#what’s that quote about tragic heroes being dead from the beginning? | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

troquantary · 3 years

Text

Edward Cullen: That Boy Ain’t Right

So I was doing a reread of @therealvinelle 's collection of Twilight metas, as one does, and in "Edward, Denial, and a Human Girlfriend" she mentions that she doesn't believe Edward is sane. I thought, "ha, yeah, he's definitely not," and also, "but wait, what does that mean exactly, please say more about that." But since she's already inundated with asks, I've decided to use my own head-muscle and explore this idea. (TL;DR: I start out more or less organized, synthesize some points Vinelle has made across several posts (and have hopefully linked to them all where relevant but please tell me if not), touch a little on narcissism, then take a hard left into the negative effects of being a telepath.)

Just a couple things to note at the outset, though. Theses have been written already (probably) about Edward as an abuser. Edward being insane doesn't negate that at all; he's definitely an asshole and just...a disaster of a human being. (I find it more funny than anything, but YMMV.) I'm also going to try to avoid talking specifically about mental illness and how it relates (or doesn't relate) to abusive behavior -- that's territory I'm not really equipped to discuss, like at all. My starting point is "Edward has a deeply warped perception of reality," not "Edward has X disorder."

So: deeply warped perception of reality. The evidence? Goes behind a cut, because my one character trait is Verbose.

Vinelle provides a great example of it in the post linked above, which I'll just quote because she does words good: "[Edward] keeps acting like his romance with Bella is a romantic tragedy, and all the cast of Twilight are actors on a stage making it as sublime as possible." Edward's the one to pursue Bella, but he does so with the full belief, from the very beginning, that it will never last; Bella will "outgrow" him, go on her human way, and he can spend the rest of eternity brooding magnificently over his too-short romantic bliss. [Insert premature ejaculation joke.] Turning her is never an option, even though Alice, Noted Psychic, says that romancing Bella will either end with her dead (exsanguinated) or dead (vampire).

This framing, where he's a dark anti-hero in love with -- but never tainting! -- the pure maiden and eventually leaving her in a grand, tragic sacrifice to preserve her soul? It's fucking bonkers. Bella isn't a person to him in this scenario. As Vinelle points out, Bella's never really a person to him at all; he falls in love with his own mental construct, cherry-picking from what he observes of her behavior and her responses to his 20 (thousand) Questions to convince himself that she is the ideal woman.

Bella's not the only one who gets the projection/cardboard-cutout treatment. Edward sees everything and everyone through a highly particular, personalized lens. He filters his entire reality, which we all do to an extent, but the thing with Edward is that he starts with his conclusions and then only pays attention to the evidence that supports those conclusions. Often that evidence consists of what he admits in New Moon are only "surface" thoughts -- but recognizing that limitation doesn't keep him from taking those thoughts as representative of what people are. Edward then becomes absolutely convinced by his own "reasoning" and won't be swayed from what he has decided is Objectively True. It's obvious with Bella; it's also painfully obvious with Rosalie. (Vinelle explains this and brings up Edward's raging Madonna/Whore complex in the same post, so refer to that again -- she's right.)

He also catastrophizes. Everything. Bella's just vibing in her room, rereading Wuthering Heights for the 87th time? She's gonna be hit by a meteor, better sneak into her room while she sleeps. Bella's going to the beach with the filthy mundanes their human classmates? She's gonna fall in the ocean. Jasper's cannibal pals are stopping by for a visit, but know not to hunt in the area? DISASTER, DEFCON 1, ALSO FUCK YOU JASPER FOR EVEN EXISTING IN MY AND BELLA'S SPHERE YOU UNSPEAKABLE BURDEN. Edward must believe that Bella is vulnerable and in near-constant peril, to support the reality he has created in which he is the villain turned protector and maybe?? hero??? (!!!) for his beloved. So when the actual, James-shaped danger arrives, he goes berserk, snarling and flipping his shit and generally not helping the situation. His fantasy demands that Bella remain human, so instead of doing the very thing Alice, Noted Psychic, assures him will neutralize the threat (and not just a threat to Bella, either, but to Bella's family and any other human James might decide to include in the "game"), he vetoes it immediately, no discussion. Bella Must Not Turn, and he sticks to those guns despite James nearly reducing her to ground beef, despite leaving Bella catatonic with depression (but human! success!) in New Moon, despite Aro's order and his family's vote and, let's not forget, Bella's clearly and repeatedly stated desire to be a vampire. It's going to happen. But he doesn't accept it until Renesmee busts out of Bella like the Kool-Aid man and the poor girl's heart finally, unequivocally stops.

Sane people don't behave this way. I don't want to slap labels on Edward, but I can't help but note that he comes across as highly narcissistic. He's the only real person in his universe, the lone player among us NPCs. That probably has a lot to do with him being frozen in the mindset and maturity of a seventeen-year-old boy, but I think it's also just...him, on some fundamental level. His failure to connect with others and recognize them as full, independent beings with their own wants and priorities isn't like Bella's failure -- she's badly depressed. Edward is...something else, and I get the sense that his sanity has been steadily deteriorating over time. And a cursory google of narcissistic traits turns up some familiar-looking stuff. He's self-loathing, yes, but also grandiose; he hates himself for the monster he is (and hates most vampires besides Esme and Carlisle for their monstrosity, too) but still feels superior to humans, to the extent that he felt entitled to human blood and resented Carlisle for depriving him of his "proper" diet. He eventually returns to Carlisle, but he's far from content -- the beginning of Midnight Sun finds him in a state of ennui, bored and dismissive of (if not outright disgusted by) everyone around him, that has apparently persisted for years and years. He doesn't play the piano, he doesn't compose, he doesn't enjoy anything...at least until Bella comes along and then he becomes obsessed to a disturbing degree with her and his new, romantic tragedy spin on reality.

[Next-day edit: I’m not sure where else to fit this in, but the way Edward casually contemplates violence against people who have, at best, mildly annoyed him is...chilling. I have a hard time writing off his strategizing how to murder the entire Biology class as a result of bloodlust -- it’s so calculated, nothing like the blackout state of thirst Emmett describes when he encountered his own “singer,” and that is probably the default for when a vampire is extremely thirsty. But even ignoring the Biology class incident, Edward still does things like consider, with disturbing frequency, how he might grievously injure or kill Mike Newton, all because...Edward considers him his romantic rival (despite Bella barely giving the kid the time of day). He thinks about slapping Mike through a wall, which might be an amusing slapstick image, except as a vampire Edward’s actually capable of turning this boy’s skeleton to a fine powder. So it’s, y’know, kind of sick when you think about it.

But even worse than that, when Bella tells Edward about how she flirted with Jacob to get at that sweet, sweet vampire lore, Edward chuckles and then, after dropping Bella home, flippantly observes that now that the treaty’s broken, why not genocide? I’m not even kidding, it’s right there in Midnight Sun; he seriously thinks about the fact that he’d be technically justified now in wiping out the entire tribe because a teenager tried to impress a girl with a spooky story. That is fucked. Remember, Edward was there with Carlisle when the treaty was first established. He knows how remarkable it is that they even came to a truce in the first place, that it was only ever possible because Carlisle is...well, Carlisle, and that it marks a pretty significant moment in supernatural history. He doesn’t care; he doesn’t respect it, or he’d never think something like “Ha ha, if I went and killed them all, I wouldn’t even be wrong. I mean, I won’t do it, but I’m just saying, I wouldn’t be wrong.”

Again: not the thought process or behavior of a sane person. (Or a person that respects life in general -- sorry Carlisle, big L.)]

Finally, whether he's a narcissist or not, I think the fact that Edward has constant, unavoidable access to everyone's thoughts is a powerful contributing factor to his instability. He can tune out the mental noise to an extent, but he can't stop it -- so he comes to rely on it like another sense. This causes issues with disconnect and lack of empathy, of course, but there's another facet to this shit diamond: he's basically experiencing a ceaseless flow of intrusive thoughts. His narration in Midnight Sun suggests that he "hears" the words people think, can "see" what they visualize in their mind's eye, and can sense the emotional "tone" and intensity of their thoughts. Therefore, perceiving Jasper's thirst through his thoughts makes Edward more aware of his own, "doubling" the discomfort. This would be a lot to deal with even from just his immediate coven members, but Edward gets all of this pouring into his head like a firehose on a day-to-day basis because the Cullens live right alongside humans. I know Meyerpires have galaxy brains or whatever, but that's a ton to process.

Besides the compounding effect on his own thirst when he "feels" the thirst of others, Meyer never suggests that Edward has difficulty separating his own thoughts from other people's; even when he was newly turned, he recognized Carlisle's "voice" in his head as Carlisle's. That would create a whole different host of issues around identity, but it looks like Edward's escaped that particular torment. However, I can easily imagine that what he does experience is just shy of unbearable nonetheless, with an eroding effect on his sanity over decades. He can't sleep to escape it; he's on a dishwater diet and probably (like the rest of his family) experiencing a perpetual, low-grade physical discomfort due to his thirst never being fully satisfied; and he's around far more people than is the norm for vampires -- even discounting all the humans, his own coven is unusually large -- meaning more noise.

Honestly, it would be weirder if he were all there, considering.

And even though I feel like I lost a sense of structure around where I started ranting about telepathy, I've written like 1.5k words about Edward fucking Cullen and I think that's enough for one post.

#twilight #twilight renaissance #twilight meta #edward cullen #i stared too long and the twilight abyss gazed back #long post #major credit due to therealvinelle for having basically all the ideas already #theoriginalcarnivorousmuffin too since they agree and build off each other's metas a lot #idk how people who write meta can just crank these posts out i've been here for two hours #edited to add stuff i forgot to mention about edward's disproportionately violent fantasies

318 notes · View notes

buttherainbowhadabeard · 3 years

Text

Promising Young Woman (2021)

*contains spoilers*

Revenge is a dish best served stone-cold sober…

Delightful and dimpled British star Carey Mulligan has had a successful career to date, playing alongside leading men such as Leonardo DiCaprio (‘The Great Gatsby’), Ryan Gosling (‘Drive’) and Michael Fassbender (‘Shame’). Despite not always being centre stage, many of Mulligan’s film choices have been eclectic in terms of genre, and it seems this winning combination of offbeat and orthodox have all led to her explosive lead role in the indie assault on the senses that is ‘Promising Young Woman’.

Carey is Cassandra Thomas, a 30-year-old whose promising career as a doctor went into a tailspin when she dropped out of medical school following the rape of her best friend Nina Fisher at the rough hands of their classmates. It’s implied that Nina – overwhelmed by what happened to her and the lack of support or investigative interference – committed suicide, and in the years since, Cassie has dedicated her life to avenging her friend’s death. Rather than continuing to try to take the claims up with police, Cassie turns unconventional vigilante and offers herself up as hot-mess boy bait, spending her nights fake falling-down drunk in bars and clubs to see and document how many men attempt to take advantage of her. Going so far – arguably stupidly so – as to let them take her home, Cassie abruptly reveals her sobriety to shock them into acknowledging and lamenting their predatory behaviour.

These scenes in particular are deliciously satisfying – that moment the self-proclaimed “nice guy” realises his unwilling date is more than aware of her surroundings and is going to confront him about them. The genius of these moments is in the power of Mulligan’s swift and drastic transformations. She doesn’t need to threaten or produce a weapon to take control, her stark sobriety is enough.

Making her feature filmmaking debut, director Emerald Fennell has had her fair share of femme fatale experience as head writer on Season 2 of TV’s addictive ‘Killing Eve’. Her love of strong, clever but chaotic women are all bundled into one with the creation of Cassie. She’s a Villanelle-esque sexy sociopath with a skewed moral compass, complimented by a noughties heavy soundtrack featuring a screechy orchestral remix of Britney Spears’ ‘Toxic’, a rom-com inspired routine to Paris Hilton’s ‘Stars Are Blind’, and DeathbyRomy’s cover of the Weather Girls’ ‘It’s Raining Men’.

‘Promising Young Woman’ could just as easily be called Privileged Young Men. With a narrative that draws on #MeToo, toxic masculinity and on campus rape culture and rituals, this is a film that is unapologetic about its subject matter and in your face about its opinions on it. There are not-so-subtle traces of trends that are played out in real life today, like dismissing women’s allegations to protect men’s reputations. Whilst Nina’s life was destroyed and her credibility doubted, male peers like perpetrator Al Monroe (Chris Lowell) and his sleazy friend Joe (Max Greenfield) were given glowing references, advanced to the top of their fields and became popular pillars of their communities, industries and social circles.

Although predictable for me, the eventual reveal of the one good man from Cassie’s past being complicit in Nina’s rape (her happy-to-take-it-slow boyfriend Ryan played by a charmingly goofy Bo Burnham), is a gasp out loud moment. Her world is once again shattered beyond repair when she realises the relationship that has made her happy for the first time in a long time was built on a lie (or to give him the benefit of the doubt, a very bad mistake). He is the first man she felt she could trust, be herself around, and fall in love with, but she discovers that underneath he was at worst, another one of the guys, and at best, an indefensible bystander.

You’d be forgiven for thinking ‘Promising Young Woman’ is all anti-men. Everything about it - on the surface and in the trailer - screams angry, bra burning feminist. However, it’s more nuanced than that and takes more of an anti-bad men, anti-bad women and anti-bad behaviour stance, as many of the movie’s female characters also have to confront the fact that their refusal or disinterest to speak up and call out abuse has enabled criminal conduct to set in, rot and spread. Cassie - an anti-hero herself - holds a grubby mirror up to the faces of the women from her college days with varying degrees of cunning and callousness, from feigning the abduction and pimping out of the University Dean Elizabeth Walker’s daughter, to tricking an inebriated former classmate (Alison Brie) into thinking she was unfaithful, or worse, sexually assaulted, in a hotel room.

Cassie’s methods are extreme and quite frankly mad, but her motives are steeped in an obsessive desire to do right by her friend and seek justice whatever the cost (the latter playing out in tragic but successful fashion in the finale). She is an intentionally entangled fly, luring spiders of all shapes and sizes to the centre of the web, daring them to do their worst. Most times she is well prepared, and even when it seems like she’s bitten off more than she can chew, another dose of vigorous vengeance is plunged in (even if it has to be done posthumously!)

Physically too, she’s a calculating chameleon. From pigtails, flowery blouses and flats for a girl-next-door look, to blow-job blotted lips, tight dresses and skyscraper stilettos to give off a late-night pick-up vibe, every element of her outfit is deliberate and devious. Dressed up in a wig the colour of a Rainbow Paddle Pop and sexy stripper nurse outfit in the film’s final act, Cassie is the literal sexual objectification of the promising young medical practitioner she could have been. Instead, she’s a practitioner of pain, turning Monroe’s bachelor party into her plastered patients.

Handcuffing Al to the bed upstairs, it looks like she’s reeled in her biggest fish to date. “It's every man's worst nightmare, getting accused of something like that,” Al cries, to which a deadpan Cassie replies “can guess what every woman's worst nightmare is?” But soon the tables turn when he breaks free, overpowers her and smothers her to death with a pillow. It’s a brutal and distressingly drawn-out scene, and it takes a while before it hits you that she really is dead and this is where her sad story ends. Joe and Al burn her body. It’s all over. Or so you think.

We cut to Al’s wedding, and as Juice Newton’s ‘Angel of the Morning’ plays, Ryan begins to receive scheduled texts from Cassie, taunting him from beyond the grave with a juicy contingency plan. Using Al’s ex-attorney Jordan Green (Alfred Molina) and his regret and grief over representing the wrong party to her advantage, Cassie had sent him incriminating evidence about Nina’s assault and her own demise in advance. “You didn't think this was the end, did you? It is now” the first texts read, as police sirens wail and officers emerge from the woods to arrest Al for murder. “Enjoy the wedding! Love, Cassie & Nina” the final messages say, followed by a perfectly placed winky face emoticon as Fletcher’s ‘Last Laugh’ cues the end credits. It’s a gratifying water cooler moment, bona fide badass yet bittersweet, but you’re still left wondering if it was all worth it.

‘Promising Young Woman’ could be cut from the same tortured heroine cloth as ‘The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo’, ‘Kill Bill’ and ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’, with Nina and Cassie’s friendship rivalling ‘Thelma & Louise’. It covers a lot of taboo territories and topics, from slut shaming to consent and coercion, and evokes the harrowing Margaret Atwood quote “Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them”.

‘Promising Young Woman’ is not for the faint hearted, and anyone who fears the film may be triggering should stay well clear. It’s not always easy viewing and it’s not always fair, however it’s more than just a pitch-black comedy or clear-cut tale of rape-revenge. It’s a brave, bold and original satire with bite and brains.

4/5 stars.

86 notes · View notes

the-redeemed-anon · 3 years

Text

Villains vs Antagonists, what each word means because this fandom uses them as synonyms when they are not

Oh boi, who would’ve thought that this was my debut analysis post on Tumblr for this fandom? Hi, it is I, Redemption Anon from @kateis-cakeis’ blog. This isn’t the post I promised to post first, but this topic has bugged me, especially in the current events. It is time to talk about villains and antagonists, DSMPblr.

Disclaimer before I get into it: I am what would be considered an old dog in this fandom, I’ve watched in a weird way Season 1 while it was still going down, and I officially started lurking on Tumblr through anons on a couple of blogs right at the start of Season 2. It’s just that now I felt the need to make a blog where I analyse stuff. So, I feel like I have some knowledge, albeit imperfect, of characters and events, across the story. Also, I am talking about the characters here, not the CCs. If I mention a CC, their name will be labeled accordingly.

With that out of the way, let’s jump into it.

Now, you may see the words “villain” and “antagonist” being used a lot when discussing the DSMP and other media in general, but the thing is, they are not synonyms, and I feel like a lot of people fail to grasp that, because oftentimes, we have characters that are both at the same time, making the line blurry. Well, let me try to explain my take on these terms.

An antagonist is a person who opposes the protagonist, it’s the rival of the main character, the anchor of the POV that is followed in the story. This usually means that an antagonist can be paired up with the villain role, and the protagonist with the hero role, but it’s not always the case. There are stories where the protagonist is the villain, and the antagonist is the hero (for example, the Genocide Run of Undertale). And even then, there are antagonists that aren’t the villain in the grand scheme of things (for example, you wouldn’t call Gary from Pokemon a villain, would you?) Basically, antagonists are very much POV-centric. In the DSMP, the best example I can give is the BA versus Techno. From Techno’s POV, the BA was his antagonists, while from the BA POV, Techno was the antagonist. Bear in mind, neither party was a villain, or a hero.

A villain is very much a person that serves an evil purpose, the opposing force to the hero of the story, whose actions point to a good purpose. While the hero is the person you are supposed to root for, the villain is the one who is supposed to lose, to not cause a bad ending to your story. The villain and the hero depend a lot on morality. Villains can have downright evil goals, like say, destroying the planet or something repulsive enough to make most people root against them, or morally-grey goals, where they intend to do evil for what they think is the greater good. The last one works well with sympathetic villains or protagonist villains, because you get to see them from another angle. In the DSMP I think it’s safe to say we have two true villains, that being Dream and the Egg, because almost everyone agrees that if these two got their way, it would be bad. I am going to talk just about one of them, however.

Okay, now that we made those two terms clear, let me repeat: antagonists depend on the POV that is observed, while villains depend on morality. On the DSMP these two factors make saying the categories characters belong to tricky, especially when some self-assign or are assigned by other characters or even the fandom into archetypes. In this analysis I want to analyse Wilbur, Puffy (the characters that self-assigned themselves as villains at one point in their arcs) Tommy (who I saw people assigning him as a villain recently) and Dream (one of the true villains of this story, and not only that, he fits the classic combo of antagonist and villain).

The Self-Appointed

Welp, time to talk about my favorite character, Wilbur, and sympathise with Puffy fans, because they’re going right through what we, Wilbur fans, went through since “Then let’s be the bad guys” was uttered.

So, Wilbur and Puffy self-appointed themselves as villains. That makes them villains, right? Not quite. See, the thing with villains is that they are dependant on morals. The audience isn’t the only one that has a moral code, characters have one too. And, in my opinion, in this case we have to talk about the moral codes of these two.

Both Wilbur and Puffy have, or, had, moral codes that revolved around peace, not killing, and the like. Moral codes that you would generally label under “morally good”. What happened to these two, then, for them to go and call themselves villains? Well, it’s quite simple actually.

They broke their own moral codes. I’ll start with Wilbur because I am more familiar with him, and I can use the quotes provided by kateis-cakeis here (thank you my dude for your hard work collecting these!).

So, we all know that at the beginning, Wilbur had a very peace-oriented mindset, wanting to use words over weapons in conflict [“We don’t win wars with battles and with armour. We win wars with our words, Tommy. We’re starting a revolution, not a war.” - (Wilbur’s The Wall: 4:54, 29th July)], and, as such, he saw himself as a good guy [“It was Dream, he’s kinda the bad guy. Yeah, we’re the good guys, we’re the good guys here.” - (Wilbur’s Niki joins L'Manberg: 22:28, 6th Aug)]. What changed? Well, for starters, Wilbur underwent a spiral from paranoia that started from the Independence war. We can see his opinions change thanks to the flashback to the Election era [“And power isn’t gaining from diplomacy, and bureaucracy, and giant courthouses suspended in the sky, blah blah blah. It’s gained from swords, Quackity. It’s gained from blades, it’s gained from steel, iron.” - (Quackity’s Killing My Enemies: 1:06:19, 12th Apr)]. Of course, his spiral worsened after the Election, but we can assume he still thought of himself as a good guy.

That is, until the infamous scene. You know the one: [“Tommy, I’ve got a question for you, right. Because this festival, this is a good idea, this doesn’t seem like a bad like, this doesn’t seem evil. You know? This seems like a nice friendly thing Schlatt’s doing. Tommy, are we the bad guys?” - (Wilbur’s who are you go away: 1:08:14, 8th Oct)]. Oh yes, here, after about two weeks of being in a high stress situation, high paranoia and Schlatt seemingly doing a good thing for his nation, Wilbur starts to question himself. He starts to question if this is the moral thing to do, the right thing to do. And, logically, if you’re not in the right, you’re in the wrong, so the conclusion he reaches, is this: [“Tommy, am I, am I a bad, am I a villain of this story. Am I the villain in your history?” - (Wilbur’s who are you go away: 1:08:59, 8th Oct)]. He self-appoints himself as a villain, and then embraces the role, as well know. As Season 1 progresses, Wilbur doubles down more and more on this idea that he is the villain, and his story ends tragically. Even his ghost thinks of him as a villain, and compares Phil to Saint George, a hero, for killing him (I will get back to this).

So, was Wilbur an antagonist? Yes, definitely, especially from his POV, I would argue, because if he thought he was in the right, he would have never uttered the infamous “Then let’s be the bad guys.” Hell, other Wilbur analysts have pointed out that Wilbur may have wanted to be stopped from pressing the button. Even from his POV, you could argue he’s against the protagonists of the arc. The fact he had some potent self-hatred just helps cement that he was an antagonist, someone who must be stopped.

Was he a villain? I would say no. Look, I don’t see Wilbur as a villain, even if he tried to place himself into this archetype. In Season 1, I think the villain was Schlatt, followed by Dream, starting at the end of the Season. Wilbur strikes me more as a fallen hero, as a man who was okay, who would be cherished and loved and looked up to by others, but at one point took a wrong turn, didn’t find his way back, and continued down the path that doomed him, while his loved ones turned away from him, because they didn’t know how to help and he distanced himself from them by lashing out. It’s a tragic story arc.

“But Redemption Anon!” I hear you say, “CC!Wilbur’s DnD Alignment Chart classifies him as Neutral Evil, bordering on Chaotic Evil!” The DnD Alignment Chart is a chart that while it helps to get the vibe of a character, it can be often arbitrary or can be blurred because characters fit in with characteristics of more than one alignment (see the debate from around that time surrounding Techno’s assigned alignment). Plus, if we look at Wilbur from the POV of most, if not all, characters, without reading into his reasonings, yeah, he looked evil. Even to himself, we see it from quotes like these: [“Here’s the thing, I genuinely think, if it weren’t for me and you dying right, the server would be in shambles. I know for a fact that if I come back, or if I’m brought back to life in some way it’s definitely gonna just go [shit again]” - (Tommy’s am i dead?: 10:10, 4th March)], [“I know what I’m like, that’s the issue.” - (Tommy’s am i dead?: 10:29, 4th March)]. Was he evil, though? I would say not, more misguided than anything. That doesn’t mean he was a saint, nor was he the devil. Of course, he did some wrongs, and me denying that would be weird, because that’s why I say he should get a redemption arc, if he had a clean record, he wouldn’t be in need of one. He’s hurt people, intentionally or not, and he has to make up for those actions, if he is to be redeemed, but that doesn’t make him evil or a villain.

“But Redemption Anon!” I hear you say again, “Ghostbur considers him a villain and the quote from Ghostbur says he was a villain that wasn’t convinced to be a hero!” Yes, true, but we’re forgetting here two things:

1. Ghostbur is biased against Alivebur because he remembers his death as a good thing, and people don’t like him, therefore he rationalises it as Alivebur being the villain of the story and Phil being the hero, pulling out a Christian story that blatantly, hard-line shows us who is the villain and who is the hero: [“I- I- I’ve read the history books, Phil. I’ve read the history books. You- You- You slayed the dragon, you slayed Alivebur. You were the- You- You are the St George of the Dream SMP. We understand, everyone understands that, Phil.” - Wilbur’s First Time Ghostbur Live: 17:58, 6th Jan)]. Honestly, if I was in his shoes and I was everyone hating my past self and I didn’t remember my actions, I would assume I was evil too, because that is easier to comprehend than the fact that they are hating a mentally ill person that didn’t get the help, support and guidance they needed while they had a paranoia-fueled spiral.

2. Ghostbur, when he said: [“But a villain is just a- Sometimes the line’s a little blurry, you could say, a little blurry. It’s a tiny bit. It’s like, a villain, a villain is just a hero you haven’t convinced yet.” - (Tommy’s The Plan To Kill Dream: 1:01:31, 14th Mar)] he was talking to people who considered Wilbur a villain, and he tried to make them consider another side. This context matters, if he dismissed that Wilbur was a villain, there was a risk of his point being dismissed completely. Tommy and Tubbo, while they knew Alivebur from the beginning, his later actions tainted their view of him, and he has caused them hurt, and Ranboo has never met him, only knows of him from word of mouth. It’s hard to make these three consider him from the angle that he was not a villain. The line is still very good, but, again, context matters.

“But Redemption Anon!” I hear you yet again, “Wilbur is even worse in the Void and Dream will be killed to prevent him from being ressurected!” Okay so I don’t think we can speak about the Void here, in this context. You see, all we got out of the Void was a 5 minute conversation that sounded more like snippets out of a longer conversation, or even multiple conversations, that took place over what Tommy perceived as 2 months. From that conversation, all we got is that Wilbur’s self-loathing worsened, he thinks he, and by projection, Tommy, are better off dead for the good of the server, he knows when the Universe will end and he plays solitaire. The rest of the information we got about him was from Tommy, who is, sadly, an unreliable source, because he is not disclosing what Wilbur told him he’d do, beside a general “it will be bad and we have to stop it”. Tommy was also dealing with the trauma of being brought back, and let’s not forget that the Void didn’t give him peace, he was essentially tortured constantly for what he felt were 2 months. To me, it feels like it’s an intentional lack of detail and information, with a lot of discrepancies (like, if Wilbur scared Tommy so much, it’s interesting he refused to talk to MD when offered the chance, and Schlatt mentioned both Wilbur and Tommy being together at the gym) to throw us off. For all we know, Wilbur could be planning the end of the world if he is resurrected, or, he could’ve been making empty threats, or, he was rambling with no thought of it being taken seriously, or, he intentionally scared Tommy into not bringing him back, because he wants to stay dead. All of those could be what happened, and we may not know until he gets resurrected. Until then, I can’t call him a villain, or evil, even if he thinks of himself as a hazard to others, or Tommy’s motive to kill Dream.

Also, don’t be surprised Wilbur’s mental health seemingly went downhill ever since he’s been there. It’s possible the feeling of being constantly pulled apart isn’t just a Tommy thing, Wilbur may feel it too, and he’s been in there for what he may feel as being 10 to 15 years. Add the fact he’s been in Schlatt’s presence for that time, don’t act surprised he’s gotten worse. He didn’t have the conditions to plateau, let’s not even talk about getting better.

I think I defended Wilbur’s honor long enough lol, now onto Puffy.

I am not as familiar with Puffy as I am with Wilbur, but I will try to present her side as best as I can. We all know that post-Doomsday, Puffy took on the knightly goal of protecting people, especially the minors of the server. Puffy had the misfortune, however, that her closest friends and allies turned to be at least antagonists and at most villains, their actions leaving her feeling hurt and betrayed.

If she tried her best to try to help Bad and Ant, her friends, with the Egg problem, the Banquet shattered the remaining trust she had in them because they killed Foolish, and whether her belief that they killed him first to hurt her is true or not, they did hurt her. She felt betrayed, and accusing her of being the reason her son was dead didn’t help.

The moment she got the axe from Quackity Ant’s fate was sealed, because in that moment of grief and anger, Puffy sought out a retribution, a revenge that went against her moral code. We can see this clearly affect her, because once she leaves the Banquet’s hall, she mourns the death of Foolish and the fact that she killed her best friend, when she swore to protect lives. The Banquet, overall, is a highly traumatic event for her.

No wonder that the next day, her outlook on things changed. She branded herself a villain. She started making vague references to what she can do as a villain, because no one would expect it from her, even name-dropping Doomsday, one of the worst events she witnessed, and the one that turned her to her knightly arc. For me it’s clear that what she said was out of trauma, out of shock and out of desperation.

If you think about it, the world of the DSMP is very bleak, canonical minors have heavy trauma and continue to pay for wrongs they did long ago or suffer because people think they need to learn something or because they are used by others. Puffy noted it herself, Doomsday came and went and the perpetrators were never punished for it. While Techno and Phil aren’t villains per se, they are antagonists in this situation, aiding the villain, Dream, neither of them has suffered any consequence for destroying L’Manberg. No, getting locked into Pandora does not count, because Dream was imprisoned just because he had the Revive Book and he was too dangerous to let loose. It would seem that you can perform evil acts without care or consequence half the time, so why not turn to what you perceive as villainy to exact your justice on those who wronged you?

As of me writing this, all Puffy has done so far is say that she will be a villain, yet I have seen some takes that treat her as if she has been pulling the strings all along. I have seen people claim she has the Nuke, that she, for some reason, controls Ranboo’s enderwalk and even that she will break out Dream. I think this is ridiculous, not only because some of those things happened before she even considered calling herself a villain, but also because she has yet to take action. This is another “Then let’s be the bad guys” situation, because we have a character, that, after getting their moral code flipped on them, in a moment of vulnerability, they see themselves as a villain, and being the villain is the way to resolve their problems.

With that said, is Puffy an antagonist? Surprisingly, I say she was one already. If you look at the story from the Eggpire’s perspective, she is an antagonist, because she wants to stop the Egg. From other POVs, she’s not, and she hasn’t done anything to cement her as an antagonist with bad intentions so far.

Is she a villain? No, and I think that call is too soon to make, regardless of what she says. Remember, she feels herself as a villain, she is an unreliable narrator for herself in this situation. All she did was make a promise, with no action or plan. She also doesn’t seem to want to cause mass harm on the server, rather concentrating on the Eggpire. Another thing to note, she sees her killing Ant still something bad she did, even if she doesn’t regret it, because she is open to receiving consequences for the kill.

Truly it’s a matter of time to see where Puffy will go with this promise, and I hope she doesn’t go down the same path Wilbur went, not only because of story purposes, but also meta purposes.

The Fandom-Appointed

Ah, Tommy, one of the most misunderstood characters on the DSMP. So, why am I discussing Tommy here? Because I saw an influx of people calling him a villain after the last lore stream, and I want to set the record straight, because, just like how the reaction to Puffy’s “I’m a villain now” moment are ridiculous, so are the reaction to Tommy’s… especially because Tommy didn’t have an “I’m a villain now” moment.

I have to say, since Season 2 started the parallels between Tommy and Wilbur and Tubbo and Schlatt, people, at the beginning of Exile, were rooting for “VillainInnit”. People seemingly wanted him to follow Wilbur’s path, but he didn’t. He saved himself and went to Techno’s. While at Techno’s, while he was attempting to heal from Exile, due to wanting to feel accepted and gain Techno’s friendship, he started making actions of violence, that painted him in an antagonistic light. He even quoted Wilbur, which, as I remember, sent the fandom in a panic, because people found this as confirmation for Tommy turning to villainy, history repeating itself.

… But it never happened, because Tommy realised at the Green Festival that what he’s doing is wrong, and set off to make up for his actions. Yet since then people have been dogpilling him and calling him a villain, for following his moral compass, finding his way back and trying to make things better. Every mistake he makes or flaw he has is highly scrutinized to a ridiculous level. At this point blaming Tommy for all the wars is a meme.

It’s funny, actually, that Tommy gets pushed into the hero archetype by the people on the server, and the moment he makes a wrong step, by accident or because he was messing around, he’s at best an antagonist and at worse a villain, proving a point I always make when talking about the archetype of the hero, in any media: the title of hero puts the character on a tiny pedestal, and if they make the smallest misstep, they will fall into the pit of being branded evil and a villain. And that pit, story-wise, is hard to climb, because characters forget easy the good someone does, and often remember the bad they did, because it’s easier to see someone in a black-and-white perspective. They did bad? Then, they must have always been bad. Tommy doesn’t even want to be a hero or a villain, he just wants to vibe, but external forces do not let him have peace, forcing him to act, for his and the server’s sake.

Now, I have seen people condemn Tommy and already trying to push the narrative that he’s bad for wanting to kill Dream. Let’s look at Tommy’s morals: he, before he visited Dream for a second time, told Sam that he believes no one deserves to die, not even Dream. We can say that this is a core part of his moral code, not killing people.

This belief, as far as I remember, has been contradicted twice, once when he was killing Dream in the Season 2 Finale, and now, as he plans to kill Dream. Tommy himself recognises that this isn’t the right thing to do, but it’s the only thing to do. Why isn’t he a villain or an antagonist then? Because the context of why he did and does this is important.

Dream was planning to kill his best friend right in front of him, lock him up in Pandora and use the attachments of everyone on the server to control them. Tommy, and everyone on the server, realised Dream was a serious threat then, someone too dangerous to wonder around. Tommy took to killing Dream as a necessity to protect himself and everyone else. The only reason Dream was put in Pandora is because he revealed he knows how to revive the dead, thus they can’t kill him without dooming everyone to being dead, forever. Pandora was the only solution they found to keep Dream alive while keeping him powerless.

Second, Dream killed him, and brought him back, telling him he can send him back and declaring himself a God. Whatever Tommy and Wilbur spoke about in the Void clearly marked him, because he was willing to forgive Dream, if he is to not bring Wilbur back. Dream refused, and Tommy realised Dream is too dangerous for everyone on the server to be kept alive, especially to the people that came to the Vault, thus, for everyone’s safety, he must kill him.

This is not an evil, villainous or antagonistic goal, it is quite stereotypically good, protagonistic and heroic (ironically it’s what Aang was advised to do in ATLA, kill Ozai for the good of the world, even if he betrays his pacifist beliefs). Tommy has been pushed in the role of a reluctant hero, and even if he fails his goal and Dream escapes, that will not make him a villain or evil.

At the same time, as I said, antagonists are POV-centric, so, of course, Tommy is an antagonist in certain POVs. The Egg dislikes him, Jack wants him dead, Dream and Tommy at the point are sworn enemies and Techno doesn’t like him. He is an antagonist with good intentions, and that is the final nail in the coffin that I do not see him as a villain. He never saw himself as in the right doing bad things, never tried to justify them as being the right thing, and has apologised for his actions. He’s not a saint, but he’s not the devil either, and neither is he evil or a villain.

The True One (Story-Appointed)

Okay, now we are talking business. Dream, flat out, is a both an antagonist and a villain. The classic combo people think of when they think of a bad guy in a story. I’ll be honest I like him as a villain. You know you wrote and acted a good villain when you cheer as they hit rock bottom, and you love to hate them. That’s exactly what Dream is.

What in my mind separates Dream from the rest of the characters I have discussed in this analysis so far is intent and moral code. Make no mistake, all the characters I mentioned up until now know they’ve done something bad, whether they doubled down, plan to, or made up for their actions. And all of them, Dream included, started out from the same slate: characters with intentions and goals that are neutral to good on the general morality scale. Yeah, that’s right, I don’t consider Dream to have been evil from the start. At the beginning and middle of Season 1, I would have put him in the trickster category because he seemed to vibe with whoever he wanted, as long as he came on top, but without too much malice. He fanned the flames (like lavacasting Sapnap’s Eiffel Tower and giving Tommy Mars) but nothing big enough to make him a definite villain.

It was at the end of Season 1 that I could see him slowly shaping up as the definite villain we will witness from Season 2 to possibly the end of the DSMP. Allying with Schlatt over the Revive Book, telling Eret he plans to bring every faction under him, the traitor deal and him cheering for L’Manberg’s death all pointed to him becoming the next big threat. Then Season 2 happened, Exile happened, and this cemented him as the villain of the DSMP.

Doomsday came and we finally got a window to see why Dream did what he did: “You’re too fun”. People may wonder why I don’t consider Techno and Phil as villains for participating in Doomsday. This is why. While Techno and Phil had reasons that, while controversial, could be understood as valid motives to do what they did, Phil saying they were sending a message when talking to Ghostbur, Dream did all of that, all of that destruction, because he found it fun. He found it fun to torment and tear down a nation, because it was standing in his way, and it was something Tommy cared about.

The Vault scene also shows that Dream was planning to backstab everyone, by stealing their pets or their valuable items, or, in Bad’s case, cage an entire sentient being, Skeppy, in a cell smaller than an animal’s pen. Not even Techno, a guy that owes him a favor, was going to be spared. Let’s not even talk about him wanting to kill Tubbo just so he can make Tommy a hero by giving him a tragic backstory. All of these, plus killing Tommy and threatening to send him back to the Void for more info and declaring himself a God, point to Dream being a villain.

And then we have the morality side. In the last visit, Dream told Tommy that everyone thinks they are in the right from their perspective, which Tommy immediately denied. Both Dream’s line and the reply he got are very important. Dream’s line establishes that, as far as we know, Dream sees himself as in the right. Everything he did, Exile, abusing Tommy to the point of the latter considering ending his life, Doomsday, the Vault, almost killing Tubbo? All of that seems to have been not bad or evil actions in his mind. He sees himself as in the right, and that makes him a great villain. Tommy’s reply, well, him denying it, I always saw it with double meaning. On a surface level, Tommy’s obviously talking about himself, he has said time and time again that he’s done wrong and he needs to right it. On a deeper level, however, I saw him referring to Wilbur with this line, too. Because, as established before, Wilbur chose to do bad, even if he knew it was bad. He wouldn’t have said “Then let’s be the bad guys” if he thought they were in the right, and that is the fundamental difference between Wilbur, Puffy, Tommy and Dream. The former three, as shown in the previous sections, know that they did bad things, even from their moral perspectives, while Dream thinks he is in the right.

This is why Dream is the villain, while the others are antagonists at best and conflicted, broken and forced to walk a certain path, at worst.

#dream smp #dsmp #wilbur soot #dsmp wilbur #captain puffy #dsmp puffy #tommyinnit #dsmp tommy #dreamwastaken #dsmp dream #dream smp analysis #dsmp analysis

64 notes · View notes

bewaretheidesofmarchyall · 3 years

Note

Hey, i really like minecraft and used to watch mcyt's back when i was younger. I was wondering if you could maybe guide me into the dream smp series. I have no idea where to start or what people are partaking in it. It seems so active rn and you seem to be invested in the plotlines and such so i thought maybe you can help me?

Okay!

The Dream SMP: A History

Warnings for drugs, the selling of drugs, drinking, war, death, explosions, and human/fish relationships

So, once upon a time, there was a Minecraft server.

It didn't have much of a plot or drama, everyone was just kind of playing the game

Then Wilbur showed up.

An important thing to remember about this server: It’s all Wilbur’s fault, except when it’s Dream’s.

Anyway, Wilbur decided to start a Minecraft drug empire (re: potions) out of a hto dog van (I did not misspell that. It’s called the hto dog van).

But they all lived in Dream’s server (Dream is the main Ruler/God/Inconceivable Green Dude of the SMP) and under Dream’s rule.

He interfered with their “drug” business, so Wilbur did the only logical thing: Declared independence and formed his own nation to sell more “drugs”!

The nation was called L’Manburg, but Dream wasn’t a fan of any of this

And so the Revolution began!!

Part One: The Disc Wars

The main players were Wilbur (the most theater kid of them all), Tommy (The closest thing to a shonen protagonist this thing has), Tubbo (sunshine personified, likes bees, can lie though), and Eret (fuck Eret /j) (In all seriousness, they're awesome)

It was a hard battle.

Dream had way more people. The revolutionaries were outgunned, outmanned, outnumbered, and out planned. And that was before Eret betrayed them.

Eret killed off all of their fellow revolutionaries in exchange for Dream giving them a kingdom.

All seemed lost (Tommy even tried to duel Dream despite being 16 and not the best at combat. He got killed quickly.)

Tommy hadn’t really cared about the revolution in the beginning, but at the end he gave up his most prized possessions (his music discs) to get Dream to leave them alone.

And L’Manburg was an independent nation!

Everyone celebrated in the ways they knew best

In Wilbur’s case, that was sleeping with a fish (yes. a fish. it was a salmon, if that clears anything up) named Sally and having a son: Fundy, furry extraordinaire!

Somehow the middle ground between Salmon and Human is Fox, as Fundy is an anthropomorphic fox.

He was the first person born in L’Manburg, and it seemed like there was to be peace throughout the land once more.

Take one flying guess who screwed that up.

Part Two: The Election

If you guessed Wilbur, we have a winner!

He decided that he needed to win an election to rule the country, and ran as POG 2020, or Wilbur for President.

But he wasn’t unopposed.

Enter Quackity (yes, this is the guy Trump vague tweeted), wanting power but being chill about it, as usual. He decided to throw his beanie into the political ring as Quackity 2020.

It seemed like an easy race, since Wilbur had liberated the nation and Quackity was just Some Guy at this point.

Then, Fundy and Nikki decided to run as Coconut 2020 in a third party bid for the presidency.

THEN, when Schlatt (senile old goat, the corrupt businessman archetype, often drunk) came up to the stage to endorse a candidate, he instead rambled into the mic that he was running for president too.

Like the senile old man they all thought he was.

Little did they know.

Wilbur still could have easily won this election. He was popular and everything. Then, he made a decision.

(Wilbur didn't need to do this, but like all tragic heroes and/or theater kids, he had hubris and was going to make it Everyone's Problem)

He went up to Quackity and suggested that they combine their votes. Quackity wasn't going to win either way, but this way he'd get to be vice president.

Quackity saw that it made sense, but decided that he wanted to be petty that day, and decided to combine votes with Schlatt instead.

And then the votes were counted

Team Coconut came in fourth because they cheated

Team Schlatt came in third because no one wanted the drunken, senile goat to be president

Team Quackity came in second

And Team Wilbur won in a landslide, taking 45% of the votes!

Tommy ran out of the video to tell his mom they won. And then Wilbur revealed the deal Quackity and Schlatt struck.

Quackity+Schlatt got 46% of the votes. Schlatt was president of L’Manburg.

Schlatt immediately takes the podium and starts giving a dramatic speech that sounds less Senile Goat more Dangerous Dictator Goat. He orders that Team Wilbur leave the nation of L'Manburg Manburg (he renamed the country) under threat of death.

Part Three: The Festival

Team Wilbur became Pogtopia, Schlatt and crew became Manburg, and L'Manburg became a nostalgic dream.

The Pogtopians hope to reclaim their nation, and get this absolute madman on their team.

The dude spent a year just farming potatoes to beat someone in a contest. He regularly quotes The Art Of War. He's a die-hard anarchist.

Behold: Technoblade.

So Manburg is a dictatorship at this point in the tale, and Pogtopia is trying its best.

They have Technoblade, Tommy, Wilbur, probably someone I'm forgetting, and Tubbo.

Tubbo is their spy on the inside (so is Fundy, but he hasn't even told Pogtopia he's spying for them, so he's regarded as a traitor)

Then the Festival rolls around

Wilbur has been spiraling, and having a little corruption arc because of course the theater kid decides to kin Hamlet (or is it Macbeth in this situation?)

A day before the festival, he reveals that he's planning on blowing up L'Manburg, because if he can't have it no one can.

The festival comes around, and surprise! Tubbo is publicly executed in front of a crowd!

Schlatt figured out he was a traitor, so he ordered that Techno execute him.

Techno did, but because he was peer pressured.

Then Techno killed pretty much everyone at the festival with fireworks!

Wilbur tried to blow up the place, but lost the button to detonate the TNT (Side note: The TNT was given to him by Dream. Because of course.)

Part Four: The Revolution 2 (Electric Boogaloo)

By the time the true war for L’Manburg rolls around, next to no one is on Schlatt’s side.

Quackity betrays him, Fundy betrays him, even Eret is back on the side of Pogtopia.

The war went by fast, and Schlatt was surrounded by former allies and enemies alike.

Schlatt had a heart attack before anyone could actually kill him, and died as pathetically as he’d lived. Anti-climactic, but everyone was happy.

Wilbur declared Tommy, our protagonist, president.

Tommy declined the presidency, saying that he needed to search for his discs first. He declared Wilbur president of L’Manburg once more.

Wilbur declined the presidency and declared Tubbo president

Tubbo accepted and gave a lovely speech

And then it all goes to shit. "Surely not all of it?" Yeah. All of it.

Wilbur (yes. it was wilbur.) explodes L’Manburg, finally pressing the button to destroy his nation despite his dad trying to stop him.

His own father, Philza, kills him

Stabs the Wilbur

Everyone panicks

And that's when Techno decided it was Chaos Time.

He stands on the ashes of L'Manburg, and said that no government will be allowed to rise in the entire SMP. Tommy objects, and Techno gives this speech:

do you think you’re a hero, tommy?

the thing about this world tommy, is that good things don’t happen to heroes. let me tell you a story, tommy. a story about a man called theseus. his country—well his city-state technically—was in danger. and he sent himself forward into enemy lines. he slayed the minotaur and saved his city.

and you know what they did to him, tommy?

they exiled him. he died in disgrace, despised by his people. that’s what happens to heroes, tommy. the greeks knew the score. but if you want to be a hero, tommy. that’s fine.

do you want to be a hero tommy?

THEN DIE LIKE ONE.

And then he spawns two withers (one of which is named Subscribe To Technoblade) and all hell breaks loose.

Part Five: The Aftermath (aka Where Are They Now?)

Since then, Tubbo has been trying to rebuild L’Manburg. It’s a canal town now, and it looks lovely. He’s a good President.

Tommy isn’t the best Vice President, but once he stops banning people from the country he should be good.

Nikki has left the fox Wilbur gave her in Pogtopia.

Speaking of abandoned foxes, Fundy’s dealing with the death/betrayal of his dad, as well as not getting on that well with the others. He’s also engaged to Dream.

Yes, you read that right. Dream and Fundy are getting married. Fundy met their eldritch overlord on what was pretty much a blind date, and they just clicked.

Eret is adopting Fundy! She has no kingdom any more, but she’s recovered some honor and now has a son.

Philza is dealing with the fact that he killed his son, and may try to resurrect him.

Schlatt is still dead (but is he really gone?)

Quackity is....doing some worrisome things, getting vague tweeted at by Trump, ate Schlatt’s heart, and might be possessed by him??

Technoblade is still doing his own thing, I think

And Wilbur? Wilbur is an amnesiac ghost, blocking out the memories of when he was hurt or a bad person.

There’s way more to say on the subject of the Dream SMP, but this is the basics! Hope this helped!

#long post #dream smp #mcyt

29 notes · View notes

lanaalwaysqueen · 3 years

Text

"Game of Thrones” Didn’t Have a Bad Ending Cause It Is Intentionally Not an Ending...

Personally now that significant time has passed, I don’t think Dan & David wrote a terrible ending cause I don’t think it is actually the end of the show but instead a new start with a long hiatus...

For a long time it was hard to stomach the ending in so many ways, but the more time that has passed, the more clarity that I’ve gained based on a lot of different things from quotes from the show & the direction that HBO is going with the ended series. There are so many easter eggs in the last episode that it is clear it was not meant to be an end. The most being in the conversation with Tyrion & Jon.

In the conversation with Jon & Tyrion there are two things of note that really clearly leave the door open that it is not the end.

#1 “Ask me again in 10 years” - Jon ask Tyrion in the series finale if he made the right decision and Tyrion states to ask him in 10 years.

#2 “I don’t expect we’ll ever see each other again”,”I wouldn’t be so sure” - Another easter egg that they will cross paths sometime again.

#3 Daenery’s Death Parallels to Jon’s Death That He Rose From - Daenerys dies from the exact way that Jon did. From betrayal, from a knife wound to the heard, in the snow with blood dripping out of their bodies. If Jon can rise from the dead, why can’t Daenerys....

#4 We Don’t Know What Happened To Daenery’s Body Other Than Drogon Took It & with Symbolic Imagery - The last time that we physically see Dany is when Drogon has her body gently in his hands, and we don’t know what he did with it. There is a strategic thought by the writers to not show Drogon eating or even dropping her body on a peaceful beach or something. She just disappears and it is never mentioned again where Dany was laid to rest.

There is also symbolic imagery in this scene as Drogon rises Dany’s dead body up from the ground.

#5 The Last We Know of Drogon Is That He Was Heading East For Volantis Which Is Stated Strategically - Not only did the writers confirm that Drogon was heading to Volantis. We see Sam states it but is carefully cut off as he states this fact that many of us didn’t even initially catch it. Why bother writing this piece into the finale especially in the manner where it is cut short with no significance?

#6 Daenerys/Jon Didn’t “Break The Wheel” By The End As It Still Exist - Contrary to the popular belief that Dany and Jon broke the wheel, they really didn’t. The show literally ends up in the same government system that got them in the situation to begin with. This was a great level of frustration with a lot of fans cause Bran was a bad choice and it solved nothing. Just a new king and a new family, no different than the Baratheons took over after Targaryens.

#7 Most “Good” Characters Lived In S8 With the Exception of Team Dany Allowing Them To Be Part of Future Sequels - ‘Game of Thrones’ has traditionally been a tragic bloodbath. Most people thought once the final season did happened, most of our beloved characters would end up dead but that never happened. Actually you could say more unexpectedly lived than died. Many of the villains or serious sinners of the series died but of those that were pretty much heroes or “good” survived with the exception of Team Dany (Dragons, Missandei, Jorah). We got to keep Tyrion, Sansa, Arya, Jon, etc.

#7 There are tons of holes and loose ties with characters & prophecies mostly centering around Daenerys (and somewhat Jon) - Now don’t get me wrong there are still a number of unanswered questions and stories that go beyond theirs, but in most cases a majority of the prophecies, easters eggs, & sub-storylines connected to theirs just amounted nothing. Making me even more suspicious that it wasn’t the end.

Exhibit 1 - Daario just staying in the East and his story ends abruptly with no real closure and no talk by the writers to bring him back...for now.

Exhibit 2 - The prophecy of the “prince or princess that was promised”. This is brought up several times and seemingly it never happened. All of it amounted to no point. But one thing was pretty certain towards the end was this was most likely tied to Jon and Daenerys as Melissandre says so but didn’t fully understand how or why. I know some people believe the possibility of this being their child....(Talk about that soon too)

Exhibit 3 - The prophecy of Daenerys having another child and the “Stallion that Mounts The World”. Though that this can be interpreted as Dany herself, but there are so many hints that Dany might have another child. And she conveniently dies soon after sex with Jon and the death of her Dragon.

Like I said, when it comes to missing theories, character ending not tied up there is a lot but many of them circle around Dany.

#8 Lastly when speaking of prophecies never forget this one from both the book and TV show which can be framed for a show return...

“When the sun rises in the west and sets in the east"

“When the seas go dry and mountains blow in the wind like leaves.”

“When your womb quickens again, and you bear a living child.

“Then he will return, and not before.”

#game of thrones #game of thrones spoilers #game of thrones speculation #daenerys targaryen #Jon snow

11 notes · View notes

raexxbb · 4 years

Text

So I’ve been reviewing. and reviewing all together, some of the Titans things... I believe the storyline I’m most disappointed in is Teen Titans vs the Justice League.

They’re trying to connect all of the DC animated movies right now... And, while I like and appreciate the idea some of the movies are better then others.

Damian is my main problem with Teen Titans and the fact he’s so involved. He’s always an annoyance to me. I just normally try to ignore him but him being a main character is terrible. I love all of the other Robins but Damian is so obnoxious I can’t handle him. And the fact he gets to flirt with Raven disgust me. She’s better then him and deserves more.

On to the next Teen Titans movie. It again has major issues in the fact it sets Beast Boy up for betrayal and doesn’t really rewrite the story expect for the disgusting quality that Terra wants to fuck Slade. That’s the most disturbing piece of the hole ordeal.

All of this leads up to Justice League Dark.. The movie where everyone dies. It’s tragic! I get wanting to show terror but this was too far. The heartbreaking deaths of every hero by Darkseid. The writers did well with that. However, then Damian showed his face once again. The entire movie went down hill from there. He wasn’t needed as one of the main characters in the movie. The boy is nothing more than a disgusting irritation. Or, a mere distraction..

To quote Trigon from the last Dark movie, “I am unimpressed.”

I really wish Damian had stayed dead and Raven had never uttered those disgusting words... THIS is what makes her purity!? Ugh! It shouldn’t have been about a guy! Utterly disappointing... Especially seeing as who the guy is -selfish. They just wanna push angst now but I wasn’t feeling it. Only a strong annoyance and need to look away from the screen and ignore what was going on.

Of course, in the end, Cyborg is the truest hero ❤️ Staying begins on a planet where you’ve been tortured while all of your friends escape. That was the best and most beautiful thing ever. There are better Robins, better characters period in the DC world. Damian or Terra has just never interested me. Especially a version of Terra wanting to have sex with Slade. At least, he pushed her away and always said no.

#teen titans #justice league #justice league dark #damian wayne sucks #damian wayne the worst #damian wayne is annoying #raven deserves better #clark is cute with no power #boo damian #beast boy and terra is disgusting #terra is terrible #terra without slade #dc comics

6 notes · View notes

kob131 · 4 years

Text

https://izetarion.tumblr.com/post/189410998186/theres-two-versions-of-adam-taurus?is_liked_post=1

Monty!Adam: Created by Monty Oum, a minority. Focused on the Faunus, while wanting to get back at the humans for their mistreatment of his kind, a man of revolution who was focused on the safety of his people - seen as how he was strong-armed into working with Cinder Fall after getting her maiden powers, wasn’t so psychopathic that he would turn on his own kind and kill humans out of sheer glee (seen with Cinder and her lot, as he gave them a chance to leave), prioritizes the cause over a cat girl, who was his student - sharing a “student-mentor” relationship as established by the show’s creator as well as said cat girl (“Forget it! It’s time I headed back to Mistral!”), has a legitimate reason to hate humans - especially those affiliated with the Schnee Dust Company, very charismatic, somewhat of a fallen mentor figure given the way the catgirl described him, his cause steadily consuming him (“I had someone I care for, who changed…”), is one of the most popular male characters in the series in the first half of RWBY - despite having little screentime, has an aesthetically-pleasing look to him, compared to DMC!Vergil and Jetstream Sam - two of the most iconic video game characters, in terms of looks and fighting style, Adam Taurus fans signs his adoption papers so that Miles and Kerry would never touch him. People use this version in their fanfics and RPs, turning him into a redeemable person while still keeping his morally grey aspects. Tauradonna is more mutual than lovey-dovey.

Okay so let’s break this down and show this is bullshit.

“Focused on the Fanaus-”

He is never shown to actually help any Fanaus and all White Fang activity, ESPECIALLY in Volumes 1 and 2, revolves around fucking over human. In fact, considering Tuskon, the fact that Vale does not have discrimination against Fanaus and V1 E1 openly says a peaceful protest of Fanaus was interrupted by the WF (” In other news, this Saturday's Faunus Civil Rights protest turned dark when members of the White Fang disrupted the ceremony. The once peaceful organization has now disrupted...”): Adam has acted AGAINST the Fanaus since LITERALLY the first episode.

“A man of revolution who was focused on the safety of his people-”

Which is why, in an EARLIER episode than the one you cite (Volume 2 Episode 12 meaning MONTY was in charge here as we know since he was cited with putting in the Raven scene in the SAME EPISODE against Miles and Kerry’s wishes): Adam gave no shits about his men DYING when he openly said he’d convince them to work with Cinder without so much as a glare at her. BTW, Adam specifically cited Cinder being HUMAN for the reason why he didn’t want to kill his men (’I won’t sacrifice my men for a human cause’). If the human part wasn’t the reason why he wasn’t agreeing with Cinder, why would his dialogue not be ‘I won’t sacrifice my men, no matter what.”?

“ wasn’t so psychopathic that he would turn on his own kind and kill humans out of sheer glee (seen with Cinder and her lot, as he gave them a chance to leave)-”

Nuh uh, in the same Volume Adam out right STABS Blake and says he wants to destroy everything she loves, in the previous Volume he didn’t care about his men dying and said nothing about trying to DESTROY VALE killing THOUSANDS if not MILLIONS of people (including FANAUS) and at the VERY beginning, he tried to blow up a train car full of people who hadn’t even raised a finger against him even though, as Blake shows, he could have detached the train.

“ prioritizes the cause over a cat girl, who was his student - sharing a “student-mentor” relationship as established by the show’s creator as well as said cat girl (“Forget it! It’s time I headed back to Mistral!”),”

Except that, again. Adam STABS Blake and outright shows malice towards her in the SAME VOLUME, Arkos shows mentorship and romance are NOT exclusive and even THAT line is delivered with Adam looking furious clearly showing he’s hung up about Blake.

“ has a legitimate reason to hate humans - especially those affiliated with the Schnee Dust Company-”

Not really, especially since Adam was shown to be selfish in previous Volumes so why would he care about other people? In fact, the ‘fuckboi’ Adam you’ll bitch about later has the reason to hate humans, especially those with the SDC. This version, since he’s apparently completely seperate, is just racist.

“very charismatic”

Never shown OR said. Just projecting.

“ somewhat of a fallen mentor figure given the way the catgirl described him,”

Notice how here they don’t actually say WHAT the description is despite KNOWING about quotes? That’s because there’s nothing actually said in the show that is ambiguously about a mentorship.

“ his cause steadily consuming him (“I had someone I care for, who changed…”)”

Doesn’t prove anything AND it coinsides with ‘fuckboi’ Adam.

“ is one of the most popular male characters in the series in the first half of RWBY - despite having little screentime,”

So is Kirito, wanna guess what V1-2 Adam and Kirito have in common? They don’t have defined personality and their popularity came from people projecting onto them.

“ has an aesthetically-pleasing look to him, compared to DMC!Vergil and Jetstream Sam - two of the most iconic video game characters, in terms of looks and fighting style”

Both of which are incredibly common in anime.

“ Adam Taurus fans signs his adoption papers so that Miles and Kerry would never touch him”

Too bad according to you, they weren’t the ones who ruined Adam. No no, your issues, as I have shown, existed with MONTY. So you better start smack talking him... what’s that, if you did that you couldn’t profit off his name and his fanboys would rip you to shreds? Maybe you shouldn’t be a disingenuous fuck.

‘ People use this version in their fanfics and RPs,’

And people turn Jaune into a generic self insert and Ruby into an edgy angsty psuedo anti hero- that means nothing.

“ turning him into a redeemable person while still keeping his morally grey aspects.”

So basically making him a generic anti villian instead of a tragic case of someone not being able to get over their past tramua.

“ Tauradonna is more mutual than lovey-dovey.”

And it’s more ‘abusive’ than mutual.

Fuckboi!Adam: Created by Miles and Kerry, two amateurish white guys noted for writing sub-par comedy segments and part of the upper echelons of Rooster Teeth. Born out of the criticism of “show, don’t tell aspect” of the show - barely having any visible evidence of Faunus racism, born out of the two admitting they couldn’t write a racism sub-plot - despite having the money and resources to do so, established as an abuser by CRWBY and demonized heavily by them and the fanbase despite little evidence of such prior to because of catgirl’s various descriptions of him pointing towards someone “dear” (“More of a mentor, actually…”), “hElLo, My LoVe!” “tHe bElLaDoNnAs HaVe CaUsEd Me NoThInG bUt GrIeF!”, “sO i JuSt wAsN’t GoOd EnOuGh FoR yOu.”, A fedora wearing crazed nazi ex-boyfriend, DMC-Reboot!Vergil but with the edgelord turned to 11, “Tauradonna? More like Tauradon’t!”, How many zippers does your dumbass outfit need? lol, Why did your voice crack?, Even his own VA hate him, Is an incel-ass bitch, Gaston apparently, Lol he’s attempting the birdbox challenge, That stupid ass face reveal did nothing as the damage was done, The fandom - primarily BMBLB, and CRWBY sing of his death (“Ding-dong the bitch is dead!”) - with the BMBLB fandom using his death as major evidence of their ship becoming canon. Also, his death caused such dissonance in the fandom that shit hit the fan in all kinds of ways, not to mention his death started the slow deterioration of RT - embodying the spite element that Blake attributed him, probably because he was pissed at CRWBY to the point where his hatred manifested as a curse - causing their various injustices against their employees to come out and be heavily criticized as a result (No, seriously, RT is visibly crumbling shortly after his demise).

“ Created by Miles and Kerry-”

And yet will somehow completely overlap with the Volumes Monty had the most control over.

“ two amateurish white guys”

Miles is part Mexician.

“ noted for writing sub-par comedy segments”

While Monty is noted for never writing whatsoever so i guess that means you think Miles and Kerry are better.

“ Born out of the criticism of “show, don’t tell aspect” of the show - barely having any visible evidence of Faunus racism, born out of the two admitting they couldn’t write a racism sub-plot - despite having the money and resources to do so,”

The criticism being located SOLELY in Volumes 1 and 2 Aka MONTY.

“ established as an abuser by CRWBY and demonized heavily by them and the fanbase despite little evidence of such prior to because of catgirl’s various descriptions of him pointing towards someone “dear” (“More of a mentor, actually…”)’“

You know...despite the fact that every single aspect of Adam’s character has been shown WITH MONTY, as I showed above.

“ “hElLo, My LoVe!” “

Located in Volume 3, which you cite as a Volume where ‘Monty!’ Adam existed.

“ “tHe bElLaDoNnAs HaVe CaUsEd Me NoThInG bUt GrIeF!” “

Huh, if you spelled “Belladonna” as “Miles and Kerry”, that sounds an awful lot like you...oh

“ “sO i JuSt wAsN’t GoOd EnOuGh FoR yOu.” “

They scream as Rooster Teeth ignores them.

“ A fedora wearing crazed nazi ex-boyfriend”

Never actually shown wearing a fedora or ever showing any personbality traits associated with it...but then again, you know what they say about mirrors...

Also at least it’s better than ‘blank edgy emo teen’ he was in Volume 3 which you loved apparently.

“ DMC-Reboot!Vergil but with the edgelord turned to 11″

Uh oh, Op’s brain rotted so he can’t actually make arguments....oh wait, he was always like that.

“ “Tauradonna? More like Tauradon’t!” “

So basically ‘wah wah wah. my otp is not canon’.

“ How many zippers does your dumbass outfit need?”

Dunno, why is wearing a tux as a freedom fighter and sticks out like a sore thumb?

“ Why did your voice crack?”

Why did he sound fourteen in Volume 3?

“ Even his own VA hate him,”

Ever since Volume 3 which you cite as “Monty!Adam”

“ Is an incel-ass bitch, Gaston apparently”

Or you know, a Beats who never grew up and never became a better person. But who needs insight?

“ Lol he’s attempting the birdbox challenge”

*insert Family Guy skit here*

“ hat stupid ass face reveal did nothing as the damage was done”

They say as most of the fandom did a 180 on how they view his character and gave him more justification for his actions than “Monty” Adam ever had.

“ he fandom - primarily BMBLB, and CRWBY sing of his death (“Ding-dong the bitch is dead!”)”

Which considering he was meant to be hated is a GOOD thing.

“ with the BMBLB fandom using his death as major evidence of their ship becoming canon”

Basically ‘wah wah wah make MY otp canon”

“ Also, his death caused such dissonance in the fandom that shit hit the fan in all kinds of ways”

all kinds being two ways: accepting it and throwing a fit because you didn’t get your way. Also inadvertently justifying wasps being assholes because they did the same thing during Volumes 4 and 5.

“ t to mention his death started the slow deterioration of RT - embodying the spite element that Blake attributed him, probably because he was pissed at CRWBY to the point where his hatred manifested as a curse - causing their various injustices against their employees to come out and be heavily criticized as a result (No, seriously, RT is visibly crumbling shortly after his demise).”

And said curse infected many of his fans where they all became monsters after his death like say, using the suffering of others AND THE DEAD *cough* MONTY *cough* all over a fictional character that didn’t even exist because as I have shown Adam is completely consistent with his characterization from the Black Trailer to his death. Something I am certain OP knows deep down because half way through this point they completely abandon any attempt at actually proving what they are saying to instead spout a bunch of memes in a vain attempt to appeal to people’s confirmation bias because they can’t actually make an argument to prove Adam had changed AT ALL, especially since their obsessive behavior, attempt at creating an abusive/parasitic relationship with RT and their own childishness has all but prove Adam is in no way unrealistic as they act like him except with NO justification whatsoever.

But sure, scream loud enough and people will think you’re right. That hasn’t BACKFIRED before.

22 notes · View notes

atopearth · 4 years

Text

Fate/stay night Réalta Nua Part 2 - Fate Route (2/2)

Day 10 - 15 I don’t think I ever realised how deep the repercussions of Shinji activating the boundary field and sucking up the life force of the people in the school exactly was. Although we got to see (in the anime) people like Mitsuzuri not acting “normal”, when Shirou couldn’t sleep because he kept thinking about the people who had their skin melted, and how the lack of oxygen could severely affect their brain functions or other physical disabilities, it made me so mad that Shinji got away. Someone like him who could do such cruel things yet cry like a baby when he’s about to die makes me so mad and annoyed. Honestly, this is probably where I think Shirou is much more “mature” than Saber, he acknowledges that this tragic event occurred, he was powerless to stop it from happening, but he doesn’t dwell on kicking himself for allowing it to happen and wanting to go back to change it if he could (since he knows that such a thing shouldn’t be done on a whim even if he could do it). Instead, Shirou very logically understands that what he can and must do from now on is to prevent such a thing from happening ever again, and I think that’s really admirable, especially considering how much his guilt must weigh on him for being weak. But I guess that only makes him push himself even when he’s injured… It’s nice to see an explanation of the different Noble Phantasms that are either built to be anti-personnel ones where it’s really strong against people but “useless” against objects or armies and the other way around. Which i guess kinda balances out the different skills of each Servant since there’s no Noble Phantasm that is really effective against everything. I’m glad that Saber forced him to rest when he started looking around for Shinji, now Saber is being the less reckless one haha.

I guess the reason Shirou becomes who he is in “that future” is mainly because of the attitude he keeps up right now. Even Saber has noticed that he puts others before himself to the point that he doesn’t care about himself and doesn’t think about “saving” himself, and that’s probably what caused his life to go downhill when he realised how he sacrificed himself and everything for an ideal that gave him nothing in the end, whether it be satisfaction, happiness or any change in the world itself. He lives to become a protector of justice and yet neglects the importance of “Shirou’s” thoughts and feelings as a person instead of just the Shirou who was the only survivor in the last war, so he should do something with this life he was luckily blessed with by Kiritsugu. Wow, Rider on a Pegasus looked really beautiful, but at the same time eerie, considering she definitely lured Saber to the rooftop because she has a plan to defeat her. I definitely enjoy how Rider is living up to her name as Rider lol, to think she could summon a Pegasus from the times of the Gods and it’s actually powerful enough that its divine protection is even above Saber’s. I guess it was expected that Saber would have to use her Noble Phantasm Excalibur to defeat Rider (who took advantage of fighting in the air against Saber who is accustomed to fights on the ground). It’s just saddening that using it once depleted her mana so much that she might not be able to survive the next fight… It was nice to see Arturia/Saber’s past, I feel like she’s similar to Shirou in the sense that she never lived for herself either, when she was born, although she was tossed to an old knight due to her gender, she always trained properly as a knight knowing what her role in life was. She was born to be king and it was further proven when she was able to pull Caliburn(?) out of the ground. She knew her life could never be normal and accepted that, she knew she had to kill everyone to protect everyone around her, she took those responsibilities to heart so much, she always stood in the front lines to protect the people she felt she was destined to protect because she was the king, and nothing else.

It’s actually pretty cute how Saber has become more conscious of herself as a girl because of Shirou now, it’s nice to see her feel and be something other than a knight. But yeah, I always feel so sad about Archer being left behind to fend off Berserker so they can escape Illya’s castle, soo not worth it for Shirou and Saber🥺 But yeah, he did it to protect Rin so it can’t be helped, especially since there really was no other choice. The whole transplant with the Magic Circuit with the dragon inside of Saber etc was interesting… But what’s more interesting is how embarrassed Saber is towards Shirou now lol. It’s just such a contrast from how she acted before that it’s so amusing lol. It’s pretty amazing to hear that Archer dealt 6 fatal blows to Berserker before disappearing, if there’s only 6 “blows” left, that means Archer himself took Berserker to half health! Kinda crazy especially since Berserker gets enhanced strength and stuff for being berserk (has no rationality etc, even though he regained it for a second from the battle with Archer because of how interesting and worthy of a battle it was) and even Saber can’t match his strength. I love Archer😭

Although it’s super cool that Shirou could reproduce an imitation of Caliburn (the sword Saber pulled out from the ground), it’s still crazy to think that the attack they both used together could actually destroy Berserker’s body seven-fold with a single blow. Ooh I never realised that Masters could actually have more than one Servant, it’s just unfeasible due to having to split up magical power. Although I’ll never like Illya (look at all those deaths in the bad ends!), she is cute and honest, and I do love how she won’t have any other Servant except Berserker. Lmao when she said she’ll take Saber if Shirou loses since she doesn’t intend on allowing anyone except him to win the war, so she’ll win it in his stead if that happens lol. It was so cute when Saber used a napkin to wipe Illya’s cheek when it got dirty as she was eating. But I think when Saber said she did it because she didn’t want Illya’s beautiful hair to get dirty made me think that maybe Saber is so partial to it because of Irisviel (Illya’s mother).

I’m really glad the novel actually expands on Saber’s past, her thoughts and feelings much more, I always thought she was a shallow character in the anime, so it’s great to see this. “Nobody wanted her to be human, but they revolted against her because she didn’t have a human’s feelings”. I find this quote so saddening… Saber worked hard to be nothing but a “king” for the knights and the people around her because they all found it difficult to acknowledge her as one when she was just a kid that pulled out a sword, and yet when she succeeded in winning battles and leading them, they found dissatisfaction in the fact that even though she was capable, she didn’t have the heart to truly move or guide people because all she was, was some kind of being that was so great yet so difficult to understand. What she sacrificed to lead people in the end became what the people revolted against her for. It’s so… ridiculously ironic that it honestly breaks my heart to think about how difficult it must have been for Saber. She gave up herself and lived for these people that ended up going against her despite her doing her best in the only way she knew to lead them. She was always alone, but no one thought anything of it, because she was the king, and yet despite whatever misgivings she had as a king, the knights never questioned her until they decided to just leave her. Just as she never showed them and the people her emotions and thoughts, her people also never wanted that from her until they suddenly decided otherwise. I think by seeing all this, I can much more appreciate how the innocent, cute and sweet Saber acts in front of Shirou. It’s like, because of him, she was able to regain and show a part of herself that she had to always restrain inside because of how unnecessary it was to the world, and yet Shirou from the very beginning always insisted on treating her as a human, as a girl and as just any other person. How ironic it is that she was never treated as a human when she was alive, yet she is treated as one when she becomes a Servant. I think what must have broken her the most was her last battle against the knights that usurped her throne and split the country in two, making her fight in the soil she fought so hard to protect all these years. And I guess that’s why Saber can so assuredly say that Shirou’s way of living is wrong and will cause him grief in the future. Because they’re so similar in that they both completely disregard themselves as “anything” compared to the “importance” of others. On a lighter note, I love how simple and sweet their everyday life is, it’s so cute how much fun Saber and Illya have just sharing boxed lunches together in the dojo, they’re so adorable. Although I do have to really question how useful Saber and Shirou’s training has been if they’re both so reserved towards each other now lol.

The heroic spirit thing is certainly interesting… To think that heroes make a contract with the world in order to become a hero, receive powers beyond humans and then pay for this after death by becoming heroic spirits that could be summoned for the war… But Saber is different because she became a hero with her own powers and not by contract with the world, it was only when she was about to die that she made that contract to be a heroic spirit in order to obtain the Holy Grail (that she sought when she was Arturia). Hmm so right now, Saber isn’t exactly a Servant since her time has only “stopped”, but then when she gets the grail, she will die and become a heroic spirit as per the contract…and that’s why she can’t go into spirit form… it’s actually because she’s not dead😮 And unlike the other Servants who are essentially copies of themselves (so they disappear when defeated), Saber goes back to her own time (the moment before her death) instead. I wondered to what point Saber wants to change things, but to think she believes that maybe the sword chose wrong, so she wants to redo the selection in hope that a more “suitable” king would be found and her country wouldn’t be in ruins because of her. Honestly, although Shirou is mad that she has no regards for herself even to this point, and that he wants the Saber here to be happy (instead of just the Saber that will not be king if she really gets the Holy Grail), I’m mad at Saber for completely disregarding the ten years she fought for her country. Even if it ended in betrayal and shambles, even if that wasn’t the ending she desired, how can she disregard the lives she saved alongside the lives that were lost? What makes her think that this is entirely her responsibility? Just as she chose to pull out the sword, the others decided to follow her (even if it was in reluctance for a bit), the fall of a country isn’t someone’s sole responsibility. But I guess what annoys Shirou the most is that even though Saber tells him that he’s on the “wrong path”, Saber doesn’t even realise she’s doing the same thing as him. She only thinks of herself as the king that failed and must do something to rectify that when she doesn’t even really think of her own life outside of being king.

Hahahaha, I love Tiger Dojo 9 when Taiga and Illya diss Saber for being weak, getting controlled by Caster and killing Shirou lmaoo. LOL at Saber getting her revenge on them riding a tiger hahahaha, omg these Tiger Dojos are so fun to read. Kinda sad that Caster has to interrupt during the heated conversation, sooo rude lol. Lmao at Saber wanting to use Excalibur against the horde of golems in Shirou’s house, lady, do you want to destroy everything and the people in the vicinity?! Caster feels like such a cheat though, not only can she cast magic without a Magical Circuit and with short incantations since she’s from the age of Gods or whatever, her Noble Phantasm is rigged even if it’s not “super powerful” like Saber’s. I’m surprised that Gilgamesh appeared to “save the day”. But anyway, I guess I’ve never been a fan of Caster and Gilgamesh because imo they kinda ruin the power balance in the story and makes things less interesting. Let’s see if the novel changes my mind for this haha. Maybe now I’ll get to see why Gilgamesh is so obsessed with Saber?

Honestly though, I find Saber so silly to think that if she herself was an incapable king, what makes her think that she is capable of properly selecting an “appropriate king” in her stead? Hmmm, how interesting that the Einzbern family were the ones who initially wanted to summon the Holy Grail but ended up getting cooperation from the Tohsaka family due to the need for their land, and then they got the Makiri family to try and balance things out, but since the first “war” ended in such a bloodfest, the Holy Grail War started changing into what it is now, with Einzbern providing the vessel, Tohsaka the land and model for the Servants, and the Makiri provided the Command Spells. I’m kinda glad that Shirou knows his feelings for Saber though, I mean he’s so obstinate about “saving” her and keeping her here so she can live a life for herself instead of others, it was about time for him to realise how important she was to him haha. Although I do feel like the romantic vibes are rather weak, I do acknowledge that their relationship is something more along the lines of they would sacrifice their lives for the other without even needing to think about it.

LMAO when Tohsaka asked what Shirou was going to do tomorrow with such a serious face and he says he’s going to go on a date hahahha. Tohsaka was so cute when she burst out laughing at him. Their date was so awkward and yet so cute lol. I really liked their conversation at the bridge, it’s mainly a reiteration of what they both stubbornly want from each other; with Shirou wanting Saber to live her life for herself and Saber denying that because it’s her duty to attain the holy grail. They both care about each other but just can’t find a way for the other to understand what they want or must do. But yeah, I just really liked it because I guess it was nice to see more depth to Saber’s feelings, her pain and how much she wants to do what Shirou wants her to do but is unable to because she feels so bound to her duty. Mmmm I see! Gilgamesh is the king of heroes, a half God half human king that had a whole treasury of weapons (that are now Noble Phantasms because they’re now owned by heroes) and collected them his whole lifetime, and they were only spread through the land after his death. Even though Gilgamesh is infinitely arrogant and overbearing, it was rather respectable for him to use Ea, a sword that only the king of heroes possesses to face off against Excalibur. Although Gilgamesh won and was as detestable as ever, it was great to see Shirou relentlessly continue to fight half dead. What Saber couldn’t do, Shirou did, even if he was weak, even if he was tattered by Gilgamesh, he still stood because he no matter what desired to protect Saber, the most important person to him, and honestly although these scenes are cliche, I still really loved it because I could really feel Shirou’s desperation, and Saber’s hope for him to just give up and not hurt himself anymore. So when he was able to hurt Gilgamesh (and cause him to leave for some reason, probably because he felt so disgraced lol), and Saber held him up realising that he was her sheath (to Excalibur), that scene was really beautiful and heartwarming. Because not only does he really have Saber’s sheath (and that’s why his wounds always heal next to her), it’s already been said (in her past) that what’s more important than the sword is the sheath itself that will always protect her, and it’s kinda cute how Shirou is exactly that.

Oh dang, Saber in her sleepwear?! I’m surprised Shirou wasn’t excited! Hahaha, but I guess the atmosphere didn’t allow that. He kissed her, he showed her and told her his feelings very explicitly, but she couldn’t accept them no matter what, but she at least decided to hug him to sleep as a way to recover magical energy, and to spend one last night selfishly being Arturia rather than King Arthur. I… didn’t think I could get so disgusted with Kotomine. To think that all those children who were orphans from the fire ten years ago were taken in by the church and tortured all this time to give Gilgamesh the power to stay in this world…. Thinking about Shirou witnessing the scene of them all practically the living dead with missing limbs etc yet still “alive” really crushed me, because it’s so true, because Kiritsugu saved Shirou, he didn’t have to suffer like them, once again, he is the true sole survivor of that fire. It’s just so disheartening to think how that must feel and how much it must break him. Honestly, I feel sorry for Lancer that his Master is Kotomine. Although it would have been logical for Shirou to want the holy grail to undo the fire ten years ago, it was expected that he wouldn’t, since from the very beginning, he has never denied his past, he continues to carry it within him and apologise to the ones that died because he survived, but he has never thought that he would want to redo it. He always moved to change the present and only looked back for his resolve. So, I’m glad through him, Saber can understand how strong he is, and how wrong she has been. Just as it is cruel to deny the past, it is cruel to deny everything that happened after such an event. If she truly wants to change things, it should be done in the present. I’m glad she has come to terms with the decisions she made in her past. Even though it all ended in grief, those were her decisions and she did everything in accordance to her oath, there is nothing that she still needs to bear responsibility for. It must feel pretty crappy to be Saber though. She’s been fighting for the Holy Grail in two wars hoping that it would fulfill her wishes, only to realise that it’s just something that provides pure power of destruction to fulfill wishes since it’s the only way it can fulfill wishes. So really, unless she’s willing to sacrifice everything around her then really, this whole war was just pointless. But yeah, I really love Lancer. I love how he’s someone who follows his beliefs more than anything.

It’s nice yet saddening that Saber finally understands that Kiritsugu didn’t betray her. He knew this grail wasn’t what she wanted, not that he thought she needed it anyway, but after knowing what it really was, it definitely wasn’t what she wanted. It must feel terrible to have hated him for so long, only to realise that he was right, and that he wasn’t as bad as she thought. I see, Illya is a human made from a Magic Circuit, so that’s what the vessels are… I guess it’s kinda funny to call Gilgamesh and them OP when I guess Saber is always the OP one when Shirou gives her stuff like her proper sheath and sword. I honestly didn’t expect that the projection of her sheath could actually block Gilgamesh’s Ea and Kotomine’s black mud. I guess it’s a very flexible thing that can protect you from anything huh? Since it is apparently the greatest protection lol. And with that opening, both Shirou and Saber have the opening needed to defeat their opponent~ Shirou needs to thank Rin for giving him her Azoth dagger haha. Honestly though, I think Gilgamesh is less repetitively overbearing in the VN, I think regardless of how he was and how he acted, the grace he possessed after his defeat was definitely refreshing. Although it’s saddening that destroying the grail will lead to Saber disappearing, this is what they want and what is the best for their respective paths, because with this, they can finally accept everything they had done and finally move forward knowing that the path they have chosen is what they wanted. Saber’s confession to Shirou before disappearing was natural yet beautiful. It didn’t make me feel sad that they can’t be together, but instead I think I found a lot of relief from it, because both their existences helped the other come to terms with everything in their past and finally accept it for what it is and for what will come.

Omgg I love how Taiga took Illya in! Since Taiga is childish, they would get along so well! Hahaha. Although I guess it’s mainly Illya bullying Taiga hahaha. It was really nice to see Shirou keep up his normal everyday life yet have matured, it was really nice to see that. It was also really heartwarming to see Bedevere (Arthur’s loyal knight) fulfill Saber’s last wish of throwing the sword into the lake (to end her duty as king) and be able to see Saber/Arthur pass with a peaceful expression believing that her “dream” (of Shirou etc) will continue. Honestly, it felt like the whole route was made just for this to happen, because if it was the Saber before, she would never have been able to pass on in peace, but after everything that happened, this was the natural thing to happen, and it’s pretty worth it to see her be able to be happy about her decisions instead of regretting them for eternity.

Overall, although I did think the beginning was very slow and rather time consuming, I have to admit I did very much enjoy the Fate route. Although I don’t think the 2006 anime is exactly terrible as others say, I do think it really cut out a lot of Saber’s character that was quite thoroughly explored here. I think the thing I loved about it most was that I honestly expected it to be a very romantic route considering how Shirou acted towards Saber and how much he wanted to protect her throughout the whole route, but really, it wasn’t that romantic at all. Mainly because, I think Saber and Shirou’s relationship was there to make them both grow and accept their past, and move forward without regrets about how they could do better, and instead accept that they did what they could, that they did their best and that in respect for their past, they should hope to change the present instead of dwelling on the past. Honestly, I never really thought Saber and Shirou were similar until I played through this route, and it’s kinda cute how absolutely stubborn they both are (which is why Rin is so important to help them understand each other), and how they both refused to allow the other disregard themselves for others. I loved how the way they learnt to cherish themselves and their own lives was through looking and caring for the other so much that they couldn’t help but understand how important they were due to their need and love for each other. They both always put others before themselves because just as Saber was bound to her duty as king, Shirou was bound to his responsibility as the sole survivor of the fire ten years ago. But unlike Saber, Shirou never wanted to change the past, because he understood the importance of accepting events that have occurred, acknowledging mistakes and responsibilities and doing better in the present and the future. And I loved how although Shirou was annoyingly obstinate about stuff like Saber is a girl etc, it was his way of trying to convey to her that she already gave her whole life to being a king, she didn’t need to sacrifice her afterlife to being responsible for other people anymore. I honestly thought Saber’s meeting with Shirou was such a blessing for her, because it was through him that she was finally able to find peace in the decisions she made in her life, and yet was still able to experience a fun “dream” with Shirou and others as “Saber”. Tbh though, when I was reading through the route, a lot of things did feel tedious, but I think it all built up very nicely to the finale, because it was through all those “annoying” moments that I was able to see how worth it it was for Shirou to be so persistent about “saving” Saber, and I’m so glad he was so annoying about it hahaha. And it was nice to see that Shirou’s will to save and help people really ended up saving himself and Saber.

#fate stay night

7 notes · View notes

wonderfulworldofmichaelford · 5 years

Text

Psycho Analysis: Lucy

(WARNING! This analysis contains SPOILERS!)

It’s not very often you see a series where the villain is the main character, but then again it isn’t very often you see a series quite like Elfen Lied. The series is dark, foreboding, and gory, and a lot of that has to do with its protagonist, the Diclonius woman Lucy. Lucy is one of the most brutally tragic villains you’ll ever see, between her incredibly nightmarish childhood to the constant torment her very nature puts her through as a mutant. It all adds up to a very rich, complex character... though one that ends up not as fully realized as she could have been.

Actor: Kira Vincent-Davis portrayed Lucy in one of her star-making roles. The other? Osaka from Azumanga Daioh. She definitely delivers an excellent performance here, and it is easy to see how she managed to get such a varied career out of this. She knows just how to inject the right emotions into Lucy’s voice, and when Lucy is in her Nyuu personality she manages to fill the latter’s Pokemon speak with enough character that you get what she’s going for.

Motivation/Goals: Lucy is a Diclonius, and as such she has internal homicidal instincts that make her desire to slaughter as many people as humanly possible; coupled with the horns, the name she ends up being given (her true name is Kaede, but she ends up being called Lucy), and the fact she ends up embodying each of the Seven Deadly Sins if you read into her actions, and Lucy ends up a symbolic stand-in for the Antichrist. Of course, as a child, she didn’t really grasp this and in fact actively tried to suppress these feelings, but unfortunately fate decided to deal her a very poor hand.

First was her only source of happiness at the orphanage she grew up in, a puppy. A puppy that her bullies found out about, and in one of the most infamous moments of the series, beat it to death in front of her… and in turn, begin her descent into villainy as she slaughters the entire lot of kids, from her bullies to the girl she had befriended earlier who decided to snitch to the bullies about the puppy.

Second was what she felt was a betrayal at the hands of her only friend, Kouta. After he got her to open up and befriended her, she saw him at the festival with his female cousin and became insanely jealous, thinking he chose another girl over her… and so she went on a killing spree, which culminated in killing Kouta’s father and sister right in front of him.

And finally, her last ray of hope, a human who she had befriended was injured by the people who finally took her into custody… she died of her wounds, but Lucy wasn’t told until after she was imprisoned under the condition that they save her. When she finally gets a chance to escape, her sole motivation seems to be staying near Kouta again and try to find some way to apologize for her heinous actions, though even she realizes she’ll never be able to atone for what she did to him.

This brings about a pretty interesting facet of her goals: she slowly starts to defrost and gain more humanity the more time she and her split personality Nyuu spend with Kouta. It is in fact a major part of the story that she slowly becomes less evil as time goes on and she begins to develop, though by “less evil” I mean to say that at best she is an anti-hero, one who has no qualms about brutally dismembering anyone who dares to harm Kouta or herself.

This also ties into one of the major themes of the series: nature vs. nurture. Obviously, Lucy’s internal genetic desire to wipe out humanity is her inherent nature, but one also needs to look at what drove her to her killings; she was bullied, abused, and faced prejudice, betrayal, and scorn all around her for her entire childhood. Notice how when she’s shown the simplest compassion, she immediately starts to fall for that person and seems to want to do better, before a simple misunderstanding causes her to react in a volatile manner. It may seem over-the-top and disproportianate what she does to Kouta, but this is what her peers and caretakers molded her into: a violent misanthrope who clings desperately to even the tiniest shred of kindness in the world, and when she feels betrayed she lashes out and kills in a fit of rage, giving in to her violent nature. After gaining the amnesia during her escape at the start of the series and gaining her split personality, she is taken in yet again by Kouta and treated as a friend, an equal, and this begins Lucy’s ascent from pure villain protagonist to very, VERY dark anti-hero.

Personality: Lucy is a cold, cynical, and bitter woman due to the numerous tragedies she experienced, but she is no emotionless husk; if there is one thing that is true about Lucy, it is that her capacity for love is one of her greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses. Love is what drove her to kill Kouta’s family out of jealousy, it’s what drove herself to sacrifice herself for Aiko (the girl she befriended before being captured), it’s what drives her the most throughout the series really. Her capacity for love is only even closely rivaled by her capacity for hate.

Final Fate: In the anime, Lucy finally confesses the truth to Kouta, and while he outright says he can never forgive her for what she did, he is at least a little more sympathetic to her plight than he was in the manga, where he outright said he hated her (though he did at least say her split personality Nyuu could stick around as long as she promised not to kill anyone). She then makes a heroic sacrifice against the army who is after her, one which she may or may not have survived. The ending is rather ambiguous, as opposed to that of the manga in which she is really and most sincerely dead after nearly bringing about the apocalypse in a fit of rage.

Best Scene: There are a lot of contenders, but perhaps her finest moment is the scene where Lucy as we know her is truly born, baptized in the blood of the bullies who killed her dog.

Best Quote: “When you're miserable, you need to make someone even more miserable than yourself.”

Final Thoughts & Score: Lucy is an amazing character. Her character arc is a depressing, heartrending rollercoaster showing her descent into the darkest depths of despair, cynicism, and evil before she begins to slowly but surely rise again, climbing out of the dark if only just a little bit. She’s stoic and sadistic, monstrous and vicious, cruel and uncaring… but at the same time, she has a boundless expanse of love inside her broken, battered heart, and a burning passion that drives her actions and the plot. She is shattered, she is flawed, but she is so very interesting.

A really fascinating aspect of her is how she deconstructs the tropes of the cute monster girl and magical girlfriend. The former is deconstructed by the fact that, despite being appealing to the viewer and us being given no reason to think she’d be unattractive to the humans of her world, her horns and other differences cause her to be mocked, tormented, and persecuted by her peers, with said persecution ultimately pushing her over the edge and causing her to become a serial killer. For the latter, her powers are incredily, seriously dangerous, as her invisible arms (or vectors, as they are called in the series) can easily dismember and when not dismembering infect the reproductive capabilities of whoever they touch, and there is also the fact that they are part of the contributing factor that drives her to madness.

Lucy gets a 9/10. She’s a very impressive villain, and one who has one of the most fascinatingly tragic backstories. In fact, she has the backstory by which all tragic backstories should be judged; if your villain wants to destroy the human race and yet their backstory wasn’t a horrendously cruel conga line of trauma the way Lucy’s was, you may want to rethink that backstory. It really is the tragedy and the way the series unfolds to show you just how she became the way she is that makes her so great; the only reason I don’t give her perfect marks is because the manga goes into far more detail in developing her, as the anime was made while the manga was still ongoing.

And you know what? That might honestly be for the better. Lucy in the manga was far more insane, far more evil, and far easier to see as irredeemable, though even there she had moments of kindness and compassion that ultimately belied her true nature buried under the years of systematic abuse and betrayal. In the anime, while she is still a bitter, jaded serial killer, she comes off as bit more worthy of redemption; she revels far less in the actions she takes and seems to act in her adulthood more out of self-preservation than anything, as she harms only those who have wronged her rather than people who just get in her way. It does end up making it more believable when Kouta offers his sympathy at anime’s end; this version of Lucy seems more like a broken monster who does all she does because at this point it’s all she knows and all she thinks she can be rather than someone who all too often indulges their twisted genetic instinct. I would have much preferred to see this Lucy receive the culmination to her character that the one in the manga did, but sadly that did not come to pass. We are left with something brilliant, but also something that could have been even more heartbreakingly beautiful in its tragic poignancy.

#Psycho Analysis #Lucy #Elfen Lied #Spoilers #speelers

46 notes · View notes

wordacrosstime · 4 years

Text

Shakespeare and the Goddess of Complete Being

[Shakespeare and the Goddess of Complete Being. Ted Hughes. 1992. Faber & Faber Ltd, London. 504 pages]

I do not think it an accident that Ted Hughes was brave enough to tackle this subject. An award-winning poet himself, Hughes was husband to the poet Sylvia Plath, and seems equally at home in drama and mythology. Plath’s artistry and suffering must have informed and influenced Hughes, whose book tracing about a dozen Shakespearean works focuses on the tragic hero’s terrible relationship to women. This deeply disturbing and yet mythological theme in these plays, Hughes reduces to a Tragic Equation and compares this Tragic Equation in terms of psychology and even psychobiology, a term new to me. It is interesting that Hughes does not describe his Goddess Of Complete Being as a Supreme Being, but rather more like the Mother Earth, or Mother Nature Herself, or even Plath’s White Goddess, all of which Hughes mentions as examples of female divinity. For Hughes the ultimate truth is bound up not with spirits hovering magically in the forest air, but to be found in the bosom of women. Not that Hughes’s equation is formulated from a woman’s point of view; no, rather from the point of view of the boys who become men, that is warriors, monarchs, poets, and playwrights. Hughes draws our attention to the one thing the tragic heroes have in common in the Shakespearean tragedies, behaviour towards women that is brutish, if not violent. This is a brave thesis, and probably not one that would have been published if proposed by a woman. He calls this theory the Tragic Equation.

The Tragic Equation begins, according to Hughes, when the adolescent who is precariously independent from the Mother Goddess and the paralysing force of her love, as a aavaictime of new and uncontrollable sexual energy searching for union with an unknown female, and in Elizabethan society that female is bound to be fairly unknown. Hughes declares the origin of this Tragic Equation is the severing of the emotional bonds with the mother. This emotional recoil which coincides with the first sexual urgings, he believes results, for the man of leisure and intelligence, in a ‘madness’. He convinced me that this ‘madness’ is substantiated throughout the oeuvre. We cannot deny the fact that the infant male, for many years, is in the powerful kingdom of the female, who has miraculous powers to give birth to a human being, must be affected in his search for his male identity. For Hughes this is an adequate reason to explain distrust and hatred of women that Shakespeare’s tragic heroes experience before their final downfall. So it is a kind of revenge Tragic Equation, where the female ends up banished, abandoned or dead, which brings the hero to his knees.

Hughes begins his thesis with the two poems,Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece. Hughes feels that these two poems are the beginning of the tragic hero who features in the rest of Shakespeare’s works. These heroes, according to Hughes, are tortured by their blind lust, either unconsciously or consciously, and are really seeking a kind of divine love. He makes a good case for his thesis as he convincingly traces the love affairs from the bestial in Venus and Adonis, right through to The Tempest. Interestingly, the process begins with the lust of a woman, the Goddess Venus, who is blamed for lust in general. This lust is transferred, as it must be for the Tragic Equation, to the rapist Taquin. In the male, bestial lust quickly becomes violent. I think Hughes convincingly traces, through the works, the fate of love from its source in confused bestiality to the pursuit of a woman who ideally embodies divine love.

I think contemporary psychology theory agrees with him, and that at the mercy the natural surging of his hormones, the young man is in an unstable emotion state and can reject the object of his desire who is always a young virtuous woman. This is the woman who our tragic hero desperately wants, but can easily hate. Hughes quotes a number of tragic heroes as victims of this ‘irrational madness’, the foremost being Hamlet, and the most irrational being Leontes in A Winter’s Tale, but there are many instances of the hero abusing his most loved woman. Hughes thinks this is purely a psychobiological trait, mythologized through the centuries. He does not relate it to being an English subject in the reign of a powerful queen.

For all lovers of Shakespeare Hughes’s book is delightful reading except for the number of folkloric references which are confusing. Hughes desire is clear; to trace a path from bestial to divine love in the entire Shakespearean oeuvre and he begins this journey with the boar as symbolic of male desire. The book cover is a drawing of a boar. In Hughes’s Tragic Equation, the hero who chases the chaste woman, invariably comes to a sad end himself, and I find this supported by at least ten of the plays in the Shakespearean oeuvre. Hughes also insists that the plays portray a penitent hero who can transcend his madness and trade in his lust in order to reach a more spiritual love. Unfortunately, while this may be neat and psychologically sound, Hughes then goes on to confuse the boar with the Queen of Hell. This particular myth, or effigy I found difficult to accept since there’s only one character who could rightly be called that, Lady Macbeth. What is easier to accept is the raw youth at the mercy of his hormones in All’s Well That Ends Well, evolving into the wise old man, Prospero, at the end of the cycle who cares for his daughter so lovingly.

While agreeing in general with Hughes’s thesis, that the plays represent a growth towards spirituality, I think Hughes relies on psychology more than sociology or political impetus. Sociologically there is a very potent reason for the overbearing mother and her frustrated sexuality, namely, the oppression of women in the sixteenth century, especially aristocratic and landed-gentry women. They were inevitably bartered away and invariably ended up with an arranged and loveless marriage. Thus the problem of imposed ‘madness’ but Hughes does not credit this new interest in the relationship between men and women with the powerful rulers who are women. This very emphasis and criticism of male behaviour must have been inspired by the very powerful female monarchs of that era. There was the first ever queen of England, Queen Mary, a hated first English Queen, Mary Queen of Scots, who claimed to be queen of Scotland, England and France, and of course the omnipotent Elizabeth the First. Subjected to such powerful women must have been the source of much internal and external conflict. All three women must have ushered in a new sensibility, not necessarily in the portrayal of women but in the portrayal of men’s behaviour towards women who, for the first time had political clout. Hughes makes no reference to the possible influence of these monarchs. He also omits to note that these inner conflicts about the opposite sex, however common they are among the commoners and even aristocracy, are never described as the fatal flaw of the reigning monarch, or the paternal Dukes that pepper the plays. Perhaps Elizabeth would have more than frowned on portraying royalty with this fatal flaw. The most insidious male monarch who subdues a woman is, of course, Richard the Third, who is deliberately being maligned. Prince Hamlet is a great example, of someone who cannot become a monarch after his ‘madness’. The Winter’s Tale proves to be the exception, but that is because he becomes a penitent and is forgiven by the statue of his victim wife. Towards the end of the cycle, King Lear’s aggression is relatively mild against Cordelia, and he too repents.

Hughes does, however, make some historical explanation for the sudden emergence of scholarship of such profound depth and meaning. He credits the conflict between the Papal Church, personified perhaps by the Virgin Mary, and the rapacious Henry VIII. Hughes neglects to mention the protestations of Luther which made the intelligentsia (not the monarchs) question the Divine Right of Kings. These are powerfully conflicting elements which reach right down through every strata of society, and were represented in the person of Elizabeth the First; a rebel female and ‘unnaturally’ a scholar, who used the divine right of kings to rule. Hughes does mention that Queen Elizabeth had a keen interest in what was being dramatised because she was aware of the support she needed and appreciated the theatre as an instrument of propaganda. She headed an aristocratic class with leisure to reflect on the nature of women, and to believe that it was patriotic to do so. England was finally emerging from the brutality of the Roman Empire although English scholars had no desire to avoid the civilizing influence of Italian thought, language and painting. Dante and Boccaccio were influential. Elizabeth the First spoke Italian fluently and probably read Castiglione’s prescription for the perfect courtier and Machiavelli in the original. Even Mary Queen of Scots had her Florio.

When Hughes drew my attention to the Tragic Equation and even to his theories of psychobiology, it made me realize that the aristocratic, and characters who feature as leaders and celebrities in the plays, were probably always raised in dysfunctional family circumstances. Interestingly, they have this in common with the aristocrats of the day who supported the theatre and followed the Shakespearean oeuvre and argument on behalf of the conflicted tragic heroes. At the mercy of suppressed mothers, they must have felt like tragic heroes themselves.

Hughes does not need to mention the fact that Shakespeare is very popular today, but I think it is pertinent. Violence towards women is still with us and the reason why is still a subject of contention and endless theorizing. Jonathan Fast explores this violence in young males in his two books, Ceremonial Violence, A Psychological Explanation of School Shootings, and Beyond Bullying, Breaking the Cycle of Shame, Bullying and Violence. Interestingly this shame is not racial, or even competitively nurtured, no, it is learned in the heart of the dysfunctional (to a nth degree) family. Apparently Jeffrey Dahmer’s mother made him eat all the food she cooked, rotten or not. . Feminists may run from facts like these, by pointing out to the use and abuse of women which is responsible for such dysfunctional families. I agree with this position. Family dysfunction can easily be socially approved, such as in the suppression of women’s sexuality and ambition. I’m sure women’s liberation and the respect women are now acquiring in the public and private sector, will go a long way to reducing the effect of this trauma.

Hughes’s analysis of the tragic hero was long-winded but still left me wanting more, and a little sceptical of his need for formulas and theories. He focuses on the dramatic characters’ violence, rather than their passion for words and joy of life, notably absent from this didactical tome. But I want to thank Hughes for pointing out the ‘scurvy’ males in the Shakespearean oeuvre, and tracing the cycle of plays where the hero evolves towards some veneration, it not worship, of a divine being that is female in nature like the goddesses in The Tempest’s marriage ceremony.

[images copyright to publisher & photographer]

Eliza Wyatt

Words Across Time

17 March 2020

wordsacrosstime

1 note · View note

jaimetheexplorer · 5 years

Text

PROBABILITY DISTORTION - Or why Jaime Lannister is less likely to die than you think (part 3)

Once the narrative arcs and foreshadowing analysis pokes enough holes in the “inevitable death” prediction, the arguments to support it usually tend to turn to non-text-based points such as writing style and tropes. Most of these arguments generally revolve around the idea that GRRM is evil and kills characters off to traumatize his readers, and that Jaime’s story is a redemption arc and therefore will end in a redemptive death like all redemption arcs do. These arguments, however, do not really hold much water once you take into account that GRRM actually isn’t the sadist people like to think he is (including sometimes George himself, because it makes for good PR), and that one thing this series prides itself on is trope and expectations subversion.

GRRM is a realist, not a sadist

“If you think this has a happy ending, you haven’t been paying attention.”

Of all the quotes that have come out of the show, this, right here, is the one I have come to hate the most. Not only because it is often irritatingly used as an empty argument against anything that suggests a non-tragic ending for a character (especially one like Jaime), but it’s thrown around as if it’s the most representative of ASOIAF/GoT ever. In part, I get why. It’s catchy, and the series has broken a lot of boundaries by actually killing people off, putting them through terrible ordeals, maiming and traumatising some for life. It gained its notoriety for killing off the perceived main character of the story at very beginning, and for the shocking bloodbath of “good guys” that was the Red Wedding. But I feel there’s a tendency, amongst fans and journalists alike, to exaggerate how gloomy and sadistic the story/GRRM really is, relative to the context it is set in (medieval war time).

GRRM often explained the reason why he kills characters off as fundamentally being down to two reasons: wanting to depict war realistically and annoyance at stories where the heroes are untouchable and survive, unscathed, any situation (which ties into the topic of trope subversion, too - more on this later).

“You can’t write about war and violence without having death. If you want to be honest it should affect your main characters. We’ve all read this story a million times when a bunch of heroes set out on adventure and [...] the only ones who die are extras. That’s such a cheat. It doesn’t happen that way.” (GRRM)

GRRM is a realist, not a sadist. And I would argue he’s not as bloodthirsty as people perceive him to be, when it comes to main characters. If you think about it, only *two* POV characters have been killed off so far: Ned and Cat. Jon, the other main POV to be killed off in the books, we know will be resurrected thanks to the show. And just as GRRM inserts POVs for a reason (when he needs that new perspective, or when a character’s story needs to be told), there’s a similar reason in his killing too. It usually comes when the characters have fulfilled their purpose in the story, or if their death is a plot point for someone else’s. In Ned and Cat’s case, they die after falling into Littlefinger’s scheme that pits Lannisters against the Starks, kicking off the War of the Five Kings. Ned’s purpose was to discover the true paternity of Robert’s children and Cat dies after tasking Brienne to bring Jaime to King’s Landing in return for her daughters (which sets off a massive domino effect of plotlines). They also both needed to die in order to break down centralized parenthood in the Stark family so that the Stark children could go their separate ways and have their own stories and development.

While POV and non-POV deaths alike can be shocking and/or heartbreaking, they aren’t thrown in there just to fill some death or shock quota for no other rhyme nor reason. This is not The Walking Dead. And “realism” also means a ton of other options that have nothing to do with death. It’s not just an issue of “death vs. survival”, to post another excerpt from the quote above:

“They go into battle and their best friend dies or they get horribly wounded. They lose their leg or death comes at them unexpectedly.”

Having a loved one die, or horrible injuries are also part of realism for GRRM, not just death. Does that “lose their leg” sound familiar? Thought so. So saying that Jaime (or any character) will most likely get killed anyway because GRRM is a sadist is not only a weak argument, but a big misrepresentation of GRRM’s writing style. Jaime, who has already added his contribution to the “realism” jar by losing his hand, might die if and when he has fulfilled his purpose in the story, but not because “GRRM is a jerk”.

Subversions

Perhaps a stronger case for Jaime’s survival odds is the fact that, if there is one thing this series loves to do, it’s subverting tropes and expectations, and, alongside Ned’s death and the Red Wedding, Jaime is perhaps one of the most famous examples of how this story does character trope subversion so well.

Right out of the gate, it wants us to hate him, because he’s arrogant, ruthless and incestuous, he betrayed and murdered the King he was sworn to protect and he pushed a child out of a window. From book/season 3 onwards, that initial perception is slowly challenged and eventually subverted, especially throughout his journey with Brienne and with the revelation of why he killed the Mad King, but also in how he takes risks to protect Tyrion and Sansa from his own family. In the show this is particularly fun, because once you go back to earlier seasons, you notice several subtle moments of writing and acting where the seeds of these revelations were already being planted. While I understand he is not everyone’s cup of tea and some hate him just as much as day one, I think that we can all agree at least that this is what the story is aiming to do, even if not all readers/viewers embrace it. And that’s the most important thing when making a point about authorial intent.

I already mentioned when discussing narrative arcs, that the difference between the classic redemptive character trope and Jaime is that, in Jaime’s case, the story is exploring the process of redemption, rather than seeing redemption as the last minute goal, and how that makes a classic redemptive death less likely. But there is another difference with the traditional trope that makes Jaime not only subvert expectations but, partly, also subvert the redemption trope itself. And that is that many (not all, but many) of the things we are initially supposed to hate Jaime for, actually turn to be misconceptions or prejudices from other characters’ perspective (a huge point of having a POV structure). While Jaime undoubtedly goes through a transformation through the story, for many things it is our initial perception of Jaime is meant to change, not Jaime, the character (again, POV structure!). Looking at Jaime as the trope of the “bad man who is turned good by the good woman” (i.e. Brienne) is a complete misread of the character. Brienne exists to reawaken what Jaime used to be like in his past/can potentially still be, not to transform him into something else (it is Beauty and the Beast they are based on, after all - the beast used to be a prince, and gets turned back into that prince). Therefore applying the outcome of the traditional tropes to Jaime (i.e. a redemptive death) makes little sense when Jaime is meant to be a subversion of that trope to begin with, if not even a different type of character altogether.

Another trope worth considering is the “all the bad guys will die” trope.

Not only this view fails to acknowledge that most characters and families in this series (and its extended universe - see the Targaryen as portrayed in Dunk & Egg) aren’t 100% “good” or 100% “bad”, they sit on a spectrum, but even if you wanted to see a specific character or family as “evil”, that doesn’t necessarily mean they will die or go extinct. We can go back to his quotes about why he kills off characters to see how “bad guys will die” is also a trope he might be interested in subverting.

“It’s really irritating when you open a book, and 10 pages into it you know that the hero you met on page one or two is gonna come through unscathed, because he’s the hero. This is completely unreal, and I don’t like it.” (GRRM)

This quote above can be looked at in reverse too: just as it is annoying to open a book and know 10 pages in that the hero will survive (and GRRM subverted that trope with Ned), it is annoying to know 10 pages in that the villain will die (and Ned’s villain counterpart in book one is Jaime), or that the family that is perceived as the “evil family” (i.e. the Lannisters) will go extinct in the end (let alone if it’s with the exception of the “good” Lannister, Tyrion, playing right into the trope of both “good vs bad” guys and “good vs bad families”, since the only Lannister allowed to survive is the “good” one).

So even if one doesn’t want to buy into Jaime’s redemption and trope subversion, and wants to hold onto the book/season one interpretation that he’s an awful human being, if the author(s) intend for Jaime to be a subversion of the redemption death trope, or to subvert the “all bad guys must die” trope (or both), then his odds of death or survival are not really influenced by whether the audience agrees with that or not.

GRRM is both a gardener AND an architect

As I wrap up my 3-parter, one final aspect of GRRM’s style is important to note, because it ties it all together.

GRRM says he is a “gardener”, who likes to plant seeds and see how they grow. So one might argue that there is no guarantee that just because he set off in book one to make Jaime the subversion of the villain who must die (through redemption), he will never decide at some point that, actually, a death will be a fitting and satisfying conclusion.

However, it is important to remember that when he talks about being a gardener he means it in the sense that he finds knowing the *details* of how a story will develop to be a turn off for his inspiration and motivation, not that he does not plan anything ahead and has no idea where the story is going.

“For me, writing a book is like a long journey, and like any trip, I know the point where I start the journey and the point I wanna get to. I also know a little bit of the route, such as the main cities in which I wanna stop by, and even a few monuments I would like to visit. What I do not know is where I will eat the first night or which songs will be on the radio. I discover all that details while I am writing the book and that’s the reason why I go so slowly: because sometimes I have to go back to change certain things.” (GRRM)

While he creates the story as he goes along, he does work with the broad strokes of the endgame and the final fates of the main characters in mind:

"I know the broad strokes, and I've known the broad strokes since 1991. I know who's going to be on the Iron Throne. I know who's gonna win some of the battles, I know the major characters, who's gonna die and how they're gonna die, and who's gonna get married and all that. The major characters. Of course along the way I made up a lot of minor characters, you know, I, uhm...Did I know in 1991 how Bronn, what was gonna happen to Bronn? No, I didn't even know there'd be a guy named Bronn. [...] So a lot of the minor characters I'm still discovering along the way. But the mains-"

[question if he knows Arya's and Jon's fates]

"Tyrion, Arya, Jon, Sansa, you know, all of the Stark kids, and the major Lannisters, yeah." (GRRM)

Furthermore, he absolutely loves to drop cues, hints and foreshadowing to future events and plot twists, something that would be completely impossible for him to do if he were writing with no clear ending and direction in sight. So he sets out to make sure his story adds up and makes sense, even if it means having to give up the surprise factor, either because someone already figured it out (e.g. R+L=J):

“The fans use to come up with theories; lots of them are just speculative but some of them are in the right way. [...] They say: “Oh God, the butler did it!”, to use an example of a mystery novel. Then, you think: “I have to change the ending! The maiden would be the criminal!” To my mind that way is a disaster because [...] the books are full of clues that point to the butler doing it and help you to figure up the butler did it, but if you change the ending to point the maiden, the clues make no sense anymore; they are wrong or are lies, and I am not a liar.” (GRRM)

or because the show surpassed the books:

Though he used to worry about it getting to the end before him, he's not even about that life anymore.

“I said, to hell with that. Worrying about it isn’t going to change it one way or another. I still sit down at the typewriter, and I have to write the next scene and the next sentence … I’m just going to tell my story, and they’re telling their story and adapting my books, and we shall see.” (GRRM)

Jaime’s fate, as a “main Lannister”, is therefore already clear in GRRM’s mind and he has been seeding and foreshadowing and working towards it, even if *how* he will get there is anybody’s guess (and the show and books have already substantially diverged in that sense). It will likely not change on a whim, invalidating everything that has been written all along.

So, as we reach the end of part 3 and take all the stuff I’ve discussed in this 3-parter in consideration, I think it’s safe to conclude that: given Jaime’s arc and related foreshadowing, knowing that GRRM develops his stories sloooowly, carefully and purposefully, always with a goal in sight, going back to change things if they don’t fit or contradict, relying heavily on the concept of butterfly effect across arcs and characters, and with a penchant for trope subversion sprinkled on top, you can see why I feel that the odds of Jaime’s death in the fandom and general audience are HIGHLY overinflated, and mostly due to selectively attending to one or two pieces of evidence, without considering how they fit in the overall picture. While this is still no guarantee he’ll definitely survive, I’d argue that a likelihood of survival follows from the material (and general writing style) more than death.

Now, if you’ve made it this far without falling asleep, congratulations! I’ve addressed pretty much everything I wanted to address to estimate Jaime’s survival odds from a relatively non-speculative angle, using the current material and quotes available, rather than theorizing too much about what I think are likely future developments for his story. I tend to dislike when people use events that have not yet happened and may never happen (looking at you, valonqarists), to make a case for their arguments, so I refrained from doing it as I don’t really think it’s helpful or even necessary to make my case. BUT, if you’re interested in taking a wild leap into theory-land and how that may further affect his survival odds, I’ll be posting a more speculative part 4 hopefully soon (which will be heavily Jaime/Brienne friendly - you’ve been warned).

#jaime lannister #jaime lannister meta #game of thrones meta #asoiaf meta #asoiaf #game of thrones #my meta #essay

68 notes · View notes

ecoamerica · 1 month

Text

youtube

Watch the 2024 American Climate Leadership Awards for High School Students now: https://youtu.be/5C-bb9PoRLc

The recording is now available on ecoAmerica's YouTube channel for viewers to be inspired by student climate leaders! Join Aishah-Nyeta Brown & Jerome Foster II and be inspired by student climate leaders as we recognize the High School Student finalists. Watch now to find out which student received the $25,000 grand prize and top recognition!

17K notes · View notes

starbudspresents · 5 years

Text

DGM 231 - Panthaleia’s Translation Notes

Hello, dear friends and fellow fans! We return to the rubble of Tumblr you with DGM 231, the first chapter of this new year. Thanks for sticking with us!

Please see below the cut for my translation notes and reactions, as per usual. If you have any questions, do feel free to come say hi on Discord at Panthaleia#9705. :3

The Novel I'm Not Writing About DGM & Buddhism

Oooooookay, first things first! The four bubbles across Allen's collar on the cover page say 生々流転 seiseiruten. When spelled 生生流転 (homophonous), it simply means "ever-changing," but when spelled the way it is here (fantastic catch, thank you so much @togaochi ♥), it's defined as "all things being in flux through the endless circle of birth, death, and rebirth; the circle of transmigration."

That concept is much more succinctly described by the Sanskrit term saṃsāra. Now, to preclude confusion: yes, if you look up "samsara" in a Japanese dictionary, you'll get 輪廻 rin'ne rather than this. That said, this term is if anything more specific and descriptive than that one. See also 生死輪廻 seishirin'ne, which has the exact same definition as seiseiruten; think "cell" vs. “cellular phone” vs "mobile telephone." All words for the same thing, with varying degrees of descriptiveness.

The concept of samsara shows up in several religions (notably Buddhism, Hindu, and Jainism). The one most relevant to DGM by far is Buddhism, and this is far from the first time I've run into it in search of answers.

Crash course on some Buddhist jargon for those of you who aren't familiar:

The word samsara, meaning "continuous flow," describes the beginningless and potentially endless cycle of life and existence, through birth and living and death to re-birth and so on. It could also easily be pictured as a helix, if you'd prefer, and that could in fact make some of DGM a little easier to understand.

(If I may take a moment to get super self-indulgent here: a very related philosophical concept is panta rhei, "everything flows", which is what my "panthaleia" handle is mostly based on. This chapter very nearly literally has my name written on it. IT'S A SIGN. Of.... something. Not sure what, exactly, but IT'S A SIGN.)

Every living thing is trapped within this cycle by its attachments and its ignorance of the truth, which causes great suffering and generates karma, which then affects the shape of one's next life. (Yes, Alma's second name is that for a reason.)

There are a number of branching denominations of Buddhism, much as there are of Christianity, and while they mostly share certain core tenets such as the Eightfold Path, they vary widely in ideals and practice. The influences I see on DGM mostly come from a Japanese variant called Shingon ("True Words") and its predecessors: Shingon is a descendant of Tibetan Vajrayana, which is in turn sometimes considered to be part of the broader East Asian Mahayana umbrella.

I've talked a little bit about Shingon before, because all the chanted spells used throughout the series follow the pattern of Shingon mantras and Kanda's tattoo is written in Siddhaṃ (theorized to be the predecessor of both modern kana systems, by the way).

Shingon shares its overarching goal with its predecessors: rather than seeking to break the cycle just for one's own self and achieve individual escape from suffering (as in Theravada, for example), one should seek to become an enlightened being — a bodhisattva — and willingly continue to subject oneself to the cycle in order to help those who are struggling and thereby bring the whole world closer to moksha ("liberation") and subsequent/synonymous nirvana one step at a time.

Obviously, reincarnation and transmigration play a massive role in DGM. Let me list just a few of the ways in which this particular concept is a running theme throughout the story:

The Noah fragments being reincarnated into new bodies without also reincarnating the human souls they previously coexisted with;

The Earl's victims having their souls transmigrated in the bodies of their loved ones to rebirth them as Akuma;

The Third Exorcists, also transmigrated into new bodies to bring them back (Helix magic in general, really, including the Atuuda);

Nea's transmigration into Allen (not a rebirth, but an avoidance of death while waiting for a chance at rebirth), as well as Allen's regression to childhood via de-aging and memory loss;

The original Earl (Adam in my theories, fyi, in case I reference that later) deliberately rebirthing himself in smaller pieces for goals as yet unknown;

The Bookmen keeping records of each iteration of the repeating narrative, ever-changing but eternal themselves;

Even fukkin Komlin, lmao, constantly destroyed and improved and remade.

So many others? Soooo many others.

The eureka moment (for me): this chapter is subtitled "Curtain Rise," as in the beginning of a stage play when the curtain goes up. If you'll think all the way back to the very first chapters of the series, you may remember that the Earl's Scenario is meant to bring about curtain fall... on humanity.

Looking at that in the context of samsara, that whole thing suddenly looks very different. Our heroes assumed that the Earl's victory would result in the destruction of the world, the destruction of humanity, but I've never bought that idea from the very start. When the curtains finally close on samsara, the cycle of death and rebirth, humanity will not be "dead" in the tragic sense, but free. Nirvana =/= death. Nirvana is the peace of being one with all, knowing all, loving and being loved by all without the need for suffering. It isn't "heaven" in the Christian sense, but it is an end to suffering, without also being an end to existence.

Tragedy and suffering are the consequences of remaining bound to the cycle. Directly using the energy of them in order to break the cycle creating them, as the Earl claims to be doing with the Akuma, is a very very Vajrayana idea, and fits seamlessly into my existing suppositions as to what the Earl is doing and why. Here, have a relevant quote:

Negative mental factors such as desire, hatred, greed, pride are not rejected as in non-Tantric Buddhism, but are used as part of the path. As noted by French Indologist Madeleine Biardeau, tantric doctrine is "an attempt to place kama, desire, in every meaning of the word, in the service of liberation."

And another, from the Hevajra tantra:

Those things by which evil men are bound, others turn into means and gain thereby release from the bonds of existence. By passion the world is bound, by passion too it is released.

One more, same source:

One knowing the nature of poison may dispel poison with poison.

Bluntly put, I think the (original) Earl was an enlightened soul — a bodhisattva — who voluntarily returned to the cycle via deliberate rebirth into multiple ignorant beings in order to help heal the struggling world of its suffering via bringing about enlightenment viiiaaaa SUFFERING HARDER. Good Plan™?

Here are a few more related meta posts from a few years ago, just so I can find them again when I inevitably decide to delve deeper into this:

Helix magic will be the key to the plot

It's all happened before

Destroyer of Time

2.) I'm so delighted to see Mana as he was when Allen knew him before, genteel and whimsical and delighted with Allen's existence. It's easy to understand why Allen would become so attached to him.

3.) Raws for the "Therefore I write many of them, as if God can see me doing so. / As if He might find me" lines: こうして神さまに見えるように沢山書くんです　／　見つけてもらえるように These don’t sit well with me, so I’ll probably change them in the future. The gist is that he’s drawing them in order to draw God’s attention to him.

Raws for "Here I am": 私はここにいる。@togaochi and I concur that he uses watashi here instead of his own preferred boku because he's teaching it to Allen, and means it as a more general "I."

Anyway: hooooo boy, here's some more evidence for the Two Gods theory. And how!

It seems pretty safe to assume he's not calling out to the Order's God, since that god would pretty happily wipe him off the face of the earth. The Noah have called that god "false," though, and expressed their intent and desire to kill it, while still referring to a "God" entity of their own whom they regard as being on their side (or perhaps, they're on its side).

Mana calling out to the Noah god to come find him, without remembering why he wants that, is very interesting. I wonder if and how anyone answered him.

4.) I have a strong hunch that Mana's "secret alphabet" is also related to Siddhaṃ, but that language is written in such a complex way that it's actually impossible for me to be sure without just... learning it. Which! To be clear! I fucking well might. WATCH ME.

5.) This entire scene is so much to me. How furious they both are that the other won't just let themselves be saved/protected. Allen wanted to leave Kanda behind so he and the others would be safe from everything that's hunting him. Kanda wants Allen to stay put so they can save him from what he can't fight alone. All that rage and frustration, because they care.

Quick note: in the first draft we initially posted on Imgur via our Discord server, I had the subject wrong for one of Kanda's lines here, which I caught and fixed. Sorry for any confusion that may have caused!

5.5) ETA: Forgot to mention that I’m fairly sure the beautiful Grecian-style temple they’re hanging out in is referenced from St. Bernard’s Well, again in Edinburgh. Excuse me, “Edinston.”

Thanks to an enterprising anon, we have a much better match for that structure: the Dugald Stewart Monument!

6.) "maybe I'll go sucker-hunting" CARD SHARK ALLEN LIIIIIVES, where's Tyki when you need him (to lose his shirt again)

7.) fjkldjlkagd the turnaround where Allen finally cracks and is like "fine!! you want in?? IN YOU GET. no take-backsies! happy now???" and Kanda's like "yep, here I am" and neither of them have ANY IDEA how to deal with ANY OF IT. Kanda struggling to pull Allen's story out of him without throwing up his hands and quitting. Allen baffled and twice as guarded as before, put off by Kanda's uncharacteristic interest.

So beautiful, it brings a tear to my eye. (Actually, many tears. So... so many tears.)

8.) That apology, which I never thought I'd get, for Allen having seen what Kanda would never have consented to show him. It wasn't his fault, and they both know that, but the fact still remains that it was a violation, and I've always always wished for that to be addressed somehow and HERE IT IS. RIGHT HERE.

I want to tattoo that look on Kanda's face onto my brain.

9.) And then they're FUCKING INTERRUPTED, AGAIN

But Allen's "ask me again when we're done dealing with this" was such a promise of trust that I can't even be that mad, augh.

Onward to the bitter end, I guess!! Haha!!!! · ͜͜ · -

Thank you all so much for reading and following along! I’d like to tip my hat to Kougeki Scans, who love this series too and are helping us spoil the fandom rotten. :P Again, if you have any questions or comments, feel free to either find us on Discord HERE, find me on Discord at Panthaleia#9705, or use the comment box on MangaDex! I’m always happy to geek out with fellow fans. <3

#dgm 231 #dgm231 #dgm #d gray man #dgm meta #panthaleia

106 notes · View notes

thevividgreenmoss · 5 years

Text

In Adorno and Horkheimer’s famous essay, “Elements of Anti-Semitism” from the Dialectic of Enlightenment, they argued anti-Semitism is driven primarily as a result of the division of labor under capitalism and the way that fascist and totalitarian responses to capitalist exploitation develop a projection that conceals their misery. Their thesis of anti-Semitism sees bigotry and racism as a potentiality inherent within modern social and political conditions, and not as a reaction to those processes. This distinction is important as it means that as new historical conditions of capitalism, mainly modes of production shift, racism itself shifts. The interesting consequence of this structural view is that it enables us to first diagnose racism and its effects at the level of the structural shifts of capitalist development and modes of production.

...The Jews are not simply the scapegoat for the psychological damages brought on by capitalist exploitation; the representation of the Jew becomes the screen upon which a pathic personality projects its resentment in general. The figure of the Jew is the screen upon which the anti-Semites project their own resentment to capitalist exploitation. But this resentment takes new forms which consists in a “desperate exertion by an ego which, according to Freud has a far weaker resistance to internal than to external stimuli.”

...Anti-Semitic behavior is “unleashed in situations in which blinded people, deprived of subjectivity, are let loose as subjects” (Adorno and Horkheimer, 2002; p. 140). Anti-Semites gather to celebrate the moment when authority lifts the ban; that moment alone makes them a collective, constituting them as a community of kindred spirits. This orgiastic celebration of authority is paradoxical in that it seeks to place the oppressed nature of the subject-less individual into rebellion against domination, but paradoxically, that rebellion is placed directly in the service of domination (Adorno and Horkheimer, 2002; p. 152). In other words, fascism succeeds by sidestepping the source of domination from the site of class and the division of labor, by forming a paranoid personality around the figure of the Jew who becomes an alternative site to project the resentment from the suffering the subject undergoes in capitalism.

What makes anti-Semitism a veil for the domination of the division of labor and the capitalist circulation is the way that it captures dejected subjectivity and provides a new site where the its calamities can be projected. The subject-less self sinks into its own ego, as a ‘meaningless abyss of itself,’ where ‘objects become allegories of ruin, which harbor the meaning of its own downfall (Adorno and Horkheimer, 2002; p. 158). The objects of its downfall become a certain representation of the Jew, which makes the anti-Semitism based in a paranoid, one-step removed hallucination of the Jew. Thus, the Jew or the Muslim is a screen upon which the bigoted individual projects his or her own resentment, but this resentment has little to do with the Jew or the Muslim per se. If Adorno and Horkheimer were to write about the Donald Trump phenomenon, they would see in his rallies and hate speech a fascistic communal acting out, a celebration of “when authority permits what is usually forbidden.” This celebration of a socially transgressive act is both a support for authority and a protest against a perceived loss of authority.

The other model of Marxist analysis of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia is found in what we will name the ‘failed revolutionary thesis’. This model maintains that the primary social antagonism, mainly class conflict, becomes externalized onto the figure of the Jew, the Arab or Muslim. So where Adorno and Horkheimer contend that the representation of the Jew or the Muslim serves as a stand-in for the resentment of the subject undergoing capitalist exploitation, the failed revolutionary thesis sees the representation of the Jew or Muslim as functioning as a different type of concealment, mainly that of class conflict itself. In an early critique of Althusser by Alain Badiou, entitled Of Ideology, Badiou writes that in the dominant ideology, there exists an irrepresentable practice (the revolutionary class revolt) that ideology is intelligible as a representation.

"The dominant ideology’s third procedure is the externalization of the antagonism: to the supposedly unified body politic [corps social] a term “outside of class” [hors-classe] is opposed, and posited as heterogeneous: the foreigner (chauvinisme), the Jew (anti-Semitism), the Arab (racism), etc. The procedures of transference are themselves riveted [chevillées] over an exasperation of the principal contradiction (Badiou, 2013)."

The Jew or Muslim thus stands for the inability of the fascist movement to think praxis, to confront the monstrosity of class itself. Badiou’s idea gives new meaning to the oft-quoted mantra that ‘every fascism is a sign of a failed revolution’, which should be revised to state: ‘every fascism relies on an externalized point of antagonism outside of class’ – and this point is embodied in the racism exerted onto the Jew or Muslim. The function of anti-Semitism is thus really no different at the level of its ideological operation as both forms of racism function to conceal the way in which the sphere of circulation and its exploitation remains a socially necessary illusion. What’s more is that this concealing is a concealment of class struggle itself.

Daniel Tutt

If lynching was constructed to allow the entrance of whites into modernity on the ontological surety of collective violence, the mass shooting, inversely, makes such a collectivity impossible. Whether by accident or design, mass shootings occur only in places where a public can construct itself as a community: worksites, concert halls, dance clubs, and of course, schools. Mass shootings are a perverse map of our own public institutions, the more democratic and the more open, the more likely they are to be a target. If the culture of lynching marked the beginnings of whiteness as a project of modernity, then surely we are witnessing that project’s end.

Which is not to say we’ve witnessed the end of white supremacy. Rather, whiteness has been remade for the post-modern, neoliberal era. Rather than experiencing whiteness through the collective projects of state funded suburbs, or job protection by racially exclusive craft unions, or immigration quotas, the neoliberal era places the onus on the individual. As Margaret Thatcher famously said, there is no such thing as society, only individuals and their families. Individuals and families which are now heavily armed. As Patrick Blanchfield remarks in a recent interview, gun culture is a form of security in a society in which security is not social, but privatized. HBO’s massive hit show The Walking Dead may be instructive here – rather than the Western hero who protects the community from bandit cattle ranchers in Shane or Native Americans in Stagecoach, we have a war of all against all.

Mass shootings strike a national sense of horror precisely because they reveal an uncanny and barely suppressed truth about the collapse of a certain kind of white collectivity that marked the height of the Fordist era. The many indicators of health for white working-class people do not look good. Life expectancy for white men has declined for the first time in many decades, and for entirely different reasons than usual – disease epidemics such as HIV/AIDS or Spanish Flu or war. Unlike those, this decline is mostly attributable to a declining standard of living for working class white men. While in aggregate white people continue to hold more wealth and earn higher pay, the blue collar “labor aristocracy” that relied on high wages from union jobs has steadily diminished.

One way to pose the question that emerges from this not-quite-analogical situation might be this: who is it that the mass shooter is lynching? If Mark Ames sees the mass shooter as a kind of rebellion against Reaganomics, and Dunbar-Ortiz sees the mass shooter as a kind of right-wing white vigilante, I might suggest that the mass shooter is in fact both. After all, in many of their manifestos these shooters perceive themselves to be targeting a world of feminists, liberals, and people of color – Elliot Rodger, Dylan Roof, Anders Behring Breivik, and Jim David Adkisson can all be describe this way. They strike against a world in which whiteness, rather than being a source of power, has become something unattainable for them. In Greg Palast’s tragic tribute to his former classmate, Stephen Paddock, he makes a similar point: Paddock was a working class “math whiz” who should have gone to “Stanford or UCLA” but instead got a job drafting at Lockheed Martin – until Lockheed Martin closed its doors in the great outsourcing and job flight of the late 1980’s. If one listens to the speeches of Richard Spencer, this is the point he makes over and over: in the privatized, atomized world of neoliberal capitalism, there is no collectivity for whiteness. Remembering that, in the 1920’s, the Klan boasted 4 million members and dozens upon dozens of elected representatives, I might offer that Spencer has a kind of point. The mass shooter is blowing up a public sphere that can no longer provide the collective violence or collective security necessary to reproduce his identity.

Debord insists that we think of the spectacle as wielding a kind of totalitarian power. The spectacle is the final victory of the commodity over democracy. For Debord, this totalitarian power comes from the separation of the consumer from the making of the image: “The spectacle’s estrangement from the acting subject is expressed by the fact that the individual’s gestures are no longer his own; they are the gestures of someone else who represents them to him.” The innovation, one could say, of spectacle lynching was to produce a mass culture of popular participation, quite literally on the bodies of black men. The Alt Right proposes something similar: they can gather collectively and reclaim an unalienated identity by forms of direct action. In an era in which we are individualized, in which collective solutions to problems are thrown back upon the anomic self, we should not be surprised that white supremacy is informed by the same trends. We ought not be surprised that the mass shooter is structurally analogous to the entrepreneur, an individualistic “high achiever“ who sets out to solve a collective problem on his own. That the mass shooter should blow up the very public they wish to master suggests the extent to which neoliberalism can no longer sustain the very subjects who are supposed to be its beneficiaries: the Paddocks, Cruzes, and Rodgers. It is a system in crisis.

In the years after the Columbine massacre, I can reflect now that both the ambivalence I felt toward Heathers’ J.D. as well as the sense of déjà vu suggest the same thing: I am victim and accomplice of whiteness at the same time, and whiteness, like history, is a process without a subject.

Benjamin Balthaser

The false choices offered by spectacular abundance — choices based on the juxtaposition of competing yet mutually reinforcing spectacles and of distinct yet interconnected roles (signified and embodied primarily by objects) — develop into struggles between illusory qualities designed to generate fervent allegiance to quantitative trivialities. Fallacious archaic oppositions are revived — regionalisms and racisms which serve to endow mundane rankings in the hierarchies of consumption with a magical ontological superiority — and pseudoplayful enthusiasms are aroused by an endless succession of ludicrous competitions, from sports to elections. Wherever abundant consumption is established, one particular spectacular opposition is always in the forefront of illusory roles: the antagonism between youth and adults. But real adults — people who are masters of their own lives — are in fact nowhere to be found. And a youthful transformation of what exists is in no way characteristic of those who are now young; it is present solely in the economic system, in the dynamism of capitalism. It is things that rule and that are young, vying with each other and constantly replacing each other.

Spectacular oppositions conceal the unity of poverty. If different forms of the same alienation struggle against each other in the guise of irreconcilable antagonisms, this is because they are all based on real contradictions that are repressed. The spectacle exists in a concentrated form and a diffuse form, depending on the requirements of the particular stage of poverty it denies and supports. In both cases it is nothing more than an image of happy harmony surrounded by desolation and horror, at the calm center of misery.

The concentrated spectacle is primarily associated with bureaucratic capitalism, though it may also be imported as a technique for reinforcing state power in more backward mixed economies or even adopted by advanced capitalism during certain moments of crisis. Bureaucratic property is itself concentrated, in that the individual bureaucrat takes part in the ownership of the entire economy only through his membership in the community of bureaucrats. And since commodity production is less developed under bureaucratic capitalism, it too takes on a concentrated form: the commodity the bureaucracy appropriates is the total social labor, and what it sells back to the society is that society’s wholesale survival. The dictatorship of the bureaucratic economy cannot leave the exploited masses any significant margin of choice because it has had to make all the choices itself, and any choice made independently of it, whether regarding food or music or anything else, thus amounts to a declaration of war against it. This dictatorship must be enforced by permanent violence.

Guy Debord

[...]

Adorno & Horkheimer

#tw: antisemitism

26 notes · View notes

treatyourhammywell · 5 years

Text

Emmy 'Homeland' Hero Rupert Friend Revisits Quinn's Sacrifice - 13 June 2017

As we enter Emmy season — nomination voting runs June 12 to June 26 — Yahoo TV will be spotlighting performances and other contributions that we feel deserve recognition.

He belongs in the Jack Bauer category of TV hero: Peter Quinn, the Homeland paramilitary officer who — spoiler alert, if you’re not caught up! — died in the Season 6 finale, sacrificing himself to save the President of the United States and his colleague/love interest, Carrie.

Joining the show as a guest star in Season 2, actor Rupert Friend quickly turned Quinn into a fan favorite. Viewers were crushed when he seemed almost certainly dead at the end of Season 5, after a sarin gas poisoning while on assignment. And while it was great news that he was alive when Season 6 premiered, he was a very different Quinn, his body and mind badly damaged by the gas, his spirit low, and drugs and alcohol his method of choice to deal with the devastation.

Yahoo TV talked with the Emmy-worthy British actor about his final season as Quinn, including his thrill to have the chance to show what a wounded warrior can do after suffering injuries, what he thinks ultimately severed the bond between Quinn and Carrie, and the story of how he wrote one of the series’ most memorable and beloved segments with Quinn’s Season 5 letter to Carrie.

I’m sure you’ve become very aware of how beloved Peter Quinn is to viewers, especially after the Season 6 finale.

Yeah, I’ve been overwhelmed by the fans’ response. I’m not a big social media, or frankly even Internet, guy, but we just couldn’t help but be exposed to the outpourings of love and remembrance for this character. Sometimes anger. Very, very strong emotions from people, and I guess I realized just how loyal both Quinn’s fans and also mine are, and that was a very wonderful thing to experience. I was very grateful for that.

What do you think it is about him — why did we become so invested in this character?

Can I ask you? Presumably, you follow the show. What is it about this guy?

I think it’s that he made so many sacrifices, and that we wanted so desperately for him to find some… I guess happiness was too optimistic for him, after everything he had been through… but I think we certainly hoped he would find some peace. I think the audience, to the very end, hoped that would be true. He was a funny guy a lot of the time, as well. There was really just a lot to love about him. He was smart and no-nonsense, loyal, and, as you said in another interview, he was more self-aware than any of the other characters.

Yes, I think he came to be. When we first met him back in Season 2, he was kind of a wisea**, kind of cocky, and I think he just knew he was good at his job, but couldn’t talk about his job and didn’t care. He had almost like a kind of frat boy quality about him, in a way. He just behaved as if there were no consequences. What I loved following him through the seasons was seeing his conscience and his soul and his moral code develop, to the point where he questioned his position in the black ops society, what he was being asked to do for money, his relationships, both professional and personal. Toward the end of Season 6, he was really questioning the morality of somebody who would risk his life, awake him from a coma, and [doing] so cause these injuries to his body and mind. Carrie doesn’t seem to understand why that’s morally bankrupt. That, to me, is a big flag of how Carrie and Quinn have really grown apart morally by the end of Season 6. I think one of the things that I loved about him is he wasn’t — we have this expression in the U.K. — a “goody two-shoes.” I don’t know if that exists in America. Do you have that here?

We do.

Yeah, so he wasn’t a goody two-shoes. He wasn’t just an amazing guy who was saving kittens from trees every weekend. He was a cold-blooded killer for money, and he was at times cruel and at times incredibly efficient and effectual in his work. Yet, you always sensed underneath all that, that he had this heart of gold, that he’d be an amazing friend, if only he could learn to trust somebody. My heart broke for him when I realized that he died not ever having found that person. Dar Adal betrayed him, Carrie betrayed him. He had a few one-night stands, and they’re not worth the paper they’re written on. He didn’t really have a friend. He didn’t know his child. It made me realize how lucky I am to have relationships that I trust, because this guy didn’t even get close to that.

His story is very tragic. Do you see him as a hero, though?

Absolutely; he’s absolutely a hero. He’s my hero, and he is someone who pays heroically, in the Greek sense of the word. Especially at the end there, he could perform the ultimate selfless act. I think heroes understand that there is a greater moral code than just putting the self first. There is a sense of, whether it’s your country or peace or just what’s right, they put what’s right before their own interests.

Is it true that you wrote Quinn’s goodbye letterto Carrie at the end of Season 5?

That is true, yes. I’ll never forget… I was actually in Paris. [Showrunner Alex Gansa] had phoned me and said, “Listen, I’ll be honest with you. I’m so slammed here, and I have to write this letter, and I don’t know what to do. I’m running out of time, and I have to write another episode. Do you think you could have a crack at it?” I said, “Sure.” I wrote the letter, sent it off, and kind of thought, “I’ve never been asked to contribute before, and they’ll just say, ‘Thanks a lot, but no thanks.’”

I was in Paris when the episode came in. I was sitting in the Jardin des Tuileries. I remember it very clearly, reading the new episode, and I got to the end and my heart just skipped a beat, because they’d printed the whole thing, word for word. And they called the episode “A False Glimmer,” which is a direct quote from the letter. I was like, “Wow, this episode is titled [with] my words, and it ends with my letter.” It was an incredible moment.

I think a lot of fans felt very angry that we didn’t get to see Quinn’s memorial service. That letter is the only thing that really gives us a bit of what that would have been like, a bit of closure.

I haven’t watched Homeland at all, but we watched the finale, like a respectful thing to do for Quinn, actually. [My wife] Aimee and I watched it as sort of a sendoff, and it was a bit jarring that nobody showed us how anyone celebrated this guy, the few people that knew him. As he says in the letter, “Don’t put a star on the wall for me, don’t say some dumb speech.” Then I think, “Okay, so how did these few people, who are not allowed to publicly celebrate him, remember him privately? What did they do? Did they go somewhere magical and special and sacred to him, and did they say some words? Did they pour a little whiskey on the ground? What happened?”

I missed that, and then afterwards, no one spoke about him. Carrie didn’t speak, Saul didn’t speak, Dar didn’t speak. Then I started thinking, “Hang on a second. If we didn’t see his body, no one checked his pulse…” Do you know what I mean? I’m like, “Maybe they dragged the President out of the car, took her to a safe place, and then what we don’t see is that they pulled Quinn out of the car and rushed him away.” He was only shot in the shoulders. Do you know what I mean? I was like, “Oh, I don’t know. Now, I’m going to feel really stupid giving all these death interviews.”

Is that really a possibility? Are you going to get another call from Alex, do you think?

On this show, everything is possible. The end of Season 5, I was taken aside and given a few thoughts by Alex. Then, I came back in Season 6, and it was very different, but I came back. I’ve been told it’s absolutely the end, but yeah, I agree with the fans. It’s funny, though, I also feel like maybe the fans remembering this guy in their own way is the best memorial that he could have had.

Quinn was going to die at the end of Season 5, came back in Season 6, in such a huge way. Do you think he should have died at the end of Season 5, or are you glad for all of the things that you did get to do with the character in Season 6? That he got to do even more heroic things, and portraying those injuries in such a realistic and respectful way — veterans and their loved ones have reached out to you about how much that meant to them, the way that you portrayed that.

First of all, thank you, because portraying a modern returning veteran, with modern injuries, truthfully was the top of my agenda. It’s something I will never understand, sacrifice in a way that veterans sacrifice. The only thing I can do is to try to pay tribute honestly, and that was a hugely important thing for me. I’m so grateful that we got a chance to tell the end of Quinn’s journey in this completely different way, to take this beloved action hero guy and make some realistic, circumstantial changes to his life. As you mentioned, I was in touch with veterans, with PTSD survivors and sufferers, with people who had strokes, with specialists in aphasia, with doctors from Veterans Administrative hospitals, doctors who specialize in chemical warfare. I also put on 20 pounds — I wanted [to show] that idea that if you sat in an institution, eating crappy food, you don’t exercise, you’ve just given up on life, and you’re just this kind of lump, you’re not the fit soldier that you used to be. There was a lot of stuff that I did to help that. It didn’t take any effort — wearing the hair, and not washing it, and just kind of being really quite gross, horribly scraggly beard and all of that stuff, just to really show that feeling of giving up that he had at the beginning of Season 6, that he has to overcome.

The response has been amazing, as you said, from the people that matter the most, which are the people that feel represented by this character. I’m very proud that we’ve had a hero in television — a major character in a big, popular TV show — who has basically been an action hero, while he’s semi-paralyzed, struggling with linguistic programming, and perhaps is unable to really formulate language he needs, and he can’t use both hands. We haven’t seen that before, and yet there are soldiers out there who are being wounded and continuing to fight. We know that happens, we just don’t get to see it. Whether that’s fighting in a battle, or coming home and fighting against prejudice or social exclusion or the inability to get work, or, how are you going to work if you’ve only got the use of one hand? That’s a fight that soldiers face. For soldiers, the fight doesn’t stop when they come home. The fight just changes, because we’re not really ready, as a society, to welcome soldiers in an effective way.

One of the best things about Quinn’s story in Season 6 is that the focus really became about what he could do, that he was still Quinn. He still had all of Quinn’s capabilities, and he found a way to be able to utilize all his skills.

Yeah, and I’m glad that that came across, because Quinn’s always been a man with great agency. He’s someone who can do. If you’re in trouble, if you need something, he’s someone I would want to call. That never went anywhere, and watching him go from giving up, and smoking crack with hookers in slum dens, to going, “No, I am the guy that can load and level a gun with one hand. I am the guy that can engineer a hostage scenario with trained military operatives, with one arm and one leg working” — all of that was real. There are no tricks. Everything that happened, one-sided as it were, happened with just one arm and one leg.

Just thinking about where the character started, you were a guest actor, and now to all the things that we got to learn about him, and all the things we’ve seen him do and go through… the series has been his story as much as anybody’s. I would guess that it’s tough to let go of him.

Yeah, I don’t think I’ll ever fully let go of him, just because there’s something pure at the heart of Quinn, which I love. I think when you’re lucky enough to play somebody who has that effect on you, my privilege is I get to choose to take that with me. If I was to play somebody horrific, and I’ve certainly done that, I get to choose to say, “I don’t want any part of this. I’m washing my hands of this. This was a character that served a story, and that’s the end of that.” With this guy, there is so much strength and agency and goodness underneath, that I guess I feel it’s my job to carry that forward a little bit.

Having played this character who was so layered, and really has become a Jack Bauer-level hero, is it tougher to think about your next role? Do you find yourself comparing other roles to Quinn? And do you now maybe want to go do a comedy, or something just very different from Quinn, from Homeland?

Yeah, it’s a good question, and yeah, the answer is it’s a tough benchmark to follow. I think the mistake would be to compare roles to this one. To start, I got to play this guy for five years, in real time, which I think was about seven years in TV land time. That’s a privilege that you never get in the movies. You might play someone over the course of their life, but you’re going to do it in three or four months. There’s a depth there that is exciting in and of itself.

And yes, I would say to do something completely different — I think most actors are looking for that. I was lucky enough, before Season 6 began, I played a role in Armando Iannucci’s dark comedy The Death of Stalin, with Steve Buscemi, Jeffrey Tambor, and Michael Palin, who are all heroes of mine. I’m effectively the clown in the movie. I’m the ineffectual, drunk, spoiled son of Joseph Stalin. It’s ridiculous, I make a complete fool of myself every time I’m in the movie. And it was joyous. That was before Season 6, and now I’m looking at what to do next, and looking for something that is, yeah, either layered and wonderful and interesting, and/or completely different.

What if you did get a call from Alex Gansa this summer saying, “False alarm there, we do want to bring Quinn back again in some way.” Would you consider it, or would it depend on what they wanted to do?

I think the fans would riot. I would not be responsible for their actions. Yeah, I would want to know in what capacity. I would expect it was realistic, because we stuck to that all the way through. If you’re talking about a zombie Quinn, it’s not really a good thing; an angel, a ghost Quinn, all of that stuff is a little soap opera, but the writers are too good on Homeland to ever do that, so I wouldn’t worry about that

#rupert friend #homeland #season 6 #finale #peter quinn #yahoo #interview

17 notes · View notes

fae-fucker · 5 years

Text

Review: Shatter Me

by Tahereh Mafi

Juliette hasn’t touched anyone in exactly 264 days.

The last time she did, it was an accident, but The Reestablishment locked her up for murder. No one knows why Juliette’s touch is fatal. As long as she doesn’t hurt anyone else, no one really cares. The world is too busy crumbling to pieces to pay attention to a 17-year-old girl. Diseases are destroying the population, food is hard to find, birds don’t fly anymore, and the clouds are the wrong color.

The Reestablishment said their way was the only way to fix things, so they threw Juliette in a cell. Now so many people are dead that the survivors are whispering war– and The Reestablishment has changed its mind. Maybe Juliette is more than a tortured soul stuffed into a poisonous body. Maybe she’s exactly what they need right now.

Juliette has to make a choice: BE A WEAPON. OR BE A WARRIOR.

*This review contains vague spoilers.*

I uh … I’m having a hard time figuring out where to even begin with this one, lads. I guess I’ll start with the absolute basics:

This book is not a dystopia. This is a superhero (supervillain?) origin story. I didn’t know this going in and it didn’t feel like it until the very end. With heavy-handed romance, heavy-handed writing, heavy-handed messages, and a plodding plot that I’m pretty sure sucked about 25 years out of my goddamn life.

*rubs hands together*

Well, with that in mind, let’s do this!

The “Writing”

Tahereh Mafi isn’t some backwater Harlequin mommy porn writer, nu-uh! She’s an Artiste, and as such, her art isn’t merely art, it’s Arté.

When a sentence could be five words, Mafi makes it a paragraph. When a metaphor could make sense, Mafi confuses your PLEBEIAN MIND with her MYSTIC WRITING POWERS, to the point where nothing fucking makes sense anymore and you’re just scratching your head, wondering how the fuck supposedly near-catatonic Juliette is able to come up with such convoluted comparisons. When other writers use pages to put words on them for people to read, Mafi puts maybe one word at the very top for four or five pages for the DRAMA of it all, except unlike when we all freaked out about Stephenie Meyer doing that, here it’s Artistic.

Jokes aside, this book is the epitome of everything I hate about purple prose. As someone who violently dislikes purple prose (because usually it’s done horribly by people who want to show off how many big words they know rather than evoke any sort of emotion), I knew going in that this book wouldn’t be for me, but I wasn’t expecting this.

Metaphors are long ang confusing, the prose and the rhythm are all off, the dialogue is atrocious and cartoonish, and Juliette’s thoughts are painfully obtuse despite her supposed “deep” personality. Except sometimes her thoughts are so convoluted and specific that it clashes with how dumb she is. Sometimes she thinks of the lackadaisical ennui of the uncaring sun, sometimes she compares her boyfriend’s eyes to buckets of water. It’s a huge, disjointed mess of word vomit.

People have defended Juliette’s narration as being a result of her solitary confinement, but those people’s opinions are bad and wrong and you shouldn’t listen to them, and I will explain to you why when I discuss Juliette’s “personality” in the character section of this review.

This book’s main “thing” is Juliette crossing out words and sentences, but it’s not consistent enough to actually mean anything or tell us anything about Juliette. It also happens in dialogue, which is fucking baffling. How do characters speak the words that are crossed out? Presumably they don’t, and I’m guessing that it’s supposed to represent what Juliette thinks people want to say but don’t, but then why the fuck would you put the crossed-out shit inside the quotes with the actual dialogue? Don’t!!!! Do that!!!! You’re clearly not equipped to ignore the rules of grammar yet, Mrs Mafi! You need to level up!!!

Sometimes, things that are implied to be true are crossed out. Sometimes, it’s the propaganda that Juliette knows is untrue that’s crossed out. With both the truth and the lies, Juliette’s thoughts vs her feelings, being crossed out without any rhyme or reason, we can never be entirely certain what the fuck the strikethroughs are supposed to represent.

If, for example, only the lies were crossed out, it would imply Juliette was aware that they’re lies and isn’t afraid to confront the truth. If only the truth was crossed out, then it would mean Juliette is in denial, knowing something is wrong but believing it anyway.

Instead, the strikethrough bullshit is just … there. What it means changes from instance to instance, and because of that, it loses all the impact and significance it could’ve had and ends up meaning nothing.

In short: the writing in this book is a whole-ass mess and nothing you say will convince me otherwise.

The Characters

Juliette’s mind is perfectly fine at all times, characters even praise her for being able to withstand literal psychological torture unlike all the other female WEAKLINGS in the facility. Her obnoxious inner monologues are just there for show, because Juliette is Deep and Troubled but in a sexy, dramatic way that doesn’t actually impact her as a person or her life at all. She doesn’t suffer from any mental illness or trauma that would’ve been brought on by 260+ days of nonstop psychological torture and years of emotional abuse and neglect.

How do I know that? Because she doesn’t believe any of the bullshit she spouts. It’s made perfectly clear that Juliette only thinks in metaphors because that’s just her obnoxious “personality”. Sometimes one of the Boys says something and she claims that her knees shatter or something similar. Except she doesn’t react as if they were, as if she felt the pain. She only thinks that because … Idk. It’s deep. Shut the fuck up.

I think her narration is supposed to imply that Juliette is smart, but that’s hilariously contrasted by her constant, and I mean fucking CONSTANT thirst and attraction to both Adam and Warner, the latter being especially jarring considering how she keeps saying she despises him and is disgusted by him.

She ogles and fawns over these men even when she’s in pain or in danger, even when they’re the ones inflicting the pain or threatening her. That’s how fucking horny she is, that’s where Mafi’s priorities lie.

She undermines her own protagonist by having Juliette constantly act like a horny schoolgirl instead of the broken and tortured person she should be after what she’s been through. After years of isolation and discrimination, after 260 days of solitary confinement, this girl still acts just like any other normal horny teenager, and it’s fucking awful to read, because it invalidates everything Juliette has been through and once again puts sex appeal and men higher on the priority list over an honest and realistic portrayal of trauma and isolation.

Speaking of sex appeal …

Warner. Oh Warner. What wonderful potential was lost. I think he’s genuinely interesting, or at least had the potential to be. He’s damaged and he’s troubled and he’s complex, despite how edgy he is. He’s hands-down the most interesting character in the book, and I weep for Mafi’s inability to fucking pace herself because that’s what’s absolutely ruined him for me. Let me explain:

I’m all for redemption arcs, alright? And Warner? He’s … salvageable. With some work and some atonement, I can totally see him becoming a complex anti-hero type. He’s clearly fucked up and the things he does are damaging him.

You know where Mafi fails? You know where she fucking destroys the guy?

She’s constantly describing him as hot. When he’s acting like a terrifying and abusive shithead, Juliette can’t help but think of how the anger makes his green eyes flash. When he takes off his shirt, Juliette claims how disgusted she is by the sight, and then in the same breath describes his perfectly sculpted chest in careful detail.

We’re supposed to find Warner sexy.

We’re supposed to reluctantly be attracted to him, just like Juliette, despite that and sometimes even because he’s a dangerous and abusive jackass.

There’s even a makeout session between Juliette and Warner where she’s complaining about how grossed out she is, but the kissing is described in more sexy and hot detail than any Adam makeout, and Juliette can’t help her attraction to Warner despite her believing he’d just killed the man she loves in cold blood.

Do you undersand my problem? If Warner was just a tragic villain and Juliette pitied him and didn’t feel any, and I mean ANY attraction to the guy, I would 100% accept him later trying to change sides to atone or to make up for the things he did. Aka a proper redemption arc.

But here, he’s already written as attractive to us. He’s already sexy and desireable and alluring. The narrative paints him in a good light by undermining the terrible things he does through constant descriptions of his appearance and Juliette’s obvious lust for him.

And you can say that “Woe, Juliette can’t control her attraction!” and you would still be a dumbass, because guess who can control Juliette’s attraction? Tahereh Mafi. It was Mafi’s conscious decision to make Juliette attracted to Warner, to write him this way as a sexy but dangerous man we’re supposed to root for and want to fix.

And that’s just gross. So whatever excuse or justification or explanation Warner’s actions get in lieu of an actual redemption arc, it won’t matter to me, because it’s already been undermined by how sexy he’s supposed to be despite his damage, and the terrible things he does are only there to make him more “mysterious” and his eventual love interest status more unexpected.

Mafi isn’t interested in writing a redemption arc, she just can’t write a morally ambiguous or mysterious love interest without taking it up to eleven and have him be a fucking unhinged dictator, but it’s ok because he’s still hot enough to bang!

I love redemption arcs. I hate abusers who are painted as attractive.

Adam exists. And what a pointless existence it is! He’s very obviously a decoy love interest, too nice and too basic to be endgame, and just vague and nonthreatening enough to have a sinister plan.

See, girls? Boys who protect you and care about you are actually evil! The boys who abuse you and terrify you are the ones who truly love you!

Kenji is very clearly designed to be quirky and snarky and for the Tumblr fangirls to fawn over to the point where he sticks out like a sore thumb among the rest of the cast. I didn’t like him and found him to be pretty boring without any deviation from the snarky flirty guy archetype.

There are a bunch of other characters that are spoilers and who don’t really matter, but I will say that there is a Black man who’s described as chocolate, so there.

Um. Women? I’m pretty sure the only named women we actually get to see on the page are two identical twins who are basically one entity and they show up in like the last chapter?

Before one of you shouts OMG THERE ARE MORE WOMEN IN THE LATER BOOKS, yeah, probably, I fucking hope so, but I’m not reviewing those books yet, I’m reviewing this one, and it’s one fucking giant sausage fest of hot dudes and faceless mooks.

Dems the fax.

The “Plot”

If you go into this expecting an exploration of the importance of human touch and how the lack of it might impact a person, you’re a dumbass and so am I for making that mistake.

If you’re expecting a gloomy but action-filled dystopia based on some more district/caste/personality oppression, you’re wrong again but at least justified because that’s what this is marketed as.

The stakes and conflict are … are they? Are we sure they even exist? Jury’s still out because I have no idea what Juliette wants aside from sucking Adam’s dick (and Warner’s sometimes). I know what she doesn’t want, I think (?), but I don’t know why she doesn’t want it aside from the “uwu i’m too good and pure and love people too much even tho they’ve shown me nothing but hatred and rejection” crap.

I’m honestly having a hard time figuring out what this book even is about. Supposedly the major plot development is Juliette realizing how powerful she is and how nobody will get to use her anymore, but the first thing happens in the very last chapter out of fucking nowhere, while the last thing doesn’t even matter because up until this point, Juliette has already been spending the entire book refusing to be used in the first place.

Oh, and about the first thing again, where Juliette must realize her power? It’s supposed to be this big epic moment for her at the end of the book, but we see her use her powers to throw around threats to get what she wants several times before that, on people she barely knows. She threatens Kenji just because he makes a few inappropriate comments about her, which is fucking baffling because she refused to even try to hurt Warner even though he’s been nothing but an asshole to her up until that point.

The moment Juliette gets her hands on a gun, she’s suddenly super empowered and has no problem spitting badass one-liners, even though she was a sad woobie pacifist up until that point and who couldn’t even IMAGINE hurting anyone, not even supposed monster Warner. The whole gun thing is weird and vaguely gross tbh, because Juliette genuinely seems to enjoy the power it gives her and I’m not into that.

On a technical level, this book is mostly Juliette being pushed around by men, feeling sorry for herself and clinging to morals that only serve to show how pure and good she is despite making no sense and being odd for someone in her position to have.

There are entire chapters of repeated revelations, where Juliette is sometimes literally dragged around from scene to scene by the hand, and she realizes the same thing over and over, seemingly forgetting it at the start of the chapter just to she can learn it again by the end of it: Warner is a meanie poopy-head who’s willing to hurt, kill, and torture other people for his own gain. Every time he shows this, Juliette acts shocked all over again.

This goes on for about half the book until shit suddenly takes a turn and the book becomes yet another Underground Teenage Rebellion Fighting to Take Down the Man drama, except this time the teenagers are mutants with cool superpowers.

It’s a complete tonal shift and it’s jarring as all heck, but at least there’s no more pretense about this being a dystopia because boy oh boy is it painful to watch Mafi struggle to worldbuild even the slightest concept for this superpowered angstfest.

The Worldbuilding

Important Proper Nouns galore. The book’s website (where I got the blurb) says that this book is “fresh” and “original”.

Yeah let’s uuh … Let’s investigate that statement.

The main evil guys are called the Reestablishment. That’s two letters away from Juliette fighting the establishment.

D-do I need to say more?

I honestly don’t know if I can. It’s like Mafi just sorta took all the other YA dystopian “quirks” and threw them all in without rhyme or reason.

Climate is fucked because of Big Corporate? Yeah. All animals are dead or mutated? Yup. Art and religion is deemed bad and terrible and banned for reasons? Throw that in there too, why not? They’re destroying all languages, English included? O-ok?

We never really … dwell on any of these things or figure out why they happened or how or even where. These things are always brought up together like some sort of checklist of all the bad things that the Reestablishment has done.

And I guess for a superhero story with “pulse-pounding” romance, it doesn’t really have to be that much more complicated, and it serves its function, but on Mafi’s website there’s boasting about how it has the worldbuilding of The Hunger Games and honey, you might become a more successful circus act than a writer because the level of contortion required to shove your head that far up your ass is frankly impressive.

The Wokeness

Warner is constantly described and called “crazy” and “insane” and a “madman”, so that’s FUN. Combined with the fact that this book doesn’t seem to have any idea about what solitary does to you and effectively trivializes literal torture, this isn’t looking good, lads.

There’s also, as I mentioned, no women aside from Juliette, and everything’s always about men and how they affect her and her life and how much they matter to her.

Just. Bad. The most progressive thing about this book is the fact that a WoC wrote it, and that’s about it.

The Quotes

I’m … so sorry for this. But you have to see them.

This Kills the Lady

Raindrops are my only reminder that clouds have a heartbeat. That I have one, too.

I always wonder about raindrops.

I wonder about how they’re always falling down, tripping over their own feet, breaking their legs and forgetting their parachutes as they tumble right out of the sky toward an uncertain end. It’s like someone is emptying their pockets over the earth and doesn’t seem to care where the contents fall, doesn’t seem to care that the raindrops burst when they hit the ground, that they shatter when they fall to the floor, that people curse the days the drops dare to tap on their doors.

I am a raindrop.

My parents emptied their pockets of me and left me to evaporate on a concrete slab.

Wot?

I catch the rose petals as they fall from my cheeks, as they float around the frame of my body, as they cover me in something that feels like the absence of courage.

Huh?

He shifts and my eyes shatter into thousands of pieces that ricochet around the room, capturing a million snapshots, a million moments in time. Flickering images faded with age, frozen thoughts hovering precariously in dead space, a whirlwind of memories that slice through my soul.

Come Again?

Summer is like a slow-cooker bringing everything in the world to a boil 1 degree at a time. It promises a million happy adjectives only to pour stench and sewage into your nose for dinner.

The Sun is a Rat Bastard – Poem by Juliette

I hate the lackadaisical ennui of a sun too preoccupied with itself to notice the infinite hours we spend in its presence. The sun is an arrogant thing, always leaving the world behind when it tires of us.

Juliette Contemplates Cannibalism

He whispers, “How are you?” and I want to kiss every beautiful beat of his heart.

He’s Not Wrong, I Guess

It’s the only reason Adam is staying with me – because Warner thinks Adam is a cardboard cutout of vanilla regurgitations.

Get You A Man Who Can Fix Years of Abuse and 260 Days of Solitary!

He’s kissing away the pain, the hurt, the years of self-loathing, the insecurities, the dashed hopes for a future I always pictured as obsolete.

*Sarah J Maas voice*

Realization is a pendulum the size of the moon. It won’t stop slamming into me.

I … What?

He’s a hot bath, a short breath, 5 days of summer pressed into 5 fingers writing stories on my body.

Juliette is a Loony Tunes Character

My eyelashes trip into my eyebrows; my jaw drops into my lap.

Kenji Is the Worst

He grins and hobbles forward. “You know, you’re pretty hot for a psycho chick.”

I … What? part 2

My jaw is dangling from my shoelace.

The Conclusion

Don’t waste your time on this. Trust me. There’s so many things I’ve left out for the sake of brevity, and I still ended up with a mile-long review.

It doesn’t work as a romance, it doesn’t work as a dystopia, and it certainly doesn’t work as a superhero origin story. Mostly because it tries to be all of these things at once and ends up being an overwritten mediocre mess.

For a time I felt vaguely invested and interested in knowing what happened in the next books, but that feeling has passed now and I couldn’t give less of a shit.

I would honestly be very interested in seeing a character like Warner be written properly and watch him try to redeem himself and atone. But that train has already left the station, and Mafi was not on it.

#book review #repost #shatter me

16 notes · View notes