#the difference here is we argue with it because we have our desires represented but not only them/not to the strength we want.
Text
DS9 S4 E14 Return to Grace - Slippy Analysis
There is an interesting dichotomy at play in this episode. Kira and Dukat actually work well together for practical purposes just as Dukat states. The reason behind this is they each represent a radical philosophy that compliments the other while being in conflict (Kira less so but once held more reckless beliefs. We will get into that).
Kira has developed and grown as a character over the past few seasons. At first she was a raw, traumatized soldier still fighting a guerrilla war on the frontlines. In her mind each instance of her life was a continuation of the fight against Cardassian oppressors and torturers. Her life was subjected to unimaginable cruelty and pains that break people down, even people like Kira. She was creative and imaginative, but her recklessness got in the way. Kira lacked the normal capacity for trust that most in a regular setting would innately have. She was in a dangerous state of self-preservation. Her life had one mode, survival mode.
This made her a potent influence for spontaneous solutions and problem solving under immense pressure and little time to act. A perfect source of utility for Dukat in his current fallen state.
We see these traits in detail as she explains the weaponry differences to Tora Ziyal (our lovely little adopted sister). Kira knows how to be lethal. She was once prepared to fight everyone around her because she never knew when the battle would begin, so she would just star a battle to keep things on recognizable terms. She was chaotic. These are not all bad things. These traits kept her alive and made her indispensable to the Resistance and the Bajoran Provisional Government.
But she was given security and love when she was stationed on DS9. She was given a place where she could safely open up to others, learn to delegate emotional dependency on worthy people around her, and finally begin to remove the walls that so viciously kept her from the kind people in her life. She could be loved. She could be vulnerable. She could be in a state of emotional peace that so many of us crave.
Eventually you need to set down the weapons. Kira learned this. She has been able to create relationships that sustain her and help her heal from years of trauma.
We need to take a detour and compliment these prosthetics. With each movement they seem organic and do not fold like plastic. They move with Marc Alaimo's body. It is incredible to witness.
Gul Dukat is the polar opposite to all of Kira's traits. He is violent by choice and not by external trauma, even though it could be argued that much of Cardassian society and history is traumatic. He expresses violence because of his overconfidence born of authority. He represents bureaucracy, extreme order, and an expectation that all things will comply with his desires.
When he becomes uncomfortably flirtatious with Kira we see that power struggle of his desire for control against Kira's will to be autonomous. He hides behind a controlled persona with the hopes that he can control Kira. He serves his own wicked ambitions.
Those computer designs are beautiful! Okay, detour over.
Together they both are what the other needs to transition into with some moderation.
Kira still represents the freedom fighter that Dukat now needs to become in order to regain his position as a military leader for Cardassia.
Dukat showcases the diplomat, the "traditionalist", and commander that Kira has been forced into becoming by the Provisional Government. Traits that Kira can learn and tailor into what she feels is genuinely her. She still rejects the pieces that do not fit, and rightly so, but she is growing into an iteration of herself that is happier, healthier, and more completely her.
And here is the glimpse of growth that makes Dukat particularly fascinating. Tora Ziyal.
From her perspective Dukat has given up everything that he finds important in order to be her father. He has sacrificed in order to love her. A parent is supposed to do that. Children thrive upon the love and sacrifices their parents make on their behalf.
The incredibly frustrating thing about Dukat is that Ziyal shows that Dukat has it within himself to be great. Imagine if his ambition was to be everything that Ziyal cherished. If he could become a figure of love, authority, and strength that was observable by everyone, and not just the perspective of his daughter, he could have become an incredible protagonist.
His denial of that potential and his descent caused by chasing his base, selfish ambition is the true evil of the episode. He had an opportunity and he threw it away. His lust for power, greed for authority, envy for sexual connection, and perverse obsession with Bajor is his demise. The loss of Dukat's potential is tragic for Ziyal and the rest of us.
Dukat in a Klingon Birdy of Prey is a recipe for disaster. But still a delicious recipe. I'd eat it.
Ultimately, Ziyal embodies what Dukat should have been but never could be humble enough to accept . She has what he wanted from Bajor- independence, untainted ambition, and a positive outlook on what life could be despite the ugly evils around her.
The fact that Dukat had the restraint to let her go is a credit to his potential.
Yet, Kira is the hero here. Don't mistake that. Kira never ceases to deliver as a character. I hope Nana Visitor received an award for her acting efforts as Kira. Her ability to lead someone as viciously authoritarian as Dukat displays her strength of charisma.
Imagine how fiercely protective Dukat would have had to become regarding Ziyal. He was committed to killing her before he decided to reject his inner evils and accept her into his life as a permanent fixture of his family. That is a huge change of character. He faced immense opposition and pressure from Cardassian society, his career, and his own family. Yet, he maintained the course and went all in for Ziyal.
Now Kira tells him that he must let her go to DS9 and be out of his care. Given his personality that is no small ask. Kira convinced him to agree because she taught Dukat that Ziyal will be condemned to turn into something like him if he refuses.
Well done, Kira! Well done!
Thank you for reading! Now take your sloppy kiss and keep scrolling!
#star trek ds9#star trek#ds9#kira nerys#gul dukat#tora ziyal#s4 e14 return to grace#slippy thoughts#pictures courtesy of trekcore.com
43 notes
·
View notes
Text
my Videogame Studies teacher asked us for a story about us as gamers and I accidentally wrote a 5 paragraph essay on why Your Turn to Die is the best game ever so here it is
If I had to pick any game (aside from Pokemon) that changed my life I'd definitely pick Your Turn to Die: Death Game by Majority. I learned about it after watching my friend play it during a club meeting in high school. At first glance, it seems like any other simple indie visual novel. But in reality this game is so powerful with it's premise, story and characters. I'll try my best to explain it without spoilers because I HIGHLY recommended you check it out (it's available for free, and can be played on browser here!!).
First, it's premise. It starts with a simple question: how fair is a majority vote? Some argue that it is fair, because it represents the will of the most people. Others argue that it leaves the minority at a permanent disadvantage. Although this may not seem like a big deal, this paradox can make a big difference if you're voting for something important, like your right to live.
This brings me to my second point: the story. Again, I won't put any spoilers, but this is probably the most intricate and powerful story I've ever seen. (Fun fact: this is also the only game that has ever made me cry). There is a strong theme of death in the story. How we grieve and process our emotions; how we react to the thought of our own death; how far we're willing to go to help someone who's death is practically guaranteed. It challenges your morals and makes you admit that times of crisis completely change your desire to help others, either for better or for worse. All the while introducing you to an eccentric and inverse cast of characters that you easily grow attached to. The way their actions and beliefs are written are so unmistakably human.
And my final point: the execution. As I stated before, this game has a very simple design. It's a visual novel with static 2D sprites and pixel art backgrounds. The music was entirely composed out of GarageBand sound loops. And yet it captures the emotions of the story so well. The music, despite being so cheaply made, managed to accurately recreate the feelings of fear, hope, relief, and intense anxiety. The sprites show so much emotion as well. It really proves that a good game doesn't have to look fancy, it just has to capture the story it's trying to tell.
My views as both a gamer and a human being will never be the same after playing Your Turn to Die. I have so much more respect for game designers and musicians. I also questioned my own morals a lot during my playthrough. I also made a lot of friends who also liked this game. I do hope you all take a lot at it, and show the creator some support for making such a wonderful game all on his own!
#yttd#im so tired why did i write this#dont regret it tho#Nankidai deserves the free advertisement#plus it was due at midnight#this was an OPTIONAL assignment#i am built different#your turn to die#sumi's late night rambles#<- this is peak late nite rambles#queued to encourage sleeping
16 notes
·
View notes
Text
Sorry to say that I expect to be distracted from Revolutionary Demonology for a little while, because I'm having to spend a week putting something together to fight for my job. Nonetheless, for whatever reason I found myself contemplating the way the book discusses the order of the cosmos as a "thermodynamic abomination". I find there's many contours there.
The word abomination here is an obvious rhetorical flair, but is conventionally a moral designation. There's a connection to the presentation of the cosmic order as being violently derived from its origin - carved in a Mother's flesh and blood as it were. "Abomination" is Latin in origin, meant colloquially to denote an object of almost supreme disgust but conceptually as a reference to some grievous offense against divine moral order. But perhaps for Gruppo Di Nun it's flipped, and the order itself is the grievous offense.
Perhaps in this configuration the order of the Man-God Machine emerges necessarily as crime, against the undifferentiated void that was once represented by a Mother, like Tiamat. In this sense we find ourselves in suspiciously familiar territory: that of Sethian Gnosticism. Here Marduk and Yaldabaoth almost look like the same person, and the Pleroma is the black void of the Mother's womb, what Gruppo Di Nun seems to figure as the objet du desir of a universal death drive. I suppose I can already sense a picture pregnant with Plotinus' old objection - that this world is such an utterly corrupt and criminal one, and yet here are the Sethians content to persist within it rather than excise from it. The void of the womb is such a wonderful place, the order of things is such an abomination, steeped in blood. Whatever are we doing here then? I suppose that's an answer I still have to find out by reading the rest of the book.
Much more intruigingly though, I almost feel an uncanny sense of a perspectivist dissolution of order and chaos here. Fundamentally, "abomination" is a category situated against pre-existing order. But for our "thermodynamic abomination" the "pre-existing order" is none other than primordial chaos. In the Sethian cosmogony there is a similar, somewhat inverted theme. It can be argued that, instead of primordial chaos, Pleroma if anything embodies a kind of primordial order, that being a necessary affect of the quality of divine unity that it's supposed to embody. And then Sophia and her son Yaldabaoth transgress and corrupt that unity and order: first by Sophia breaking the rules to conceive independently, and then by Yaldabaoth creating his own cosmos distinct from the Pleroma. Thus "chaos", of sorts, is introduced, and thence suffering.
Sophia herself is interesting to contemplate in this mix since, from what I have seen, Gruppo Di Nun places an intense focus on queer resistance to the heteropatriarchal social order, and so an antinomian queer rejection of heterosexual reproduction is very much in play, at least from what I've seen. This is represented in the figure of Apophis, the Egyptian serpent who ate the dead and battled Ra in its quest to devour the universe, and against whom a litany of spells were created for the sake of warding off, protecting from, or combatting. An uncreating force that continually overcomes creation, a recurring and unreproducing entity, the anti-dialectical power of extinction. And I thought of Sophia, as representing an entirely different rejection of hetero-reproduction, particularly in the Valentinian cosmogony.
Sophia "fell" because she tried to produce a new being without the aid of a syzgy, or twin, here meaning a male counterpart - as in, through parthenogenesis. The Aeons (including Sophia) were supposed to be emanations of the divine unity of God (that is to say the "true" God of Gnostic theology, which we must stress was still a Christian God), and as emanations they could only emanate other emanations through heterosexual reproduction. Syzygies were pairs of male and female Aeons who in turn emanated other syzygies, more heterosexual families of Aeons. Only God, who we should keep in mind was still called "The Father", was uncreated, and so only God could perform parthenogenesis. Sophia, however, wanted to understand God by way of imitation, and to do this she wanted to conceive a being without the aid of another being. This of course is an obvious flying in the face of heterosexual reproduction, which in Christianity both orthodox and Gnostic seems to be considered ordained by God. This attempt is regarded, in Valentinian terms, as a cosmogonic abortion that is in turn the cause of the creation of the physical world, and with it the suffering of all beings, and later regretted by a penitent Sophia. I would say that this narrative presents a profoundly negative attitude to abortion, even by the standards of "orthodox" Christianity at least up until the 19th century.
I can see, though, that this is not the ideal archetype for Gruppo Di Nun's worldview, since Sophia's fall is ultimately situated in a universe where divine unity is at the centre of the universe, where the fundamental opposite is the case for Gruppo Di Nun. And yet we could easily go back to the previous conversation of "thermodynamic abomination" as parallel to primordial cosmogonic transgression.
Thinking about the idea of transgression against the void is fairly fascinating for the rammifications it presents. But the nagging question of course would be should Life really have been expected to not emerge as it did, because it goes against Mother's wishes? That is the sense of what "abomination", as an inherently moral category, could as well imply.
#occultism#gruppo di nun#gnosticism#tiamat#marduk#yaldabaoth#chaos#order#left hand path#transgression#cosmogonic sexism#sophia#pleroma
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
Why not consider having mandatory psychological assessments, for our presidents and other leaders?
I decided to look up what criteria are typically considered when nominating individuals for such an important role in our society as well as the processes we use to make decisions. So how exactly do we assess a candidate? This question dawned on me later after years of feeling let down by my choices despite my initial optimism. In every election I found myself repeating the errors time and time again.
It’s become apparent to me that I simply lack all the information to make an informed decision. Realistically how could I? Solely based on a string of responses, appearances or televised debates? There have been instances in my life where close friends or family members have surprised me with their reactions and behaviours. So then how can I accurately judge someone I have no connection with?
It’s evident that each of us has our limitations when it comes to assessing individuals – influenced by our beliefs, values and more. We are all unique with varying perspectives, judgments and scales of values. The same holds true for candidates.
In conclusion, what defines a leader. And how can we discern this prior, to casting our vote?
To begin with, there is not only one set of criteria for evaluating the performance of a president. Various theories exist on this subject and as always compiling a 10 list can yield varied results. Fundamentally, each individual is unique from the outset. It’s impractical to expect one leader to cater to every preference equally. Leaders cannot meet all our desires. But can a leader exhibit both efficiency and ethical conduct across all domains? Certainly possible. Then, who determines the core values that should be prioritized?
Here’s what some opinions say – as different perspectives offer viewpoints. Some argue that it’s essential to consider the beliefs, attitudes and actions that differentiate leaders from others; while others posit that it’s not merely personal traits or characteristics that hold significance but rather the transformative vision that others can get behind.
Certain individuals advocate for adopting a lens when evaluating a leader’s character and virtues like compassion, modesty, honesty, self-restraint, fairness, responsibility, bravery, transcendence, determination and cooperation. These leaders tend to be most impactful when they embody a shared set of principles which facilitate discussions, among others on how to implement them.
Some individuals lean towards beliefs centred on following rules and societal norms like avoiding conflicts of interest, obeying laws and providing benefits – these factors influence how politicians’ behaviour is ethically evaluated.
Even if there were a list of 10 accepted values it wouldn’t completely address the issue. Why? Because people tend to show bias towards those they consider part of their group and are more swayed by those they feel a connection with. Humans strongly favour those they see as “one of us”.
Consequently, individuals often overlook these 10 values when assessing someone in (or aspiring to) a leadership position. Subconsciously, we tend to assess leaders based on our ideas of leadership. People typically use criteria to evaluate politicians relying on impressions and the opinions of their social circle. Essentially, we have crafted an idealized image of how leaders should be perceived. Some may seek an authoritarian figure similar, to what they experienced in their family background; however such leaders are often punitive, lacking empathy and inclined towards intimidation.
Many people are influenced by what they see in movies and TV shows, where leaders are portrayed as life figures who can save the world. However, this often leads to false expectations and unfair blame placed on leaders when they can’t meet those expectations.
It’s knowledge that no leader is flawless. Politicians can’t please everyone because they represent groups with conflicting interests. Collaboration and compromise are essential for progress.
Imperfection doesn’t equate to incompetence. Soft skills play also could play a role in a politician’s effectiveness more than their beliefs.
Given our lives, it’s challenging to form well-informed opinions about leaders. Wouldn’t it be helpful to have assessments that provide insights without relying on guesswork? I don’t want us to become careless in our judgments relying on evaluations solely. However, it’s crucial to find a way to make important decisions especially when our future is on the line. Tools for assessment, and having an extra layer of security in our choices would be beneficial.
I prefer knowing upfront if someone has Machiavellian or narcissistic traits so I won’t be caught off guard later. It’s important for me to understand who is the person behind the TV screen from the beginning.
When you need to get your driver’s license, you need a psychological test. In recruitment, more and more companies are requesting psychological tests for potential employees based on the principle that having the necessary skills is not enough if you are not compatible with the organizational culture and are not a good team player. If such requirements are desired by companies with just a few employees, why shouldn’t they be mandatory for a position that involves leading millions of people?
I will leave at the end a very interesting article that I found and which, I believe, is just as relevant today:
“American presidents are not required to pass mental health exams or psychological and psychiatric evaluations before taking office in the United States. But some psychologists and members of Congress have called for such mental health exams for candidates following the 2016 election of Republican Donald Trump. Even members of Trump’s own administration expressed concern about his “erratic behavior” in office. The president described himself as a “very stable genius.””.
Who Decides If Presidents Are Unfit to Serve?, By Tom Murse, January 12, 2020
https://www.thoughtco.com/presidents-and-psych-evals-4076979
1 note
·
View note
Text
Towards a Philosophy of Magick, Pt. 6: Paradigmatic Values
In which I present the values by which we may judge paradigms. Written 10-25-23.
In the section of this work introducing the notion of paradigms, I presented the issue of the incommensurability of significantly differing paradigms of belief. This incommensurability comes from a basic problem of logic. Let us consider a simple illustration from the field of magick.
1. Person A subscribes to the psychological paradigm of magick. They believe that magick is fundamentally an operational theory of psychodynamic psychology. This paradigm includes the beliefs that deities represent archetypes within a “collective unconscious” (popularized by the works of Carl Jung) and that spirits are aspects of the human mind. For Person A, doing magick consists of using external symbolic behavior to cause changes in the internal consciousness with the goal of changing their own behaviors and perceptions in order to cause effective changes in their life.
2. Person B subscribes to the realist paradigm of magick. They believe that magick is an operational theory of causing change directly in reality. This paradigm includes the belief that deities and spirits are actual independent entities capable of causing change in the world. For person B, doing magick consists of using certain techniques to operationalize magickal laws (contagion, sympathy, and their corollaries and consequents) and interact with certain forces to cause effective changes in their life.
Now let us say that A and B hold a debate over the question of whether the angel Cassiel is immortal.
1. A argues that Cassiel can’t be immortal because they exist as a shared thought in human minds, and humans are mortal, which means that when the last human who knows about Cassiel dies, so does Cassiel.
2. B argues that Cassiel is a spirit, specifically an angel, a messenger and agent of the Divine, a sort of reification and custodian of a specific piece of ontological infrastructure, and that as such, while Cassiel was created at some specific point in time with that ontological infrastructure and will cease to exist at the end of the universe when that infrastructure ceases to be, B insists that Cassiel cannot die in the sense that a physical biological being dies, and is thus immortal.
How can we, the judges of this debate, decide the issue fairly? Kuhn argues (and I agree with him) that we can’t. The definitions that A and B are using of the term “Cassiel” differ so significantly that the premises A and B are using may as well be from different universes (and in fact they are from two different and inconsistent “universes of discourse”). This means that, since there is no real agreement on basic principles, we can’t make a principled decision between the two. This problem is exactly what makes the differences between A and B paradigmatic, rather than traditional. Indeed, as mentioned in the section of this work on paradigms, two people from the same magickal or mystical tradition may hold exactly these two differing paradigms of belief but still participate in the exact same paradigm of practice.
Presented with this problem, it seems that we need a metasystem for discussing and deciding between paradigms of both belief and practice, at least on a personal level. Since we can’t reasonably choose between paradigms from within those paradigms, we have to take one step outside of them and make our decision from there. Thus here I present a list of properties I believe we should desire for a paradigm of belief and any resultant theories within a given paradigm, with explanations of each.
1. Empirical Adequacy: Empirical adequacy means that the paradigm fits the associated observations and does not contradict them in an unacceptable way (see below entry on “Internal Consistency or Paraconsistency”). This is the first and most important feature that any paradigm must have for it to be useful and productive. Note that my use of the term “empirical” is essentially phenomenological, and not limited to physical sense-data.
2. Internal Consistency or Paraconsistency: A successful paradigm must not suffer from the wrong kind of inconsistency. Remember from the section of this work on logic that paraconsistency is a feature of logical paradoxes and some mystical insights, and each use of paraconsistency within a paraconsistent paradigm or theory must be especially justified to avoid destructive contradictions that lead to logical “explosion” (all possible propositions becoming arbitrarily true). This means that almost all propositions in a given paradigm or theory must be logically consistent, and that those that are paraconsistent must be specially justified. Any inconsistencies outside these very special conditions should be considered disqualifiers for a given paradigm or theory.
3. Precision: This is the property of specificity in claims and analyses. While sometimes there is a necessary vagueness in some magickal processes (divination, for example), the analyses and predictions made by a successful paradigm or theory must be as precise as possible. It is not enough to simply wave away a given element of the paradigm or theory��each element must be defined as clearly and distinctly as possible and its relationship to the other elements of the paradigm or theory shown clearly.
4. Simplicity: A good paradigm or theory should be free of unnecessary elements that do no explanatory, predictive, or technical work. This is a corollary of the Principle of Parsimony, otherwise known as “Occam’s Razor”: “Do not multiply entities needlessly”. Thus when presented with two otherwise equal paradigms or theories, we should prefer the one with fewer elements.
5. Explanatory Power: Given two otherwise equal paradigms or theories, the one that most successfully explains the observed phenomena is preferable.
6. Completeness: While a truly “complete” theory of anything is impossible due to the same incompleteness theorems of Kurt Gödel mentioned in the section of this work introducing paradigms, completeness, by which I mean the degree to which a given paradigm or theory grounds and explains all of the phenomena and applications in question, seems a very desirable property. Thus when presented with two otherwise equally preferable paradigms or theories, the one which more completely grounds and explains more phenomena and applications within the paradigm or theory is the one we should choose.
7. Robustness: Robustness is a measurement of how well a given paradigm or theory holds up when challenged. Obviously a more robust theory is preferential, as we don’t want to be needlessly revising our paradigms and theories all the time.
8. Fruitfulness: Fruitfulness is a measure of how well a given paradigm produces new theories and how well a given theory produces new applications. In magickal terms, it is a question of how much a given paradigm or theory allows people to do more and better magick.
9. Predictive Success: Predictive success is a measure of how well a given paradigm or theory predicts contingent events within the observed phenomena. In magickal terms, we would talk in terms of our analyses of the magickal forces at work in a given situation and predictions made using those analyses, such as the predictions made in a divination or the predicted results of an act of practical magick. Clearly a paradigm or theory with a higher rate of predictive successes is preferable.
10. Technical Success: Technical success is a measure of how well a given paradigm or theory allows us to cause desired changes in the world. In the context of magick, this means how often our magick is successful. A paradigm or theory which produces more technical successes seems obviously preferable to one that produces less.
This list presents the qualities I will use to consider and compare paradigms and theories of belief and practice in my work moving forward. In the next section we will consider the issue of belief change and the logical methods we will use to discuss it.
0 notes
Note
a) what did that person even mean....... 2) can I reblog the original post because Yeah same
probably trying to remember to comprehend what I said because in the tags I said you cannot comprehend my reality (which is true, because no one can comprehend other people's realities, and also is kinda false, because I know logically that other people can at least understand my world experience but often others don't seem to really understand what I'm trying to talk about and we feel very lonely because of it. and. Screaming that we are unable to be understood or comprehended (one is true the other isnt) is. a bad way to cope but a way to cope.) and also. No please don't?
It's a really literal post actually... it's... very genuinely describing the experience of talking with something that borders between unconscious thought process and alter, and has snippets and desires of all alters but isnt any of them, and therefore is both the truest self we have and also the most false, as its the most reflexive and deep mask we wear, able to kick on at any time even in our deepest moments of grief and most alienated moments of dissociation to prompt anyone to be sociable and emotionally available at any time, and is itself almost aware enough to be an alter but is without true desire as it holds all desires only of others? The autopilot - Homeostasis - That damned wheel. Its. yeah.
I'm not Malachi but I'm guessing he wrote it in a moment of deep loneliness because we havent talked about it, but also havent ever seen a centralized prompter and mask that doesnt directly control talked about before. So. It made us feel very lonely and not understood.
I’d thank you not to reblog this to because in explaining ourselves and why that shit kinda hurts, even if we lean into it, we’re being super vulnerable and I. am reluctant trusting a bunch of semi-strangers. For better or worse. So uh. Don’t fuck me over?
#but uh. isnt that. having that just. what singlets do. isnt that just your you. like.#the difference here is we argue with it because we have our desires represented but not only them/not to the strength we want.#and our... personalities. yknow. affect how we interpret prompts/if we follow them at all.#asks#rabid-catboy#?posting
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
Nikola Stojanovic’s degree theory
— you can learn more about his theory here and here. he was the maker of this theory, i’m simply passing the knowledge i’ve researched on him in a more simplified way!!! trigger warning for mentions of death and violence for the 11º, the 15º, the 18º and the 22º degrees
according to nikola’s research, each degree is connected to the sign it rules:
aries degrees — 1º, 13º, 25º - taking action, fighting spirit, not giving oneself up to fate, struggle, war, can indicate abuse, labor, diligence, leadership, beginnings, etc
taurus degrees — 2º, 14º, 26º - money, food, the earth, stability, luxuries, voice, singing, etc
gemini degrees — 3º, 15º, 27º - communication, gadgets like televisions or phones, self-expression, books, siblings, neighbourhood, etc
cancer degrees — 4º, 16º, 28º - home, nurture, traditions, loyalty, faith, mother, water, etc
leo degrees — 5º, 17º, 29º - attention, life, fame, light, children, creativity, self-expression, monarchs, entertainment, strength, hair, etc
virgo degrees — 6º, 18º - to diminish, to make smaller, improvement, health, work, routine, pets, to be of service, etc
libra degrees — 7º, 19º - fairness, law, business, partnerships, fashion, beauty, charm, luxury items, music, art, etc
scorpio degrees — 8º, 20º - the 8º specifically is connected to death, wealth, to take from others, manifestation, secrets, insurance, sex, jealousy, pregnancy, etc
sagittarius degrees — 9º, 21º - abundance, expansion, wisdom, college, travelling, to explore, etc
capricorn degrees — 10º, 22º - to take control, public attention, coldness, fear, depression, rationality, ambition, father, etc
aquarius degrees — 11º, 23º - divorce, surprises, high places, high tech, new technology, humanitarianism, organizations, friends, networking, etc
pisces degrees — 12º, 24º - sleeping, drugs, alcohol, lethargy, the unconcious + our psyche, emotional dejections, feet, madness, shadows, unclear, endings, etc
0º represents the basic characteristic of the sign - it acts in its purest form. for example, if you have the 0º in aries sun, aries here acts in its most potent, pure way.
that way, if you, for example, have your ascendant in pisces at the 13º, you’ll express aries characteristics + all that is connected to taking action, to fight. now, knowing this, this theory can manifest itself in different ways.
i’m going to give an example that he talked about in his website that i found simple to understand yet powerful. when nikola was discussing with another astrologer, he wanted to talk about his degree theory, so he took a look at the birth chart of the wife of the other astrologer, and after a minute of analyzing it, he said as follows: “Your wife called a carpenter to the house and ordered a larger bed to be made. When the carpenter had finished the job, you went to bed and realized that the work was not properly done. One measure was right – the bed was long enough - but the other one wasn't – the bed wasn't wide enough, it was still narrow”. the look the other astrologer gave him told him that his brief analysis was absolutely correct.
his reasoning behind it was that the wife’s 12th house (which rules sleeping, beds, bedrooms) cusp began at the 21º of aries, and the ruler of that house, mars, was at the 6º in virgo. aries simbolizes to create and the 21º, a sagittarius degree, simbolizes to enlarge. so, his wife wanted to create (aries) a larger (sagittarius/jupiter) bed (the 12th house). because mars, the ruler of the 12th house, was placed in virgo (someone who renders services, a worker), she called the carpenter to the house. her mars was, however, in virgo at the 6º which is a virgo degree (virgo simbolizes diminishing, making smaller), which meant the measure of the bed had to be smaller than needed. therefore, the cusp of the 12th house (the bed) at the 21º (sagittarius - larger, longer) signifies that the bed was both long enough (enlarged), and mars in virgo at a virgo degree (6º) meant that it was not wide enough (it was narrow). nikola established connections between degrees, the signs, the planets and the houses where they fell and the aspects that they made in order to make this kind of predictions.
he also found a few degrees to be connected to significant things.
THE 2º DEGREE - SUPREME POWER
nikola, through the research of the birth charts of many people throughout history, observed how those who contained planets, houses and aspects (+lunar nodes, arabic parts, vertex and of course, the four cardinal points: the IC, MC, AC and DC) in the 2º degree were those who made remarkable achievements, who wielded extreme power and were highly respected. he got to this conclusion by analyzing the birth chart of queen victoria - other rulers at the time had more powerful aspects than she did, but allas, they weren’t the ones to almost rule the entire world - it was her, so he began noticing the pattern between power and the 2º. literal jesus himself had his mercury in pisces in the 2º. i myself have four degrees at 2º, so it’s nice to know my dreams of starting a revolution, overthrowing the government and achieving world domination are supported by the astros
THE 5º DEGREE - EROTICISM
this degree is connected to beauty, desire, sex appeal, receiving sexual attention. many sex icons like marilyn monroe, jean harlow and mata hari had it present in their birth chart. nikola talks about this being the best degree in his eyes. considering that it’s a leo degree, it’s all about living, having fun and enjoying life.
THE 11º DEGREE - DIVORCE / SUICIDE
both the 11º and 23º degrees of aquarius indicate divorce, but, according to nikola, the 11º is connected to suicide.
THE 15º DEGREE - CAR ACCIDENTS
this degree, when connected to scorpio + the 8th house, can indicate car accidents.
THE 18º DEGREE - PURE EVIL
simbolizes a bad destiny. to nikola, this is the worst degree you can have. it can indicate rare deseases, tragic accidents. he says there’s no good about this degree but i absolutely disagree. not to be a hopeless optimist or to pretend to possess half the knowledge that he does but i think it’s pretentious to assume that a degree is literally all bad and that there’s nothing we can do about it — that takes away from our free will and our inner strength. Many, many people have this degree present in their charts (i believe nikola had it himself), it’s all about facing hardships but, well, that’s life.
THE 22º DEGREE - TO KILL OR BE KILLED
nikola has found this degree in the birth charts of murderers + people that were murdered. his significance of “to kill or be killed” is quite literal. now, i want to remind you that this is the worst case scenario and that this degree can manifest itself in many diferent ways - just like the 18º and the 8º. the death can be figurative. for example, donald trump’s chart: he has his sun in 22º, and his mercury in 8º - and I’m afraid he’s quite alive at his old age and kicking it, even if he’s suffered a public destruction. @saintzjenx in her degree theory post talked about how this placement can also indicate abandonment. i agree, i have my sun at 22º in the 10th house (the house of the father) and my father was very emotionally absent + physically as well (his work has him working at other cities during the entire week)
THE 29º DEGREE - CLAIRVOYANCE/PROGNOSTICISM
the 29º indicates someone with clairvoyant potential, someone who makes accurate predictions, with great intuition. it’s to note that nikola himself had a 29º in his chart, and that he became known for the predictions he made using the degree theory (for example, he predicted that america would have its first black president ten years before barack obama was elected). but he does like to say that he has absolutely no intuition, though - what prompted him to study the degrees was his virgo rising, acording to him, his need to study and put his brain to work. still, he observed how many clairvoyants had this degree. other astrologers talk about this being a degree that means destruction (and when you analyze trump’s birth chart and how he has his ascendant and his 11th house at the 29º, you can very much argue about the truth behind that theory) but all in all, nikola talks about this degree as benefic.
in case you’re feeling bad, remember i have the to kill or be killed 22º, plus the 8º of death, plus the 11º of suicide, plus the 23º of divorce, plus two of the 18º of pure evil! let’s suffer together besties. on the upside i have four of the 2º so we riding to eternal glory!
but now seriously, i know some of this is very hard bc obviously life isn’t all fun and games but. remember that we all have free will, life isn’t determined and having a lot of these in your chart doesn’t mean impending doom!! i have them and i’m very much kicking it and i’m not intending to stop. it’s all about acceptance, learning how to work with even the worst degrees in order to make the best out of them. plus, the degrees can manifest themselves in a lot of different ways and a lot more matters than just them being present - like the signs that they’re in, the aspects with which they make and how harsh they are, the house where they fall etc etc.
please do take your time to read through his website + to watch the interviews nikola did on youtube!! he was an amazing astrologer whose theory greatly impacted the way astrology is studied today. he’s fun to learn from, too, which is a plus
#astrology#degree theory#capricorn#aries#scorpio#leo#sagittarius#gemini#aquarius#libra#virgo#taurus#cancer#pisces
4K notes
·
View notes
Text
The Symbolism of Spamton, and what he says about us
I don't usually analyze Undertale/Deltarune characters but I love Spamton. In this post I'm going to go over what Spamton represents, and all of his relevant symbolism. I'll try to keep this one short and straight to the point.
Before we can talk about Spamton we need to explore the context of Chapter 2. It should be clear to most people that Queen, her plan, and level are a metaphor for social media. Specifically Twitter. More specifically Twitter Drama.
Even her name is a play on the word “drama queen”
The whole level is centered around a blue bird character, Berdly. A possible reference to Twitters blue bird logo. I mean, just look at her boss battle. If taken out of context, what do you see?
You see a person sitting in a chair controlling a blue bird to attack people.
Is that not Twitter?
Although its important to note that Berly himself doesn't seem to connect to this social media metaphor in a narrative sense, you could still argue that Berly's front of intelligence could represent how people act online, trying to appear as someone cooler and smarter than they really are.
Point being that like the first game, Deltarune was created to be a commentary on fiction and role play. The first chapter is literally about games, and this one is about our digital presence online.
Another more obvious reference to Twitter in the chapter is the sidequest about collecting “blue check marks:
You have to bring the Hacker “checks” which could be a reference to “Verified Checks” on Twitter, and when you give them to him he creates a fireworks show “in dedication to you.” Symbolizing how for many people on the internet, getting a verified twitter check is the symbol of becoming famous, worthy of celebration. A sign that you've become a “big shot” now.
On that note, let's finally talk about Spamton.
The most obvious connection is that Spamton seems to be like Mettaton.
Spamton and Mettaton have similarities, beyond their names. Both are “robots” that want to steal your “heart shaped object” to become big and powerful.
But the key difference between the two is the motive, and this is where the social media angle comes in. In the first game, we meet Mettaton who at first seems cut throat and sinister, but is revealed to have a real passion and dream. He wants to “get big” to make music that everyone enjoys, and even decides to stay behind out of an altruistic devotion to his fans.
Compere this to the cynicism of Spamton. Notice how in the first battle with Spamton you progress the battle by engaging with deals, but he doesn't seem to care about the money itself. You cant pay him off because its not about the money. He just wants to feel like a “big shot” making deals. The thrill and freedom of feeling like someone important.
In this sense we can then divide Mettaton and Spamton into two types of influencers. Whereas, Mettaton has a dream. Spamton just wants clout.
The kind of influencer who wants to use their platform to enrich themselves and fuel their ego, as oppose to someone like Mettaton with a real desire to change the world for the better. In one of the genocide routes, we can even see him take over Queens mansion, representing how these types of influencers are bound to take over the social media structure, sans the right people step in.
Given the social media and fame metaphor. Its impossible to examine this boss and not read into the context of its creation. Although this is purely speculation, its possible that Spamton was created as open meditation on Tobyfox's baggage regarding his own fame, and also the effects of social media fame and clout chasing in general. Imagine the pressure of being that famous, of everyone expecting you to follow Undertale with something just as good or even better, and Toby probably doesn't even know what made the original game blow up like it did in the first place, and probably never expect it to.
Consider this line in his first boss theme:
“... Now's your chance! Now's your chance! Now's your chance! Be a big- be big- beeee-”
Over and over. It can almost be read as Toby's internal monologue. An unrelenting pressure to outperform and succeed, to make sure the game is a success that fulfills everyone's expectations.
Simply put, Toby is a big shot now.
In the matter of a single year, Toby went from being a nobody on the internet to being twitter famous celebrity. Getting “calls” from Nintendo. Again this is all unconfirmed, but its even possible that Nintendo offered Tobyfox a deal. A chance to be a big deal, with a big salary; a corporate puppet.
Toby would (hypothetically) rejected this offer. Like Mettaton, he cares about his fans, but has no interest in the acquisition of clout and power for its own sake. But hey, that's just a theory.
Which brings us to his central message about internet drama. While its not my place to psychoanalyze how someone is feeling from afar, a message is certainly here about internet fame and clout chasing. Its clear that Toby has become twitter famous, and consequently has found himself thrust into the heat of internet drama time and time again. It seems that Toby Fox is horrified by the affects social media is having on the indie gaming community or just more broadly society in general. In the past, toxic fame was a niche problem faced by a handful of Hollywood stars and musicians. But now Social Media has democratized fame, and all its problems to everyone that owns a phone.
Chapter 2 seems to be Toby's response and warning: that being a big shot is not all its cracked up to be and certainly not worth parting your soul over.
203 notes
·
View notes
Text
Why do I think Lily Evans (Potter) was not a good friend?
Until recently, the general opinion of the fandom was that Lily Potter was a good girl, deified and the representation of purity and goodness. But, doing a more exhaustive study of the character, we can get to see how Lily evans maybe was not so holy and made mistakes due to her education and, possibly, depending on the stage of her life where she found herself when she made those mistakes.
In relation to Severus Snape, I think she was not a good friend. Regardless of his age, which we all understand that we do not see friendship in childhood, adolescence or adulthood, she also had defects that compared to other characters in the saga, they were not a role model.
Starting from the little we know about her through the worst memory and Snape's memories, we are going to take some situations into account to assess her defects:
She blamed Snape for the letter Petunia sent to Dumbledore.
She got mad at Snape for dropping a branch on Petunia, even though he did so unconsciously and Petunia was rude to him.
The discussion with Snape about what happened with Remus (werewolf accident), his distrust of who was her friend and believing others before, not caring about Snape.
The lake scene, where she never addressed Snape once, as if he didn't know him and was just another boy to help.
The same lake scene, where she taunted Snape after he called her "Mudblood".
Now, let's talk about the problems at different levels (social, emotional, mental, physical and cultural):
Social: Snape comes from a lower social class than Lily and, although at first the girl Lily did not see the difference, I suppose that as time passed she realized that it did not look good for Snape to wear second hand clothes (surely ), he had serious problems in the family sphere, Snape's own unsociable nature that did not allow him to have a larger group of friends. In childhood we do not usually take into account the social variable when making friends with other children (pre-Hogwarts), but as she became related to the peer group at Hogwarts, she surely could not help feeling somewhat ashamed of the friendship with Snape . Let me explain, in Snape's adulthood it seems that no one knew about Lily and Snape's friendship, so it would be a secret friendship (and we all know that shame towards the other is what leads to secret friendships and relationships).
Emotional: Lily quickly connected with Snape because there was something she needed from him, and it was the knowledge and the desire to be accepted in a place like Hogwarts. Hogwarts was a new world that she did not know and Snape could offer her the security of knowing that world ... But, when she knew what she had to know, Snape had nothing more to offer her, but a clandestine and unrewarding friendship for her. It is not a mistake to think this, but it does show that she deliberately used Snape and that their friendship deteriorated over time. I think she might have felt friendship for Snape in a pure way, but when she began to be friends with the marauders, her emotional level turned towards these guys and she began to move away from Snape. I think the dark arts were an excuse to end the friendship, wanting to get away from him in an interested way ... it's easy to think that, when you really feel empathy for someone, you try to make the effort to understand that person, to know why him he likes the dark arts. However, she Lily was not able to understand him, understand his fears, his insecurities and the need to flee from the hell where he was stuck.Referring to the lake scene, I think Lily had a complete dissociation from Snape by now, she didn't defend being his friend, she didn't speak to him directly even once, and when he made a mistake due to the situation, she scoffed of him and "flirted" with James.
Mental: I think Lily never understood the true meaning of friendship, not at least as she later taught us Harry by understanding Ron and Hermione and accepting his flaws, even when this child was only 11 years old. I think that Lily, as soon as she could, got rid of Snape because she no longer wanted to have an uncomfortable friend, a friend who surely helped her for years in her studies at Hogwarts (I mean surely potions). Snape was like a teacher for Lily in her access to the magical world, he helped her in the study and knowledge of the magical world and I think that Lily stopped seeing usefulness when she already found in Gryffindor and the marauders the way to go her way . I mean, I think she coldly weighed whether or not she was interested in staying friends with Snape and she conveniently cut off the friendship when she got the chance. Lily showed herself to be a cold person who did not understand what Snape was in her whole and who did not appreciate all that he had done for her.I know that calling her "Mudbloods" was not right, but instead of trying to understand the shame and harassment that Snape felt at that time, she broke off the friendship and remained friends with the stalker, the one who emotionally blackmailed her and who continued to be a bully. No one can convince me otherwise.
Physical: here we will talk about the implications of a person who is not really physically attractive. There are studies that determine that people who do not fit the standards of beauty tend to have fewer opportunities in social relationships, love relationships or even find a job. With all this I mean that, when we are children, we do not care about anyone's physical appearance, but when we reach adolescence, our group of equals teach us the canons of beauty, which is considered handsome or what not. In this case, I think Lily was superficial. That is to say, Snape was not physically attractive, surely he did not look comfortable being with him because she was a popular, pretty girl, and he was attracted to a boy who was much more attractive than Snape (even though James was, in my opinion, uglier emotionally and disrespectful to others, adding being a bully). Lily preferred to go for the handsome boy rather than choose a loyal friend who was unattractive.
Cultural: At this level many factors enter, but here I will choose to talk about the differences of ideologies and different culture between Slytherin and Gryffindor. As we know, both houses were enemies, they were the contrast between good and evil in the Harry Potter saga. Slytherin represented everything bad and Gryffindor everything good. Here we also talk about the peer group (that is, a group of people that we consider our equals and from whom we learn cultural, social, emotional and behavioral factors), where Lily in the end ended up choosing to choose Gryffindor and be immersed in ideas prefabs that already existed about Slytherin even though, surely, many ideas were not true. Some of these ideas were hatred towards the "dirty bloods", defending the purity of blood, ambition as a negative element and cunning as if it were something bad that always leads to cheating.Where I see these preconceptions most clearly is in the scene where Lily argues with Snape for defending Mulciber, etc ... in this scene it seems that Lily puts the marauders before (she is supposed to talk about them) because they are from her house and believes that what Mulciber does is worse because he is in Slytherin. Being in Gryffindor, she is believed to have the moral superiority and the right to claim Snape to choose a position, when obviously Snape, like Lily, will choose their peer group. The point here is that Lily prefers to believe the marauders and put Snape in the guilty position, without even asking if his friend is okay or asking him what he saw ... Lily is not interested in knowing what happened because surely he was content with James's version and would always doubt any version Snape could give it.
Up to here, I did my study. It is a bit lazy, I wrote it on the fly and remembering some of the knowledge I acquired when I was studying Pedagogy. But, in essence, I hope you have understood. In the end, Lily opted for what she considered to be okay based on ideas and beliefs that she ended up having with her peer group. She put her friendship with the marauders first and decided to coldly and selfishly eliminate her friendship with Snape. In the end, we have all had friends from whom we have moved away because they no longer shared things with us (although I can presume that I never alienated anyone for thinking differently or liking things that I did not like), but also friends that we have from all our lives, with those of us who do not like things about them, but accept them and try to understand them, where the company of that person is valued more and we do not care what they tell us. It is true that the "peer group" exerts a lot of influence on us, despising those who consider strange people or have unusual habits for the majority of the population. But Snape and Lily met in childhood, this factor should not have been decisive for their estrangement and, I am afraid, that in the almost of Lily, he ended up accepting the conditions of his peer group to the detriment of maintaining a friendship that so much contributed. I don't hate Lily, I have no problem with her, for me she really is a flat character, too overrated and that only has a few three lines in the entire Harry Potter saga. It is impossible to empathize with her as we would with other characters and she hardly has any development of her. The most remarkable thing about her is that she gave her life for her son, otherwise she showed us a girl who had a strange friendship with Snape and who married the popular boy of her time.
#severus snape#severus snape headcanon#severus snape meta#severus#snape#Lily evans#Lily Potter#James Potter#Hogwarts#headcanon hp#marauders#hp#Harry Potter
153 notes
·
View notes
Text
Witchcraft and Activism
The word “witch” is a politically charged label. If we look at how the word was used historically, it referred to someone who existed outside of the normal social order. The people accused of witchcraft in the European and American witch trials were mostly — experts say between 75% and 80% — women. They were also overwhelmingly poor, single, or members of a minority ethnicity and/or religion. In other words, they were people who did not follow their society’s accepted model of womanhood (or, in the case of accused men, manhood).
If you choose to identify with the witch label, you are choosing to identify with subversion of gender norms, resistance to the dominant social order, and “outsider” status. If that makes you uncomfortable or uneasy, then you may want to use another label for your magical practice. Witchcraft always has been and always will be inherently political.
In her book Witches, Sluts, Feminists, Kristen J. Sollee argues that the “slut” label is in many ways a modern equivalent to the “witch” label. In both cases, the label is used to devalue people, most often women, and to enforce a patriarchal and misogynist social order.
Superstitions around witchcraft are connected to the modern stigma around abortion (and, to a lesser extent, contraception). Midwifery and abortion were directly linked to witchcraft in the European witch hunts. Today, women who seek abortions are condemned as sluts, whores, and murderers. The fight for reproductive freedom remains inextricably linked with the witch label.
During the women’s liberation movement of the 1960s, the socialist feminist group Women’s International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell (W.I.T.C.H.) used the image of the witch to campaign for women’s rights and other social issues. They were some of the first advocates for intersectional feminism (feminist activism that addresses other social issues that overlap with gendered issues). They performed acts such as hexing Wall Street capitalists and wearing black veils to protest bridal fairs. The W.I.T.C.H. Manifesto calls witches the “original guerrillas and resistance fighters against oppression.”
In her book Revolutionary Witchcraft, Sarah Lyons points out that both witchcraft and politics are about raising and directing power in the world. In a postmodern society, most of our reality is socially constructed — it works because we collectively believe it does. Money only has value because we believe it does. Politicians only have power because we believe they do. Our laws are only just because we believe they are. Like in magic, everything in society is a product of belief and a whole lot of willpower — and that makes witches the ideal social activists.
Lyons argues that witchcraft is inseparable from politics, because witches have always opposed dominant political power. She makes a connection between the witch trials and the rise of capitalism and classism. She connects the basic concepts of magic to historic activist groups like the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP), who used ritual as an act of protest.
Not every witch is a hardcore activist, but every witch should have a basic awareness of political and social issues and be willing to do what they can to make a difference.
Ways to Combine Witchcraft and Activism
Perform a ritual to feel connected to the earth and her people. Activism should come from a place of love, not a place of hate. Make sure you’re fighting for the right reasons by frequently taking time to reconnect with the planet and the people who live here. This can be as simple as laying down on the ground outside and meditating on all the ways you are connected to other people, as well as to the ecosystem, animals, and the earth herself. If getting up close and personal with the grass and dirt isn’t your thing, try to find a beautiful place in nature where you can sit and journal about the interconnected nature of all things.
Unlearn your social programming. This is the most difficult and most important part of any activism. Before you can change the world outside yourself, you have to change your own psyche. Think about how you have been socialized to contribute to (or at least turn a blind eye to) the issues you want to fight against. For example, if you want to fight for racial justice, you need to understand how you have contributed to a racist system. You can do this in a variety of ways: through meditation, journaling, or divination, to name a few. Note that whatever method you choose, this will probably take weeks or months of repeated work. Rewriting your thought and behavior patterns is hard, and it can’t be done in a single day. Also note that if you are a victim of systemic oppression or prejudice, this work may bring up a lot of emotional baggage — you may want to involve a professional therapist or counselor.
Go to protests. Sending energy and doing healing rituals is great, but someone has to get out there and visibly fight for change. If you are able to do so, start going to protests and rallies for causes you care about. Don’t just show up, but be an active participant — make signs, yell and chant, and stand your ground if cops show up. Be safe and responsible, but be loud and assertive, too. If you want to go all out, you can don the black robes, pointed hats, and veils of W.I.T.C.H.es past, which has the added bonus of concealing your identity.
Turn your donations into a spell for change. When you donate to a cause you care about, charge your donation with a spell for positive change. You can do this by holding your cash, check, or debit card in both hands and focusing on your desire for change. Feel this desire flowing into the money, filling it with your determination. From here, make your donation, knowing that you’ll be sending an energy boost along with it.
Organize an activist coven. Do you have a handful of friends who are interested in witchcraft, passionate about activism, or both? Start a coven! Go to protests together, hold monthly rituals to raise energy for change, and collect money for donations. Being part of a group also means having a support system, which can help prevent burnout. Make a plan to check on each other regularly. You may even choose to do monthly group rituals for self care, which may be actual magic rituals or might be as simple as ordering takeout and watching a movie. Activism can be intensely draining work, so it’s important to take breaks when you need them!
Hold public rituals with an activist slant. Nothing gets people’s attention like a bunch of folks standing in a circle and chanting. Holding public rituals is one of the best ways to raise awareness for a cause. You might hold a vigil for victims of police brutality, a healing circle for the environment, or some other ritual that is relevant to the issue at hand. These rituals serve a double purpose, as they both bring people’s attention to the issue and give them an opportunity to work for change on a spiritual level. Use prayers, chants, and symbolism that is appropriate to the theme, and ask participants to make a small donation to a charity related to your cause.
Begin your public rituals with a territory acknowledgement. If you live in the United States, chances are you live on land that was taken from the native people by force. If you seek to have a relationship with the land, you need to first acknowledge the original inhabitants and the suffering they endured so you can be there. Use a website like native-land.ca to find out what your land was originally called and what indigenous groups originally lived there. Publicly acknowledge this legacy at your ritual, and publicly state your intention to support indigenous peoples. (Revolutionary Witchcraft has an excellent territory acknowledgement that you can customize for your area.)
Make an altar to your activist ancestors. If activism or membership in a marginalized group is a big part of your life, you may want to create a space for it in your home. Like an ancestor altar, this is a space to remember influential members of the community who have died. Choose a flat surface like a tabletop or shelf and decorate it with photos of your “ancestors,” as well as other appropriate items like flags, pins, stickers, etc. As a queer person, my altar to my LGBTQ+ ancestors might include images of figures like Sappho, Marsha P. Johnson, and Freddie Mercury, as well as items like a pink triangle patch, a small rainbow pride flag, and dried violets and green carnations. You may also choose to include a candle, an incense burner, and/or a small dish for offerings. Just remember to never place images of living people on an altar honoring the dead!
Do your research. Staying educated is an important part of activism — not only do your actions need to be informed, but you need to be able to speak intelligently about your issues. Read the news (on actual news websites, not just social media). Read lots of books; some I personally recommend are Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson, Love and Rage by Lama Rod Owens, and (as previously mentioned) Revolutionary Witchcraft by Sarah Lyons. If you can get access to them, read scholarly articles about theories that are influential among activists, like the Gaia Hypothesis or Deep Ecology. Read everything you can get your hands on.
VOTE! And I don’t just mean voting for the presidential candidate you like (or, as is often the case, voting against the one you don’t like). Vote for your representatives. Vote for city council. Vote for the county sheriff. Voting gives you a chance to make sure the people in office will be susceptible to your activism. Yes, your side might lose or your electoral college representative might choose to go against the popular vote. Even so, voting is a way to clearly communicate the will of the people, and it puts a lot of pressure on the people in charge. It’s important — don’t let anyone convince you otherwise.
In my experience, combining activism with my witchcraft is a deeply fulfilling spiritual experience. It strengthens my connection to the world around me, with helps grow both empathy and magical power. I truly can’t imagine my practice without the activist element.
Resources:
Witches, Sluts, Feminists by Kristen J. Sollee
Revolutionary Witchcraft by Sarah Lyons
The Study of Witchcraft by Deborah Lipp
The Way of Fire and Ice by Ryan Smith
#baby witch bootcamp#THE FINAL BWB CHAPTER!!!!#baby witch#witchblr#witch#witchcraft#witchy#kristen j sollee#sarah lyons#deborah lipp#ryan smith#wicca#wiccan#pagan#paganism#norse pagan#norse paganism#black lives matter#pro choice#reproductive freedom#feminism#lgbtq+#queer#protest#witchy activism#environmental#gaia hypothesis#deep ecology#long post#mine
1K notes
·
View notes
Note
#that happens even when the person isnt trying to argue that shes a mad queen/villain but that she has both 'good' and 'evil' in her#and is meant to fail#(e.g. that meta about how dany is a tragic shakespearean hero; which annoys me more bc it sounds convincing when you don't remember what#happened in the books very well...
Can you talk more about your problems with that essay? I thought that it sounded plausible... I don't want those things to happen to Daenerys, but I don't trust GRRM either.
Anon, thank you for this ask and sorry for the delayed answer. I was already planning to write several posts as a response to the arguments of “Daughter of Death: A Song of Ice and Fire’s Shakespearean Tragic Hero” (which you can read here), but I couldn't find the time or motivation for that lately, so thanks for giving me the opportunity to counter-argue it in a single answer. I tried to be brief by summarizing some of my notes and by linking to a lot of metas instead of repeating all of their points, but the response unfortunately ended up becoming long anyway.
In the context of that essay, Dany is considered a Shakespearean tragic hero because the writer thinks she fits five requirements: 1) Dany’s chapters contain supposedly deliberate references to Shakespearean plays; 2) Dany is “torn by an internal struggle”, namely peace versus violence or companionship versus rulership or home versus the Iron Throne, all of which also drive the external conflicts. Choosing the second options will lead to her demise; 3) prophecies and “influential accidents” - that is, events that “have roots in a character’s motivation”, as well as “the sense of ‘if only this had not happened’” - will “heighten and exaggerate [tragic flaws that] already [exist]” in Dany; 4) Dany will (according to the essayist’s speculations) take actions that produce “exceptional calamity” and her demise will be “her own choice and doing”; 5) Dany “[rose] high in position” and is “an exceptional being”, which sets her apart as a character that fits the mold of the Shakespearean tragedy because her reversal of fortune will highlight “the greatness and piteousness of humanity”.
I would argue that the points that the essayist made to justify how Dany supposedly fits these five requirements are all very skewed.
1) When it comes to requirement 1 (Dany’s chapters contain supposedly deliberate references to Shakespearean plays), the essayist is conveniently cherry-picking (as they often do throughout the meta). Bran Stark wants a dreamless sleep just like Dany: “Sweet, dreamless sleep, Bran thought.” (ACOK Bran I); “That night Bran prayed to his father’s gods for dreamless sleep.” (ACOK Bran II). Indeed, @marinabridgerton argues that that’s most likely tied to the fact that they’re the two characters most heavily associated with prophecies. Even Sansa is said to have a dreamless sleep: “Sometimes her sleep was leaden and dreamless, and she woke from it more tired than when she had closed her eyes” (AGOT Sansa VI). And yet, where are the essays about how these quotes are teaching the readership to interpret Bran’s and Sansa’s characters, storylines and trajectories based on Shakespearean tragedies?
2) When it comes to requirement 2 (Dany is “torn by an internal struggle”, namely peace versus violence or companionship versus rulership or home versus the Iron Throne, all of which also drive the external conflicts. Choosing the second options will lead to her demise), the essayist is right to point out that those dilemmas exist. However, they portray Dany’s struggles in a way that makes it seem that 1) there are “good” options (peace/companionship/home) and “bad” options (violence/rulership/Iron Throne) for Dany to take and that 2) choosing the latter ones will lead to Dany’s downfall. There is a lot to question about these assumptions.
2.1) When it comes to Dany’s conflict between peace versus violence, the essayist takes everything that Adam Feldman’s series of essays “Untangling the Meereenese Knot” says for granted when it shouldn’t be. I’m not going to delve into all the problems/inaccuracies/double standards with those essays. For our purposes here, it’s enough to say that they: 1) dichotomize Dany’s identity into mhysa and mother of dragons to argue that the former represents her desire for peace and the latter her violent impulses; 2) assert that the peace was real; 3) conclude that, by rejecting the peace, the Dany of ASOS is gone and from now on she’s going to be a very different person because she will have chosen to follow her violent impulses.
As already argued before, though, 1) Dany’s character can’t be dichotomized in that way because these facets - mhysa and mother of dragons - actually complement each other (as @yendany made clear in her most recent meta). Because Dany was the mother of dragons, she was able to act as mhysa way before she was hailed as such, which we see, for instance, when she kills the Astapori slave masters to free the Unsullied. Both of these identities manifest Dany’s fierceness when faced with great injustices. This is why, in ADWD, locking her dragon children prevented Dany from properly defending her human children… She needs to integrate both parts of her identity to be able to protect them. But Feldman couldn’t recognize that because 2) he accepts the peace deal that Dany made with the slavers as valid. Doing so would mean, however, ignoring the re-enslavement and suffering of thousands of marginalized people, which GRRM continually emphasizes in Dany's and Tyrion’s final ADWD chapters (read more about this here and here) to hammer home that the peace is false for prioritizing the slavers over them. Finally, 3) Dany is not a violent person nor does she have violent impulses. Feldman decontextualized the moments in which Dany uses violence from the standards of her time and place (read more about this here and here and here and here) to portray them in a more negative light than how they are actually meant to be viewed. Additionally, he conveniently left out all the moments in which Dany chooses to be merciful, from when she spares Yunkai and most of the Meereenese slavers (she didn’t do the same in Astapor because she was outnumbered and needed to protect her retinue) to when she doesn’t punish people who threaten or disrespect her to her face (such an envoy who spits at her face, a boy who tries to attack her, Xaro after he says he wishes he’d killed her), to give a few examples (read more about this in @rainhadaenerys's comprehensive meta). I would argue that Dany’s conflict is less about peace versus violence and more accurately about her tendency to be merciful versus her desire for justice (which, especially in the particular context she finds herself in, is unattainable without violence). In fact, I would go further and say that it’s distasteful to characterize Dany as someone “violent” or with “violent impulses” when, so far, she’s only used violence to a) defend and protect victims of (physical and systemic) violence and/or b) in circumstances in which her actions are no more problematic than those of any other leader of her world. And yet, the essayist portrays them as if they were (“To choose indiscriminate destruction over peace tends toward the evil”).
It’s also convenient that the essayist only talks about fire negatively (“Dany wields unmatched power that can “make or unmake at a word”—Dracarys—villages, armies and kingdoms”, “in the words of Maester Aemon, “Fire consumes.””) when it's also connected to life, rebirth, healing and enlightenment. And dracarys in particular is explicitly associated with freedom by the narrative while Dany frees the Unsullied (her decision, in turn, is associated with her future actions in the War for the Dawn). But acknowledging these things would make it harder to portray Dany as a Shakespearean tragic hero.
2.2) When it comes to Dany’s conflict between companionship and rulership … Again, the dilemma exists, but not in the way that the essayist presents it. What I mean is that they go out of their way to make it seem that Dany’s loneliness was the main factor driving her decisions, such as the liberation of the Unsullied (“She feels for the forced loneliness of the Unsullied, and it is loneliness that convinces her to commit violence in the plaza to free the slaves—just as it is in loneliness she chooses violence amidst the Dothraki Sea.”)... And not, y’know, her compassion and sense of justice (“Why do the gods make kings and queens, if not to protect the ones who can’t protect themselves?”), which are rarely acknowledged in this essay even though it’s arguably the main aspect of Dany's characterization. Why does the essayist do that? Because, since they are arguing that Dany is a tragic hero, they need to present Dany’s loneliness both as the reason why she achieved greatness and as the reason that will lead to her demise when she (supposedly) starts distrusting people, closing herself off and choosing violence (“the moral conviction she feels for her abolitionist crusade is part of the greatness that is also her tragic trait [...] She feels for the forced loneliness of the Unsullied, and it is loneliness that convinces her to commit violence in the plaza to free the slaves—just as it is in loneliness she chooses violence amidst the Dothraki Sea.”). As I said, however, doing so requires downplaying Dany’s compassion, as well as ignoring the fact that she does not close herself off to people in ADWD, nor is there any sign that this was seeded as a serious issue for her in future books (especially considering that her governance is meant to be contrasted with Cersei, the character who actually does close herself off to people. But more on that below when I talk about why Dany doesn’t fit the essayist’s third requirement).
Also, singling out rulership in particular as a reason for Dany to feel alone is conveniently selective (“Returning to Westeros means ruling Westeros - and ruling means loneliness”). All the major characters have reasons to feel lonely and isolated in their society because GRRM chose to focus on the underdogs. Their social standings are already enough to make all of them feel alone. As he said, “Tyrion of course is a dwarf which has its own challenges. Dany is an exile, powerless, penniless, at the mercy of other people, and Jon is a bastard”. You can also throw in Arya for being a young girl struggling to adhere to gender norms and Bran for being a disabled child. And that is just one example… There are a myriad of reasons and situations for various characters to feel lonely and isolated, but the essayist specifically chose to talk about how rulership causes that for Dany. And, considering that the essayist thinks that Dany’s rulership -> growing isolation and loneliness -> her ultimate downfall, it really feels like they’re punishing Dany narratively for acquiring and wielding power. Which leads me to the next point...
2.3) When it comes to Dany’s conflict between home and the Iron Throne, I would argue that that’s not really a conflict. Dany (like any feudal leader) believes she needs to retake the Iron Throne to stay in her homeland just like the Starks believe they need to retake Winterfell to stay in their homeland. Whether Dany finds herself at home in Westeros or not is irrelevant to that fact. And yet, the essayist only presents the former as being in the wrong for fighting for her birthright. However, as it's been already explained before, the Starks’ claim to the North isn’t morally righteous. They only have dominance over the North because, for thousands of years, their ancestors fought against, drove away and killed most of its indigenous population (the Children of the Forest), as well as multiple families who were also vying for control over the region. With that in mind, Dany fighting for her birthright isn’t any more problematic than the Starks enjoying the lands and privileges obtained with conquest and bloodshed, as well as the labor of peasants. One could argue that GRRM may have a double standard against Dany in this case (though it's been argued before that he doesn't intend to present the Iron Throne as a source of greed and evil like how fandom presents it) because of the order of the events and depending on whether he holds Dany accountable for more problems for waging her war than the Starks for having done/doing essentially the same thing, but that’s not what the essayist is doing. Instead, they a) take for granted that Dany is doing the wrong thing for fighting for the Iron Throne ("To delay the call of the North and continue to divide an already weakened realm is to give into dark desires.") and b) center all their speculations about her eventual demise based on that belief.
Ultimately, I would argue that none of these three dilemmas - peace versus violence, companionship versus rulership, home versus the Iron Throne - come with easy answers. When it comes to the first conflict, it’s important that Dany prioritizes the lives of the slaves over the privileges of the masters, but that causes more war and bloodshed. When it comes to the second and the third conflicts, it’s worth noting that the first options (which the essayist presents as the “good” ones) are actually the selfish paths for Dany to take. After all, she would rather live a normal life with a husband (companionship) in the house with the red door (home) - “She would rather have drifted in the fragrant pool all day, eating iced fruit off silver trays and dreaming of a house with a red door, but a queen belongs to her people, not to herself”. But, as the quote shows, instead of choosing these selfish goals, Dany accepts the burden of rulership and the fight for the Iron Throne because of her duty towards her people and ancestors. And, while this path leads to war (either in Meereen or in Westeros, though the former is morally righteous and the latter, while not inherently justified, is not any more problematic than Robb fighting for Northern independence), power is also the means through which Dany can make changes that benefit the common people.
With all that said, it’s ironic that Dany fans are often accused of flattening her character or her choices when it’s actually her detractors or “neutrals” (like the essayist) who do so - they are dead set on portraying Dany’s available options as either “good” or “bad” and on speculating that choosing the latter ones will lead to her downfall, but the text actually gives her conflicts in which all the options have their pros and cons.
The essayist also makes a mistake that isn’t really up to interpretation or difference in opinions. They say that, in AGOT Daenerys III, “after admitting this difficult truth [that Viserys will never take back the Seven Kingdoms], Dany assumes the goal for herself (and at the time, her son)”. That is incorrect. In AGOT Daenerys V, moments before Viserys’s death, Dany says she would have allowed him to have the dragon eggs because “he is my brother … and my true king”. Jorah doesn’t think she should still acknowledge him as such, but she tells him that “he is all I have”. So no, Dany hadn’t assumed the goal for herself at that point, she only took over his campaign in her son's name (not hers) after Viserys's death. But the essayist needs to exaggerate Dany's ambition to justify her demise, since they speculate that “in that hurt and betrayal, all that will be left - she will think - is the crown”.
3) When it comes to requirement 3 (prophecies and “influential accidents” - that is, events that “have roots in a character’s motivation”, as well as “the sense of ‘if only this had not happened’” - will “heighten and exaggerate [tragic flaws that] already [exist]” in Dany), the problem is not in cherry-picking or in double standards against Dany, but rather in the essayist’s lack of knowledge about Dany’s characterization. It’s simply not true that Dany’s distrust of people grows to the point that she closes herself off to them. Instead, I would argue that Dany is actually portrayed as someone with a healthy distrust of people. We know from the books (1, 2, 3, 4) that she finds it unlikely that Barristan, Grey Worm or Missandei would ever betray her, but that she doesn’t think she can rely entirely upon Reznak, the Green Grace, the Shavepate, Hizdahr and Daario. Do Dany’s doubts about these people’s intentions lead her to, as the essayist says, “push people away”? No. Through almost all of ADWD, she (wrongly, though understandably) believes that "until [freedmen and former masters stand together, Meereen will know no peace". Accordingly, Dany is willing to listen to the counsel of all of her advisors (both the ones she trusts and the ones she distrusts) to ensure that she makes informed decisions. To give some examples:
Dany allows “well spoken and gently born” people (i.e., not the typical condition of most former slaves, who are glad that Dany freed them) to sell themselves into slavery and imposes a tax each time men chose to do so like how it happened in Astapor (ASOS Daenerys VI). By making this decision, she agreed with both Missandei and Daario.
Dany employs the Unsullied to ask the Blue Graces if someone showed up with a sword wound and to ask butchers and herdsmen who’s been gelding goats (ADWD Daenerys I). By making this decision, she disagreed with Barristan.
Dany chooses not to punish any noble in response to the murder of Stalwart Shield and only increases the amount of gold for whoever gives information about the Sons of the Harpy (ADWD Daenerys I). By making this decision, she agreed with Reznak and disagreed with the Shavepate.
Dany gives up on banning the tokar and wears it herself (ADWD Daenerys I). By making this decision, she agreed with the Green Grace.
Dany (rightly) refuses to reopen the fighting pits for a while until she later relents in the name of the peace with the Meereenese nobles (ADWD Daenerys I, II, III, VI). By making this decision, she disagreed with Hizdahr, Reznak, the Green Grace and the Shavepate and agreed with Missandei.
Dany delays the choice of a husband until it becomes necessary later (ADWD Daenerys I). By making this decision, she disagreed with Reznak, the Shavepate and the Green Grace.
Dany chooses to pay the shepherds for the animals that they say their dragons ate (ADWD Daenerys I). By making this decision, she disagreed with Reznak.
Dany pays Hazzea’s father the blood price (i.e., one hundred times the worth of a lamb) for her death, lays her bones to rest in the Temple of the Graces and promises to pay for his children each year so they shall not want (ADWD Daenerys II). By making this decision, she disagreed with the Shavepate.
Dany allows the Shavepate to torture the wineseller and his daughters for information about the Sons (ADWD Daenerys II). By making this decision, she agreed with the Shavepate.
Dany imposes a blood tax on the noble families to pay for a new watch led by the Shavepate, takes the gold and the stores of food of any nobleman who wishes to leave the city and keeps two children from each pyramid as hostages instead of letting the nobles go unpunished after nine freedmen were killed by the Sons (ADWD Daenerys II). By making this decision, she agreed with the Shavepate and disagreed with Reznak.
Dany has Barristan and Groleo and his captains and sailors to inspect Xaro’s ships (ADWD Daenerys III). By making this decision, she agreed with Barristan.
Dany chooses not to go to Westeros despite being offered ships to do so (ADWD Daenerys III). By making this decision, she disagreed with Barristan.
Dany doesn’t kill her child hostages despite the Sons’ ongoing attacks (ADWD Daenerys IV). By making this decision, she agreed with the Green Grace and disagreed with the Shavepate.
Dany agrees to marry Hizdahr if he’s able to give her ninety days of peace in Meereen (ADWD Daenerys IV). By making this decision, she agreed with Hizdahr, the Green Grace and Reznak and disagreed with the Shavepate, Barristan, Missandei and Daario.
Dany refuses to gather the masters and kill them indiscriminately (ADWD Daenerys IV). By making this decision, she disagreed with Daario.
Dany doesn’t allow the Shavepate to continue his tortures due to their unreliable results (ADWD Daenerys V). By making this decision, she agreed with Hizdahr and disagreed with the Shavepate.
Dany refuses to use her dragons in battle (ADWD Daenerys V). By making this decision, she agreed with Reznak.
Dany decides not to take the field against Yunkai (ADWD Daenerys V). By making this decision, she agreed with the Shavepate and disagreed with Barristan.
Dany brings the food to the Astapori refugees instead of sending someone else to do it (ADWD Daenerys VI). By making this decision, she disagreed with Reznak, the Shavepate and Barristan.
Dany burns the dead among the Astapori refugees, bathes an old man and shames her men into helping her (ADWD Daenerys VI). By making this decision, she disagreed with Barristan.
Dany refuses to allow Hizdahr’s mother and sisters to inspect her womb and to wash Hizdahr’s feet before he washes hers (ADWD Daeneerys VI). By making this decision, she disagreed with the Green Grace and Reznak.
Dany decides to marry Hizdahr by Ghiscari rites and to wear a white tokar fringed with pearls (ADWD Daenerys VI). By making this decision, she agreed with the Green Grace and Reznak.
Dany allows Hizdahr to reopen the fighting pits (ADWD Daenerys VI). By making this decision, she agreed with Hizdahr, the Green Grace and Reznak.
Dany goes along with a peace agreement with the Yunkish slavers in which she’ll let Yunkai and Astapor reinstall slavery if they leave Meereen intact (ADWD Daenerys VI). By making this decision, she agreed with Hizdahr.
Dany holds court in order to, among other reasons, meet the Westerosi men that came over from the Windblown (ADWD Daenerys VII). By making this decision, she agreed with Daario.
Dany doesn’t accept Quentyn’s marriage proposal because she doesn’t want to abandon her people (ADWD Daenerys VII). By making this decision, she disagreed with Barristan.
Dany doesn’t ride a horse in a tokar to meet Hizdahr (ADWD Daenerys VII). By making this decision, she agreed with Missandei.
Dany decides not to sound out the Company of the Cats (even though she wanted to) because Barristan says he's untrustworthy (ADWD Daenerys VIII). By making this decision, she agreed with Barristan.
Dany attends the reopening of the pits (ADWD Daenerys IX). By making this decision, she disagreed with Missandei.
Dany allows the Brazen Beasts to guard her because she wants to show that she trusts them so that her people can trust them as well (ADWD Daenerys IX). By making this decision, she disagreed with Barristan.
Dany prevents Tyrion and Penny from fighting against lions with wooden swords. By making this decision, she disagreed with Hizdahr.
I didn’t include all of Dany’s decisions because she makes many of them on her own and/or without someone explicitly supporting them or opposing them (in fact, many of the ones above were made without any advisor giving her their feedback, but I listed them if they’re seen agreeing or disagreeing with her onpage anyway). That being said, note that Reznak is the one that Dany is most suspicious of (because he perfectly fits the description of one of the treasoners), but that five of her decisions follow his recommendations, in contrast to Barristan (the knight who she actually trusts and who keeps all her secrets) only having his advice followed twice. Also note that Dany “trusted Skahaz more than she trusted Hizdahr”, but she agreed with the former three times and disagreed with him eight times, in contrast to having agreed with the latter four times and disagreed with him twice. The list clearly shows that Dany listens to everyone’s feedback (including from people she distrusts), considers it carefully, makes her own decisions and handles dissent extremely well. Her actions reflect her own words (“A queen must listen to all. [...] One voice may speak you false, but in many there is always truth to be found”, “It seems to me that a queen who trusts no one is as foolish as a queen who trusts everyone”).
There is, however, one character who is seen only listening to people who agree with her and who distrusts and closes herself off to almost everyone - Cersei Lannister. And it’s especially worth noting that Cersei is meant to be “directly contrasted” with Dany, that the author was “doing point and counterpoint” with them and that each of them is meant to show “a different approach to how a woman would rule in a male dominated, medieval-inspired fantasy world”. In other words, Dany and Cersei are narrative foils, but Cersei’s traits are being transferred to Dany in this essay.
Also, I could just as easily create an entire narrative about how Sansa will end up closing herself off to people based on what we see on canon. She thought she could trust Joffrey, but she ultimately couldn’t. She thought she could trust Cersei, but she ultimately couldn’t. She trusted Sandor, but he left her. She tried to trust the Tyrells, but they ultimately disposed of her after she was no longer necessary. She tried to rely on Dontos, but he was a disappointment and was ultimately murdered. She doesn’t trust Littlefinger, but she needs to stick to his side because she has no better option. She considered telling the Vale lords her identity, but she doesn’t trust them. All of this feeds into Sansa’s distrust of others and will lead to tragic consequences. Indeed, as Sansa herself says, "In life, the monsters win". I bet that the essayist would find this whole speculation biased considering that they favor Sansa's character. But then, why is only Dany singled out as the one who is going to meet her demise even though it’s made clear that she continues to trust people through and through?
The essayist needs to say that Dany starts distrusting people to an unhealthy degree (“As Dany gains more power, [...] her focus on the treasons causes her to push people away, widening the gap between rulership and companionship”; ”The more power she gains, the greater her isolation and likely her fear of betrayal. The fear of betrayal is, of course, human. But GRRM has stated that he likes to turn dramatic situations up to 11, which is necessary to create the Shakespearean tragic hero. Dany’s fear must be larger than life.”), as well as to judge her campaign to take back the Seven Kingdoms based on double standards (“Dany’s great sin within the story’s moral order will have been focusing on the war for Westeros against Aegon VI before she turns to the enemy of the North”) compared to the Starks. If they didn’t do so, there wouldn’t be a reason to justify Dany’s demise. If they didn’t do so, the entire speculation that she’s a Shakespearean tragic hero falls apart. But saying that something is true doesn’t necessarily make it true, you need to provide the textual evidence (which they barely do … They assume that the reader will take almost everything they say for granted. After all, since there’s a prophecy foretelling that Dany will be betrayed three times, of course she’s going to distrust people way too much from now on).
There’s also another aspect of Dany’s relationship with prophecies that the essayist portrays inaccurately. They say that “the effect of this prophecy on Daenerys is multifaceted” for “[promising] greatness” (which, along with the also inaccurate statement that “part of Dany’s pursuit of the Iron Throne is born from a sense of destiny”, implies that Dany wants to be great or that she thinks of herself as great, none of which are true) and pushing her “further from the people who surround her”. I already questioned the latter statement, and the former is inaccurate too. After all, Dany has doubts that there are men in Westeros waiting for the Targaryens to return. The birth of the dragons has to do with the fact that Dany was able to put two and two together with clues from dragon dreams and Mirri's words, not because she thinks she's exceptional. Dany is not really sure that the red comet was meant for her. She followed its direction because the other paths weren't reliable and, even in Qarth, she's unsure that it was meant to guide her to success. Then she never thinks about it again. I'd expect otherwise from someone who thinks they're exceptional. Dany is surprised when told by Quaithe that she's the reason why magic is increasing in the world and never thinks or brags about it after their interaction. I'd expect otherwise from someone who thinks they're exceptional. Dany doesn't think she won any victories in the House of the Undying, she credits Drogon for burning the Undying Ones. She only allows Jhiqui to add a bell to the end of her braid because "the Dothraki would esteem her all the more for a few bells in her hair". Dany refuses to sit on the throne inside the Great Pyramid's audience chamber and chooses to sit on a simple ebony bench that the Meereenese think does "not befit a queen". Dany refuses the offer to have a statue in her image to replace the bronze harpy in the Plaza of Purification. I'd expect otherwise from someone who thinks they're exceptional. Dany is highly self-critical and, later in ADWD, thinks that she "was as clean as she was ever going to be" after taking a bath because she holds herself accountable for the upcoming slaughter in the opening of the fighting pits. I'd expect different from someone that thinks they're exceptional. Dany doesn’t think that the people who came to the reopening of the pits wanted to see her - “it was my floppy ears they cheered, not me”. I'd expect different from someone that thinks they're exceptional. Most of Dany's titles (the Unburnt, Mother of Dragons, Mhysa, Azor Ahai, etc) are given to her by other people, they're not self-proclaimed (not that there's a problem if they were, I'm only saying it to reiterate that Dany doesn't think she's exceptional). The ones that she assumes on her own are the ones that anyone who believes in birthright (i.e., everyone in her time and place, regardless of family, regardless of whether they're Targaryens) would assume.
4) When it comes to requirement 4 (Dany will (according to the essayist’s speculations) take actions that produce “exceptional calamity” and her demise will be “her own choice and doing”) … Well, we now enter the realm of speculation. It’s not impossible that Dany “will feel like a villain to the Westerosi, as she burns their villages and crops ahead of a hard winter” in the future. The problem here, once again, is in the double standards. Look at the way the essayist describes the likely reascendance of the Starks in the upcoming books - “With the death of “good” characters like Ned, the injury of innocents and moments such as the Red Wedding, ASOIAF as a story is not concerned with justice. But as the story progresses, we see that the way Ned ruled his people and raised his children contrasts with characters like Tywin and his methods. Much of the North seems to continue to rally behind the idea of the Starks, some with less “honorable” methods than others, while Tywin’s legacy begins to fall apart. Like in Shakespeare’s tragic world, there appears to be an order that arcs towards a higher idea of goodness that instills a dramatic satisfaction”. Like I said above when I questioned requirement 2, the Starks’ claim to the North is no more justified than Dany’s to the Seven Kingdoms. They have the advantage of having had their rule normalized throughout the thousands of years they ruled the North, but it doesn’t change the fact that, because they’re feudal lords, they still maintain a system rigged in favor of the nobles that promotes social inequality and extreme lack of social mobility. It doesn’t change the fact that there's no righteous form of feudalism. But only Dany is criticized in that sense by the essayist - “By nature, power breeds inequality, when one party has the ability to decide the fate of another. That inequality creates distance. As a queen Dany wields absolute power over the rest of her subjects and her court”. Which is pretty infuriating not only because the Starks are also morally grey in the sense that the essayist describes, but also because GRRM specifically mentioned that Daenerys is the ruler "who wants equality for everyone, she wants to be at the same level as her people". Additionally, if Ned left a legacy that motivated his people to fight against his enemies, so did Dany with the former slaves. But the essayist needs to ignore all of that to paint Dany as a Shakespearean tragic hero.
Even if we don’t take into account what TWOIAF reveals about the Starks’ ancestors, the main story itself often paints House Stark’s actions in a negative light. We see a peasant spitting at the mention of the Starks and saying that things were better with King Aerys II in power. We're told that Northmen looking for Jaime on Edmure’s orders burned a village called Sallydance and were guilty of rape and murder. It’s no wonder that the High Sparrow mentions the wolves along with the lions as threats to the septas. Also, thousands of soldiers died indirectly because of Robb’s decisions, as well as lots of people who remained north and became vulnerable to raping and pillaging due to his inability to hold Winterfell. And finally, when winter comes, the smallfolk will be affected by the actions of the northmen, who (like Dany might do in the future) already helped to disrupt the harvest and to leave the continent short on food. And yet, why is their future success framed as “an order that arcs towards a higher idea of goodness”? Why is Dany the only one who is said to be “giv[ing] into dark desires” by “divid[ing] an already weakened realm” when the Starks (framed as the heroes in the essay) did the same thing? This double standard gets infuriating when one remembers that Dany is the one fighting a war in the name of the disenfranchised (even though she is not connected to them by blood or lands or oath of fealty and doesn’t gain anything by helping them), while the Starks are (and will be, if they want to retake Winterfell) fighting a war because of personal injury (which, sympathetic as it may be, doesn’t justify the damage that they caused to the smallfolk). It gets even more infuriating when, as @rakharo pointed out to me, one remembers that, while Dany is trying to right the wrongs of the Valyrians by ending slavery in Slaver’s Bay, none of the Starks have acknowledged, much less tried to make amends for injustices perpetrated by the First Men against the Children of the Forest. It gets even more infuriating when one remembers that Aegon the Conqueror united Westeros in preparation for the War for the Dawn (something that GRRM himself confirmed), while the Starks’ ancestors conquered the North solely because of their greed. That's why Dany’s story can’t be effective as a tragedy: she’d be punished for starting to do what everyone else was doing after doing more than almost everyone else was doing.
5) When it comes to requirement 5 (Dany “[rose] high in position” and is “an exceptional being”, which sets her apart as a character that fits the mold of the Shakespearean tragedy because her reversal of fortune will highlight “the greatness and piteousness of humanity”), again, we’re in the realm of speculation. But there are some things to question as well. First, the essayist validates the criticisms that Dany “too easily ascends to a position of power” by using them as proof that she’s a tragic character. But that’s not really true, which becomes clear with a few comparisons: the Starks lost their father, mother and older brother throughout the story because of the Lannisters, which Dany also did; but her losses go beyond them: she also lost another brother, her first husband and her first child. The Starks had their direwolves given to them, Dany had to use her intuition and then literally walk into a fire to birth her dragons. Aegon the Conqueror used dragons to take Westeros, Dany conquered three cities without barely using hers. Jon Snow’s conflict in ADWD involves conciliating the Free Folk and the Night’s Watch after he makes decisions favoring the former group, while Dany’s involves conciliating the freedmen and the slavers after she makes decisions favoring the former group, which has a worldwide impact; Jon’s conflict has relatively low stakes (because it hasn’t involved the Others so far), Dany’s conflict leads to “half the world” wanting her dead. As these examples show, Dany suffered more losses than the Starks. Dany had to do a lot more than the Starks to find her animal companions. Dany became a conqueror primarily because of her military strategies and resourcefulness without relying on dragonfire like her ancestor. Dany faced greater opposition than her male counterpart Jon so far. As we can see, gaining power and retaining it has not been easy for Dany at all. Every single one of her accomplishments has been earned. But it sure is interesting that Dany’s supposed future tragedies must stem from her actions, but that her victories aren’t given the proper credit and acknowledged as being a result of what she also did as well.
And then the essayist declares something even more inaccurate: that Dany “overcame each obstacle that came her way” and that “Robb and Jon paid for their mistakes while Dany did not” (which, to the essayist, is evidence that “Dany’s fall is meant to stand in contrast as something grander than just one slip-up”).
First of all, Dany clearly did not overcome every obstacle that came her way. Saying so means ignoring all of her ADWD storyline (and it’s funny how Dany's detractors go from saying that she’s overpowered and hasn’t suffered consequences to accusing her of being a bad ruler precisely because she dealt with the negative consequences of her choices, lol). To recap, Dany had an indirect part in the wars outside Meereen because she left the Yunkish slavers’ wealth intact, which leads to terrible consequences - multiple city-states and sellsword companies joining forces against her, Astapor’s fall, the pale mare’s outbreak, the emergence of refugees from Astapor outside her city and the upcoming Battle of Fire. Dany had an indirect role in the wars inside Meereen because she left most of the Meereenese slavers alive with most of their wealth intact, which leads to terrible consequences - the Sons of the Harpy’s attacks and dozens of freedmen’s deaths. Additionally, Dany had an indirect role in Hazzea’s death because Drogon was allowed to roam freely and she had no way to train him or her brothers. All these problems culminate in Dany agreeing with a peace deal that, as already explained here, was inherently unjust for prioritizing the slavers over the freedmen. Dany had to learn that, as much as she wants peace and to plant trees, there are situations in which she can’t be merciful because violence really is the only way to achieve justice for the disenfranchised. (On the flip side, that’s one of the reasons why I’m critical of the theory that Dany accidentally burns King’s Landing. When she was merciful, as I just listed, great tragedies occurred (which is fine, it was a realistic exploration of what happens when you abolish slavery and try to do good). When she used fire and blood, great tragedies will occur too? Even though she would be acting just like the Starks or any other feudal lord by fighting for her birthright? The theory narratively punishes Dany in a way that it doesn't do with the Starks, which is why it's no wonder that it was created by someone with Stark/Stannis biases. Additionally, it validates the common belief that Dany is only meant to be a wartime queen, even though she’s already showed that she’s a good peacetime ruler.)
Second, is dying the only way to pay for one’s mistakes (considering that only Robb and Jon are listed as examples of characters who did)? I don’t think so. Consider Sansa. Didn’t she pay for the mistake of going to Cersei to tell her of Ned’s plan? I would say she did. I would say the author agrees - “Sansa was the least sympathetic of the Starks in the first book; she has become more sympathetic, partly because she comes to accept responsibility for her part in her father's death”. Similarly, Dany had to accept her indirect responsibility for the tragedies that I just listed (Hazzea, forgive me; No marriage would ever bring them back to life, but if a husband could help end the slaughter, then she owed it to her dead to marry.; “I should’ve gone to Astapor. [...] I am the queen. It was my place to know.”; “What kind of mother has no milk to feed her children?”). I would argue that Dany and Sansa both paid for her mistakes, which were acknowledged, made them suffer and influenced their character developments. But the essayist needs to say that Dany didn’t pay for them (or that she had an easy rise to power) to help to paint her as a Shakespearean tragic hero.
6) Now that the essayist’s five requirements have all been questioned, I would also like to mention positive prophecies and speculations related to Dany that are never brought up in this essay.
First, Dany is AA/PTWP/SWMTW. That was heavily foreshadowed (read more about it here) and built up to and, if it doesn’t happen, it frankly would be bad writing. After all, haven’t readers praised GRRM for the foreshadowing of Ned’s death (e.g., a stag having killed the mother direwolf in the beginning of AGOT)? Haven’t readers praised GRRM for the foreshadowing of the Red Wedding (which we see from Tyrion’s to Theon’s to Dany’s chapters)? And yet, the essayist thinks that Dany’s death will cause “the forces [to] become more even, making victory less sure, or the Others surpass the side of the living in strength” and that “the White Walkers gain Drogon, becoming one-on-one but with the White Walkers having the larger dragon.”
Second, Dany and Bran both have dreams in AGOT leading up to their magical awakening. Bran needs to fly to escape from the “cold” of the darkness below, while Dany needs to run from the “icy breath behind”. Both of these dreams culminate with Bran and Dany learning to fly and accepting their magical destinies, which will be important in the War for the Dawn. And yet, the essayist thinks that “by understanding that the concept of warmth is tied to companionship, we can understand that the cold, “icy breath” must represent the opposite: loneliness” to justify Dany’s demise. Instead, it's clear (especially considering the parallels with Bran) that "icy breath" is an allusion to the Others. But they can't acknowledge that Dany will have a crucial role in the War for the Dawn, otherwise their entire speculation falls apart.
Third, Quaithe was presented as the third of the three Qartheen envoys (after Pyat Pree and Xaro) that came to find Dany in Vaes Tolorro, which heavily implies that she breaks the norm and is the one person that Dany can trust. And yet, the essayist takes for granted that Quaithe’s “narrative connection to betrayal is already established”.
Fourth, Dany might as well be the prophesied betrayer, not the one who’s betrayed by three people (after all, she’s already been betrayed by more than three people - Jorah, Mirri, Pyat Pree, Xaro, Brown Ben, the person that gave her the poisoned locusts, etc). It would fit with the pattern of Dany being an active participant in the prophecies rather than a passive one (e.g. Dany is AA/PTWP, not the one who gives birth to the AA/PTWP or the one who dies as a sacrifice to AA/PTWP) even though, at first, the readership is expected to think otherwise. And yet, the essayist takes for granted that Dany will be betrayed because otherwise their entire speculation falls apart.
Fifth, Dany is foreshadowed to have a positive relationship with Jon because “the blue flower” from the “wall of ice” filled the air with “sweetness”. And yet, the essayist needs to say that Dany "[will push] Jon away [...] from fear of betrayal and hurt” and from worries that he might be a “usurper” (nevermind that they are mischaracterizing Dany as someone overfocused on retaking the Iron Throne and who closes herself off due to prophecies, none of which are not true, as I already showed above) because otherwise their entire speculation falls apart.
7) Finally, I would also like to ask: what’s the point of giving Dany a storyline like this? Not only because it would be unearned due to the double standards and the changes that would have to occur in her characterization, but also because Dany has a special place in the narrative. She is 1) one of the two women (along with Asha) claiming power in her own right and the only one that we actually got to see rule, 2) one of three Chosen Ones (along with Bran and Jon) and the only female one, 3) one of two POV revolutionaries (along with Jon) and the only female one (and the one whose storyline arguably has the most political messages since she’s fighting against human slavery), 4) one of two POV female rulers (along with Cersei) and the only one who’s been depicted as competent (because she subverts the Good Princess Evil Queen dichotomy), 5) one of two Targaryen conquerors (three, if Young Griff does indeed take Westeros) and the only female one - “Aegon the Conqueror with teats”, 6) the only major mother who isn’t sure to be doomed and/or hasn’t gone mad, 7) one of two Targaryen queens regnant (along with Rhaenyra) and the only remaining Targaryen woman who gets to have power after a long line of Targaryen women - Rhaenyra herself, but also Rhaena, Aerea, Rhaella, Daenerys (Alysanne’s daughter), Rhaenys the Queen Who Never Was, Baela, Rhaena of Pentos, Daena - who were disempowered. GRRM already has a terrible history with female leaders in particular. If he causes the downfall of another one (especially one who is also one of the five main protagonists) for such unearned reasons like the ones that the essayist laid out, there would also be sexist implications. It would make the only she-king that we saw wielding power onpage overly defined by violence and destruction in a way kings don't have to be depending on their actions, it makes the only competent POV female ruler look incompetent in comparison to the other POV male rulers and it makes her conquest a disaster while the other male Targaryen conqueror (two, if Young Griff takes Westeros) gets to succeed. And yet, death by childbirth is the only speculation that the essayist calls out as problematic (“death by childbirth is a uniquely biologically female phenomenon and would be punishing Daenerys for her sexuality”).
8) What I find insidious about essays like this one is that they pretend to be unbiased (I do not argue for the death of Daenerys as a judgement on her ethical/moral goodness as a character nor of the world she inhabits. I argue it on the strength of her characterization and story, that she should be able to encompass such intensity and greatness as to be considered as complex as all these other single-name headliners in literature.) even though they really aren't. To recap, the essayist portrays Dany as someone with "violent" impulses even though she's a merciful person in general, accepts the peace deal with the slavers as valid even though it prioritizes the slavers' privileges over the lives of marginalized people, only talks about the negative connotations of fire, downplays Dany's compassion and sense of justice, argues that Dany is losing her ability to trust others even though she isn't, says that Dany is negatively affected by promises of greatness even though she isn't, argues that Dany had an easy rise to power and didn't pay for her mistakes even though she did, paints Dany's campaign to take the Iron Throne in a negative light without doing the same with the Starks having dominance over the North and ignores Dany's foreshadowing as AA/PTWP, as well as her special place in the narrative. So it’s not that Dany stans are unable to accept Dany’s mistakes and flaws, it’s that people who dislike her can’t understand her characterization or acknowledge the double standards against her or accept her particular place in the story. At the end of the day, an essay like this one is no better than jonsa metas mindlessly hating on Dany because, just like them, as @semperty and @niniane17 made clear, it also creates speculations with the intent of making Dany self-destruct and become irrelevant to pave the way for their preferred characters. The only difference is that it's more successful at appearing "neutral" to someone who doesn't remember what happened in the books very well, especially because Dany has become a polarizing character for a variety of reasons and it's easy to buy into the Appeal to Moderation fallacy.
Also, as I said before, the fact that these Twitter 'neutrals' all misunderstand Dany's characterization, downplay her struggles and judge her by different standards actually makes me somewhat hopeful that she's getting a better ending, because how can their speculations come true if they don't know Dany at all? But then, it's hard to trust GRRM.
182 notes
·
View notes
Note
4 for the cc ask? iceman or your choice?
Apologies for the delay; I have been living in migraine hell.
4. what about their personality i like
So, when I answered #14, I spoke on this subject a bit, but something important I didn't touch on is Ice's sense of duty and his commitment to service.
Stay with me a minute, because we're going on a bit of a winding road. I have spoken before about how, in the conflict of the film, Ice's role as Maverick's adversary is not a dichotomy of whether to play by the rules. What Ice and Maverick are actually fighting about, and the thing that makes them different, is collectivism versus individualism. Maverick—as noted by his call sign—is independent. He flies his own way, and he's flying like he's alone—alone in the sky, alone on each mission, alone in the world. He has something to prove about what he's worth, and this fuels most of his decisions.
Ice is the opposite. Ice represents and argues for the collective. It's the basis of every fight they have: Ice tells Maverick that his disregard of safety could hurt the other pilots; he tells him, "You may not like the men you're flying with, and they may not like you, but whose side are you on?" The military is a team sport, and maybe Ice is team captain, but he is there to work for the team.
And I don't think that stops at the military. Ice seems to me to have a strong sense of duty and a desire to serve and protect not just the men he's flying with, but everyone else. He recognizes the burden of his station, and he knows that if he fucks up, people will get hurt, but he continues to carry it, and he works very hard to be the best he can be. In the trailers for TG:M, it's revealed that Maverick stays a captain so he can keep flying, but Ice takes promotions that take him out of a plane. It is clear that Ice loves to fly. The commitment and work that go into becoming a pilot at that level are huge, and you don't put so much of yourself into something if it doesn't mean anything to you. But, because of how Ice sees his duty to the Navy and to his country, when they come to him and say, "We need something different from you," he leaves the thing he loves and he goes to serve a different way.
One of my favorite quotes from anything ever is this: "If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do." If we, as individuals, cannot fight fate, if we can't make major change, then the only thing that matters—the only thing—is our individual actions, the things we do for each other, the things we do because of love and hope and loyalty and duty. And I see Ice in that. If we're not here to take care of each other, what's the point? He built his life around it, and God, I love that in a person, real or fictional.
Thanks for playing. :)
13 notes
·
View notes
Text
Always Shine and Redefine Our Humanity
How Eret Contributes to the Dream SMP's Narrative Themes of Change and Self-Discovery
I can’t believe listening to a song from a fairly obscure but growing musical (where I took this post’s title from) would prompt me to inspect Eret’s character more but here we are. I will heavily use @theeretblr's (whom you should subscribe to, btw) Character Explanation thread as a basis, as well as statements about their character from their most recent streams and things that I have gathered from other essays by people who clearly have been watching from the start.
This will include sentiments and theories I want for the character because I kinda got attached to them as of late. Please keep in mind that I have been watching since around Late November-Early December, so my biases would be appropriate to such a viewer.
This essay is a discussion of the roleplay character.
1. Eret is Self-Preserving & Versatile in Skill (and this is why they're powerful)
"Those who are given Power hold on to it."
Something I’ve observed concerning Eret’s Betrayal of L’Manburg was their motivations for doing so. For a time they have believed that power and security mattered. For a time their interests went first. CC!Eret referred to the choice as "an offer no one would refuse" as well. This wasn't just luxury and (they didn't know it at the time, but false) power, it was the protection they would be allowed to have by the admin of the server. It was being allowed to do whatever they wanted, despite the means to it being dishonorable and interestingly enough, demanding of permission.
Eret was willing to do anything to remain secure and equipped, and I argue that they still do until now. The difference is that now, they are more concerned about how they maintain their security in that they wouldn't hurt other people or be extremely unethical in the pursuit of this security.
Also, they're privy to grinding when it's necessary, they know how to build structure and contraption, and they can hold their own fairly well. They're very well-spoken and can deliver on appearances and ambiance, excellent at both comforting and intimidating whomever they choose. They had to have been this skilled for a while.
2. Eret has a Forgotten History (of bringing down powerful groups of people, apparently)
"Those who don't know History are doomed to repeat it."
So remember that interaction with Foolish? I want to bring this up because I feel that having particularly close ties with a God of Undying/Death has implications.
Foolish also brings up "taking care of [a] Wither cult"—an organized group! Wasn't Eret known for taking down an organized group on the server? L'Manburg, at its founding. He was part of the rebellion against Manburg. He was against the Eggpire. Yep, that's a pattern.
What does this mean? Well:
Eret's hands were never clean from the start, clearly before the Final Control room, and it can be inferred that they're redder than they seem
Eret's tendencies towards self-preservation may have been influenced/learned from Foolish
Eret may have had (if they still don't do) an inclination to pursue power through the dismantling of organized groups that also seek/already have established power
Eret's current skills are the way they are due to his past
And we cannot forget the CC confirmation that c!Eret has relations with Herobrine, the infamous Minecraft urban legend known for the horror he brings and how many lovers of Minecraft frame him as this terrifying powerhouse entity beyond human comprehension. This relation is still a mystery, but from what we know, it can tell us a lot about what Eret has forgotten about himself and what Eret is capable of!
3. Eret is Concerned by What People (though only those that matter to him) Think of Her
"I think Respect is a big thing."
In light of her power, we have to remember that Eret regretted pursuing power upon recognizing the loss of respect and friendship that came with the throne. This becomes a much stronger detriment when she realizes that the power she thought she had never actually existed in the first place—one can say she would dread pursuing power for herself again. To subject oneself to the standards of others after all is to subject yourself under constant scrutiny.
In her regrets, she learns and realizes what she wants—to be loved and cared for, to be truly alive with her loved ones. It's why she decides to improve herself, and she works and makes the effort to try! She struggled (and still does) in the process of pursuing forgiveness, illustrating that her determination towards an end is very strong, gradual as it may be.
It's how she looks up to Wilbur! Still! I reckon the two believe they're responsible for the other. Change! What an incredible thing the two are able to do.
4. Eret Knows What He Wants (but is struggling to figure out how to get it)
"That was a long time ago. I've changed things and I know not to break people's trust anymore."
One of Eret’s biggest concerns right now in Season 3 is his relationship with the Crown, mixed and fickle it seems based on his streams during this time. His kingship carries more and more weight each passing day, debating whether forgoing the effort and spilled blood Eret had to get the Crown is worth it. (I mean, he accepted the restoration of his Kingship when George got dethroned.)
The Kingship is still power, and it's become true power after Dream had been put in prison. We know he's admitted being deathly afraid of Dream, so this period of genuine Kingship would be incredibly special to him. Ever since he's been finding ways to make his kingship genuinely meaningful, redefining the evils the Crown used to have by doing good to whomever sincerely, freely, and willingly. He's attempted allyhood with like-minded individuals based on his judgment of their character. Remember his Knights? These consisted of HBomb, Puffy, and Punz, each of which exhibited behaviors (predilection for community, dedication to duty, moral neutrality) he has as well!
But yet, the blood spilled for that Crown still stains him, and it cannot be denied that it will continue to do so for as long as Eret wears the crown. I wonder if he believes this, whether a part of him does deep down. Dream being in jail doesn't just mean freedom to be a king but freedom to quite literally be yourself, whatever it may be.
5. For these reasons, Eret Represents Constant Self-Actualization and Rediscovery
"I'm a strong, independent...whatever the fuck I am."
Given the points established above, Eret is unfamiliar with her full self and wants to shape herself into someone desirable and genuinely contributing kindness to a clearly broken world, a world whose brokenness she also happened to contribute to.
Her enthusiasm for History and the pursuit of enlightenment speaks volumes to this motivation. It's her repeated, dedicated efforts to try and try and try and try, to be better! Not just to be a better person herself but for everyone else to be able to be better too! She's aware that perfection is impossible, but clearly recognizes that constant reevaluation of the self is nonetheless necessary.
It's how she's open to engaging with as many people as possible despite differing opinions and carried baggage. She researches and explores and examines! She does no harm but takes no shit.
Every facet of her, to the terror her eyes have been known to give, to the air of affirmation radiating in her domain of a Pride castle, to the blood that decorates her fingers, to the people she has given support to, to the people she has disadvantaged, to the History she keeps, to the part of herself she no longer remembers, to the power she carries—Eret knows how to be truly alive.
#hey eret if you're reading this feel free to respond in any way you can (especially if i get something wrong!)#dream smp#dream smp analysis#dream smp theory#eret#the_eret#eretblr#long post
45 notes
·
View notes
Text
post-finale stuff
Possible spoilers. Beware
Last night, I happened to check the scriptwriter's Weibo and saw that she had liked this fan's post. It's the only non-work related Weibo post that she had liked, so of course, I went to read it.
The fact that this is the only fan post she's given her approval to must mean that it is on point and she agrees with the characterisation. I thought it's pretty good, so I've gone ahead to translate it here. I own 0 rights to this. I just thought it's a good perspective that may help others like me who struggled with the ending.
I think I've mostly made my peace with it now, and to sum it up:
Just because someone doesn't love you the way you want them to doesn't mean they don't love you with all that they are.
A-Xu never once blamed Lao Wen for how things turned out because he understood that. And he’s clearly a better person than I am (lol).
Let me be clear about my stand - the real victim of how the drama unfolded in the last six episodes is WKX. When we feel our hearts ache for ZZS, it's because the show let down WKX (the character). If your heart is only hurting for WKX during episodes 33-34, you should try to ship WKX with someone else, ok? If you think the last six episodes were great and that WKX was very romantic (and only romantic), then I honestly don't know what to say.
I ship wenzhou. That means I like both Wen Kexing and Zhou Zishu. I want them to love each other, be good to each other and live happily ever after. And I want them not to be OOC.
The rest behind the cut. Spoilers for the whole drama.
-------
First, the source. Here is a link to that Weibo post, by 爱吐槽的栗小姐. I will delete this if requested by the OP - because this is really in a grey area imo. But I think the intention of a public post is for it to be shared? (especially something like this, which argues a point)
Secondly, the poster does try to be fair in her post, but as the problem here is WKX's ruined characterisation, ZZS's character is analysed primarily concerning this issue only. There's quite a bit left to ZZS's character and backstory that isn't relevant. I believe that's why the post doesn't elaborate on it, or so I hope.
-------
Ever since WKX faked his death, I received three to four waves of fellow sister fans' mournful wails: "Lao Wen actually faked his death; does he have a heart?" "They were supposed to be of the same heart and treat each other with honesty. How did they regress?" "What happened to their innate soulmate-ness?" "Why does A-Xu always say to face things together, yet Lao Wen always keeps his plans from him?" "A-Xu loves Lao Wen, yet Lao Wen only loves himself"…….
Wait. What have you guys misunderstood about the meaning of soulmates?
Soulmates are about values, but a person's behaviour… that's methodology FFS!
(Do they no longer teach this in political affairs class in high school anymore?)
Wenzhou, these soulmates, are incomparably compatible and mesh well in terms of values. According to the scriptwriter, the entire jianghu wants and tries to get the pieces of Glazed Armour, save the two of them. Not only do they not care for the peerless martial arts, immense power, nor the massive wealth that the Glazed Armour represents, they don't even care for the power they hold in their hands –Ghost Valley and the Window of Heaven. Both of them willing to give it up without a second thought.
Before they met each other, they were so tired of (ZZS) and so angry at (WKX) this earthly world that they didn't even want to live on anymore.
After they met each other, they gradually began to feel the warmth in this world again. How nice it would be if they could live in seclusion, hand in hand and just bask in the sun.
In this world, where everyone else is fighting for power or wealth, they are true soulmates. To intelligent people like them, whether or not they're honest about their identities or secrets is merely a matter of formality. They had already determined their attraction to the other's soul early on and have never doubted it.
There may be some here who would criticise loudly at this point, "Then can't you be more considerate for your soulmate (the actual phrased used is "spiritual companion")? A-Xu has said many times, let's face everything together, I'll bet that you will be honest with me. If you really love him, then why can't you care for his feelings?"
----- You guys, you've never been married.
If two souls meeting can naturally resolve all behavioural conflicts and disagreements, then the theory of "breaking in" * would not exist.
Let us take a look at what kind of a person WKX and ZZS each are.
Wen Kexing, he's a lone wolf.
After his parents' death and his entering the Ghost Valley, his smooth sailing life suddenly fell off a cliff. Ever since then, the only person he could rely on was himself. That deep-seated hatred is carved into his bones, yet he can't speak of it to anyone else. He isn't the same type of person as the rest of the ghosts in the Ghost Valley; he isn't the same type of person as A-Xiang, who he raised. If we talk about the world and everyone who lives in it, he doesn't have any fetters or feels any (positive) emotions.
His supposed craziness is a form of indifference. He's indifferent to others' lives, nor his own, because he just doesn't care. (T/N: I think he does care for his own life, but only for revenge, after that, he's indifferent. Indifferent isn't suicidal. I don't know why some fans seem to be confusing the two. Although he didn't plan to, if he somehow manages to stay alive after getting his revenge, WKX will continue to live on, even if it's only to keep A-Xiang happy because he is indifferent.)
Growing up like this, being solitary became his style. He's used to doing everything alone, used to making his own decisions, used to digesting all his emotions himself.
Every time he argues with A-Xu, he digests his emotions himself. The next day, he faces A-Xu with a smile again.
This is how he loves, to take it upon himself to face danger, difficulty and pain alone. It's how he had supported A-Xiang all these years in the Ghost Valley and what he's used to.
While Zhou Zishu, he's a lead horse (of a herd). **
Since a very young age, he's taught to take responsibility. He's used to bearing everything on his shoulders, be it the responsibility of his family or the responsibility for the Four Seasons Manor, even the responsibility for saving commoners from disasters.
Unlike the lone wolf, the lead horse is ultimately a social animal.
Regardless of his identity as the Manor Lord of the Four Seasons Manor or the Leader of the Window of Heaven, he's always the one to lead the herd and rarely fights alone. So, A-Xu not only has leadership ability but more than that, he also knows how to be tolerant and accepting of the differences of his team members. You can see the various ways he managed to influence Lao Wen along the road; he's firm when he needs to be and soft the other times. It's absolutely textbook in managing your lover workplace management.
Zhou Zishu believes in communication whenever there's a problem, that they should be open and honest. So, teamwork is what he's used to.
Does it mean that when a horse and lone wolf fall in love, that there won't be a breaking in period?
Obviously not.
I guess this is where some may say again, "isn't this part of a character's arc/development? The two of them quarrel time and time again. Did WKX not grow at all from it?"
Of course, after meeting each other, they both grew and saved each other.
When he first left Window of Heaven, A-Xu was lonely with regret. Unlike the lone wolf who's used to doing everything alone, a lead horse without the last of his herd has no way to bear the bone-deep loneliness and merciless self-recrimination.
ZZS wandered around this world aimlessly until Lao Wen started pestering him, until he picked up Zhang Chengling, right up until he felt he hadn't singlehandedly destroyed the Four Seasons Manor. This lead horse finally regained a goal in life. He gained a partner and a lover. Lao Wen sticks to him, Chengling relies on him, and the abandoned Four Seasons Manor became like-new in his hands. He finally reconciles with himself.
When he first came out of the valley, Lao Wen carried a rage strong enough to burn the world down. But when he met A-Xu, he also met the beauty of the world.
When the Four Sages of Anji died, WKX understood how he caused innocent suffering. When Gao Chong walked to his death knowingly, he understood that although some may desire power, they could still be righteous and upstanding people. When he learned of everything Long Que sacrificed to protect his family***, he finally relaxed his guard.
There were so many types of good people and things that he saw along this journey that he hadn't seen in the Ghost Valley. When A-Xu told him he was a good person as they basked in the sun, he genuinely wanted to return to the human (vs ghost) realm and be a good man.
Along their journey, A-Xu made up for the morals and values that WKX lost in the Ghost Valley and showed him a new world outlook. He appeased Lao Wen's anger, tempered his extremism. The process wasn't easy, but not that difficult either, because, in the end, Lao Wen is kind at heart.
But in the end, being a lone wolf is how he survived and succeeded in a place like the Ghost Valley. When A-Xu was so heavily injured and needed a lot of rest (for Wu Xi) to save his life, Lao Wen suddenly recalled his enemies and how such an excellent opportunity to take revenge just fell into his lap. Everything was in place, and all he needed to do was hide it from A-Xu; he could leave for a short while and have it settled quickly. Upon returning, he could then live happily ever after with his wife. To a crazy lone wolf, why would he not take a gamble?
What he couldn't predict was the news would've been leaked (to A-Xu), and he didn't know that by doing so, he would've forever lost his love.
Both of them were using their own methods to love the other person. Zhou Zishu is more forgiving and accepting because being forgiving is in his blood. While what WKX learned in his years in the Ghost Valley is -- love needs to be protected, like how he has A-Xiang, who he considers a sister, call himself master (to protect her).
Only when faced with painful consequences can a person's deep-rooted habits and approach to things change. So I don't think faking his death ruined the characterisation of Wen Kexing, but I regret that the last two episodes did not have a scene to show us Lao Wen's heartbreak when he learns the truth.
Until I know what it feels like to have lost you, I will only love you in my own way.
T/N:
*I can't think of the correct phrase for this as I don't read all that much about relationships >< please let me know if you know of it. Here, I'm referring to the process of wearing something new (like shoes) that will hurt at the start until it becomes soft and comfortable.
** I did some side-reading, and omg, A-Xu is TOTALLY the lead mare. Although he's not the stallion and weak/dying for most of the show, he's the head of their little family, and he expects "to be obeyed", aka, I'm not going to learn how to cook. Call me for dinner. Kthxbye.
From Rutgers' website: A herd of wild horses consists of one or two stallions, a group of mares, and their foals. The leader of the herd is usually an older mare (the "alpha mare"), even though one stallion owns the herd. She maintains her dominant role even though she may be physically weaker than the others. The older mare has had more experiences, more close encounters, and survived more threats than any other horse in the herd. The requirement of the lead horse is not strength or size; if this were so, then humans could never dominate a horse. Dominance is established not only through aggression but also through attitudes that let the other horses know she expects to be obeyed.
***I think this is important here because WKX wasn't crying for his loss. I think a big part of him was realising not everyone in the world was callous and turned their backs on his parents, that he could've gone his whole life without ever discovering what sacrifices some people have made. Good people suffer quietly and in silence. It's a big moment to realise he was wrong about many things that he had let hatred blind himself to the world. Because although he was sad about the Four Sages and somewhat shocked by Gao Chong's death, he hadn't truly faced up to his actions until now.
(screenshot of the scriptwriter liking the above post)
------
To add:
I'm not sure how many of you read my "opinion" posts, but I've been struggling to find a way to accept the last six episodes of Word of Honor. I first tried looking at open forum postings, comments, and Tumblr posts. None of it worked because it was just arguing and emotions and no one made points good enough for me to accept things.
So I gave up and went back to reading Chinese sites. I found many posts discussing the plot. Some I liked, some I didn't, but none satisfied my need for a reasonable explanation. I felt they had biases (both ways), or else it lacked logic. After a time, I realised that I should be looking for WKX-stans (or pro-WKX fans) because they would be more motivated to explain his side, but also because well-written posts by wenzhou-fans & ZZS-stans made me super sad.
I'm sorry, but those who keep trying to explain why the ending was good completely missed that episodes 32-34 are the real problem to those who don't like it and only focused on 36. I can understand if people don't think those episodes are a problem, but no one could provide an articulate and sensible reason. There are just too few well-reasoned plot-focused posts in English (sorry). I've seen too many examples of WKX-fans arguing with people who are upset about the ending, backed by nothing more than "look how much WKX suffers, woe is him. And how romantic is this????" *dies*
Lastly, if you spot anything inaccurate, let me know & I will correct it.
#word of honor#word of honor meta#wenzhou#opinion#i think this counts as meta#if you think the drama did WKX justice#and that he can do no wrong#in the last 6 episodes#....#......#srsly#you can't claim to ship wenzhou#& think the last 6 eps are perfect
176 notes
·
View notes
Text
Satine Kryze, the New Mandalorians, and Fandom Misconception of Mandalorian Culture
If you’re a fan of Mandalorians and like to read fanfiction, you’ve probably read at some point that the New Mandalorians have committed ‘cultural genocide’. That Satine Kryze is a fanatic who is doing everything she can to destroy Mandalorian culture and that she has a watered down version of what it means to be a Mandalorian. And I’m here to tell you that this simply isn’t true.
This is going to be a long read. I will go into the history of Mandalore, what it means to be Mandalorian, as well as how it relates to our own history, so please, buckle in. Also, I will state that there are spoilers for The Clone Wars and season 2 of The Mandalorian.
Most of what we know about Mandalorians is from Karen Traviss and her Mandalorian books - she wrote many books about Boba Fett and even about a lot of clone troopers during and after the war. She’s also well known for starting the creation of Mando’a, the spoken Mandalorian language. However, Karen Traviss is also well known for hating the New Mandalorians and even the Jedi. She has (TW here) equated Jedi ‘apologists’ to slave owners and N*zis. She has been a big name for Star Wars for going into Mandalorian history and culture, however, she has a lot of discourse surrounding her and how she interacts with fans including the fact that she apparently doesn’t even read other Star Wars books that aren’t her own. A lot of people have seemed to have taken her rhetoric about Jedi and Mandalorians as fact, even though she is one author and has written from an extremely biased position of refusing to understand Jedi beliefs and the fact Palpatine, the Separatists, and the Senate were to blame for a lot of what happened in the clone wars. The Jedi were conscripted and refusing to understand that is what leads to ‘Jedi were slave owners’ rhetoric. However, that is a completely different conversation and not relevant to this post about Mandalore.
A lot of Mandalorian culture is from the Legends books. They have a long standing history of war, conquering, and allying themselves with the Sith. They started out as a group from Coruscant called the Taungs who were driven out by the native humans and became nomadic until conquering the planet they called Mandalore after their warlord. They continued their Mandalorian empire until the Sith wars and the Mandalorian wars, the latter of which was the time of Revan and the KOTOR games. I personally haven’t played KOTOR and don’t know enough about that point in Mandalorian history, but I do know that there were many wars, genocides, and violence. It was after the planet Mandalore was devastated by the Jedi Order and the Republic and turned into a barren desert that couldn’t sustain life, that the cultures began to shift and the major factions known as the True Mandalorians, Death Watch, and the New Mandalorians came to be.
(Mandalore after the Mandalorian Excision at the hands of the Republic (Legends) or their own civil wars (TCW). The Mandalorians used biodomes to sustain life on the planet.)
According to Wookiepedia from the Legends (ie, not canon) era, the Republic established a government, but the New Mandalorians were a break off of that. They didn’t follow the Republic nor did they love it, but they did believe in non-violence and peace. They followed the Kryze family who maintained the Duchy in Sundari on the planet Mandalore. Sundari was the capitol alongside Keldabe, the former being for the New Mandalorians while Keldabe was for the planet Mandalore. Many people had left the planet after the devastation to more lush planets or moons, such as Concord Dawn. Satine Kryze herself was from Kalevala, another toxic desert planet in the Mandalorian sector who relocated to Sundari. She was born to a warrior clan and grew up in the culture, but wished to move past that for peace. There was another person from Kalevala who maintained the royalty and also became a senator for the Republic, but he mostly represented the planet itself.
Again, a lot of this history and the ‘New Mandalorians stemming from the Republic installed government’ is from Legends; some of which Karen Traviss wrote, some of which is written from Boba Fett’s perspective (for example, calling the New Mandalorians ‘Faithless’ was from The Bounty Hunter Code and written from the perspective of Boba Fett. This should be taken with a grain of salt from an unreliable narrator viewpoint.) The Clone Wars show, which is where the New Mandalorians first physically appeared, states that they formed after the civil war to rebuild Mandalore, without interference from the Republic. Any violent Mandalorians were exiled to Concordia except the Protectors who were sworn to protect the Concord Dawn system. How anti-Mandalorian can Satine truly be if the Protectors swore to also protect her and the New Mandalorians? Also, any Mandalorian was free to leave Concordia as ‘Old Mandalorians’, but they had no desire for revenge because there was no reason to do so. They were free to maintain their beliefs and practices as long as it wasn’t on the planet Mandalore where the New Mandalorians kept their main city.
There’s a severe misconception as to what it means to be Mandalorian. I’ve heard arguments that you must follow the Resol’nare, the Six Actions, in order to be Mandalorian. However, I argue that there are many ways to be Mandalorian, that it’s a difference with species/race/ethnicity, religion, and culture. You can be born into Mandalorian space and be Mandalorian. You can follow a specific culture or creed and be Mandalorian. You can be adopted by a Mandalorian and raised by then and be Mandalorian. Just as there’s no one way to be a certain ethnicity or race in our world, there’s no one true way to be a Mandalorian. Jango Fett was born on Concord Dawn, in Mandalorian space. His parents were farmers. Even if he never was adopted by Jaster Mereel and became the Mand’alor of the True Mandalorians, he still would’ve been Mandalorian, just like his family. We’ve all heard the phrase ‘no true Scotsman’ and I believe it applies to Mandalorians as well.
However, let’s go with the argument that the Resol’nare makes someone a Mandalorian. The argument is that Satine Kryze doesn’t follow this and that is what makes her an agent of cultural genocide. The Resol’nare states:
Education and armor, self-defense, our tribe, our language, our leader.
Reminder that the Resol’nare was created by Karen Traviss, who we spoke about earlier. Also, the Wookiepedia Legends page for the New Mandalorians states that they’ve broken from the Resol’nare (again, thank you Traviss), but it’s more that they don’t follow a Mand’alor, rather than none of the actions. Let’s break this down and see how Satine Kryze does follow the Resol’nare.
The first one is easy: Education. In one of the episodes of The Clone Wars, it focused on the school in Sundari:
Satine’s own nephew, Korkie Kryze, attended and the main focus was to raise new leaders for Mandalore. The entire episode revolved around the students and Ahsoka Tano uncovering a corruption plot to destabilise the New Mandalorians by Almec, who later joined forces with Death Watch. Also, one of the forefronts of the New Mandalorians is technological advancement. They put their studies and trade into engineering and technology as well as transportation (Legends, established by Traviss).
The second, armour. This is a sticking point for a lot of anti-New Mandalorian fans who believe that Satine Kryze makes Mandalorians give up their armour.
This is a picture of Satine Kryze, Prime Minister Almec, as well as Korkie Kryze in the background. Look at the two people in the middle. See what they’re wearing? These are Mandalorian Royal Guards and they wear armour. New Mandalorians literally had a police unit called the Mandalorian Guards who wore armour, so this is kind of a moot point, showing fanon they are wrong about this. A lot of the Royal Guards were made from the afore mentioned Mandalorian Protectors.
Just because many New Mandalorians chose not to wear armour, doesn’t mean they were not allowed to wear it. One could try and argue that only the police and guards are allowed to wear armour, but the fact of the matter is: there’s still armour for the New Mandalorians. Also, interesting note but all the cadets from The Academy had the Iron Heart, which is a symbol more commonly seen on Mandalorian armour. I think it’s safe to say that is an easy adaption of the culture.
Also in that vein is the ‘self defence’ idea. There’s a lot of belief that the New Mandalorians have no means of defending themselves, that they shun every form of violence. As I’ve just shown, that’s clearly false. They use batons, stun guns, and even hand to hand combat in order to defend themselves. The Royal Guard used force staffs in order to deflect blaster fire, very similar to how the Jedi use their sabers. Even Satine Kryze has used non-lethal weapons of her own:
In the episode mentioned before, The Academy, it is shown that you don’t need guns or lightsabers to defeat your enemies and protect others. Ahsoka didn’t have her lightsaber and yet her and the cadets (including Korkie Kryze) managed to save Satine and uncover the criminal black market on Mandalore. People like to say that New Mandalorians’ creed of ‘no lethal weapons’ means they’re defenceless or ‘erasing culture’, but we’ll get into why this is a misconception with even deeper concerns later.
‘Our tribe’ is easy. The New Mandalorians follow a specific creed of non-violence and they follow that in deference to Satine Kryze, who we can even claim is ‘our leader’ as well. Each creed follows their own leader: the True Mandalorians followed Jaster Mereel and later Jango Fett, Death Watch followed Tor and Pre Vizsla, and the New Mandalorians followed Satine Kryze. All three can claim tribe and leader.
As for ‘our language’, as mentioned, Karen Traviss had originated the spoken language. Mando’a is rarely spoken in the animated series and is more shown in writing. The written language has been sparked once more by season 2 of The Mandalorian. A lot of fanon claims that Satine Kryze erases the language of Mandalore and forces Mandalorians to stop reading or speaking it, a very common cultural genocide against indigenous people. However, this is also false. It’s shown that there’s written forms in several of The Clone Wars episodes, and Satine Kryze herself even speaks it to a Death Watch bomber, click this link for proof and the translations. The written form was actually made by Philip Metschan when asked by George Lucas for Jango Fett, thus there was very little translation into actual Mando’a and why it’s a fan theory that there’s different dialects of it.
(New Mandalorian console from The Academy with written Mando’a.)
Thus, we can safely say that the New Mandalorians do follow a lot of Mandalorian culture that fans say they do not. I’ve also seen many fans say that ‘weapons is their religion’, quoting Din Djarin from The Mandalorian from season 1. However, in season 2, Din is questioning his beliefs as he meets more and more Mandalorians and finding he’s not one of the few remaining. It’s a fascinating study into diaspora and finding one’s culture, but it appears that some people are not also following along. Din has left behind many things he thought were truly Mandalorian - he’s left his people, he’s lost his home, and he’s even removed his helmet in front of others for the love of his child. After he met Bo-Katan Kryze (Satine’s sister who joined Death Watch), he’s been questioning his beliefs and what his place is in the galaxy. We’re finding he’s from a specific zealous sect of Mandalorians, but that doesn’t make him less Mandalorian. He was a foundling (we don’t know if he’s from Mandalorian space), and he’s taken in his own foundling. Mandalorian fans like to say that love of children makes a Mandalorian, so why must weapons and war make one and not love and peace? Mandalorians can love their children and tribe and still be Mandalorian. Weapons and war is what leads to cultural death and that is what the New Mandalorians are trying to prevent.
It’s a bit concerning that this fanon has been so pervasive throughout fandom. It may have originated with Karen Traviss or not, but it has been stated in many fanfic that Satine Kryze is committing ‘cultural genocide’ and has a ‘watered down version’ of Mandalorian culture. It’s so pervasive that people actually believe that Death Watch is better than the New Mandalorians. Death Watch came to be because of the True Mandalorians in Legends and the Mandalorian civil war in canon. In Legends and new canon (via The Mandalorian), Jaster Mereel made the Supercommando Codex, outlining a new structure for Mandalorians to also move past wars. He believed that Mandalorians should become bounty hunters and soldiers for hire instead of fighting amongst themselves. Tor Vizsla took offence to this and created Death Watch who believed in Mandalorian superiority. They wanted to go back to the Mandalorian empire and stoke war amongst the sector. Death Watch repeatedly worked to destabilise the New Mandalorian rule, to the point where Pre Vizsla, Tor Vizsla’s son, was the governor of Concordia, pretending to be an ally to Satine Kryze while he was secretly working with Dooku and the Separatists.
Death Watch committed many atrocities and acts of terrorism. They bombed civilians at a memorial for peace, and after Vizsla was ousted as governor of Concordia for being the Death Watch leader, one of his first acts was to enslave the women of the Ming Po tribe from the planet Carlac. When the men tried to save them and make Death Watch go away, Vizsla ordered the women dead and the town destroyed.
(Satine and Obi-wan witnessing Death Watch’s terrorist bombing.)
(The Ming Po people, who are obviously Asian coded.)
Their entire group of people were based on Asian cultures and it’s uncomfortable as an Asian to see people redeem or idolise Pre Vizsla and Death Watch. He committed mass murder genocide against them after enslaving and terrorising them.
(Carlac, where the Ming Po tribe lived. Note the building structures, the gate which resembles a Japanese torii, and the trees which resemble cherry blossom trees.)
Pre Vizsla and his fanaticism with Death Watch is what directly led to the destabilisation of Mandalore. He teamed with Darth Maul to lead a coup against Satine Kryze and an army to Sundari which led to Satine’s and Pre’s own death. Maul installed Almec as Prime Minister and Mandalore was under civil war once again. This continued until Rebels when Bo-Katan Kryze was given the dark saber by Sabine Wren and she became Mand’alor; unfortunately, the Empire destabilised Mandalore again and that’s what led to the events in The Mandalorian show. Fanon continuously believing that the New Mandalorians’ bids for peace led to cultural genocide is what leads to believing actual genocide is better. Even if people understand Death Watch is bad, there’s a false equivalence saying ‘New Mandalorians and Death Watch are just as bad’ which, again, we’ll get into later.
(Obi-Wan Kenobi arriving on Sundari to save Satine Kryze during the coup.)
Another claim against the cultural genocide argument is the fact that Satine and the New Mandalorians kept artwork of Mandalore’s violent history. They are in no way erasing their past, but instead keeping it as a reminder of what they need to move past.
Murals of Mandalorians killing Jedi and other people. The second is in the Sundari palace where Satine resides. People like to claim this is hypocritical, but it’s meant to show that they are not forgetting their past. That peace is what they must aim for lest they go back to their violent ways.
I have also seen people say that the New Mandalorians are ‘white supremacist’ and that has coloured their beliefs of them. I agree that I recoiled in disgust when I saw the shot of the lackluster New Mandalorians in their full white, blond hair, blue eyed glory. However, that is an animation choice and not the fault of the actual New Mandalorians. Most Death Watch people who are shown are also white with blond hair and blue eyes. In fact, Satine was a politician who often hosted several non-human species and negotiated with them.
(Scenes from TCW episode ‘The Voyage of Temptation’ with Satine Kryze and Obi-wan Kenobi with aliens and humans of various colour and shape. In this episode, Death Watch attacked the ship.)
You do know who did have a problem with aliens? Death Watch. From The Bounty Hunter’s Code, written in part by Jason Fry, there is this:
(Picture taken from the book by a user on discord. Thank you again!)
It states that Mandalorians in Death Watch must have ‘human faces’ and that non humans are ‘outsiders’ and ‘beast species’. Very reminiscent of anti-immigration views and general racism against black and brown people. And yet, there is a general belief that Death Watch is not racist because of the Wren family from Rebels where Sabine Wren is a clear person of colour. Hopefully, readers can tell what an allegory is at this point.
A problem I believe is that there’s a severe lack of understanding on what cultural genocide truly means. It’s defined as ‘acts and measures undertaken to destroy nations' or ethnic groups' culture through spiritual, national, and cultural destruction.’ As proven, Satine and the New Mandalorians have their own beliefs, but they do not destroy their history; instead they adapt them to what they believe the future is aiming for. They do not suppress nor destroy language, or artwork, or historical propaganda. They cannot be colonisers as they live on Mandalore themselves. They exile people, yes, but the people on Concordia had representation who Satine listened to and trusted before he was revealed to be a terrorist. The Mandalore system is big with multiple planets and habitable moons, and Old Mandalorians were free to build their lives anywhere in the system or galaxy, as long as it wasn’t on the planet Mandalore near the New Mandalorians.
Going back to the ‘Republic installed the New Mandalorians’ take, it is canon that Satine Kryze and the New Mandalorians resisted the Republic’s attempts to install a military occupation in Mandalorian space. Vizsla committed terrorist acts and attempted assassinations to murder Satine and he was backed by the CIS to create disorder on Mandalore. Joining the Republic at least peripherally had allowed the New Mandalorians to maintain trade and peace for their people, but when war came, they stuck to their beliefs and created a neutral system. In fact, the Republic cutting off trade, food, and supplies was essentially attempting to blackmail the New Mandalorians to participate in a war. Also, sending the Jedi isn’t a sign of Republic approval; even in The Phantom Menace, the Republic wouldn’t do anything for Naboo and Qui-gon Jinn and Obi-wan Kenobi were only sent as a favour to the then Chancellor Vallorum to investigate what was going on. The Jedi served the galaxy, even if their allegiance and oath was to the Republic, and that includes Mandalorian space.
(Qui-gon Jinn and Obi-wan Kenobi protecting Satine Kryze.)
I do understand why it’s awful to see a group of white people with the same model types to preach about peace and non-violence, especially when the only other known Mandalorian at the time is a brown man. However, that I will fully put on Dave Filoni’s shoulders as he wanted to make the Mandalorians closer to Nordic Vikings (something I believe was mentioned to him by Lucas). The Mandalorians may have been inspired and influenced by other cultures, but for The Clone Wars, it reminds me of and reflects the current state of USA. The USA has a long history of wars, genocide, and violence. It started with white colonists killing and enslaving indigenous people and black people and has continued to be the leader in military and police funding in the world. And yet, whenever people wish to progress past that (for example, enact gun safety laws, defund the military and the police, enact healthcare, remove racist symbols), there are people who claim that they’re trying to ‘take American history away’ or ‘take our rights away’, etc. It’s what has lead to the state the country is in now.
I find it highly disturbing that fandom is hating on New Mandalorians and claiming it’s cultural genocide. It equates to modern times and how people like to claim that ‘liberals’ are trying to ‘take America’s guns’ because we’re tired of war, police brutality, and school shootings. Because we want laws to remove guns from safe spaces and make it harder to obtain weapons. This isn’t cultural genocide. This is progression of society. On January 6th, 2021, we saw an attempted coup where right wingers stormed the American capitol, live fire was shot and a woman killed, where they were actively looking for Democratic congress people to hold them hostage and possibly kill them. I maintain that fiction reflects reality and this is true in this case. The New Mandalorians wish for peace and do not wish for violent weapons in their space and enact laws to do that. However, the galaxy is bigger than America and Old Mandalorians can go anywhere else in the galaxy or even the Mandalorian system. Several countries have enacted anti-gun laws and prevent weapons from being in the hands of violent people. We have labelled white supremacists as domestic terrorists and remove statues of names of slave owners and other awful historical people. I ask you this: how is what the New Mandalorians doing any different? If it’s because you believe the propaganda from Traviss (and Jason Fry, don’t think I don’t see you), then you need to reevaluate your source. It is not a bad thing to see violence and wish to move past that and instead focus your resources to innovation, humanitarian efforts, and, yes, pacifism.
I mentioned earlier that people like to equate Death Watch and the New Mandalorians. It’s generally like how people say ‘Antifa is just the same as fascism’. In fact, I saw a comment on a fic that generally says something similar:
Name removed and the fic will not be mentioned, but it equates the New Mandalorians and Death Watch to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her other POC congresspeople who wish to help people, and literal terrorists. Honestly, there’s a lot to unpack from this singular comment and I’m not sure I have the energy to do so. Death Watch isn’t like ‘Islamic’ terrorists. They’re like the white supremacist terrorists we see in the USA who planted bombs around various political buildings because they wanted violence against the Democratic party. This comment is just shitty victim blaming and promotion of violence. Pacifism isn’t ‘dangerous’. It isn’t ‘suicide’. It’s an ideal we should actively strive for.
I’m tired of seeing writers and fans say that the New Mandalorians commit cultural genocide. I’m tired of the misunderstanding and the attack on pacifism and the refusal to believe that peace is an option. It may not be feasible in the universe of Star Wars, but in that case, it’s not feasible for the USA and our own long history of war and we might as well give up. I ask that you at least do some research on the New Mandalorians before writing them and if you refuse to do so, then at least tag your fic as AUs and not actual canon fact. It’s the same with the Jedi and the propaganda that is passed along for them; you’re believing anti-New Mandalorian authors who aren’t accepted as canon. And for fuck’s sake, every time you praise Death Watch and say that they’re good, or that Pre Vizsla is an alright guy and redeemable, or that Obi-wan Kenobi of all people think that Mandalorians are better off being warmongers, then you’re wasting my time and helping spread bad (and, yes, racist) takes.
EDIT: Since this is still going around, I’m going to add that 1) there are very prominent Maori pacifist groups that are still being oppressed. The Mandos have a lot of Maori influence because of Temuera Morrison and it’s great that he’s bringing his culture to Star Wars, but the greater Mandalorian cultures are *not* based on them. Whether it’s TCW or Karen Traviss, none of the writers had the authority to make Mandos Maori (and Traviss very obviously fetishised them). 2) People keep claiming ‘pacifism is something governments can claim to oppress others!’ and yeah, it can be an excuse, but very often it’s an authoritarian government, *not* a pacifistic government. Do you know what happens to actual pacifistic governments? Groups? They get attacked and genocided. It’s literally what happened to the New Mandos in TCW. They were attacked and killed and their way of life was obliterated thanks to Death Watch and Maul. They weren’t forcing their way of life on the greater Mandalorian population and honestly? Stop acting like *pacifism is bad*. There are legit pacifists out there and people have *constantly* been actively against war all throughout history and they’ve been *murdered* for it. Recall what happened to Vietnam War protestors??? Recall the smear campaign against France for not getting involved in the Iraqi War??? The New Mandos can reflect any point of history in the real world. Acting otherwise is *your problem*. Can pacifism be used poorly? Yes, mostly when you’re ignoring the plights of others around you in the name of pacifism. Are the New Mandos an actual good example of pacifism? No, and no one would claim it would be and I blame that solely on the shit writing of TCW where war is treated like a game half the time. But acting like pacifism as a whole or pacifistic governments or ideals is bad is fucked up and wildly dismissive of the large number of real pacifists.
#star wars#new mandalorians#satine kryze#obi-wan kenobi#mandalorians#mandalore#cw terrorism#cw racism#cw genocide#pre vizsla#death watch#the mandalorian#the clone wars#tcw
233 notes
·
View notes
Text
Just watched the Endwalker trailer.... I am super excited but also heavily thinking about the expansion, and what it will mean for Zenos as a character.
Long ass thoughts under the cut.
He’s posed as the final boss here, the big bad guy, but it made me think a lot when the game and some characters explicitly say: “Maybe Zenos isn’t even our final obstacle, the final days will be’. Which also leads me to think that Zenos is just... well, vibing and thriving in the destruction, but that he could not be the reason the final days are happening and everything is going to shit.
He sure as hell is enabling things to happen, but I don’t know if I believe that he’s the instigator and the one behind the idea. I think he’s more of the opportunist taking advantage of chaos and delirium to act his plan of the final hunt, but I think it has been made clear enough that he doesn’t exactly care about Eorzea ending or wars happening to create an intricate plan such as the one put in motion by Fandaniel, he just wants to relive the hunt with his first friend and enemy once again. (Which don’t get me started, it’s so fucking sad man, don’t make me think about it or I’ll tear up...)
This led me to think ... where will this character go? What will happen? I am VERY torn about this, mostly because SE has done an incredible job at keeping everyone guessing and surprising people everytime with the story.
Could Zenos end up being an ally? Could he be spared? Can he come to reason? I see people even mentioning that he could be a Scion... I honestly really don’t see that happening, the man is batshit insane and as much as I love him, he doesn’t give a shit about Eorzea or helping the world, and I’m sure 99% of the Scions despise him or just want to see him dead. He won’t be a Scion, that would be really out of character for everyone. (For him to be one, for everyone to accept him as such)
But I do wonder if he will end up being spared, or changing his mind. Maybe being a ‘neutral’ force? Maybe even temporarily allying with the WoL (and only with the Wol, he doesn’t care about the others) to prevent him from dying, because he doesn’t actually want his rival and friend to die. A ‘villain turned ally out of necessity’ situation with him would be cool, and would make sense if he wanted to protect the Wol temporarily from another foe, even for just ‘being the one that has to kill / defeat them’. He’s very possessive over the Wol, I feel like.
I just hope we won’t have to kill him... he’s one of my favourite characters now, so I would honestly be DEVASTATED to see him go, even if I perfectly know he would deserve it and everyone would probably be happy if he did. But I just can’t help thinking about how much I love this character, his story, what he implies, what he represents, all the things he carries with him... I feel like Endwalker will surely give us a lot of content for him, which I am excited and happy about, but I just wish we could not kill him so we get to see more.
This is where I get conflicted because my realist side tells me we already got a fake death, even if we DID kill him, and fight him with the intent to kill. He managed to escape death though, and came back. I just think it would be a bit unrealistic to have him escape death once again, and even more unrealistic having him being an ally. One could argue we already have examples of Garlean villains turned allies, with Nero, Cid and Gaius, but like... they weren’t like this.
What I love about Zenos is also what makes him unreedemable.
Zenos is mad. Zenos doesn’t give a shit about anyone, about life, death, people, slaughtering innocents, about Eorzea, hell, he doesn’t even give a crap about the world ENDING if it means he can have a final dance with his beast. And I LOVE all these unique parts about him, but I also realize those parts are what make imagining him surviving so hard, considering the circumstances.
Cid, Nero and Gaius weren’t mad with power. Sure, they all did bad things, but you don’t see them talking about how they just wanted to fight one person to feel an emotion and destroyed countries and people for that reason. The others had reasons behind their actions (as bad as those reasons could be, their actions were still guided by logic), Zenos doesn’t. Zenos is a feral animal and follows his istincts, that’s why I find it so hard to imagine him as someone who is not a villain. I would LOVE for him to be saved, to have someone give him a chance, my humane (and emphatic ass) wants someone to take a chance on him also because I feel so close to his struggle, but my realistic side says ‘Yeah, it’s not gonna happen’.
As much as I love this character and would like him not to die, I also realize he did horrible things and slaughtered innocents without even thinking about it. I went back to check on dialogues of people talking about facing him in the war, and man it’s bad. People basically describe how he wouldn’t even find enjoyement in killing people or winning wars, but how we was just ‘looking for a feeling’ even on the battlefield, while destroying people’s hopes and dreams in Doma and all Yangxia. It’s bad. It’s REAL bad. Sometimes I forget how... bad this character is.
“...I do not think there was any joy in it. Nor justice, nor morality, nor meaning. To him, the weight of one life is no different from that of a thousand. A challenge had been issued and was accepted. But on finding us no challenge at all, his objective changed. There were tales of imperial soldiers being flayed for slaughtering families. For breaking brave men’s spirits. Only later did I come to understand why. He did not desire obedience. He desired hate… and men consumed by it. A new battle. A new enemy. A new challenge. The hunt, I am told he called it. A hunt without end. And when all our best lay dead and broken, he left. He left, muttering that we had “bored” him. But our weapons, at least, held his interest. For he took a fallen samurai’s sword, having grown… fond of it. Since that day, he has ever wielded Far Eastern blades. He is said to be fascinated by ones with storied histories, and so soldiers who seek to to curry his favor often present those of defeated enemies as gifts.
Lyse: It’s like all a game to him. People are suffering -- dying -- and he’s collecting swords? “
But man. I don’t know what Endwalker has in store for me, for Zenos, but I sure hope maybe something can happen where he doesn’t die. I don’t know how the fuck that would happen, maybe we would need to see more of him and understand his story/his side better, and see if he actually does want to work with the WoL side by side instead of just fighting him. Maybe that can happen, he does care about the WoL after all, and he knows enjoyement and thrill will come out of being with them. I just don’t know how that could realistically *WORK*... But I sure does hope there’s some kind of compromise, where he maybe just can reflect on his actions and do something about them.
This is my stupid ‘I see too much of myself in Zenos to talk rationally’ self talking, but I am so sad at seeing a character that has struggles and grew up feeling nothing but apathy, being loved by no one, end up like a villain again. Having to just be put down like a feral animal. Again.
I guess my stupid ass would just like him to be happy, found peace maybe, HELL, I don’t know if he deserves it, but some parts of me tells me he does. I just get so sad when I am reminded at how much his father, family, nation, no one gave a shit about him. That’s too much human and close to home for me to disregard everything entirely and just call him a villain.
I also am conflicted because I wonder if what I want for him isn’t also out of character, and something that would ruin his character and story. I love Zenos because he’s unapologetically himself, does what he wants, and obeys no one’s agenda, but his wants and instincts. I don’t want his personality and story arc to be ruined by salvation or him randomly becoming an ally and everyone pretending he didn’t do anything wrong, that would make me hate him and SE so much. I would much prefer him dead than him ruined as a character. I do wonder if me wanting him to be spared death and him being unapologetically himself are two things that can’t co-exist- it FEELS like that, honestly. I have faith in SE that they will write him and the story well, and make me enjoy what happens, so at the moment I’m not particularly worried about him being ruined as a character. But I just got to the point where I am so attached that I am of course scared of losing my favourite character. I guess we will have to see, honestly only the game and what will happen in the story can tell me if I am right in having hope for him or if I am not. There’s a lot of possibility in the story, a lot of surprises in SE’s writing everything everytime, and i how they make things WORK, so there’s hope in THAT.
And maybe I want to see a different solution for him that isn’t death. Call it retribution, maybe I am projecting TOO MUCH in this character, but yeah, just being honest and baring my emotions to the world here. I guess we will have to see what happens.
49 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
newsadmire
Untitled
largando
Untitled
italoafricano-blog
AfroItalian🇮🇹
shervpey
NATURAL INTELLIGENCE
sinverwatch
My art dump for Overwatch stuff (sometimes NSFW)