#portray? I wonder if they actually did any research at all | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dannyphannypack · 1 year

Text

Writing ASL: Techniques to Write Signed Dialogue

Hey, guys! I've been reading a lot of DC Batfamily fanfiction lately, and in doing so I realized how little I see of ASL being represented in written text (love you, Cass!). I wanted to briefly talk about tactics to writing American Sign Language (ASL), and ways that these techniques can help improve your writing in more general contexts!

SOME THINGS BEFORE WE GET STARTED

I will be discussing everything in terms of ASL! If you have a character who uses Chinese Sign Language or even British Sign Language, the same rules will not necessarily apply! Don't be afraid to do some extra research on them.

Do not let this dissuade you from writing a character who signs ASL! This is by no means the end-all be-all to writing ASL dialogue, and I do not intend this post to insinuate that by writing ASL the same way you write English you are deeply offending the Deaf community. If this is something you're interested in though, I highly recommend experimenting with the way you write it! Above all, have fun with your writing.

Related to 2nd rule, but still very important: not everyone will agree that sign language should be treated/written any differently than English. This is a totally valid and understandable stance to take! I do not hope to invalidate this stance by making this post, but rather to introduce an interested audience to how ASL operates in the modern world, and how that can be translated into text.

ADDRESSING SOME MISCONCEPTIONS

ASL is the same as English, just with gestures instead of words.

Actually, no! There is a language that exists that is like that: it's called Signing Exact English, and it's an artificial language; i.e., it did not come about naturally. All languages came from a need to communicate with others, and ASL is no different! It is a language all on it's own, and there is no perfect 1:1 way to translate it to English, just as any spoken language.

2. But everyone who signs ASL knows how to read English, don't they?

No, actually! Because it's a completely different language, people who sign ASL and read English can be considered bilingual: they now know two languages. In fact, fingerspelling a word to a Deaf person in search for the correct sign does not usually work, and is far from the preferred method of conversing with Deaf people.

3. Because ASL does not use as many signs as we do words to articulate a point, it must be an inferior language.

Nope! ASL utilizes 5 complex parameters in order to conversate with others: hand shape, palm orientation, movement, location, and expression. English relies on words to get these points across: while we may say "He's very cute," ASL will sign, "He cute!" with repeated hand movement and an exaggerated facial expression to do what the "very" accomplishes in the English version: add emphasis. Using only ASL gloss can seem infantilizing because words are unable to portray what the other four parameters are doing in a signed sentence.

4. Being deaf is just a medical disability. There's nothing more to it.

Fun fact: there is a difference between being deaf and being Deaf. You just said the same thing twice? But I didn't! To be deaf with a lowercase 'd' is to be unable to hear, while being Deaf with an uppercase is to be heavily involved in the Deaf community and culture. Deaf people are often born deaf, or they become deaf at a young age. Because of this, they attend schools for the Deaf, where they are immersed in an entirely different culture from our own. While your family may mourn the loss of your grandfather's hearing, Deaf parents often celebrate discovering that their newborn is also deaf; they get to share and enjoy their unique culture with their loved one, which is a wonderful thing!

YOU MENTIONED ASL GLOSS. WHAT IS THAT?

ASL gloss is the written approximation of ASL, using English words as "labels" for each sign. ASL IS NOT A WRITTEN LANGUAGE, so this is not the correct way to write it (there is no correct way!): rather, it is a tool used most commonly in classrooms to help students remember signs, and to help with sentence structure.

IF THERE'S NO CORRECT WAY TO WRITE IN ASL, THEN HOW DO I DO IT?

A most astute observation! The short answer: it's up to you. There is no right or wrong way to do it. The longer answer? Researching the culture and history, understanding sign structure, and experimenting with description of the 5 parameters are all fun ways you can take your ASL dialogue to the next level. Here are 3 easy ways you can utilize immediately to make dialogue more similar to the way your character is signing:

Sign languages are never as wordy as spoken ones. Here's an example: "Sign languages are never wordy. Spoken? Wordy." Experiment with how much you can get rid of without the meaning of the sentence being lost (and without making ASL sound goo-goo-ga-ga-y; that is to say, infantilizing).

Emotion is your friend. ASL is a very emotive language! If we were to take that sentence and get rid of the unnecessary, we could get something like "ASL emotive!" The way we add emphasis is by increasing the hand motion, opening the mouth, and maybe even moving the eyebrows. It can be rather intuitive: if you mean to say very easy, you would sign EASY in a flippant manner; if you mean to say so handsome, you would sign handsome and open your mouth or fan your face as if you were hot. Think about a game of Charades: how do you move your mouth and eyebrows to "act out" the word? How are you moving your body as your teammates get closer? There are grammar rules you can certainly look up if you would like to be more technical, too, but this is a good place to start!

Practice describing gestures and action. ASL utilizes three dimensional space in a lot of fun and interesting ways. Even without knowing what a specific sign is, describing body language can be a big help in deciphering the "mood" of a sentence. Are they signing fluidly (calm) or sharply (angry)? Are their signs big (excited) or small (timid)? Are they signing rushedly (impatient) or slowly? Messily (sad) or pointedly (annoyed)? Consider what you can make come across without directly addressing it in dialogue! Something ese about ASL is that English speakers who are learning it tend to think the speakers a little nosy: they are more than able to pick up on the unsaid, and they aren't afraid to ask about it.

Above all, don't be afraid to ask questions, do research or accept advice! New languages can be big and scary things, but don't let that make you shy away. Again, there is nothing wrong with deciding to write ASL the same as you write your English. I've personally found that experimenting with ASL dialogue in stories has aided me in becoming more aware of how to describe everything, from sappy emotional moments to action-packed fighting scenes. Writing ASL has helped me think about new ways to improve my description in more everyday contexts, and I hope it can be a big help to you as well, both in learning about Deaf culture and in pursuing your future writing endeavors. :)

P.S: I am quite literally only dipping my toes into the language and culture. I cannot emphasize how important it is to do your own research if it's someting you're interested in!

P.P.S: I want to apologize for my earlier P.S! What I meant by “I am … dipping my toes into the language and culture” was in direct regards to the post; what I should have said is “this post is only dipping its toes into the language and culture.” While I am not Deaf myself, I am a sophomore in college minoring in ASL and Deaf Culture, and I am steadily losing my hearing. Of course, that does not make me an authority figure on the topic, which is why I strongly encourage you to do your own research, ask your own questions, and consult any Deaf friends, family, or online peers you may have.

#dc batman #batfamily #cassandra cain #ASL #american sign language #deaf #deaf culture #tayscreams #writing advice #writing

3K notes · View notes

rreids · 1 month

Note

hey, i was wondering if you'd be able to write smth with Spencer in a relationship with someone with bpd? it's totally okay if you're not comfy with that, but I've just been suspecting i may have it, and ppl with bpd are always portrayed so negatively in relationships. it would be just rly nice to read ur take on how Spencer would handle that and just see some positive representation! (my mental health has also been shit so it would be p comforting lol) thank u 🫶

hi love 🫶 i don't know a ton about bpd, so i hope i did this justice! i researched the diagnosis and how healthy relationships help with regulation and in what ways they do (both accounts from experts and from those who are diagnosed). and i hope you feel better soon <3 it sucks when your mind fights against you.

PROMISES • S. REID X READER

reader has bpd (written by an author without, ideally will be comforting rather than hurtful. please let me know if it is offensive in any way); gn!reader; spencer has to break a small promise but makes others; talks of therapy; teasing; fluff; ~500 words

“Hey, sweetheart,” Spencer whispers into the phone, voice a little strained. “I’m really, really sorry, but I can’t make lunch today. We’re on the way to a case in Omaha. It’s a really bad one.”

Your heart sinks. “Oh.”

“You know I want to be there more than anything, right?” He’s shuffling papers in the background, and you know they’re in the middle of getting ready on the jet and that he’s still making time for you, but it still makes your mind race with worry and upset. “I’ve been looking forward to it all week. And I promise I’ll take you out as soon as we’re back.”

You frown, fiddling with the promise ring on your finger. “Will you still talk to me?”

Spencer chuckles. “I think I go insane when I go too long without hearing your voice. As long as you don’t mind calls when it’s two a.m. there, I’m calling before bed every night I have enough time.”

You sigh.

“I know, honey. When’s your next meeting with your therapist?”

“Tomorrow,” you mumble, gnawing on your lip.

“Well, you have permission to talk about how much I suck,” Spencer teases lightly. “As long as you know it’s not by choice that I’m being a bad boyfriend.”

“You’re not a bad boyfriend.”

“Yeah?” You can hear the smile in his voice.

“You’re the best boyfriend. You understand me.” He does. He’s looked into BPD extensively — he knows even more than you do, rattling off statistics, assumed causes and connections, coping methods, everything. He knows how to break you out of the spirals and to calm your impulsivities.

“You have other boyfriends?” Spencer sighs dramatically, and you laugh.

“Why would I have them? You’re more than enough.”

Spencer hums. “I am, aren’t I?”

You groan.

“I’m messing with you,” his voice is fond and soft. “I gotta hang up, everyone’s coming and we need all our focus on this case. Message me if you need anything. Don’t do anything I wouldn’t.”

“You don’t do anything,” you know you’re exaggerating, but it’s hard to stop the words.

“I do, just nothing out of our normal,” he’s nudging you gently, reminding you to think things through before acting impulsively. “I give you permission to watch our show without me if it’ll keep you entertained.”

You laugh. “Okay, okay. Fine. I’ll be good,” you draw it out.

Spencer snorts. “I love you.”

“I love you too, Spence.”

A beat.

“I’m not actually going to talk shit about you to my therapist, just so you know. I do talk about you though.”

And then you hang up.

He sends you a ‘???’ and a ‘I wanted to say something still.’ right after. When you tell him to say it, he sends a ‘Do what you need to feel regulated. I don’t take it to heart, you know I don’t.’

And he doesn’t. He’s so sweet, so achingly perfect, understanding of when your moods swing, or when you feel empty, or whenever anything changes and you can’t tell why.

And he always helps you down, kissing scars and tears and whispering praise as he gets you to feel right again.

#my works #spencer reid x reader #spencer reid fanfic #spencer reid x you #spencer reid fic #spencer reid #criminal minds #criminal minds fanfic #spencer reid fluff #spencer reid scenario #criminal minds x reader #spencer reid fanfiction #spencer reid oneshot #spencer reid imagine #requested

331 notes · View notes

adarkrainbow · 5 months

Note

Hello there. First of all thank you for all the analysis and in depth look into fairy tales.

I stumbled upon a take that was utterly surprising to me about how fairy tales validate women through submissive beauty while the men are portrayed as active and violent and how fairy tales are tools to reinforce gender roles and patriarchy.

And I wonder how did we end up here? I seem to remember you talking about how a lot of fairy tales authors were women, but even in the Grimm brothers fairy tales the women are active, it's not only the men who go through trials.

Anyway I was wondering if you had any thoughts on this?

A most interesting, complex and yet simple question!

Do not be surprised by this take: it has been THE dominating take on fairytales until very recently. It was the big 20th century idea about fairytales - and in fact, it was one of the ideas heralded and massively shared by Jack Zipes in his famous book. This is also partially thanks to him that most Americans share this exact same view. Now we know, thanks to today's research, that this is not as true as people like to think and that this only applies to some fairytales - but the idea that fairytales can actually be subversive, can actually challenge an established society's codes, structure or hierarchy, is in truth fairly recent - or rather has only been accepted fairly recently.

A part of this is definitively Disney. There is no denying that the "Disney fairytale" marked forever popular culture's view of fairytales AND that as a result it inclined a lot of people to look at traditional fairytales under a certain angle. Remember - to make a Disney princess an active character, with the likes or their Rapunzel or Tiana, was seen during the movies' releases as a MASSIVE breakthrough for Disney.

That being said, to well answer this, I think a look at the French literary fairytales can be interesting. (Especially since... it is much more of my domain than the Grimm fairytales for example Xp)

Now Jack Zipes expressed this very theory by talking of Charles Perrault fairytales. In his book he clearly said that, through his stories, Perrault taught girls to be passive damsels waiting to be saved ; and boys to be active heroes. The typical "prince saving the damsel in distress ; knight rescuing the princess in the tower". And on a first, superficial, quick glance... Zipes is right - and many, MANY people read Perrault's fairytales as such.

Indeed, female protagonists of Perrault share a distinct passiveness and earn their happy ending through patience, pleasing people and looking good. Cinderella endures abuse without talking back, only has to look pretty for a prince thanks to an outside interference, and her marriage is what saves her - before she even forgives her wicked stepsisters! Sleeping Beauty spends half of her story sleeping before being saved by the arrival of a prince ; and then the second half she is the helpess victim of the ogress and only is helped by either the butler or the prince. The wife of Bluebeard cannot save herself, it is her brothers that save the day, while in Diamond and Toads the good girl is rewarded for just being nice and helping a poor woman, and it is again through a wedding she gains happiness. Many people also like to invoke the semi-fairytale Griselidis which is... a whole another topic to go into.

Meanwhile the male protagonists are "active", industrious heroes and vanquishers of evil. Puss in Boots is a trickster who hunts animals, actively runs around, and devours an ogre. Little Thumbling also puts together all sorts of plans, actively changes the crowns and nightcaps, steals away the ogre's boots, and once again runs around... The brothers of Bluebeard's protagonists are the big heroes that come in the end to murder the persecutor.

So far, it all seems right... And somewhat, yes, it is true. Because of the context, because of the society, culture and time these stories were written into. In 17th century upper-class France, women were only valuable if they were pretty, if they didn't cause trouble, if they could be good wives or good mothers ; men on the contrary were expected to be sportsmen, warriors, active members of their community or of the government... But as usual with Perrault, nothing is as simple as it is, since there is joke and satire hidden in his texts that many fail to see, and when we look a bit closer at all this, we see hidden behind the apparent dichotomy the traces of a more nuanced take.

Yes, Puss in Boots is an active male character... But the marquis de Carabas is just as passive as another Cinderella or Donkeyskin, as he literaly does NOTHING but look good, obey the cat and follow everybody around. "Puss in Boots" is Cinderella told through the eyes of the supernatural helper - the talking cat is the fairy godmother, who is the one that brings beautiful clothes and meeting with the royals and the seeds of a romance to his passive, useless master. In fact, the "morals" of both stories are eerily similar: Perrault jokes at the end of Cinderella that anything is possible as long as you have a powerful or well-placed godparent ; and Puss in Boots moral is also about how "If you can find the way, you can trick the system, and become a prince when you shouldn't AT ALL". Both stories aren't in the end about someone being rewarded for being pretty or enduring suffering - but simply about having enough hidden resources and trickery to use the very flaws of the system used upon you.

Again, let us take Cinderella. She endures her suffering, according to people, she does nothing for herself, the fairy godmother does everything, and her salvation comes from a prince marrying her... She is pointed out to be so naive she chats with her stepsisters as if everything was normal when she is at the ball. She proves to be the ultimate goody-two-shoes when she forgives her persecutors at the end... And yet, what does the moral point out? That openly forgiving your enemies is the best way to put them in your pocket... because as such they'll be indebted to you, and you forced them into depending on your kindness. The idea of a sly and more cunning Cinderella is also highlighted by the ambiguity of when Cinderella loses her shoe. Perrault writes it so that it is unclear if she loses the shoe by accident... or if she deliberatly drops it. Same cunning with Donkeyskin - she does have on her own the idea of dropping a ring into the cake for the prince, ensuring her marriage with him...

So while the female protagonists of Perrault are definitively NOT active, it does not mean they are dumb or just pretty faces or that they are just rewarded for being "nice". They are intelligent, they know how to go around, there is a certain celebration of the "feminine cunning" if you will. Diamonds and Toads' moral isn't about actually being nice ; it is about learning when to be polite and when to do flattery when needed. Perrault's fairytales truly are about glorifying inventivity, intelligence and tricks. And the "passive character only good at being beautiful and married" does not exclusively apply to women. The marquis de Carabas is a good example, but what about the prince of Sleeping Beauty? All he does is literally... come in. Arrive. And that's it. How does he save Sleeping Beauty from her sleep? He just enters the castle, and suddenly she wakes up, not even a kiss. How does he save his wife from the ogress? He comes in and asks what's going, and everything is solved immediately. The actual heroic force of the tale is the butler, who is the one that saves the day - but again, not by using power, but by using tricks, deceiving the ogress that he cannot possibly fight (ogres embodying brutality and violence). In fact you have no monster-killer or dragon-slayers in Perrault's fairytales - the closest of a monster killer is Puss in Boots, but only because he tricks the ogre into turning into a mouse. Little Thumbling does not defeat the ogre by strength or violence - again it is all tricks and deception... and theft.

Because this is the other side of the "active male character". Yes, male heroes in Perrault's tale are more active than their female counterpart. But are they moral or "deserving" because of it? Certainly not. Puss in Boots lies to a king, threatens poor peasants so they say lies, usurps the castle of its legitimate lord and deceives the king into marrying the princess well under her rank. Similarly, Little Thumbling tricks an ogre into committing an infanticide, steals his boots from him (but so far it is all excused because the victims are the worst kind of ogres) - and then he scams a grieving mother into giving away all her fortune, before becoming a personal messenger for adulterers... And the narrator himself points out the immorality of those actions. Once again, it isn't because the male characters are more active that they are supposed to be praised for it... Perrault's tales are ultimately, deep down, hidden under a fake veneer of politeness and romance and galant things, trickster tales.

But to get that, you need to read carefully the stories and place them back into their proper context, and many people failed to do it in the 19th century, wrote a lot of misinformed texts that influence the people of the 20th century, and Disney was yet another relay of this misconception, and from generation to generation it all piled up... Claiming that Perrault was SUBVERSIVE in the second half of the 20th century was something seen as a genius and fresh take - when in fact it is just... just a truth people had failed to see.

However we can't reduce everything to Perrault. I mean the 19th and 20th centuries did reduce everything to Perrault, but let's see at the mother of the French fairytale, madame d'Aulnoy. Each of the female authors of fairytales had their own take and twist on gender norms and gender stereotypes, but given the scope and influence of madame d'Aulnoy (still felt in the 19th century), we will focus on her.

Madame d'Aulnoy's fairytales ARE the ones from which the idea that a fairytale is a "knight saving a damsel in a tower from a dragon" comes from. And, again, from a quick glance, madame d'Aulnoy seems to perfectly embody the dichotomy of "A heroine has to be patient and pretty and saved and pleasant and passive ; a hero has to be an active, vigorous, strong savior and monster-slayer". Graceful and Percinet? (Also known as Graciosa and Percinet). It is Psyche's myth told all over again. The Yellow Dwarf? A king keeps searching for his missing fiancee trapped away, and confronts all sorts of obstacles in-between. The Benevolent Frog? A prince kills the dragon that wants to eat his future wife, who literaly does nothing throughout the tale. The Doe in the Woods? The princess spends her time locked away, turned into an animal or fleeing, while the prince is a warrior and hunter who actively keeps going around.

And yet, once again, this just a watered-down, simplified, 19th century-glasses on vision of madame d'Aulnoy's fairytales. She had a wild, WILD life that led her to understand being an obedient good girl and passive meant NOTHING (in fact I do plan on making a series of posts about the craziness of these female French fairytale authors) - she conspired to have her abusive husband killed, she had to flee the country to escape authorities, she knew more than anyone that women had to be active to save their skin in life. And all throughout her stories, she kept having strong, active, female characters that broke the "passive mold", and on the contrary men that failed to be the "active ideal". All of it wrapped into the craziness, madness and exhuberant firework of animalistic fairies, enormous giants, multi-headed dragons and other clownish looking wizards, so that it looked less obvious at first glance. The princess of the Yellow Dwarf spends her time attacked by the titular dwarf and locked within his domain waiting for a rescue, but the story begins when she decides on her own to undergo a dangerous and perillous travel to find out what her mother suffers from, while the prince is shown to be quite helpless against the magic of the Fairy of the Desert and needs the magic of the mermaid to escape. In the Benevolent Frog, the prince kills the dragon... But at the very end, after being given all sorts of magical artefacts and an impossible horse, and they do the trick instead of him (similar to the prince's so-called "victory" against Maleficent in Disey's Sleeping Beauty, where it was truly the fairies that did the work) ; meanwhile the princess' father, the king, also proved utterly useless at saving his wife and daughter spending several years just... sitting by the side of a lake ; all the while his wife and daughter had to become amazonian huntresses, and the fairy-frog is shown doing all the behind-the-scenes work of saving everybody, using a lot of resources, and performing hard feats such as going at the top of a long staricase made for giants WITH THE BODY OF A TINY FROG, which is why she spends years doing so.

And many more are the tales breaking the mold! Cunning Cinders? The girl literaly CHOPS OFF an ogress' head with an axe, right after pushing an ogre into the oven - and it was no small feat given the ogre was also a giant. In the Pigeon and the Dove, the first time the giant imprisons the princess, putting her in his bag, she gets out by herself, without anybody's help. The Orange-Tree and the Bee? The princess does all the work - saves the prince, hides him, feeds him, nurse him, takes him away ; while also doing all the heroic and clever feats, tricking the ogres, stealing their magic wand, performing magical transformations. No wonder the final transformation is passive for the prince (the orange-tree) and active for the princess (the bee that stings anybody getting too close to the tree). In fact, the fairytale "La princesse Printanière", (Princess Mayblossom in English), seems to be an explicit and literal deconstruction of the passive-active model: the titular princess acts like a typical "good princess" (following her heart's impulses without thinking about it too much ; giving kindly all her food to her lover on a deserted island), only to be met by the harshest of realities (following an unknown pretty boy around is not good, and her lover is a selfish and brutal jerk). She only can escape the bad situation she created for herself by STABBING HER EVIL LOVER IN THE EYE, and then she is greeted by the positive sight of her fairy godmother in a war attire, beating the crap out of the wicked fairy of the story in a celestial duel. In fact, this tale contains a double message about women being active to change their life, because before her "passive episode" on the Island of Squirrels that gives her all sorts of misery, she is active, oh yes. She forces the random boy she just met to follow him, and she plans a whole escape at night - because, like an active character, she wants to determine her life, she wants to just do as she pleases, she show who's in charge... But this is proven bad because as it turns out acting impulsively and harshly without prudence or thought - taking away the hand of the first pretty boy that passes, fleeing rashly at night on a whim without preparing any substantial thing - only leads to disaster and misery (being stuck on a deserted island with an abusive companion). And this is opposed to the good "activity" in the end, one thought about and that is a just reaction to the situation, or well-equiped for handling its problem - the princess killing her would-be-murderer ; the good fairy getting a chariot, weapons and an armor to destroy the old, wicked, rusty Carabosse.

This all comes very clearly and strongly in d'Aulnoy's fairytales - if Perrault wasn't so much about gender as he was about tricks, cunning and cheating the system with well-placed connections ; madame d'Aulnoy clearly had some ideas of how women should learn to be active queens, great warriors, trained travellers, well-equiped survivors and, if need there is, monster slayers. Is it then a wonder that when the authorities and minds of the 19th century took a good look at fairytales, they decided that madame d'Aulnoy should be erased in favor of Perrault, where the ideal female models are a girl sleeping a thousand year, another girl that gets hit without answering back, a princess that becomes a cleaning-girl and a cook good ; or even a nice girl with big diamonds?

What happened? In the case of French fairytales: this. First all the openly subversive authors were pushed aside and buried in oblivion ; then the more subtle ones had their tales oversimplified or read the wrong way until it entered a mold they were not supposed to fit. Madame d'Aulnoy was forgotten, and people took Perrault's jokes seriously.

#fairytales #fairy tales #french fairytales #charles perrault #madame d'aulnoy #perrault fairytales #d'aulnoy fairytales #gender in fairytales #women in fairytales #men in fairytales

54 notes · View notes

badaziraphaletakes · 2 months

Note

Hello! This isn't exactly Good Omens related, but I've seen this blog talk about "perfect trauma victims" vs actual trauma victims, so i figured one of the lovely mods might know!

One of my WIPs right now is an essay on the harmful effects of "perfect trauma victims" on actual trauma survivors. I know that Harry Potter is a good example of the "perfect trauma victim" stereotype, but was wondering if you could think of any others? (I was thinking Cinderella, but I'm not sure). As for good portrayls of trauma survivors, I am planning on citing Aziraphale, but would Angel Dust from Hazbin Hotel be valid, and are there any others?

Also, as another source: how would you define a perfect trauma victim versus a trauma survivor?

Thank you! Y'all are seriously doing Gods' work with this blog.

Cinderella is an interesting one because it's such an old story and has been retold in so many different ways that there's probably a version of Cinderella to fit any occasion. If we're talking about the Disney movie, then yes I would definitely cite her as a perfect trauma victim stereotype.

(I haven't watched Hazbin Hotel yet, so I can't speak on that. I'm starting to feel like this is a fail on my part.)

Another good portrayal of a trauma survivor might be Sarah Connor in Terminator 2: Judgment Day. In the first movie she was a pretty, helpless waitress who got yanked out of her comfortable existence and forced to endure horrifying things. In the second movie, she's hardened and unsympathetic. Her son tries to hug her, and she ignores his affection in favor of patting him all over, looking for injuries. Her character arc culminates in an attempt to k*ll an innocent researcher in front of his family in an attempt to change the future. The overall theme of the movie is that humanity will save humanity, and recognizing the value of human life is the ultimate goal for a happy future.

(I did not notice the Good Omens parallels until I typed that out just now. Neat.)

A perfect trauma victim is a societal myth that hurts real trauma survivors. It's a stereotype portrayed as a person that reduces survivors to a one-dimensional trope. It implies that if a trauma survivor is unlikable or makes bad choices, then somehow they deserve what happened to them or somehow brought it on themselves. Or that they're not a "real" victim; they must be lying or faking it if they don't act just right. In criminal trials, juries are tempted to find for the defense when the accuser turns out to have committed unrelated crimes or had a nontraditional sex life.

A trauma survivor is more difficult to write because they're more complex. They behave as real people would and are a complex blend of internal and external influences. They make choices that fans might not understand or approve of, but in terms of their own survival it makes sense. Like going along with a powerful, dangerous superior instead of telling him where to stick it, so that one and one's companion can live to fight another day. You know, hypothetically. :)

Hope this helps! <3

#badaziraphaletakes #cw: victim blaming #terminator 2 judgment day

29 notes · View notes

nkjemisin · 1 year

Note

Hi!

I’m currently struggling to go to sleep the night before a big solo performance for a school event, so I figured I’d ask one of my favorite authors a couple things I’ve been wondering about. (Does flattery still work on people?)

So, I believe I remember you saying something along the lines of “people ask me why I write about weird sex magic. It’s because I read Greek mythology, and it has a lot of weird sex magic.” And I’m paraphrasing that horribly, but I was wondering, what things *have* you drawn inspiration from? I’m in love with the way magic is portrayed in both the Dreamblood books and the Broken Earth trilogy (I’ve yet to read the inheritance series), and I was wondering what inspiration you had? They feel kind of different to me—dreamseed and it’s counterparts seem really rooted in the four humors and the way some older mythos have a big fuss around the seed of gods and all that fun stuff, but the magic in Broken Earth feels a lot more . . . introspective, I guess? It seems like you’ve written it to be much more focused on the individual’s own perception of it, and that influences what they can do/how they do things. And I don’t really think I’ve seen anything that leans into that angle, as far as mythos goes. (Though I really, really cannot claim to be knowledgeable in that.)

And for the second thing: do you have any tips to becoming a good reader? I can read *fast*, but I really feel like I don’t get more than just the surface and shallow ideas about the message/themes the author might intend. It always seems like people are able to come up with very introspective, in depth dissections of their favorite characters and books, and I can’t help but look at those sometimes, and go, “wow, what was *I* reading?” I guess that it might be a learned skill, but I don’t really know where to start. I guess I also wanted to ask about what themes and such you wanted to incorporate into the Broken Earth trilogy (that was my introduction to you, then Dreamblood, then the Great Cities), but that’s really just a secondary thing to this question.

Well, regardless of whether or not you answer, I just wanted to ask so I could stop thinking about it constantly. I can’t wait to jump into the Inheritance Trilogy next time I buy books.

Flattery doesn't work on me, but I do love to talk shop, so... 😄 Cutting for length:

To your first question, about the different ways I depict magic -- first, it's not just Greek mythology that I use. There are soooo many cosmologies and cosmogonies out there that show gods as rowdy, horny, petty, and basically human, just with weird magic powers on top of that. The Dreamblood books are specifically informed by ancient Egyptian mythology and culture. I did some research into ancient Egyptian medical texts -- in particular the Edwin Smith Papyrus -- so I drew from those to create Gujaareh's four dream humors. I wanted Gujaareh to feel like an ancient Egypt that might have developed if magic actually worked... and if its own version of Imhotep had been a manipulative megalomaniac who decided to start a magic-controlled theocracy. tl,dr; Ancient Egyptians had a thing for humors and surgery and gods that were into sex lettuce, so that's what I claimed for Gujaareh.

With the Inheritance Trilogy I ranged more widely in what I mooched from existing cosmologies, because I wanted to build a belief system that resembled real-world stuff but wasn't just our world's gods in costume. For example, I noticed that lots of systems suggested that existence or human genesis begins with gods banging or fighting (or both), so I came up with a creation myth chock full of gods banging and fighting. Familiar hanger, new clothes on it.

But the Broken Earth books aren't about gods. There's a mythic frame "explaining" the Seasons and past disasters and Father Earth and so on, but that wasn't the focus. I was more interested in the ways we apply myths to people, treating some marginalized groups as simultaneously superhuman and subhuman... but never simply human. Same for the Great Cities books. It's meaningful that other cultures have discovered the existence of city avatars and worked them into their cosmologies, but only as a bit of detail to make the world more complete. Again, the mythology isn't the focus there.

I can't help you on becoming a good reader, sadly, because I am a very bad reader these days. I have a lot of trouble shutting off my "inner editor voice," which is a thing that I've heard a lot of other pro authors (and editors, and reviewers) mention. People in my business spend years developing the ability to spot problems in writing... and the inner editor is what happens when you stop being able to shut that ability off. The typos, the clichés, the patches of language that could've been trimmed out, all of it just starts to glare. The thing is, all books have issues like this, and most of the time they're not even errors, just... pecadilloes. The little things that are part of reading work made by human beings. They mean the writer was tired and didn't proofread as closely as they should, or maybe the writer was waffling on word use and inadvertently ended up using one a little too much, or maybe they were having a fight with their copyeditor about spelling and missed a grammar flub. Just part of reading. But if you, like me, have an inflamed inner editor, then instead of taking in the whole picture of whatever the author is trying to show you, you get nitpicky. You get irrationally angry at typos. You hyperfocus on the author's tendency to use one word too much. (A writer friend told me I use too many "plinths," for example.) You spend time thinking about structural issues and not noticing the language, or vice versa.

But since I'm currently in self-imposed reading rehab, maybe this will help you: For me, it helps to move away from what's familiar. I read a lot of stuff outside the SFF genre, because it's easier to shut off my inner editor when I'm less familiar with the tropes, the styles, the concepts. I've also really gotten into audiobooks, for example, because when I can't see the text I can't critique it, or at least not as instantly. So that's all I can suggest. If you've developed the habit of gulping down books, find a way to throttle the flow, so to speak. Try playing audiobooks on half speed, to train yourself to patience. Read outside your comfort zone, which will force you to slow down and take things in because of the unfamiliarity. Maybe try ebooks with the text blown up a lot, so that you have to turn the page more often; I don't know, just spitballing now. Maybe folks will have better suggestions in the comments. Hope it helps!

#answered asks

128 notes · View notes

hyunjinhoee · 1 year

Text

Just You

Hellooo everyone.. hope you all had a very happy new year<33

req by: @straykidsmaxident thank you sm for requesting<33

Hyunjin x fem!reader

Warnings:- slight cussing; this one is just a fluff

Wc: 665

“It is snowing” You gasped as you and Hyunjin walked out of the restaurant, a small chuckle leaving his lips at your excitement. You let out a laugh as you ran outside spreading your arms, your smile getting wider as you enjoyed the cold ice flakes to fall against your skin.

“This is so fun” You laughed again as this time Hyunjin joined you. “But I feel so cold” Hyunjin rubbed his palms together, “Even if I do this” You throw a snowball at him enjoying how your boyfriend’s expression portrayed all the six stages of grief

“You evil bitc-” Hyunjin chased behind you, both of you laughing as he finally caught you. A smile was still visible on both of your faces as you slid your hands around his neck, a few butterflies fluttering in your stomach as Hyunjin pulled you closer by your waist

You could never get over him or his features. Everyone found him handsome or attractive but to you he was much more than any of those words. He was as beautiful as the snow, as calming as a midnight rain yet warm and comforting just like sunshine.

You often called him a hopeless romantic by how he always called you his soulmate and made random theories about how he was so sure that you both were the same soul which had divided itself into two different bodies. This even though made you laugh at how deeply he thought about things but that was what made you fall in love with him. You loved it so much when he used to tell you some random research work he had done and above everything all you got to see his true self in his paintings. Just like him, his art also seemed to be deep pits of love, mystery, darkness and so on. Everything about him got you fascinated and helped you see things by a different perspective

“Do you just want to continue to stare at me or are we actually going to kiss”

A small giggle left your lips as he leaned in. You must’ve kissed him over a thousand now and yet every time it feels so new. His lips felt cold against yours but still managed to make your blood warm as it rushed up to your cheeks.

You rested your head on Hyunjin’s shoulder, his fingers intertwined with yours as you both walked towards his car. “Such a gentleman” You joked as Hyunjin opened the door for you, “My pleasure” He played along making you laugh

The ride is relatively silent but it’s comforting. Everything which involves Hyunjin is somehow always so comforting.

“Let’s drink hot chocolate at my house” You suggest sleepily as Hyunjin hums in agreement. “Do you marshmallows at home?” Hyunjin glances at you noticing how you didn’t give a response but a small smile forms at his face looking how peacefully you have drifted away

“fuck I love you” Hyunjin grunts as he picks you up feeling a sudden rush of emotions to just pamper you and shower you with all his affection

He softly places you on your bed, pulling your blanket over you as you continue to remain wherever your dreams had taken you. Hyunjin brushes a strand of your hair from your face as he leans in to place a kiss on your forehead, smiling as how you unconsciously placed your hand on top of his.

He always wondered how he ended up with you. You were always so full of life, fascinated by everything the world had for you to see, how you cherished all your moments rather be bad or good. He could have on and on about how much he loved you despite all the differences you both had. Before you, Hyunjin had learnt to keep his feelings buried where he would not let anyone know about anything he was going through but with you he learnt to let go and to appreciate life rather than cursing it all the time. With you he felt free. With you he felt himself and he knew that you too did the same.

“I love you so much”

168 notes · View notes

thatlittleegyptologist · 2 years

Note

My high school AP art history teacher once stated that ancient Egyptian art looks largely “the same” because the religion didn’t change until Akhenaten created a monotheistic religion, only then do we see naturalism emerge in art a la Queen Nefertiti’s bust. At this point I’m aware that this is a bad take, but I was wondering if you might be able to unpack it a bit more. Reading about how ancient Egypt spanned a six thousand year period makes me feel like it couldn’t be possible for there to only be one stylistic evolution in their art, or that there were no religious movements besides the one Akhenaten led.

Yeah, that's a trash take. Unpacking it a 'bit' more is quite an undertaking, especially since I'm being asked to unpack 6000 years of artistic changes. There are more changes than just the Amarna period, as well as there being more than one religious change.

First off, I'm going to paraphrase this post by @rudjedet on art, with her express permission, because frankly I do not have the spoons to fully address artistic change over 6000 years in any meaningful way. It's a lot to ask of someone outside of an actual research project. So, with that being said, be prepared for this to get long because this is a long question with a lot to unpack. All images will have their id in alt text.

So, art. It changes quite a bit, but the changes happen over centuries, rather than defined blocks in time for 'styles', and they're really not that noticeable to the untrained eye. The Egyptians also strived to keep their art style the same way On Purpose, which I feel I've talked about a lot over the past few days, but we've circled back to it again. To talk about art I'm going to borrow Sonja's use of statuary for examples.

The Ancient Egyptians always portrayed themselves as an ideal. What that ideal was did change over time - in the Old Kingdom, it was a man in the prime of his life, strong and fit. See for example this statue of Menkaure:

All Egyptians in their art and their tombs sought to present themselves this way, as this is how they would appear in the Afterlife and also because art is imbued with Heka meaning that you don't want to show yourself looking out of shape or that could come true. For Menkhaure, this is supposed to reflect his strong leadership and virility. Remember, Egyptian art is about image propaganda. This is why it largely tends to follow certain trends that people mistake for being 'static'.

This propagandistic projection was still largely the case in the Middle Kingdom/early Twelfth Dynasty (so when Senwosret I ruled), but it did shift to a portrayal of the king as a man with a care-worn face and big ears, to indicate that he was very concerned with the well-being of his subjects. This was largely due to the fact that there had been famine, and the people of Egypt had suffered. So, what better way of showing you care is to reflect that in the statuary.

This is a head of a statue of Senwosret III, and you can see that while he still looks like a fit ruler, still youthful, he has considerable lines in his face and around his mouth, bags underneath his eyes, and even a wrinkle in his forehead. This is meant to display his worry and concern for Egypt. His ears are large and sticking out, which we’re relatively certain wasn’t a portrayal of reality, but as stated above was a way to indicate a predisposition to listen to both the gods, and his subjects. Senwosret II also does this, but going further back you can see the statuary of Senwosret I is all smiles. This change occurs over less than 100 years, and then after this period changes back to the above style. Tomb art in this period, while remaining the same aesthetically, moves from fully carved to painted, as colour beings to be introduced to more private spaces.

Towards the New Kingdom we see a reversal towards the strong and fit archetype, but with far more of an emphasis on youthful facial appearances. See, for example, this statue of Thutmose I:

(Fun thing: the number of times I see this statue but people have labelled it as Hatshepsut because it's a little more feminine in the face is a very large number).

Round, plump cheeks that display an extremely youthful look. He looks like he’s barely out of puberty when he's likely a grown man at this point. Again, it's propaganda. He's projecting the image he wants people to see, and the image Kings want people to see in Egypt really doesn't change all that much.

Then the Amarna Period happens. And… well you already know about that. Akhenaten seems to break all molds for Egypt, pushing religion, the capital city, foreign relations, and even art all out the window in a very short amount of time.

But it's definitely hyperbole to say he did this out of the blue. I definitely need to point out here that new changes to the art style were already happening under his father, Amenhotep III, and grandfather, Thutmose IV, at least, but the changes there are still relatively subtle. Religion is also changing at this time, but I'll get to that in a bit.

You can see it well in this sculpted head of Amenhotep III, though:

A slightly elongated face, very pronounced lips, almond-shaped, large eyes. If you didn't know, most of you would probably automatically assume this was a piece from the Amarna period. Akhenaten then, almost overnight, just went all-in with this:

The biggest differences between this and the head of Amenhotep III, you’ll see, aren’t so much in the face, but in the body. Akhenaten has round hips and a soft belly, instead of the rock hard musculature that previous kings had themselves portrayed with. It would be inaccurate to use the term “more realistic”, as some people are wont to do, because it implies that Akhenaten truly looked exactly like that and by all accounts it is rather unlike Egyptians to not, in some way, show a perfected version of a thing or person. But it is probably true that a lot of Egyptian rulers had a “good life” belly on them in real life. In fact, it's common throughout all periods to have at least one statue of yourself with fat rolls as it demonstrates wealth and prosperity i.e. the ability to have enough food.

Then we move into the post-Amarna period, and while there we see a return to the more stylised portrayals of pre-Amarna art, the belly and a more subtle version of the fat rolls remain. You can see it in this statue of the Treasurer Maya (on the right, his wife Merit is sat next to him):

Even after this period, when you tend to get Late Period kings trying to replicate older periods and not quite getting the proportions right, the art still evolves and changes. It's just that the overall aesthetic, remains pretty much the same. As I said before this is a deliberate action on the part of the Egyptians. They wanted it to remain the same due to their obsession with archaism and keeping Egypt in it's Golden Age (the Old Kingdom). What you see as static, isn't really at all, but you've got to know the difference between the time periods in order to see the often subtle differences.

As for religion, and I'm going to wrap this up pretty quickly because we don't need anything near the length of what we have above, there are multiple changes but they occur across centuries so they don't have the same dramatic shift as the Amarna period did. Since Ancient Egypt had a pantheon of gods, there was always a 'chief deity' who sat above the rest of them as they were favoured by the priests. In the very early periods this was the goddess Neith, over time she faded out as the popularity of Osiris rose and he became the chief deity. After a few centuries you can see this change to Amun, and his priests became very powerful. During the reigns of Thutmose IV and Amenhotep III, you can see them focusing more on the Aten as the chief deity, but because Egypt had grown significantly by this point the priesthood of Amun was in direct opposition to the King. What Akhenaten did when he caused upheaval makes more sense in this context, especially since it was largely the High Priests of Amun that he was targeting. Once Akhenaten was gone, the priests restored Amun as chief god and that never really changed. Other gods became popular, but they did not oust Amun as head of the pantheon. But as I said, these changes were largely incremental rather than the huge change Akhenaten implemented. They took so long to happen that they wouldn't have been truly visible to the people living through them. There weren't religious movements because religion was the purview of the King and the Priests. Main pantheon worship was supposed to be done by the king alone, but in reality this was delegated to priests. The general public did not enter the temples unless it was festival time and even then they were restricted in the parts they could access. The reason there were no religious movements is because it was the purview of the state rather than its people to perform most of the religious rites, and if the state is in control of something it's very unlikely to change unless they can see that change as one that is expedient for them. After the Amarna period there were some small changes in the way people chose to worship their gods, but the state religion did not change. Like with art, it is this way because the Egyptians wanted it to be so. Also there are only 5 million people in Ancient Egypt. Why change what works?

#my dinner went cold while typing this lmao

257 notes · View notes

wrongcaitlyn · 7 days

Note

okay so ‼️TW‼️ for this ask and off you do not have to answer or read it if you don’t want to please stay safe!

so. i think once in tyt there was a short reference to nico being suicidal and having self harming/self destructive behaviors. i believe maybe it was after he had to jump off the balcony? and will was like “nico did you do that on purpose” and he’s like “no” and it’s “he kept thinking of the time will caught him” or something like that i’m sorry i can’t look at it rn!

BUT

I was wondering if we’re ever going to get an expansion on that or just any mention of it in general.

me personally i would love too see some scar representation but ofc it is your fic and please don’t feel pressured into anything! i totally get if you don’t want to include anything about this.

and i’m very sorry if this made you uncomfortable or that this was triggering for you.

have a good day! and plz don’t feel rushed to respond! ❤️

yes! you are remembering correctly, and do not worry, this isn't uncomfortable/triggering at all to me! in fact, that's actually one of the reasons it wasn't expanded on - i have no experience with self harm/ thoughts of self harm/ being suicidal, and so even though i made those vague references, i felt very unsure about diving any deeper.

also, i started writing this fic when i was still pretty new to writing in general (or at least, i used to write a lot, and then i took a pretty long break, and then i came back with some one-shots, and this was my first really long project in quite a long time), and so i was just really,,, idk not insecure but i was overly cautious about making sure that i wasn't writing anything wrong, especially because i was writing about things that i had no experience with. like, my family's pretty alright, nowhere near abusive, no alcoholics, and despite the depression my mental health's pretty alright, at least at the time i was writing this - and, obvi, the main thing was that i'm not trans, and yet i was writing a trans mc coming from a very abusive household.

so with all of that, i dropped in these references to his freshman year, and very purposefully didn't start in freshman year because i knew that i wouldn't be able to write that accurately (or, at least, i didn't want to risk writing it inaccurately and portraying these very serious topics in a way that might trigger/offend people who do struggle from these things) and started off the fic in a time where nico was mostly in a much better mental state than the year before, but still struggling with those problems - just not as severely(?) as before.

i'm honestly considering/have been considering going back and editing talk your talk (the og fic) just because i think i've grown a lot as a writer while writing that, and there are a lot of, firstly, tiny grammatical errors, and some scenes that i would like to restructure/fix. i might be able to start that this summer, we'll see!

but ANYWAY to answer your question!! i honestly hadn't thought of going more into that, even though i am adding some more detail to nico's current mental health issues/his ptsd. i'm not completely sure about going into *detail* of it, because of the aforementioned reasons; i just think that these kinds of topics are very sensitive and it's not like the kind of stuff you can just, like, google and understand. if i were to add more about sh/past suicidal thoughts, i would definitely want to do more research/look up accounts of people's experience of it, because i'd want to make sure that i'm writing it correctly and not in a way that would just brush aside any of the details, yk?

i also think that, in a way, nico has completely blocked out that time of his life. it was very dark, and he's experienced even more trauma after that, and so it's just something that he tries really hard to avoid/not think about - even though i do think that he talked to mr. d about it at some point.

so the answer, to be honest, is that i don't know, but it's leaning toward a no. now that i think about it, though, i'm not entirely sure if it's realistic for me to just drop that toward the beginning and then never have nico think about it again- so i would have to do more thinking on the topic! thank you so much for bringing this up to me because even though i do remember mentioning it, i never really think about those early chapters anymore, which dealt with some pretty heavy material, even though i tried to stay very vague about it all.

i think that i'll try to include it at some point, and i do have a scene kind of forming in my head that i think i could put it into, but i don't think it will be very detailed, probably staying in the same lane as everything else that i included in the early chapters of talk your talk! thank you for the ask!!

#wrongcaitlyn #talk ur talk asks #tw self harm #tw suicidality

12 notes · View notes

thespianinthebackcorner · 4 months

Text

bringing this old thing over from Hoyolab

its a theory of mine about Rhinedottir from a while back that I think still stands. I'm just copypasting the entire thing so here we go

Ok so I've had this theory simmering for a while now but after that new trailer and some research it's really coming together. Compared to some other theories out there it doesn't have that much evidence but I am fully prepared for any new Rhinedottir lore so if you have info I've missed please tell me (and tell me where you found the info so I can factcheck.)

My theory summarised is: Rhinedottir, like her son, is a synthetic human. This actually started out way back when we first heard her name. Rhinedottir. sounds like Rhinestone, yeah? And what's a rhinestone? A man-made stone. I did some research into the word Rhine on its own though, and it's (a) the name of a river in France and (b) literally means "that which flows" in like Czech or something. (Edit, it's not Czech, it was like Celtic or something, sorry) So I thought it was a dead end at the time.

But then I did more research. Basically, the "dotter" part of the name is a Swedish last name suffix. Joined onto a name, it literally means [name]'s daughter. (If you're wondering, the male version is "son". Like Johnson or Andersson.) Which is where things get interesting. Since this is Rhinedottir's first name, it seems like her own master's name was simply "Rhine." Which, for a synthetic human, would make sense, as their master is usually the most important person to them. If Rhinedottir chose her own name, it wouldn't be surprising that she picked that. Or, that's the name her master gave her, and she chose "Gold" for herself. (Of course, abiding by the Swedish name logic, Albedo's name should technically be "Rhinedottirsson" or "Goldsson" but... Well, it's pretty clear why Rhinedottir didn't follow the pattern.)

We could also take the "Rhine" part literally, making her name mean "Daughter of That Which Flows." Considering that the alchemical substance that seems to bring these kinds of things to life is a liquid, it makes sense. (Albedo had a line in 2.3's Shadows Amidst Snowstorms that implies this- "The alchemical substance drips and spreads out in all directions, resulting in this rather ingenious diamond shape." He's talking 'bout the star on his neck.)

My second piece of evidence is the story teaser- that is, the Windblume cutscene. The Hexenzirkel that she belonged to was formed a long time ago, and in the conversation in the trailer, Andersdotter (the woman who wrote the Boar Princess, who was human) mentions that her lifespan is nothing compared to the other members of the Hexenzirkel. This conversation appears to have happened before the Cataclysm, so it implies that Rhinedottir already had an extended lifespan. She could also simply be a human cursed with immortality after the Cataclysm, but since she literally went underground for 500 years afterwards, I don't think she could have spared the time to have a tea party. She was blamed for the whole disaster, remember, and it was her creations that went out of control across Teyvat, so she was probably running and staying away from society while working on her ongoing project. In the same cutscene, the hands that hold the small child when she's speaking look a little like puppet hands- they look a bit like they're made of multiple overlapping plates. Coincidence? I think not.

And as a last piece of not-really-evidence that I just want to mention- she's been portrayed a lot as a very cold, calculating woman. And yet in the cutscene, she's shown to have her own humanity and affection for her creations- a direct contrast to how the rest of Teyvat sees her, and how her actions have influenced the world and the people in it. From her creations going wild and causing the deaths of many people and other characters (Xiao's siblings included) to her ruthless abandonment and attempted murder of Subject Two, it's interesting to see her own feelings for a change. However, that stroke of humanity we see is also an explanation as to why Albedo and Durin are so attached to her regardless. (Well, were in Durin's case, but... Not the point.) It's implied in the descriptions of the claws we get from defeating Rifthounds that she considers "Cretaceus"- aka Albedo- as her greatest creations, and that Durin of "Humus" is far greater than the Rifthounds, and likely most of her other creations. So perhaps, despite being an awful perfectionist and a sorry excuse for a mother, she loved her "children" in her own way. It's possible that this morally grey switch between "cold and calculating" and "warm motherly type" is a direct result of the way synthetic or artificial humans- not just in Genshin but in lots of other media too- struggle with how they perceive and express their own emotions, often resorting simply to their natural cold, blunt, logical way of taking things when it gets too much for them or they get confused. Which often results in them suffering even more emotional pain and/or guilt, but what's life without needing therapy at some point? And since that conversation we hear Rhinedottir talk so fondly in likely happened before the Cataclysm, she might've been damaged by all that as well, and used raising Albedo as a method of escapism- leading to her perfectionist attitude getting the better of her. Perhaps she disappeared on him so readily because she needed time to heal, and she had nothing left to teach him in her eyes.

So yeah, that's the theory. If you've got this far thank you, cause I know the formattings gonna look awful on PC. Sorry.

#genshin impact #genshin #rhinedottir #albedo #genshin theory

18 notes · View notes

romisora · 2 months

Text

Reflecting on Romeo and Alfredo's Relationship in Romeo's Blue Skies

This is going to be a very long post as I dig through years of interviews with the creators of the series and spend time reflecting on my own feelings since first seeing this show as a kid over ten years ago; I'm curious to see if there are any other queer fans who resonate with my experience. If you're just interested in reading the staff interview snippets, scroll towards the end.

TL;DR Romeo and Alfredo's feelings for each other were confirmed to be romantic in an interview with the director of the series in 2010.

For some background context, I first saw this series as a closeted queer kid. I had seen other media prior to this that were canonically queer on-screen, but had prevented myself from getting too invested in them. Deep down, it scared me that I was drawn to them and I was trying to convince myself that I wasn't like them. Also, I fall somewhere on the asexual and gray-romantic spectrum and as a result I never had much interest in romance-centered stories in the first place. However, something I didn't realize at the time there actually were types of romantic relationships that I desired, but there was an absence of me seeing them portrayed and allowing myself to be drawn to them.

When I first watched Romeo's Blue Skies, I was not prepared for how emotionally invested I became in the story, especially in the relationship between Romeo and Alfredo. I remember feeling confused why I was having feeling so many emotions while watching, and wondering why I was moved to tears over two fictional characters. At the time, I could tell it hit me on a deeper level than some people around me who I re-watched it with, and I was at a loss for what the reasons were. No piece of media had made me feel this deeply before, and few have come close since then. There's definitely a lot of other personal things about the story and characters that have grown with me over the years that contribute to how much I love this series as well, but Romeo and Alfredo were always at the heart of it. Back then, I tried to merely chalk up my feelings to the two characters having a beautiful friendship, one that I desired to have . . .

Years later, after I had figured out a lot more about my queer identity, I decided to revisit this show which had consistently been in my top 5 favorites even though I had not re-watched it in a very long time. Immediately, I started picking up on all the cues and realizing all the things about these two that had moved me and why it had been the case. The way they talked and supported each other, the way they thought each other, and the emotional intimacy between them. Regardless of anything that was stated on-screen, their connection felt incredibly romantic.

Something to keep in mind, I'm analyzing this series through the lens of the split-attraction model and am talking purely about romantic attraction here, not sexual attraction. If you are not familiar with the split-attraction model and different types of attraction, I recommend researching and reading about it. Being a kid on the asexual spectrum, I think it was precisely the innocence and pureness of Romeo and Alfredo's romantic attraction to one another that struck a chord with me. Additionally, being closeted, I believe on a subconscious level I resonated with the fact that these two were clearly in love with each other, but just like me, they did not understand it themselves either.

There were also a couple moments on my re-watch where my interest was piqued by dialogue nuances which were left out in the fansub translations.

From Episode 24, here Alfredo is saying "Romio ga inakucha dameda" (ロミオがいなくちゃだめだ。), which translates a bit closer to "I need you, Romeo," or "I can't do it without you, Romeo." However, depending on the context, this phrase can have a much stronger meaning, translating closer to "I can't live without you."

From Episode 26, although technically Alfredo is agreeing with Bianca here, his exact words are "Aa, subarashiiyo" (ああ、素晴らしいよ) which is "Yeah, he's wonderful."

Later in the same scene, Alfredo says to Bianca, "Omae mo itsuka kitto, Romio ga daisuki ni naru" (おまえもいつかきっと、ロミオが大好きになる。)

"Omae mo" which means "you too," what he's saying here is actually closer to "You too, will surely grow to like Romeo a lot someday." Potentially, there's a stronger undertone here which could be closer to "You too, will surely fall in love with Romeo someday."

"Daisuki ni naru" can mean either "fall in love with" or "grow to like a lot," and can be romantic or platonic depending on context. Bianca's reaction afterwards certainly feels rooted in the fact that his words fall in this gray area.

Ultimately, regardless if Romeo and Alfredo's relationship was not meant to be seen as romantic, it would not change the reasons why the series impacted me so much. However, on my recent re-watch, I couldn't help but wonder how much of it was intentional since so many creative choices in the show felt very deliberate. Alfredo's quickness to grab Romeo's hand, the gentle touches between them, the longing gazes, the promises, the daydreaming about each other when separated, how romantic the accompanying music tracks feel whenever they were together.

A side note here, two things about this situation can be true simultaneously. There can and should be more platonic male friendships with this level of emotional intimacy, and this should be more encouraged, accepted, and represented. At the same time though, there is no need to deny the queer-coding of these two characters. Both interpretations can exist alongside each other. After all, romantic or not, a huge part of their relationship is based on a strong foundation of friendship.

Somewhat related to this, I'd argue that a huge part of why the emotional chemistry between these two characters is so strong is because the story/script writer was a woman and they were both played by women. I joked to myself on my recent re-watch that Romeo and Alfredo have lesbian energy, and later realized that perhaps there were actual reasons why I was getting those vibes 😆

I have the 1996 Megu Extra artbook for the series I had picked up years ago. Since I had been recently been starting to study more Japanese, and Google Lens and DeepL have become pretty good at character recognition and translation, I started to casually read some of the staff interviews in the back of the book. My heart skipped a beat when I read this passage from the interview with the director, Kouzou Kusuba:

(scan of the page is edited to just show the relevant passage here)

Here's a translation I later got from a professional translator:

—It ended up becoming quite popular.

Kusuba: Contrary to my expectations… The fans are maniacs (laughs). Every work has its own fans, but for this one, it really did defy expectations. Well, I do understand the reason. I did depict Romeo and Alfredo in a homosexual-like way. Two men staring into each other’s eyes, or being quick to touch each other. Such depictions were not done previously in the Masterpiece series, and they were quite common here.

The vagueness here was what intrigued me, was he saying they were intentionally gay or just explaining why fans were interpreting them that way? He certainly did not seem to be outright denying the possibility.

I started digging deeper down the rabbit hole of interviews with the staff in various books over the years, burning with curiosity.

I found a couple more interesting vague allusions to the nature of Romeo and Alfredo's relationship in interviews with the script writer and voice actors in the 1996 Megu Extra art book and the 10th anniversary book.

From the 1996 Megu Extra interview with the script writer, Michiru Shimada. Translated with DeepL, edited for readability:

Interviewer: Please tell us about the process of adapting the original story into an anime.

Shimada: At first I thought the story would be a bit hard to follow. But as I worked on it, I think I was able to write something that I never thought I would be able to do. At first, I didn't think it would become this much of a friendship story between Romeo and Alfredo. Of course, I thought that would be the main theme and the climax of the story, but I feel that their friendship, or rather their relationship of trust, went further and further than I had expected.

From the 10th anniversary book interview with Michiru Shimada. Translated with DeepL, edited for readability:

Since I started using the Internet, I found out that "Romeo" had fans, and now that it has reached its 10th anniversary, it still has as many fans as ever. It's very surprising. I am deeply moved that 10 years have already passed, and at the same time, I am filled with gratitude that so many of you remember it. At the time of the broadcast, the ratings were low and I wondered if anyone was even watching the show. So I had no idea that there was a lot of talk among some fans about the relationship between Romeo and Alfredo being "suspicious" (laughs).

From the 10th anniversary book interview with Ai Orikasa and Toshiko Fujita, the voice actors of Romeo and Alfredo, respectively. Translated with DeepL, edited for readability:

Interviewer: So what "Romeo" depicts is the most important part, and in that sense, it is an eternal theme. Even when you grow up, you still think, "I want this kind of friendship," at the heart of it, don't you?

Orikasa: In some ways, it's ideal. I wish I had a friend like Alfredo…. Also, you are drawn to both the innocence of a boy like Romeo, whose hard work is beautiful, and the coolness and fragility of a brilliant but unfortunate boy like Alfredo.

Fujita: Even though they're just boys, there's a deep bond between them, like a romance, right? That's a big theme of Romeo and Alfredo's story.

Interviewer: What do you think is the secret behind Romeo and Alfredo's popularity?

Orikasa: Alfredo is unquestionably cool. Even being unfortunate has a kind of charisma…Romeo, on the other hand, is definitely a blank canvas. He's absorbing everything, but he's desperately trying to survive. He loves people desperately, he desperately wants to do something about it, and he can be clumsy or childish at times, but that's what makes him so charming. As for the relationship between the two, Romeo will never be able to live like Alfredo, and Alfredo will never have anything like Romeo, so they admire each other.

Fujita: I don't know which one of them is happier, but each of them has different qualities that they were born with or things that they acquired without realizing it. On the one hand, I feel like I have to protect them, but on the other hand, I also want to throw them away…That's why Romeo's blank canvas looks wonderful to Alfredo. Perhaps his canvas had been already painted over ever since he was born. They both have something wonderful from the start, but they're both attracted to what they don't have.

…It sounds like we're talking about a man and a woman (laughs).

Orikasa: That's really true. So, I'm sure the fans saw the two of them that way as well. But we were also laughing in the recording studio. There were long scenes where they stared at each other (laughs).

Fujita: That was hilarious. "Isn't it a little too long?" (laughs) We would say things like, "That look in his eyes is not normal."

By this point, I was still wondering if the romantic subtext was actually intentional, or if the creators were just joking around and acknowledging fan interpretations. However, at the very least, I felt I could be satisfied knowing that no one was arguing against the interpretation of them being more than friends. I began to assume that even if the romantic subtext was intentional, the creators would never officially confirm it and would continue to skirt around the topic forever.

Then, to my absolute shock, I found it. Fifteen years after the show aired, in the 2010 World Masterpiece Theater Europe Memorial Book, the director unabashedly confirming the feelings between Romeo and Alfredo were always intended to be romantic.

From the special interview with director Kouzou Kusuba. Professionally translated:

Romeo and Alfredo, the two had fallen in love . . .

With Romeo and Alfredo, that was love at first sight. Without even going into male friendships, the two are lovers. Before they start walking down the road of hardships, when they meet during the apple incident, it was love at first sight. They fell in love. That is the only explanation for having a bond that is that strong.

After Angeletta, Romeo’s heart moves towards Bianca. That is because he saw traces of her older brother, Alfredo, in her. So in the end, it was Alfredo for Romeo.

For comparison's sake, the DeepL translation with my own edits for better readability:

Romeo and Alfredo, they fell in love . . .

Romeo and Alfredo, it was love at first sight. Before you say anything about male friendships, these two are lovers. They fell in love at first sight when they met at the apple incident before they started down the road of hardship. They fell in love. If we didn’t think of it that way, they would not have had such a strong bond.

Romeo's heart moves on to Bianca after Angeletta. It is because he saw in Bianca the image of her brother Alfredo. After all, it really is still Alfredo for Romeo.

There's a crucial bit of info to note about the interview in the original Japanese that confirms it was romance without a shadow of a doubt. The director uses the word 恋 (koi) to describe their love, which is a term that is only used for romantic love in Japanese, as well as 恋人 (koibito - lovers/sweethearts/boyfriends). This leaves no ambiguity unlike the words すき (suki - like), and 愛 (ai - love), which, like their closest English counterparts, can be platonic or romantic depending on context.

Although I didn't need the romantic connection between them to be canon, actually having it confirmed simultaneously fills my heart with so much joy and ache even more. The story hits much harder when viewed through the lens of being an intentional, fleeting childhood romance between two boys who are oblivious to the fact that they are in love with each other. There's a sense of disconnect between them knowing that they feel strongly towards each other, but not realizing what their feelings mean and the people around them not understanding how deep it is either. I certainly had feelings as a kid that I wasn't able to identify as romantic until years later because of compulsory heterosexuality, and I'm sure many other queer people would relate to this as well.

It's beautiful, yet heartbreaking. If you consider it, the way their romance is presented contextually makes sense from both the standpoint of being realistic to the 1870s, time period it is set in, and the constraints of when it was created and aired on TV, in 1995. Especially with Romeo's Blue Skies being a children's show and a World Masterpiece Theater series, there probably would have been no scenario where the creators could have explicitly stated it on-screen. Instead, they poured it all into subtext, which shines brightly.

Romeo and Alfredo never needed to say, "I love you." A few words, a tender gaze and a gentle hand touch between them to me almost feels more romantic than a kiss ever could. It is so painfully evident in the way they look at each other and treat each other that they have a much deeper emotional and romantic bond between them than any other characters in the series.

I think that's what spoke to me all those years ago. The feeling of finding someone you're on the same wavelength with; those unspoken understandings between each other. I saw these two and was struck somewhere deep in my heart with the desire for a relationship like that. Even now, there's a part of me that feels: If I were to find my equivalent counterpart of Romeo and Alfredo, I would be set for life . . .

#romeo's blue skies #romeo no aoi sora #romeo and the black brothers #ロミオの青い空 #die schwarzen bruder #世界名作劇場 #world masterpiece theater #nippon animation #alfredo martini #romeo #ロミオ #アルフレド #romeo x alfredo #official artwork #canon ship

9 notes · View notes

lol-jackles · 11 months

Note

https://awardsradar.com/2023/06/12/interview-jensen-ackles/

First of all, someone tell Jensen to check his connection before doing phone interviews, the audio is TERRIBLE and cuts out repeatedly throughout the convo. But also, someone please get this man some media training. Everytime I listen to an interview he gives I cringe so much throughout. I mean, I get that its TB and I personally don't have an issue with swearing (I do it myself way too much lol), but maybe don't in a professional interview. Also, stop putting down other shows/people to prop yourself up dude, it looks petty (Bridgerton dig).

Or maybe watch your own show because that Homelander vs SB question where he thinks they are pretty evenly matched and even the interviewer gives SB the edge (he seems like a JA fanboy tbh) but the show SHOWED US that SB wasn't actually all that tough. All the "big fights" felt... meh. SB might be volatile but if you knew his triggers he seemed annoying but not the worst to maintain/contain - literally give him some drugs and grannies and you don't have to even think about him.

Plus saying that he started to do research for his character but immediately stopped and just did his own thing for PTSD is not the serve he thinks it is. He claims he didn't want to portray someone else's PTSD so he stopped researching but if he has no experience then "doing his own thing" isn't really a good plan and honestly, the PTSD stuff he did felt... I don't know, not genuine? And not to make it a J vs J thing but we know Jared did extensive research on PTSD for Sam and worked tiny little moments in that felt very natural and subtle (notoriously his flinches at loud noises, esp when it loud noises from his brother's anger - throwing chairs, knocking things off tables etc). I know AA's always praise Jensen for his microexpressions and subtlety with acting but I find him to be mostly histrionic and he rarely does subtlety, you can see his "subtle" from a mile away. It's like he's always trying to be larger than life and it comes across as over-acting.

Link. *Me seeing it's 25 minutes long* Sigh, push play. Yeah the audio wasn't the best and listening him talk about SB's depth and I'm going "where?".

Okay, here is the PTSD part and the interviewer even referenced Dean's PTSD. Eh, didn't want to mirror another's PTSD? To quote the great Meryl Streep, you can't be an effective actor if you're not curious about people and events. When you're interested in things, you want to go deeper and you want to know more. You do the homework so that you are well prepared, which gives you the freedom to explore any avenue on the day of the filming.

I wonder if he done the character work for SB, like writing his character biography that is not outlined in the script, like what's his favorite color, does he have a sister, what's his secret, etc. It’s one of the techniques actors are taught to fully embody their characters and know them backward and forward to help lay the groundwork for developing a strong, believable character.

And here's the prank question because of course these always get asked. Remember kids, 90% of the prank stories are fake news.

Now the Solider Boy vs Homelander question. Interviewer thinks SB has the edge? Oh come on! Starlight was able to push SB away with a booooiiiiiiinnnnnnggggg sound effect. SB actually wasn't a solider, he mostly showed up for the photo ops after the fighting is done. SB can’t fly, isn’t fast, can’t jump that high, doesn’t have laser eyes, out of touch with technology, and he’s fairly predictable. He should be far easier to defeat than Homelander. If you just keep Russian music away from Soldier Boy and and give him a couple of grannies and drugs, he’s content and containable. Homelander can only be contained by the tender hug of Jesus Christ. The only reason why everybody suddenly decided he's worse than Homelander and turned against SB was because he's not the main character.

To be fair, TV acting is often described as “lightly exaggerating”. For that reason I appreciated the more nuanced approach Jared took with Sam while still going above and beyond what the basic expectations are for Sam because he’s alert and always responding to what’s going around him, so he’s always changing and adapting but in more subtle ways. Jensen needs a compelling scene partner to bring out his best because his acting strength is he puts his focus on the other person. This way Jensen doesn’t have to worry about how he’s going to say his lines and speak intuitively, this helps make his portrayal of Dean Winchester appear truthful to the audience. Jensen doesn’t go into a scene looking to do a scene, he goes in looking to be open and give over to how the other person makes him feel. That's why the only two times Jensen really shined as Solider Boy was when he confronted Crimson Countess over her betrayal, and telling Homelander what a disappointment he is. My endless complaint is SB was criminally underused on the show.

#the boys

28 notes · View notes

jasper-pagan-witch · 2 years

Note

re: ancestor work. as a white southerner that has many ancestors that had no concept of ethics and morals, a big part of the "work" part of my ancestor work is not actually worshiping or working with them at all! i have ancestors that were queerphobic preachers, confederates and slavers, and even though i as a descendant never did any of that, descendants of those that my ancestors harmed are still alive and they are still being harmed. ancestor work doesn't have to look like offerings on an altar, sometimes it can look like mutual aid, volunteering, donating to charity, and community outreach on behalf of your entire family rather than yourself. sometimes it's going to therapy and sorting out bad habits that you picked up from your parent, who picked it up from their parent, who picked it up from their parent, and so on/so forth. i know these things arent always accessible to everyone, so you should do research on ways you can help if that's your case!

often times, you'll see "you are your ancestors" being thrown around in ancestor work circles, which is a great point. you are your ancestors in a biological sense. the right people had to meet at the right time in the right place for you to be here today, and their blood is alive through you. BUT you are not the decisions they made, you are your decisions! and you as a living person in your bloodline have the decision work towards dismantling the work they put in while they were alive to be bad people.

all in all, you shouldn't feel pressured to venerate or work with your ancestors and you aren't wrong for not wanting to! but keep in mind ancestor work is rarely as easy as the internet portrays it to be 😭 (sorry this got so long omgg)

These are all wonderful points, anon! Thank you so much!

~Jasper

#answered #anonymous #ancestor work

75 notes · View notes

jennycalendar · 1 year

Text

coming back with some more thoughts on ted lasso --

i did not like how they handled sam. i think it's a mark of progress and how far things have come but at the same time a spotlight on the new problems created by underlying racism/racial anxiety, even within the most loving narrative.

sam's storyline was all over the place! there is definitely a through-line, but none of the things he faces are about him Growing and Learning, really, because he is Already Perfect And Good. his narrative purpose is to serve as an example of how a good dad can positively impact you going forward, which is great, but they will just throw random shit at him like the stuff w/ edwin akufo and then just never fully resolve it! i think it's so so clear that they were making an effort to research and represent nigerian culture, which is wonderful in and of itself, but there is this really sticky issue with race within ted lasso that keeps showing up and i do not like it.

edwin akufo is a one-note character who shows up, torments sam, and then disappears from the narrative after he is bested by rebecca, without ANY explanation as to how this besting impacts his stuff with sam. are we to assume that, because his plans for a football league fell through, he's backed off re: sam? his frankly obscene amount of wealth which the narrative CONSTANTLY alludes to is very clearly more than enough for him to torment sam until the end of time, and he very clearly expresses a desire to do this -- yet the finale shows sam ostensibly a part of the nigerian team, with no bumps or hiccups! edwin akufo is never brought up again!

and also like, shandy? why was she necessary? we have only had two women of color in semi-regular roles and one of them is presented as an impulsive, unkind, selfish nightmare. it really fucking sucked to see that, and it feels weird that ted lasso's line of defense against negative portrayals of women of color is having one Really Really Good One and one Really Incredibly Bad One. there was no need for shandy to be a woman of color if her entire point was to Be Terrible and Then Leave. she was a wholly unnecessary character to begin with & to make her a woc is just icing on top of the cake.

BUT I DIGRESS. i'm bugged the most by sam because, outside of nate, he is the nonwhite character who gets the most screen time! (and the fandom racism towards nate TURNS MY STOMACH, but that is not actually an issue that exists within the text of the show itself, so i'll leave that alone!) i think there was definitely an understanding within the writers' room that portraying a dark-skinned black man as sensitive, soft, and emotionally intelligent was a deeply important move for representation, but they just did not go that extra mile and actually create a consistent storyline for sam. he could have absolutely been that gentle, perfect guy without throwing in That Cartoon Villain Ghanaian Billionaire who shows up to yell at him and be terrible and ruin his life (and then, after one angsty episode in s3, disappear without explanation, clearing the way for sam to do whatever he wants).

it kinda reminds me of colin -- that finale bugged me re: him too a little! certainly it was utterly wonderful to see him kiss his fella at the end of the game, but the way we left things with him was very clearly "the team knows, and that's enough for me." this guy has been closeted for the entire time he's been a football player. telling the team was already so much more than he ever planned to do. kissing his boyfriend in public in the middle of the pitch, where any number of cameras would likely have picked up on them both??? PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SEE THAT. i found that one really hard to swallow as well.

it just bugs me because there is absolutely this understanding of systemic oppression that hovers around the edges of ted lasso, but then they will do things like everything that they did with sam! an awareness that There Is A Problem, but no time spent on the solution. and i totally understand that, tonally speaking, systemic oppression is not ted lasso's focus -- but this season they went out of their way to Make It Their Focus! & yet we get this absolutely bizarre storyline for sam where they just don't tell us what happened or why akufo backed down or ANYTHING. despite multiple hour-long episodes this season. don't like it.

#ted lasso spoilers #let's hope this one goes over ok!!!!#i did my best to form my thoughts in a way that makes sense #and i do know how immediately vitriolic ppl get when race/racism in fandom is talked about.#(glances pointedly at a certain subsection of the spike fans.)#but idk man this was the part of the finale i had a lot of trouble with....#and i am worried that fandom at large is gonna b complaining big time about how the ball was dropped with t/r #when imo there was A LOT of stuff about that finale that dropped the ball.#A LOT.

20 notes · View notes

denimbex1986 · 10 months

Text

'Cillian Murphy has the biggest film role of his career so far in Christopher Nolan's hotly-anticipated Oppenheimer, with the Peaky Blinders star portraying the titular scientist in the three-hour epic.

The film serves as a deeply immersive – and densely detailed – character study of the man credited as the 'father of the atomic bomb', exploring his psyche before, during, and after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Oppenheimer is presented as an incredibly complex man with conflicting emotions, and so you might wonder how much Murphy's own view on the physicist changed throughout the process.

But when posed this question during an exclusive interview with RadioTimes.com, the Irish actor explained that he was actually the worst person to answer it.

"I was so immersed in it," he said, "and so involved in it, and I was trying not to judge the character at all times, and just trying to kind of understand it and give Chris [Nolan] the raw materials for his script."

He added: "I have lots of kind of varying opinions on him, but not one consistent."

Meanwhile, Florence Pugh – who plays one of Oppenheimer's romantic partners, Jean Tatlock – agreed that it was hard for those involved in the film to form a concrete opinion on the man.

"I think, for me, with any character that you play, you have to be their number one fan," she said. "You have to defend them, you have to be able to discuss where it is that they're at.

"And that even goes into the people that they come across. So, yeah, I think you have to be a supporter in all aspects of the story."

Murphy worked extensively with Nolan while preparing to bring Oppenheimer to life, and asked if there was any one detail that helped him unlock the character, he explained that he approached his research from two different angles.

"I did an awful lot of reading, an awful lot of academic work, just looking at all the text that has been written about him and looking at all the archival material," he revealed.

"But then I worked a lot from the outside in, in terms of working on his kind of physical shape, his silhouette. Like how he spoke, how he walked, how he had a cigarette, his pipe, and all that.

"And [I] did a lot of that with Chris as well – so it was kind of two parallel strands."'

#Oppenheimer #Cillian Murphy #Florence Pugh #Jean Tatlock #Christopher Nolan #Peaky Blinders

15 notes · View notes

raggedyhive · 7 months

Note

For moonknight representation i didn't like how Oscar Isaac implied that he portrayed only Steven as autistic, when the entire system would be autistic even if certain members can mask better

Ah, yeah, I remember seeing that initially and getting the ick. I understand it's one of those things people are often misinformed about (and--while not specifically autism--it's a sentiment I see rather often on Tumblr even among people trying to represent the community: disabilities or developmental disorders are rarely--if ever--only going to affect a single alter in a system).

I can respect his attempt for a degree--making sure Steven was a fully realized identity rather than just an "alternative" to Marc--and while it would be fantastic and brilliant were Steven Grant just Steven Grant, but it did fail to recognize that... yeah. It's... not just Steven. He's a part of the whole, and either that whole person/system is on the spectrum, or they aren't. So while the interview and this take respected Steven as a character and respected his development, the statement given failed to do that in tandem with respecting the reality of dissociative disorders as well. The fictional development unfortunately superseded the real-world facts there.

I will say that I agree with the masking statement as well, of course. I know it's largely moot to what Oscar Isaac said (or, rather, what he didn't say), but many people in the fandom, at least, have embraced and do understand that having one alter on the spectrum means they all are, even if their experiences with it can and will differ. It's one thing I have come to especially appreciate from the fandom, honestly.

That aside, I do wish Oscar Isaac and the other creators had been a bit more aware of this reality. I do think that if he was educated about this, he'd likely roll with it, but perhaps that's just me being hopeful. Off-the-cuff remarks in interviews are harder to master, and while I understand they did a lot of work to educated themselves about DID and try to provide accurate representation, it still is frustrating to be left wondering if they'll ever realize that this was a mistake, that it is a misrepresentation. While the larger consumer base of Moon Knight will never see that interview or even hear about it to any degree, and perhaps will draw the same conclusions as much of the fandom of "they're all on the spectrum" instead of "just Steven," it still is frustrating to feel like we need to wave our hands and be like, "Ah, hello, actually! It's important to know that isn't how this works!!"

It was a pretty isolated statement. I'd be curious to have it dug into and expanded upon, because--if I'm honest--even in that initial interview, Oscar Isaac was very vague. It's good representation theoretically. But you can't just dismissively handwave something like autism and fail to research just because the focus is supposed to be on DID. I guess. Kind of.

I have complicated feelings about it, and sometimes am in disagreement with myself on the feelings of this, but I think that's mostly because there was never a moral prerogative in the intention here, and it was dismissive and a well-intentioned simple insight into character development. It's hard to be angry when you get the feeling that if the statement occurred in a back-and-forth and you brought up the, "Um, actually," to him, he'd receive it well.

#not speaks #moon knight #dissociation station #jake lockley #marc spector #steven grant #discourse #autism representation #did representation

18 notes · View notes