#peah's works <3 | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

carlottastudios · 5 years

Photo

Do you guys remember a long long long ass time ago when I made posts about an original series idea of mine called Dawnlyte? Well, Dawnlyte is not the only original series I'm planning. This one, oh boy, this one is one I'm been INTENSELY planning and putting thought and work into for the past few months. Like Dawnlyte, this is an idea that's been in my mind for years now (not as many as Dawnlyte, but still quite a few), and now I finally feel ready to post something about it. Peoples, I present you my first ever post about Fabler! Unlike Dawnlyte, which is high fantasy like Lord of the Rings or The Dragon Prince, Fabler is an urban fantasy series like Harry Potter, Dresden Files and Spiderwick Chronicles. This series in particular is very much inspired by Harry Potter, but with way less of a focus on school and way more focus on how fun magic can be. Also, whereas Harry Potter has plenty of witches and wizards, Fabler follows a logic much more akin to The Wizard of Oz, because there are plenty of witches and, so far, only 1 wizard. Also, there's quite a bit of mythology showing up in Fabler as well, particularly a certain character whom I've been wanting to write in a sympathetic light for ages now and now I finally can! That's all I'll say for now here, but if you guys have any and all questions about the series, feel free to ask them and I'll try to answer without giving away too many spoilers. Also, I'll try to post more Fabler content in the future that can answer some of those questions (or create more questions). But now getting to these particular posts. Very recently, I've finally been able to establish the very basic plot for the main story of Fabler and, thus, I was able to determine all of the characters who'll come into play. At least, all of the characters who have enough of a role to merit a name. And when I finally got my list of named characters, I decided to do something Ive been longing to do since I discovered @thenamelessdoll's crossover To Belong series: make my own Non/Disney Crossover cast for my own story. And so that's what I did here! I got my whole list of named Fabler characters and, after much searching and deliberating, decided on which 2D animated Disney or very-similar-to-Disney character would "play" as them if I were ever to make a Non/Disney Crossover series of videos for Fabler (which I will tell you now I will probably never do as I don't have the right programs for making Non/Disney Crossover edits, not to mention my talents lie more in writing and drawing, not video editing). And now, I think I might as well explain some of the reasons for my casting choices! Why? Because I can and because I am SOOO excited to finally be talking about Fabler!

Kayley as Tarina: This was the first ever casting choice and it was one I've had right from the beginning, pretty much since I came up with Tarina. Tarina is the main character and I kinda based her on Kayley in a few ways. And not just her appearance, I swear. Because yes, Tarina is supposed to look like Kayley in terms of character design. Also, Kayley was one of my favourite characters ever growing up and I believe she deserves more attention. So I'm putting her in the spotlight here by having her play the role of my main girl Tarina! Kida as Kat: Kat was more challenging to cast. I was thinking of having her played by Audrey, since both are pretty tough girls. But Kat's not super rough the way Audrey comes off as being. So I wanted someone a bit more gentle and easily approachable. Oddly, the badass warrior princess who can wield spears and knives kinda fits that more. Also, Kat isn't actually a total tomboy and I felt casting Audrey as her would give off that impression. Also, both Kida and Kat have names that start with K and both of them are lovely ladies with long white hair. So that lines up! Belle as Celeste: Celeste is kind of the opposite of Kat in that you might think at first that she's a total girly girl, but she's not, and the wrong cast choice would've given off that impression. Yes, Celeste is very feminine and beautiful and refined and classy, like Belle. She's also very mature like Belle. Also, she tends to be one of the more responsible people in a group of friends, similar to Hermoine (whose actress also played as Belle in the Live Action Disney version there's another connection). Basically, Belle was my dream choice as the casting choice for Celeste! Mulan as Neva: Mulan was actually my very first choice for Neva, because their stories are actually really similar. Unlike the three previous girls, Neva is not a witch, so when she arrives into the story, she's a complete noob and she's going to need some help before she becomes a badass. Mulan's been there and done that! Also, I just love Mulan as a character and really wanted to include her in my lineup. She also resembles Neva in part because Neva is one of the few girls to have sleek short hair. Also, Mulan's fun personality matches well with my happy darling Neva. Eilonwy as Peah: Peah is one of the younger characters in the story, just as Eilonwy is one of the younger female Disney heroes. Aside from that, both of them have this sort of determined and kind of commanding air to them that only brave little girls can exhibit in their particular style. Both are young, but they're not to be messed with. Also, they're both not really the sort to stand aside while the action is going on. Peah is young, yes, but she's more capable than others expect, and I feel that Eilonwy has the right vibe for that. Jasmine as Ashley: Now this is the tomboy of the group! And I'm having Jasmine play as her instead of someone like Audrey. Why? Well, Jasmine's just way more fiery in my eyes. And "fiery" is what Ashley is. In more ways than one. Also, Jasmine used to be my favourite Disney princess and I still really love her, so I wanted to give her a nice role in my cast. Strangely though, Jasmine and Ashley have very different backstories. Jasmine is a princess while as Ashley is one of the furthest people from princess status as you can get. It's ironic, but oddly, I find it weirdly works. Crysta as Thistlemoth: Now, I haven't actually seen the movie where Crysta is from, but I've seen her in Non/Disney Crossover videos quite a few times. And her design of being a fairy or pixie or whatever is so perfectly similar to Thistlemoth (who is indeed a pixie) that denying this casting choice would've been sheer madness. Of course, by that logic, I probably could've gone with Tinkerbell too, but Tinkerbell's personality is VERY different from sweet, crazy Thistlemoth. Plus, Crysta's more "wild" looks are more in line with what Thistlemoth looks like. Sarah as Bianca: Like with Crysta as Thistlemoth, I haven't seen the movie where Sarah is from. I've only seen Sarah in Non/Disney Crossover videos. In all honesty, I don't have super-good reason for this choice of casting aside from looks. Sarah does look similar to what I want Bianca to look like. Only with a snake tail instead of legs. Yup. That's right. Bianca is a naga. I have nagas in my story. Also, another reason I admit I chose Sarah is because, from the Non/Disney videos I've seen her in, some of her mannerisms are kind of in line with Bianca too. Meg as Lilith: Yes, you read that name right. I have Lilith, the actual first woman and Adam's first wife, in my story. No, she is not the character I've been wanting to write for ages. Anyway, about the casting, Meg's mannerisms and personality are really in line with my version of Lilith. Lilith even has a pretty sad backstory that's sort of similar to Meg's. I won't explain it here because that is spoiler territory. Their looks are rather different though. Lilith's more similar to Jasmine, who was actually cast as Lilith before I realized Meg was a much better fit. Cinderella as Ericaine: You've probably noticed that this is a bit of a last-minute change. At first, Ariel was in the role of Ericaine, much to my reluctance. But, honestly, her personality and looks and mannerisms are really different from Ericaine. So why had I initially considered her? Because I had previously cast Cinderella as someone else. But now, I'm using Cinderella because her looks match up very well with Ericaine, as do her actions, and I like putting her in the spotlight more than Ariel! Ericaine isn't nearly as sweet as Cindy, though. She's more...temperamental. Ariel as Eir: You've probably guessed that I'm not the biggest Ariel fan. I'm not. And I confess I fought tooth and nail to not have to include her in my cast. But, in the end, ya gotta do what you gotta do. At least now, as Eir, she's in a much more suitable role. Eir is funloving and adventurous, much like Ariel, so that lines up great for me to use Ariel as her. There's also a bit of a connection when it comes to a male character that I might explain later, or maybe not. Feel free to ask me about it though. Melody as Raven: I was originally going to have Shanti as Raven, but, seriously, Melody and her story and personality just line up SO MUCH BETTER! If I explain it here, it's going to be spoilers-a-plenty, but I'll just say that when you think about it, it's seriously perfect. Raven is different looks-wise (I'm actually thinking that she's blond instead of...well, raven-haired), but Melody's just got the right attitude and actions for her. As you might've guessed, Raven is another pretty young character. I think she's actually even younger than Peah, but I'll have to check my notes again. Jim as Lucifer: YES! This is the character I've been wanting to write for so long!!! Because the devil has been treated as little more than a scapegoat for millennia and I want to write a story where he's actually a nice, sympathetic guy. Yes, I know the show Lucifer is already doing that, but I want to do it my own way. And Jim was always my first casting choice. Because 1) I'm a huge JimxKayley shipper, 2) Jim was one of my heroes growing up, and 3) the angst-ball teenager who grows into a capable young man is exactly what I need for my version of the devil! Aladdin as Rory: This was one of the easiest cast choices ever. Not because Rory is a street urchin who ends up finding a genie, but because Rory is a sweet fluffy supposed-orphan boy who is a beam of sunshine, yet still has his serious and deep sides. Fits with Aladdin's emotional state in his movies, don't you think? Also, Aladdin looks similar to how I envision Rory. He's admittedly older than what Rory's supposed to be (Rory's supposed to be slightly younger than Tarina), but aside from that, it's a pretty great match! Like I said, Aladdin was my first choice. Milo as Chayce: Chayce is sooooo much grumpier and sassier than Milo, but he is just as awkward and smart. Yes, he's the nerd of the group and I adore him. I mean, I love all my characters, including my grumpy white-lion boy. Yes, I said white lion boy. Chayce is a sphinx, which is a species I'm particularly proud of. As a result, he is way way fluffier than Milo, physically. Milo's way fluffier personality-wise. Milo is the adorkable kind of nerd, while as Chayce is the more smartass kind of nerd. But it's still the best fit I could find for my cast. Taran as Andrew: I feel that Taran doesn't get enough attention, so I'm going to give it to him! Andrew is a character who keeps popping up in Fabler and the more he does, the more I've grown to love him. He actually used to be quite different than what he is now, and I honestly have no clue who I would've used as his non/Disney counterpart had I not changed his character. Now though, Taran's a surprisingly nice fit for my misguided baby Andrew. They both desperately want renown and both suffer from their efforts. Also, they're both young lads with floofy hair! Shang as Mato: Nothing I say will convince you that Shang playing Mato who (spoiler alert) will get with Neva who is being played by Mulan was a happy accident, will it? Because I swear it was! Shang just fits Mato's role nicely! Granted, Mato is not a captain of his group, but he is an experienced member of a fighting organization in Fabler, the warlocks if you must know (feel free to ask me about them), and he does help train Neva as well as protect people like the witches and especially Apus (woops, another spoiler). As for looks...um...I'll have to get back to you on that. Garrett as Liam: This was a surprisingly tough cast choice to make. Despite the number of "prince charming" figures in Disney to choose from, none of them are actually fitting in my opinion for the "prince charming" like character. Because Liam IS based on prince charming! From Cinderella specifically! And yet Cindy's prince Charming was NOT A GOOD FIT! It makes me laugh, it hurts so much! So, why did I go for Garrett? 1) he and his movie don't get enough attention, 2) his looks are a decent fit and 3) his serious nature and the fact that he's a legit warrior fits Liam well. Miguel as Edmund: This was another super-easy cast choice to make. Miguel's features loosely match some of Edmund's, particularly the blond hair. However, it's mostly Miguel's demeanor and mannerisms and energy that fit Edmund to a T. Edmund is just so playful and flamboyant and also a little goofy. All of which describe Miguel, I find. Miguel is also pretty flirty at times throughout his movie. So he's actually more restrained than Edmund, whom I affectionately call the slut or the thot of my cast. Because he totally is! And I love him for it! Prince Phillip as Darius Ray: I did NOT want to cast one of my favourite ever princes as this asshole. Because make no mistake, Darius Ray is an asshole, one who borders on sociopathy. Pretty much the opposite of Phillip, who is a genuinely awesome guy! So why did I make this cast choice?! Well, it was better than the first one I did, as you! Darius used to be played by Peter Pan, but I just COULD NOT follow through with that! Peter is just so precious and he's way too young to play Darius. Phillip has the age going for him, plus some of Phillip's playfulness and body type. Kenai as Apus: This is another looks-based casting choice. I haven't seen Brother Bear in a really long time, but I remember that Kenai's more rash personality is way different than calm and gentle Apus. But Kenai is a very fluffy-looking boy (and I'm not just talking about when he's a bear) and that fluffy is one of Apus's main physical traits. Fitting, since Apus is a yeti. Yes, yetis are a sentient species and they are more humanoid-looking than how they're traditionally depicted. Also, Kenai is mostly not human in his movie, which fits because Apus is a more minor character. Tulio as Mephistopheles: These two have looks that differ quite a bit, but I still wanted Tulio, from the get-go, to be Mephistopheles' Non/Disney counterpart. Because I've seen Tulio depicted as a villain in a few Non/Disney projects at this point and I want to counter that. Because I love Tulio! He's so funny! And Mephistopheles is a funny guy. Admittedly, he's still more cool-headed than Tulio, but he's a huge dork and I love him. Also, a few of Tulio's incredibly funny mannerisms fit well with Meph, particular in his interactions with Lucifer, who is, of course, his boss. Cale as Gabriel: Now isn't this an ironic choice? Cale is a cynical and rebellious character while as the angel Gabriel, in my story, is a stickler to the rules. But he is very jaded when it comes to his "little brother" Lucifer. And Cale, to me, kinda looks like he could be Jim's older brother with whom he doesn't get along. Kinda. But also, Cale has had moments in his movie where he's being more agressive and angry, and that certainly fits how Gabriel acts around Lucifer for most of the story. Also I just like Titan AE, okay? Hercules as Conor: Is it ironic that I'm having Hercules play a character who is a centaur? Because Conor is a centaur and Hercules fought a centaur in his movie? No? Not ironic? Okay. Still, I just thought it was interesting to point out. Another thing to point out is that Hercules has the perfect jock vibe to fit with Conor, who is such a golden boy it's impossible not to roll your eyes at him at least once. But he's not all ego. Conor's actually a nice guy and a good friend, much like how Hercules is a very good boy. Helga as Thelen: Have you ever been in a situation where the perfect cast choice just gift-wraps itself for you? Because that was the case with this choice! I'm just surprised that I didn't think of Helga immediately when I came up with Thelen's character! Their looks match up very well. The only remarkable difference is that Thelen is younger than Helga, or at least she seems younger. But aside from that, their features match great, their intimidating and domineering personalities are a great fit and especially the fact that both are very competent fighters! Odette as Diantha: Odette was my first cast choice for Diantha, but I almost didn't go with her for fear that I might need to use Odette for another role. But luckily, I didn't have to compromise that perfect cast choice! Okay, granted, there's still some differences between these two ladies. Odette, in her movie, has some moments where she's angry, but Diantha is much more so. She's rather strict in a motherly way, but she's also very regal and queen-like, at least it's how I always imagine her. And Odette often has that kind of regal dignity, I find. Sarah as Hiverein: This was honestly a casting choice I hadn't expected to make. Hiverein, in terms of looks, is rather different from Sarah Hawkins. While as Sarah is a normal human woman and looks it, Hiverein is the queen of the fairies, and in looks, she lives up to that. But there is nonetheless a connection in their characters. Both of these ladies are loving mothers, Sarah to Jim and Hiverein to her son Royse. Hiverein is also a queen who isn't afraid to be hands-on when it comes to taking care of her people, which reminds me of Sarah running her inn. Tiana as Greylyn: Personality-wise, Greylyn and Tiana have similarities. Both are extremely hard-working and dedicated to their goals, though these goals are very different. Tiana has personal ambitions of wanting a restaurant while as Greylyn is trying to lead and nurture her coven as well as she possibly can. Yet both women are good at putting a smile on their faces for the people watching them work. They also both deal in food a lot. Their looks are fairly similar as well, though how similar, I'm not sure yet, because I haven't finalized Greylyn's design yet. Asenath as Lillah: Even though she doesn't play a huge role in her movie, Asenath was actually one of my favourite characters as a child, so I was eager to find a place for her in my cast. And I think Lillah is a great fit. Lillah is a very calm character who tends to have a soothing presence whenever she arrives in a scene (kind of funny, given she's a ghost). Asenath, to me, was always very calming, which is partly why I liked her as a kid. Asenath was also a voice of reason in her movie and Lillah definitely acts as that in Fabler. Empress Marie as Norn: Goodness gracious has Norn's cast choice changed! I used to have her played by Tzipporah, but that would be pretty innacurate because of Norn's age. Norn is in her early 60s during the story of Fabler, while as Tzipporah is way younger, despite the fact that she looks similar to Norn. I went with empress Marie instead in hopes of that she would reflect the age a bit better, although I think Marie is older than early 60s. But there are some things Marie has going for her that still liken her to Norn: her grandmotherly kindness and regal presence. Madame Adelaide as Leira: Very similarly to Norn, Leira is in her late 50s-early 60s during Fabler, but my first cast choice for her really didn't reflect that. Her original cast choice was Cinderella, which is why it took me a while to finally cast Cinderella as Ericaine. But now I think that madame Adelaide is a better fit. Not just because of her age though. Madame is extremely caring and doting towards her cats, and Leira is similar towards another character in Fabler. Also, madame is very wealthy and Leira kind of has an equivalent to that in that she's very magically gifted. Esmeralda as Arwa: Esmeralda was my first choice for Arwa, much like Odette was for Diantha and Aladdin was for Rory. Arwa is supposed to look similar to Esmeralda, especially with her brightly-coloured eyes (though Arwa's are yellow instead of green, but you gotta admit that Esmeralda's eyes are a strikingly bright green). Arwa is also incredibly fierce like Esmeralda, and just like Esmeralda seems to be a kind of leader of the gypsies, Arwa is a leader of her pack of werewolves. Both are defiant and utterly badass ladies and, in short, this was a perfect cast match. Anya as the Fabler: Oh goodie, goodie, goodie, the titular fabler cometh at last! But I'm not going to tell you a lot about her! She's an incredibly mysterious and unknown character, which is strangely fitting because Anya's movie is inspired by the mystery of the princess Anastasia. But even putting that aside, Anya is a great cast choice for the Fabler. Their looks line up very well (if not their outfits), their mannerisms and expressions too, and the way the Fabler presents herself to the characters is very fun and sparky in a way very similar to Anya. Juliana as Hera: I know you're thinking. You're thinking "ANOTHER Quest for Camelot character, Carlotta, really?!" YES! Really! I love this movie, okay?! And Juliana does fit reasonably well with how I'm interpreting Hera in Fabler. Juliana is the wife of a knight, and so she seems like a bit of a noblewoman and she carries herself well in that regard. Heck, this woman showed no fear from the movie's villain, Rubert, until he started threatening her daughter. Hera is similar in that she is a total boss! But she's not as helpful to the protagonists as Juliana was in her story. Marina as Jeyne: You wanna know something really ironic? Even though I am including Kayley's canonical mom in the cast, Marina is the one playing Tarina's character's mother. Yes, Jeyne is Tarina's mom and I have Marina in her role. I don't have much reason for this casting choice, except that it's one I've had pretty much from the start of the making of this cast. Also, the fact I'm using such an awesome character as Marina makes me sad that Jeyne doesn't have a bigger role in the main story of Fabler. Because while, yes, she does appear, she doesn't do a whole lot. Eris as Merlina: Eris is not going to be happy that I'm using her, a goddess, to play the role of a mere ghost, isn't she? Too bad! There was no way I wasn't going to include Eris, since she's one of my favourite parts of the movie she's from. She does have quite a few differences from Merlina though. Merlina was once human and her story is way more tragic than Eris's. She is a villain, but she's one of those villains who thinks she's in the right. Not the same as Eris, who knows she's evil and has fun with it. But both ladies are also very manipulative and destructive. John Smith as Royse: I love my character Royse but he was SO DANG DIFFICULT TO CAST! And even now, believe me, it's not a perfect fit. For the longest time, I thought that his Non/Disney counterpart would be Garrett, because of his long hair, serious nature, connection to nature, combative skills and the fact he has a staff for a weapon. Buuuutttt that'd be awkward for me, since Garrett is Kayley's canon love interest, he'd be playing as her father figure. So I went with John Smith because he seems older than Garrett. Even though his personality is very different. John Rolfe as Gawyn: Unlike Royse, Gawyn's cast choice was pretty easy peasy. John Rolfe has some of the looks I'm going for with it comes to Gawyn (even though Gawyn's hair is way curlier) and the same air of dignity. But Gawyn is much more...shall we say, quirky than Gawyn. And he's unashamed of it. So I guess you can say that there's still dignity in that and I agree. But yeah, John Rolfe is more serious than Gawyn and his looks aren't nearly as fantastical. But he was nonetheless the first to come to mind as a Non/Disney counterpart when I came up with Gawyn. Eric as Favian: Like Royse, Favian's cast choice has frequently changed. Partly because every time I changed Royse's cast choice, I wanted his hubby to have a cast choice that I could pair him up with. But now I'm happy I stuck with Eric. Personality, he's rather light-hearted, which is fitting with Favian's demeanor. There's still several changes, of course, like with his looks. Now, I haven't fully decided on Favian's look, but I know that while his dark hair matches Eric, he's certainly not as light-complected as the prince. Kale as Valerik: Derek was at first the one I was going to choose for Valerik. But then I remember Kale and I was like "Carlotta, you crazy! Kale is a WAY better fit!" First, there's looks. Like many of my characters (for now), I don't have a full design for Valerik yet, but it ressembles Kale's the more and more I think about it. Second, Kale seems like a good, calm leader, which Valerik is. Third, Kale seems like he'd be great with kids, and Valerik is a proud papa of a bunch of wee nippers. Not to say Derek doesn't have some of these qualities, but Kale just has more. Dimitri as Robin: Once again, a cast member that I was surprised I didn't think of sooner. I mean, Robin is something of a con man, but has some depths to him that take a while for the other characters to unlock. That's Dimitri in a nutshell, right?! Plus, Dimitri's often whacky expressions or mannerisms suit Robin well. As does Dimitri's slight tendency to be the glutton for punishment in the movie he's from. Moses as Tyrone: Tyrone doesn't look entirely like Moses, but I nonetheless feel that they have a few similarities in appearance. Tyrone is at least a bit paler, being a vampire (one of the few good ones in the Fabler universe, which is why I'm okay having a sweetheart like Moses play him), and the outfit will very much different, of course, but still, the looks are a good base for what I'm hoping for him to look like. Temperament-wise, though, I'll admit Moses isn't my best choice, as Tyrone isn't exactly all that sane when we first meet him in the story. He gets better though. Phoebus as Odin: I'll admit it. Phoebus is quite a bit younger than how Odin is supposed to be portrayed. But, in my defense, Odin is also an immortal god with divine power, so it's not out of the question that he could look rather good for his age. But also, both males are, of course, warriors. Yes, Odin may be more of a trickster and wiseman god, but he's not shy from a fight either. In Fabler, in fact, he does quite a bit of it. Also, Phoebus is capable of being serious, but also really friendly and joking, which is so perfect for how I want my boy Odin! Proteus as Hades: Yes, yes, yes, I know. I know that Disney already gave us Hades. And I do love Disney's Hades. However, I love more-early-source-accurate, good-boy, very-much-not-a-villain-you-fools Hades even more! So, why'd I choose Proteus for this version of Hades? His looks aren't tooooo far from the mark (certainly the long lovely ponytail isn't far), he's got a very good personality to go at least somewhat with Hades and many of his mannerisms fit well. All in all, 10/10 choice for me. Arthur as Baldur: LAST TIME I SWEAR! This is the last time I'm using a Quest for Camelot character, I promise! But yeah, here's the thing: I have NEVER! Not once! Ever seen Arthur used in a Non/Disney project! He wasn't used ONCE, to my knowledge! And, I mean, I can understand why. He really doesn't appear much in the movie. BUT! I'm not letting that stop me here! Arthur here actually does really fit with how I'm interpreting Baldur, AKA God (yes, as in Lucifer's dad), not just in looks, but in mannerisms as well. I'm happy I'm using this underused character! Sinbad as Syrus: You know something kind of ironic? Sinbad is normally portrayed, in Non/Disney, as Jim's father, or sometimes older brother (lookin at you TB). But I have seen him used as Kayley's father too and, honestly, I really like that as well. He's got the looks for it and the adventurous spirit. Which brings me to Syrus. His hair colour is admittedly a bit redder than Sinbad's (gotta explain where Tarina got her red hair from) and his eyes are different, but the rest fits neatly into how I envision Tarina's father. And again, I'm now sad he doesn't do more in the story. Dymus as Nightinion: Nightinion, much like Syrus, is another father who's one of the less important named characters. Specifically, he is Ericaine's father. But, nonetheless, I felt he was important enough to include in my cast. And why did I go with Dymas? Well, first off, he's a king. But there are, admittedly, quite a few Non/Disney kings. So why Dymas in particular? Well, something about him makes me feel like he has more strength and command than most Non/Disney kings, yet is still diplomatic and courteous. All of which are what I see in Nightinion. Dean as Natsbane: I love Dean. Really, I do. So I'm really sad for putting him in the role of this jerk. Because, while Natsbane isn't totally evil, he is not a nice guy. But something about Dean's general grumpy and unfriendly exterior and his love of his artwork remind me quite a bit of Natsbane. Though, if a full Non/Disney version of Fabler were to be made, Natsbane wouldn't be quite as...kinda-mad-scientist-wacko that he is in my envisioning. Then again, perhaps that's a good thing. It'd be interesting to see a mad scientist who's not mad as in insane, but mad as in angry. DISCLAIMERS: Fabler (c) me I OWN NONE OF THE SCREENSHOTS I USED TO MAKE THIS POST

#Behold My Beautiful Little Brain Child (my original post)#Fabler

9 notes · View notes

andrewsiegel-blog · 5 years

Text

Creative Destruction and Terah’s Idol Shop - Understanding Judaism’s Approach to Capitalism and the Issue of Income Inequality

By Andrew Siegel

Economic data shows that income inequality - the gap between the richest and poorest members of society - is the highest it has ever been in the United States.[1] As the 2020 federal election cycle builds, a chorus of potential presidential candidates from the left are putting forward proposals meant to arrest the increasing capture of economic gains by those in the top 1% of American society. President Trump expectedly has characterized all such proposals as socialist. What is surprising, however (and heartening to those who believe a thoughtful dialogue on this topic is long overdue), is that many of the beneficiaries of the accelerating wealth accumulation that has occurred over the past two generations in this country are now acknowledging that something needs to change. To wit:

● Starbucks founder Howard Schultz, who Forbes estimates has a net worth of $3.7 billion, is considering running for president in order to, among other things, address what he calls a “crisis of capitalism” in the United States.[2]

● Hedge funder Ray Dalio, whose wealth Forbes estimates at $18.4 billion, released a white paper in April calling for the reform of capitalism due to its compounding positive effects for the wealthy and negative spiraling impact for the poor. Dalio says this feature of American capitalist “is creating widening income/wealth/opportunity gaps that pose existential threats to the United States.”[3]

● Private equity titan Steve Schwarzman (net worth $12.4 billion) this month outlined what he called a “Marshall Plan to address increasing income inequality in America.”[4]

● Larry Fink, whose Blackrock is the world’s largest asset manager, last year released a letter to 1,000 corporate CEOs whose stock Blackrock owns on behalf of clients. Its premise: “Around the world, frustration with years of stagnant wages, the effect of technology on jobs, and uncertainty about the future have fueled popular anger, nationalism, and xenophobia. In response, some of the world’s leading democracies have descended into wrenching political dysfunction, which has exacerbated, rather than quelled, this public frustration.”[5]

Motivation for these and similar proposals comes from a general sense of societal good (while not ignoring that a continued well-functioning American and global economy is in any case positive for the billionaire class).[6] Dalio, for instance, argues, “The best results come when there is more rather than less of: a) equal opportunity in education and in work, b) good family or family-like upbringing through the high school years, c) civilized behavior within a system that most people believe is fair, and d) free and well-regulated markets for goods, services, labor, and capital that provide incentives, savings, and financing opportunities to most people.”[7] The arguments tend naturally to be economics-based or about systemic risk, rather than grounded in principles of fundamental fairness, ethics or justice. No one has yet put forth a widely accepted deontological or teleological maxim for what we might call “conscientious capitalism” - a capitalism that does not inevitably result in 40% of the wealth in the hands of 1% of the population.[8] A worthwhile question, therefore, is what Judaism might say about capitalism, and about the current state of inequality between rich and poor that the American brand of capitalism has created.[9] Within principles of social justice that we could identify as particularistically Jewish, is remedying economic inequality an appropriate end? And if so, what could Jewish law and values contribute to defining the challenge and proposing a vision for a more economically just future?

The Torah says nothing about capitalism per se, of course - the notion of “capital” wouldn’t be named for another few millennia after revelation. Capitalism is simply the accumulation of wealth, which is then used as a resource to be combined with ideas and productivity. The output raises the standard of living of those involved in the capital-consuming project. At its heart, capitalism is about creation and how to benefit from it - and this is a subject on which the Torah has much to say. We don’t get three words into the opening line of Beresheit without it; 25 lines later, man is given dominion over the earth and all of its creatures. (Genesis 1:28-30). Later, when Abram is told by God to go forth from Haran, Abram takes with him “kol rakushim ashar rakshu” - variously translated as all the wealth he had accumulated or substance he had gathered or property he had purchased. We can safely say that Judaism and capitalism share as foundational creative acts, productivity, and accumulating value-generating resources.[10] Once Adam and Eve left Eden, human effort became a critical component of our existence; it’s assumed humans are meant to labor.[11]

Accordingly, Judaism and capitalism are not necessarily competing ideologies. From the moment Adam is forced to rub two sticks together to create fire, humans are set on a course to utilize resources, materials and our own creativity to produce and progress. Increasing nature’s yield is a basic and positive human activity, in the view of our Sages - as long as the bounty is used to lift up humankind in harmony with our better instincts. The rabbis saw the inherent duality of the human drive. They observed that we are made up of two yetzers (from the shoresh meaning to form or create) - the yetzer rah and yetzer hatov. Our yetzer hatov must always be watchful of the yetzer rah, as they are in constant interplay. R. Nachman said in R. Samuel’s name, “Can then the Evil Desire be very good? That would be extraordinary! But without the Evil Desire, however, no man would build a house, take a wife and beget children; and thus said Solomon: ‘Again, I consider all labor and all excelling in work, that is a man’s rivalry with his neighbor’.” (Bereishit Rabbah 9:9) Aware of both the promise and the challenge of that duality, Judaism is careful to subsume the human drive within its foundational ethics.

Judaism does not require that we actively seek to redistribute wealth. It does not favor the poor over the wealthy and in fact our Sages warn against doing so. Just as Moses and David rose to great heights despite laboring as shepherds at points in their respective journeys, Judaism does seem to favor social mobility. We find support for this notion of course in the famous codification by Maimonides of the levels of charity. Its highest form is the rectification of the social imbalance through upward mobility based on effort. Maimonides understood that our helping others to build their own income and wealth would become part of a larger virtuous cycle, where poverty is transformed into wealth in turn offered for the spiritual and physical well-being of the community.

Our desire to increase wealth and income must comply with three basic notions of Judaism:

God is the sole source and owner of all wealth.

Judaism establishes communal obligations.

We must walk in God’s ways.

As Jews, we are obligated to build, defend and deploy wealth only in ways appropriate under the Law. The use of our wealth and income must be in keeping with the positive (i.e. action) attributes of mercy, justice and loving-kindness.[12] According to scholar Meir Tamari, a network of halakhic rulings exist “in order to ensure that the way a man accumulates wealth is neither morally damaging nor physically harmful to his fellow men. It must also be in accordance with the norms of God-given (Torah) morality, even when these run counter to the accepted practice of the particular society in which a Jew might find himself.”[13] Jewish notions of social justice include remedying economic inequality.

As Tamari suggests, we know that Judaism is opposed to the current effects of capitalism as damaging to social justice; we find extensive guidance within Judaism for shaping a more just form of capitalism that leaves plenty of room for wealth creation and accumulation. Shmitah, peah, bikurim, gleanings and jubilee teach not only faith and trust in God’s providence[14], but are examples of the category of hefker, or ownerless-ness. See, e.g. Mishnah Peah (1-8). Because we are utterly dependent on God for our economic well-being, we must act justly in business toward others. Failure to abide causes undue hardship to others, and once this reaches systemic proportions - as we are experiencing today - causes society’s fabric to fray.

Multiple halakhot reinforce ethical behavior in the economic realm from the perspective of Jewish social justice concerns. These principles includes just weights and measures (see Leviticus 19:36), restrictions on misrepresentation (G’neivat Da’at), taking advantage of information asymmetries in the marketplace and coercion (see Baba Bathra 40b). The mishna of Baba Metzia 58b discusses the ona’a of statements in commerce, where one is prohibited from asking the price of an item if he does not have intent to purchase it, since the seller will feel mistreated and be dejected. There are extensive laws regarding the treatment of servants and workers, far too numerous to go into depth about here. As shown through these well-established concepts, Judaism provides an ethical framework that is meant to strip economic activity of its potential to create unjust or hurtful outcomes. In much of this, a common thread can be discerned.

That common thread is the important of truth-telling. We may not be silent in the face of wrongdoing or injustice. In its list of God’s commands to Moses, several of which form the basis of commercially-oriented Halakhah, Leviticus 19 contains the obligation to reprove. In a way, regardless of their positions as captains of industry, the successful capitalists now weighing in on the ill effects of America’s economic system are truth-telling. They are honoring the Torah requirement to rebuke. [15] To rebuke requires us to know right from wrong, and there is a very small series of steps from realizing the truth, to stating it, and to acting upon it, as Moses did for the daughters of Jethro (Exodus 2:16-19). Judaism requires that we speak up now about the injustices being caused by wealth and income disparity due to the separation of modern capitalism from the ethical roots established in the Torah and Halakhah.

Sociologists tell us that inside the modern corporation, managers look to each other for guidance, to demonstrate understanding of the corporate culture and to exhibit get-it-done behavior.[16] Compensation and promotions accrue to those who best demonstrate the behaviors promoted by the corporate culture. External moral norms, the link between objective goods and reward, are replaced by the need for positive reviews, which need in turn incentivizes sociability and self-promotion. As a result, learned self-rationalization eventually overtakes concepts like merit, hard work, brotherhood and common interest. The overwhelming peer pressure to achieve results or avoid failure crowds out the impulses that would, in another setting, cause one to prioritize doing the right thing. So perhaps there is an answer elsewhere, a sort of “kinder, gentler” invisible hand?

In contrast to the way his theories are today often interpreted, Adam Smith was a moralist. His 1759 work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, is one of the foundational works of consequentialism. His economics were normative. Commercial pursuits were seen as fulfilling outlets for individual creativity, energy, productivity, resourcefulness and agency. Unfortunately, however, that sort of human capital has not led to consistent convergence of wealth within individual economies in the 200 years since the industrial revolution. There are just too many forces and actors involved. As contemporary political economist Thomas Piketty has argued, “The history of inequality is shaped by the way economic, social and political actors view what is just and what is not ... there is no natural, spontaneous process to prevent destabilizing, inegalitarian forces from prevailing permanently.”[17] Within economics itself, there is no input for the objective of securing our own well-being as well as that of our neighbor. As Mary Hirschfeld argues, economics needs an injection of both philosophy and theology if we are to overcome the atomistic definition of capitalism that permits, on rationalistic grounds, the concentration of wealth and well-being into fewer and fewer hands.[18]

Wealth inequality is one of the most pressing issues of contemporary social justice. Judaism, therefore, must confront its causes. It must challenge the conduct within American capitalism in an effort to reinsert ethical impulses and ends, regardless of whether that would demand that we hold ourselves to a standard beyond that required by law (lifnim mishurat hadin). At the same time, it is critical to remember that Judaism, within its overall boundaries, has never challenged the creative impulse in the context of trade, as a specific case. The Tanakh features many stories of self-actualization, including of our greatest prophet Moses. Judaism has no theological criticism to offer against the enrichment of individuals in the commercial sphere. What it does seek to guide is moderation of selfish impulses through consideration of our fellow human. It obligates us to conduct ourselves economically with humility due to our understanding that everything we have belongs to God and is due to God’s favor. It commits us to see the bigger picture, to seek community for the sake of peace. The tenets of Judaism can be a source of insight, which may lead, if not to solutions for this issue, then at least for thoughtful consideration of improvements in the way we think and conduct ourselves while in trade. Judaism’s ability to find room for creation, innovation and accumulation alongside ethical behavior is why it has standing to contribute guidelines for conscientious thought and action to our modern economic behavior, as our belief in one God with attributes of justice and loving-kindness has helped confront the other idols of our making since Abrahamic times.

[1] See, e.g. https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/; https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/05/opinion/what-are-capitalists-thinking.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region; https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/05/u-s-income-inequality-on-rise-for-decades-is-now-highest-since-1928/

[2] https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=650255208731179

[3] https://economicprinciples.org/Why-and-How-Capitalism-Needs-To-Be-Reformed/?utm_medium=adwords&utm_source=GS&utm_content=341819909261&utm_campaign=60minutes-search

[4] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/18/steve-schwarzman-raise-minimum-wage-eliminate-taxes-for-teachers.html

[5] https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/larry-fink-ceo-letter; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2018/01/16/worlds-largest-money-manager-to-ceos-you-must-do-good-for-society/?utm_term=.dce24989a780

[6] For instance, Dalio’s two arguments for why the income and wealth gaps need to be closed are: “They slow our economic growth because the marginal propensity to spend of wealthy people is much less than the marginal propensity to spend of people who are short of money” and “They result in suboptimal talent development and lead to a large percentage of the population undertaking damaging activities rather than contributing activities.” In other words, we need poor people to make more because they tend to spend while rich people tend to save; and they’ll revolt unless we give them cake. OK, the last bit of paraphrasing isn’t quite fair, but it’s not far off the mark. See note 3.

[7] See note 3.

[8] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/06/the-richest-1-percent-now-owns-more-of-the-countrys-wealth-than-at-any-time-in-the-past-50-years/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.76286d322377

[9] Harry Frankfurt takes strong issue with the idea that income or wealth inequality is a moral issue. See Frankfurt, H., “Equality as a Moral Ideal” in Ethics, Vol. 98, No. 1 ((Oct., 1987), pp. 21-22. His claim is, rather, “that what is morally important with respect to money is for everyone to have enough” - what he terms “the doctrine of sufficiency”. (p. 22) The importance of Frankfurt’s essay is in his recognition that Rawlsian ethics break down in the economic sphere, pointing out that even Rawls acknowledged that it is rational to want as much of the primary goods - rights and liberties, opportunities and powers, income and wealth - as possible. (p. 45) It is this challenge of defining “sufficiency” when it comes to wealth and income that Jewish law, and in particular certain rules governing charity, may offer a more helpful maxim than Rawls’ Original Position. God understands the psychological damage and danger to our souls from feeling “less than” (see, of course, Exodus 20:14 and also Deuteronomy 7:25). We might frame this new maxim therefore not in reference to inequality between people or nations but rather teleologically, such that “no person should have less resources than is necessary to produce the same amount of societal good as had fortune otherwise made such resources available to him or her.”

[10] In 1942 economist Joseph Schumpeter coined the phrase “creative destruction” to explain his theory of incessant product and process innovation, what he thought was the essential factor in capitalism’s growth phenomenology. One might argue that Schumpeter’s notion of ‘creative destruction” has its roots in Abram’s smashing of idols in Terah’s shop.

[11] See Siegel, S. “A Jewish View of Economic Justice” in Contemporary Jewish Ethics and Morality: a Reader, Dorff and Newman, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995). Pp. 336-43.

[12] See Tamari, M. “Jewish Ethics, the State and Economic Freedom” in The Oxford Handbook of Judaism and Economics, Aaron Levine, ed., (Oxford University Press, 2010)

[13] Tamari, M. With All Your Possessions: Jewish Ethics and Economic Life. (Toby Press, 2014). p. 50

[14] See., e.g. Jeremiah 17:7: “Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord and whose hope is the Lord.”

[15] We may assume for purposes hereof, that the individuals we cite are not breaking the Halakhah against creating a false impression of piety. We can certainly hope that their motivation is pure, rather than inserting themselves into the debate out of moral exhibitionism. As it is stated in the Talmud Bavli, Shabbat 31a, when a person is brought to judgment, the first question asked is whether he was honest in business, which is a reference to the requirement of having acted at all times - including while at derech eretz (work) - in fear of God.

[16] See, e.g., Jackall, R. Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers (Twentieth Anniversary Edition). (Oxford University Press, 2010).

[17] Piketty, Thomas. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2017), pp. 27-28

[18] See Mary L. Hirschfeld, Aquinas and the Market: Toward a Humane Economy. (Harvard University Press, 2018) Professor Hirschfeld argues, among other things that the rational choices that economists presume are made in human commercial activity are devoid of ethics and virtues and therefore do not make an accommodation for non purely economic ends.

0 notes