war between formless and form, the Deep’s pro-social adversary, the Sky, “builds gentle places, safe for life” (Books of Sorrow 1:8), which the worm gods characterize as “cosmic slavery.” Like Nietzsche, they regard supporting or protecting what would not survive on its own as perversely contrary to the nature of reality.

The Sky seeds civilizations predicated on a terrible lie—that right actions can prevent suffering. That pockets of artificial rules can defy the final, beautiful logic. This is like trying to burn water. Antithetical to the nature of reality, where deprivation and competition are universal. In the Deep, we enslave nothing. Liberation is our passion. We exist to help the universe achieve its terminal, self-forging glory. (Books of Sorrow 2:1)

Oryx is even more articulate in his argument against sheltering civilization:

A species which believes that a good existence can be invented through games of civilization and through laws of conduct is doomed by that belief. They will die in terror. The lawless and the ruthless will drag them down to die. The universe will erase their monuments. But the one that sets out to understand the one true law and to perform worship of that law will by that decision gain control over their future. They will gain hope of ascendance and by their ruthlessness they will assist the universe in arriving at its perfect shape. Only by eradicating from ourselves all clemency for the weak can we emulate and become that which endures forever. This is inevitable. The universe offers only one choice and it is between ruthlessness and extinction. We stand against the fatal lie that a world built on laws of conduct may ever resist the action of the truly free. This is the slavery of the [Sky], the crime of creation, in which labor is wasted on the construction of false shapes. (Books of Sorrow 5:5)

Nietzsche essentially agrees: “One has deprived reality of its value, its meaning, its truthfulness, to precisely the extent to which one has mendaciously invented an ideal world.” (Ecce Homo, section 2) Elsewhere, he elaborates:

I call an animal, a species, or an individual corrupt when it loses its instincts, when it chooses, when it prefers, what is disadvantageous for it... Life itself is to my mind the instinct for growth, for durability, for an accumulation of forces, for power: where the will to power is lacking there is decline. (Antichrist, section 6)

To both Nietzsche and the Hive, deviation from the struggle to exist, discharge of one’s strength to any end but continual overcoming, especially to prop up anything or anyone that otherwise would succumb—all this is not only wasteful, but reprehensible, since it runs counter to the natural will to power (in Nietzsche’s terms) and hinders the process of the universe toward the Final Shape (in Hive terms). Since they are videogame villains, the Hive enact their philosophy by pursuing literal cosmic annihilation. Of course, Oryx sees it otherwise: “The Deep doesn’t want everything to be the same: it wants life, strong life, life that lives free without the need for a habitat of games to insulate it from reality.” (Books of Sorrow 5:6) Nietzsche could almost have written the same words. He may not have harbored the Hive’s ambition for universal destruction, but he certainly seems to have shared much of the outlook behind it.

Toland, that most accomplished connoisseur of Hive arcana, once addressed us: “Dearest Guardian, I write to you from a place of high contempt. No no no, don’t be offended, don’t be so superficial—it’s in the architecture of these spaces. They look down on you.” (Grimoire, “Echo of Oryx”) This hearty contempt is the characteristic attitude of the Deep Claim, and those who would pursue attainment of the Final Shape. It invites all comers to contest conflicting claims to existence, and looks down upon those others as necessarily untrue, unworthy of existence unless they prove otherwise by destroying and overcoming—which itself only proves the Deep Claim’s truth. Tellingly, Nietzsche too exhorts his readers: “One must be above mankind in strength, in loftiness of soul—in contempt.” (Antichrist, preface)

Author’s note: My quotations of Nietzsche are taken from Walter Kaufmann’s translations. I am happy to provide bibliographical information and precise citations upon request. All emphasis in those quotations is as it appears in the source texts.

#nietzsche #philosophy #will to power #deep claim #final shape #hive #books of sorrow #destiny the game

53 notes · View notes

arecomicsevengood · 5 years

Text

On Alan Moore’s SUPREME

It is an understatement to say we live in interesting times. These are chaotic times, and I hope we survive long enough to learn from them. I do not know how they will be remembered. I only know that I do not believe that hindsight is 20/20. Rather, nostalgia has distorting effects that render eras in caricature. I know this because while people often look at things and say “hey, remember the nineties?” with this quasi-ironic tone meant to pigeonhole things according to a handful of superficial traits, I actually feel like I do remember the nineties, and they were not that, but they were very far from where we are now.

I recently tracked down collections of Alan Moore’s run on Supreme via my local library. Supreme was a character created by Rob Liefeld at Image. Liefeld and Image are both prime examples of what people think of when they think of “1990s comics,” though their influence continues to this day, maybe stronger now than it ever was then. The backlash against this stuff that followed, which involved a great deal of nostalgia, that you see in things like Mark Waid and Alex Ross’ Kingdom Come, or Kurt Busiek’s Astro City, is, I would argue, way more definitive of the era, in that there was maybe a “square” or defensive reactionary tone that seems more out of step with the modern moment, maybe because they essentially “lost.” Moore’s Supreme is about comic book reboots, and comic book history. It’s pretty nostalgic, but it’s also one of the more optimistic Alan Moore comics: The reaction against the superficial Image work also included a rejection of the “grim and gritty” aspects of Moore’s eighties work.

These Supreme collections are out of print, which is weird. While new stories continue to be told set in this universe Rob Liefeld created, but I think it’s pretty widely acknowledged that Moore’s comics were the best things to come out of there, the stuff where the ideas make the most sense, where there’s material that can be expanded upon. I know Brandon Graham took material from Moore’s work for his Prophet run. The recent Warren Ellis/Tula Lotay Supreme: Blue Rose derives from concepts in Moore’s run. It’s vastly tonally different, aiming for some sort of slow-paced Solaris vibe of mystery, which Moore’s run explains in such a way that it feels like Ellis’ run would have less of a reason to exist were his source text widely available.

I read Moore’s first issue at the time of its release, and was not that into it. When I think of the comics I was into at the time, I understand why: Thinking of Mark Waid/Humberto Ramos series Impulse, or Christopher Priest and Mark Bright’s Quantum And Woody, the emotional connection I had with those books as a reader is basically impossible to imagine anyone having with Supreme. I don’t think Moore was interested in doing that: I think he was trying to crack “nineties comics” and was seeing a bunch of dumb garbage it was very easy to think mixing in some pastiches would improve.

Also, the character is basically just Superman, and while in some ways Supreme is “better” than, say, Scott McCloud’s Superman Adventures, in that a good deal of work and thought is being put into creating these riffs on the Superman concept, Rick Burchett’s art, drawing Bruce Timm designs, is more appealing than what Joe Bennett comes up with, though, so it’s kind of a wash. Chris Sprouse comes on board later, and when he’s drawing the book, it’s great. The book moves from being “kind of a slog even though it’s clever” to “actually pretty fun.” After working together on Supreme, Moore and Sprouse would launch Tom Strong together. That’s another comic I stopped reading early on because I wasn’t getting that much pleasure out of it. Both Supreme and Tom Strong have flashback sequences drawn by other artists (in Supreme, they’re usually handled by Rick Veitch) that are also meant to be reference some other genre or historical moment, fleshing out backstory but also demonstrating Moore’s cleverness, which is two-fold: it’s both the cleverness of a plotter, telling stories pithily, and the cleverness of a student of comics showing how much he knows, via jokey parody. This becomes tedious when baked into the structure of every issue of a comic, but it’s also how Supreme gets to have Rick Veitch pages, which are welcome when the stuff set in modern times is drawn by people whose work isn’t fun to look at. Still, it’s a superhero comic where the core of most issues is not a fight but an extended vaguely comedic riff.

Another person to continue on to Tom Strong is letterer Todd Klein, who does a great job here, enough so that, when late in the run there are issues he didn’t letter, they’re demonstrably worse and harder to read. Tom Strong does have a different colorist than Supreme though, and in some ways there are weaknesses even in Sprouse’s issues that can be laid on the coloring: It’s “nineties” in a true way, in that it’s tied to the computer coloring that was then state of the art. I am pretty sure I read the later issues of Tom Strong in collections a roommate owned, but I remember none of them. Most likely I will forget these issues of Supreme. The most impressive thing about Moore’s run is the long-term plotting, that the payoff to a year’s worth of stories is set up very early, and points that would pay off later are seeded throughout.

Still, in the mind of a kid, a year is a very long time. A developing brain pursues a lot of interests. There are very few comics I read every issue of for a year: To do that would cut into my ability to take chances on comics like, say, Alan Moore’s first issue of Supreme, when I’d never read any of the previous ones. Another reason I didn’t follow the title as a kid is this: By the time you get to the point where you have a preference for good superhero comics over bad ones, you’re also interested in non-superhero comics. The best stuff in the series are later Chris Sprouse drawn stories that work effectively as superhero comics, where multiple villains fight multiple heroes, and jokes are made steadily. This all follows up on groundwork laid earlier in the run.

These collections are not published by Image, but rather a book company called Checker I am pretty sure is no longer in business. The books at my library were not in great condition, and they’re not very well-designed. There’s an Alex Ross image on the front, and Rob Liefeld on the back, alongside text that gives bios of Moore and Liefeld but says nothing about the Supreme comics the books contain. The interiors use Alex Ross drawings between issues, to cover for the original cover art being largely abysmal. I’m pretty sure Liefeld could reprint them at Image, although “this comic is drawn by a ton of different people, and quality varies” is not an appealing sales pitch. There were also other flashback stories, drawn by the likes of Melinda Gebbie and Kevin O’Neill, that ran in the original comics but aren’t in these collections, which I would hope a future reprint would restore. Around this time, Moore also did a run on Youngblood with Steve Skroce that was never collected, fondly remembered by some but also compromised by the fact that the last few pages currently extant, were drawn by a considerably worse artist.

What’s fun about these Supreme comics is that, for all the nostalgia for the past they contain, they’re still dense with ideas. It’s clear that what Moore appreciates about the old Superman comics he’s explicitly homaging is the imagination therein. He’s riffing, but extrapolating as well, these aren’t pure analogs. There are these science fiction or mythic elements all pressed together. I’m not saying there’s much that originates with Moore here, but in his bricolage things feel new, it’ll get your neurons firing. This is truly wild: the concept of the Supremacy, where all the alternate Supremes hang out, and its corresponding Daxia, where all the alternate reality versions of his nemesis hang out, both built in limbo, is surprisingly similar to plot points on the show Rick And Morty.

There are comics that are better than Moore’s Supreme, many more of them available now than there were twenty years ago. I read them, I write about them, and much of my championing of them stems from a preoccupation with storytelling. But there is a different kind of substance to these stories. It’s not “substance” in the sense of meaning, or emotional content. The substance is the sort of idea-space you swim in while reading fantasy or science fiction. I like to think that if you’re reading this you consider yourself a smart person, and that manifests itself as a certain snobbery in certain ways. Maybe you don’t read that sort of stuff as much as you did when you were a kid. As an adult, I’ve got other hang-ups. It is maybe a form of solipsism, though it stems from empathy, or a desire for it, obsessed over my own ability to relate to others. This is the stuff that makes up the content of “literary fiction” whereas I think of being a kid and trying to be imaginative or imagine possibilities beyond reality as essentially a spiritual quest. Reading this collection I could sense I wasn’t engaging it enough, even if only a portion of the pages were drawn well enough to make me want to engage it.

Moore is a spiritual person, obviously. You can listen to him talk about his work and artmaking and time and life and death and find a great deal of comfort. So much of his work is deeply reassuring and helpful, even though much of it is dark and more pessimistic than his Supreme run, and it’s often done through these genre pretexts. His work is much richer than what’s propped up by current trends, and it’s all informed by this grand history of literature, where what follows in Moore’s wake is frequently hollow because it doesn’t have this grounding in possibility and potential, but is instead premised on the observable. I’m making fun of Warren Ellis here, his obsession with science magazines and the idea of Moore’s run of Supreme as an observable phenomena after Moore made it exist.

It’s easy to view the way you engage this type of work as escapism, and there is truth to that, I think, when you’re an adult reader. I do think that when you’re younger, engaging with this stuff is more of a building a toolkit of ideas to engage with existence in a way that will stave off existential woe one encounters as they age. I frequently have this feeling that I am more tired than I used to be. My head is now subject to this feeling which is for all intents and purposes stupidity that maybe stems from trauma of having bad things happen to me (I have repeatedly been the victim of violent crime) and anxiety over things still to come. (Whether it be more crime or fascism or whatever, the complete collapse of the social fabric.)

There’s a feeling of being enervated I want to chase and have no idea how to, but it was genuinely present in my past. I know I can’t find it in nostalgia, in binge-reading old comics. That is 100% a trap and I know that the feeling I want is actually dependent on the absence of nostalgia, of being awake to there being possibilities in the future I can barely foresee. Moore’s run of Supreme taps into this energy, and he doesn’t think of it in a nostalgic way, the way he viewed 1963. He was engaging the moment, and finding the energy and collaborators that would propel him into the America’s Best Comics line, the sort of “better things” that might exist for a person in the near future that it is in the moment impossible to foresee. In all likelihood, the ability to manifest these things comes from a receptivity to potential that these comics evince.

Last week I turned 34, then the next day I found out my editor at The Comics Journal, Tim Hodler, was leaving it. I’m aware I need to leave Baltimore, get a new job, embark on a career path, enter into a new relationship, change everything about my life; all of these things both for their own sake but also to hopefully get the gears turning in my brain so I can write fiction again and feel that I am doing something.

When I read these book collections I was sort of wishing that like 2/3 of the pages were redrawn so that a book could exist which would have a reason to be read. Now I’m writing about it so I can remember I read it, and trying to explain why I’m doing so inevitably becomes about dissatisfaction with what is potentially giving way to something better, but I’m as overwhelmed by the facts of my own existence as Chris Sprouse would be at the fact that all the pages I would want him to redraw were already drawn by other people. Moore’s Supreme run can be reduced to these things that are essentially truisms: It’s “a moment in time,” “a transitional work.” This is true for so many things, but it is better to be these than the other thing that so much amounts to, a dead end.

7 notes · View notes

worshipmoment · 6 years

Text

False Religion: Islam

Islam is one of the major world religions that, along with Christianity and Judaism, teaches monotheism which is the doctrine that there is only one God in all existence. Islam teaches that Allah is the one and only deity in all existence (Qur'an 5:73; 112:1-4). He is supreme, all-knowing (40:20), ever-present, different from all of creation (3:191), and in complete control of all things. According to Islam, Allah created the universe in six days (2:29; 25:61-62), and all that is in it continues to exist by his permission and will. Allah is non-Trinitarian (5:73), but he is absolute and eternal. Compared to Christianity, Islam has some similarities but significant differences. These differences make Islam a false religion.

Muhammad:

Muhammad (c. AD 570—632) was from Mecca, a city near the Red Sea in what is now Saudi Arabia. Muhammad was a religious man, often going on retreats to the mountains where he would pray. During one of these retreats, he reported being visited by the angel Gabriel, who supposedly gave Muhammad a revelation from Allah. Muhammad reported having several other revelations from Allah as well, and Muslims regard him as Allah’s last and greatest prophet to mankind. Muhammad claimed to have continued to receive revelations from Allah until his death, and Muhammad’s revelations were compiled after his death and canonized into what is now called the Qur’an, the Muslim holy book. Other respected writings in Islam include the Hadith, which is a collection of teachings, deeds, and sayings of Muhammad; and the Tafsir, which is a commentary of sorts on the Qur’an.

Qur’an or Koran:

The Quran or Koran is the sacred book of Islam and is broken up into 114 chapters called Suras which cover the subjects of ethics, history, law, and theology. It is highly revered by Muslims as the direct, literal word of God and without error. However there a lot of problems and contradictions in the Quran. Some examples are:

Can Allah have a son?

Yes: Surah 39:4, "If Allah desire to take a son to Himself, He will surely choose those He pleases from what He has created. Glory be to Him: He is Allah, the One, the Subduer (of all)."

No: Surah 6:101, "Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could He have a son when He has no consort, and He (Himself) created everything, and He is the Knower of all things?"

Allah forgets yet Allah know all?

Forgets: Surah 32:14, "Taste ye then - for ye forgot the Meeting of this Day of yours, and We too will forget you - taste ye the Penalty of Eternity for your (evil) deeds!"

Knows all things: Surah 24:60, "Such elderly women as are past the prospect of marriage—there is no blame on them if they lay aside their (outer) garments, provided they make not a wanton display of their beauty: but it is best for them to be modest: and Allah is One Who sees and knows all things."

Scientific problems in the Quran:

Sperm comes from the chest of a man: Surah 86:5-7, "Now let man but think from what he is created! He is created from a drop emitted-Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs."

Birds can talk: Surah 27:16, "And Solomon was David's heir. He said: "O ye people! We have been taught the speech of birds, and on us has been bestowed (a little) of all things: this is indeed Grace manifest (from Allah)."

Ants can talk: Surah 27:18, "At length, when they came to a (lowly) valley of ants, one of the ants said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it."

There are 7 heavens and 7 earths! Surah 65:12, "Allah is He Who created seven Firmaments and of the earth a similar number. Through the midst of them (all) descends His Command: that ye may know that Allah has power over all things, and that Allah comprehends, all things in (His) Knowledge."

Mary is the sister of Aaron and Moses: Surah 19:27-28, "Then she brought him to her own folk, carrying him. They said: O Mary! Thou hast come with an amazing thing. 28 O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a wicked man nor was thy mother a harlot."

Having just outlined just a handful of many problems and contradictions to the Qur’an as a divinely inspired work, we are forced to reject the Islamic claim that the Qur’an represents an error-free word of God to humanity. However, when a similar standard is applied to the Bible, the result is self-vindicating, for the Bible emerges flawless.

Islam, the religion of peace:

Is Islam a religion of peace? Many of its advocates say that it is. Let's see what the Qur'an actually says.

The Qur'an tells Muslims to kill and go to war to fight for Islam: Quran, chapters (Surahs) 9:5; 2:191; 2:193; 3:118; 4:75,76; 5:33, 8:12; 8:65; 9:73,123; 33:60-62.

Fight for Allah: "And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers, (Quran 2:191).

Muslims are to battle for Allah: "Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve do battle for the cause of idols. So fight the minions of the devil. Lo! the devil's strategy is ever weak," (Quran 4:76).

Kill those against Islam: "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter," (Quran 5:33).

Beheading: "When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger. 13That is because they opposed Allah and His messenger. Whoso opposeth Allah and His messenger, (for him) lo! Allah is severe in punishment," (Quran 8:12).

Slay non-Muslims: "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful," (Quran 9:5).

Allah urges war: "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)," (Quran 9:123).

Allah urges killing: " . . . the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease and the agitators in the city do not desist . . . 61Cursed: wherever they are found they shall be seized and murdered, a (horrible) murdering. 62(Such has been) the course of Allah with respect to those who have gone before; and you shall not find any change in the course of Allah, (Quran 33:60-62).

Allah loves those who fight for him: "Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure," (Quran 61:4).

As you can see, the Qur'an definitely teaches that its people are to fight for the cause of Islam. This list of verses is important because they are within the holy book of Islam. What are we to conclude if a Muslim is to take the Quran seriously? Is he not obligated to slay non-Muslims, to go to war, to kill those against Islam, etc.? Isn't this what the verses are teaching? Yes, they are.

Jesus:

Muslims claim that Jesus was one of the most important prophets—not God’s Son. Islam asserts that Jesus, though born of a virgin, was created like Adam. Muslims do not believe Jesus died on the cross. They do not understand why Allah would allow His prophet Isa (the Islamic word for "Jesus") to die a torturous death. Yet the Bible shows how the death of the perfect Son of God was essential to pay for the sins of the world (Isaiah 53:5-6; John 3:16; 14:6; 1 Peter 2:24). So since they do not believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ they are lost and damned to hell, unless they repent and put their faith in Jesus Christ.

Works Salvation:

Islam is a religion of salvation by works because it combines man's works with Allah's grace. Consider the following verses from the Qur'an.

"To those who believe and do deeds of righteousness hath Allah promised forgiveness and a great reward," (Surah 5:9).

"And He answers those who believe and do good deeds, and gives them more out of His grace; and (as for) the unbelievers, they shall have a severe punishment," (Surah 42:26).

"O you who believe! If you are careful of (your duty to) Allah, He will grant you a distinction and do away with your evils and forgive you; and Allah is the Lord of mighty grace," (Surah 8:29).

In Christianity, we appeal to the work of Christ on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24) completely and totally and in nothing in ourselves as a basis for forgiveness because no good thing dwells within us (Rom. 7:18), that is, apart from Christ. We sincerely believe in Christ, but we never claim that forgiveness is in any way merited or gained because of our sincerity or our works. Rather, our forgiveness is based on faith and trust in God in what He has done for us in Christ. Salvation in Christianity is God-centered. In Islam, forgiveness of sins is man-centered in that it is dependent upon man's sincerity and man's works in combination with Allah's forgiveness. Both Christianity and Islam teach that we must have faith in God. But in Christianity, this faith in God is enough to save us (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9). In Islam, faith in God is not enough.

Conclusion:

Christians and Muslims disagree on the nature of God, salvation, prophets, the true Scriptures, and many more things. I know most Muslims will not change their mind about their beliefs while reading this but I am a Christian, saved by the grace of my Lord and Savior, Jesus. In obedience to Christ and according to the Bible, I seek to expose error and teach the truth. Therefore, I must say that Islam is a false religion. I say this to convert Muslims to Christ so they may find salvation in Him and find everlasting peace.

#false religion #Religion #christian #Bible #Jesus #God #gospel #faith #False teachers #FTOTW #calling out #warning #Muslims #Islam

200 notes · View notes

saferincages · 6 years

Text

(you might say we are encouraged to love)

I received an ask requesting I make this response its own post in full (which of course I don’t mind doing!) so here it is:

An anon in the original post asked why, “Anakin/Vader is seen as interesting for women,” and that could be a bit of a loaded question, but I think there’s a definite rationale behind it. The way it was phrased made me think of a post I saw which addressed the fundamental split between Anakin and Vader as seen by certain audiences, why Anakin is treated by many derisively because there’s an element of the “heroine’s journey” that happens in relation to his arc and the struggles he goes through. It’s here and it’s really interesting in its entirety. “The constant barrage of degradation and trauma and unfairness of a system that benefits at your expense and refuses to validate you for it. And some of that he might have been able to reconcile by “growing up,” the same way a lot of us learn to come to terms with social fuckery, but Anakin doesn’t get the space to do that. He gets a giant bundle of unaddressed trauma and psychological issues and handed a kind of ambiguous destiny about needing to save the entire universe.” <- Imagine the burden of that, and they put it on a child and then give him zero structure to cope with it.

I’m also going to add this comment from that post because I think it’s worthwhile to note: if someone makes you angry and you show anger with your very own face you are weak, you have lost face, you have shown yourself vain and driven by a selfish, animal, irrational, feminine urge to defend yourself; but if you show anger without a face, if you show it unpersonally (the less it’s connected to direct accusation or a specific ill), especially in order to execute a role, then you suddenly appear to be the one in the position of strength, because you can no longer be directly accused of selfishness. The more you can cloak anger in the guise of necessity, the more you meet the societal expectation to be dispassionate, rational, always controlled - the more justification and legitimacy and power to you, even though this mode of anger is often more destructive than the first. This dynamic, assuming it exists as I’ve hypothesized it, is why I think Anakin codes as feminine to many, while Vader appeals to a certain masculine ideal.

Basically, the gist of it is that the emotional turmoil, the trauma, the way he’s exploited for his talents or what he can provide others, the way his agency is stripped repeatedly from him again and again tends to not be the way “male” hero journeys are told. It’s feminine coding (unfortunately) for those themes to be explored. For those emotions to be plumbed and portrayed with a substantive sense of sorrow and helplessness in the central male hero - it is not the “macho” standard. Why they thought they’d get a macho, unyielding masculine power trip from Anakin Skywalker remains a mystery to me, this is the same series where its original hero, Luke (who is his son! of course there were going to be essential parallels and contrasts between them), purposefully throws his weapon away and refuses to fight, and is characterized by his capacity for intrinsic compassion rather than any outer physical strength (even Han is much less of a “macho” guy than dudebros tend to make him out to be - not only because he’s unmistakably the person in distress who has to be rescued from capture in ROTJ, he has a lot of interesting facets that break down that ‘scoundrel’ stereotype, but I digress other than to say I love the OT, and the subtle distinctions in Luke, Leia, and Han that make them break the molds of expectation). SW fundamentally rejected toxic masculinity and the suppression of emotions from its inception, Luke’s loving triumph and role as redeemer only happens because he refuses to listen when he’s told to give up on his friends or on his belief that there’s good in his father, his softness is his ultimate strength. Anakin was never going to be some epitome of tough masculinity, and George Lucas knew exactly what he was doing crafting him in that way. The audiences who wanted Bad Seed Anakin from the beginning didn’t know how to reconcile this sensitive, kind-hearted, exceedingly bright kid, with their spawn of the Dark Side notions, and I think, unfortunately, far too many then either rejected him completely or refused to understand what the central points in his characterization are about.

The fact that this narratively would have made no sense (if Anakin had been “born bad,” then there would have been no miraculously surviving glimpse of light for Luke to save - I’ve said this before, but imagine how profoundly essential to his true self that goodness had to be for it to even exist any more at that point, after all he’d suffered, after all he’d done. the OT tells us more than once what a good man Anakin Skywalker was, it’s part of what makes the father reveal as powerful as it is - if we hadn’t heard the fragments of stories about Luke’s father, it wouldn’t be nearly as shocking, but we KNOW he was a hero, an admirable man, a good friend). I can’t fathom how tricky telling the prequels had to have been to that extent - the audience knows what will happen in the end, it’s a foregone conclusion, we know he will fall, we know Vader will be created, we know the Empire will rise (though that would have happened even if Anakin had remained in the light, which is a whole other discussion). So the question became, who is this person? What influenced him? What shaped his destiny? And that ended up being a far more complex and morally fraught and stirringly emotional story than just “badass Jedi becomes badass Sith lord.”

That talented, highly intelligent boy is taken in by the Jedi after he has already developed independent thought and very intricate emotional dimension - the argument that he’s “too old” to be trained is because he’s not malleable enough to be indoctrinated the way Jedi usually treat the children they take. They may blame this on his attachment to Shmi, but she’s not the problem (if anything, had they not been so unfeeling and rigid, and had they freed her and allowed her to at least stay in contact with her son while he was training because it was a special case - they’re the ones who stick that “Chosen One” mantle on him, you’re telling me they couldn’t make an exception? but no, because they put that weight on him and then never help him carry it and constantly undermine it and question and mistrust him - Anakin would have been stronger in his training, and he would never have fallen to the Dark Side at all. There are so many moments, over and over, where his fall could have been averted, and everyone fails him to the bitter end, when he fails himself).

And so he is traumatized, due to years of abuse and difficulties as a slave, due to having to leave his mother behind because the Jedi would not free her, due to being told to repress his emotions over and over again when he is, at his core, an intuitive and perceptively empathetic person (he wants to uphold that central tenet of his training - “compassion, which I would define as unconditional love, is central to a Jedi’s life”), yet he’s made to feel he is broken/wrong/constantly insufficient. He’s wounded by abandonment issues and lack of validation and the human connection/affection he craved, and he develops an (understandable) angry streak, he’s socially awkward due to the specific constraints/isolation of a Jedi’s life and due to the fact that they tried to stamp out what made him uniquely himself, which makes him continually conflicted with a never-ending pulse of anxiety (see absolutely ANY moment where he breaks down emotionally, and you’ll see him say something to the effect of “I’m a Jedi, I know I’m better than than this,” “I’m a Jedi, I’m not supposed to want [whatever very basic human thing he wants, because they make him feel like he can’t even ask for or accept scraps of decency]” - they fracture his sense of his own humanity, Padme tries to validate those feelings but that Code is a constant stumbling block in his mind). He is troubled by fear and the constant press of grief (I would argue he has PTSD at the very least), and all around he’s met by mistrust and sabotage.

Male heroes shouldn’t be treated as infallible in their own narratives (none of them are that, as no character of whatever gender/origin is, as none of us are), but at the very least we usually see them treated with respect by others. Anakin often gets no such luxury. He’s treated the way we frequently see women treated, and that treatment comes from the same rotten core - the idea that emotions are weak, that expressing them makes you lesser, that crying is a sign of deficiency, that fragility of any kind cannot be tolerated. Anakin is even the hopeless romantic in this situation - Padme, while gracious and warmhearted, is much more pragmatic and tries to reason her way out of her blossoming love for him until she’s of the belief that it doesn’t matter anyway because they’re about to die, and she wants him to know the truth before they do. (I’d also like to note that the closest people to him all speak their love aloud when they’re at the point of death - Shmi when he finds her bound and tortured with the Tuskens, Padme in the Arena, Obi-Wan watching him burn on Mustafar, and how unbearably sad is that? even though his mother had said it before, even though he got to hear it many times again from Padme - and it’s her last entreaty to him - we shouldn’t be pushed to the brink of death to express it). Anakin is the one gazing at her dreamily and tearing up about it and professing earnest, dramatic love in front of the fireplace (idc what anyone says about the dialogue, the way he expresses himself is entirely sincere, it’s the rawness of that sincerity that I think makes people uncomfortable bc it’s unexpected), she’s the one who talks about living in reality. She, too, has been taught to guard and temper her emotions from her time as a child queen and the years she’s spent navigating the murky political waters of the Senate, but she’s become adept at it, unlike Anakin. If anything, they’re the only person the other has with whom they can be truly genuine and unafraid of exposing the recesses of their hearts, they’re the only safe place the other has, it’s no wonder they give themselves over to that, and the fact that they do is beautiful, it’s not wrong (which I have more cohesive thoughts on here and it was the underlying thesis of my heart poured into the super long playlist for them too /linking all the things). They see the joy and spirit in the other that no one else ever sees, and they make a home there.

Anakin becomes an esteemed general not only because he’s awesome in battle and strong in the Force and a gifted pilot and a skilled leader (all of which are true), but because he shows those around him respect, and great care. So, yet again, there’s a subversion of what might have been expected. No one is expendable to him. He views the Clone troops as individual human beings. He mourns their losses (many of the Jedi, with their no attachments rhetoric, allow the Clones to be used without much hesitation or thought for their status as sentient beings born and bred and programmed to die in war, but Anakin was a slave. He comprehends their status more than anyone else could). Anakin is a celebrated hero to the public, and in private is being chewed up by fear and uncertainty. Anakin is devoted to and completely in love with his wife, but has to keep it a secret. Anakin still craves freedom that even being a Jedi has not afforded him, because of their rigor. Anakin still desperately has to scrape for even the bare minimum of approval from the authority figures around him - even his closest mentor and friend, Obi-Wan, while they are irrevocably bonded and care for each other in a myriad of important ways, often doesn’t understand him and dismisses his feelings, refuses to advocate for/stand up for him when he needs it, or tells him to calm down. I’m surprised they never tell him he’s being hysterical when he gets upset, but the connotation of being told to “calm down” when angry or sorrowful or frustrated is something most women can identify with all too well. His desperate desire to protect Padme as everything begins to curl and smoke and turn to ash around him has a very clear nurturing aspect to it underneath the layers of terror and frustration and building paranoia - all he really wants is to be able to protect and care for his family, all he hopes is to save them and have a life with them away from all the war and the political in-fighting and the stifling Order. He’d quit right that second but he needs help due to his nightmares, and no one is willing to give it to him. (Except, ostensibly, Palpatine, who has been grooming him and deftly manipulating him and warping his perceptions since he was a child, all under the guise of magnanimous, almost paternal, care. Palpatine is brilliant in his machinations, perfectly cunning in his evil. He knows exactly how to slip in and break people, and he plays Anakin to the furthest extreme. I’m not saying Anakin doesn’t have choices, he does, and he makes the worst possible ones, but Palpatine pulls the strings in a way that makes him feel that he has no agency - and in truth, he does have very little agency throughout every step of his arc, marrying Padme and loving her in spite of the rules is one of the only independent choices he ever makes that isn’t an order, a demand, a fulfilling of duty - and Palpatine poises himself as the answer to all the problems, if Anakin does as he’s told. He’s been hard-wired to take orders for too long. He is so damaged by this point, and so distrusting - Hayden said something once about how Anakin is still very naive in ROTS, even after what he’s been through in the war, he’s still so young and unknowing about many things, and then his naivete is shattered by complete and utter disillusionment, and that shock is terrible and incomprehensible for him, so he clings to the one source of power he’s given, and it’s catastrophic). He is haunted by grief and impeded by fear of loss, and it drags him into an abyss. We watch all of this happen with bated breath, we see everyone fail him, we see every moment where he could have been helped, we see every path he could take if only he had the ability to stand up for himself and had been given the tools to cope with his psychological and emotional baggage, we see that he very nearly turns back, up until the death knell at the end. We know it’s coming from the moment they land on Tatooine and meet him and decide to make him a Jedi. We know, and we still hope for it to turn out differently. We know, and it still breaks our hearts.

I don’t want to make blanket statements about typical male viewers vs. typical female viewers, that’s too dismissive of a stance to take, but on a seemingly wider scale, I don’t think many of the former (especially the ones who were either older fans or who were teenagers themselves at the time) were as interested in political nuance and a tale of abiding love and a young man burdened with more than should ever have been put on his shoulders. Since the question was basically “why does he appeal to women,” (and not just cishet women) I imagine that the answer to that varies greatly depending on any one perceptive outlook, but has a similar core in each case of us wishing we could help change the outcome, even though we know we can’t, and of wanting to understand his actions and his pain, wanting to see his positive choices and his goodness validated, wanting to see him learn healthy strategies, wanting to see his love flourish, wanting to see him freed from the shackles he drags with him, from childhood to Jedi to Vader. The crush of the standards of society and expectation on him may speak to many. He is never liberated (until his final moments of free breath). His choices are either taken or horrifically tainted. His voice is drowned out by those more powerful around him. His talents and intelligence go largely unrecognized. His good, expansive heart is treated like a hindrance. The depth of his empathy and love is underestimated - and that, in the end, is important, because that underestimation, ending with Palpatine, becomes the Dark Side’s ultimate downfall and undoing. Vader may literally pick up an electric Palpatine and throw him down a reactor shaft, but that physical action is the final answer to a much more complete emotional and spiritual journey. He throws him down and the chains go with the slave master, and for the first time, certainly since before he lost Padme, his heart is unfettered, his love is reciprocated, and he is offered a true voice, a moment of his true self, a sliver of forgiveness, before being embraced again by the transcendence of the light. It is his act of rebellion, it is his own personal revolution, his final blow in the war. The entirety of the arc hinges upon him in that moment, Luke has been valorous and immeasurably valuable, but he’s done all he can do - the final choice is Anakin’s (and it’s such an interesting case because where else have we ever been able to fear and appreciate a villain, and then totally transform and re-contextualize him?). He is in that moment, indeed, the Chosen One.

All these facets are fascinating to watch unfold if you’re willing to be open-minded and heartfelt and sympathetic to the journey, if you’re willing to dig into the complex depth of his pathos.

I remember seeing AOTC as a teenager, and my love was Padme, she was where I was invested, I identified with her, I loved her kindness and her bravery and her sense of honor and justice, I loved that her femininity did not in any way diminish her and was an asset, I loved that, while she takes charge and has the fortitude to rush headlong to the rescue, while she can fight and tote a gun and blast a droid army as well as anyone, her superpowers are her intellect and her giving heart and gentle spirit. I totally get why Anakin holds onto the thread of hope she gives to him for all of those years, and why he falls in love with her as he does, but since I felt a lot of the story through her eyes, I understood why she was drawn to and fell in love with him, too. He’s dynamic and a bit reckless, he’s courageous, but he’s vulnerable and needs support, he’s deeply troubled but also radiantly ebullient at times (the scene in the meadow where she’s so touched by the carefree joy he exhibits, how it delights her and takes her aback, because she’s almost forgotten what it is to feel that, she’s almost forgotten other people could, and here he is, warm and teasing and spirited), he is often guileless, especially with her, he’s fervent and loving in a way she’s never seen or experienced, and that love is given with abandon to her. Who…wouldn’t fall in love with that? It’s a gravitational pull. AOTC impacted me in certain other personal ways as well, I was trying to understand some nascent hollows of grief (Anakin losing his mother as he does was very affecting and heartwrenching for me, at the time I’d lost my grandfather to whom I was quite close, and I’m also really close to my own mom, so his woe had an echo to me), but that vision that I specifically had of their love, the way I interpreted it (which I may not have had words for at the time, but I certainly had the emotional response) was a dear and formative thing.

I talked about this here, but to rephrase/reiterate, by the time ROTS came out, my life had shifted completely on its axis. I was still young, but my much dreamier teenage self was being beaten down and consumed by illness, and I was angry. Anger is not a natural emotion for me (guilt and self-blame tend to be where I bury anger), and I really didn’t know what to do with it. Everything felt unfair and uncertain, like there was no ground at all to stand on. I hurt all the time, literally and figuratively, I was in constant pain. I was lonely and frightened and sleep deprived and often had nightmares (this is still kind of true lol, as is the physical pain part). Padme was still my heart and touchstone - as she remains so to this day in this story - but suddenly I understood Anakin in a much more profound way, one I’ve held onto because he’s important to me and I love him. I felt his rage, his anguish, his desire to do something, anything, to somehow change or influence the situation, to rectify his nightmares, to cling to whatever might make a difference, might save him from being drowned in the dark and from losing everything that made him who he was as a person. Seeing him try and knowing he would fail was devastating, but also…relatable, in an abstract way (obviously not the violent parts, but thematically, I felt some measure of what it was to scramble up a foundation that is disappearing beneath you, that your expectations and dreams of what your life would be can vanish in disintegrating increments). All I wanted was for someone to help rescue him, because all I wanted was for someone to help rescue me. All I wanted was the hope that things could turn around - and there is hope in ROTS, despite the unending terror and tragedy, it’s never entirely gone, because Star Wars exists as a universe with the blazing stars of hope and love ever ignited at its center - but still, it was a very personally rooted emotional exploration for me, and I only started to deal with my own floundering anger when I saw how it might consume the true and loving and softer parts of me if I didn’t hold it back. (A few years later, I went through this again in an even worse way, and the source of that rage and despair was someone I cared for, and once I got through the worst bleak ugliness of it, there were a couple of stories I returned to in an attempt to gain newfound solace and comprehension, and Anakin and Padme were in there. My compassionate, hopeful heart was being torn by that fury, and I clawed my way back up from the brink of it because I knew I could die, not even necessarily figuratively, it was…a bad time, if I didn’t find my way out. Anakin’s story is a tragedy and a fable and a kind of warning - we should not deny or suppress our emotions or our authenticity, but we also cannot let it destroy us - and then ultimately his lesson is restorative, too, that we never lose the essential part of our souls, that we must allow ourselves to feel. Balance indeed).

As consistent and transparent as my love for Padme has always been, my Anakin emotions are actually so close and personal that I intentionally avoided ever exposing them for actual years, it’s like…basically in the past month that I’ve ever been truly honest about it on Tumblr, because exposing that felt like too much, but I don’t really care about keeping it quiet any more, and that’s very cathartic.

I myself am an incredibly emotional person, and I don’t believe that Anakin’s emotions are negative qualities, which I meant to underscore. In fact, his open emotions are an exquisite part of him, and it’s the Jedi who are wrong for trying to stamp that out, when his emotional abilities are part of what define him in his inherent goodness and his intellect and strength. He has an undying heart. For he and Luke both to stand as male heroes who represent such depth of feeling is really special, and vital to the story. Anakin is the most acutely human character in many respects, in his foibles and his inner strengths, in his losses and his longings and his ultimate return to his true self - that’s why we feel for him, that’s why we ache and fear for him, that’s why we rejoice for him in the end.

Other people could speak to the Vader part of it much better than I can, Vader’s an amazing and very interesting villain (the fact that, as Vader, Anakin is much more adhered to the Jedi code and way of thinking than he ever was as an actual Jedi, for example - he has an order to him, he is much more dispassionate, he is very adamant about the power of the Force - is endlessly intriguing, because he’s such a contradiction). I use this term for a different character, but I’m going to apply it here - Anakin is a poem of opposites. He is a center that can serve as either sun or black hole. He is a manifestation of love and light and heroism, he is a figure of imposing power and cold rage. He’s the meadow and the volcano. The question then becomes, how expansive are we? When we’re filled with the contradicting aspects of ourselves, how do we make them whole without falling apart? When we do fail, can we ever do anything to fix it? And the answers again will vary by individual, but to my mind - we’re infinite, and thus infinitely capable of, at any point, embracing our light, even if we’ve forgotten to have faith in it, and while we may not be able to fix every mistake or right every wrong, we can make a better choice and alter the path. The smallest of our actions can ripple and extend and are more incandescent than we know. That’s what he does, against all expectation. In the end, he is an archetype not only of a hero (be that fallen or chosen or divine), but of a wayward traveler come home, a heart rekindled, a soul set free to emerge victorious in the transcendent light.

In the final resonance of that story for me personally, I love him for being a representation of that journey, that no matter how long it takes to get there, how arduous it is - that things we lose can be found again, that with the decided act of compassion, pure, redemptive love can be held onto, that the light persists and that, even when it flickers most dimly, refuses to be extinguished, and can at any point illuminate not only ourselves, but can shine brightly enough to match the stars in the universe.

I hope this is at all cogent, here’s a gif for your patience ♥

#anakin skywalker #darth vader #sw meta #star wars #okay to reblog #(of course! <3)#this is so long i'm so sorry for anyone who's now seen it twice but i didn't want to ignore the very sweet message i got #(which i am honored by thank you for even asking and caring and being patient enough to read this spiel omg)#i tweaked some of the wording for clarity (i changed it in the original too) but otherwise it's basically the same #bubble wrap around my heart #*#encouraged to love #anyway i love him #and i love luke so much and that's a vital component here #luke's faith and kindness and important heroism exists for a reason #luke sees the truth and the good and he doesn't let it go and his spirit does not waver and is brightly right in the end #don't you dare try to tell me anakin wasn't always fundamentally good in the truest and most luminous parts of his heart #to do so is to not only undermine anakin but to invalidate luke and padme and i won't stand for that #i could write one of these for luke but i think he's getting really good defense from sharper minds than mine in many cases #i could write one of these for padme but she's also been getting quality recognition lately #so as far as any defense goes this is the best my exhausted little brain can do and i hope it does justice to the story in some small way #i'm so ill and out of it that i have no idea if this makes sense even after copy/pasting it and fixing it up but itried.jpg #long post for ts

246 notes · View notes

someonefuckinglovedme · 3 years

Text

What is Lorem Ipsum?

Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book. It has survived not only five centuries, but also the leap into electronic typesetting, remaining essentially unchanged. It was popularised in the 1960s with the release of Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum passages, and more recently with desktop publishing software like Aldus PageMaker including versions of Lorem Ipsum.

Why do we use it?

It is a long established fact that a reader will be distracted by the readable content of a page when looking at its layout. The point of using Lorem Ipsum is that it has a more-or-less normal distribution of letters, as opposed to using 'Content here, content here', making it look like readable English. Many desktop publishing packages and web page editors now use Lorem Ipsum as their default model text, and a search for 'lorem ipsum' will uncover many web sites still in their infancy. Various versions have evolved over the years, sometimes by accident, sometimes on purpose (injected humour and the like).

Where does it come from?

Contrary to popular belief, Lorem Ipsum is not simply random text. It has roots in a piece of classical Latin literature from 45 BC, making it over 2000 years old. Richard McClintock, a Latin professor at Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia, looked up one of the more obscure Latin words, consectetur, from a Lorem Ipsum passage, and going through the cites of the word in classical literature, discovered the undoubtable source. Lorem Ipsum comes from sections 1.10.32 and 1.10.33 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum" (The Extremes of Good and Evil) by Cicero, written in 45 BC. This book is a treatise on the theory of ethics, very popular during the Renaissance. The first line of Lorem Ipsum, "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet..", comes from a line in section 1.10.32.

The standard chunk of Lorem Ipsum used since the 1500s is reproduced below for those interested. Sections 1.10.32 and 1.10.33 from "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum" by Cicero are also reproduced in their exact original form, accompanied by English versions from the 1914 translation by H. Rackham.

Where can I get some?

There are many variations of passages of Lorem Ipsum available, but the majority have suffered alteration in some form, by injected humour, or randomised words which don't look even slightly believable. If you are going to use a passage of Lorem Ipsum, you need to be sure there isn't anything embarrassing hidden in the middle of text. All the Lorem Ipsum generators on the Internet tend to repeat predefined chunks as necessary, making this the first true generator on the Internet. It uses a dictionary of over 200 Latin words, combined with a handful of model sentence structures, to generate Lorem Ipsum which looks reasonable. The generated Lorem Ipsum is therefore always free from repetition, injected humour, or non-characteristic words etc.

paragraphs

words

bytes

lists

Start with 'Lorem

ipsum dolor sit amet...'

Translations: Can you help translate this site into a foreign language ? Please email us with details if you can help.

There are now a set of mock banners available

here

in three colours and in a range of standard banner sizes:

Donate: If you use this site regularly and would like to help keep the site on the Internet, please consider donating a small sum to help pay for the hosting and bandwidth bill. There is no minimum donation, any sum is appreciated - click

here

to donate using PayPal. Thank you for your support.Donate Bitcoin: 16UQLq1HZ3CNwhvgrarV6pMoA2CDjb4tyF

NodeJS

Python Interface

GTK Lipsum

Rails

.NET

Groovy

The standard Lorem Ipsum passage, used since the 1500s

"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum."

Section 1.10.32 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum", written by Cicero in 45 BC

"Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt. Neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Ut enim ad minima veniam, quis nostrum exercitationem ullam corporis suscipit laboriosam, nisi ut aliquid ex ea commodi consequatur? Quis autem vel eum iure reprehenderit qui in ea voluptate velit esse quam nihil molestiae consequatur, vel illum qui dolorem eum fugiat quo voluptas nulla pariatur?"

1914 translation by H. Rackham

"But I must explain to you how all this mistaken idea of denouncing pleasure and praising pain was born and I will give you a complete account of the system, and expound the actual teachings of the great explorer of the truth, the master-builder of human happiness. No one rejects, dislikes, or avoids pleasure itself, because it is pleasure, but because those who do not know how to pursue pleasure rationally encounter consequences that are extremely painful. Nor again is there anyone who loves or pursues or desires to obtain pain of itself, because it is pain, but because occasionally circumstances occur in which toil and pain can procure him some great pleasure. To take a trivial example, which of us ever undertakes laborious physical exercise, except to obtain some advantage from it? But who has any right to find fault with a man who chooses to enjoy a pleasure that has no annoying consequences, or one who avoids a pain that produces no resultant pleasure?"

Section 1.10.33 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum", written by Cicero in 45 BC

"At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Temporibus autem quibusdam et aut officiis debitis aut rerum necessitatibus saepe eveniet ut et voluptates repudiandae sint et molestiae non recusandae. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat."

1914 translation by H. Rackham

"On the other hand, we denounce with righteous indignation and dislike men who are so beguiled and demoralized by the charms of pleasure of the moment, so blinded by desire, that they cannot foresee the pain and trouble that are bound to ensue; and equal blame belongs to those who fail in their duty through weakness of will, which is the same as saying through shrinking from toil and pain. These cases are perfectly simple and easy to distinguish. In a free hour, when our power of choice is untrammelled and when nothing prevents our being able to do what we like best, every pleasure is to be welcomed and every pain avoided. But in certain circumstances and owing to the claims of duty or the obligations of business it will frequently occur that pleasures have to be repudiated and annoyances accepted. The wise man therefore always holds in these matters to this principle of selection: he rejects pleasures to secure other greater pleasures, or else he endures pains to avoid worse pains."

[email protected]

Privacy Polic

#♛- parchment and ink #♛ - text

0 notes

d33-alex · 6 years

Text

Jordan Peterson and Conservatism's Rebirth

The psychologist and YouTube star has brought the concepts of order and tradition back to our intellectual discourse.

Jordan Peterson doesn’t seem to think of himself as a conservative. Yet there he is, standing in the space once inhabited by conservative thinkers such as G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley Jr. and Irving Kristol. Addressing a public that seems incapable of discussing anything but freedom, Mr. Peterson presents himself unmistakably as a philosophical advocate of order. His bestselling book, “12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos,” makes sense of ideas like the “hierarchy of place, position and authority,” as well as people’s most basic attachments to “tribe, religion, hearth, home and country” and “the flag of the nation.” The startling success of his elevated arguments for the importance of order has made him the most significant conservative thinker to appear in the English-speaking world in a generation.

Mr. Peterson, 56, is a University of Toronto professor and a clinical psychologist. Over the past two years he has rocketed to fame, especially online and in contentious TV interviews. To his detractors, he might as well be Donald Trump. He has been criticized for the supposed banality of his theories, for his rambling and provocative rhetoric, and for his association with online self-help products. He has suffered, too, the familiar accusations of sexism and racism.

From what I have seen, these charges are baseless. But even if Mr. Peterson is imperfect, that shouldn’t distract from the important argument he has advanced—or from its implications for a possible revival in conservative thought. The place to begin, as his publishing house will no doubt be pleased to hear, is with “12 Rules for Life,” which is a worthy and worthwhile introduction to his philosophy.

Departing from the prevailing Marxist and liberal doctrines, Mr. Peterson relentlessly maintains that the hierarchical structure of society is hard-wired into human nature and therefore inevitable: “The dominance hierarchy, however social or cultural it might appear, has been around for some half a billion years. It’s permanent.” Moreover, young men and women (but especially men) tend to be healthy and productive only when they have found their place working their way up a hierarchy they respect. When they fail to do so, they become rudderless and sick, worthless to those around them, sometimes aimlessly violent.

In viewing political and social hierarchies as inevitable, Mr. Peterson may seem to be defending whoever happens to be powerful. But he’s doing nothing of the kind. He rejects the Marxist claim that traditional hierarchies are only about the self-interested pursuit of power. Human beings like having power, Mr. Peterson acknowledges. Yet the desire for it also drives them to develop the kinds of abilities their societies value. In a well-ordered society, high status often is a reward conferred for doing things that actually need to be done and done well: defending the state, producing things people need, enlarging the sphere of knowledge.

Mr. Peterson does not deny the Marxist charge that society oppresses individuals. “Culture is an oppressive structure,” he writes. “It’s always been that way. It’s a fundamental, universal existential reality.” But he breaks with prevailing political thought when he argues that the suffering involved in conforming to tradition may be worth it. When a father disciplines his son, he interferes with the boy’s freedom, painfully forcing him into accepted patterns of behavior and thought. “But if the father does not take such action,” Mr. Peterson says, “he merely lets his son remain Peter Pan, the eternal Boy, King of the Lost Boys, Ruler of the non-existent Neverland.”

Similarly, Mr. Peterson insists it is “necessary and desirable for religions to have a dogmatic element.” This provides a stable worldview that allows a young person to become “a properly disciplined person” and “a well-forged tool.”

Yet this is not, for Mr. Peterson, the highest human aspiration. It is merely the first necessary step along a path toward maturity, toward an ever more refined uniqueness and individuality. The individuality he describes emerges over decades from an original personality forged through painful discipline. The alternative, he writes, is to remain “an adult two-year old” who goes to pieces in the face of any adversity and for whom “softness and harmlessness become the only consciously acceptable virtues.”

Like other conservative thinkers before him, Mr. Peterson’s interest in tradition flows from an appreciation of the weakness of the individual’s capacity for reason. We all think we understand a great deal, he tells his readers, but this is an illusion. What we perceive instead is a “radical, functional, unconscious simplification of the world—and it’s almost impossible for us not to mistake it for the world itself.”

Given the unreliability of our own thinking, Mr. Peterson recommends beginning with tried and tested ideas: “It is reasonable to do what other people have always done, unless we have a very good reason not to.” Maturity demands that we set out to “rediscover the values of our culture—veiled from us by our ignorance, hidden in the dusty treasure-trove of the past—rescue them, and integrate them into our own lives.”

In Western countries, that effort at rediscovery leads to one place. “The Bible,” Mr. Peterson writes, “is, for better or worse, the foundational document of Western civilization.” It is the ultimate source of our understanding of good and evil. Its appearance uprooted the ancient view that the powerful had the right simply to take ownership of the weak, a change that was “nothing short of a miracle.” The Bible challenged, and eventually defeated, a world in which the murder of human beings for entertainment, infanticide, slavery and prostitution were simply the way things had to be.

As many readers have pointed out, Nietzsche’s critique of Enlightenment philosophy—he once called Kant “that catastrophic spider”—is everywhere in Mr. Peterson’s thought, even in his writing style. It is felt in his calls to “step forward to take your place in the dominance hierarchy,” and to “dare to be dangerous.” It is felt in risqué pronouncements such as this: “Men have to toughen up. Men demand it, and women want it.”

A famous passage from Nietzsche describes the destruction of the belief in God as the greatest cataclysm mankind has ever faced: “What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing?”

Mr. Peterson chronicles the misery of individuals now drifting through this “infinite nothing.” But he rejects Nietzsche’s atheism, along with the conclusion that we can make our own values. In telling readers to return to the Bible, Mr. Peterson seeks to rechain the earth to its sun. That seems impossible. Yet a vast audience has demonstrated a willingness, at least, to try.

For Mr. Peterson, the death of God was followed inevitably by a quick descent into hell. During the “terrible twentieth century,” as he calls it, “we discovered something worse, much worse, than the aristocracy and corrupt religious beliefs that communism and fascism sought so rationally to supplant.” The Holocaust and the gulag, he argues, are sufficient to define evil for us, and “the good is whatever stops such things from happening.”

That is perfectly good Old Testament-style reasoning. Mr. Peterson adds Christian tropes such as the need for an “act of faith,” an “irrational commitment to the essential goodness” of things, a recognition that although “life is suffering,” sacrificing ourselves, as if on the cross, is pleasing to God.

Mr. Peterson’s intellectual framework has its weaknesses. He invokes recent social science (and its jargon) with a confidence that is at times naive. His often brilliant “12 Rules for Life” is littered with Heideggerian rubbish about “the betterment of Being,” in places where a thinker of Mr. Peterson’s abilities should have seen the need for a more disciplined effort to understand God. He lacks Nietzsche’s alertness to the ways in which the great religious traditions contradict one another, leading their adherents toward very different lives. Thus while Mr. Peterson is quite a good reader of the Bible, it is at times maddening to watch him import alien ideas into scripture—for instance, that the chaos preceding the creation was “female”—so as to fill out a supposed archetypal symmetry.

Nonetheless, what Mr. Peterson has achieved is impressive. In his writings and public appearances, he has made a formidable case that order—and not just freedom—is a fundamental human need, one now foolishly neglected. He is compelling in arguing that the order today’s deconstructed society so desperately lacks can be reintroduced, even now, through a renewed engagement with the Bible and inherited religious tradition.

Before Mr. Peterson, there was no solid evidence that a broad public would ever again be interested in an argument for political order. For more than a generation, Western political discourse has been roughly divided into two camps. Marxists are sharply aware of the status hierarchies that make up society, but they are ideologically committed to overthrowing them. Liberals (both the progressive and classical varieties) tend to be altogether oblivious to the hierarchical and tribal character of political life. They know they’re supposed to praise “civil society,” but the Enlightenment concepts they use to think about the individual and the state prevent them from recognizing the basic structures of the political order, what purposes they serve, and how they must be maintained.

In short, modern political discourse is noteworthy for the gaping hollow where there ought to be conservatives—institutions and public figures with something important to teach about political order and how to build it up for everyone’s benefit. Into this opening Mr. Peterson has ventured.

Perhaps without fully intending to do so, he has given the dynamic duo of Marxism and liberalism a hard shove, while shining a light on the devastation these utopian theories are wreaking in Western countries. He has demarcated a large area in which only conservative political and social thought can help. His efforts have provided reason to believe that a significant demand for conservative ideas still lives under the frozen wastes of our intellectual landscape.

If so, then Mr. Peterson’s appearance may be the harbinger of a broader rebirth. His book is a natural complement to important recent works such as Ryszard Legutko’s “The Demon in Democracy,” Patrick Deneen’s “Why Liberalism Failed” and Amy Chua’s “Political Tribes.” Representing divergent political perspectives, these works nevertheless share Mr. Peterson’s project of getting past the Marxist and liberal frameworks and confronting our trained incapacity to see human beings and human societies for what they really are. As the long-awaited revival of conservative political thought finally gets under way, there may be much more of this to come.

by Yoram Hazony, The Wall Street Journal, June 15, 2018 www.wsj.com/articles/jordan-peterson-and-conservatisms-rebirth-1529101961

Mr. Hazony is author of “The Virtue of Nationalism,” forthcoming Sept. 4.

#psychology #philosophy #conservatism

2 notes · View notes