#this is why it's so strange to me that e.g. the general assumption in the fandom is that wen qing died
Note
What’s your theories on the maknae line dynamic? I keep feeling like there’s this weird off-balance feeling with them, not necessarily a tension but just a strange lack of clicking? I don’t know, it’s really odd and I think it’s a situation that could invite some tension vibes but I have no clue why (I don’t think any of them are dating each other btw). I don’t notice it when there’s another person with them, though. Like Hobi for an example. It might explain why we literally never hear of the three of them hanging out alone.
Well, I don't think it's a matter of "are they or are they not close?" because I think they're all naturally close due to their circumstances. I don't think you can share that significant of an experience without cultivating the kind of relationship they all have. They're as much family as they are friends, and yet their bonds transcend those labels at the same time.
So for me, it's not a matter of closeness that's the issue but rather their interests and "where they're at" in their lives.
Let me preface this by saying that I'm not discussing this with any romantic undertones in mind (there isn't any as far as I'm concerned, anyway):
As with any group, if two people are in the same stage of their lives (which could mean many things), you might see those two gravitate more towards one another. They may not be interested in specifically the same things, but if they wanted to explore new experiences, for example, those two people might do that together. This is what I think is happening with Taehyung and Jungkook, which is what I suspected a long while ago. I think where they're at in their lives are converging in a way that their interests are similarly aligned.
Several people have asked me about Jikook's dynamic, which I think this would be better served for their asks, but to summarize: I think their relationship has just... graduated. But before anyone passionately agrees with this assessment, I don't strictly mean it in the way that it sounds. I'll elaborate later when I get to those asks.
Again, Vmin is more of an interesting case to me. They remind me of the common example of friends who don't see each other for years but can reconnect like no time has elapsed. I feel like they fulfill each other's needs (e.g., physical affection) in a way the other members can't, but I think they're also wildly different people. I do believe they think of each other as soulmates and relate to each other in a way that they don't with the others, but I think the fans' ideas of "soulmates" has gotten a little too mixed into what that might mean for Vmin. I think Taehyung and Jimin's hearts are the same, but their general interests don't really seem to overlap right now aside from maybe gaming. I don't think this makes them not close, but it sometimes feels like there's a weird dissonance happening when there most likely isn't because there's an expectation that they should be close because they're self-titled soulmates.
I don't really like to get into this here because this topic seems to cause psychotic breaks en masse, but I'm perhaps one of the few people who think there is merit to Taennie–even on a surface level. The Taennie rumor has more substance than Jikook and Taekook combined, sorry not sorry. And this is pure assumption, but I wouldn't be surprised if Taehyung and Jungkook bonded on that and their experiences (I won't get into this because some of you are not ready for this conversation and what it implies, but because this blog is also centered on the idea that Jikook has potential, I wouldn't share it here even if I wanted to).
Maknae line hanging out as a trio is where the light bulb is still off for me. It's not that they have to hang out together because if we're looking at OT7, there are a few combinations that don't seem to hang out as much (or at all) compared to the others, and it's not like they're somehow less close (this is idiotic thinking and anyone who entertains this is pathetic).
Honestly, at the end of the day, I think the true nature of the OT7 dynamic and how they are as individuals would break the minds of ARMYs. Too often people forget how human they are and how the perception of them on Twitter/Tumblr/wherever is only as close to what we've been allowed to see.
14 notes
·
View notes
Note
Hihi! I've noticed some CQL fic recently about class conflict / revolution of the working class against an elite class of cultivators. This idea is intriguing and I think I've seen it executed well, but I also know that cultivator's practices are tied deeply to religion + Daoism so it seems like cultivators are generally pretty well respected in society. Class definitely comes forward as a theme in CQL though, and non-cultivators (e.g. Dafan Wens) clearly do suffer from the war in CQL. 1/2
2/2 I guess I'm wondering to what extent the idea of non-cultivators leading a class revolution feels like a more modern take vs smth that might conceivably happen in a historical Chinese setting. (Based on what happens with Xie Lian in the TGCF novel I feel like a class revolt might happen in MXTX's xianxia worlds at least). I know this is complex but I'd love to hear your thoughts if you're interested in this topic and care to share them. Thanks for your wonderful blog! sorry this is so longgg
hooooooo okay, okay where to begin with this
so first of all, I’m going to link you to @pumpkinpaix’s most excellent meta on class dynamics in MDZS, because she carries this fandom on her goddamn back and holds the brain cell that I certainly do not have
secondly, I’m going to re-link this post on the ahistoricity of cql, because it is, in fact, very important to me that people do not try to read CQL as a historical text in any way, shape, or form
thirdly, so, okay. before we talk about class or class conflict or the revolution of the proletariat or whatever, I want to point out that this story is 架空 jiakong -- it’s built on thin air. I make jokes about the inconsistency of the worldbuilding all the time, but I’m also a Cosmere fan with unrealistic standards for worldbuilding and at the end of the day they’re jokes. But to try and read class conflict into CQL is premised on the assumption that there’s like, a system in place that is premised on the oppression of the working class and a functional economy that keeps this society running. What is this economy? Who is this working class? Hell if I know! They pay each other with rocks spray-painted a shiny gold and we don’t question it.
oh, we can theorize all day about feudal systems of taxation and protection, or guess at the going price of evil-warding talismans, but at the end of the day, neither the author nor the showrunners felt the need to build an extensively detailed class system into this world. and why should they? that’s not the focus of the story; just the general strokes of a nebulously-familiar setting will suffice.
this isn’t to say class isn’t a major theme in CQL, since it’s literally like, the crux of Jin Guangyao’s character (again, please read that meta by @pumpkinpaix, it’s so good), but like. to talk about class conflict and revolution? feels like we need to get much further in the weeds about, like, economic structural inequality built into the fabric of this society. and to me, that feels like fumbling around in the dark, because there isn’t?? really??? a historical??? analog???? to cultivators????
look, this is xianxia. this is a fundamentally fantastic text. cultivators as a class (hah) of people amalgamate this strange chimera of Daoist priest and warrior-mercenary and landed gentry and wandering scholar that is very much a staple of the wuxia / xianxia genres, but not particularly applicable to history. so the idea of a “working class rebelling against an elite class of cultivators” simply does not have a handy historical analogue to point at because cultivators--in the form of this structured, organized, jianghu sect hierarchy--did not exist???
(honestly, the closest counterpart I can think of is--hilariously--season 1 of The Legend of Korra, which attempts to deal with the societal inequality of benders and non-benders. but like. does Korra handle that well? anyway)
and before anyone tries to make the argument that the cultivational sects map onto the imperial government--they do not. They simply Do Not. If you think so, then you have not confronted the Bureaucratic Majesty/Nightmare of imperial Chinese government.
here’s the thing about most wuxia / xianxia / Chinese period dramas as a whole--they’re never actually about the “common people.” Your main character is always going to be the member of some elite class, or marry into the elite class, or have Magical Powers Conferred Upon Them and thereby become elite. The genre is simply uninterested in the dynamics of class beyond its effects on a character’s backstory. The reality of it is simply that working class life in ancient China rarely gets made into 50-episode dramas. At the very least, I’ve never seen one.
if we want to look at peasant rebellions in Chinese history, they are often about changing the people in positions of power rather than the systems that impose said power. The dynastic system lasted for millennia because every time there was a successful uprising, the people who led that revolution proceeded to put themselves in the positions of power in that very same system, and the one time the revolution led to a systemic change in governance--
I will never be paid enough to talk about 20th century Chinese history, but if you’re looking for historical analogues of class revolution, you’re welcome to confront the bloody wasteland that is 20th century China
class in ancient China is complicated; class in dynastic China is complicated; class in 20th century China is (hoo buddy) complicated; class in 21st century China is (yells) complicated. Which is a roundabout way of getting to your question of:
I guess I'm wondering to what extent the idea of non-cultivators leading a class revolution feels like a more modern take vs smth that might conceivably happen in a historical Chinese setting.
Not only does this feel like a modern take, this feels like a very Western take; I don’t think Western concepts of class awareness and conflict map easily across national and cultural borders, but I don’t have the requisite knowledge to give you a more nuanced understanding of how or why exactly. That... would be the subject of a dissertation, not a tumblr post.
You did bring up TGCF, and I do want to point out that the fall of Xianle is also... not a product of class conflict, necessarily speaking. It’s the product of 1) a refugee crisis, 2) multiple natural disasters, 3) the literal hand of fate. I think MXTX incorporates themes of class into her works, but her books tend to be much more focused on the development of an individual character in the face of hardship and opposition, rather than the role of an individual in society and the individual’s obligation to contribute to said society. I could write several hundred words on Xie Lian and his relationship to “the greater good,” but that belongs in a wholly different meta and a complete separate blog. I think it’s quite important that, again and again, we see that the ‘happy ending’ MXTX bestows upon her main characters is not “and then they get into politics and reform society to bring the greatest good to all!” but rather “and then they live in a house with the love of their life in quiet, domestic bliss, away from the politics that caused them so much pain and suffering.” To me, that indicates the author’s interest in personal and emotional development of characters rather than commenting on class conflict/class revolution in ahistorical fantasy China as a whole.
Again! I’m not trying to be prescriptive. I’m not saying that people can’t flesh out the worldbuilding and create incredible works of transformative fanwork that speculate on the nature of class conflict and revolution in a fantasy society. If that’s your speed, all the power to you! That sounds like a truly terrifying amount of thought and research, godspeed.
496 notes
·
View notes
Note
I have a very specific & uncomfortable/NSFW question. After fives years of crisis I identify as a lesbian, but besides loving women sexually I also am turned on by mlm smut. I’m honestly upset with myself for it but not only do I not have a way to stop it, it just makes me question my sexuality even more than I already do. I’m not attracted to men & I especially do not want to watch or engage besides w/ written but it’s just a bad situation for me. Help? :(
Hiya friend,
So by some strange coincidence I just responded to a submission about finding male characters attractive when one is typically attracted to femininity. You can read that post below because I think most of that is applicable here, too, but I do want to look at the facet that is unique to your submission, which would be the sexual intimacy between masculine characters.
I know you said this was pretty much exclusively reserved for written smut, but there's a great scene in the movie The Kids are All Right in which Laser (Josh Hutcherson) stumbles upon his moms' porn collection and asks his moms (Julianne Moore and Annette Bening) why they watch "gay man porn" if they're lesbians, and their response is essentially because sometimes it's nice to mix things up and also that masculine arousal tends to be a lot more external than depictions of feminine sexual enjoyment. Even in written smut, it's easier to either visualize or identify with arousal expressed physically. I mentioned in the other post that authorship is an important thing to take into consideration, and I find that especially true in this instance. The author is most likely going to either be an AFAB person, writing from an AFAB person's sexual perspective utilizing language of external sexuality, which is something you might readily identify with, or they're going to be an AMAB person with an innate knowledge of arousal in that type of body and so they might be better equipped to talk about what things feel like in those types of bodies than they would be to talk about what arousal feels like in an AFAB body. Beyond the role of authorship and the advantages that different authors have in writing mlm erotica, there's also just the fact that mlm erotica exists externally from cishet male fantasies. The characters engaging physically are generally depicted as really enjoying their respective roles without problematic assumptions of sexuality (e.g. depicting someone who just really enjoys giving oral sex vs oral sex between a man and a woman in a way that degrades the woman) and are doing it for themselves and their partner(s) and not for an unseen audience (e.g. wlw erotica written by men for men with really unrealistic depictions of sapphic love).
With all of that being said, I think it makes sense to be interested in mlm erotica if you're into erotica at all. I don't think that's wrong or something that needs to be corrected in the slightest. Be kind to yourself. I hope this helps.
With love, friend.
7 notes
·
View notes
Note
Hey, My curiosity and I can't stop wondering where your strong interest in Georges of Clarence comes from?My curiosity and I can't stop wondering where your strong interest in Georges of Clarence comes from?
Oh haha it was the long theory I wrote about, wasn’t it?
Well, it began when about a year ago I discovered that he was my 16x grandfather, which to be honest was quite a surprise as I am not even English. But that’s not why I am interested in him of course. The thing is, I had been interested in The Wars of the Roses ever since I was 12, of course that interest ebbing and flowing throughout the years. Out of nowhere this discovery came and it drew me back in but with a specific focus on him, Isabel Neville and Richard Neville 16th Earl of Warwick, because before, my favourite figures were rather Elizabeth Woodville, Richard III and Edward IV.
I’ve always been partial to him for some reason, I don’t know if it was the portrait, the unusual death or the plain drama that was his life. I’ve also found it quite strange how the most politically disloyal man of that time was one of the few faithful to his wife, it made me wonder but I didn’t go into this any further (though I had attempted a terrible go at writing the story of Isabel Neville then 9 years ago). But now I really wanted to read about him further (not like make a massive project out of it but just dip in), and the more I read the more undiscernable became his motivations and character and what emerged was a man more complex than I previously expected.
Scholarship revealed to me that he was apparently not mad, and although he may have liked a drink, was certainly no drunkard (at least no one at the time thought so). He had indeed masterminded some elaborate plans in his day and by all accounts seemed an illustrious and charming man who had some strong motivations and belief in those, however deluded those belief may be. Some trivia about his religiosity, idolation from the multitudes, patronages (printing press and foundations) and apparent outstanding knowledge of the law has endeared me a bit too but also showed me that there might be more to him than a greedy, foul-tempered himbo (we have histfic to thank for this ugh). Much of what we know from internet biographies might be true, but the issue is they are presented as facts whereas they remain mere assumptions e.g. that he had married Isabel Neville because he had designs for the crown - not necessarily the case as this marriage suggestion had allegedly appeared as early as 1461!
We all look at him as Edward and Richard’s brother, but the main narrative of his life is about his status as a magnate (an institution then heavily a threat to the crown). It all started looking more to me like a story about an overmighty subjects’ tension with the centralising tendencies of the government (despite his royal provenance). His father-in-law had been called ‘The Last of the Barons’ by David Hume and Clarence being his political heir, a personification of the last generation of the truly medieval aristocracy and someone whose reactions to (some aspects of) the new age were an exemplification of the old system of chivalry falling away and the anxiety, hatred and fear that people like him felt, made me very interested in not only him but also what he represented in the grand historical narrative. I thought to myself ‘wow this looks like a fatalistic tragedy someone should write a novel about this’, alas no one had. So then I started writing my own story on AO3 perhaps appropriately called ‘A Bygone Era’ but more centered on his Duchess, Isabel Neville (because a piece of trivia I had discovered about her got me likewise interested). I got a lot of support from some of the other users (shoutout to @feuillesmortes <3) during the earlier chapters and that made me feel inspired to expand the story into a grander one about the aforementioned three figures, also because I was falling more in love with the aesthetics and culture of that era.
With that, came the need felt to do more research and with the pandemic hitting, I had more alone time than before. The more I researched the more interested I got and also frustrated that very little has been written about him (and not for a lack of sources!), and a lot of the times when I would come up with my own interpretation of the sources I would find that no one had ever thought the same thing as me before, so I also felt I had something to contribute. I’m not saying that I intend to make out of his legacy what SKP and others have made out of Richard III’s, I actually don’t intend to do anything but just put some possibilities and facts out there (some not even that obscure but just rarely circulated outside academic circles e.g. his role as good lord of the West Midlands, his legal judgments e.t.c). Also, of course I find this all very entertaining for some reason, it might be my lawyer personality? I mean sure, some aspects of his career and life probably also hit me on some deeper level, but I’m not interested in him because he was necessarily a ‘good’ person, I don’t frankly know the real reason I find his (and Isabel and Warwick’s) life so poignant but I know there is something there and I like challenges. Not to mention the AO3 story just writes itself XD, and often without my permission. The events of his life are fodder for the greatest novel themes, you’d be surprised XD.
Lastly, his posterity also baffles me. I feel strongly about how he is often used by Richardians as a tool to further villianise the Woodvilles, by Whig enlightenment historians (but that’s more Warwick’s issue) as a symbol of corruption - an impediment to progress and constitutional democracy, and by attention-seeking weirdos on TV to discount the current line of succession (have they never heard of right of conquest or attainder???). I don’t know, surely everyone has a right to exist for themselves, not just as someone’s brother ?? In such an individualistic age you’d think people would sympathise with someone who wasn’t blindly loyal and made up their own mind as to what their interests were and by extension how society should be (because in a pious age people invariably acted on what they thought was divine ordinance). Don’t even get me started on how he remains the only individual in a popular historical period whose image as a pantomime villain has never evolved (and when it is it’s always for one of the above motives) into one of a balanced human being. You must admit it’s rare nowadays to find a controversial historical figure who hasn’t recently undergone some romanticised revisionism!
#lady plantagenet’s assizes#and god can I go on!#this proves it haha#george of clarence#isabel neville#richard neville#george duke of clarence#Richard Neville earl of Warwick#the white queen#the wars of the roses#15th century
10 notes
·
View notes
Note
do you have any spicy hot takes you wanna drop 👀👀?? i will drop one as well, i think that everyone got carried away with the whole sympathetic and unsympathetic stuff -💫
okay so i read the first sentence and i was like ‘fuck yes time to talk about the sympathetic/unsympathetic thing’ and then i read the rest of it and yeah okay so we’re on the same page here. i have a feeling this is going to get extensive so if you don’t want to hear me complaining about stuff that you may or may not like don’t go reading under the cut. Also it's not going to be very coherent
disclaimer: i am not trying to police the fandom or trying to tell anyone that they can’t write stuff. i do my best to stay in my lane and read/consume content that i want to. these are just. feelings i have.
so on the one hand i sort of understand where the whole concept sprung from. it’s hard to write interesting longform stories without a villain of some sort, it’s not as if there’s all that many characters in the first place, and sometimes using the Dragon Witch doesn’t quite cut it. and honestly if you take away the whole ‘they’re all part of the same person’ thing it would’ve been pretty easy to assume that Deceit was the bad guy when he first showed up. he went the whole ‘ominous smirking, evil laughter’ route because he’s a dramatic little bastard, and some people were like 'my son, I love him' and others went 'evil man! Evil! He's planning bad things' and on a purely mechanical level having tags that distinguish people who think a character is good vs people who think a character is evil is a good thing, it helps you distinguish content you want to look at from the content that you don't!
HOWEVER. I think the idea of characters being 'sympathetic' or 'unsympathetic' in the way that this fandom uses those terms is innately flawed. It's black-and-white thinking and it veers close to the whole puritan thing that tumblr is so fond of. And in most cases 'unsympathetic' is just an excuse to write characters as toxic, abusive, and just downright cruel without having to explain yourself. Which is. Hm. And also just lazy writing.
This bit might be tmi but: Patton actually used to be my favorite Sanders Sides character. But back when i initially got into the fandom, I hadn't quite worked out how to filter the content I looked through yet, and I just kept seeing this... constant stream of stuff involving him being abusive to the others in a way that was hm how shall i say this. Uncomfortably familiar. especially with a lot of religious guilt themes. It's not anyone's fault, precisely, but it did tinge a lot of my fandom experience, and it maaaay be why i'm not great at writing him. Doesn't matter. The point is... There wasn't a point. I'm just still bitter about that and wanted to mention it. Maybe i'm angrier about this than i thought i was. Let's not talk about that. Let's move on with this discussion.
You'll notice that i used Janus as an example up there at the top. I can't be sure (and actually it grimly fascinates me so if anybody who's been around here longer than I have has any info on this send it over, I'd love to know) but I think that Deceit's appearance in CLBG may have marked the beginning of this whole unsympathetic/sympathetic split in the fandom. It seems a safe enough bet, anyway, especially since the earliest example I can find of any fic being tagged 'unsympathetic' in the AO3 archive is from 4th February 2018, literally the day after CLBG went up. (damn, guys, moving fast).
The first occurrences of the 'sympathetic' tag crop up about a month later. Tumblr is impossible to search so I don't know if there was any discussion about terms, or if it was just a kind of snowball effect with people seeing the tags and tagging their own fics as appropriate (and this is a fascinating phenomena in itself!) but either way - i have absolutely no idea what happened to make people go from 'we're divided on whether this character who presents himself a villain is actually doing bad and detrimental things to the other sides/thomas/the world as a whole/innocent puppies' to 'hang on what if the other sides were kicking puppies also?'
So now this has turned from a rant about terminology into me being genuinely curious about this whole thing. I will put the rant on pause while I go scour AO3 to see when the first occurrences of the tags popped up. Please hold.
Okay. I'm going to ignore the unsympathetic tags for anyone who's not a side because i don't hate myself nearly that much (but uh for the record. There is a part of this fandom that thinks the LITERAL CONCEPT OF SLEEP IS EVIL and i'm not sure if i should be impressed or horrified. What? What???)
All of these numbers are up-to-date as of 17/06/2020, which is when I'm posting this. I'm probably not going to update that, so keep that in mind if you're reading this in the future.
In order of chronological appearance:
Unsympathetic Janus ('Deceit' at the time, of course) - first appears 12 March 2018, 191 works
Unsympathetic Roman - first appears 10 February 2019, 102 works
Unsympathetic Logan - first appears 24 June 2019, 59 works
Unsympathetic Patton - first appears 2 July 2019, 228 works
Unsympathetic Remus - first appears 17 July, 2019, 121 works
Unsympathetic Virgil - first appears 31 July 2019, 71 works
...I genuinely don't know what I expected.
The fandom was much slower to spark with Unsympathetic Remus content after he first showed up, which is kind of interesting. Unless they just didn't bother to tag it? Like, I'm working with the assumption that everyone's tagging all of their content, which might not always be the case
I thought there'd be so much more Janus and Remus-tagged fics than there actually are.
It does not surprise me that Patton has the most in this category. It makes me sad but it doesn't surprise me. Why are you guys so intent on making him evil
And on the opposite side of the sympathy spectrum (similarly chronological):
Sympathetic Janus - first appears 7 March 2018, 1920 works
Sympathetic Remus - first appears 2 July 2019, 965 works
Sympathetic Patton - first appears 31 July 2019, 71 works
Sympathetic Virgil - first appears 1 August 2019, 69 works (nice)
Sympathetic Logan - first appears 8 August 2019, 41 works
Sympathetic Roman - first appears 20 August, 56 works
It's actually wild that 'Sympathetic [Janus]' seems to have appeared several days between Unsympathetic Jan made any appearance.
There were several Remus fics that were backtagged to before DWIT was released. I ignored them because it was throwing this off a bit. there may be other problems to this effect in any of the other stats, but i’m too lazy to go back and check those all one-by-one
Sympathetic tags in general seem to be used as, hm, there's a word here i can't quite think of. Basically, 'Sympathetic' seems to be the default setting for characters like Virgil, Patton, Roman, Logan (the 'Light Sides', although i take issue with that terms as well. This isn't the time for that, though. Statistics!!) which 'Unsympathetic' used to be the default for Janus and Remus. That's become slightly more elastic of late, though. Basically if you're using the Sympathetic tag for anyone who's not a 'Dark Side' you're usually doing it to make a point of something. e.g. if you have other sides who aren't usually unsympathetic as such and you're trying to clarify that yes, these specific ones are Okay. Or if you're just being thorough. Anyway that's why LAMP seem to have less works tagged as Symp than the other two.
All the sympathetic tags for non-Janus characters seem to have sprung up in quick succession over a short period of months! I have no idea what this means but it's strange and cool to look at
If you're wondering about the discrepancy between this information and my earlier note that the first appearance of 'unsympathetic' as an AO3 tag was the day after CLBG came out - that fic in question had a general 'unsympathetic dark sides' tag, no specific tags mentioned.
Okay statistics segue over. The only point of that apart from scientific curiosity was to try to puzzle out where the fuck this all stemmed from. I still have no answers.
I need you all to understand that 'Sympathetic' no longer looks like a real word to me.
So. Remember how i mentioned how this fandom managed to make unsympathetic!Remy/Sleep a thing? Yeah. That baffles me. I haven't seen unsympathetic Dr Picani anywhere yet but I know it's only a matter of time and that lowkey horrifies me. But that's not really the most baffling thing because, uh
Well. earlier this week I accidentally stumbled into a corner of tumblr that's dedicated to unsympathetic character Thomas content. If you're a fan of that, i'd advise you to click away from this post now because i'm about to get very angry about that and i don't want to make you upset. Thank you.
What the fuck. literally all of the posts in this corner of tumblr are about c!thomas abusing the sides and being a terrible person??? ??????? ????? WHAT? can we just take a step back and. WHY? WHY are you doing this? Are we watching the same show? from a psychological standpoint, that's self-abuse and self-harm and i suppose it might be interesting if you explored it as such but APPARENTLY NO. apparently that's not what this is about. This is just about writing about someone being abusive to other people for the sake of it. there were so many posts about him 'abusing the sides by telling them they're not real people' and. OKAY so a) he wouldn't do that b) THEY AREN'T. THEY LITERALLY AREN'T REAL PEOPLE WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
[deep breath]
so actually i think that kind of leads me back to the point of this whole thing. I had a point, what? It surprises me too, don't worry. The point is (roughly) that writing characters as 'unsympathetic' isn't something that i have an objection to at all. Everybody has the capacity to be cruel! Nobody's perfect!! But with the sympathetic/un labels it seems to enforce this strict dichotomy of good vs bad. Either Logan is an abusive monster OR he's a perfect angel. Guys. That's not how it works. And it's not INTERESTING if you do that sort of thing because then you've got people being unnecessarily cruel and evil for the sake of it. They turn into 2-dimensional caricatures that only exist to be bad people.
People make mistakes! I write about characters making mistakes all the time! Janus and Remus pulling the whole trolley problem thing in Pick A Side definitely wasn't a great thing for them to do, but I didn't tag them as unsympathetic at the time and i have no plan to do so because i don't want to write them as two-dimensional caricatures who are only capable of one of two settings on the morality meter. (same goes for the next chapter, whenever that comes up but... let’s talk about that when i post it, maybe)That's boring. If you're going to take characters and make them into antagonists just because you can't think of anyone else to fit the role, and you're doing it by stripping away everything that makes them Them, then you might as well just stuff a paper bag with straw and cast a scarecrow as the villain instead because buddy. You're making a strawman. That's what you're doing. You can't have Patton without kindness and well-meaningness, just as you can't have Patton without the mistakes caused by those two things. Same goes for the other sides and their flaws and strengths.
And then there's the other thing that's definitely more specific to this fandom, which I think was best summarized with something i said in the comments section of Pick A Side with len at like ten minutes past midnight that one time:
(...) and not necessarily related to anything you said, but - this fandom is kind of unique in that... there's no actual bad guys or villains. (at least that's how i perceive it.) The Real Villain Is Your Poor Mental Health. people are always like 'unsympathetic deceit' or 'unsympathetic patton' and point to different points in the videos as evidence, ('i give you permission to think those thoughts' patton's being controlling - that's abuse) but like. it's all the same guy. he's giving himself permission. he's doing it to himself. imagine if we tagged other fandom characters with like 'Unsympathetic Harry Potter' when he was being mean or critical to himself. wild.
So yeah. In conclusion: obviously people should write what they like. If they see characters one way and they want to write about them being two-dimensional monsters that's fine. I kind of wish you'd put more thought into it and make it at least interesting if you're going to do that sort of thing, but you do you i guess.
That being said. If I see any more unsympathetic!Patton content I will start crying. i want to love Goofy Dad Man the same way i used to
#asks#min goes off the rails#this turned into an essay. apology for incoherence and my tendency to jump around wildly!#Anonymous
21 notes
·
View notes
Text
long post warning, thinkin abt gender, epistemology, and ethics
this intro is gonna be a long one, but bear with me, it’s relevant, and I think this is a worthy part of the discourse. so sorry for the block text, but if you haven’t got time for this right now, consider keeping this post around in your likes and coming back to it later.
i’ve been thinking a lot abt questions of empirics vs ethics lately. i’ve been watching some youtube videos on Street Epistemology. The goal is to take people on the street, ask them to give an example of something they think is true (although they’re encouraged toward a belief system, e.g. belief in god, karma, a certain philosophy, and not something strictly measurable), and then the street epistemologist asks them questions to determine the sources of evidence on which they are basing their belief. The practice is supposed to be non-judgmental, but this is somewhat dubious because the whole technique was designed to convert theists to atheists. A common exchange will go “I believe that God is real” -> “what makes you believe in god” -> “I find that there is compelling historical evidence in the Bible, and that I have had a number of personal experiences that I see as miraculous/divine in some way” -> “If the Bible was written differently, or if you hadn’t had those experiences, maybe your life had gone a different way, would you still believe in God” the idea being that a rational and consistent person would say “no, because I would have no evidence” but in actuality most people say -> “yeah, actually I still would”, showing that their belief actually exists independently of any evidence, it’s purely faith. And then the street epistemology practitioner will often say something like “Could someone reach a different conclusion using faith? If a Hindu uses faith to determine the existence of Vishnu, would they also be correct?” and sometimes people get led down this path of -> “well, it’s true for them, but it’s not true for me” which I find fascinating, but if you’re a street epistemologist you generally seem to think that truth and non-truth only exist in binary states, and that this admission is the result of the terrifyingly faulty reasoning of religious people (because that tends to be their angle).
Some people in street epistemology interviews, rather than discussing religion will discuss gender (the practitioner is not supposed to lead people in any particular direction, the interviewee gets to pick the topic). See here and here (feel free to watch those and come back). These videos are okay, but I find it so frustrating, sometimes just infuriating, to watch these, and I’ve been thinking for weeks now why that would be. If I couldn’t hold my own with this guy, going toe-to-toe to defend why I think trans identity is real, is that a massive problem for me? I can’t hep but imagine myself in conversation with the main guy I’ve been watching (and to be clear, he’s a really nice guy, he wouldn’t be arguing with me, or attacking my positions, just asking purposefully instructive questions), but I can’t think of any claims regarding my gender identity that I think would be interesting to discuss. For example, he might suggest something like “I am transgender” as a claim, but I think this actually entirely misinterprets gender to begin with as something evidentiary. The best answer I can think of to answer the questions “What makes you transgender” or “What is the evidence on which you base your belief that your are transgender?” is genuinely “because I want to be” and I don’t think this is wrong or internally inconsistent. I think gender, because it is something that is social instead of empiric, means that it is not something that exists in a binary truth state. It would be like the claim being “I believe murder is wrong.” There isn’t evidence to support this claim, because it is ethical, and if you want to defend it (”Why do you think that” -> “Because it hurts people, and I think hurting people is wrong.” -> “What is the evidence that hurting people is wrong?”) you’ll never find a satisfying answer that is defendable. At some point the need to take an ethical stance is irreducible, and like a child who asks ���Why? Why? Why?” you’ll always be able to go down the rabbit hole, never ceasing.
My being transgender is because I like it, and you could ask why, but it would be like asking why I like my favorite movie, or why I like my favorite food. I like these things because I do, through some concoction of nature and nurture, and that’s just the way my world is. This is a hot take, and it’s not something I would say to any cis person, because it’s bad optics. I can imagine the kind of flak I would take. “What do you mean being trans is your preference?” “How dare you compare something as important as gender identity to liking mac & cheese, or the Lord of the Rings?” I recognize that this may be a unique outcome of my being nonbinary, and that a binary trans person for whom the “I always knew I was a woman” or “I have a female soul in a male body” narratives really do apply might find what I am saying to be insane and detrimental to them.
In response to Elliot Page’s coming out, I saw a friend of a friend on Facebook write “she doesn’t look like a boy at all but ok lol. anyways my dog is my cat now because i want it to be” and my friend, a well-meaning, intelligent, cis ally, called her friend out for his bigotry and in doing so she posted links to several scientific studies supporting the legitimacy of trans identity, appealing to scientific consensus. But here’s my thought: Neurology may prove that there are monumental differences between the brains of male and female people that never change regardless of socialization or hormones. Social psychology may prove that trans women act more similarly to men than they do to women 99% of the time. We could wake up tomorrow and learn that a historian with an agenda has faked the existence of gender non-conforming people of the past, that they doctored a text or lied about what they found in a burial site. This isn’t to say that any of these things are likely, but the sheer fact that they’re possible means that claims like “A new study shows that men and women’s brains are fundamentally alike” or “A new study shows that trans women behave like women” or “A new study shows that trans people have always existed throughout history” are actually worth jack shit. All scientific claims are falsifiable, they are fallible, but actually my worth as a human being, as a transgender human being, is not. I don’t think being transgender is valid because of any scientific finding, it’s valid because I wanted to, and I think it’s good for people to get what they want if it’s not hurting anyone, and I don’t think gender non-conformity hurts anyone, because in fact I think that questioning binaries and transgressing authority is good for society. Let me repeat that. I am transgender because I believe it is good for me and good for society. If I stop believing these things, which I might do based on exposure to new evidence, then I should stop being trans, but just on their own these are all ethical claims, unverifiable ethical claims, that require assumptions. If you are transphobic to me, or otherwise cruel, I think you’ve made an moral violation, but I don’t think you’ve necessarily made an unscientific claim; if you think that being non-conformant with gender expectations is bad for society, I might fall down a similar rabbit hole of “why do you think that” --> “I just do, because this is a priori wrong to me” and we’re stuck.
Is this line of reasoning dangerous? I think it is dangerous for people to get to comfortable with “Thing X is true because I want it to be.” For empirical, verifiable claims, this does not work. I don’t become rich by wanting to be, you dog doesn’t become a cat because you want it to be, but these are fundamentally different types of claims than “I am a woman.” I am saying that being a woman has no truth table. Politics is theatre, gender is theatre, and what it means for something to be “true” is complicated.
This whole thing has big and strange implications. Going back to the beginning, I’m not sure what this means for theists. I’m an atheist myself, so I do find it somewhat concerning if they could use my argument against me, and say “Actually this doesn’t matter if this is rational or defensible, because it’s simply my belief system, informed by my values, and I think believing in God is good. For as long as I believe that, I will let it influence my behavior. Also, sidenote, I’m now going to ban all abortion.” But I think in general, there is a role for evidence to influence belief systems. I don’t think that gender non-conformity is good for society for no reason at all, and my line earlier that I think if I stopped enjoying being trans then I could and would stop being trans is really important here. But this does shift the focus from “Why are you trans” to “why do you enjoy being trans?” and I think that shift is important. I wonder if my street epistemology guy should shift his focus from “Why do you believe in God” to “Why do you enjoy believing in God?” or even “Why do you think it’s good to believe in God?” I wonder where that would lead him.
#speaks#gender#identity#epistemology#street epistemology#anthony magnabosco#philosophy#science#ethics#trans discourse
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
Spirit Tracks Translation Comparison: Introduction
This is an introduction to my series of translation comparisons for The Legend of Zelda Spirit Tracks.
For the most part, these comparisons will feature translations of various in-game cutscenes, covering the basic story of the game.
But before that, there are some more general version differences and other details to go over in this post here.
--
US vs. EU
First of all, note that I will be comparing the original Japanese version of the game to the localized US English version.
Some of you may know already, but there are actually two English versions of this game, since the EU English version is not completely identical to the US one. But since the US version is more well-known, and comparing three versions at once would be a bit much, I decided to go with that one.
If you’re curious though, the EU version is mostly the same as the US one, with a few differences in the script here and there. Overall, the EU version actually tends to be a bit more faithful to the Japanese version, except for a couple unusual alterations, some location names, and a few minor translation errors. But the US version has its fair share of those as well.
--
There will be Spoilers!
Maybe this goes without saying, but there will be spoilers in these comparisons.
They are written with the assumption you are at least somewhat familiar with the general plot of the game, and the individual parts will occasionally go into details from later points in the game, whenever they happen to be relevant.
--
Name of the Game
When it comes to Zelda games, their English titles aren’t always handled the same way.
Some of the games essentially have the same title as in Japanese or a direction translation (e.g. Ocarina of Time, Skyward Sword), some have titles that are slight variations of the Japanese ones (e.g. Wind Waker, Minish Cap), and some have entirely different titles (e.g. A Link to the Past, Link’s Awakening.)
Spirit Tracks is one of the games that have a completely different title in English, but it’s an especially interesting case.
In Japanese, this game is called 大地の汽笛/Daichi no Kiteki, which could be translated as “Steam Whistle of the Land” or “Steam Whistle of the Earth”.
This is a play on both steam whistles, like those of a train, and the 大地の笛/Daichi no Fue, meaning the “Flute of the Land”, which is the flute Link obtains in this game, called the Spirit Flute in the US English version.
I will focus on the game title itself for now, but I’ll go over the flute in more detail when it appears in the story.
So, the game’s Japanese title is in a similar style to Ocarina of Time, being named for Link’s instrument.
It also follows a similar naming convention to its two predecessors, those being called 風のタクト/Kaze no Takuto (”Baton of Winds”) and 夢幻の砂時計/Mugen no Sunadokei (”Hourglass of Fantasy”) respectively.
The English title Spirit Tracks does use a similar style to its predecessors The Wind Waker and Phantom Hourglass as well, but it does make the game the only one of this trio to go for the “completely different English title” approach.
The title change was most likely for marketing reasons, though I can’t know for sure what their exact thought process was.
Since the original Japanese title referenced both the train and the musical instrument aspect, maybe they just decided the train aspect was the one they would rather focus on in this case.
But, there is something important to note about the title “Spirit Tracks”: the spirit tracks don’t really exist in the Japanese version.
To be more precise, obviously the train tracks do exist in the Japanese version, and they are still special, sacred tracks that Link and Zelda need to restore. But they do not have a special name, they are just called “the tracks”, and there are fewer direct mentions of them.
Their role in the story has been slightly changed as well.
In the English version of the story, we are told that the tracks themselves act as the shackles that keep the Demon King sealed.
But in the Japanese version, the Demon King is sealed by a barrier located primarily in the tower itself, and the tracks mostly act as a connection to the four temples that supply the tower with energy. So, the tracks are part of the larger seal itself, but function more like cables here.
The English version does go over the fact that the tracks are carrying energy, but it omits the part where they are merely powering the actual prison. Which gives off the impression they work more like an electric fence of sorts.
I’m guessing that during the localization process, this detail was altered slightly to make the tracks more important, likely to justify naming the game after them, but it could have been the other way around.
In any case, as a result, a general version difference you will see is that characters in English will talk about “restoring the spirit tracks”, whereas in Japanese they’ll be talking about “reinforcing the barrier”.
For me personally, it’s just kind of surreal to think that the English title of the game is, in one sense, entirely fabricated. I don’t think any other Zelda game has had an English title quite like this.
--
Why the changes?
This will be an important part to keep in mind when actually going over the comparisons.
When seeing the various differences between the versions, it’s only natural to speculate why they are there. And so, I will bring up some of my own thoughts regarding that as well.
But at the same time, there is no way to know for sure, so it’s really just speculation.
Many games, especially ones that are released simultaneously or semi-simultaneously around the world, like Spirit Tracks was, are actually translated while the game is still in development.
That’s just something you need to do if you want to have a game come out at the same time internationally.
In addition to that, most games don’t have their story finalized, or even written at all, until the game nears completion. And we know this is quite often the case with Zelda titles as well.
This means that in such cases, translators either have especially tight deadlines, need to work with incomplete scripts that are subject to change, or both.
And that’s not even considering the other problems they usually face, like having to work with text without proper context, as well as as technical limitations.
Also, believe it or not, but sometimes seemingly strange alterations that can feel unnecessary to you as a fan are actually things mandated by the people behind the original version. And more often than you’d think, too.
After all, they also have an interest in rebranding a product to presumably do better internationally.
Plus, they can also just have a different idea than you when it comes to which sort of alterations still stay true to the original intent and which don’t.
Given this, while I can easily speculate why a “change” was made between versions, for all I know any of them could have been caused by things like those I mentioned here, and countless others I can’t even guess at.
I don’t think this is always the case, but it would be unfair not to consider the possibility.
In addition to all of the above, I want to point out that even if I point out issues I have with the English version, it’s never my intent to imply any of the people who worked on the localization were bad at it.
I think with everything I explained so far it should be pretty obvious that localizing a game is far from easy, and I only scratched the surface here.
The point of my comparisons isn’t really to critique the localization, but to provide context to help understand the game better from a story perspective.
Though I will talk about my personal thoughts and preferences, too.
--
Comparison Structure
The basic structure of the comparison posts will be as follows:
First I will list the game text itself. This will include the original Japanese version, my own English translation of it, and the official localized US English version.
After the main text there will be a brief list of smaller translations notes.
Finally, I will go over potential differences between versions in more detail, additional information you may need to know about them, how these may affect the game’s story, as well as my own thoughts regarding them.
--
And that’s about it for this introduction, so feel free to head into the actual comparisons now!
| Masterpost | Next Part >
--
#legend of zelda#the legend of zelda#spirit tracks#tloz#legend of zelda spirit tracks#legend of zelda translations#spirit tracks translations#my translations#spirit tracks comparisons
16 notes
·
View notes
Note
Ps we really don’t need the ‘man kills lover’ trope. I don’t like p!j theory because it makes Jon a total douchebag and we really don’t need more of men manipulating women in fiction. I like jonsa, but not political Jon because the excuse that Jon is hurting Dany ‘for the greater good’ disgusts me. there are huge statistics of men murdering their partners in real life. we didn’t need that for a ‘romantic tragedy’ going ‘poor man’ on game of thrones. as flawed dany is
Dear nonny,
I agree in part. I agree that the 'man has to kill lover' trope should only be used very sparingly. It could be used e.g. if you want to show that the man is insane or something like that. But although in the case of Jon and Dany it is also a case of killing a tyrant - which is justified - I still feel very uncomfortable about it, because Jon could only kill her because he was allowed close enough (which in general is the problem of killing a tyrant). It didn't really make sense that Dany let him come close after she side-eyed him when she gave her fascist speech and after their interaction in episode 5, when she chose fear, but it became obvious that she wanted to be a little girl in love with a boy (a strange writing and acting choice, that made her look unhinged, which Dany is not, but so be it).
So, Jon could only kill her, because he used the fact that he was her lover and I agree with you. There are far too many men killing women when these women should be safe with them. It would have been so much better if Arya had killed someone close to Dany, had taken the face and finished the tyrant.
I do not agree about Political Jon though. Political Jon is NOT about Jon killing Dany and that theory is unconnected to Jonsa (although it is compatible).
I'd like to remind you what Political Jon means: Political Jon means that Jon has ulterior motives for giving Dany the North, that his actions in season 7 are not only motivated because of a love for Dany we never really saw on screen. Jon is under the assumption that the dragons are the only weapon that can defeat the army of the dead. Although his assumption is wrong, it is not illogical. He then does everything that is necessary to secure the alliance with Dany - including Sex. As long as he intends to hold to the alliance - which he does, he marches with Dany to King's Landing although his troops are exhausted and although it would have been Dany's damn duty to fight against the dead in the first place. Political Jon is not about Jon hurting Dany. It is about Jon not getting brainless the moment he meets her.
So, securing the alliance by whatever way possible to save the North and maybe the world might fall into a gray area but these are NOT the actions of a douchebag. In a way the show even confirmed political Jon. When Jon is asked about why he gave up the North he doesn't say he did it for Dany, he says that there was no other way (and we never saw Jon's answer to Sansa's question if he gave up the North for love). Political Jon is in character with the Jon who lied to Ygritte and the Wildlings for months - also for the sake of the North. So, if this is a douchebag move with Dany (where the stakes are even higher) it was also a douchebag move with Ygritte. And I saw no one complaining on Ygritte's behalf... And we even see Tormund befriending Jon later, because Tormund understands what motivated Jon's behaviour and he is ready to trust him again when they go against a common enemy. So, yes Dany finding out about Political Jon might hurt her, but Jon's intent is not to hurt her. He upholds his side of the bargain up until the point when he realises he should not have done that. In a way Political Jon becomes Sacrificial Jon and I remember that we discussed how to name the theory. I think Political Jon became Sacrificial Jon after the Night King died, because all the time Jon clung to his honour.
Please note, that Political Jon does not exclude Jon also falling in love with Dany. I think it would be a stupid story telling decision if the second time around Jon makes the same mistake, but then I've always thought that Jonerys was a bland ship with no interesting twists whatsoever apart from the accidental incest (Jon killing Dany because he has to is also not very interesting).
The real problem is GRRM mixing up 'Man kills lover' with 'killing a tyrant' and maybe with 'man manipulates powerful woman'. I think it was a bad storytelling decision to leave the killing of the tyrant to Jon, when Arya was right there (who also would have an interest in killing Dany for her family's sake). Jon did not have to kill Ygritte and I hate that Jon killing Dany is the only variant to the Jon/Ygritte story we see. And it did not help that the episode 6 made such an inconsistent clusterfuck of it.
Thanks for the ask!
42 notes
·
View notes
Note
Why are so many adult literary critics so negative and snobbish? I love Donna Tartt, and yet so many of these supposedly ‘high brow’ critics love to sneer at her, love to sneer at ‘children’s literature’, love to sneer at everyone who reads the classics and likes them, but does not like them ‘the right way’. Their reviews are often not constructive, and unnecessarily harsh, mean and arrogant. Why are they so unhappy and miserable? What’s wrong with them, and how can we help them get better?
To be perfectly honest, this strikes me as a slightly strange question. It’s one with such strong opinions that I suspect it must be inspired by specifics of which I am unaware. So my attempt at an answer comes with the uneasy consciousness that I may be missing the point that underlies your philippic.
You speak of “adult literary critics.” I don’t think there’s any other kind… although I have, with others, thrilled to the card sent into Penguin Books by a 10-year-old girl more than half a century ago, and reposted with delight by literary critics in recent internet years: “This book gives me more information about penguins than I care to have” (x). I think that’s kind of great! It speaks to the book’s accomplishment of its own set goals, and of the reader’s own response, elegantly and concisely. It is poignant and tantalizing, as well as informative. I think those are all things that good literary criticism should do! There’s a thoughtful article here exploring the spectrum of critical responses to Donna Tartt’s work, as well as popular responses to it. But let me try to respond to some of the more general questions (or assumptions) you’ve raised.
Let me say this: I respect literary criticism as a profession and a skill. Let me also say this: many literary critics are relatively privileged white men who are used to privileged white men taking the role of arbiter elegantiarum as a right. That can, obviously, result in problems. But you don’t mention sexism as a problem in the response to Donna Tartt. I don’t know of anyone who “loves to sneer” at readers among literary critics. I can think of several recent examples of celebrated white male authors doing that, but not literary critics. I’m not going to give you an answer you’re happy with; I’m not going to say that anything is categorically wrong with the critics of the NYRB, LRB, etc. I am certainly not going to say that “we” can “help them get better.” Who is “we”? The Youth™? The Youth Of Tumblr™? I don’t want the NYRB to be more like Tumblr. I want to read both, for different reasons and at different times (shoutout to them for having two Tumblrs, by the way.)
I’m not making any assumptions about your reading habits, but a lot of Tumblr seems to like a lot of boring prose. Chacun à son goût… but that doesn’t mean a critic can’t pan your fave. You can read it and recommend it to friends anyway! A lot of book reviews that I see on Tumblr boil down to simply saying that the reader did or did not like the book. That’s fine (I’m often frustrated by their lack of specificity, but that’s by the way.) A review on e.g. Tumblr or Goodreads is not the same thing as a professional review. These are different genres, with different audiences, different expectations, different purposes. I’m not sure that either is supposed to be “constructive” for the author; they’re intended to help readers make informed decisions. Often, reviews on Tumblr/Goodreads/etc. seem to prioritize things like saying “It is good that a book like this exists!” And that’s great. But that’s not the job of a professional critic. I know that a critic may not share my values and priorities as a reader, and that’s fine. But I’m not going to tell critics how to do their job.
27 notes
·
View notes
Text
I’ve seen some of the ink spilled on how men react to #MeToo but I’ve not yet seen anybody directly address the performance anxiety part of it.
The messages I’ve gotten from the current moment have been:
1) All the old methods for asking women out, or making sexual overtures are outdated, patriarachal, sexist and oppressive.
2) But straight women will still generally expect men to make the first moves in a relationship.
3) If you’re a good man you really ought to be able to figure out what non-oppressive versions of those moves look like. So if you’re having trouble figuring those out then that must mean...
4) If you do them badly there’s every chance you’ll be called out in a public forum.
So every attempt to date is an incredibly public referendum on whether or not you have any moral worth and there’s no help to guide you through it. I don’t know why men are so nervous right now. Must be fragile masculinity.
There’s a sort of conversation I have in Social Justice-y type spaces pretty often.
SJ Type: All men are sexist trash. All white people perpetuate racism. All straight people are homophobes. We need to understand this in no uncertain terms. Nobody is innocent, nobody is outside of this.
Me: I am constantly dealing with thoughts about how terrible I am. I am so lonely but I feel like I could only ever be a toxic presence in a woman’s life. I am so nervous around everybody. I have tried so hard to make myself as small and quiet as I can but I am still terrified that I’m not doing enough and my presence only contributes to everything awful in the world.
SJ Type: Whoa! That’s so crazy and weird! Where do you think this is coming from?
And I am still trying to process this dynamic, to understand how it makes any sense. I think when I started admitting these feelings to others I expected them to... Well, to understand at all. I sort of had this assumption that of course lots of people felt like this. That the people explaining how we need to be constantly conscious of our complicity in evil would be, well, constantly conscious of it, and that thinking of themselves as participants in evil would be upsetting.
That they would say something like “All those thoughts make perfect sense, but here are the ways I act to make sure I’m minimizing the damage I do.”
But the people who understand these thoughts tend to be either apostates from the social justice ideology or a strange underclass of people who are struggling with similar thoughts and also don’t know how to deal with them.
People who are successful and happy in SJ circles are simultaneously constantly reminding people that they must always remember how awful they are and yet are genuinely baffled when someone says, “I constantly think of myself as an awful person.” Like, it genuinely confuses them. It’s utterly incomprehensible to them.
What I think is happening is that there is a sort of assumption that correct action is an incidental, emergent property of correct thinking. I’m not really sure on this but it’s my best guess.
The idea seems to be that if you recognize yourself as, e.g. sexist, this self-consciousness will inevitably express itself as non-sexist action. Authentic expression of correct attitudes will always create correct behavior, so once you’ve properly internalized your own sexism, this paradoxically relieves you of worry about acting in a sexist way. Action is an emergent property of attitude.
Even more than SJ types, I find myself surrounded by people who seem to think that discussion of proper behavior is not really anything to do with the public. Your idea of proper behavior is something you create on your own, or if you are nervous about it, with your therapist.
Like, @bambamramfan, I get that I am very timid and probably unhealthily worried about what other people think of me. But I also struggle so much to understand what they want. I have done all kinds of at least minor rude things to people because I wouldn’t have minded if people did them to me. I have lots of trouble reading body language. Eye contact is overwhelming and it is still really hard for me to tell how much is too much or too little. I can barely tell different faces apart. I don’t trust my ability to just figure these things out from first principles.
I got really angry a little while ago and wrote about being a host at a restaurant. Like, a real example of a thing I deal with relatively often is homeless people who want to use our bathroom. This has a moral dimension and I just go around and around and I can’t figure it out.
The public bathroom in the park across from the restaurant closes pretty early, and I don’t want people to have to just go on the street; on the other hand, that park is a hangout for drug dealers, and people go into the garage underneath it to get high all the time. One of the women I work with has talked about how nervous it makes her to go down there to get her car and find strange men sleeping in the elevator, and I understand we’ve already had one OD in our bathroom.
When I try to think about how to balance these things, my mind goes around and around in circles and I can’t seem to get it to stop and I don’t know how to come to a conclusion about what my behavior should be.
I have to say, I think one of the attractions of religion, or even Jordan Peterson, is the idea of linking your ideology to your actions in some kind of concrete way, when they just seem so unmoored from each other in the modern world, and especiallly in left-wing ideology:
1. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism
2. I must consume in order to survive
3. Therefore, there is no ethical way for me to survive.
4. And so, in conclusion, I should just... do my best, I suppose.
Or, the left-wing advice I get about women is basically “Women are constantly navigating a toxic world of patriarchal values and being slowly crushed by the toxic entitlement of men, and stopping that is one of the most important projects of our time and also it’s important to be confident and you shouldn’t worry so much because what’s the worst that could happen? Sure you might accidentally make some woman feel creeped out but that’s not the end of the world, come on.”
I very much understand the appeal of having an explicit conversation about how to embody your ethical precepts in actual actions in the world, because it is so hard to find it these days.
85 notes
·
View notes
Note
Do they have any distinct voice mannerisms? (e.g. saying ‘like’ or ‘um’ a lot, stutters) Where are your muse’s ancestors from? Do they keep any of their traditions?
Do they have any distinct voice mannerisms? (e.g. saying ‘like’ or ‘um’ a lot, stutters)
Not particularly. I try to be careful when I’m writing dialogue for Ali because I have a bunch of particular voice mannerisms and keeping them out of hers helps me feel like our voices are more distinct from one another. I think after living in Cali she might pick up the “like” thing but also actively try not to use it because most people would make the assumption that she’s a vapid “Valley girl”- is this even still a thing anymore? When she gets excited she tends to talk very quickly which from the little research I’ve done is apparently a mannerism of people from Manhattan, and she grew up in the ‘burbs there. But she’s also a professional singer as was her mother and her father was a big time judge. So growing up around them and in the ‘burbs I’d assume she tends to speak more “proper.” Accent a bit more undefined as well as any other distinct voice mannerisms. If that makes sense.
Where are your muse’s ancestors from?
As mentioned previously I hc Ali is heavily Scottish on her father’s side. Got that idea from the fact that her father’s name, Carter Blaire, has some Scottish roots and just ran with it. I had one hc that her paternal grandmother, Bella, is also Scottish and actually raised Ali Presbyterian but honestly now that I think about it maybe it’d make more sense for her to be Italian? Then again people aren’t purely named to match their national origin. Thinking that her great grandparents were the ones that immigrated from Scotland and her grandmother Bella and her husband were raised in America and raised their son in America so Ali doesn’t really have any Scottish accent.
On her mom’s side I haven’t given much thought, which is strange considering she’s actually still alive. Just kind of think of her as a generic American white woman? Which can be a combination of a whole host of things but I’ve never thought of anything past that cause it didn’t seem interesting to me personally. I guess I could think on it more and come up with something interesting but also can just let Ali be a mostly generic white lady which is basically what the character is since they based her on Bo Derek instead of Grace Jones.
I guess a bit of the Scottish thing was also inspired, clichely, by the fact that Ali has strawberry blonde/ginger hair. Which is generally seen as an Irish/Scottish thing though in reality the trait originally comes from the Vikings. (So I was informed by one of my Irish tour guides back in August.) So there may be some of those genes in her DNA.
Do they keep any of their traditions?
Not so much related to her ancestry that I’ve thought on. Would be neat for some time travel/past soul threads though. The one tradition that I’ve ever felt strongly about with Alison is one I hc her mother began with her. It’s related to Christmas and that there is a box of handmade ornaments she has. They’d make a new one or pick out one they liked together each year before her mother left. It’s also why Christmas holds such a special place in her heart.
Ali’s dad didn’t continue that tradition because he tried to erase everything about her mother from her life. She found those ornaments up in the attic with just a handful of other stuff her grandmother didn’t let him toss out when her mother left them. She hangs them on her tree every year and has picked the tradition back up since she started living on her own.
There could be some other things but nothings come so clearly to my mind. Perhaps I need to do a little more research and see if anything would jump out to me for her.
#✵|| come into my world • headcanons meta ||✵#answered asks#shattered catalyst#thanks honey!#shattered-catalyst
1 note
·
View note
Link
via Politics – FiveThirtyEight
Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.
micah (Micah Cohen, politics editor): Welcome, all! Our topic for today: President Trump’s endorsement of Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore. (And the Republican National Committee decision to support him again.) My question is … what gives? Is this a political mistake?
First, takes?
harry (Harry Enten, senior political writer): I think it’s a stupid move. Trump is clearly trying to score a “win,” but it’s far from certain that Moore will get him one. All that’s happened in that case is that he’s endorsed an accused child molester.
julia_azari (Julia Azari, political science professor at Marquette University and FiveThirtyEight contributor): It’s not … not a mistake. It likely won’t substantially change anything, but it’s hard to see what good it could do for the president or Moore.
natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): Trump coming out to endorse Moore is extremely … unsurprising. And, yeah, I don’t think it will change very much.
julia_azari: I don’t mean to underestimate the moral outrage at stake. It’s just not clear to me that moral outrage outweighs many other factors in contemporary politics.
harry: I guess my question is: What is it that made Trump go from mostly endorsing Moore — essentially by attacking his opponent, Democrat Doug Jones — to fully endorsing him. Why do that?
natesilver: Have you ever known Donald Trump to take a half-measure? Everything plays out into the most extreme possible version of itself.
micah: He may have half-colluded?
harry: LOL.
natesilver: The collusion was spectacular, I’ll tell you that much.
harry: He ordered the code red!
micah: You’re goddamn right I did!
julia_azari: So the “I hate political correctness” narrative seems to have worked out well for Trump in general. I wonder if he thinks this can be filed under that somehow — i.e., liberals are going after someone for accusations that either didn’t happen, or were a long time ago, or weren’t as bad as they sound (to gather up a range of talking points made in Moore’s defense).
micah: Yeah, I buy that.
Supporting Moore fits snuggly into Trump’s larger message and image.
natesilver: It might also be more personal than that:
If Moore wins, I wonder if Trump would instinctually come out against expelling him because he'd see it as foreshadowing an impeachment proceeding.
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 15, 2017
And Trump might see himself as being unfairly attacked by the liberal media, just as Moore has been.
micah: No self-tweet-quoting allowed here.
julia_azari: Dammit. I saw Nate’s move there as an entree into quoting my own favorite takes of mine.
micah: LOL.
harry: I was reading this great book … “The Signal and the Noise.” Perhaps you’ve heard of it?
natesilver: Now available for just $9.99 on Amazon dot com.
micah: OK, so Nate and I had an argument about this the other day, but how about this theory: Trump moved to a full-throated Moore endorsement because he has internal polling that shows Moore’s lead increasing and so wants to hop on the bandwagon.
Any takers?
natesilver: Oh god.
julia_azari: It’s nice and simple, so that’s a point in favor.
natesilver: That line of thinking is like always wrong. If people start talking about Moore’s internal polls, I’m going to bet heavily on Jones, and vice versa. Also, the public polling tells a fairly confusing story.
The Emerson College poll showed the race moving slightly toward Jones, although Emerson has been on the Moore-leaning side of the consensus recently. And the Gravis Marketing poll showed essentially no movement and Jones still ahead.
julia_azari: When coming up with explanations like these, I tend to think the one with the fewest assumptions that we can’t really prove is the best one.
harry: Trump is likely looking at public polling. So it’s simple, and I like it.
natesilver: The simplest answer is that Trump supports Moore because birds of a feather flock together. And then the RNC backtracked so as to stay on the same page as Trump. Also, the GOP brand was already going to take the PR hit once Trump endorsed Moore, so why not drop a few bucks on him?
harry: If they’re so similar, then why in the heck did Trump not endorse him in the primary? Honest question.
natesilver: Endorsing Luther Strange was one of the most out-of-character things Trump has done.
And he might have felt a little burned by the experience when Strange lost.
julia_azari: The Strange endorsement was … please stop me before I make the joke.
harry: Haha.
julia_azari: I’m not sure how to say this politely, but I think Strange sucked up to Trump effectively and that explains the endorsement.
natesilver: Or maybe Mitch McConnell convinced Trump that Strange was a key vote on health care and taxes (which is not a totally crazy notion).
But, anyway, I think the media has a pretty big bias toward seeing all actions as deeply strategic. When sometimes, it’s just Trump mashing buttons and everyone else playing cleanup.
micah: So, do you think Trump or Republicans will pay a political price for supporting Moore?
julia_azari: It’s hard to see the case for a big short-term impact. There’s already a significant gender gap in the national vote. And there’s so much news, including many sexual misconduct revelations on the other side of the political spectrum, that it is easy for things to be drowned out.
micah: Yeah … that seems right to me.
Anyone want to make the case that this endorsement hurts Trump and/or Republicans?
julia_azari: I will say that presidents getting involved in congressional elections rarely goes well or adds anything
micah: Say more!
julia_azari:
1. It’s kind of a norm violation, although that norm is eroding. (See my piece about FDR from last week.) Congress is a distinct and co-equal branch.
This race is messy for Republicans (see my piece about their lack of good options for dealing with Moore), and as Nate has pointed out, Moore has lost a lot of support in a very solidly red state. Why highlight the party connection as Trump has?
Relatedly, it illustrates just how nationalized party politics are. That offers some advantages for presidents, who get to set the agenda for their parties. But if members of Congress are always running with the party’s national brand on their backs, it washes away some of their independence — their distinct, district-based political support because of relationships they have there.
I don’t think Trump endorsing Moore is a huge turning point for that phenomenon, but it doesn’t do anything to enhance the independence of Congress.
natesilver: It’s also one of a large number of factors that could have a drip, drip, drip effect on the Republican Party brand. And there’s some precedent for this sort of thing mattering, e.g. with Mark Foley. With that said, it’s going to be pretty hard to pick out the effect of Moore from everything else.
And seeming Democratic hypocrisy on Sen. Al Franken and Rep. John Conyers might dull the effect some.
micah: OK, so … speaking of Conyers. He announced on Tuesday that he’s resigning (well, sorta). Does that put the Trump endorsement in a different political light? Or does it help Democrats have a sharper, more coherent message on this issue?
julia_azari: I don’t know. That Nancy Pelosi clip (in which she called Conyers an icon when asked about the allegations against him) might be forever.
harry: Well, there’s still the Franken situation and the initial response to Conyers, but … what a contrast. On back-to-back days, you get the president endorsing Moore and Conyers being essentially forced to resign.
natesilver: Yeah, part of my critique of how Democrats handled the issue is that it felt like the discussion had reached an inflection point when the Franken accusations hit, and Democrats had an opportunity to claim the moral high ground, which they declined to take.
You can attempt to regain the moral high ground, I guess, but it isn’t as easy as keeping it in the first place.
We’ll see if there’s renewed pressure on Franken to step down, though.
micah: And the moral high ground matters, obviously, but does it matter politically?
julia_azari: ^ strong candidate for the 2017-est sentence ever.
But of course, Democrats — including prominent feminists — didn’t take a hardline with Bill Clinton back in the 1990s. As long as these misconduct cases are treated as individual problems, I think the broader political agendas will prevail.
micah: Wait, so imagine a world where Democrats have forced out both Franken and Conyers. Is the party better off in that world?
I’m trying to get at whether the moral high ground is important politically? Whether message coherence matters, basically.
harry: I don’t think they’re worse off.
natesilver: I think Democrats made a political mistake, yes.
micah: Nate, you’re not explaining how the mistake hurts them.
natesilver: Because they look like fucking hypocrites, that’s how.
harry: ANGRY NATE SMASH.
natesilver: And looking like hypocrites makes it easy for a Republican to default to partisanship in rationalizing a vote for Moore.
Or Trump for that matter.
micah: Couldn’t I argue that the default to partisanship is so strong that it would happen anyway? So why play by a different set of rules?
julia_azari: I can see both sides of this — to the degree that Democrats lose out politically because of an “enthusiasm gap” or a decline in support from people to whom consistency is important, I could see a case for this mattering on the margins.
Because a lot is happening on the margins now. (Because the country is closely divided.)
But mostly I assume that partisanship matters and the state of the economy matters and the duration of incumbency matters. Racial attitudes matter.
Everything else has a high burden of proof with me.
natesilver: For one thing, Micah, the Democrats are supposed to be the “woke” party on treatment of women (and good for them). So they look more hypocritical if one of their members abuses or harasses women, in somewhat the same way that an anti-gay-marriage Republican would look more hypocritical than a liberal (ostensibly straight) Democrat if they had a gay affair.
micah: You can tell Nate is mad when he uses my name in his response.
julia_azari: So I’m also certainly angry at the situation. It would be nice to think at least one party had consistency on this issue. And as a woman in a male-dominated field, yup.
harry: I tend to think about politics in this way: When you can do something that is morally correct and isn’t going to hurt you politically, why not do it? What’s the argument for keeping Conyers and Franken around?
julia_azari: But Democrats have consistently been inconsistent, and this has included women.
I’m getting into territory that’s not quite my expertise, but I’ve thought a lot about this lately. I think the answer to Harry’s excellent question is that the assumptions about these kinds of accusations run deeper than the more immediate political ideologies. It’s possible that Democratic women find it difficult to believe that people they like and respect and who champion their issues are engaged in truly wrong behavior.
micah: Yeah.
So it’s hypocrisy, but unintentional, sorta.
OK …
Back to Alabama. Let’s take Trump’s endorsement from the other side: Does it help Moore?
julia_azari: I find it hard to imagine that it will bring back Republican voters who decided to back Jones instead. Might it encourage people who had decided not to vote? That’s more plausible but not an obvious conclusion by a long shot.
harry: Remember when Strange got endorsed in the primary by Trump? That didn’t help Strange. Granted, it was one of the weaker endorsements I’ve seen.
natesilver: I guess the answer is … sure? Trump’s still reasonably popular in Alabama. But I kind of think a Trump anti-endorsement (coming out against Moore) would have mattered more than coming out for Moore, if that makes sense.
In other words, I think voters assumed that Trump implicitly backed Moore already. The only way it could hurt him, though, is if Alabamaians feel like it’s national politicians interfering in their election, which they don’t like.
But that explanation feels too cute by half for me.
micah: Yeah … that’s an easier line for a Republican to sell than it is for a Democrat, IMO.
julia_azari: So when I wrote that piece about the party not being able to get rid of Moore, I was surprised at how much discussion it provoked about national vs. state party organizations and interests. But that convo was mostly among party politics scholars on Twitter, not rank-and-file voters in Alabama. A national politician doing something unexpected might be seen as interference, but a Republican president endorsing a Republican Senate candidate is not that wild on its face
micah: We gotta wrap … so, before I ask for final thoughts, one more question: If Jones wins, does it hurt Trump? Or does it tell us anything about Trump’s standing with GOP voters? (Trump would have backed the losing candidate in the Alabama primary and general elections.)
harry: I have a very hard time believing that a generic Republican would lose in Alabama, even in this national environment that so favors Democrats. That said, if Jones were to win, it wouldn’t have been possible without the national environment being where it is — it’s a combination of Moore’s crummy candidacy and Trump’s low national standing.
julia_azari: I basically agree with Harry and would add that Trump’s political influence is maybe a bit inconsistent.
natesilver: I’m not quite sure what the narrative is going to be if Jones wins. Part of what I was trying to argue on Monday is that it’s really, really hard for a Democrat to win in Alabama — even against a candidate like Roy Moore! — so Jones coming close is a pretty impressive outcome. But I don’t know that I expect the mainstream media to interpret the race that way.
I do think Trump has mildly raised the stakes, though — a Jones win will be seen as reflecting the limits of his powers of persuasion, when it might not have been before.
julia_azari: Trump is unpopular generally, remains fairly popular with GOP voters, has prominent defectors like Sen. Jeff Flake — that is not normal — and has few real political alliances, which limits his influence.
micah: So a Trump endorsement is worth less than your average presidential endorsement?
julia_azari: The thing that strikes me about Alabama is it’s not a close state at least in presidential elections — it went from solid Democratic to solid Republican. This race being close could signal that Moore is a crappy candidate, but he is a crappy candidate who won the primary and maintained local party support. This could be evidence of the general crumbling of governing majorities in the country, if that makes any sense.
On balance I’d say yes, Trump’s endorsement has below-average value. He doesn’t have deep political roots. If he endorses you, it’s not clear exactly who comes along.
micah: Any other final thoughts?
natesilver: It’s a really weird dynamic — (i) lower turnout gives Democrats more of a chance (if the whole electorate turns out, we know Alabama is a really red state), but (ii) it’s good for Moore if the harassment/molestation allegations stay out of the news. Trump’s endorsement could help with GOP turnout, but it also sort of puts the race back in the news, which is risky to Moore. Still, I say it’s helpful on balance.
1 note
·
View note
Text
The Legend of Zelda: Oh Yeah, There Are Horses In This Game
(My long-winded thoughts about the masterful Breath of the Wild)
So I'm just now coming off Breath of the Wild after buying the game about...4 weeks ago? I beat the core game (all Divine Beasts, and Hyrule Castle) in a week. I continued spending the vast majority of my free time on the game to tackle the immense amount of remaining content it had to offer.
And now, somewhere in the area of 90-ish hours of playtime later, having found and completed all 120 Shrines, found all of Link's memories, I'm finally ready to put the game aside (screw the Korok seeds, by the way). But I do want to talk about it and about the experience it's been. There will be spoilers ahead.
I must also note that, before acquiring Breath of the Wild, I replayed The Wind Waker and Skyward Sword; attempting a 3-heart and 6-heart run through them respectively*. As such, I had a lot of thoughts of how Breath of the Wild compares with those games (and other Zelda titles), how it differs, how it pays tribute, and how it completely turns conventions on their head.
*3-heart run through Wind Waker was a piece of cake. 6-heart run through Skyward Sword (note that you start with 6, so you can't do a 3-heart run) was significantly more challenging, and when I accidentally completed a heart container, I just continued playing. So it became a 7-heart run.
So to be blunt, Breath of the Wild is a great game. Few people will argue that. It's been highly revered since it's still-recent release. But then, so was Skyward Sword for which the general consensus seemed to quickly 180 on. I don't expect that to happen with Breath of the Wild. The game's reception is very well-justified and its positive qualities I think will prove to be timeless.
I don't really intend this to be a review, but I will take a quick aside here to nitpick what I don't like about the game. Probably the most controversial mechanic is the weapon durability. This is something I don't feel strongly about but I do understand where others are coming from. During your time spent on the Great Plateau, all your available arsenal is so fragile that it does become a bit tedious to have to constantly scour around for a new weapon. However, this problem basically vanishes once you finish the starting area and have access to the meat of the game. After leaving the Plateau, weapon durability so rarely matters. Far more often than weapons breaking, I was dropping weapons willingly to make room for others, even after several inventory upgrades.
Additionally, all the weapons you find in the overworld respawn. I don't think any weapon you find is permanently gone once it breaks. Chests in the Shrines, for instance, remain empty, but the Shrines never give you unique weapons. And the unique weapons you get after completing each of the Divine Beasts can all be remade by one of the respective locals.
Anyway, my condensed thoughts on the weapon durability system is that it is very temporarily a very minor annoyance. I don't think the game needed it, but I don't think it's a serious hindrance either.
I'm not super thrilled with how the game handles its soundtrack. I get that it was a conscious choice to go with minimal music in order to emphasize the “atmospheric” feel, but I did find myself often wishing for some more robust tracks to accompany my quest.
Da naaa nana naaa da naa nana na naaaa
The controls took a lot of adjusting to. Not only are they not mapped like any previous Zelda game, they also aren't mapped like any of the similar-genre games that Breath of the Wild takes many cues from (e.g. Dark Souls). But I think my biggest challenge here was a purely personal one: In my earliest hours, I frequently tried to use R to open the paraglider because I was so accustomed to having the Deku Leaf set to R in Wind Waker HD. Oh, which reminds me, I do not own a Switch. I was playing the Wii U version of Breath of the Wild.
Speaking of hardware, this might be the only Zelda game which is clearly more than the systems it was built for can really handle. While the updates have improved performance, there are still several obvious framerate drops. Kakariko Village has been the worst offender in my experience. Others have cited the game near-freezing when fighting Moblins and I only recently experienced this for the first time strangely enough, despite having fought Moblins countless times before.
A mechanic I find odd is how the stables work. OK, so you have to tame wild horses, and then you can register them at a stable. And OK, you can whistle to your horse to call it over, but only up to a certain distance. And alright, you can board a horse at the stable, and then take it out at another stable. Wait, what?
This is just so...strange. It seems like the intention was to set up a system to encourage you to tame as many horses as you can in all of the different locations so you always have the convenience of taking one out but...then you can just warp horses from any stable to any other stable. So as soon as you have 2 horses, you can just rotate them however you see fit and the whole system is trivialized. After my first 2 horses, the only other horse I ever registered was the Giant Horse; and just because having it tamed was the result of a sidequest. I tried to register the Lord of the Mountain, but the guy at the stable said something about curses, so I'm guessing you can't do that.
A sad day for glowy, 4-eyed horse-bunny-things everywhere.
To be clear, this didn't negatively affect my enjoyment of the game, it just seemed so weird that the stable system was designed that way. If you can freely warp your horse across the map at the stable...why not just let your horse come running to you no matter how far away you are? The game imposes logic on one front, only to turn around and break that very same logic on the other.
All that having been said, horses...kind of don't matter. I spent very little of my time riding horses in this game. Yeah, riding a horse is faster than running on foot, but you know what's waaaay faster than both? Gliding.
One of the few mandatory items in the game is the paraglider. You have to get it before you can leave the Great Plateau (and even speedrunners trying their best to find a sequence break seem to have confirmed that the game is coded to ensure the paraglider is a must). The paraglider gives you the ability to glide from high places, covering long distances. And, since you're in the air, rough terrain is a non-issue, while it provides constant barriers to horseback travel. It also gives you the opportunity to look at the environment from a high viewpoint. And you can go into Matrix-bullet-time mode and shoot arrows while you're in the sky (you can do this after jumping off your horse too, but I digress). You can also shield surf off a ledge, pull out your paraglider with your shield still strapped to your feet and continue shield surfing when you find a place to land. Basically, the paraglider is objectively superior to horses in every way. Especially after you finish Vah Medoh and gain the ability to create updrafts where you stand. Or, hell, just when you learn that you can create updrafts by setting grass on fire.
Oh yeah, shield-surfing. God damn, that's cool. When I first learned to do it, I immediately tried to using the bow, and you can! I'm Legolas, bitches!
And that small moment I had nicely sums up one of Breath of the Wild's greatest strengths: Not only how much it encourages experimentation, but how rewarding it is. Nearly every time you have the thought “I wonder if I can do this,” the answer is “Yes.”
The game tells you about shield-surfing, but it doesn't tell you you can use weapons, jump and paraglide mid-surf. But you totally can. And it's awesome.
I've seen people cite this as why Breath of the Wild is the perfect game for somebody who doesn't play video games, and I totally agree. Those of us who grew up with video games are accustomed to so many limitations existing because “that's just how video games work”. We're used to unnaturally shaped “natural” environments dictating the difference between playable area and background decoration. We're used to there being a one-and-only path through the story and awkward prevention from us going to certain areas before the game tells us we can; no matter how much we would already like to go there. We're used to friendly NPCs having no reaction to us drawing our weapon and swinging it around like a madman and setting the landscape on fire.
A person with none of these presuppositions will be more likely to try things that a seasoned gamer might instinctively not bother to try under the assumption that nothing will come out of it because of those ingrained conventions. But Breath of the Wild so readily and so casually tosses those conventions out the window that just about anything and everything is on the table.
Almost* none of the terrain is insurmountable. If you can touch a mountainside, you can climb it. There are paths carved throughout the land, but you needn't follow them. Hell, my first time in Goron City, I came in backwards from the way the game is set up to guide you into it. Incidentally, the Goron at the clothing shop has a really funny reaction to you wearing non-fireproof gear.
Breath of the Wild is very light and very modular with its story, in a way that never impedes the player's curiosity or desires. There is no one-and-only order and if you unwittingly stumble into some of the plot on your way to a point of interest, nothing's stopping you from leaving that plot until you feel like coming back to it. I started working through the Zora's Domain section of the main story only to drop it entirely midway through for several hours while I attempted to make it to every tower on the map. As I put it to my roommate, who kept commenting on my total inability to focus on one goal, “this game is distraction porn.”
And NPC's will, in fact, react with serious concern to your careless disregard with their well-being. One NPC will even show concern for your well-being should he see you standing on the edge of the bridge he patrols.
Though I should be fair and note that, while this is new to Zelda, it's not exactly new to video games. Skyrim's villagers will happily slaughter you with battle axes if you so much as graze one of their oh-so-precious chickens.
*There is a visible mountain that wraps around the north side and northwest corner of the game map. Unfortunately, there is an invisible wall that prevents you from reaching it. The game's world is enormous, but it definitely isn't endless.
The aforementioned light and modular story may be the best thing about Breath of the Wild, especially when compared with the likes of Skyward Sword. Now, I like Skyward Sword. I don't love it, and I have a lot of problems with it, but I don't hate it. I do, however, hate the way Skyward Sword handles story. Skyward Sword has probably the most detailed plot of any Zelda game and, while that statement alone sounds like a compliment, it's totally to the detriment of the player experience. You have no freedom in Skyward Sword. Everything has to happen this way in this order. We're telling this story, not your way of approaching it.
At that point, can you even call it an adventure game?
This is one reason I really don't care much about story in video games. The most inventive, wonderful story ever crafted by a human mind can be included in a video game, but if the game isn't fun...it's a terrible game. And the particularity of Skyward Sword's story directly, negatively impacts how much fun the game has to offer.*
*While replaying the opening couple hours of Skyward Sword which are 90% dialogue, I turned to my roommate and assured him, “Don't worry, I swear there's a game in here somewhere.”
Breath of the Wild is completely the opposite. The game really has very little story, and what story there is isn't especially deep. And it's a huge benefit to the player experience. The story isn't fixed for you ahead of time, and you aren't shoved along the only path Nintendo wants you to see. The story is almost entirely up to you. You're going on an adventure.
As I played the game and considered this, I realized this is the first Zelda game since the first Zelda game to really do that. A Link to the Past is fairly open in the sense that you can explore quite a bit of the world right away (after the intro section) but even it had a laid out, self-dictated path of progression. And each consecutive game seemed to keep guiding the player just a little more; Link's Awakening had recurring messages dropping mind-numbingly obvious hints. Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask introduced the dreaded player-companion concept. The Oracle games (which I adore, by the way) have the Maku Trees simply telling you where to go next every time you finish a dungeon, etc.
Some of the games handled these obnoxious concepts well, such as Twilight Princess disguising the handholding player-companion with a genuinely interesting and endearing character, while others...didn't (...Fi...). But they continued to employ these concepts, eventually cementing them as unfortunate staples of the series; staples that seem counterintuitive to the original game's concept of being lost in a vast world that you're free to explore and learn about entirely of your own volition.
I have several gripes with the core control mechanics of the original Zelda, a story for another day, but the game is solid conceptually. Breath of the Wild feels like the full realization of that original concept.
Playing through the game while my roommate watched intently, a number of times I would turn to him and say, “that's very Zelda 1.” A big part of that comes down to the sort of post-apocalyptic world the game takes place in. So much of the area is barren, but with a lot of dilapidated and curious structures that imply a larger civilization in the century past. And that's...“very Zelda 1.”
You need a certain number of hearts before you can successfully pull the Master Sword from its pedestal. This is also “very Zelda 1”. The White Sword and Magical Sword in the original game both had similar prerequisites.
The one moment I had that I think best exemplifies the “Zelda 1-ness” of the game is my first visit to Gerudo Desert. On my way to Gerudo Town (scaling the mountains because the ground-level path is for chumps), I happened to spy a circle of enormous statues off to the side. True to form, I ditched the forward path to investigate these statues. Upon observing them, I realized there was a puzzle here and one I could solve. So I did and was rewarded with one of the Shrines.
The game didn't lead me there. None of the NPC's told me about those statues (though somebody I would meet later in Gerudo Town does mention them, giving you a sidequest, which in my case was immediately marked as “Complete”). These statues aren't part of the main story at all. I saw something interesting, and I decided to investigate. My choice as a result of my curiosity was the sole driving force behind my actions, and that sums up how the original Zelda worked. The player's curiosity pushed them, and by extension the game, forward. Breath of the Wild works the same way.
It was in this moment that it really sunk into me how different Breath of the Wild is from what the Zelda series had largely become, but how it also does the best job of capturing the spirit of the series' original title.
Any other Zelda in recent memory would treat a huge landmark like these statues with so much less player-freedom. You might not even see them until the game decides it's time for you to interact with them. It wouldn't be a matter of “hey, there's something interesting over there. I'm gonna go check it out because I can and nothing's going to stop me,” it'd be “here these are now, because you played our story until you got to them, these are the next part of the plot, and no more game will happen until you're done with them.”
But the original Legend of Zelda wouldn't do that, and neither does Breath of the Wild.
Not only is your curiosity a driving force for the game, and one that the game incites and encourages, it's always rewarding. Pretty much every slightly interesting piece of terrain has something to offer you, even if it's just a Korok seed. Every new nook and cranny you explore, you'll be rewarded for doing so.
Every nook and cranny.
Anyway, now that the gush-fest is more or less out of the way, let's come back to some things I don't really like. First, let's talk about the Shrines. The Shrines themselves are actually a great concept. Over a hundred mini-dungeons that can give you whatever puzzles the developers can think up, unhindered by any thematic obligation that the more traditional Zelda formula would force upon them.
If only that could be said for all of the Shrines. I find the “Blessing” Shrines to be pretty lame; these Shrines have no puzzle or challenge to present to you. Most of the time, you find these Shrines after solving a puzzle or facing some challenge on the overworld. But a lot of those challenges aren't very satisfying, so it's a letdown to see that the Shrine won't titillate you where it's prerequisite failed to. But hey, at least those ones are trying.
Far worse are the “Test of Strength” Shrines. This is a concept I would've been fine with if maybe 1-3 of the Shrines, at most, were done in this manner. This is not the case. There are around 20 Shrines in which your only goal is to beat up a single robot before the whole affair is done with. Meh.
I was always very excited when I entered a Shrine and saw that it was neither of these.
Now, let's talk about the final boss. So the Calamity Ganon fight is pretty cool. It feels a lot like a Dark Souls boss in many ways. Ganon's quite large, has a significant array of moves, uses the arena to his advantage, and has a second phase in which your timing starts to matter a lot more. Good stuff.
Unfortunately, after Calamity Ganon is done with, he transforms into the much larger Dark Beast Ganon; the “Hatred and Malice Incarnate,” as the game calls him; and we find ourselves facing him out in Hyrule field. I was cautiously optimistic when I first saw this. A giant monster battle out in the overworld? OK, this might be super cool.
But...then I was given the Light Bow out of nowhere and Zelda’s disembodied voice told me to “shoot the glowing points” and at that instant, I knew the battle was going to be lame. It's presented cool, but it's just not very challenging, interesting, or fun.
For all the guff I gave Skyward Sword earlier, this is one area I give that story-plagued game the edge. I really like the final fight with Demise in Skyward Sword. It's also not especially challenging, but at least I get to catch and throw lightning with my sword! It's also a fight that feels like a natural extension of the games most prominent mechanics up until then, with the motion-controlled swordplay being the focus.
Breath of the Wild instead shoves you on horseback (“oh yeah, there are horses in this game”) and gives you a new tool last-second, awkwardly disconnecting the final confrontation from the entire game up until that point.
So the game isn't perfect. But it's so, so, so close. Even minor things about the game absolutely enthralled me. The temperature system, for instance, is really thorough. Like, yeah, equip the right clothes for the right weather conditions. But what about when even that doesn't help? Well, you can follow the advice of the NPC's and use elixirs, or you can equip elemental weapons. This is another very cool mechanic the game doesn't tell you. If you're in the hottest areas of Gerudo Desert, where the Gerudo clothing doesn't cut it, you can equip a frostblade, and that will also affect your tolerance for the heat. It's so impressive how even the tiniest details like this weren't overlooked.
Not to mention the very Minecraft-esque mechanic that killing wildlife with fire weapons will yield cooked meat. Breath of the Wild takes that one step further than it's inspiration, giving you “icy” meat if you kill them with ice weapons.
The game also has countless references to other Zelda titles, so if you're a longtime fan of the franchise, those are a lot of fun to see. Areas ripped straight from Skyward Sword, Twilight Princess and Ocarina of Time all appear; albeit very ravaged by time and war. There are locations named after some of the most obscure characters in the franchise. Even the music, what little there is, has some nostalgic melodies you wouldn't necessarily expect.
Anyway, this ended up about five times as long as I expected, but there was just so much I wanted to say. I really do think this game, in addition to being so well-received, will ultimately prove to be an important title to video games as a whole. Like Ocarina of Time before it, and the original Legend of Zelda before that, Breath of the Wild may have significantly altered the playing field forever.
#zelda#legend of zelda#the legend of zelda#breath of the wild#the legend of zelda breath of the wild#nintendo#video games
10 notes
·
View notes
Text
Vox’s Consistent Errors on Campus Speech, Continued
Musa al-Gharbi is a Paul F. Lazarsfeld Fellow in Sociology at Columbia University, and the Director of Communications at Heterodox Academy.
Let me start by saying that in some respects, it is a strange debate between Beauchamp, Yglesias and I:
In the highly-polarized political environment in which we find ourselves, it seems to be a standard assumption that if someone is criticizing one position, it must be because they personally hold the opposite view themselves. For instance, if I am criticizing Beauchamp and Yglesias’ essays “proving” there is no speech crisis, it must be because I believe there is one, right?
Yet I close my recent essay, “Vox’s Consistent Errors on Campus Speech, Explained,” as follows:
Beauchamp and Yglesias insist that the burden of proof is on those who declare there is a crisis. I happen to share this conviction.
San Diego State University psychologist Jean Twenge, NYU social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, HxA Research Director Sean Stevens, FIRE President Greg Lukianoff, sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning, and others have responded to this challenge by offering compelling – albeit preliminary — evidence that there is a significant normative shift underway among contemporary young people with regards to free expression and other issues (here, here, here, here, here, here, here).
However, in my personal view, more (and different) evidence needs to be marshalled by proponents in order for their case to be fully persuasive. And further research is being done — both within Heterodox Academy and beyond. In the meantime, my position, as I stated in the initial piece, is that the jury is still out on the extent of any normative change – but it is probably unhelpful to refer to it as a “crisis” in any case.
In short, I have no issue with Yglesias and Beauchamp’s skepticism regarding the campus free speech “crisis.” The problem I have is with the specific evidence they attempted to deploy to “prove” there is no crisis.
Specifically, I argued that Yglesias failed to control for straightforward confounds in his analysis of the GSS data – and when these are controlled for, it seems like contemporary students may actually be less tolerant of those they disagree with than previous cohorts. But don’t just take my word for it: political scientists April Kelly-Woessner (Elizabethtown College) and John Sides (George Washington University) have also published essays underscoring this point using the same GSS data that Yglesias relied on.
But I also cautioned that, across the board, the General Social Survey provides (at best) weak evidence with regards to this dispute. Why? Because the GSS has such a small sample of college students in any given year that it would be irresponsible to generalize much from it. In 2016, for instance, they had roughly 32 enrolled students who fell within the “iGen” age group (which is the cohort which Twenge et al. have argued hold different values on free speech — the position Yglesias seems to be taking himself to refute).
Obviously, one cannot make sound claims about the millions of iGen students and their values on the basis of surveying a few dozen of them — but this the best the GSS can muster right now. In other words, even if Yglesias’ analysis didn’t suffer from important confounds (which it does), the data he relied on could not rebut, or even meaningfully speak to, the claims of those who argue that there is a major cohort change with iGen students on free speech (e.g. Haidt, Lukanioff, Twenge, Campbell, Manning, Stevens).
Yet Yglesias drew a very strong conclusion (“Everything we think about the ‘free speech crisis’ is wrong”) on the basis of this very weak data.
For Beauchamp, I argued that he misrepresented data from all the sources he cited in a recent Vox report. I focused on two sources, which occupied the bulk of his essay: the Free Speech Project database, and a database on faculty firings by Acadia University political scientist Jeffrey Sachs.
In his attempted rebuttal, “The myth of a campus free speech crisis,” Beauchamp flagged that there were actually three sources he ostensibly relied upon: in addition to the Free Speech Project and Sachs’ database on faculty firings, he also cited FIRE’s disinvitation database.
Fair enough.
But ironically, this correction only makes Beauchamp’s problem worse. Allow me to briefly walk through the three sources Beauchamp cited, why his description of their findings was problematic, and why his “rebuttal” fails to resolve any of my core criticisms (click to expand):
Free Speech Project (FSP)
To review, my core criticisms of Beauchamp viz. the FSP data:
The FSP data is so preliminary and incomplete that it cannot yet effectively speak to the overall prevalence of these incidents – which is what Beauchamp’s story was about. And so, while the FSP project is fantastic on its own merits, it is inappropriate to try to use this data for the kind of case Beauchamp was trying to make. Dr. Ungar’s essay said absolutely nothing about overall prevalence.
Beauchamp’s portrayal of the “free speech crisis” on the basis of the FSP data seemed to be far out of touch with Dr. Ungar’s own view on the matter on the basis of this same data. This divergence, I argued, was a product of the issues in criticism 1: Dr. Ungar came to a different conclusion, not because of some major ideological difference — but because he had a better understanding of his data (and its limits) than Beauchamp seemed to.
In the attempted Vox rebuttal, the second criticism is validated: It is acknowledged that Dr. Ungar sees a more serious problem than one might have gathered from Beauchamp’s initial essay.
“[Dr. Ungar] is certainly not as much of a skeptic about the free speech ‘crisis’ as I am — he believes that there is a real problem, particularly for university administrators who are terrified of a high-profile incident happening at their campus, and that there is ‘evidence’ that speech is ‘being suppressed’ in certain instances.”
With this established, we can occupy ourselves primarily with point 1. But first, it turns out Beauchamp actually made another error in his FSP discussion, which I originally missed, but is relevant here. The original opening language of the essay ran:
“Entire books and online magazines are premised on the idea that political correctness is sweeping the American university, threatening both higher education and the broader right to free speech. But a brand new data analysis from Georgetown University’s Free Speech Project suggests that this ‘crisis’ is more than a little overblown.”
Extending basic intellectual charity to Beauchamp, I did not really scrutinize the metadata on the original FSP Medium post to make sure that it really was a “brand new analysis.” Turns out, it wasn’t. The FSP essay that Beauchamp relied on was actually published in March 2018, nearly five months before Beauchamp published his piece (and I wrote my initial rejoinder).
In other words, Beauchamp was not relying on current data from the FSP at the time he composed his essay – and he did not disclose this fact in his essay. This raises a couple of possibilities, both unsettling:
Beauchamp was not aware that he was using out-of-date information because he neglected to look at the publication date on the FSP post before burning off an essay about it (suggested by the “brand new analysis” verbiage) – and also neglected to go to the actual FSP website to explore the data prior to publication (which would have given him current numbers). This would underscore my point about failing to exercise due diligence.
OR
Beauchamp was aware that Dr. Ungar’s essay was published in March, but nonetheless framed Dr. Ungar’s analysis “brand new” and also declined to report the current data in his own essay – either out of negligence (i.e. he didn’t want to bother with basic research), or because the more current information was less convenient for the point he was arguing. Neither is a good look. And then there is a secondary problem if Beauchamp was aware that Dr. Ungar’s information was actually from March (and hence, likely out of date): why did he fail to disclose this fact – and instead present the analysis as “brand new”?
Beauchamp recently issued a correction acknowledging that the “brand new” analysis he described was actually from March 2018. Yet, in his attempted rebuttal, he makes no mention of this error – instead insisting that his original presentation of the data was completely accurate!
Before we dive into that, notice that both of my core critiques of Beauchamp viz. the FSP have already been vindicated: Beauchamp has issued a correction indicating one way he misrepresented the FSP data. He has also conceded that his presentation of the (non) threat — on the basis of FSP data — was out of step with Dr. Ungar’s own position that there is a serious problem.
Now let’s drill down a little more: Does this new identified error by Beauchamp relate to the criticisms I offered in the initial essay? Yes. Here’s how:
I did work through the actual FSP database in formulating my initial essay, and found that there were more than 90 recorded incidents from campuses at the time, out of a total 137 incidents overall.
If Dr. Ungar’s analysis was “brand new,” yet only focused on 90 incidents (60 from campuses) – this would mean he was only working with a subset of the total incidents in his database — itself, just a small subset of a much larger pool of incidents “in the world.” This was a fair reading, because Dr. Ungar himself refers to the set of incidents he was referring to as a “sample” which was not necessarily representative, etc.
Hence, I assumed that Beauchamp’s error was failing to understand that Dr. Ungar cited just a sample out of the total 137 incidents available in the FSP database as of August 2018 (when Vox covered Ungar’s “brand new” analysis… from March). And while Beauchamp did fail to grasp the nature of the FSP data (or he would never have used it to make bold claims about the overall prevalence of incidents) – in addition to this, he was also working with information that was several months out-of-date, and (intentionally or not) misled his readers (myself included) on this point. This is apparently why he was insisted there were 60 incidents in the FSP data, instead of the 90 he could have easily retrieved through basic research prior to his article’s publication.
Now, it is striking that the number of campus incidents in the FSP database grew from sixty to ninety just between Dr. Ungar’s original Medium post and Beauchamp’s original Vox essay –this amounts to a 50% increase. And as Beauchamp himself noted in his attempted rebuttal, the number has grown further still since my rejoinder (published just a couple weeks ago). I explicitly predicted this would happen, and it underscores the problem with trying to use Dr. Ungar’s data to speak to the overall prevalence of these incidents:
For the sake of argument, let’s run with Beauchamp’s presumption that the number of incidents in the FSP database actually is reflective of the total incidents nationwide. Well, if there were “roughly only 60 incidents in the last two years” as of March… and by mid-August there were suddenly 90 incidents – then it seems as though the total number of campus incidents nationwide over the last two years actually increased by 50%, just between March and August. This would truly be astonishing, and a cause for concern – especially given that classes were not even in session for most of this period!
By the end of 2018 it is likely that there will be well over a hundred campus incidents in the FSP database from the last two years. Of course, this would not mean that the actual prevalence of incidents increased by nearly 100% (or more) since Dr. Ungar published his original essay. Why not? Because neither the cases Dr. Ungar analyzed in March, nor the number of events FSP will ultimately highlight by December, meaningfully speak to the general prevalence of these incidents at all.
In an attempt to defend himself against my critique, Beauchamp apparently reached out to Dr. Ungar himself. Vox readers were only provided with basically two statements out of what was presumably a conversation of at least several minutes – and even one of these statements was partially redacted through ellipses. Yet, despite the fact that the purpose of this essay (and its predecessor) is to highlight misrepresentations by Beauchamp regarding Dr. Ungar’s Medium essay, let’s just take it on faith that Beauchamp is not conveniently neglecting to share statements from Dr. Ungar which undermine his argument, and that he is faithfully representing the little bit of content from Dr. Ungar that actually made it to the page (redactions notwithstanding).
Beauchamp says he asked directly whether it was appropriate to try comparing the total number of incidents by the total number of universities (apparently bracketing the fact that the data he was relying on was non-exhaustive, non-representative, and out-of-date at time of the Vox publication). Dr. Ungar’s indirect, hedged and polite response was, “I’m not sure I would say you were wrong...”
Now, we can’t know everything Dr. Ungar did say in their conversation, given how little Beauchamp actually included – but we can certainly note some things he apparently did not say:
First, let’s hammer home that he did not say there were “roughly only 60 incidents” between 2016 and March 2018. Hence, Beauchamp’s claim to this effect is simply incorrect.
There were 60 incidents in the FSP database as of March 2018. This is emphatically not the same as saying there were actually “only roughly 60 incidents in the last two years.” A correction is warranted here from Vox. A more accurate version of the relevant sentence could read:
“The fact that the FSP database only showed around 60 incidents (as of March 2018) suggests that free speech crises may be somewhat rare events that don’t define…”
But would the FSP data even suggest this, really? To answer that question, let’s continue exploring statements Dr. Ungar apparently declined to make:
He did not say his original Medium post indicated anything at all about the overall prevalence of incidents; he did not say that it actually was appropriate to draw inferences about overall prevalence from the FSP data, nor did he say al-Gharbi was wrong with regards to the specific criticisms leveled at Beauchamp viz. the FSP. He basically dodged Beauchamp’s question and then shifted to express “delight” that the Free Speech Project received coverage in Vox.
That sort of response speaks for itself… and it does not send the message Beauchamp seems to hope.
Indeed, despite Dr. Ungar’s diplomatic evasion, the Free Speech Project website is quite explicit that the sort of maneuver Beauchamp attempted in his first essay was inappropriate given how preliminary their data are (emphasis mine):
“…the Tracker is a work in progress and should not be considered a complete listing of every instance in which freedom of speech was tested, challenged, or commented upon… As it grows in size and content, it should become a steadily more useful tool for analysis.”
And so, had Beauchamp actually consulted the FSP website when drafting his essay, not only could he have used current data in his original story, as I did in my rejoinder (rather than content from five months prior) — he could have also avoided making inferences about overall incident prevalence on the basis of this data (such as, “there were only roughly 60 incidents in the last two years”), which the FSP explicitly recommends against.
Sachs’ Database on Faculty Firings
Beauchamp represented Sachs’ findings on faculty firings as follows:
Sachs’ data do not show this. He himself flagged that his data was misrepresented, taking to social media to share and praise my essay about Vox.
This is a good piece from @Musa_alGharbi of @HdxAcademy. Quite a few people have claimed that the data shows “liberal” faculty are fired at a higher rate than “conservative” faculty. It does not, as Musa emphasizes.
But a few further points: https://t.co/OVsBJ38a5X
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) August 16, 2018
In fact, not only did Sachs validate my concerns about Beauchamp’s essay, he went on to vindicate my critique of the GSS, against Yglesias’ protests, as well:
Matt, his critique of the GSS data, which I’ve used as well, is a good one. Personally I think Musa is too quick to dismiss the Stouffer Questions, but his general point is well taken.
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) August 17, 2018
Sachs and I are not too far apart on most of these issues. Hence it is perplexing, in the attempted rebuttal, when Beauchamp makes statements like:
Again, I did not claim there is such a crisis – indeed, in the very essay that Beauchamp is responding to, I explicitly said the evidence of a normative shift is not decisive, and that the “crisis” framing is unhelpful and ill-defined. So it isn’t clear how Sachs is “at odds” with me here.
Moreover, I am in full agreement with Sachs that one should avoid making sweeping claims on the basis of his firings database, given that firings are relatively rare (especially relative to other forms of speech sanction). It was Beauchamp who tried to make strong claims about relative likelihoods viz. firings (“left-wing professors were more likely to be dismissed,” emphasis his) – I merely pointed out that he misrepresented Sachs’ data, and that when better contextualized, his claim that liberal professors are “more likely” to be fired for political speech than conservatives is unsupported. In fact, the opposite seems to be true.
Again, it was Sachs himself, in his Niskanen essay, who noted that given the base-rates of conservative to liberal professors – it may be the case that conservatives are more likely to be fired, despite the fact that most who are terminated are liberals:
“…the professoriate leans significantly to the left as well, so we should expect left-leaning speech to make up the bulk of terminations. As with the skewed findings of FIRE’s Disinvitation Database, we are not talking about a population where political ideology is uniformly distributed. It is possible for liberals to constitute the majority of faculty terminations and also for conservatives to be terminated at an equal or higher rate.” (Sachs’ own emphasis)
I merely demonstrated Sachs’ own point with the available data on faculty base rates… so, again, it is not clear to me how Sachs and I are supposedly “at odds.”
But it is clear that Beauchamp misrepresented Sachs’ data. In fact, following Sachs’ confirmation that his data was misrepresented, Beauchamp had to issue a correction for the second source I focused on in my rejoinder as well.
Let’s recap then. In my initial essay I claimed that Beauchamp misrepresented data from the FSP and Sachs. Beauchamp has actually issued corrections for his treatment of both of those studies:
Given this reality, it’s not clear exactly what Beauchamp takes himself to be “proving” in his attempted rebuttal. Yet because Beauchamp seems to put a lot of weight in the fact that he actually analyzed three sources, let’s consider the third as well:
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)
One of the things I criticized Beauchamp for in my original essay was failing to make full use of the very sources he cited when he was trying to understand the scope of the problem. For instance, he mentioned FSP but failed to rely on their full current dataset when composing his essay (setting aside the inferential issues regarding prevalence). He cited Heterodox Academy, misrepresenting our structure and mission, and then failed to incorporate the data from our Guide to Colleges into his picture on the prevalence of campus incidents. These are criticisms which Beauchamp has not contested: He did not use contemporary data from the FSP (despite describing the March 2018 data as “brand new”… in August). He did not use any data from HxA.
In line with this trend, here is Beauchamp’s summary of FIRE’s data in his original essay:
Based on Beauchamp’s summary, one would be forgiven for thinking that FIRE also believed the problem is pretty small. But, as with Dr. Ungar’s essay, I would urge readers to follow the link Beauchamp provided, and read the actual essay he references, because once again, the narrative he wants to spin on the basis of this data would be greatly undermined.
Moreover, as FIRE’s Robert Shibley wrote in response to Beauchamp, disinvitations are actually one of the least significant ways of measuring the “free speech” problem at universities. This is especially true given that, in Beauchamp’s attempted rebuttal, he claims that the “subject” of his original essay was allegedly “speech rights of faculty and students.”
If “speech rights of faculty and students” was the subject of his piece, it is curious that he literally only mentions the “rights” twice in the entire essay (excluding listing the full name for FIRE) – once when mischaracterizing the mission of HxA, and once when describing the mission of FSP. All other times he uses “right” in the essay, he is referring right-wing political partisans. In the rejoinder, he also evokes “rights” only twice (excluding FIRE’s name) – and one of these was the sentence where he insists “speech rights of faculty and students” were the “subject” of his essays all along!
This is a poorly-substantiated retcon attempt. However, even if allowed to stand, it actually does little to improve his case. In fact, it makes his neglect of FIRE’s resources even more glaring. If Beauchamp was primarily concerned with understanding rights and whether or not they were protected or threatened, then it is not clear why he was analyzing disinvitations (many of them at private institutions, where there is no “right” to the campus… and technically, no “right” to free speech). He should have instead been looking at university policies and relevant court cases, especially if he was already committed to analyzing data from FIRE (which works primarily on policy and legal issues).
In terms of lawsuits, etc. — as I mentioned in my initial essay — FIRE publically lists hundreds of legal cases they were/ are engaged in. These were completely absent from Beauchamp’s calculations.
In terms of policies, FIRE collects information on speech codes — and confirmed incidents of censorship or violations of due process — for more than 450 universities nationwide. Each of these schools are assigned a FIRE rating based on their official policies regarding academic freedom and due process. If Beauchamp was primarily concerned about “rights,” it seems as though this dataset is where he should have put his main emphasis.
But the story these data tell are pretty inconvenient for his thesis: nearly a third of the institutions in the set have a “red” rating – indicating policies that significantly threaten freedom of expression or due process. Meanwhile, only about 10% have a “green” rating, indicating strong, consistent support for academic freedom and due process.
In other words, if Beauchamp wants to retroactively portray his story as being about “rights,” then the data he chose to highlight in his essays were even less appropriate than they would be if he was speaking about prevalence. And that’s saying something – because literally none of the datasets he relied on could effectively address the overall prevalence of campus incidents. Moreover, if he was primarily analyzing “speech rights of faculty and students” the FIRE resources would pose an even larger problem for this thesis than they already do.
But let’s be clear: his original essay was not about “rights” — it was about how common free speech incidents are on campus. Indeed, the word “incident” was used more than 10 times in the original essay and 24 in the rebuttal attempt (as compared to two instances of “rights” in each).
Beauchamp also ignored useful resources from FIRE regarding the question he was actually trying to explore (again, “How common are these campus incidents?”): beyond the disinvitation database (which he mentioned) and their publicly-listed court cases (which he neglected), FIRE also has a searchable database containing incidents of attempted censorship or due-process violations at the 450 schools they track. This dataset makes no pretense towards being exhaustive. Nonetheless, it contains hundreds of incidents.
It is very telling that there are this many incidents from just 450 universities, out of “4583 colleges and universities in the United States (including two and four year institutions).” If we are already at hundreds from FIRE’s data alone, based on just 1/10 U.S. schools, consider what the number would likely be if FIRE could collect comparable data on the remaining 4000 or so institutions of higher learning. My bet is we would end up at more than “dozens.”
In short, rather than helping Beauchamp in any way, including FIRE among his list of sources only reinforces concerns that Beauchamp is underutilizing the very data sources he’s citing.
The FIRE example also provides yet another illustration of Beauchamp presenting a picture of the world that is out of step with that of his sources. FIRE strongly disputes Beauchamp’s portrayal of the free speech situation on campus. Beauchamp obliquely acknowledged this in his attempted rebuttal, but failed to mention or address that FIRE also published a rejoinder to him, which I linked to in my original essay, and have shared again above.
Again, had Beauchamp reached out to FIRE President Greg Lukianoff, as he eventually did with Sachs and Ungar, he would have been informed (as I was informed) that even the hundreds of incidents Beauchamp could have easily culled from FIRE’s publicly-available resources are just scratching the surface – they actually get about 1k direct requests for help each year, only a fraction of which they can ultimately pursue in court, etc. (due to constraints in resources, manpower, and the like).
In short: Beauchamp is correct to insist that he did briefly mention FIRE in his original essay, despite my claim to the contrary. However, this is of little use for him, because his treatment of the data from FIRE was just as problematic as that from Sachs and the FSP.
More Essays, More Problems
As the preceding sections showed, Beauchamp’s attempted rebuttal did not dislodge any of the core criticisms I offered of his piece. If anything, he dug the hole deeper by adding FIRE into the mix as yet another institution whose data he misrepresented and underutilized (rather than simply ignoring, as I initially suggested).
But there still are a few more issues we have to flag. First, a problem I alluded to in my original essay, but which needs to be rendered more explicit because Beauchamp doubled-down on the error in his attempted rebuttal: he repeatedly claims that the data from Sachs, the FSP and FIRE all seemed to tell “the same story” — “dozens” of incidents. This is a basic statistical error.
In fact, all of these datasets were speaking to different phenomena — disinvitations v. faculty firings v. campus protests etc. – meaning they each tell a different story. Given that the cases in each of the sets are generally non-redundant, they would actually need to be combined (i.e. added) together in order to get on the same page, to actually tell the “same story” about campus incidents in general. So let’s do that:
Between 2016 and the time Beauchamp wrote his essay, the FSP database had come to include 90 campus incidents. There were also 43 incidents from Sachs’ database on faculty firings within this period, and 88 disinvitations from the FIRE dataset. Summing them up we can see that, just from the narrow range of data Beauchamp himself cited, a more accurate description is that there were “hundreds” of free speech incidents, not “dozens,” in the last two years. Had Beauchamp incorporated the full range of publicly-available data from FIRE and HxA, both sources he cited in his original essay, the number would be much higher still.
And although we actually don’t have to speculate about all the incidents that HxA, FSP, FIRE and Sachs fail to capture in order to clearly see that Beauchamp underrepresented campus incidents in his essay(s) – it is worth noting again that, even collectively, these datasets are nowhere near comprehensive in capturing incidents of suppression of speech or ideas. As I flagged in my initial rejoinder:
“All of us are only looking at situations that involve terminations, make the news, or end up in court… We are not able – even collectively – to capture all publicly-available incidents. We will never be able to capture other, likely far more prevalent, incidents of suppression of speech or ideas that do not end up in major media outlets, in courtrooms, etc. As a result, the default assumption should be that the problem is likely worse than the available data suggest (maybe not by much… but also, maybe by a lot).”
II.
In addition to doubling down on previous mistakes, Beauchamp concludes his essay by committing a few new errors that are worth noting: First, he again attributes to me a belief that there is a free speech crisis, despite my repeated assertions — in the very essay he is responding to — that I do not actually hold that view. For instance:
“I do not have any particular investment in whether or not there is a free speech ‘crisis’ (I try to avoid this kind of language myself, as a rule). Nor do I have any stake in whether or not the contemporary cohort of young people (iGen) are profoundly different from previous generations. My only aim here was to debunk low-quality research / analysis on these topics, not to argue for or against any particular position on them.”
I’m not sure how I could have made my own position any clearer. Yet Beauchamp nonetheless structured his entire “rebuttal” as an attempted debunking of a belief that I explicitly do not hold (even calling his attempted rebuttal the “Myth of the Campus Free Speech Crisis” as though that is any kind of refutation of my own position). See: Straw-man fallacy.
Second, he runs together the issues of an alleged “free speech crisis” and “liberal bias” in academia — in an attempt to dismiss both.
Example:
“So why does this all matter? It matters because claims of a campus free speech crisis (al-Gharbi’s piece included) unintentionally bolster a right-wing narrative that the campus is a haven of out-of-control liberalism — and that something dramatic needs to be done to address that. In a vacuum, the notion of promoting ‘viewpoint diversity’ is laudable. But we aren’t operating in a vacuum: We’re operating in a world where Republican legislators are using allegations of a campus free speech crisis and liberal bias among the academy to further efforts to crack down on individual freedom.”
We should definitely separate the issue of the “free speech crisis” from the “liberal bias” in academia. Here’s why:
As I have repeatedly stated in both this essay and the previous one, it is a live debate whether or not there are significant changes underway in terms of how young people view speech — and whether those changes would constitute a “crisis” even if established. Skepticism here is perfectly fine (notwithstanding Beauchamp and Yglesias’ failed attempts at “proving” there is no crisis).
However, the evidence of deep political bias in social research fields is far clearer: It affects how social problems are defined and studied. It affects how committees of professors make decisions in peer review, hiring, promotion, grad school admissions and beyond. It affects which materials are assigned to the curriculum and how they are engaged. It affects the opinions of religious, conservative, rural, low-income and/or minority students about whether the academy has a place for them, or whether they would be better suited elsewhere. It affects how policymakers and the public evaluate the credibility or utility of social research. And it affects virtually all of these things in a negative way.
Heterodox Academy has built a library with a sampling of peer-reviewed empirical studies highlighting this phenomenon and its impacts in various social research fields – a corpus that merely scratches the surface of the available evidence on this question. More has been building every day since HxA burst onto the scene and inspired greater interest in this issue among academic researchers.
Again, this is the problem Heterodox Academy was created to address: homogeneity and insularity within the humanities and social sciences. It is a serious problem which undermines the quality and impact of research and pedagogy. And it is not just a problem for academics: to the extent that good social research is distrusted, or biased and unreliable social research is utilized, this has negative downstream consequences for the populations scholars study and often wish to empower or assist (typically those of low socio-economic status, or those from historically marginalized or disenfranchised groups).
Conclusion: “Heterodox Academy, and why this debate matters at all”
Let me conclude by returning to the theme I led with: in this highly-polarized political moment, it is generally assumed that if someone is pushing back against a popular left-leaning narrative, or espousing an inconvenient view for the left, then they are de facto aligned with the right, intentionally or not. Beauchamp’s rebuttal attempt provides a great example of this fundamentalist thinking: highlighting systemic political bias or threats to free speech on campus will help the right – regardless of one’s intentions –and so, apparently, we should not talk about these issues (except, perhaps, to deny they are a big deal).
I am deeply familiar with this “logic”: as a Muslim scholar who, until recently, worked exclusively on national security and foreign policy issues, it was regularly *suggested* to me that criticism of the “War on Terror” – especially by “people like me” — provided cover or ammunition for al-Qaeda, ISIS and their sympathizers. In the view of these critics (mostly on the right), I was aiding and abetting “the enemy,” intentionally or not.
There was even an article published in the National Security Law Journal which argued that I, and academics like me (by which the author seemed to mean: Muslim, left-leaning, and politically “radical”) should be viewed as enemies of the state — and could legitimately be targeted by national security and law enforcement agencies. This article was eventually retracted, and its author forced to resign from his position at West Point (as described in the Washington Post here). But suffice it to say, I *get* the kind of narrative Beauchamp is trying to spin here, and I reject it whole-cloth.
I challenge U.S. national security and foreign policy precisely to render it more effective, efficient and beneficent – because I actually have “skin in the game” with regards to how the military is deployed. I relentlessly criticize bad research on Trump and his supporters because it is important for the opposition to be clear-eyed and level-headed about why he won – to help ensure it does not happen again. A similar type of motivation undergirds my critique of Beauchamp and Yglesias:
It does not help the left or academics to respond to distortions and exaggerations on the right by denying that there is any significant problem. It is especially damaging for “wonks” or academics to dress up these kinds of political narratives as social research – even more so if this “research” suffers from major errors or shortcomings like the essays criticized here.
Such a strategy is self-defeating because it is the left, those in humanities and social sciences, those from historically marginalized and disenfranchised groups, and those who seek to give voice to these perspectives or to help these populations, who stand to lose the most if the credibility of social research is further eroded due to perceived partisanship.
One brief example from an essay Jonathan Haidt and I wrote for The Atlantic:
Most of the major “free speech” blowups have happened at elite private schools (or “public Ivies” like Berkeley) – which are disproportionately attended by upper-income and white students, and disproportionately staffed by faculty who are white and male.
Yet, which schools are paying the cost for public dissatisfaction about the state of higher ed (driven in large part by these incidents at elite, private institutions)? Public land-grant schools like University of Arizona (my alma mater): the very schools that are most likely to educate lower-income and minority students, and the very schools that are most likely to have tenured or tenure-track professors that are women and minorities.
Within these schools, which programs are first on the chopping block? Humanities and social sciences – the very fields in which women, blacks and Hispanics are most likely to hold professorships, and in which students of color and women are among the most likely to enroll.
Hence, what Heterodox Academy is trying to achieve isn’t something “laudable” in the abstract, for those “operating in a vacuum” (as Beauchamp describes). The reverse is true: some people have the luxury of ignoring or denying the problem because they are not directly grappling with the fallout. Beauchamp graduated from Brown and the LSE (Yglesias, from Harvard). For lack of a better way to say this: It shows.
Yet, if concerned about social justice, it is absolutely essential for those who are part of elite institutions (including those at my current home, Columbia) to understand these dynamics, and to be cognizant of the way their actions can have ramifications for less privileged students and faculty, especially those at less insulated (i.e. virtually all other) colleges and universities.
This is a tough pill to swallow. I get why many on the left, especially at elite universities and media outlets, would rather just say “nothing to see here,” than to confront these realities. But it will not do, for all of us to simply close ranks and insist “there is no problem, we will make no changes.” Because there is a problem — and change is coming to institutions of higher learning, one way or another.
At Heterodox Academy it has always been our hope and expectation that when professors and administrators come to understand the seriousness of the challenge we face, they will rise to the occasion — out of their own commitment to truth and rigor (or self-preservation!) — and correct course while we still have choices regarding how our institutions and practices are best reformed. In order to facilitate these efforts, HxA produces and consolidates research, tools and strategies to help university stakeholders understand and address the lack of viewpoint diversity, mutual understanding and constructive disagreement within institutions of higher learning. Soon, we hope to foster networks within and between research fields (or institutional roles) to further accelerate the reform process.
However, we do all this with an acute awareness that if we fail in our mission — if social researchers cannot restore sufficient faith in our work, and in our academic institutions — then we are likely to see continued declines in enrollments, and even more ham-fisted and harmful legislation of the sort Beauchamp highlighted. In fact, a segment from the previous essay provides a fine note to close out this whole discussion:
“[Dr. Ungar] also posits, regarding the myriad laws being passed to help “fix” institutions of higher learning – often these “cures” seem to be worse than the “disease” they are trying to address. Many in Heterodox Academy share these sentiments. In fact, HxA Research Associate and NYU Law student Nick Philips has argued both of these points in recent publications: campus conservatives must check their own trolling; attempting to legislate away the socio-political tensions within universities is probably a bad idea. FYI: Nick is a conservative. These do not have to (and should not) be partisan issues.”
No doubt, there is an active and cynical campaign by some on the right to reduce the complicated challenges facing universities into wedge political issues. But here’s the thing, we actually don’t have to oblige them (by reflexively adopting a simplistic position, diametrically opposed to theirs). We can steer this in a different direction. And I hope that’s what we do.
As an organization that prizes pluralism and disagreement — with more than 2k members holding diverse views on most issues — Heterodox Academy does not really have “official positions.”
Opinions expressed here are those of the author(s). Publication does not imply endorsement by Heterodox Academy or any of its members. We welcome your comments below. Feel free to challenge and disagree, but please try to model the sort of respectful and constructive criticism that makes viewpoint diversity most valuable. Comments that include obscenity or that sound like a tirade or screed are likely to be deleted.
Source: https://heterodoxacademy.org/vox-consistent-errors-campus-speech-beauchamp/
0 notes
Photo
What is a “martyr?” The English word martyr is an almost direct transliteration from the New Testament Greek word, martus, which originally meant a “witness.” It was especially used in the early church to signify those who were witnesses of Jesus Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection (e.g., Acts 1:22), and consequently many of those Apostles died giving testimony of their Lord. In current usage it usually means people who are killed for refusing to renounce their religious faith, practices, and beliefs.1 The unspoken assumption is that if the person would renounce his beliefs, then he would not be put to death, and thereby avoid martyrdom. History is replete with tales of martyrs, from Old Testament believers, to the Apostles, to the early church fathers down to our time, especially in areas like the Sudan, the Middle East, Philippines, Indonesia, and parts of South America. For the most part, these have been either Jewish or Christian martyrs, and the logical question to ask would be why? .... A martyr is someone who believes so strongly in his religion that he is unwilling to compromise when faced with external pressures to convert to another religion. He would rather face death than dishonor himself and his god (either a false god or the True and Living God of the Bible). He does not deem it right (even in those situations where the threat of death is imminent) to even outwardly conform to a “religious conversion,” even if he knows he would internally keep his original belief system. This would be construed as failing his god, lying to himself, and giving a poor testimony to the world about his god and religion. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are perfect examples of this type of mindset, although they were divinely spared from becoming martyrs (Daniel 3). Radical Muslims who blow themselves up in a suicide bombing to kill others are occasionally called martyrs by some, but this is a misnomer. The suicide bomber is not a martyr, but one who has chosen their own death, and is actively pursuing it. They are not dying because they refuse to convert to Christianity (or Buddhism, or Hinduism), but rather because of a choice to be an offensive weapon of terror. For most polytheistic religions, martyrdom is usually not much of a concern, since another belief system can be incorporated into the pantheon of deities and beliefs already present. For example, this is why in India today we can see Jesus Christ being added by Hindu worshippers to the religious festivals and even the pantheon of deities. They will even venerate Jesus as a god without recognizing that He is actually the Creator God. This is not to say that Buddhist or Hindu adherents never become martyrs. The Tibetan Buddhists have for many years been persecuted and martyred by the Chinese government for their refusal to convert to atheistic communism, and Muslims have killed Hindus for their refusal to convert to monotheism as well. As in all cases of conflict, however, one must remember that religion may not be the only factor in persecution. In the case of the Hindu/Muslim conflict, much of the conflict lies in nationalistic animosity between Pakistanis and Indians. In the case of the Tibetan Buddhists vs. communist Chinese government, it is as much a conflict about self-government and independence versus centralized government as it is about religion. Therefore, deaths on either side may be the result of skirmishing as opposed to actual cases of direct religious persecution leading to martyrdom. Nevertheless, we do know that such persecution and martyrdom does take place. So what makes the Buddhist or Hindu martyr different from the Christian martyr? How does a Christian missionary to Indonesia who is martyred differ from the Tibetan monk who is martyred? This is a difficult question to answer, but it basically boils down to two things. First, what was the person who was martyred engaged in doing? What was his lifestyle and business, which caused him to be a target? Second, what was the martyr killed for? In the above-mentioned cases of Hindu and Buddhist martyrs, some are engaged in violent or revolutionary activities against another government and so are not true martyrs because they are killed as “enemy combatants.” But many people in this situation are innocent bystanders living in areas viewed as hostile to the government in question. They may be killed inadvertently (or deliberately) because of nationalistic reasons. These deaths would actually be war casualties or genocide, not martyrdom in the religious sense. Others are killed mainly for religious reasons, but without a direct threat to convert or die. These killings are still mostly nationalistic in intent, not true martyrdom. The killing of non-Christians simply because of their religious beliefs and their subsequent refusal to convert to another religion is rare (although not unheard of). The killing of Christians simply because of their belief and their refusal to deny Christ and convert to a different religion has been recorded countless times since the martyrdom of Stephen in Acts 7 (ca. AD 32–35) up to the present time. In fact, it has been said that more Christians are suffering martyrdom today than ever before—up to 100 thousand per year.2 Often there is additional persecution of Christian populations that leads to loss of property, forced displacement from their homeland, or even time in forced labor camps.3 According to David Barrett, the “persecution of Christians is more common in our generation than ever in history. The oft-quoted statistic is that more people died for their Christian faith in the last century than in all the other centuries of recorded history combined.”4 The Christian organization Voice of the Martyrs lists 52 countries that are currently persecuting Christians.5 This persecution includes verbal assault, property confiscation, physical assault, unlawful imprisonment, threats, torture, psychological intimidation, kidnappings, and murder. In Sudan alone it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of Christians have been martyred and up to 2 million forced to flee their homes, simply for refusing to renounce their Christian faith.6 The Romans, the Huns, the Goths, the Vikings, Muslims, Hindus, and other religious groups have perpetrated martyrdom of Christians since the time of the Apostles, mainly because of their Christian faith. The vast majority of these Christian martyrs were not revolutionaries or dissidents, but were ordinary citizens trying to live peaceably among their neighbors. According to principles laid down in Scripture, they paid their taxes, honored the king and governors, loved their neighbors, and gave no cause for offense (Romans 13:1–8; 1 Peter 2:13–17). How then can we account for this vitriol directed at Christianity in excess of other inter-faith conflicts? The answer lies in the exclusivity of the Christian faith and the means of salvation. True Christianity does not teach a multiplicity of ways to “come to God.” It does not teach that humans are basically good and just need a divine nudge to get on the right track. It does not teach that man can earn merit with God. True Christianity teaches what Jesus Christ taught, that He alone is “the Way, the Truth and the Life: no man comes to the Father, but by Me” (John 14:6). Christianity is intricately tied to the authority of the Bible, which details mankind’s separation from God due to sin, the remedy that God provided through the death and Resurrection of Christ, how God wants to be worshipped, and how we are to conduct ourselves as ambassadors for Christ. We read in Ephesians 2:1 that we are all dead in sins until Christ makes us alive, and in verses 8–9 Paul tells us that we are saved (from God’s judgment) by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ, not by our own good works or merit. Romans 3:10–18 teaches that we are not righteous in our natural state and that we do not seek after God, and then we read in 1 John 4:10 that God demonstrated His love for us by sending His Son to be the propitiation (substitutionary sacrifice) for our sins. Just as by one man (Adam) judgment came upon all men to condemnation, so by the righteousness of one man (Jesus Christ), the free gift of salvation comes (Romans 5:15–18) through faith, if they believe (Romans 3:22). Therefore, Christians preach a gospel that teaches that all men are sinners, that we all need a Savior, and that Jesus Christ took our sins upon Himself on the Cross to pay for our transgressions. We are told to repent of our sins, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make confession with our mouth (Acts 17:30–31; Romans 10:9–19). Christians understand that God has given us the insight to comprehend His Word. In our natural state we are at war with God and could never understand or please God (Romans 8:7–8). Consequently, we recognize that salvation is of the Lord (Psalm 3:8). It is this teaching, that we cannot in and of ourselves please or earn merit with God, nor can we work toward our own salvation, that makes Christianity different from all other religions. It is not by works of righteousness, which we have done, but according to His mercy that He saves us (Titus 3:5). People do not like to hear that they are sinners, and that they can never please God by their own works or righteousness (Galatians 2:16). Nor do sinners like to hear that God will one day judge every man according to his works (Revelation 20:11–15) and that those works will be deemed at best “filthy rags” in the sight of God (Isaiah 64:6). It is for this gospel that Christians are persecuted, some to the point of martyrdom, even today. Jesus Himself told us to expect persecution because they persecuted Him. Therefore others would persecute His followers (John 15:20). The Apostle Peter wrote that we are not to think it strange that we Christians should suffer persecution (1 Peter 4:12–13). And Paul told Timothy that “all who live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution” (2 Timothy 2:12). It is for this reason that the world hates us. As Jesus said in John 15:18–19, “If the world hates you, know that it hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. But because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.” The Apostle James wrote much about persecution, suffering, and endurance. He wrote that we are “to count it all joy when [we] fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of [our] faith produces patience. But let patience have its perfect work, that [we] may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing” (James 1:2–4). James understood that Christians would suffer persecution, but urged them to continue to spread the gospel, using the example of the Old Testament prophets’ proclamation of the Word of the Lord even in times when that message was reviled. Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, waiting patiently for it until it receives the early and latter rain. You also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand. Do not grumble against one another, brethren, lest you be condemned. Behold, the Judge is standing at the door! My brethren, take the prophets, who spoke in the name of the Lord, as an example of suffering and patience. Indeed we count them blessed who endure. You have heard of the perseverance of Job and seen the end intended by the Lord—that the Lord is very compassionate and merciful. (James 5:7–11) Christians in America have been blessed to live in a land that legislated religious freedom. Sadly, we are one of just a handful of countries that has such liberty. Most of our Christian brothers and sisters around the world suffer for their faith in one form or another, either at the hands of their government or at the hands of angry mobs bent on silencing their witness for Christ. We are enjoined by our Lord to “weep with those that weep” (Romans 12:15) for we know that we are all of one body in Christ (Romans 12:5). Therefore we should pray for our brothers and sisters in Christ, and also help provide for their needs (Romans 12:13). Thankfully, we serve a God who providentially works all things in our lives for our good. Nothing ever catches Him by surprise. He will then use even the most trying circumstances to make us more like His Son, Jesus Christ. And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. (Romans 8:28–29) Lastly, let’s look at the reaction of some Christian martyrs as they faced their own death. First, we should remember the words of our Lord as He hung on the Cross: “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). Next, we have recorded in Scripture the words of Stephen as he was being stoned to death: “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge” (Acts 7:60). We read of eyewitness testimony of Polycarp, a disciple of John. While being burned to death on a pyre he remarked, “I bless You that You have considered me worthy of this day and hour, to receive a part in the number of the martyrs in the cup of Your Christ . . . ”7 In each of these cases, and in many more examples, Christian martyrs did not rail against their persecutors, nor curse them. Rather, either they prayed for their persecutors, or they thanked God for allowing the Christian to be a witness unto death for Him. As we look to God’s revealed Word as our absolute authority and live lives that reflect its truths, we as Christians should be both salt and light. That light will stand out in a dark world (Matthew 5:14–16) and will expose the darkness of sin (Ephesians 5:11). It will also mark Christians as different from the rest of the world and make them targets for hatred, just as Christ was hated (John 15:18). As Christians striving to live godly lives, we are to expect persecution (2 Timothy 3:12), whether it be in the form of mockery, being called foolish and scientifically illiterate, having our rights impinged on or denied, or—as we see in many countries around the world—physical persecution and even martyrdom. But we can be exhorted with the words of Christ on this matter: "And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end shall be saved” (Mark 13:13) and the promise that Jesus will never leave us nor forsake us (Hebrews 13:5).” Source: https://answersingenesis.org/religious-freedom/christian-martyr-different-from-other-faiths/ Picture and quote below are courtesy of History Channel TV Series #Vikings S03E06 “You’re a brave man, Athelstan. I always respected you for that. You taught me so much. You saw yourself as weak and conflicted, but to me, you were fearless because you dared to question....” Ragnar Löðbrök #Vikings S03E06 #Athelstan #GeorgeBlagden #TravisFimmel Via @Vxlkyrix|IG
0 notes
Text
Refuting Mr. Plinkett
Part 2: The Prequel Reviews
In essence, refuting Mr. Plinkett amounts to nothing more than explaining the plots of films to people who are too dumb to understand them, or too stubborn to ever admit that your explanation makes sense. So, instead of a point for point rebuttal, what I’d like to do is a brief overview that focuses on how grossly Plinkett had to misrepresent the Prequels in order to do his reviews…
(Note: Some major criticisms, that would otherwise have been addressed in the following overview, have been omitted, because they have been, or will be, dealt with elsewhere.)
The Phantom Menace
Plinkett claims he could tell “something was really wrong” because the film opens with a “boring pilot” and a ship that looks like a doughnut … instead of an exciting pilot and a ship that looks like a slice of pie…
He points it out as a major flaw, and complains at great length, that the movie doesn’t provide all the details of the tax dispute and the blockade, despite the fact that it was merely a smoke screen for the Trade Federation to get into position to invade Naboo, and has virtually nothing to do with the plot. (Boy, when Plinkett first watched the original Star Wars, the lack of information about moisture farming must have driven him nuts!)
When the Neimoidians try to kill the Jedi with “dioxis” gas, Plinkett goes on this incredibly long, rambling thing that makes no sense, and has no discernable point…
“How does Qui-Gon know what kind of gas it is, before he smells it? Isn’t that, like, a contradiction?”
Like, no, it’s not. Some toxic gases are identifiable by both their color and distinctive odor (e.g. chlorine, fluorine, nitrogen dioxide). And Qui-Gon could have smelled the gas, without it doing him serious harm – it depends on the concentration and toxicity…
In the end, it seems that Plinkett just doesn’t believe that the Jedi could’ve known the droids were going to open the doors “in a very short time” – even though Jedi “can see things before they happen”.
He thinks the Neimoidians should have destroyed the Republic cruiser while it was in outer space (so the resulting debris would’ve been scattered in all directions, I guess…), instead of destroying it inside their own docking bay, because … it will allow them to dispose of all the evidence of their crime. (…uh … yeah … what fools…) And Plinkett apparently believes that the Neimoidians build their docking bays out of flammable and combustible materials. He doesn’t explain why.
Strangely, he thinks it would be in the bad guys’ interest to get word to the senate as soon as possible that they plan to invade Naboo, and maximize the chance that they’ll get busted before the Queen signs the treaty to make the invasion legal – in effect, foiling their own plan. I don’t follow his “logic”.
Plinkett claims that there’s no reason to Qui-Gon’s plan that he and Obi-Wan should stow aboard separate ships (as opposed to stowing aboard the same ship). Because, if they do, one of them could end up landing “hundreds if not thousands of miles” closer than the other to their intended destination … increasing the likelihood that at least one of them will be able to reach the Queen in time… And that’s bad … because … well … he doesn’t say.
Plinkett thinks it’s too late for the Jedi to try to warn the Naboo about the army, if they’re going down with the army… (If two guys with guns were coming to kill you, would you prefer an advance warning of one minute, or none at all? Just ask Hank Schrader.)
He doesn’t understand how Qui-Gon intended to get ahead of the invasion army, to warn the Naboo, without a transport. And he doesn’t understand why Qui-Gon would follow Jar Jar to a city, where he could acquire a transport. Plinkett apparently believes the two things are unrelated.
Plinkett has “analyzed” less than 15 minutes worth of plot, when he makes this absurd statement:
“The Star Wars saga is now damaged totally beyond repair. The lapses in common sense and logic begin to compound on the movie, and now it is broken. I could end this review here … but, I’m really just getting started…”
He says it like he’s ruefully declaring some kind of far-too-easily-won victory. The guy’s so deluded, he thinks all he has to do is scornfully offer a few of his inane half-baked “logical” criticisms, and we’ll all be convinced that he’s running intellectual circles around the movie, and all of us. How embarrassing.
The Neimoidians invade Naboo, place all the people in prison camps, and starve them. Yet, Plinkett somehow remains convinced that their plight is a consequence of the trade embargo. He brings it up repeatedly throughout his review:
“Did they not have the capacity to survive on such a lush planet, with a huge power reactor, for one day without space trade?”
What exactly does the lushness of their planet, or the size of their “reactor”, have to do with being denied food in a prison camp…?
“So, the Queen waits around for some kind of approval for something, to stop her people from dying. Why are they dying?”
They’re not. The Neimoidians used Sio Bibble to send a transmission to the Queen, in order to track her down, and they made him say that the people were dying, that “the death toll is catastrophic”.
In a following scene, Gunray says to Bibble...
Nute Gunray: Your queen is lost, your people are starving, and you, Governor, are going to die much sooner than your people, I’m afraid.
It’s amazing what you can learn, when you pay attention…
“So, you’re expecting me to believe that the people [who] built this technological wonder were dying without space supplies for two days?”
…groan…
Evidently, continually displaying that he has zero understanding of the children’s film he’s reviewing, which he had ten years to reflect on, was impressive to a lot of morons.
Plinkett’s ability to consistently miss the point is amazing, but what’s truly astounding is his talent for missing his own point: Essentially, he says that the Neimoidians were morons for not forcing Amidala to sign the treaty right away… And then, he says that they’re morons because Amidala might have signed the treaty right away … you know, because if she had, there’d be no need for a vote of no conf-- Well, I covered this stupid shit in Part 1.
The Jedi rescue the Queen, and they run the blockade – Plinkett thinks they shouldn’t have taken the risk, and just stayed on the planet … where it was safe…????????????
Despite the fact that he’s a fan of both Star Wars and Star Trek, Plinkett tries to convince the viewer that he’s baffled about how spaceship shields are supposed to work. (It’s really quite pathetic.)
R2 saves the ship – Plinkett says he didn’t… And don’t you dare believe what you can plainly see for yourself in the movie! Just take Plinkett’s word for it!
“They inexplicably send R2 up to the Queen to get a pat on the head, I guess. She thanks the little piece of equipment, like it’s a person.”
He claims that this was ridiculous, that the Original Trilogy characters, “even the kind-hearted Luke Skywalker”, didn’t care about droids or their feelings…
The Empire Strikes Back 0:16:50
Luke: Thanks, Threepio. (What?! He thanked a droid?!!)
Return of the Jedi 1:15:47
Luke: Thanks, Threepio. (What?! He thanked a droid … again?!!!)
Here are a few other examples, if you want to check ‘em out; A New Hope 0:28:25, 0:30:09, 0:32:20, 0:45:45, 1:24:50, 1:27:05, 1:43:45, 1:58:07. The Empire Strikes Back 0:42:15, 0:43:40, 1:26:45. Return of the Jedi 0:36:30, 1:43:00, 2:07:26.
Plinkett is absolutely baffled by the idea that the Queen’s decoy would be acting as the Queen’s decoy (Yeah!!! What’s that about?!), and that the Queen would want to keep her identity a secret (even from the Jedi – both as a need-to-know-basis type security measure, and so she’ll have more freedom of movement) for her own protection, while her enemies are trying to track her down and capture her … you know, in case someone comes after her … like Darth Maul, for example. But, naaahh – that would never happen. It’s just plain baffling.
“You’d think the real Queen would want to hang out in the throne room area, to stay current on any updates about what’s going on.”
Hey, yeah – I mean, with five handmaidens, how could she possibly receive updates, unless she’s in the throne room? And, of course, it’s critically important for her to receive these updates immediately … while she’s stranded on a desert planet, and can’t do shit about any of it anyway.
He hates Qui-Gon Jinn for various reasons that make no sense…
Plinkett pointlessly offers a number of alternative solutions to the heroes’ problem of being stranded on Tatooine. This is my favorite:
“Trade the Naboo cruiser for a less fancy, but functional ship”.
In the highly unlikely scenario that it were not seen as a potential threat to the Queen’s security to even attempt to trade the ship, and proceeding from the extremely dubious assumption that there were no other sensitive issues related to allowing it to pass into the hands of whomever, the ship still didn’t have a working hyperdrive generator – a part that was so expensive that Qui-Gon “might as well buy a new ship”. Do you think “fancy” had that much trade-in value on Tatooine…? Like people would line up to trade their means of getting off of the desert wasteland planet for a giant sand-dune-ornament. Right…
In reference to Anakin having built C-3PO:
“If you’re a little boy with a knack for building things … why would you build the exact same droid that seems to have been mass produced by a manufacturing plant somewhere? Wouldn’t you build some kind of unique robot from your own imagination?”
Plinkett apparently believes that eight-year-old Anakin was an engineer who designed C-3PO and fabricated him from the ground up, rather than acquired 3PO piece by piece, and simply assembled him, the way a kid would build a model airplane … ‘cause, you know … logic…
“Then George Lucas completely and utterly finally ruins Star Wars forever, by having Qui-Gon explain that the Force is microscopic organisms.”
Which, of course, is not even close to what Qui-Gon said. Midi-chlorians are not the Force. You know how they have blasters instead of guns, lightsabers instead of swords, speeders instead of cars, Tauntauns and Dewbacks instead of horses and camels…? Midi-chlorians are (sort of) the Star Wars equivalent of DNA – the Force-sensitive gene.
“This entire idea, and why this is in the movie, is so baffling to me that I cannot even wrap my mind around it.”
Oh – is that because you’re so intelligent and insightful?
“It was never even explored, or mentioned, in the following two films.”
Yes, it was. In Revenge of the Sith. You should pay more attention to the movies you review. Maybe, if you did, you wouldn’t be so baffled all the time, and you could wrap your mind…
“Everyone waits until they arrive at Naboo to start discussing how they have no plans at all, and no idea what they’re doing.”
Oh, everyone waits that long do they? Okay, time to test your knowledge of Special Relativity.
Question #1: How long does it take to travel five light-years at lightspeed?
Question #2: How long does it take to travel fifty light-years at lightspeed?
Question #3: How long does it take to travel five hundred light-years at lightspeed?
The answer to all three questions is the same: it takes no time at all – the trip is instantaneous. That is, it’s instantaneous from the traveler point of view. From an observer point of view, the trip takes five, fifty, and five hundred years, respectively. Meaning, traveling at lightspeed is effectively the same thing as time-traveling into the future…
Which leads me to the first of two genre conceits that modify the concept of speed-of-light travel in Star Wars: hyperspace. Traveling through hyperspace allows the characters to avoid the time distortion effect (i.e. they don’t time-travel into the future). The second conceit is that characters do experience the passage of time while traveling at lightspeed, through hyperspace. How much time is unclear. So, how long did they actually wait “to start discussing”...? We don’t know. It might have been five minutes.
As for the second part of Plinkett’s stupid and pointless criticism, that the characters are “discussing how they have no plans at all, and no idea what they’re doing” – that’s simply not what’s happening in the scene (and you don’t have to take my word for it): the Queen has just revealed to the Jedi, and Captain Panaka, that she intends to go to war with the Trade Federation. She has a plan, but she hasn’t yet told them what it is…
When Amidala reveals her plan:
“Why are we all listening to this fourteen-year-old girl…?”
Then, Plinkett demonstrates his prowess as a military strategist (or, is it tactician?) with a brilliant alternative suggestion for the final battle. He says they should focus on “taking out the droid control ship first”, and if that were successful, they could “skip the other two dangerous parts”. (Those other “parts” being; attempting to capture the Viceroy, and drawing the droid army away from the city, with the Gungan army.)
Yeah, sounds good. Let’s do it Plinkett’s way…
First, you’ve got to get the pilots to their fighters. Do you send them into the city alone? Remember, you didn’t do the “dangerous part” of drawing out the droid army, so opposition is much heavier this way. If you send the pilots alone, they almost certainly won’t even make it to their planes. So, you send soldiers to protect the pilots. Say that after the pilots take off, some of your soldiers are still alive: what do they do? Do they stay in the city and get captured or killed, or return and reveal the location of your camp to the enemy...?
Say the location of your camp somehow remains a secret (for the time being): how do the Viceroy and his droid army on surface react, once the space battle has begun…? …while you’re doing nothing, except sitting there, waiting to learn the outcome…?
And, what if the space battle is lost? (And it would have been...) What would your chances be then of succeeding at “the other two dangerous parts”? Do you send in the Gungan army, now? Of course, since the vulture droids have already shot down all your fighters, and killed all your pilots, there’s nothing to stop them from flying to the surface, and blasting the Gungan army into oblivion… What then? Do you think you’d have a very good chance of capturing the Viceroy? And, of course, that was the crucial thing – not the space battle…
No … on second thought, I think I’d rather listen to the fourteen-year-old girl.
“How about a bad guy in the movie whose motivation is clear?”
Palpatine was trying to gain political power. Darth Maul wanted to kill Jedi, for revenge. This was somehow unclear…?
Attack of the Clones
Plinkett criticizes the portrayal of Obi-Wan and Anakin’s relationship:
“So, then we’re given sixty seconds in an elevator to establish that Obi-Wan and Anakin are friends. And, please notice how this is … accomplished … by them recounting things that happened in the past, things we never see.”
What did Plinkett want? A flashback? They don’t really do those in Star Wars. (This was written prior to the release of The Last Jedi.) Or, should they just not allude to events of the past, ‘cause friends don’t do that in real life…?
Plinkett then compares this “sixty seconds in an elevator” (more like thirty seconds – but, who’s counting) to Luke and Han’s relationship over the course of the three films of the Original Trilogy:
“We see their friendship grow.”
Oh, now I understand … we don’t see Obi-Wan and Anakin’s friendship grow during those thirty seconds in the elevator. Point well made, sir!
Ignoring context and subtext, Plinkett cherry picks the bits that display friction and tension in Obi-Wan and Anakin’s relationship:
“And this is the height of their friendship?!”
No, they reach the height of their friendship in the first half of Sith … but there’s an abiding brotherly love between them throughout Clones, as well.
Plinkett starts in on the sequence that begins with an assassination attempt on Padme, leads to the speeder chase, and ends with Zam Wessel’s death:
“You know, I could spend ten hours talking about just how incredibly dumb this entire sequence is.”
Oh, good…
Plinkett’s criticisms of the sequence all make perfect sense, provided; that you ignore, or forget, or refrain from thinking about Padme’s line, “I don’t need more security”, and Anakin describing the assignment to protect her as “overkill” … that you assume the surveillance cameras in Padme’s bedroom were the only cameras anywhere on Coruscant … that you disregard the distinct possibility that in their attempt to assassinate Padme, Jango and Zam might have had the additional motivation to not get caught … that you accept Plinkett’s assertion that he knows more about droids in Star Wars galaxy than Obi-Wan Kenobi does … that you forget that Obi-Wan is a Jedi, and what his abilities allow him to do … that you refrain from thinking about how Zam Wessel’s shapeshifting ability actually works … that you disregard what character motivations actually make sense in context … and that you ignore pretty much everything that basic common sense would tell you. So, it shouldn’t be too hard for Plinkett fans.
“This movie operates under the logic that assassinations only take place at night.”
Right. Except for the one other assassination attempt, which took place during the day, and was basically the first thing that happened in the movie.
Loaded question:
“What makes ‘em so sure that the assassin’s gonna try and kill her tonight?”
Nothing. What makes you so sure that they’re so sure? Because if they weren’t, they’d ignore their assignment from the Jedi council, shirk their duties, and go barhopping?
Anakin: She covered the cameras. I don’t think she liked me watching her.
“She turns off any kind of camera surveillance … at the very least, aim the cameras at the windows … You see, surveillance cameras are only really useful for some kind of slow attack, that you could run in and stop. They won’t do any good if someone, like, launched a missile at the building…”
According to Plinkett, Padme didn’t cover the cameras that were in her bedroom – she turned off “any kind of camera surveillance”. He seems to think that her extraneous security, in the persons of Obi-Wan and Anakin, are the only ones responsible for her safety, and that the security cameras in her bedroom must have been the only security measures in place. Makes me wonder what Plinkett thinks the Naboo security officers, and Captain Typho, do to earn their paychecks…
He suggests that Zam could’ve used the assassin droid as bait, and that after the Jedi were gone, just floated her speeder up to the window and shot Padme. Right. Because after Obi-Wan jumped out the window, and Anakin went after him, Typho, his security officers, and Dorme promptly left the room, and Padme just went right back to sleep. Yeah, that’s probably what happened. Makes sense.
When Zam’s shapeshifting ability is revealed, Plinkett describes it as:
“The most advantageous attribute that an assassin could possibly have”.
Could be…
“This also leads me to wonder why someone who could disguise their face, by changing it, would need to wear a disguise.”
Keep that in mind…
In the nightclub:
“The assassin does something out-of-character: he attempts to kill one of the Jedi. This guy’s mission was to kill Padme. If he’s in a position to where he could sneak up on a Jedi, then why isn’t he using this opportunity to escape? Especially when he’s not sure where the other Jedi is. These are, like, amateur mistakes.”
Funny, I didn’t see Zam attempt to kill Obi-Wan. This scene is shot and edited in such a way as to mislead the audience: It looks as though Zam spots Obi-Wan at the bar, then turns and stalks Anakin. But, it’s revealed that she was watching Anakin heading away from her, and then she approached Obi-Wan from behind with her gun drawn. So, what was her motivation? Plinkett thinks she intended to shoot Obi-Wan in the back, in front of dozens of witnesses…
Zam’s chameleonic ability is that she can take someone else’s form by making physical contact with them, and then she assumes their identity. This isn’t explained in the film, but Plinkett’s interpretation makes no sense given what we do know. That is, if Zam were capable of morphing into anyone or anything at any time, why would she not have changed her appearance once she entered the club, so the Jedi wouldn’t recognize her…? And remember, her motivations are to assassinate Padme, and to not get caught…
Do you see what I’m getting at…?
She sticks her gun in Obi-Wan’s back, marches him to someplace with no witnesses, murders him, assumes his identity, goes back to Padme’s apartment with Anakin, waits for the right moment … and kills Padme. Make more sense? Yes, it’s “just my interpretation”, but it’s based on what’s conveyed in the film. Plinkett’s interpretation is based on nothing more than the thoughtless and arrogant assumption that he understands the Prequels better than George Lucas, who devoted a decade of his life to making them…
“The audience is expected to accept too many things we are and are not told … [about] intergalactic space politics, and the Jedi.”
“If the Galactic Republic is made up of a thousand worlds, then why can’t they scrounge up a volunteer army…?”
No one said they couldn’t. They would hardly be voting on whether or not to do a thing that they’re not capable of doing. Hey, Plinkett – maybe now would be a good time to say “common sense”.
“What is this prophecy about? What does it say? Who wrote it? When? What does bringing balance to the Force mean exactly?”
It’s about the chosen one bringing balance to the Force. It says that the chosen one will bring balance to the Force. We don’t know who wrote it. (Why? Do you think you might know the guy?) We don’t know when it was written. (Are you skeptical about a certain period of ancient Jedi prophecy?) It means destroying the Sith.
“So, when they find out that you got a high midi-chlorian count in your bloodstream, I guess your parents give you to the Jedi as a baby to be trained in this creepy cult-like environment and you lose all your free will … See, none of those kids made a personal commitment to follow this rigid lifestyle. You can’t make those kind of decisions when you’re two.”
Those poor kids. Being taught how to use the Force, and build a lightsaber, by wise, compassionate Jedi must have been just awful for them. They didn’t get to choose their lifestyle at two-years-old, like the rest of us did. And once the Jedi Order has you, they won’t allow you to leave. Unless you’re Count Dooku. Or, Ahsoka Tano. Or, any other Jedi who wants to leave the Order. What a nightmare!
Plinkett says that romance is forbidden to Padme:
“For no reason, she’s not allowed to love, either.”
I don’t have any idea what he’s talking about, and neither does he.
He claims that Anakin and Padme have no reason to love each other, except they’re good looking. I would argue that their love is based on the bond they formed years earlier, when Anakin was just a child, but … who’d buy that in a movie romance?
Tristan and Isabel Two (Legends of the Fall)
William Wallace and Murron (Braveheart)
Sayuri and The Chairman (Memoirs of a Geisha)
Forrest and Jenny (Forrest Gump)
Plinkett claims it’s obvious that “Palpatine’s behind it all!” This is something he brings up again in his Revenge of the Sith review – that everyone’s stupid for not realizing that Palpatine is secretly a Sith Lord who’s manipulating galactic events…
“So, Obi-Wan finds the planet where the dart came from, and it belongs to a bounty hunter named Boba Fett who’s hanging out there.”
(He meant to say, “Jango Fett”. And he meant that the dart belongs to Jango.)
“He’s the guy who’s trying to kill Pad-a-me. Pad-a-me is the chief senator opposed to the military creation act. Drawing any connections yet?”
Do you mean any connections to Palpatine? No. Because there is no connection to Palpatine. Ostensibly, Palpatine is not in favor of the military creation act.
“Then Obi-Wan sees all the clones, and discovers that the order to make them was placed under suspicious circumstances. This was like ten years ago, and the exact same time that Palpatine was elected Chancellor. Palpatine’s behind it all!”
So, the order was placed at the same time Palpatine was elected… I would say that this is just circumstantial evidence … but, it’s not. It’s just circumstantial. It’s not evidence of any kind…
If you found out that some Australian scientists were making an army of Maori warrior clones, somewhere on the other side of the planet, and that they started the project in November of 2008 … you would assume that Barack Obama was responsible, because he was elected President of the United States at approximately the same time? By that reasoning, Obama could be held personally responsible for anything (and everything) that happened anywhere (and everywhere) in the world on the day of his election. That makes sense to you? Quick, Plinkett – say “logic”!
“So, Obi-Wan sends ‘em a message, and tells ‘em about the clones. But, Mace Idiot still thinks they’re looking for Pad-a-me’s assassin.”
Uh … they are still looking for Padme’s assassin.
“If you think that a Sith is pulling strings in the senate, just order blood tests done on everyone.”
Well, shit. That’s simple. Where were you when they needed you?
“George Lucas ruins the lightsaber, and the Force, all in one scene.”
In reference to the lightsaber duel between Yoda and Dooku, Plinkett makes a few points;
1. Lightsabers are overused in the Prequels. 2. The lightsaber is an impractical weapon for certain Jedi, including Yoda. 3. Some verbose, awkwardly expressed, nearly incomprehensible thing about how Yoda fighting with a lightsaber ruins the concept of the Force.
“Like anything that’s cool, if it’s used too much, it becomes boring.”
1. That depends on how it’s used. Every Star Wars saga film (unless you count the Sequel Trilogy) features at least one lightsaber duel that ends in death and/or dismemberment. It keeps the threat alive. It’s not using lightsabers sparingly that makes them exciting. If, in future films, opponents clash swords for a while, then say, “We’ll meet again!” and everyone walks away unscathed – that’s how lightsabers will become boring.
2. They come in all shapes and sizes in Star Wars. Some characters are very tall, some are very short. Suppose Obi-Wan were to be attacked by a twelve foot tall Sith Lord, with a seven foot lightsaber… Should he not use his lightsaber to defend himself … or, should he modify the way he fights...? And a duel is a relatively rare occurrence: a sword is impractical against ranged attacks as well (knife to a gunfight?), but the Jedi compensate with skill, and by the way they use their weapons. The point is that Plinkett’s notion that a lightsaber is impractical only for certain Jedi is moronic - the Jedi don’t use lightsabers because they’re practical, they use them because they’re traditional.
“Yoda has a handicap, based on his physical limitations, when his character should be above that sort of thing.”
3. Believe it or not, to a certain degree, I sympathize with this. Yoda’s duel with Dooku confronts us with a kind of idea that we don’t like to be confronted with… Just as we would prefer not to think that the ones we love are vulnerable to the very same physical phenomena that destroy all “lower” life-forms, we would prefer not to think that the green, pointy-eared, transcendent character who is the living embodiment of centuries of wisdom could also be punted like a football. It’s undignified to the point of seeming an injustice that nature would permit it.
There was a kind of majesty in Yoda’s power and placidity as he was portrayed in the Original Trilogy … and seeing him frantically leap around to defend himself from Dooku’s saber attacks seemingly undermined that. It did, at first, seem somehow beneath him. (But then, when I heard that Yoda was going to duel the Emperor in Episode III, I had a total nerdgasm.)
If Plinkett had simply said, “I didn’t care for Yoda’s duel with Dooku, and I would prefer that they didn’t show Yoda fight with a lightsaber,” and left it at that, I wouldn’t have had any problem with it. (Once upon a time, I might’ve even agreed with him.) But, of course, Plinkett can’t just leave it at that. He has to bring it to the place of George Lucas ruined Star Wars…
Plinkett objects to the idea of Yoda facing an enemy who can nullify his command of the Force, by being equally powerful, and put him in the position of having to defend himself with physical strength and agility:
“If you can match your opponent’s skills with the Force, you then better also be physically strong, too. And this goes against everything that the Force is about … By making Yoda a little guy, they were illustrating that the Force is something beyond the physical. But, by showing Yoda fight with a lightsaber, it ruins all that, because it takes that concept and those rules and throws it in the dumpster.”
Notice how Plinkett expresses his objection as though “Yoda” and “the Force” are interchangeable (i.e. if the Force is “beyond the physical”, Yoda is as well, therefore putting him in physical jeopardy contradicts the concept of the Force and breaks the rules). It’s as if he thinks that Yoda facing an enemy who is equally strong in the Force negates the idea that Yoda is strong in the Force – which it doesn’t. He’s confusing an idea conveyed via the character with the character – it’s the notion that Yoda is not limited by his physicality, in the Force, being extended to the physical itself, and made absolute. The only way Plinkett’s “concept and those rules” could be preserved would be if Yoda were all-powerful. This is not a rational criticism – it’s an ought-is fallacy:
No one should punt Yoda like a football, therefore no one can punt Yoda like a football.
But, Yoda is not the Force. He’s not all-powerful, or “beyond the physical”, or invincible, or invulnerable. He never was. My point is that Plinkett’s criticism is implicitly self-contradictory. That is, if Yoda were not limited by his physicality in the physical, his not being limited by his physicality in the Force wouldn’t mean anything. And it is this very meaning that Plinkett claims to value…
“Nothing much happens at all, except … they get the clones, I guess. It’s a colorful mish-mash of stuff that happens that bridges the gap between Episode I and Episode III.”
…
How insightful!
Revenge of the Sith
“So the very first thing we gotta sit through is a pointless and unexciting sequence where Anakin and Obi-Wan fight off robot things on their ships, only to eventually make it to where they were going to get to anyways.”
If action sequences are pointless because the characters in them “eventually make it to where they were going to get to anyways,” wouldn’t that make every action sequence, in every movie, pointless…?
Plinkett gives two examples of what he calls “backtracking” (like retconning) in the opening space battle scene; 1. Anakin was a great pilot, and 2. Anakin’s a “good guy” (for wanting to help a clone trooper pilot). But, what Plinkett calls “backtracking” I call establishing, or re-establishing, something that’s extremely common in television series and film franchises, including the Original Trilogy of Star Wars (e.g. nearly everything that happens in the first twenty minutes of The Empire Strikes Back).
He then misrepresents the previous films in his attempt to convince you that he’s making some kind of legitimate point, hoping you’ll forget, or disregard, that; 1. Anakin’s piloting skills were initially established in the Phantom Menace podrace, and 2. Whether they ever regarded the clone troopers as “disposable people”, in the two years of fighting side by side, the Jedi came to think of them as brothers-in-arms – which is further established by Obi-Wan’s interaction with Commander Cody…
In reference to the sequence involving the rescue of Chancellor Palpatine, the defeat of Dooku, and the confrontation with General Grievous, Plinkett asks approximately two dozen rhetorical questions in a row, to demonstrate how confusing it all is, and that it makes no sense. Nearly every question he asks is predicated on whichever counterintuitive presupposition is required as a condition for his (feigned?) confusion. That is, Plinkett only succeeds in demonstrating that he doesn’t understand things that, while not explicit, are, nevertheless, obvious. For example, that Sidious’s fellow conspirators (Dooku, Grievous, et al.) know only as much about his plan as Sidious wants them to know, and that they are being manipulated by him…
And Plinkett clearly seems to think that Palpatine’s plan can only make sense if it’s absolutely guaranteed to be successful. It’s like he’s never heard of a calculated risk…
“What if Dooku just happened to spill the beans about Palpatine being Sidious, when he realized he was betrayed?”
It would have been like asking someone to believe that Winston Churchill was in cahoots with Adolf Hitler. No one would believe it in a million years. Anakin would have seen it as Dooku making a pathetic, desperate attempt to save his own life – which is, essentially, what it would have been.
“What if Anakin didn’t kill Dooku after Palpatine said to kill him?”
Depending on where he was exactly, when the ship went down, Dooku would’ve died, or he would’ve become a prisoner of war … and then died, probably…
When Grievous bows to the hologram of Sidious, on Utapau, Plinkett says,
“Oh! Grievous doesn’t know…?!”
as if it’s some sort of stunning revelation. Three years before this film was released, in Attack of the Clones, it was established that the Sith Lords, Sidious and Tyranus, had created the Separatist movement, commissioned the clone army, and started the Clone War, which they had been planning for years, while their public personas, Palpatine and Dooku, were the leaders of the opposing sides – that they were manipulating the entire galaxy. So, why the fuck would Grievous know that Sidious was Palpatine…?
“Did Sidious tell [Grievous] to capture Palpatine so that he could lure the Jedis on board only to kill Dooku?”
Grievous: But, the loss of Count Dooku…
“Wait – I guess not.”
As if killing Dooku could not have been Palpatine’s plan, unless Grievous was in on it. Bitch, please.
Palpatine: Get help. You’re no match for him. He’s a Sith Lord.
“Obi-Wan then turns, and says something incredibly stupid:”
Obi-Wan: Chancellor Palpatine, Sith Lords are our specialty.
Why exactly was that an “incredibly stupid” thing to say…? Because Obi-Wan was the first Jedi in a thousand years to defeat a Sith Lord…?
...or, because two minutes after he said it, Anakin became the second?
“His real response should have been, ‘Wait – Get help from where? From who? Who on this ship could help us?’”
Evidently, Plinkett thinks it’s unreasonable of Palpatine, Supreme Chancellor of the Republic, to consider that the two Jedi who came to rescue him might have brought some clone troopers with them…
“Then, after Dooku’s dead, there’s a sudden urgency to get off the ship, when before there was no urgency at all.”
Actually, before Dooku was dead, there was a lightsaber duel happening. And before the duel, Anakin and Obi-Wan sensed “Count Dooku” and “a trap”, respectively. They mentioned that in the hangar … remember? They were anticipating the confrontation. You get it? So, what’s the criticism…? The lightsaber duel had no sense of urgency? And, wait – don’t tell me – it also lacked humanity and emotion, right?
Based on Palpatine’s urging Anakin to leave Obi-Wan behind…
Palpatine: Leave him, or we’ll never make it!
Plinkett believes Anakin should have concluded that Palpatine was a Sith Lord. I guess it’s extremely suspicious that Palpatine wouldn’t want his only protector, on board an enemy ship, in the middle of a giant space battle, to be hampered by carrying an unconscious man on his back…
It wouldn’t be perceived by Anakin as Palpatine being panicky, or fearful for his own safety … no, he’s a Sith Lord – it’s the only reasonable explanation. I know that whenever I see someone acting in a cowardly fashion, I always assume they must be an evil mastermind who’s manipulating the entire universe...
“The terrible result of the limited script focus is the lost opportunities of all the other elements at play. Basically, the point of all three films is just to get Anakin into the Darth Vader suit… The ironic part is at the center of all this is the largest galactic war ever…”
So, here Plinkett complains that he doesn’t get to see Clone War adventure that’s not strictly relevant to Anakin’s fall to the dark side… Does he mean something like that space battle, at the beginning, that he said was “pointless and unexciting”? Or, does he mean…
“Obi-Wan goes off on a mission by himself that’s pointless to the ultimate conclusion of the story. This is what they call filler.”
Oh. So, now he doesn’t want to see anything that’s even slightly tangential to “the ultimate conclusion of the story”. ‘Cause it’s “filler”. But, if it hadn’t been in the movie, would he have called it a “lost opportunity”?
“So, again in this film we’re told about those wacky fun adventures that Anakin and Obi-Wan have that we don’t get to see.”
Contradict yourself much? Plinkett’s complaining about not getting to see “those wacky fun adventures” that he calls “filler”, and that he clearly wouldn’t bother to watch if they made a whole TV series about it. Which they did.
Plinkett claims that the fact that Coruscant was visibly unaffected by the Clone Wars makes “the sacrifice and risk of the rebellion utterly pointless”. (Imagine how disappointed he’s going to be when he sees the Sequel Trilogy.) For some reason I can’t fathom, he thinks that of the billions and billions of people, living on tens of thousands of worlds, only those who live on Coruscant matter.
“Instead of waiting three minutes for the clone troopers to arrive, and using his surprise advantage to kill Grievous and end the war, [Obi-Wan] foolishly jumps into the middle of a bunch of bad robots, to apparently challenge Grievous to a duel, or something. All them robots could’ve just started shooting him to death!”
Here’s my interpretation: Obi-Wan knew that Grievous fancied himself a match for a Jedi, and that he would want to defeat Obi-Wan in single combat. That’s how he knew “all them robots” wouldn’t start shooting him to death. (Plus, he’s got that Jedi ability to look into the future…) And by drawing the droids’ attention to the duel, Obi-Wan provided the clone troopers with a surprise advantage against “all them robots”.
My interpretation is based on what we know about Grievous, Obi-Wan, the Jedi and the Force, and how events play out, from watching the film. Here’s what Plinkett’s interpretation is based on:
“Obi-Wan Kenobi is a stupid asshole idiot head.”
Plinkett keeps insisting that killing Grievous will end the war.
“Remember, killing this guy will end the war!”
This is, of course, based on Palpatine’s line to Mace Windu that the senate will vote to continue the war as long as Grievous is alive. Palpatine’s motivation was to get the Jedi to eliminate Grievous for him, but … Plinkett doesn’t really get subtext. And, no, the war will continue if Grievous is alive does not mean the same thing as the war will end if Grievous is dead.
“When Obi-Wan finally kills Grievous, Palpatine then springs his trap to have all the clone troopers kill the Jedis, and then he blames the Jedis for trying to take over. Why didn’t he just do that before?!”
You mean before he had converted Anakin (the fatherless boy Palpatine himself had created with evil magic for the sole purpose of making him his apprentice) to the dark side? Or, do you mean before he had become the beloved leader who had seen the Republic through the darkest times, been voted all his emergency powers, eliminated Dooku, set up the Separatist leaders to be slaughtered, and had the individual Jedi Masters all spread out on different worlds, each surrounded by clone troopers? Gee, I don’t know. I can’t think of a single reason. It doesn’t seem like timing was a factor at all…
“So, what motivation, now that the war is over, would the Jedis have to try and take over?”
Much like Palpatine, the Jedi were about to lose their own emergency powers: the Jedi had become military leaders because of the Clone War.
Palpatine: All who gain power are afraid to lose it.
Could it have been any more clearly spelled out?
“And, it’s really apparent by his actions that Palpatine is the one who’s trying to take over. I mean, he is trying to be the Supreme Chancellor forever.”
It’s really apparent to the movie audience. As far as the characters are concerned, Palpatine never sought power – he’s had all his power thrust upon him – from his nomination and election to his emergency powers and extended term of office…
“The opportunities to stop Palpatine’s plan and prevent Anakin from becoming evil were so numerous and obvious that they could be put in a giant list. Let’s do that, shall we;”
“1. Tell Palpatine that his term is up. If he changed the law, argue to make a new law to change it back. Then ask him to state his reasons why it shouldn’t be changed back. Ask him to explain why he in particular is so qualified to conduct a war.”
Okay … so, I guess the Jedi are now lobbyists, or legislators … who are attempting a coup that would, most bizarrely, take the form of an impromptu debate / job interview / competency hearing … thing… Honestly, if you’re not just laughing (or weeping) at the idiocy…
“2. Use the process against him. Have Jimmy Smits call for a vote of no confidence in Palpatine, if Step 1 doesn’t work.”
If Step 1 doesn’t work … ???????????? Call for a vote of no confidence on what basis? Vague suspicion? And Palpatine is going to be voted out by the same senators who applaud when he declares himself Emperor…? Right.
“3. Find out facts about the Clone Army. Look into where the clones came from a little more thoroughly than not at all.”
They did, in the Clone Wars series.
“4. Look into his heart. If you suspect Palpatine is up to no good, try to sense his emotions. If he’s able to block you, he just might know the ways of the Force, specifically the dark side.”
The Jedi sense his emotions, and discover that he’s feeling stressed out… And…? Seriously, what difference would it make how Palpatine was feeling, if you don’t know what those feelings are about. As far as I’m aware, the Jedi can’t read minds.
“5. Midi-chlorian count. Check his midi-chlorian count. Get some blood from his stool.”
Sure, just get some of his blood. ‘Cause that wouldn’t be impossible…
The Jedi suspected that Palpatine was “up to no good”, not that he was a Sith Lord. And even if they had suspected he was a Sith Lord, and they were somehow able to confirm that he had a high midi-chlorian count – it would be useless circumstantial evidence. What would be the point…?
“6. Physically confront Palpatine. Instead of confronting Palpatine inside his private cramped office hallway, wait until he’s in public to arrest him. Eventually, he’ll try to escape, or attack you, and then he’ll be exposed in front of everyone. If he doesn’t, then you can actually arrest him like planned, and elect a new leader in his place.”
Mace: He has control of the senate, and the courts! He’s too dangerous to be left alive!
Arresting Palpatine in public would very, very likely have backfired. And waiting to arrest him most certainly would have.
“7. Use blatantly obvious evidence to your advantage. Before confronting Palpatine with a lightsaber, again in private with no witnesses, show the damning security tape footage to the senate, which is actually in session at the time you find it. Or, take it to someplace and broadcast it over the news.”
You mean the “damning security tape footage” that, by itself, does nothing but corroborate Palpatine’s story? And I’m sure the local news would be only too eager to run some footage brought to them by public enemy #1.
“8. Team up together and murder him! Instead of splitting up, Obi-Wan and Yoda should have first attacked Palpatine, and then went and killed Anakin.”
Why do you think no one came to Palpatine’s aid when Yoda showed up in his office…?
Palpatine: I have waited a long time for this moment, my little green friend.
If both Yoda and Obi-Wan had shown up, and Palpatine had thought there was a chance he would lose, I think it’s very likely the clone troopers from the Jedi temple massacre would’ve popped over for a visit. Also, think about how Yoda exited the senate building…
Wouldn’t have worked for Obi-Wan, would it?
Plinkett offers an alternative to the Jedi Council assigning Anakin to spy on Palpatine:
“Why don’t you spy on him by watching the security holograms that records what’s going on in his office?”
This suggestion accompanies a clip of Obi-Wan watching a security recording from the Jedi temple. (Pssst. Hey, Plinkett – Palpatine’s office is not in the Jedi temple. Sorry…)
Plinkett claims that Anakin is dumb for not knowing that Palpatine is a Sith, simply because Palpatine knows about the Sith. In reference to the scene in which Palpatine tells the story of Darth Plagueis:
“It’s like being in a casual conversation with someone that you’ve known, and then they start talking about how they’re currently reading Mein Kampf.”
Actually, it’s a lot more like being in a conversation that’s not casual at all, and he references Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. And it’s even more like Palpatine just received a liberal education (whereas Anakin did not). It makes sense that, during the Empire’s reign, information about the Jedi and the Force would’ve been suppressed (Luke had never heard of the Force, and Han didn’t believe in it). But, in the days of the Old Republic…? The existence of the Sith would hardly have been esoteric knowledge, considering that they used to rule the galaxy.
Plinkett says that Palpatine “seems to despise the Jedi, and keeps talking about the advantages of being a Sith Lord”. Consider what’s actually happening in the scene: Palpatine is talking about the Jedi plotting against him – to the Jedi who the Council just sent to commit treason by spying on him. From Anakin’s point of view, what Palpatine was doing was disparaging the Jedi by likening them to the Sith – and not without reason, as far as either one of them were concerned. On the surface, the Plagueis story was simply meant to illustrate Palpatine’s point about the Jedi’s fear of losing their power. The “advantages of being a Sith Lord” was something that Anakin just happened to pick up on…
When Anakin becomes Darth Vader:
“Dumbass agrees to just go off and kill everyone to neatly tie everything up, even though to him none of it would actually make sense.”
Why not? Obi-Wan put 2 and 2 together:
Obi-Wan: The Chancellor is behind everything, including the war.
Plinkett on Anakin’s motivation in the climactic lightsaber duel:
“Anakin is mad at Obi-Wan, ‘cause Obi-Wan’s a meanie-head.”
Wow. What an incisive observation…
“This entire sequence is the film version of compensating for lack of a story and ability to connect with the audience on an emotional level … There are two types of people in this world; people that understand what I’m saying, and people that like the Star Wars prequels.”
Wow. What an arrogant jackass.
Plinkett complains about Vader’s “overblown importance” in the Prequels, that in the OT...
“He was not Space Jesus”.
Of course, the one and only thing that’s referred to as turning Vader into a Christ-figure is the “virgin birth”. (Slightly off the subject, but – who ever said Shmi was a virgin? Maybe she just did the math, and realized she couldn’t have been pregnant for 18 months…) Personally, I think it works well for the story, and makes sense in that Star Wars has always been a synthesis of mythological archetypes. And, of course, the symbol of the virgin birth is not exclusive to, nor did it originate with, the story of Christ:
“The virgin birth comes into Christianity by way of the Greek tradition. When you read the four gospels, for example, the only one in which the virgin birth appears is the Gospel According to Luke, and Luke was a Greek.” - Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth
“[Darth Vader] was way overemphasized in these films … for no reason other than he’s Darth Vader, and that he’s famous to us … Lucas allowed the outside world to seep into the storyline, when it really shouldn’t have … But, if you look back at it from a story perspective, in A New Hope, he was just a weirdo in a suit – he was a part of a bigger story … he just seemed like one of the bad guys that carried out the business of the Empire … Vader was just some kind of asshole in a robot suit…”
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…
Stoklasa is looking at this “problem” from exactly the wrong angle. Whatever Vader seemed to be in A New Hope is irrelevant. What matters is what Vader became by the end of Return of the Jedi. And with all of Stoklasa’s referencing “Screenwriting 101” in relation to the Prequels, you’d think he might have done so here. That is, the beginning and ending of a story are connected in that they are the opposite ends of the story’s “spine” – the one thing that the story is all about. Beginnings foreshadow endings. And so, in the case of the Star Wars saga, the beginning is determined by the ending. Because, in a story’s end, in its climactic action, the ultimate meaning of the story is expressed…
The climax of the Star Wars saga is Darth Vader’s redemption. Vader and Luke resolve their internal conflicts, one right after the other (Luke rejects the dark side and Vader turns back to the light), Vader kills the Emperor, at the cost of his own life, effectively destroying the Sith… The Prequels were the set-up for this payoff. That is, the Prequel Trilogy was primarily about Anakin Skywalker’s fall to the dark side, not because “Lucas allowed the outside world to seep into the storyline”, but because that’s what the story needed to be about – what it was already about.
It’s called “basic story structure”.
How’s that for “Screenwriting 101”, asshole?
“How Vader became Vader is not as interesting as his redemption. How he became Vader really didn’t matter.”
Well … that’s an opinion. So, what exactly makes this fucktard, who simply didn’t care about (or understand) the story being told, suited to judge the value of that story…?
Of course, there are a godzillian more criticisms I could refute, but I think I’ve pretty effectively demonstrated that Plinkett’s reviews are pure bullshit. How about you? What do you think of Plinkett’s reviews, now? Let’s be masochistic and check the comments section:
“It’s by far the greatest film essay ever made. And hilarious too.”
“One of the best ‘documentary’ movies ever made and should have won awards.”
“The amazing thing about it is that it’s so astute. Like when he asks his friends to describe any character from The Phantom Menace without describing their physical appearance or costume, and they can’t.”
Oh, that.
Impressed by that, were you? Okay, here we go…
“The biggest and most glaring problem with The Phantom Menace is the characters. This is, like, the most obvious part of moviemaking, but I guess I gotta explain it when talking about this turd. Let’s start at Moviemaking 101, shall we?”
Plinkett helpfully, or condescendingly, explains to us what a protagonist is:
“The protagonist is someone that’s down on their luck, in a bad place in their lives, or someone where everything just doesn’t always go perfectly for them. Eventually, they’ll be confronted with some kind of obstacle or struggle that they’ve got to deal with … eventually, our [protagonist] will find themselves in the lowest point, where it seems like all is lost. But, eventually they’ll pull through, and conquer whatever force opposes them. It’s satisfying when our hero gets ahead from where they started off at. They make, like, a change. This is called an arc.”
Plinkett simply ignores the fact that his description of a protagonist fits multiple Prequel characters like a glove, and then, poses a question: Who’s the main character? One by one, he rules them all out for brief, reductive, glossed over, stupid reasons, and concludes:
“There isn’t one.”
This is Plinkett’s first major criticism of the characters in The Phantom Menace: there isn’t a protagonist among them, and there isn’t a “main character”.
But, what Plinkett offered as a definition of “protagonist” is rather a description of how a protagonist would typically be presented in a movie. That is, a protagonist may or may not be down on his luck, may or may not be sympathetic, and may or may not “pull through, and conquer whatever force opposes them.” A protagonist may experience internal conflict, leading to character growth, creating an arc – but not necessarily. All that’s really required to be a protagonist is that the character has an outer motivation; a desire, or a goal. And a story may contain multiple protagonists. “It is known”. ( …that was a Game of Thrones reference… )
Technically, the “main character” is the character whose outer motivation is the spine of the story. (i.e. The main conflict centers around this character’s goal.) In The Phantom Menace, that character is Queen Amidala. As Lucas stated, in the Episode I commentary, it’s the Queen’s story, told from the point of view of the Jedi.
By the way, this is the reason Plinkett gives that Queen Amidala can’t be the main character of Episode I:
“‘Cause she was some foreign queen”.
Seriously. That’s it. And you don’t have to take my word for it…
Of course, Plinkett’s intention here is to give the impression that Lucas is such a dolt, such a complete hack, that he oops, forgot to include a protagonist. But, it’s absurd. You can’t have a story without a protagonist. It doesn’t make any sense.
Plinkett’s second, or other, major criticism is that the characters are weak. To demonstrate his point, he asks four or five people (friends?), to describe a couple characters from the Original Trilogy, and a couple from The Phantom Menace, without referencing their appearance or their vocation/“role”. When asked to describe Han Solo, Plinkett’s little panel of experts comes up with “roguish” and “dashing” and “charming”, etc. C-3PO: “prissy” and “bumbling” and “comic-relief”. But, when they’re asked to describe the characters from The Phantom Menace, we briefly see them each struggle and stammer… Qui-Gon Jinn: a couple of people mention that he has a beard… Queen Amidala: one man immediately throws in the towel, and claims that describing her is “impossible” because “she doesn’t have a character”.
Do you see the little flaw with Plinkett’s method?
“The more descriptive they could get, the stronger the character.”
This is a fallacy: Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence. It’s the these-characters-are-weak-because-my-friends-are-inarticulate “argument”. That is, if I ask you to describe a person or a thing, and you are unable to do so, it could mean that the person or thing is non-descript. But, it could also simply mean that you are dumb. So, which is it…?
It’s been pointed out many times, by many people, that the characters of the Original Trilogy are not complex and nuanced so much as they are types, or, put another way (with a slightly negative slant), clichéd. Consider Plinkett’s own description of the OT characters:
“…the classic hero on a journey, the adventurous rogue, a damsel in distress, the wise old sage…”
Does it get any more cliché than that?
Clichés, of course, by virtue of being clichés, come quite readily to mind. You don’t really have to think too hard about them. That is, describing characters that are archetypal is possibly the easiest thing in the world to do…
And are “strong” characters, and characters that can be easily and neatly summed up in a few words, really the same thing…?
In addition, the principal characters of the Original Trilogy are quite in-your-face (and in each other’s faces), whereas those of The Phantom Menace (the Queen and the Jedi) are relatively disciplined and restrained, which makes sense given their circumstances and vocations. And this restraint is accentuated by those characters’ juxtaposition with the most over the top, in-your-face, silly character to ever appear in Star Wars.
In Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, and Princess Leia you had a farmboy, a space pirate, and a leader of a small band of rebel fighters (Yes, she was a princess, and “a member of the Imperial senate”, but she was pretty far removed from her status as royalty, and her position of influence within the galactic government, even before her planet was destroyed, and the Emperor dissolved the senate). In the grand scheme, they started out as three nobodies who were in desperate danger up to their necks. So, they held nothing back. They argued, they shouted, they bickered, they called each other names…
Can you imagine the Episode I characters, the Queen and the Jedi, acting like that? The audience would’ve criticized the film on that basis. They would’ve wondered, why don’t they act more disciplined and restrained … like they did … in the film…?
It may be that Stoklasa and friends just don’t pick up on subtlety and nuance. Remember, we’re talking about a guy whose idea of a subtle and nuanced character is a serial killer who constantly slurs his speech, only ever eats pizza rolls, and fucks his cat.
If you think about it, how difficult is it really to come up with a character description, to rival “roguish, dashing, and charming”, for Queen Amidala? A character who was elected ruler of her people at fourteen-years-old ... who is so compassionate, and has such integrity, that she is opposed to putting even one anonymous boy, on some backwater planet, in harm’s way, when it would be expedient ... who, strictly speaking, is not a pacifist, but clearly committed to non-violence (until all other alternatives are exhausted) ... and who then bravely leads the charge to take back her world... It’s not all that subtle, is it?
The point is that Stoklasa doesn’t explain why the characters are weak, he just shows footage of his friends saying nothing about them … until he gets to the review of the plot:
Plinkett expresses a particular hatred for Qui-Gon Jinn. His reasons…? He says that Qui-Gon’s character is “totally baffling … and I do not know why he’s in this movie”, and refers to Qui-Gon as “a drunk”, and “Qui-Gon Booze”. He says, “We constantly have to question every single action that’s taken by Qui-Gon”, and adds, sardonically, “the wise Jedi.”
He impugns Qui-Gon’s judgment in stowing aboard the ships to reach Naboo, and in running the Trade Federation blockade:
“Qui-Gon Jinn could’ve very easily gotten everyone killed!”
He claims that Qui-Gon has “very questionable moral values”, pointing out that he’s dishonest, and…
“…repeatedly uses his Jedi mind trick to his advantage, whether it’s … to use worthless money to scam Watto out of his ship parts, or to fix a legitimate bet to his advantage. It’s generally wrong to do these things, wouldn’t you say?”
Well, gee, gosh, golly, Plinkett, you’re right – it is wrong to do those things… Are you familiar with the term “dilemma”? Morality aside – you’re clearly an expert on screenwriting (knowing what a protagonist is, and all), so you know that when a character faces a dilemma, he or she makes a choice between two irreconcilable goods, or the lesser of two evils. And that this implies the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on context. Yes, Qui-Gon did fix a legitimate bet – in order to cheat a slave master out of owning a human being. To you, this is “wrong”? But, it’s Qui-Gon Jinn’s moral values that are “very questionable”…? In fact, Qui-Gon never uses the Jedi mind trick to his own advantage. He uses it to help save people’s lives, and free them from slavery and oppression.
Plinkett asks, if the ends justify the means, why didn’t Qui-Gon just steal the part from Watto? He suggests Qui-Gon could have taken the hyperdrive by force – by choking Watto, “while Pad-a-me grabs the part, and they run out of the shop”. If we ignore the fact that “the part” was not something Padme could’ve grabbed and run out of the shop with (as it looked like it probably weighed about a thousand pounds), while it may have been a solution to Qui-Gon’s problem, how would this have played to an audience? Seriously, a Jedi hero physically attacking a character who had not attacked him? How would this have played to children…? Scratch that. How would this have played to Plinkett? You don’t think he would have criticized it as being ridiculously out-of-character for a Jedi?
“This also leads me to believe that Qui-Gon Jinn is incredibly stupid.”
In addition to the seeming implication that Qui-Gon is gullible (“Watto tells him he’s the only guy in town who’s got the part … Watto is using an older-than-dirt sales tactic…”), Plinkett asserts that there were a number of obvious simple solutions to Qui-Gon’s problem (simpler than the one he chose); Qui-Gon could’ve sneaked into Watto’s shop, in the middle of the night, and stolen the hyperdrive … “Trade the Naboo cruiser for a less fancy, but functional ship” … hire a transport … go to another junk dealer, and use the mind trick to swap the republic credits for money that Watto would take…
The practical difficulties, security risks, and potential negative consequences of these alternative solutions aside, consider what actually happens in the film: The first thing Qui-Gon does after he leaves Watto’s shop is check with Obi-Wan to see if there’s anything aboard the ship with which to barter (seems perfectly reasonable). Then, he and his group start walking to we-don’t-know-where, to attempt we-don’t-know-what… We don’t know because the sandstorm hits, and they have to take shelter. And before the storm is over, Qui-Gon has discovered that Anakin is strong with the Force… That is, these alternative solutions are out of context. They’re moot points. We don’t know that these and/or other options were not, or would not have been, considered or attempted by Qui-Gon. Not every thought that goes through a person’s head immediately and automatically flies out their mouth … unless they’re Plinkett, I guess.
And Plinkett has criticized many scenes and sequences of the Prequels as being “boring”, and “stupid and pointless”, and as irrelevant “to the ultimate conclusion of the story”. So, you’d think that the last thing he would want is the films to contain more such scenes…
Suppose Episode I had included scenes of Qui-Gon going from junk dealer to junk dealer to confirm that Watto was indeed the only guy in town who had the part he needed. And scenes of; him attempting to swap his republic credits for “something more real”, and to hire a transport, and to trade the Naboo ship for a functional one, and/or explanations as to why these were not viable, or desirable, options. All in order to clearly demonstrate to the audience that Qui-Gon Jinn was not “incredibly stupid”. The inclusion of these scenes certainly would have made the movie longer, but would they have made it better? Would the movie have made more sense? What do you think Plinkett would have thought of these scenes…? Yeah. Exactly.
“Instead of using, like, the most common sense approach to everything, Qui-Gon concocts some kind of convoluted scheme…”
Plinkett then spends nearly two minutes pretending to be confused by the betting. I’m not going to jump through this particular hoop. The betting is not at all difficult to understand, and if you don’t get it from watching the movie, an explanation from me isn’t going to do you any good.
At one point, Plinkett seems to be speaking directly, and scornfully, to Qui-Gon himself:
“You say you took R2-D2 because he has the specs on the type of part you need, but yet Watto seems to know what you’re talking about, and you have a thingy that shows it.”
Actually, the “thingy” shows an image of the ship, not the part. And although Plinkett repeatedly implies that he finds it implausible when Qui-Gon is seemingly guided by the Force, he now, paradoxically, thinks it’s absurd that Qui-Gon didn’t have a premonition about Watto’s ship-parts knowledge…
Have you ever seen anyone work this hard to invent reasons to hate a fictional character? Have you ever heard anyone, other than Plinkett, say that they didn’t like Episode I, because Qui-Gon Jinn was stupid, and had questionable moral values? No, I didn’t think so. So, what’s the real reason that Plinkett hates Qui-Gon Jinn…?
“The older, wiser Jedi is the opposite of what he should be.”
I think that pretty much sums it up. Qui-Gon doesn’t conform to the expected cliché. And we know how Plinkett loves his clichés.
And after all Plinkett’s yammering about Qui-Gon, we run into this glaring contradiction:
“The more descriptive they could get, the stronger the character.”
“An incredibly stupid drunk, with poor judgment, and very questionable moral values.”
I’d say that’s at least as descriptive as “roguish, dashing, and charming”, wouldn’t you? I mean, I’m not saying that I agree with the description, but for a character he initially claimed was non-descript, Plinkett sure found a hell of a lot to say about him.
But, the most telling moment isn’t even in Plinkett’s Phantom Menace review. It’s in the Phantom Menace Review Interview Outtakes: Stoklasa asks one of his friends, “Can you explain the difference between Obi-Wan Kenobi and Qui-Gon Jinn … in Phantom Menace?” After a pause of about three seconds, “No.” And they laugh. Fade out.
Taking into account that Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan are both “good guys”, and both Jedi, the distinction between the two couldn’t have been more sharply drawn. Their characters are contrasted throughout the entire film; Qui-Gon is serious, Obi-Wan is flippant. Qui-Gon is warm, Obi-Wan is aloof. Qui-Gon is serene, Obi-Wan is anxious. Qui-Gon is unconventional, Obi-Wan is by-the-book. Obi-Wan is reverent of authority and tradition. Qui-Gon is a maverick who trusts his own instincts and judgment above all. Obi-Wan is the skeptic. Qui-Gon is the true believer. Obi-Wan is clearly frustrated with his Master’s seemingly reckless and rebellious nature. Qui-Gon grows impatient with having his judgment questioned by his Apprentice. As much as it’s possible for two good Jedi to be opposites, these two are opposites. Even when it comes to the lightsaber duel, when they’re separated by the ray shield doors...
Obi-Wan is on his feet, ready for the fight...
...and Qui-Gon has entered a meditative state – and looks as though he may have fallen asleep.
And Stoklasa and his toadies didn’t notice any of this…?
Stoklasa asks his friend if he can tell the difference between the two characters, and all the genius can say is “no”. And then, they laugh. That’s the point. It’s a small group of friends who didn’t like The Phantom Menace, haven’t wasted a single thought on it, and find it funny that Stoklasa’s tearing it down. There’s nothing more to it than that. And Stoklasa’s little demonstration “proves” exactly nothing.
Concluded in Part 3…
#star wars#Prequel Trilogy#sw#PT#Episode I#episode ii#episode III#the phantom menace#attack of the clones#Revenge of the Sith#George Lucas#Mr. Plinkett#Mike Stoklasa#tpm#aotc#ROTS
0 notes
Last Seen Blogs
kimeris
ʏᴇʀɪᴍɪᴇsᴇ.
sophiaalynnxo
Abdl Princess Sophie💖
mayonaisalspray
smells like eggs in here
paulita7zacdf
Bubbles, Burbujas
poulsoncavins
Untitled