#and their reference is the part talking about more overt presentations of DID which IS less common

[chaos-in-one]

Seeing r/systemscringe straight up misinterpreting the DSM is disappointing but not surprising

[frobby]

I know I'm the only person who still cares about this but I'm gonna say my "I think I turned my childhood friend into a girl" opinions cuz I've seen enough bad takes.

To preface this: I've read a lot of otokonoko Mangas and queer Mangas are beloved to me. I had been reading this manga since way before it was picked up by sevenseas and I really disappointed when the translation came out.

In case ur seeing this and have no idea what I'm talking about "I think I turned my childhood friend into a girl" is about mido who is a guy who likes cosmetics who one day tries them on his gloomy friend hiura and it makes hiura insanely cute, hiura who has a crush on mido starts wearing makeup and dressing femininely to impress mido finds out he's more comfortable in feminine clothing and gains confidence"

Said controversy was when sevenseas printed the manga with overt trans language that was no present in the original and were pressured into eventually retranslating the first volume to be closer to the original

Now that everything is laid out let's go over 2 facts.

number 1: the author (azusa banjo) during the controversy explicitly stated that was not their intention. This is self explanatory if the author said u did something wrong then u did something wrong, it's their authority those are THEIR characters and THEIR story.

Number 2: the trans edits made make no sense on context of the story. Only volume one was printed and the edits made were pretty minor stuff like using she/her pronouns, and referring to hiura as a girl. Remember, this is volume ONE. I own the original print and there's multiple pages where hiura says "I'm a boy" and then cuts to mido using she/her pronouns for him. Hiura hasn't even had time to have his trans revelation (which would be during the beach arc if u want to claim he has one). It literally makes no sense in story context.

Some crazy shit I've seen people say

"it's transphobic to say that hiura isn't trans" I'll admit I am not transgender. I consider myself not cis but not trans so my word isn't like law but We're talking about character interpretation. The dialog is ambiguous you can't say "it's transphobic to not interpret this character the same way I do"

"Sevenseas localized it" do you think that Japanese people just don't know what transgender people are????? There's a ton of good transgender studies if you look. I could make an argument that hiura was made less complex by erasing the otokonoko aspect of his character. A big part of otokonoko media is expression you don't want to perform masculinity but you aren't a girl, you're in the middle (go read senpai wa otokonoko it does this gender expression so beautifully but even the silly ones have hints of this). Things aren't black and white it's not cis or trans.

"It would have been this way if Japan hadn't censored it" adding on to my earlier statement like I said there's tons of transgender Mangas but also.... censorship from who? It's own author?? We see more infantilization of Japan that the west loves to do where they don't know about LGBT issues. It's own author said that it was not their intention for hiura you have to listen to the author

If u want hiura to be trans? Fine thats your interpretation. I had thoughts of that too when I originally read the manga. But you have to understand the difference between interpretation and the actual text.

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

Hi miss Raven!! I was wondering what is Rollo's character actually like in game?? I've seen people talk about it but only about how he's obsessed with Malleus. There's gotta be more to his character right?? 😭😭

The whole “Rollo is obsessed with Malleus” thing is being circulated because it’s based on a single sinister line in the opening to Glorious Masquerade. He talks about how he wants to erase “those irritating people” (it is not specified who he is referring to), then achieving peace and freedom as a result of that. Rollo follows up by saying that he’s looking forward to seeing Malleus in particular out of all the guests for the masquerade (while making THIS suspicious expression):

If you listen to this opening, Rollo is also heard doing the classic “evil villain laugh”, and he sounds markedly self-assured and arrogant. This is many people’s first experience with the character, and perhaps the most “overt” and easily recognizable trait about him, so that’s probably why it’s the thing people most remember or immediately jump to when describing Rollo.

Fans are still theory crafting based on that line from the opening (ie they’ve come to the conclusion that Rollo is fixated on Malleus) and the fact that Rollo’s Disney counterpart was also infamously obsessive. Some people seem to think the sentiment is negative (ie Rollo has an issue with Malleus and/or with fae in particular), while others think the sentiment is positive (ie Rollo is a secret Malleus fanboy/just wants to be Malleus’s friend, but is constantly misread because of his dour face). In any case, we have not gotten confirmation of either theory, and nor is “obsessed with Malleus” Rollo’s entire personality. (I mean, even the ACTUAL confirmed “obsessed with Malleus” character, Sebek, has his own personality outside of that.)

When the NRC students actually get to meet Rollo in the event’s story, he doesn’t initially present the same character as he does in the opening. Here is what we know to be true of Rollo, as well as some broad observations I’ve made about him. (PLEASE NOTE: as of this post going live, there are only 2 out of 5 parts of the event out; the observations made below are reflective ONLY of those first 2 parts.)

Rollo is introduced as a third year and the student council president of Noble Bell College, a status which is similar to that of dorm leader at Night Raven College.

A lot of people have been assuming that it was Rollo that explicitly extended a personal invitation for Malleus to attend the symposium; however, this is not confirmed to be the case. When Crowley goes to Malleus to communicate that he’s been chosen to go along with the other 10 picked via lottery, Crowley says, the “hosts” (plural; ie Noble Bell College students organizing the event) wanted Malleus to attend. It can be inferred that Rollo may have played a role in this or used his influence as student council president to pull the strings. However, it is just as likely that everyone else at NBC wanted Malleus to come because of Malleus’s notoriety (crown prince AND one of the top 5 strongest mages in the world) and Rollo just agreed with it because it aligned with his personal motives.

He is shown to be very polite, but also aloof (note that he is not speaking with the same fervor as he did in the opening). Deuce thinks that Rollo is expressionless, and Epel thinks Rollo looks angry. This seems to make Rollo akin to the “kuudere” archetype (at least on a superficial level), which is defined by being stoic, cold, and emotionless but having a secret side to them (usually far sweeter than their initial personality would have you believe).

Rollo prefers to remain formal; he’s confused by Rook gracing him with a nickname (then again, who wouldn’t be?) and generally speaks politely.

Continuing from the previous point, Rollo seems to take offense to Sebek referring to him as “human”. Remarkably, Rollo is the first character to correct Sebek by reminding him what his actual name is.

It seems like Rollo is disguising his true thoughts and intentions; when Sebek overhears him saying something negative (”it’s deplorable”), Rollo calmly denies having ever said anything at all.

Rollo is implied to be dutiful and diligent, not only in his work as student council president but also as one of the hosts for the symposium; he read up on each attendee before they arrived on his campus (thanks to the documents Crowley provided for him), and is aware of their full names, titles, races, and various family connections. Something that Azul mentions (after being handed his masquerade outfit) is that it’s unnerving that NBC (and thus, potentially Rollo) is aware of the prescription of his lenses (as they provided him with new glasses with his new look).

Rollo prioritizes his responsibilities; he stays behind at NBC to process other guests before going out to the City of Flowers for the festivities.

Despite his cold exterior, Rollo can be affable too. He invites the NRC students to approach him and have a conversation with him if they spot him in town.

Silver remarks that Rollo must have a good memory to remember so many new names. Again, this plays into his diligence.

Some people have noticed that Rollo is strangely friendly to Yuu (he says to them that it must be troublesome being a magicless human surrounded by magic users all the time, then invites them to relax and enjoy the event). At this point, it’s unclear whether this is fanservice for the player or if there is more meaning behind his words, but this may indicate sympathy for Yuu or those similar to Yuu.

Rollo tells us that students of Noble Bell like to keep things clean and, above all else, have faith in purity and integrity. Presumably, this is also true of himself (example: he catches Ruggie about to steal the coins in a hat and, while glaring at Ruggie, says something to the effect of, “I hope you weren’t intending to take the contents of that”).

Continuing from the last point, Rollo seems to hold a disdain for those that violate the peace and disregard laws, such as petty thieves.

It’s implied that Rollo approves of using any means necessary to stop evil deeds; he remarks that doing such a thing is “wonderful”.

He has a habit of holding a handkerchief over his nose and mouth. This seems to mostly be done in instances when Rollo is annoyed about something, such as talking about how noisy others are or when he’s trying to stay polite about something he disagrees with (such as his vice president and aide insisting that everyone wear festival clothes for the symposium).

There’s a lot of fan theories flying around about how Rollo may dislike the fae, but there are also implications that he dislikes the poor or those of “lower class”, as he grimaces and does the handkerchief thing when Ruggie comments about people of all classes and backgrounds dressing up for the festivities.

The vice president tells Idia that Rollo is strict about keeping schedules.

He is very knowledgeable and serves as a good tour guide for the NRC boys. Rollo shares many of his favorite spots and local treats and goods with them

He explains the history of important businesses and icons in the city and is genuinely proud of where he comes from. Rollo also seems to take offense when others question the traditions of the City of Flowers or seek to only gain from them or take advantage of them (ie like when Idia comments on the security is “too loose” if you toss your coins into a hat for street vendors, when Ruggie tries to steal the coins in the hat, etc.)

Basically, what we know of Rollo in the event opening vs in the actual event story is like knowing two different people that share the same face (although the story has certainly alluded that Rollo is hiding something). He is level-headed and intelligent; he is someone that values tradition and formalities, and displays disdain for those that rebel against certain conventions.

I’m personally really looking forward to the big reveal to see the full scope of Rollo’s character! Fingers crossed for more Rollo content in part 3! 🤞

[everyonewasabird]

Brickclub 4.10.4 ‘Outbursts of former times’

The “Jeanne” namedrop in this chapter singlehandedly clotheslines 3 out of the 4 translators in front of me; Wilbour and Hapgood both say “Jeanne and her* [number] companions” (Wilbour thinks it’s a hundred and six, Hapgood thinks it’s six hundred.) (Wilbour is correct).

*for non-French speakers: the problem here is that possessive pronouns in French take the gender of the thing possessed rather than the gender of the possessor like in English, and Jeanne is a common feminine name, so you do actually have to just know Jeanne is a man to translate the sentence correctly. HOWEVER, Charles Jeanne the most famous insurgent in this rebellion, so that’s not that much of an excuse.

Rose manages to realize Jeanne is a man, but for some reason talks as if Hugo is referring to a long ago event rather than the one currently happening:

In under an hour, twenty-seven barricades had sprung up out of the ground in the Les Halles quartier alone. At the centre was the famous house at no. 50, once the fortress where the worker Jeanne and his one hundred and six companions holed up,

And her footnote says, bafflingly:

At 50, rue Saint-Merry (or Saint-Merri), at the intersection of the rue Saint-Martin, a worker whose name is recorded only as Jeanne led one of the strongest points of resistance to the National Guard. Jeanne and twenty other survivors were later deported.

1) His name is Charles Jeanne, we have his letters, he has a wikipedia page here, and a French wikipedia page here, which has more detail including his eye color, hair color, height and home address

2) He was not deported, he led the charge that got him and several of his companions out alive, though he was later arrested and imprisoned in Mont Saint-Michel, which is an island off the coast of Normandy and considered part of France, unless that counts as deportation somehow because it’s an island

3) HOW did you do any research about the June Rebellion at all without learning Charles Jeanne’s name????

Only FMA manages to get through the sentence unscathed with:

In less than an hour twenty-seven barricades rose from the ground in the market quarter. At the center was that famous house, No. 50, which was the fortress of Jeanne and his hundred and six companions,

I’m picturing all the translators in a race stumbling into in a slapstick cartoon heap at this point, with only the (sometimes overly!) cautious and sensible FMA managing to skirt around the pileup and stay on their feet.

But the thing that Rose ungracefully slammed into is an interesting thing about this chapter, actually? It’s all carefully couched as something that happened a long time ago, in a way that belies the immediacy and urgency of the action. Hugo’s mention that the house where Jeanne defended his barricade is famous now, the fact that Hugo himself wandered into the action all those years ago, and the chapter title which feels Very overt about saying this all happened "in former times” all point towards an effort to distance the present from all this. The chapter title may even go so far as to imply “this sort of thing doesn’t happen anymore (so it’s safe for me to talk about).”

And yet, as @fremedon points out, we’re at the part where Hugo is also most committed to laying on the suspense and letting us feel like this could still go either way.

It feels like he’s using this doublespeak to reassure the censors while at the same time whispering to the prospective future insurgent, “riots like this are balanced on a knife’s edge, and next time---”

[xoruffitup]

Annette: The AD Devotee Review

So I saw Annette on its premiere night in Cannes and I’m still trying to process and make sense of those 2.5 hours of utter insanity. I have no idea where to begin and this is likely going to become an unholy length by the time I’m finished, so I apologize in advance. But BOY I’ve got a lot to parse through!!

Let’s start here: Adam’s made plenty of weird movies. The Dead Don’t Die? The Man Who Killed Don Quixote? There are definitely Terry Gilliam-esque elements of the unapologetically absurd and fantastical in Annette, but NOTHING comes close to this film. To put it bluntly, nothing I write in this post can prepare you for the eccentric phantasmagoria you’re about to sit through.

While the melodies conveying the story – at times lovely and haunting, at times whimsical, occasionally blunt and simple – add a unique sense of the surreal, the fact that it’s all presented in song somehow supplies the medium for this bizarre concoction of disparate elements and outlandish storytelling to all coalesce into a single genre-defying, disbelief-suspending whole. That’s certainly not to say there weren’t a few times when I quietly chortled to myself and mouthed “what the fuck” from behind my mask when things took an exceeding turn to the outrageous. This movie needs to be permitted a bit of leeway in terms of quality judgments, and traditional indicators certainly won’t apply. I would say part of its appeal (and ultimately its success) stems from its lack of interest in appealing to traditional arbiters of film structure and viewing experience. The movie lingers in studies of discomfiture (I’ll return to this theme); it presents all its absurdities with brazen pride rather than temperance; and its end is abrupt and utterly jarring. Yet somehow, at the end of it, I realized I’d been white-knuckling that rollercoaster ride the whole way through and loved every last twist and turn.

A note on the structure of this post before I dive in: I’ve written out a synopsis of the whole film (for those spoiler-hungry people) and stashed it down at the bottom of this post, so no one trying to avoid spoilers has to scroll through. If you want to read, go ahead and skip down to that before reading the discussion/analysis. If I have to reference a specific plot point, I’ll label it “Spoiler #___” and those who don’t mind being spoiled can check the correlating numbers in my synopsis to see which part I’m referencing. Otherwise, my discussion will be spoiler-free! I do detail certain individual scenes, but hid anything that would give away key developments and/or the ending.

To start, I’ll cut to what I’m sure many of you are here for: THE MUSICAL SEX SCENES. You want detailed descriptions? Well let’s fucking go because these scenes have been living in my head rent-free!!

The first (yes, there are two. Idk whether to thank Mr. Carax or suggest he get his sanity checked??) happens towards the end of “We Love Each Other So Much.” Henry carries Ann to the bed with her feet dangling several inches off the floor while she has her arms wrapped around his shoulders. (I maybe whimpered a tiny bit.) As they continue to sing, you first see Ann spread on her back on the bed, panting a little BUT STILL SINGING while Henry’s head is down between her thighs. The camera angle is from above Ann’s head, so you can clearly see down her body and exactly what’s going on. He lifts his head to croon a line, then puts his mouth right back to work. 

And THEN they fuck – still fucking singing! They’re on their sides with Henry behind her, and yes there is visible thrusting. Yes, the thrusting definitely picks up speed and force as the song reaches its crescendo. Yes, it was indeed EXTREMELY sensual once you got over the initial shock of what you’re watching. Ann kept her breasts covered with her own hands while Henry went down on her, but now his hands are covering them and kneading while they’re fucking and just….. It’s a hard, blazing hot R rating. I also remember his giant hand coming up to turn her head so he can kiss her and ladkjfaskfjlskfj. Bring your smelling salts. I don’t recommend sitting between two older ladies while you’re watching – KINDA RUINED THE BLATANT, SMOKING HOT ADAM PORN FOR ME. Good god, choose your viewing buddy wisely!

The second scene comes sort of out of nowhere – I can’t actually recall which song it was during, but it pops up while Ann is pregnant. Henry is again eating her out and there’s not as much overt singing this time, but he has his giant hands splayed over her pregnant belly while he’s going to town and whew, WHEW TURN ON THE AIR CONDITIONING PLEASE. DID THE THEATER INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE BY 10 DEGREES, YOU’RE DAMN RIGHT IT DID.

Whew. I think you’ll be better primed to ~enjoy~ those scenes when you know they’re coming, otherwise it’s just so shocking that by the time you’ve processed “Look at Adam eating pussy with reckless abandon” it’s halfway over already. God speed, my fellow rats, it’s truly something to witness!!

Okay. Right. Ahem. Moving right on along….

I’ll kick off this discussion with the formal structure of the film. It’s honestly impossible to classify. I have the questionable fortune of having been taken to many a strange avant-garde operas and art exhibitions by my parents when I was younger, and the strongest parallel I found to this movie was melodramatic opera stagings full of flamboyant flourishes, austere set pieces, and prolonged numbers where the characters wallow at length in their respective miseries. This movie has all the elevated drama, spectacle, and self-aggrandizement belonging to any self-professed rock opera. Think psychedelic rock opera films a la The Who’s Tommy, Hair, Phantom of the Paradise, and hell, even Rocky Horror. Yes, this film really is THAT weird.

But Annette is also in large part a vibrant, absurdist performance piece. The film is intriguingly book-ended by two scenes where the lines blur between actor and character; and your own role blurs between passive viewer and interactive audience. The first scene has the cast walking through the streets of LA (I think?), singing “So May We Start?” directly to the camera in a self-aware prologue, smashing the fourth wall from the beginning and setting up the audience to play a direct role in the viewing experience. Though the cast then disburse and take up their respective roles, the sense of being directly performed to is reinforced throughout the film. This continues most concretely through Henry’s multiple stand-up comedy performances.

Though he performs to an audience in the film rather than directly to live viewers, these scenes are so lengthy, vulgar, and excessive that his solo performance act becomes an integral part of defining his character and conveying his arc as the film progresses. These scenes start to make the film itself feel like a one-man show. The whole shtick of Henry McHenry’s “Ape of God” show is its perverse irreverence and swaggering machismo. Over the span of what must be a five minute plus scene, Henry hacks up phlegm, pretends to choke himself with his microphone cord, prances across the stage with his bathrobe flapping about, simulates being shot, sprinkles many a misanthropic, charmless monologues in between, and ends by throwing off his robe and mooning the audience before he leaves the stage. (Yes, you see Adam’s ass within the film’s first twenty minutes, and we’re just warming up from there.) His one-man performances demonstrate his egocentrism, penchant for lowbrow and often offensive humor, and the fact that this character has thus far profited from indulging in and acting out his base vulgarities.

While never demonstrating any abundance of good taste, his shows teeter firmly towards the grotesque and unsanctionable as his marriage and mental health deteriorate. This is what I’m referring to when I described the film as a study in discomfiture. As he deteriorates, the later iterations of his stand-up show become utterly unsettling and at times revolting. The film could show mercy and stop at one to two minutes of his more deranged antics, but instead subjects you to a protracted display of just how insane this man might possibly be. In Adam’s hands, these excessive, indulgent performance scenes take on disturbing but intriguing ambiguity, as you again wonder where the performance ends and the real man begins. When Henry confesses to a crime during his show and launces into an elaborate, passionate reenactment on stage, you shift uncomfortably in your seat wondering how much of it might just be true. Wondering just how much of an animal this man truly is.

Watching this film as an Adam fan, these scenes are unparalleled displays of his range and prowess. He’s in turns amusing and revolting; intolerable and pathetic; but always, always riveting. I couldn’t help thinking to myself that for the casual, non Adam-obsessed viewer, the effect of these scenes might stop at crass and unappealing. But in terms of the sheer range and power of acting on display? These scenes are a damn marvel. Through these scenes alone, his performance largely imbues the film with its wild, primal, and vaguely menacing atmosphere.

His stand-up scenes were, to me, some of the most intense of the film – sometimes downright difficult to endure. But they’re only a microcosm of the R A N G E he exhibits throughout the film’s entirety. Let’s talk about how he’s animalistic, menacing, and genuinely unsettling to watch (Leos Carax described him as “feline” at some point, and I 100% see it); and then with a mere subtle twitch of his expression, sheen of his eyes, or slump of his shoulders, he’s suddenly a lost, broken thing.  

Henry McHenry is truly to be reviled. Twitter might as well spare their breath and announce he’s already cancelled. He towers above the rest of the cast with intimidating, predatory physicality; he is prone to indulgence in his vices; and he constantly seems at risk of releasing some wild, uncontrollable madness lingering just beneath his surface. But as we all well know, Adam has an unerring talent for lending pathos to even the most objectively condemnable characters.

In a repeated refrain during his first comedy show, the audience keeps asking him, “Why did you become a comedian?” He dodges the question or gives sarcastic answers, until finally circling back to the true answer later in the film. It was something to the effect of: “To disarm people. It’s the only way I can tell the truth without it killing me.” Even for all their sick spectacle, there are also moments in his stand-up shows of disarming vulnerability and (seeming) honesty. In a similar moment of personal exposition, he confesses his temptation and “sympathy for the abyss.” (This phrase is hands down my favorite of the film.) He repeatedly refers to his struggle against “the abyss” and, at the same time, his perceived helplessness against it. “There’s so little I can do, there’s so little I can do,” he sings repeatedly throughout the film - usually just after doing something horrific.

Had he been played by anyone else, the first full look of him warming up before his show - hopping in place and punching the air like some wannabe boxer, interspersing puffs of his cigarette with chowing down on a banana – would have been enough for me to swear him off. His archetype is something of a cliché at this point – a brusque, boorish man who can’t stomach or preserve the love of others due to his own self-loathing. There were multiple points when it was only Adam’s face beneath the character that kept my heart cracked open to him. But sure enough, he wedged his fingers into that tiny crack and pried it wide open. The film’s final few scenes show him at his chin-wobbling best as he crumbles apart in small, mournful subtleties.

(General, semi-spoiler ahead as to the tone of the film’s ending – skip this paragraph if you’d rather avoid.) For a film that professes not to take itself very seriously (how else am I supposed to interpret the freaky puppet baby?), it delivers a harsh, unforgiving ending to its main character. And sure enough, despite how much I might have wanted to distance myself and believe it was only what he deserved, I found myself right there with him, sharing his pain. It is solely testament to Adam’s tireless dedication to breathing both gritty realism and stubborn beauty into his characters that Henry sank a hook into some piece of my sympathy.

Not only does Adam have to be the only actor capable of imbuing Henry with humanity despite his manifold wrongs, he also has to be the only actor capable of the wide-ranging transformations demanded of the role. He starts the movie with long hair and his full refrigerator brick house physique. His physicality and size are actively leveraged to engender a sense of disquiet and unpredictability through his presence. He appears in turns tormented and tormentor. There were moments when I found myself thinking of Conan the Barbarian, simply because his physical presence radiates such wild, primal energy (especially next to tiny, dainty Marion and especially with that long hair). Cannot emphasize enough: The raw sex appeal is off the goddamn charts and had me – a veteran fangirl of 3+ years - shook to my damn core.

The film’s progression then ages him – his hair cut shorter and his face and physique gradually becoming more gaunt. By the film’s end, he has facial prosthetics to make him seem even more stark and borderline sickly – a mirror of his growing internal torment. From a muscular, swaggering powerhouse, he pales and shrinks to a shell of a man, unraveling as his face becomes nearly deformed by time and guilt. He is in turns beautiful and grotesque; sensual and repulsive. I know of no other actor whose face (and its accompanying capacity for expressiveness) could lend itself to such stunning versatility.

Quick note here that he was given a reddish-brown birthmark on the right side of his face for this film?? It becomes more prominent once his hair is shorter in the film’s second half. I’m guessing it was Leos’ idea to make his face even more distinctive and riveting? If so, joke’s on you, Mr. Carax, because we’re always riveted. ☺

I mentioned way up at the beginning that the film is bookended by two scenes where the lines blur between actor and character, and between reality and performance. This comes full circle at the film’s end, with Henry’s final spoken words (this doesn’t give any plot away but skip to the next paragraph if you would rather avoid!) being “Stop watching me.” That’s it. The show is over. He has told his last joke, played out his final act, and now he’s done living his life as a source of cheap, unprincipled laughs and thrills for spectators. The curtain closes with a resounding silence.

Now, I definitely won’t have a section where I talk (of course) about the Ben Solo parallels. He’s haunted by an “abyss” aka darkness inside of him? Bad things happened when he finally gave in and stared into that darkness he knew lived within him? As a result of those tragedies, (SPOILER – Skip to next paragraph to avoid) he then finds himself alone and with no one to love or be loved by? NO I’M DEFINITELY NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT IT AT ALL, I’M JUST FINE HERE UNDER MY MOUNTAINS OF TISSUES.

Let’s talk about the music! The film definitely clocks in closer to a rock opera than musical, because almost the entire thing is conveyed through ongoing song, rather than self-contained musical numbers appearing here and there. This actually helps the film’s continuity and pacing, by keeping the characters perpetually in this suspended state of absurdity, always propelled along by some beat or melody. Whenever the film seems on the precipice of tipping all the way into the bleak and dark, the next whimsical tune kicks in to reel us all blessedly back. For example, after (SPOILER #1) happens, there’s a hard cut to the bright police station where several officers gather around Henry, bopping about and chattering on the beat “Questions! We have a few questions!”

Adam integrates his singing into his performance in such a way that it seems organic. I realized after the film that I never consciously considered the quality of his singing along the way. For all that I talked about the film maintaining the atmosphere of a fourth wall-defying performance piece, Adam’s singing is so fully immersed in the embodiment of his character that you almost forget he’s singing. Rather, this is simply how Henry McHenry exists. His stand-up scenes are the only ones in the film that do frequently transition back and forth between speaking and singing, but it’s seamlessly par for the course in Henry’s bizarre, dour show. He breaks into his standard “Now laugh!” number with uninterrupted sarcasm and contempt. There were certainly a few soft, poignant moments when his voice warbled in a tender vibrato you couldn’t help noticing – but otherwise, the singing was simply an extension of that full-body persona he manages to convey with such apparent ease and naturalism.

On the music itself: I’ll admit that the brief clip of “We Love Each Other So Much” we got a few weeks ago made me a tad nervous. It seemed so cheesy and ridiculous? But okay, you really can’t take anything from this movie out of context. Otherwise it is, indeed, utterly ridiculous. Not that none of it is ever ridiculous in context either, but I’m giving you assurances right now that it WORKS. Once you’re in the flow of constant singing and weirdness abound, the songs sweep you right along. Some of the songs lack a distinctive hook or melody and are moreso rhythmic vehicles for storytelling, but it’s now a day later and I still have three of the songs circulating pleasantly in my head. “We Love Each Other So Much” was actually the stand out for me and is now my favorite of the soundtrack. It’s reprised a few times later in the film, growing increasingly melancholy each time it is echoed, and it hits your heart a bit harder each time. The final song sung during (SPOILER #2), though without a distinctive melody to lodge in my head, undoubtedly left me far more moved than a spoken version of this scene would have. Adam’s singing is so painfully desperate and earnest here, and he takes the medium fully under his command.

Finally, it does have to be said that parts of this film veer fully towards the ridiculous and laughable. The initial baby version of the Annette puppet-doll was nothing short of horrifying to me. Annette gets more center-stage screen time in the film’s second half, which gives itself over to a few special effects sequences which look to be flying out at you straight from 2000 Windows Movie Maker. The scariest part is that it all seems intentional. The quality special effects appear when necessary (along with some unusual and captivating time lapse shots), which means the film’s most outrageous moments are fully in line with its guiding spirit. Its extravagant self-indulgence nearly borders on camp.

...And with that, I’ve covered the majority of the frantic notes I took for further reflection immediately after viewing. It’s now been a few days, and I’m looking forward to rewatching this movie when I can hopefully take it in a bit more fully. This time, I won’t just be struggling to keep up with the madness on screen. My concluding thoughts at this point: Is it my favorite Adam movie? Certainly not. Is it the most unforgettable? Aside from my holy text, The Last Jedi, likely yes. It really is the sort of thing you have to see twice to even believe it. And all in all, I say again that Adam truly carried this movie, and he fully inhabits even its highest, most ludicrous aspirations. He’s downright abhorrent in this film, and that’s exactly what makes him such a fucking legend.

I plan to make a separate post in the coming days about my experience at Cannes and the Annette red carpet, since a few people have asked! I can’t even express how damn good it feels to be globetrotting for Adam-related experiences again. <3

Thanks so much for reading! Feel free to ask me any further questions at all here or on Twitter! :)

*SYNOPSIS INCLUDED BELOW. DO NOT READ FURTHER IF AVOIDING SPOILERS!*

Synopsis: Comedian Henry McHenry and opera singer Ann Defrasnoux are both at the pinnacle of their respective success when they fall in love and marry. The marriage is happy and passionate for a time, leading to the birth of their (puppet) daughter, Annette. But tabloids and much of the world believe the crude, brutish Henry is a poor match for refined, idolized Ann. Ann and Henry themselves both begin to feel that something is amiss – Henry gradually losing his touch for his comedy craft, claiming that being in love is making him ill. He repeatedly and sardonically references how Ann’s opera career involves her “singing and dying” every night, to the point that he sees visions of her “dead” body on the stage. Meanwhile, Ann has a nightmare of multiple women accusing Henry of abusive and violent behavior towards them, and she begins growing wary in his presence. (He never acts abusively towards her, unless you count that scene when he tickles her feet and licks her toes while she’s telling him to stop??? Yeah I know, WILD.)

The growing sense of unease, that they’re both teetering on the brink of disaster, culminates in the most deranged of Henry’s stand-up comedy performances, when he gives a vivid reenactment of killing his wife by “tickling her to death.” The performance is so maudlin and unsettling that you wonder whether he’s not making it up at all, and the audience strongly rebukes him. (This is the “What is your problem?!” scene with tiddies out. The full version includes Adam storming across the stage, furiously singing/yelling, “What the FUCK is your problem?!”) But when Henry arrives home that night, drunk and raucous, Ann and Annette are both unharmed.

The couple take a trip on their boat, bringing Annette with them. The boat gets caught in a storm, and Henry drunkenly insists that he and Ann waltz in the storm. She protests that it’s too dangerous and begs him to see sense. (SPOILER #1) The boat lurches when Henry spins her, and Ann falls overboard to her death. Henry rescues Annette from the sinking boat and rows them both to shore. He promptly falls unconscious, and a ghost of Ann appears, proclaiming her intention to haunt Henry through Annette. Annette (still a toddler at this point and yes, still a wooden puppet) then develops a miraculous gift for singing, and Henry decides to take her on tour with performances around the world. He enlists the help of his “conductor friend,” who had been Ann’s accompanist and secretly had an affair with her before she met Henry.

Henry slides further into drunken debauchery as the tour progresses, while the Conductor looks after Annette and the two grow close. Once the tour concludes, the Conductor suggests to Henry that Annette might be his own daughter – revealing his prior affair with Ann. Terrified by the idea of anyone finding out and the possibility of losing his daughter, Henry drowns the Conductor in the pool behind his and Ann’s house. Annette sees the whole thing happen from her bedroom window.

Henry plans one last show for Annette, to be held in a massive stadium at the equivalent of the Super Bowl. But when Annette takes the stage, she refuses to sing. Instead, she speaks and accuses Henry of murder. (“Daddy kills people,” are the actual words – not that that was creepy to hear as this puppet’s first spoken words or anything.)

Henry stands trial, during which he sees an apparition of Ann from when they first met. They sing their regret that they can’t return to the happiness they once shared, until the apparition is replaced by Ann’s vengeful spirit, who promises to haunt Henry in prison. After his sentencing (it’s not clear what the sentence was, but Henry definitely isn’t going free), Annette is brought to see him once in prison. Speaking fully for the first time, she declares she can’t forgive her parents for using her: Henry for exploiting her voice for profit and Ann for presumably using her to take vengeance on Henry. (Yes, this is why she was an inanimate doll moving on strings up to this point – there was some meaning in that strange, strange artistic choice. She was the puppet of her parents’ respective egotisms.) The puppet of Annette is abruptly replaced by a real girl in this scene, finally enabling two-sided interaction and a long-missed genuine connection between her and Henry, which made this quite the emotional catharsis. (SPOILER #2) It concludes with Annette still unwilling to forgive or forget what her parents have done, and swearing never to sing again. She says Henry now has “no one to love.” He appeals, “Can’t I love you, Annette?” She replies, “No, not really.” Henry embraces her one last time before a guard takes her away and Henry is left alone.

…..Yes, that is the end. It left me with major emotional whiplash, after the whole film up to this point kept pulling itself back from the total bleak and dark by starting up a new toe-tapping, mildly silly tune every few minutes. But this last scene instead ends on a brutal note of harsh, unforgiving silence.

BUT! Make sure you stick around through the credits, when you see the cast walking through a forest together. (This is counterpart to the film’s opening, when you see the cast walking through LA singing “So May We Start?” directly to the audience) Definitely pay attention to catch Adam chasing/playing with the little girl actress who plays Annette! That imparts a much nicer feeling to leave the theater with. :’)

[justanothersyscourse]

I swear to God...

Alright, let’s get into this one, because I am getting really tired of seeing it.

This argument that “allows” for spiritual and cultural multiplicity based on criterion D of the DSM 5 is really skewed and misinterpreted. A lot of endos will use the exclusion criteria as proof that these types of “plurality” exist and are recognized. Not only that, but that these types of multiplicity are completely normal and healthy. 

This is not true. This is not what the DSM says.

Criterion D states: 

D. The disturbance is not a normal part of a broadly accepted cultural or religious practice. Note: In children, the symptoms are not better explained by imaginary playmates or other fantasy play

First, I find it curious that they would cover cultural and spiritual significance in the same sentence that they also exclude children’s imaginary friends, but go off, I guess. 

This really just boils down to people who don’t know how to use or apply the DSM jumping to conclusions, and assuming that the text is a lot more literal than it is. Remember, the DSM contains guidelines that are supposed to be subjectively applied by trained clinicians. For the same reasons that the dysfunction criteria is meant to be applied broadly, so is this portion. “It’s really not that deep, bro.” They’re talking about things like mediumship, psychics (talking to ghosts), and shamans, which at first glance can look like DID/OSDD. We’ll get more into that. Let’s looks some more at the DSM first. 

The DSM makes several mentions of possession form DID, which is referenced in the tweet above. This has many meanings in the DSM. The first is in regards to overtness of alters. Possession types tend to be much more overt and apparent to witnesses than non-possession types. Second, it’s in reference to how dissociated someone is when experiencing a switch. In possession form it’s as though an “outside agent” that has taken control of the body. In non-possession form, it’s experienced more as derealization/depersonalization, and the “host” may feel as though they’re an observer to their actions, or that their identity has been altered. It is also used to reference the typical pop culture experience of possession, noting that alters may appear as ghosts or spirits or deities. [1] [2]

The DSM notes, though: 

However, the majority of possession states around the world are normal, usually part of spiritual practice, and do not meet criteria for dissociative identity disorder. The identities that arise during possession-form dissociative identity disorder present recurrently, are unwanted and involuntary, cause clinically significant distress or impairment (Criterion C), and are not a normal part of a broadly accepted cultural or religious practice (Criterion D).

This one is really tough because of the amount of nonsense endos have spread. It would take forever to go over everything. To make it quick-- you can’t choose or create your alters. It’s just not possible, and I’m not getting into that here. The brain can’t split after a certain age, deal with it. Choosing and creating alters also ISN’T a cultural or religious practice (I believe the endo term is parogenic). Tulpas are something else entirely, and they’re really not involved in this debate at this point because the vast majority want nothing to do with DID/OSDD and admit to experiencing a different kind of “multiplicity” than even endogenics. As well, I’ve already gone over the clinical impairment debate several times, and proven it applies to pretty much everyone experiencing “multiplicity”. 

SO. With that out of the way, the short of it is, if the “entity” sticks around, it’s DID/OSDD, folks. 

When the DSM talks about cultural and spiritual experiences, it’s talking about things like shaman and mass hysteria. Here’s a good article on types of cultural and spiritual possessions that would be covered under this exclusion criteria. 

In many regions, for example, shamans believe that they communicate with spirits without being controlled by them. By contrast, shamans in some other regions believe that they are fully possessed, whether briefly or over a long period of time. Possession states can be viewed as voluntary or involuntary, though sometimes these alternatives coexist in the same society (e.g., voluntary for the medium but "hysterical" for the afflicted person being treated). For an example of temporary, voluntary possession, mediums in many traditional African societies remain in control of their own minds except when spirit-possessed; they function as mediums only when in a trance state. For such purposes, people can seek or inspire spirit possession, with drumming being one common technique.

Possession behavior often conforms to patterns particular to the cultures where it appears, and some possessed persons respond in stereotyped manners. Thus, for example, Somali possession cults do not emphasize different spirits with distinct behaviors (in contrast to related Sudanese cults); although the possessed dance, they speak little (in contrast to, say, Comoro island possession). In traditional Ghana, possession often begins with a stupor, then becomes frenzied. A spirit may possess an established diviner to provide information as to what deity is possessing another person. Among traditional Valley Korekore, mediums through whom spirits speak are fairly rare and typically must remain in the area belonging to the spirit possessing them; by contrast, possession more generally is common there, and cult groups dance it out.

The DSM isn’t allowing for cultural and spiritual forms of multiplicity-- it’s literally excluding (d’uh, it’s an exclusion criteria) significant, common and culturally normal cultural and spiritual types of possession that are not long-term and recurring. It’s not going to take indigenous tribes from the heart of Africa and label them all DID. 

Endos. You don’t get to claim this exclusion as your own. 

Even in Catholicism, it’s excluding the stereotypical possession scene. Are you Emily Rose, Hannah Grace, or Regan MacNeil? No? Then guess what, you’re not experiencing cultural or spiritual possession-- or multiplicity as you like to call it.  

Here’s another article that suggests criteria for differentiating between pathological DID and cultural and spiritual possession (note, when he says healthy, he means “culturally common and accepted”). 

Lewis proposed some criteria to differentiate between healthy and pathological possession. Non-pathological possession which he calls “central,” is episodic, occurs for a limited time, is organized and occurs inside a cultural context that gives it significance. However, pathological possession, which he calls “peripheral,” tends to be chronic, occurs in an uncontrolled way, is not organized and is not compatible with the cultural context in which the individual is integrated.

Beng-Yeong proposes that healthy trance states would be triggered by defined actions, would be shortlived and create beneficial results for the individual who is experiencing them, and would be pathological if they were triggered by stressful emotions, lasted for a long time and created damaging results for those who experience them.

Cardeña et al., utilizing the concepts of Lewis, affirm that central (non-pathological) possession probably comes from a biological predisposition, that was modeled by organized socio-cultural factors, that produced controlled rituals of possession. In this way we can understand the Possession Trances of mediumship that occur in spiritualistic religions, such as Spiritism, Umbanda and Candomble. Whereas peripheral (pathological) possession, while also arising from a biological predisposition, would have been impacted by physical or sexual traumas, thus creating alterations of identity that are difficult to control and organize.

Please stop pretending this exclusion criteria is something that it’s not. Common sense is all it takes to realize it’s talking about “possession” (wow) and dissociative trance states in the cultural sense known throughout the world to literally everybody with more than one brain cell. 

EDIT: Another article that puts it very simply.

In addition, the disturbance must not be a normal part of a broadly accepted cultural or religious practice. As noted in the DSM-51, in many cultures around the world, experiences of being possessed are a normal part of spiritual practice and are not dissociative disorders.

[cto10121]

The bad Shakespeare takes keep coming, I see. This one had the cleverness to couch itself as a personal narrative (makes it much more interesting, tbh). But as bad Shakespeare takes are my bread and butter, my boon and bane, mamma mia here we go again, with Merchant of Venice.

“But those who thought the play was irredeemably antisemitic were, the consensus went, vulgar and whiny—​and, completely coincidentally, they were also Jewish, which somehow magically invalidated their opinions on this subject.”

I’m glad (is that even the right word?) this author found scholars that don’t think this play is anti-Semitic, but my experience with scholarship has been way more mixed than that. Suffice to say, this is literally all the play is known for these days, and views of the play as anti-Semitic are everywhere (Rosenbaum even had a hot take that since the Nazis liked it, it must be anti-Semitic). Didn’t know Harold Bloom thinks this play is anti-Semitic, though. That in itself is a bit of a red flag, as Bloom is a notoriously poor reader of Shakespeare.

“[I]n Merchant, Portia unhappily fulfills her father’s requirements of her suitors, while in Il Pecorone, the lady enjoys drugging her suitors and robbing them blind. By removing this detail, Shakespeare removed the suggestion that malicious schemers come from all walks of life.”

Or, by removing this detail, Shakespeare removed the clear and abhorrent sexism of his original source that turned a woman robbed of her autonomy by her father’s will into a criminal. It’s almost as if you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

“Dr. Lopez, one of the most respected physicians of the 16th century, had indiscreetly revealed that he once treated the Earl of Essex for venereal disease. The earl took revenge by framing Dr. Lopez for treason and arranging for his torture; while on the rack, Dr. Lopez “confessed”—​though “like a Jew,” as the court record states, he denied all charges at trial, while the attorney for the Crown referred to him matter-​of-​factly as “a perjuring murdering traitor and Jewish doctor.”

This is a very twisted account of the Lopez affair and Essex’s motives in going against him, at least to my understanding. For context, Lopez was accused of receiving loads of money from the King of Spain to poison Queen Elizabeth.

According to Stephen Greenblatt, in Will of the World: “Essex had tried some years before to recruit Lopez as a secret agent. Lopez’s refusal—he chose instead directly to inform the queen—may have been prudent, but it created in the powerful earl a very dangerous enemy. After his arrest, he was initially imprisoned at Essex House and interrogated by the earl himself. But Lopez had powerful allies in the rival faction of the queen’s senior adviser William Cecil, Lord Burghley, and his son, Robert Cecil, who also participated in the interrogation and reported to the queen that the charges against her physician were baseless.” Lopez apparently had been taken bribes from various sources, and confessed (freely? under torture?) “that he had indeed entered into a treasonous-sounding negotiation with the king of Spain, but he insisted that he had done so only in order to cozen the king out of his money.” Weird.

Greenblatt isn’t a historian, though, and Essex was indeed an asshole to Lopez, (and for what is worth, I feel Lopez was innocent; I just get those vibes) but so far I can find no other source that Essex actively framed Lopez. Most likely he did some sleuthing, dug up some questionable, compromising stuff, and tried to blow a hearth flame into a firestorm.

“After all, the historical record gives Queen Elizabeth a cookie for dawdling on signing Dr. Lopez’s death warrant; her doubts about his guilt even led her to mercifully allow his family to keep his property, not unlike the equally merciful Duke of Venice in Shakespeare’s play.”

Again, Lopez had powerful allies (doesn’t get much higher than Burghley), and again, re: Greenblatt: “According to court observers, Elizabeth gave Essex a tongue-lashing, ‘calling him rash and temerarious youth, to enter into a matter against the poor man, which he could not prove, and whose innocence she knew well enough.’” A cupcake, then?

“And it is of course entirely unclear whether this trial and public humiliation of an allegedly greed-​driven Jew attempting to murder an upstanding Christian, rapturously reported in the press with myriad antisemitic embellishments, had anything at all to do with Shakespeare’s play about the trial and public humiliation of a greed-​driven Jew attempting to murder an upstanding Christian—​which Shakespeare composed shortly after Dr. Lopez decomposed. Most likely these things were completely unrelated.”

Nearly all the major Shakespeare biographies and articles I’ve read literally and explicitly talks about the possible influence of Lopez’s execution on Merchant of Venice and names it as an inspiration: Greenblatt, (he even headcanons that Shakespeare watched the execution!) Bate, Ackroyd. That’s how Horn managed to ping my BS radar something awful—because I had read about it, many times, even if it was mentioned in passing. It’s solid, legit Shakespearean academic fanon. The sarcasm is really unwarranted, and childish besides.

“It was damned hard to hear the nuance while parsing lines like “Certainly the Jew is the very devil incarnal,” or “My master’s a very Jew; give him a present, give him a halter,” or explaining what Shylock meant when he planned to “go in hate, to feed upon / The prodigal Christian.”

The first two are the fool’s, Lancelot’s, lines, I think. As for Shylock’s hatred toward Christians, while ugly, it’s entirely understandable given the Christian characters’ treatment of him pre-play and during it (Antonio spitting on Shylock’s gaberdine and then asking him to borrow money from him is called out by Shylock himself for its sheer hypocrisy). It also fits Shylock’s character as an unassimilated Jew, resenting Christian hypocrisy and racism.

“The actor began the brief soliloquy that every English-​speaking Jew is apparently meant to take as a compliment: ‘I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? . . . ​If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?’

“Wait, that’s the part where he’s more human?”

[…]“Sure,” I told my son, game-​facing him back in the rearview. “He’s reminding us how he’s like everyone else. He’s a normal person with normal feelings.”

My son laughed. “You seriously fell for that?”

[…] “What do you mean?”

“Shylock’s just saying he wants revenge! Like, ‘Oh, yeah? If I’m a regular human, then I get to be eee-​vil like a regular human!’ This is the evil monologue thing that every supervillain does! ‘I’ve had a rough life, and if you were me you would do the same thing, so that’s why I’m going to KILL BATMAN, mu-​hahaha!’ He’s just manipulating the other guy even more!”

And then the crowd applauded, Harold Bloom cried, and the mayor gave the author’s six-year-old son a gold medal for his Brave Hot Take. Honestly, this was the most unbelievable part of the essay I’ve read. Unless this kid has been reading academic essays on MoV that posit this exact same interpretation (“Shylock was just using humanistic rhetoric to justify his ~bloodthirsty revenge!”), this one’s for a fake Internet stories anthology. Shylock may be a dour, miserable pain in the ass, but he is no Barabas, an actual anti-Semitic caricature—he has a character, and a recognizably human one, and the play bears it out that he is right in his anger.

“I reviewed the other moments scholars cite to prove Shylock’s “humanity.” There were two lines of Shylock treasuring his dead wife’s ring, unlike the play’s Christian men who give their wives’ rings away. But unlike the other men, Shylock never gets his ring back—​because his daughter steals it, and becomes a Christian, and inherits what remains of his estate at the play’s triumphant end.”

Er, this is a non sequitur—that last has nothing to do with the first. The point is, Shylock doesn’t give away his ring; the fact that his daughter stole it means nothing to his treasuring it. It may be proof of the play’s marginalization of Shylock (which accurately if sadly reflects real-life systematic marginalization), but not his humanity. Shakespeare just doesn’t do backstories, even for major characters, so it is significant that he gave Shylock a wife/beloved in the first place.

“Finally, scholars point to the many times Shylock explains why he is so revolting: Christians treat him poorly, so he returns the favor. But for this to satisfy, one must accept that Jews are revolting to begin with, and that their repulsiveness simply needs to be explained.”

This makes absolutely no sense at all. If one accepts Jews are inherently revolting, then no explanation need be given for when a Jewish character acts revolting! The racist accepts the revolting Jewish characterization without qualm. The fact that the play insists on his grievance is significant.

“We listened together as Shylock went to court to extract his pound of flesh; as the heroine, chirping about the quality of mercy, forbade him to spill the Christian’s blood as he so desperately desired; as the court confiscated his property, along with his soul through forced conversion; as the play’s most cherished characters used his own words to taunt and demean him, relishing their vanquishing of the bloodthirsty Jew.”

YMMV, but to me there are no cherished characters in this play. That’s the whole point! Everyone is so mired in this dreary capitalist materialism that denigrates genuine human connection into mere transaction. Everything to these characters is money, money, money (and class), or at least tainted by it. Shylock is simply the most overt (and honest) of the lot. Love relationships, religion are impoverished; Portia and Bassanio are scarcely more suited than Portia and her other suitors. Shylock and Antonio are Jews and Christians in-name-only: They are capitalists first and foremost. Portia is a smarter, more likable Karen. Lancelot isn’t funny. Jessica is okay, but her leaving her father is framed as a asshole moment at least in one instance. Portia is probably the most lovable, but she has her asshole moments too. There are no truly awful characters, but you don’t need to demonize and dehumanize your whole cast into two-dimensional racists just to make a point.

Merchant of Venice is not the best of plays. It is one of Shakespeare’s experiments, a proto-problem play before his Jacobean era, using dark comedy and a slight bent of farce to explore and elucidate social issues, racism and discrimination, chiefly. At least it tries, anyway. Taming of the Shrew is the first proto-problem play done completely farcical, which at least makes it compelling in a slapstick-satire way; Merchant is much more sociologically astute, but also more dull and coolly distant even from its own concerns. I don’t blame anyone, much less Jewish people, for not liking the play or thinking it a masterpiece. I myself don’t, though for reasons that have nothing to do with the usual ones. I like what Shakespeare was trying to do and I think he did some things very well. It has ambition and thought. But I feel like for most of it Shakespeare was on writing autopilot while mentally looking around for something a bit meatier to adapt and develop. It’s a jogging-in-one-place play; he has a couple of those.

In sum: Author argues for complicated play’s anti-Semitism, ends up just saying the racist slurs by the flawed/asshole Christian characters made her and her son uncomfortable (feat. A distorted and even misleading account of the Lopez affair). Plus some internalized anti-Semitism to sort through, methinks.

[passionate-reply]

Have you and Telex met somewhere before? If not, you may want to make their acquaintance. This delightfully irreverent Belgian electro-disco trio came in next to last at 1980′s Eurovision Song Contest. And then they did an album featuring English lyrics by Sparks’ Ron and Russel Mael! Find out all about what makes this record tick, in this week’s installment of Great Albums. Full transcript below the break...

Welcome to Passionate Reply, and welcome to Great Albums! It’s time to break outside the Anglosphere, and take a look at one of the finest synth-pop acts to come from Belgium: the irreverent post-disco trio of Telex. Telex were, in fact, so European that they were sent to that most European of institutions, the Eurovision Song Contest, in the year 1980, in what was perhaps their finest hour in the spotlight.

Music: “Eurovision”

While many contemporary listeners may find “Eurovision” amusing, it actually didn’t go over well in the contest itself, and Telex managed to place second to last on behalf of the Belgian people, losing even the (arguably) more illustrious last place to Finland. It was one of the earliest true “joke entries,” so perhaps the masses weren’t ready for this approach yet. Despite its generally upbeat sound, I think the lyrics of “Eurovision” come across as really quite harsh--and the song’s availability in both English and French meant that plenty of people understood them. Mocking the financial instability of Italy and, apparently, anyone dumb enough to tune into Eurovision, there’s really a rather condescending, perhaps even cruel, sensibility about it. A conspicuous reference to the Berlin Wall, a symbol of some of Europe’s deepest divisions and greatest political turmoil, gives it an extra nudge towards feeling rather contextually inappropriate. Telex’s “Eurovision” might just be the most cynical or anti-European song ever entered...at least up until Hatari of Iceland gave us the thunderous industrial anthem “Hatrið Mun Sigra,” in 2019.

Telex’s follow-up to this “incident” is, in my opinion, where their career starts to really get interesting. While it isn’t that heavily advertised, 1981’s Sex was actually something of a collaboration album, featuring English-language lyrics on all tracks which were contributed by Ron and Russell Mael of Sparks. Given the recent resurgence of interest in Sparks spurred by Edgar Wright’s documentary on them, I figure now is as good a time as ever to revisit this somewhat lesser-known work in the Sparks catalogue--or, at least, with one foot in the Sparks catalogue.

In my opinion, Sex takes the better aspects of both of these groups and combines them into something that feels like more than the sum of its parts. Telex’s soft, yet sprightly synth arrangements have as much fun and flair as those of fellow Sparks collaborator Giorgio Moroder, and feel more substantive and organic than Sparks’ many attempts to play with various genres in which they remained outsider dilettantes. Likewise, the Mael brothers’ lyricism is a major improvement to the often clunky English offered by previous efforts by the Belgians. Recontextualized amidst a sea of dreamy Euro-pop, and delivered by Telex’s suave yet unassuming vocalist Michel Moers, the same style of lyricism that often makes Sparks feel crass and overwrought to me becomes transmuted into something I’m much more amenable to. Much like Devo, I’ve often found the “smartest guys in the room” vibe of Sparks a bit off-putting, but Sex has a certain subtlety or ambiguity about it, that keeps me coming back and pondering it.

Music: “Dummy”

The feel-good, squelching bass grooves of “Dummy” recall the most affable work of the seminal Yellow Magic Orchestra, and a falsetto hook that’s to die for marks it as one of the more pop-oriented tracks on the album. Had it stopped at “Dummy, hey, I’m talking to you,” it would be not only less interesting musically, but also conceptually; the overt questioning, “now who’s the dumb one?”, rescues it from simply being mean. I like to think it calls to mind the archetype of the fool who is constantly vocally doubting the intelligence of others, in an attempt to cover for their own insecurities. While it’s a comparatively simple track, lyrically, it establishes some of the album’s most important themes, portraying traditional “intelligence” as mutable, and perhaps questionable. Despite its appeal, “Dummy” was actually not included on the original tracklisting of the album, but rather debuted as the B-side to the single “Brainwash,” before receiving this promotion in later revisions of the LP. In this rare case, I actually think the later edition is superior, and it’s the one I’d recommend.

Music: “Brainwash”

Besides just sharing opposite sides of the same single, there’s also a strong thematic connection between “Dummy” and the slower-paced, narrative-driven “Brainwash.” Arguably the most high-concept track to be had on Sex, “Brainwash” tells the tale of an intellectual who willingly forfeits his intelligence for the sake of falling in love. That, in and of itself, is a take on the love song that I’ve never heard before. We all know the trope that being in love makes one stupid--our word “infatuation” is basically Latin for “being made stupid.” But “Brainwash” suggests that, given the choice, we might well be better off as fools rushing in. What good is a life full of knowledge if it is one without passion, and deeper humanity? The narrator of “Brainwash” seems fully cognizant of what they abandon, and makes an informed decision to do so. But what complicates things even further is the development that the object of the narrator’s affections seems desperate to make them regain their prior book smarts--perhaps a commentary on how society frames this issue, and its willingness to prioritize the prestige of education over genuine human happiness. The single “Haven’t We Met Somewhere Before?” explores a related, but also distinct tension between knowledge and happiness.

Music: “Haven’t We Met Somewhere Before?”

Moreso than anything else on the album, “Haven’t We Met Somewhere Before?” is really sort of harrowing. Moers’s falsetto feels less like a fun disco aftershock and more like a cry of pain, and the stilted melody and more brash synthesiser stabs establish an air of unease--though still not so strong that it feels out of place alongside lighter tracks like “Brainwash.” Its lyrical narrative is plainly a tragic one, with a narrator who thinks he’s encountered his wife, but can’t quite piece it together, or get the response that he’s looking for. It’s evocative of the very real agony a sufferer of dementia and their loved ones might face, losing their memories, and, with them, their connection to the people around them. But perhaps the most eerie thing about the track is that it never does dip into more maudlin territory, even if it feels like it ought to. In the full context of the album, and particularly the sentiment expressed by “Brainwash,” we’re forced to question just how unfortunate the tale expressed in this song is. Perhaps “Haven’t We Met Somewhere Before?” is also suggesting that love is more powerful than knowledge, in its own way. Perhaps the characters it presents have transcended the need for knowledge of their shared history, because their bond is deeper and more primal than that? Similarly subversive questions about love are also posed by “Exercise Is Good For You.”

Music: “Exercise Is Good For You”

With a pleasingly abrasive, textured synth line and a rather singable refrain, “Exercise Is Good For You” is the one track cut from the later version of the album that I do find myself missing. This track’s narrator has devoted themselves to exercising--perhaps over-exercising--in the wake of a bad break-up. At first blush, it may seem a bit absurd, but this is a real-life coping mechanism, and one that can potentially be quite dangerous, particularly as it’s often combined with eating disorders. The potential for peril is compounded by the notion that, well, “exercise is good for you,” and that in a world where too few of us partake, anyone who does must be doing the best for their health. While it doesn’t deal with the realm of knowledge, I do think “Exercise Is Good For You” works in a similar space as tracks like “Brainwash” and “Haven’t We Met Somewhere Before?” do, offering an ambiguous narrative that asks us to question something we habitually value--in this case, by portraying the apparent virtue of physical fitness in a darker and less healthy light.

Earlier, I referred to this album simply as Sex, but for the UK market, it was re-christened Birds & Bees. There is obviously something quite transgressive and irreverent about naming a pop album “Sex”! We like to think of pop music as trading chiefly in themes of love and romance, so the title Sex functions as a bit of a “low blow,” suggesting that we ought to think more cynically about “what’s really going on below.” Despite this, there’s really not a lot of terribly bawdy tracks to be had on either version of the album, which may come as some surprise if you’re familiar with their early track “Pakmoväst.” I think the fact that the album title was changed, and seemingly “censored” with the very knowing title Birds & Bees, only adds to its transgressiveness, and lends it a certain allure of the forbidden.

You won’t find birds or bees on the cover of the album, however, but rather a butterfly, feeding off the nectar of two large flowers. It’s certainly an image that can be read as evocative of sensuality, with yonic visual overtones. Perhaps more overtly offensive to the eye is its queasy, dull yellow colour scheme, which is actually much more stuck in the 70s than the rather sharp and with-it electro-disco stylings of the music.

Historically, the butterfly is often used as a symbol of innocence, particularly with respect to the carnal knowledge of sex. In François Gérard’s depiction of the mythological heroine Psyche, a butterfly hovers above the subject, as she receives her first kiss from her lover, Cupid, a god of lust and sexual desire. The suggestion of youthful innocence is only heightened when the title Birds & Bees is applied. We might also consider the similarity between the idea of naivete or innocence as a virtue, and the apparent thrust of tracks like “Brainwash,” which also challenge the utility and benefit of knowledge about the world.

Telex would go on to release three more LPs after this one, and while they never quite surpassed a cult following, they keep up with the times quite respectably, incorporating sampling and digital synth textures without losing their signature levity and playfulness. I think they’re well worth a listen if you’re interested so far.

Music: “Raised By Snakes”

My favourite track on this album is one that’s exclusive to the later release, and never appeared anywhere else: “Mata Hari,” which was not only added to the album, but given the prominent position as its opening track. Mata Hari was actually a real person, a courtesan famous for her exotic dances inspired by her time in the Dutch East Indies. But she became caught up in the political storm of the First World War, and the French government convicted her of spying for the Germans--even though many believed she was framed. After her execution for the alleged crime, her severed head was embalmed and displayed in a Parisian museum, for all to gawk at...until it mysteriously went missing, possibly stolen by an “admirer.” It’s a strange and tragic tale, for sure, and one suitably treated with a sense of mystery and uncertainty by the song. An undoubtedly complex and controversial figure, Mata Hari can be seen as a symbol of European disunity, not unlike the Berlin Wall, as well as a representation of sensuality used for devious and destructive ends. I think this track enriches the album’s themes while also feeling somewhat separate, with its more pensive mood and third-person lyricism. That’s everything for today--thanks, as always, for listening!

Music: “Mata Hari”

[silentauroriamthereal]

2020 fic year in review

I was tagged by my lovely @khorazir! Thanks, you! 

Total number of completed stories: Three, but two of them were fairly long? I wrote: 

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: John/Sherlock, 50,689 words, explicit, John POV. Set in New York, because I was itching to go there and couldn’t, and setting a fic somewhere is the next best thing. Probably my most political fic to date, this one was a deliberate reversal of the fake-couple-for-a-case trope, aka I wanted to create a setting wherein John and Sherlock become a couple during a case but need to keep it a secret for the sake of the case. So I set it at a massive, anti-gay conference in the US. Naturally. :P 

Sine Nomine: John/Sherlock, 45,626 words, explicit, mostly John POV with sections of Mycroft and Sherlock POV as well. In fact, though the sections aren’t equal in length, it’s symmetrical: it goes Mycroft POV/John POV/Sherlock POV/John POV/Mycroft POV. This story has a dark premise and a particularly dark setting for one section. It’s based on the concept of Mycroft rewatching the footage of John beating Sherlock in the morgue for the hundredth time or so and revisiting the question of whether John had been the making of his brother, or made him worse than ever. He’s definitely come to the latter conclusion, but decides to give John one final chance in the form of a test. John, for his own reasons, makes what Mycroft deems the incorrect choice, and Mycroft basically sends him into a death trap. The setting of this place is officially set in Serbia with indirect hints at events similar to the Srebrenica Genocide in Bosnia, but the actual setting is Syria, which I’ve just spent the past year studying intensely. Putting a slice of that into the dark core of this story, albeit disguised as another place, was strangely cathartic for me. The title, which is Latin for “no name”, is a double reference to the village here, which Sherlock and Mycroft never name, ominously referring to it only as “the village”, both to each other and to John, as well as John’s never-named or owned feelings for Sherlock. This one is close to my heart for a lot of reasons, but most of all because of Syria. Also, the vast majority of the time in my writing, I choose a singular POV and stick to it very closely for the entire story. Choosing to rotate between these three men essentially allowed me to show how they’re all justified in their own decisions here, and to examine the relationships between all three of them. It’s a story about reckonings and eventual, hard-won reconciliations. 

The Secret of Hazel Grange. Sherlock/John, 18,181 words, explicit, Sherlock POV. I’m going to claim that the reason I only managed to swing three fics this entire year is partly that I put another project on hold in order to write this one, lol. This is the third Christmas fic I’ve written and I’m happy with how it came out. It’s also the only story I’ve written that’s explicitly set during this pandemic, and during the second London lockdown, which is eerily similar to the code red lockdown my own city is in, so it just felt right. It’s been a somewhat miserable holiday season for me (so many reasons, including unhappiness at work and an illegally high rent increase that my apartment building is putting through, on top of the pandemic and all of that isolation and all of those cancellations), so writing some happy endings for someone else was pure escapism for me. Hopeful for others, too! 

Total word count: 114,496 words of posted fic. 130,796 if we’re counting my work-in-progress that got interrupted for the Christmas fic. :)

Fandoms written in: BBC Sherlock.

Looking back, did you write more fic than you thought you would this year, less, or about what you’d expected? I wrote about what I thought I expected to be able to write. Right now, I have a full-time job, a part-time job, and then freelance work, all to attempt to make ends meet, so I have very little spare time to write in, unfortunately. So getting over 100k words in is actually somewhat miraculous to me. It feels like not very much when it’s just three stories, but I guess it still amounts to a fair number of words? 

What’s  your own favourite story of the year? Picking favourites is always tough, but for the Syria connection, I’d have to go with Sine Nomine. 

Did you take any writing risks this year? I suppose that going so hard on the whole Republican anti-gay groups thing could be considered “risky” in some circles, but not really hereabouts! LGBTQ+ rights is one of my areas of advocacy (in fact, I’m a founding member of the Rainbow Equity Council at my workplace and spent a crap ton of time this month drafting governance documentation for it), but genocides are the issue that are really closer to my heart, so the Syria connection, even if it wasn’t named outright, could also be seen as a “dangerously” political stance, I suppose. But compared to other writing choices (like Scars, which features actual rape, or any of my Freebatch stuff, or any of the stories where Mary is an overt terrorist (rather than “just” a freelance assassin, lol)), I don’t really think I was terribly risky this year. 

Do you have any fanfic or profic goals for the new year? The first item on the agenda is to get back to work on Nocturne, my WIP. After that, we’ll see. That said, I STILL would like to get back to searching for an agent for my novel, which is strongly based on Against the Rest of the World. I would also like to write that Johnlock cookbook I keep vaguely promising (it would feature recipes from my fics), and in a quirky “other” sort of project, I also wrote a heap of haikus about Republicans this fall that I’d like to see about getting published. Want a taste? Sure you do. I give you: 

Brett Kavanaugh

Brett has a face like

a snarly little hedgehog.

He likes beer, okay?!

Mitch McConnell

Moscow Mitch is a

corrupt turtle who keeps his

balls in his neck pouch

Most popular story of the year? Well, the longer a story is posted, the more time it has to collect hits, kudos, bookmarks, and comments, obviously, so that makes The Four Horsemen the clear winner here. 

Story of mine most under-appreciated by the universe, in my opinion: From this year or in general? :P I often find that my plottiest, most detailed, most researched stories that I personally think contain some of my most thoughtful writing are the ones that get the least attention. For instance, after series 3 aired, I wrote three back-to-back intensely-detailed series 3 fix-it fics (which all, to their credit, do get plenty of attention, though none so much as Vena Cava, the third of the three). Then I wrote a light-hearted, almost-crack porn fic, more as mental relaxation than any sort of literary genius, and that fic - Best of Three - remains my most wildly-popular story of anything I’ve ever written. It used to frustrate me, but now I’m just grateful to have anyone read anything of mine. But along that theme, yeah: the most complex of this year’s stories (Sine Nomine) is probably the one I feel is the least appreciated, but that’s also fine. No complaints here - I’m very lucky to have the readership I have!! 

Most fun story to write: Sine Nomine, for all the reasons I talked about above, though I’d also call this the most emotionally-invested story of mine from this past year. That said, setting any story in Manhattan is always going to be fun, and I loved researching approximately 500 holiday rental properties in various parts of England in order to finally just create my own, aka Hazel Grange, lol. 

Most unintentionally telling story: Ha, well, if you weren’t sure about my stance on gay rights, marriage equality, or Republicans in general, The Four Horsemen should clear that up pretty distinctly, lol! 

Biggest disappointment: Just that I haven’t had more time to write. 

Biggest surprise: Possibly that I felt so able to represent all three POVs in Sine Nomine as equally as I did. By that, I don’t mean being able to write in their perspectives, but rather in presenting their arguments with (I hope) equal persuasion: Mycroft thinks that John’s entire presence in Sherlock’s life has spelled nothing but disaster for Sherlock. He’s arguably not wrong. He decides that John is out of chances, and that he’s justified in being the one to make that call. Sherlock disagrees, hard, and he’s not wrong. John makes the choice he makes for his daughter, not for the choice Mycroft gives him between choosing either Mary or Sherlock once and for all, and he’s not wrong to have done that, or unjustified in wanting to go and demand some answers from Mary, who isn’t dead after all, here. But then I think that their various reasons for reconciliation are all equally justified, too. I hope! Usually when you stick to one perspective, the story naturally gears itself to persuade the reader to identify with that one character and to take their side. Here, I hope I manage to juggle the balance fairly equally. 

I don’t know who’s been tagged in this already, but I’ll tag: @totallysilvergirl, @blogstandbygo, @nade2308, @weneedtotalkaboutsherlock, @hubblegleeflower, and anyone else who writes. 

[erictmason]

The Road To “Godzilla VS. Kong”, Day Four

(Sorry for the delay on this one, Life proved just a bit too busy the other day to finish it; my “Godzilla: King of the Monsters” review is gonna be pushed back as a result too.  But!  No worries, on we go. ^_^)

KONG: SKULL ISLAND (2017

Director: Jordan Vogt-Roberts

Writers: Dan Gilroy, Max Borenstein, Derek Connolly, John Gatins

Starring: Samuel L. Jackson, Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John Goodman, John C. Reilly

Technically speaking, Gareth Edwards’ “Godzila” from 2014 was the first entry in what is now generally referred to as “The Monsterverse”, an attempt by Warner Bros. Studios and Legendary Pictures to do a Marvel Studios-style series of various interconnected movies (and which, like most such attempts to cash in on that particular trend, hasn’t really panned out; “Godzilla VS. Kong” seems likely to be its grand finale as far as movies are concerned, the only two “names” it had going for it are Godzilla and Kong themselves, and even at its most successful it was never exactly a Powerhouse Franchise).  But the thing is, when that movie was made, the idea of a “Monsterverse” did not yet exist; it was only well after the fact that Legendary and Warner Bros. got the idea to turn a new “Kong” project into the building block of a Shared Universe of their own that they could connect with the 2014 “Godzilla”, with a clear eye on getting to remake one of the most singularly iconic (and profitable) Giant Monster Movies of all time.  As you might guess from that description, however, said “Kong” project also had not originally been intended for such a purpose; it would not be until 2016 that it would be retooled from its original purpose (a prequel to the original “King Kong” titled simply “Skull Island”) into its present form, which goes out of its way to reference Monarch, the monster-tracking Science organization seen over in 2014’s “Godzilla” and which includes a very obviously Marvel-inspired post-credits stinger explicitly tying Kong and Godzilla’s existences together.  

The resulting film is fun enough, all things told, but that graft is also really, distractingly obvious.

Honestly, I wish I knew why I’m not, generally, fonder of “Skull Island” than I am.  It’s not as if, taken as a whole, it does anything especially bad; indeed it does a great deal that is actively good.  Consider, for example, the rather unique choice to make it a Period Piece; that’s decently rare for a Monster Movie as it is (indeed one of the only other examples that springs to mind for me is Peter Jackson’s 2005 remake of “King Kong”, which chose to retain the original’s 1933 setting), and it’s rarer still that the era it chooses to inhabit is an immediately-post-Vietnam 1970’s.  Aesthetically speaking, the movie takes a decent amount of fairly-obvious influence from that most classic of Vietnam-era films, “Apocalypse Now” (a fact that director Jordan Vogt-Roberts was always fairly open about), and it results in some of the movie’s strongest overall imagery (in particular a shot of Kong, cast in stark silhouette, standing against the burning sun on the horizon with a fleet of helicopters approaching him, one of a surprisingly small number of times the movie plays with visual scale to quite the same degree or with quite the same success as “Godzilla” 2014).  It also means the movie is decked out in warm, lush colors that really do bring out all the personality of its Jungle setting in the most compelling way and, given how important the setting is to the film as a whole, that proves key; Skull Island maybe doesn’t become a character in its own right the way the best settings should (too much of our time is spent in fairly indistinct forests especially), but it does manage to feel exciting and unusual in the right ways more often than not.  The “Apocalypse Now” influence also extends to our human cast,  which is sizeable enough here (in terms of major characters we need  to pay attention to played by notable actors, “Skull Island” dwarfs “Godzilla” 2014 by a significant margin) that the framework it provides-a mismatched group defined by various interpersonal/intergenerational tensions trying to make their way through an inhospitable wilderness, ostensibly in search of a lost comrade-is decently necessary.  Though here we already run into one of those aspects of “Skull Island” that doesn’t quite land for me.  Taken as a whole, it sure feels like the human characters here should be decently interesting; certainly, our leads are all much better defined and more engagingly performed than Ford Brody, to draw the most immediately obvious point of comparison.  Brie Larson (as journalistic Anti-War photographer Mason Weaver), Tom Hiddleston (as former British Army officer turned Gun For Hire James Conrad), and John C. Reilly (as Hank Marlow, a World War II soldier stranded on Skull Island years ago) definitely turn in decently strong performances; I wouldn’t call it Career Best work for any of them (Hiddleston especially feels like he’s on auto-pilot half the time, while Larson has to struggle mightily against how little the script actually gives her to work with when you stop and look at it) but they at least prove decently enjoyable to watch (Reilly especially does a solid job of making his character funny without quite pushing him over the edge into Total Cartoon Territory).  I likewise feel like Samuel L. Jackson’s Preston Packard has the potential to be a genuinely-great character; his lingering resentment at the way the Vietnam War played out and the way that feeds into his determination to find and defeat Kong is, again, a clever and compelling use of the 70’s period setting, it gives us a good, believable motivation with a clear and strong Arc to it, and Jackson does a really solid job of playing his Anger as genuine and poignant rather than simply petulant or crazed.  But there’s just too much chaff amongst the wheat, too much time and energy devoted to characters and ideas that don’t have any real pay-off.  This feels especially true of John Goodman’s Bill Randa, the Monarch scientist who arranges the whole expedition; the Monarch stuff in general mostly feels out of place, but Randa in particular gets all of these little notes and beats that seem meant to go somewhere and then just kind of don’t.  Which is kind of what happens with most of the characters in the movie, is the thing; we spend a lot of screen-time dwelling on certain aspects of their backstories or personalities, and then those things effectively stop mattering at all after a certain point, even Packard’s motivations.  A Weak Human Element was one of the problems in “Godzilla” 2014 as well, though, and you’ll recall I quite liked that movie.  There, though, the human stuff was honestly only ever important for how it fed into the monster stuff; it was the connective tissue meant to get us from sequence to sequence and not much more.  Here, though, it forms the heart and soul of the story, and that means its deficiencies feel a lot more harmful to the whole.

Still, those deficiencies really aren’t that severe, and moreover, like I was saying before, there’s a lot about “Skull Island” to actively enjoy.  The Monsters themselves do remain the central draw, after all, and for the most part the movie does a solid job with that aspect of things.  It does not, perhaps, recreate “Godzilla” 2014’s attempt to make believable animals out of them (even as it does design most of them with even more obvious, overt Real World Animal elements), but there is a certain playful energy that informs them at a conceptual level that I appreciate.  Buffalos with horns that look like giant logs with huge strands of moss and grass hanging off their edges, spiders whose legs are adapted to look like tree trunks, stick bugs so big that their camouflage makes them look like fallen trees…the designs feel physically plausible (especially thanks to some strong effects work that makes them feel well inserted into the real environments), but there’s a slightly-humorous tilt to a lot of them that I appreciate, especially since it never outright winks at the audience in a way that would undercut the stakes of the story. Kong too is very well done; rather than the heavily realistic approach taken by the Peter Jackson version from 2005, this Kong is instead very much ape-like but also very clearly his own creature (in particular he stands fully erect most of the time), with a strong sense of Personality to him as well; some of the best parts of the movie are those times where we simply peek in on Kong simply living his life, even when that life is one that is, by nature, violent and dangerous.  Less successful, sadly, are his nemeses, the Skullcrawlers; very much like “Godzilla” 2014, Kong is here envisioned as a Natural Protection against a potentially-dangerous species that threatens humanity (or in this case the Iwi Tribe who live on Skull Island, but we’ll talk more about them later), and while they’re hardly bad designs (the way their snake-like lower bodies give them a lot of neat tricks to play against their enemies in battle are genuinely fun in the right sort of Scary Way), they’re also pretty bland and forgettable, even compared to the MUTOS.  That said, they serve their purpose well enough, and their big Action Scene showdowns with Kong are genuinely solid.  Indeed, the movie’s big climactic brawl between Kong and the biggest of the Skullcrawlers has a lot of good pulpy energy to it (particularly with how Kong winds up using various tools picked up from all around the battlefield to give himself an edge), likewise there’s a certain Wild Fun to the sequence where our hapless humans have to try and survive a trek through the Crawlers’ home-turf.

Where things get a bit tricky again is when the movie attempts to put its own spin on “Godzilla”’s conception of its monsters as part of their own kind of unique ancient eco-system. The sense of Grandeur that gave a lot of that aspect such weight there is mostly absent here, especially; there are instances where some of that feeling comes through (Kong’s interactions with some of the non-Crawler species, for example, do a good job giving us an endearing sense of how Kong fits into this world), but far more often it treats the monsters as Big Set-Piece Attractions.  Which is fine as far as it goes, it just also means a lot of them aren’t as memorable or impactful as I might like.  Meanwhile, the way the Iwis have built their home to accommodate, interact with, and protect themselves from the island’s bestiary feels like a well-designed concept that manages to suggest a lot of History without having to spell it out for us in a way that I appreciated (I would also be inclined to apply this to the very neat multi-layered stone-art used to portray Kong and the Crawlers except that the sequence where we see them is the most overt “let’s stop and do some world-building” exposition dump in the whole movie).  But the Iwis in general are one of the more difficult elements of the movie to process, too; it seems really clear there was a deliberate effort here to avoid the most grossly racist stuff that has been present in prior attempts to portray the Natives of Skull Island, and as far as it goes I do think those efforts bear some fruit; we are, at the very least, very far away from the Scary Ooga-Booga tone of, say, “King Kong VS. Godzilla”, and that feels like it counts for something.  I just also feel like there’s some dehumanizing touches to their portrayal (in particular they never speak; I don’t mean to imply that Not Speaking equals Inhuman, but the fact that we are not made privy to how exactly they do communicate means we’re very much kept at arm’s length from them in a way that seems at least somewhat meant to alienate us from them), especially given their role in the story as a whole is relatively minor.  

At the end of the day, though, all the movie’s elements, good and bad, don’t really feel like they add up together coherently enough to make an impact.  And I think if I had to try and guess why, even as I find it wholly enjoyable with a lot to genuinely recommend it by, I don’t find myself especially enamored by “Skull Island”.  It has a lot of different ideas of how to approach its story-70’s pastiche, worldbuilding exercise, Monster Mash-but doesn’t seem to quite succeed at realizing any of them fully, indeed often allowing them to get in each other’s ways.  It isn’t, again, a bad movie as a result of that; there really isn’t any stretch of it where I found myself bored or particularly unentertained.  But I did paradoxically find myself frequently wanting more, even as by rights the movie delivers on basically what I was looking for from it.   

[tthael]

Dude your writing is so stunning. I was gonna ask if you took any creative writing courses or something and saw you majored in literature so like no wonder lol. I wish to write as good as you but as someone who wants to drop out of college I dont see that happening. Anyway you're awesome and I hope you have a good day 💙💙

 I am going to tell you a secret.

I did not learn how to write like this in college.

Most of my creative writing classes (and I only took 4) taught me to read. They were all workshops, and collaborative, and I learned how to read a piece of writing and identify what it was about--and that’s very different from identifying what the writer intended to write. It taught me to read a story about an adult whose divorced mother is remarrying and say, “Okay, but I don’t think that this story is about the capitalist recompartmentalization of families the way that the title seems to indicate. I think that the questions posed by the premise are ‘where are my roots? where does my identity come from? what dynamics do I retreat to when I need to feel safe, and what do I do when that refuge is taken away?’“ And identifying what a story is actually about is a very important part of the writing and revision process. Workshops also taught me to take critique without taking it personally, and to assess what was a critique worth taking, and whether the giver knew what they were talking about and what their opinion is worth.

Most of my literature courses taught me to think critically--in the sense of “identify this and examine what it means.” What does it mean, in Parable of the Sower, that empathy can be weaponized and used to incapacitate others? What does it mean, in RENT, that Benny is offering the protagonists jobs in their fields and they’re eschewing in favor of authenticity and integrity? What does Watership Down have to say about the nature-vs.-nurture argument and its limitations?

But I did not learn how to write like this in college. I learned how to write like this from fandom.

Some things came pre-loaded. I like writing dialogue, and I’ve been told I’m good at it, and I think it’s because eventually I worked out that nobody ever manages to say exactly what they mean and communication is frequently less like an arrow aiming for a target and more like a small boat bumping up against a dock while the people onboard try to tie their ropes to secure it. I like characters over action, and that’s reflected in the stories I tell--all very heavy character-driven stories, where the ratio of introspection to actual events is very high.

Z. Z. Packer’s “Drinking Coffee Elsewhere” taught me to appreciate the way that characterization leads to action; but I never put that into practice until I went on (forgive me) tumblr and started reading meta. dear-wormwoods is one of my biggest sources of Eddie characterization meta, and that has influenced my fics more than anything else in fandom, though we’ve never spoken. When I was reading bagginshield, I read avelera’s meta for them.

But I’ve also found that many of the best meta writers (that I’ve found anyway) are also the best writers I’ve read. I went straight from avelera’s bagginshield literary analysis to their Pacific Rim fanfiction “the only way out is down” and reading their commentary on how they shaped the work during revision. I read amarguerite’s “Some Friendlier Sky” (Les Miserables fanfiction) and then “An Ever-Fixed Mark” (Pride and Prejudice) and I started asking her questions--”you compare Courfeyrac to a cat, and then Mr. Darcy to a cat, even though they’re very different characters. What’s the thought process there?” and she told me and we talked about it. I read chrononautical’s “A Road from the Garden” (The Hobbit) and went line by line picking out the things I liked in the comment, and I had this sudden epiphany about how Tolkien shows the dwarves as sets of brothers, which means that they are technically a race of brothers in their presentation, so it was GENIUS to play around with the brother dynamic in a work like that and reflect on how frequently an individual will tolerate mistreatment of themselves that they would never permit to happen to someone they loved--like, say, a brother.

I learned the basics of literary criticism and critical analysis from college, and from reading the western canon and trying to pick apart things that were useful to me. But it’s so much easier when everything is written in vernacular instead of faux-detached academic writing, and when everyone involved is genuinely excited about and dedicated to the work instead of being forced to dwell on The Old Man and the Sea yet again, and when there’s space for people to go back and forth analyzing and agreeing or saying “but what if” or rejecting and are just united by this love of the content or the characters or the book or the history.

You can learn to write like--well, you would write like you, not like me, that’s how style is. But you don’t have to go to college to do it. My current style is not the product of the institution that gave me my degree--it’s the product of more recent years’ immersion in fanfiction (and more recently some traditionally published original work) and music and content I get for free online. And you can also get a circle of people who are happy to write together, read each other’s work, comment on each other’s strengths and the things they like, make suggestions as to how to improve things. You don’t have to do that in college. You just have to read and write a lot, and the things that you read will influence what writing you produce, and in identifying what you like about the things you read and how they do the things they do, you will be able to look at your own work critically and shape it more towards your satisfaction.

The work I’m writing for IT is some of the best work of my life. TTHAEL is the first long work I’ve completed to my satisfaction. Indelicate is the first thing I’ve written that I feel is really exemplary of my style. Margot’s Room is the first self-contained short work I’ve completed to my satisfaction--and the first explicit sexual content I’ve written that I’m happy with both level of detail and atmosphere. Even Automatic-Mechanical-Pneumatic--which I wrote and posted in the same day, so it’s more of a draft--I look at it and recognize it has pacing issues (you can tell I was racing a clock to get the words out), some of the symbolism is too overt because the characters are too self-aware of it, at one point I tripped up and referred to a character by the real-world inspiration--but that’s a solid draft and it has good parts.

You don’t have to go to college to learn to write. Writing is a skill, and writing is work. And there are advantages that people in colleges have re: networking and libraries and available resources and professors who are being paid to give you feedback. But no institution is going to put you through a four-year program and at the end you’ll come out a “finished” writer, with no more room to improve. That’s something you have to do on your own.

[gascon-en-exil]

A Game of Thrones 10th Anniversary Season Ranking: Part 2

Link to Part 1

Time for the bottom half of the list. The four seasons here will surprise no one, but the order might.

#5 Season 6

You can tell what I most what to talk about here...but there's an order to these things.

S6 actually has a bunch of great ideas, but they drown beneath the most slapdash plotting and character work the show has seen yet in order to set the stage for the narrower conflicts of the last two seasons. It's notorious for bringing back characters who haven't been seen in a season or longer only to kill them off (Balon Greyjoy, Osha, Hodor, the Blackfish, Rickon, Walder Frey) or awkwardly graft them back into the main plot (Sandor Clegane, Bran). There are plot threads that ought to be compelling but are too rushed in execution, like the siege of Riverrun, Littlefinger's hand in the Battle of the Bastards, or Daenerys's time back among the Dothraki and then finally getting the hell out of Meereen. Arya hits on the only interesting part of her two-season sojourn in Braavos - a stage play, of all things - only for it to stumble at the end with a disappointing offscreen death and some incomprehensible philosophy ahead of the start of her murder tour of Westeros. There's also so much cutting off the branches, enough to be conspicuous; the final shot of Daenerys leading an armada of about half the remaining cast she assembled partially offscreen says that better than anything else. Well, not anything....

Highlight: Without exaggeration, the opening of S6E10 is easily my favorite sequence in all of GoT. The staging, the music, the mounting suspense even as it becomes increasingly obvious what's about to happen, the twisted religious references particularly in Cersei's mock confession to Unella, Tommen throwing himself out a window because he can't deal with the reality of how terrible his mother is, how Cersei gives absolutely no fucks whatsoever about murdering hundreds of people at once in a calculated act of vengeance largely prompted by her own poorly thought out actions - I love it all. It's the single most masterfully-executed act of villainy in the whole show - Daenerys torching King's Landing probably has a higher body count, but the presentation there is all muddled - and if I had any doubts about Cersei being my favorite multi-season major character they were silenced in this moment. The explosion of the Sept doesn't sit perfectly with me, because I liked the Tyrells and because of what I said about deaths like theirs and Renly's in the previous post under S2, but I think that unease only cements the strength of this sequence. It's an overused phrase in fandom these days, but GoT at its best is all about moral greyness that gives its audience room for multilayered reactions. Cersei nuking the Sept and making herself the sole power in King's Landing, which in a sense is just a more overt example of the kind of character/plot consolidation elsewhere represented by Daenerys's armada, is one of those events that's impossible to approach from a single angle if you care about any of the characters involved. And hey, it's not in the books (yet, presumably), so unlike Ned's death or the Red Wedding the GoT showrunners can take the credit for realizing this one.

Favorite death: Even leaving aside the Sept and related deaths there's a lot of good ones to choose from in S6. Ramsey is cathartic but too gory for me, Osha's was a clever callback but a little delayed, it's hard to pin down specific deaths when Daenerys incinerates the khals, and Arya only gets half credit for Walder Frey and his sons when she saves the rest of the house for the opening of S7. I'm thinking Hodor, not so much because I enjoy his character or the manner of his death but because it's a clever bit of playing with language (that must have been hell to render in other languages for dubbing) wrapped up in some entertainingly murky consent issues and some closed time loop weirdness. It's all very...extra? Is that the word for it?

Least favorite death: Offscreen deaths continue to be mostly letdowns, in this case Blackfish and the Waif. Way to botch the ending of Arya's already near-pointless Braavos arc, guys. Speaking of Arya, this spot goes to Lady Crane, whom the Waif somehow kills with a stool or something. It's a dumb way to send off an entertaining minor character.

#6 Season 8

I swear that I'm not putting S8 this high solely because of Jonmund kind of sort of happening. I've never been very interested in either of them and the sex would be far too bear-on-otter to suit my pornographic preferences, but even so the choice to close out the series with them is hilarious.

I really don't need to elaborate on why S8 is down here; everyone who's ever watched the show has done as much in the nearly two years since it wrapped up. I do however need to explain why I've ranked not one but two seasons below it. My biggest argument here is that I don't believe it's fair to critique S8 for problems it inherited from earlier seasons. A non-comprehensive list:

Mad Queen Daenerys: unevenly built up beginning from S1 and continuing in some form through every following season

The questionable racial optics of Dany's army: also seeded as early as S1 and solidified by S3 with the Slaver's Bay arc

Cersei only succeeding because she makes stupid decisions and then lucks out until she doesn't: apparent from S1, directly lampshaded by Tywin in S3, fully on display with the Faith Militant arc of S5-6

Jaime not getting a redemption arc or falling in love with Brienne: evident with his repeated returns to Cersei throughout the show as one of the most consistent elements of his character, particularly in S4 and during the siege of Riverrun in S6

Tyrion grabbing the idiot ball/becoming a flat audience surrogate mouthpiece: started in S5 around the time the showrunners ran out of book material for him and wanted to make him more of a PoV character and his arc less of a downward spiral, although I've seen arguments that changes from the books involving his Tysha story and Shae set him on this trajectory even earlier

The hardening of Sansa's character: began in earnest in S4 and never let up from there

The strange ordering of antagonists: set down by S7's equally strange plot structure - the Night King had to come first with that setup

CleganeBowl and the dumber twists: from what I've heard the whole thing of writing around fans on the internet guessing plot twists started pretty much when the book content ended, so S5-6 maybe?

Yes, there's plenty to criticize about S8 on its own merits...but just as much that was merely the writers doing what they could at that point with deeply flawed material.

Highlight: This may sound cheesy, but the better parts of S8 are almost all the cinematic ones, whether that's E2 being a bottle episode with tons of poignant character send-offs before the big battle, a handful of deaths with actual satisfying weight like Jorah's and Theon's, and an epilogue that incorporates both closure for individuals and the broader uncertainty of messy socio-political systems that GoT has always been known for before working its way back to the Starks at the very end for some tidy bookending. Even imperfect moments like the Lannister twins' death and the resolution of Sansa's character felt weighty and appropriate based on what had come before.

Favorite death: Forget about the audio commentary attempting to flatten Cersei's character; Cersei and Jaime Lannister have an excellent end. Cersei especially, as the scenes of her stumbling her way down into the catacombs as the Red Keep crashes down around her really show off how her world is abruptly falling apart and how she retreats into her own self-interest at the end in spite of her demise being at least partially of her own doing. There's some stupid moments associated with these scenes, like Jaime dueling Euron to the death and CleganeBowl, but I can excuse those when the twins end up dying exactly where you'd expect them to: in each other's arms, in a ruined monument to their family's grand ambitions that, like Casterly Rock itself, was taken from another family.

Least favorite death: Quite a few dumb ones in S8 have become forever infamous. Missandei sticks out, and for me Varys too just as much because of how the writing pushes him to do the dumbest thing he could possibly do purely for the sake of killing him off ten minutes into the penultimate episode. But no one belongs here more than Daenerys Targaryen, killed at the height of a rushed and uncertain villain reveal by a man who takes advantage of their romantic history (who is also her family, because Targaryens) to stab her in a moment of vulnerability - pretty much only because another man tells him that Daenerys is the final boss. Narratively speaking that might be the case, but even so this is the end result of multiple seasons of middling-to-bad buildup. Not even Drogon burning the symbolism can salvage that. Also Fire Emblem: Three Houses did this scene and did it better.

#7 Season 5

...Yeah, we're going to have to go there.

Sansa's rape is not a plot point that personally touches me much. It's terribly framed in the moment and the followup in later seasons is inconsistent at best, but it's not a kind of trauma I can relate to. On the other hand, in the very same episode Loras is tried and imprisoned for homosexuality, and Margery faces the same punishment for lying for her brother. That hits much closer to home, not just for the homophobia but also for the culture war undertones of the not!French Tyrells persecuted by a not!Anglo fanatic who later reveals himself to be the in-universe equivalent of a Protestant. The trial is just one part of Cersei's shortsighted scheming, just as Sansa being married off to Ramsey is part of Littlefinger's, and both of them get their comeuppance in the end...but it's unsettling all the same. I especially hate what the Faith Militant arc does to King's Landing in S5, swiftly converting it from my favorite setting in GoT to a tense theocratic nightmare that only remains interesting to me because Cersei is consistently awesome. What's more, pretty much everything about S5 that isn't viscerally uncomfortable is dragged out and dull instead: the Dorne arc, Daenerys's second season in Meereen, Arya in Braavos, Stannis and co. at Castle Black. The most any of these storylines can hope for is some kind of bombastic finale, and while several of them deliver it's not enough to make up for what comes before, or how disappointing everything here builds from S4. S4 has Oberyn, S5 has the Sand Snakes - I think that sums up the contrast well.

Highlight: S5 does get stronger near the end. As much as his character annoys me I did like the High Sparrow revealing his pseudo-Protestant bent to Cersei just before he imprisons her, and there's a cathartic rawness to Cersei's walk of atonement where you can both feel her pain and humiliation and understand that she's getting exactly what she deserves (and this is what leads into the climax of S6, so it deserves points just for that). The swiftness of Stannis's fall renders his death and that of his family a bit hollow, but it's brutal and final and fittingly ignominious for a character with such grand ambitions but so little relevance to the larger story. The fighting pits of Meereen sequence is cinematic if nothing else, and even the resolution to the Dorne arc salvages the whole thing a tiny bit by playing into the retributive cycles of vengeance idea (and Myrcella knows about the twincest and doesn't care, aww - no idea why that stuck with me, but it's cute all the same). Oh, and Hardhome...it's alright. Not great, not crap, but alright.

Favorite death: I don't know why, but Theon tossing Myranda to her death is always funny to me. Maybe because it's so unexpected?

Least favorite death: Arya's execution of Meryn Trant is meant to be another one of the season's big finale moments, but the scene is graphic and goes on forever and I can't help but be grossed out. This is different from, say, Shireen's death, which is supposed to be painful to witness.

#8 Season 7

I can't tell if S7's low ranking is as self-explanatory as S8's or not. At least one recent retrospective on GoT's ruined legacy I've come across outright asserts that S7 is judged less harshly in light of how bad S8 was. If it were not immediately obvious by where I've placed each of them, I don't share that opinion.

Because S7 is just a mess, and the drop-off in quality is so much more painful here than it is anywhere else in the series except maybe from S4 to S5 (and that's more about S4 being as good as it is). The pacing ramps up to uncomfortable levels to match the shortened seasons, the structure pivots awkwardly halfway through from Daenerys vs. Cersei to Jon/Dany caring about ice zombies, said pivot relies largely on characters (mostly Tyrion) making a series of catastrophically stupid tactical decisions, and very few of the smaller set pieces land with any real impact as the show's focus narrows to its endgame conflict. As with S6 there are still some good ideas, but they're botched in execution. The conflict between Sansa and Arya matches their characters, but the leadup to that conflict ending with Littlefinger's execution is missing some key steps. Daenerys's diverse armada pitted against Cersei weaponizing the xenophobia of the people of King's Landing could have been interesting, but there's little room to explore that when Cersei keeps winning only because Tyrion has such a firm grip on the idiot ball and when Euron gets so much screentime he barely warrants. Speaking of Tyrion's idiot ball, does anyone like the heist film-esque ice zombie retrieval plotline? Its stupidity is matched only by its utter futility, because Cersei isn't trustworthy and nobody seems to ever get that.

And how could I forget Sam's shit montage? Sums up S7 perfectly, really. To think that that is part of the only extended length of time the show ever spends in the Reach....

Highlight: A handful of character moments save this season from being irredeemable garbage. As you can guess from my screencap choice, Olenna's final scene is one of them, even if Highgarden itself is given insultingly short shrift. S7 also manages what I thought was previously impossible in that it makes me care somewhat about Ellaria Sand, courtesy of the awful death Cersei plans for her and her remaining daughter. The other Sand Snakes are killed with their own weapons, which shows off Euron's demented creativity if nothing else. I like the entertainingly twisted choice to cut the Jon/Dany sex scene with the reveal that they're related. And, uh...the Jonmund ship tease kind of makes the zombie retrieval team bearable? I'm really grasping at straws here.

Favorite death: It's more about her final dialogue with Jaime than her actual death, but again I'm going to have to highlight Olenna Tyrell here for lack of better options. She drops the bombshell about Joffrey that the audience figured out almost as soon as it happened but still, makes it plain what I've been saying about how Jaime's arc has never really been about redemption, and is just about the only person to ever call Cersei out for that whole mass murder thing. There's a reason "I want her to know it was me" became a meme format.

Least favorite death: There aren't any glaringly bad deaths in S7, just mediocre or unremarkable ones. I still think the decision to have Arya finish off House Frey in the season's opening rather than along with their father at the end of S6 was a strange one that doesn't add much of dramatic value.

[where-all-the-time-went]

gah, screw it

[ID: A tumblr post from me, reading, “now is probably the time to write my 500-word essay on the politics of revolution of the daleks that gets 30 notes and is never seen again, which i return to in a month to find a lot of typos, otherwise no one will see it, isn’t it,,, “but i haven’t seen jack robertson’s first episode,,,”. End ID.] answer: yes, it is. but im gonna take a while to write this and look up a summary of arachnids in the uk (which i dont wanna watch because i heard its Not Good and you dont have to watch every episode of doctor who to be a fan, ok?) i sometimes talk about politics on tumblr, but rarely do i make political posts--mainly because, as my sidebar bio says, i’m a teenager. i don’t really have a degree in politics, and as much as i have been trying to read up on political stuff, its kinda hard when i dont have access to a college professor to guide me along. still, some things about this episode stood out to me, especially because it’s stuff i’ve noticed in a lot of media. i’m not even sure where i stand politically, but i absolutely love media commentary, and i have so many thoughts i feel like i never get to put out there when im watching movies and tv. obviously, spoilers under the cut (and it probably won’t actually be 500 words. probably.) i’m also gonna assume you’ve seen this episode, because i don’t wanna recap it. if you haven’t, go watch it! tbh, it’s well worth it (my favorite chibs era episode, just ahead of the haunting of villa diodati and demons of the punjab)

Now, um, obviously this episode is political. It’s the in-your-face without down-your-throat type of political we know and love. Still, media can be a direct allegory that wouldn’t bother the average viewer while still having politics that are good, bad, or somewhere in the middle (I mean this extremely subjectively). First, I’d like to address the elephant in the room:

While a Doctor Who festive special would normally film in the summer, this time the episode was filmed well ahead in winter 2019, over a year before it was due to be broadcast in a bid to include it within filming for series 12 (which aired from January to March) and give cast a longer break.

- The Radio Times

I’ve noticed some people pointing out that the episode references the protests that happened this summer. Honestly, I’d love it if that was the intention behind the episode, because then maybe Chris Chibnall’s team really does have a TARDIS, and we can all just time travel out of this mess.

[ID: An image from “Revolution of the Daleks.” A very sleek Dalek stands in front of police who have riot shields. The air is foggy, possibly gaseous. End ID.] However, the protests from this summer and the episode itself do not exist inside a bubble. Police brutality did not come into existence this summer, and it did not end with the autumn equinox. The episode, while featuring a small-scale protest that was eerily reminiscent of the large BLM protests this year, chooses to focus instead on one of the roots of the issue: somehow, capitalism.

I can’t say how purposeful the anti-capitalist messaging in the episode was. Obviously, Jack Robertson is meant to be an American capitalist caricature. Not to mention, Doctor Who is a family-friendly show: you can’t get too overt with what can be considered “radical” coding. Nonetheless, the episode tackles the connection between policing and money, and thus inherently comments on capitalism. 

The Dalek itself only exists to support the police force because Prime Minister Patterson knows that the idea of security will appeal to her constituency. Simultaneously, it could not exist if Robertson didn’t know just how profitable it would be. As they preach security, they create chaos. More importantly, the security they preach is one that bases itself on profit--similar to the weapons of the policeforce, and the prison industrial complex. As a result, the “security” inevitably fails.

[ID: Prime Minister Patterson, in a red coat, listens to Jack Robertson and Leo, in dark neutral-toned clothes both. They stand in front of a brick wall as they discuss the new Dalek plans. End ID.] Unfortunately, while the show presents a clear stance against money in policing, there is never any direct call to action. The political allegory may be straightforward and obvious, but the solution at the end is just to end the Daleks, and watch as Robertson announces his run for President (which, by the way, is very reminiscent of Trump, who does exist in-universe, so that’s weird). Regardless of all that, why am I even talking about this? Well, on the one hand, I love talking about these sorts of things. On the other hand, this post has started to sound like nothing but a rant with some pictures. Earlier, I said that this was something I noticed in a lot of media. For instance, I think of “The Boys,” with its obvious anti-capitalist and anti-military industrial complex messaging. At the same time, the show offers no solutions. Both are afraid of the obvious solution to capitalism: replacing it. To be clear, I say this as a person who is unsure about capitalism. I don’t know where I stand. Like I said, I’m a teenager. However, these shows can’t seem to make a decision either, when they're made by big companies with big budgets and professional adults. Politics in popular media tends to fit perfectly with the popular politics of the time, given that media must do so in order to make profit. Hence, similar to the media we consume, so many individuals seem to recognize that there’s something off with the hand money has in politics, and war, and security, yet no one seems to look for solutions.  Personally, I love talking about politics in the media, and analyzing media in general, because it’s the best way for me to communicate my internal thoughts. Meanwhile, I don’t even know my own internal thoughts. This post’s very existence is ironic. I had said in a very awful post that I wanted to write this when the tag was still trending, because I, in part, want someone else to do the thinking for me. I want people to see this and go, “well, okay, here’s where you’re wrong,” or, “here’s what we do about it.” Do I then have a responsibility to know what I’m talking about? Is the discourse all that matters? Does the media as a whole have to propel revolutionary ideas to get them into the social conscience, or can it just open up discussion?  There is, of course, irony in shows that could only exist in a capitalist world degrading aspects of that system. But no one, not even me, is exempt from the fact that these ideas do not exist in a bubble. The show’s protests look eerily familiar because, as this summer has proven, those protests are profitable (see literally every ad from companies that own sweatshops talking about how much they care about races they don’t represent in their board of directors). At the same time, I exist in that capitalist world, and my opinions have been formed via the capitalist media I was raised with. tl;dr: i know literally nothing. im sure of literally nothing. help, someone tell me about the politics of doctor who. wow, this was a really sad tl;dr, i normally make a shitty joke here. um, uh, EXTERMINATE

[goldandbluesmiles]

Presentation

Summary: "I don't have heats," said Jason, "Never presented. I was late presenting because of early malnutrition ad then I died. I haven't presented since I came back. At this point, I think I'm just sterile. Don't know whether its the dying thing, the pit thing or just a 'me' thing,"

Or 

Jason finally presents but in a very Jason way, of course. Which mean Roy panics.

Ao3

Note: I have no idea where this came from. I got an idea and just went with it. Hopefully, it's readable!

XXX

Jason had been feeling shitty for days.

But then when wasn't he? Everyone told him to take better care of himself. From Alfred with his mild tones to Damian with his angry worrying to Roy and his overt prodding.

But Jason rarely listened. Did the bare minimum to keep himself on his feet. He was self-destructive and he knew it.

At least he was self-aware. Unlike some other bats he knew.

So he was feeling shitty and fighting some goons in the middle of crime alley that had been trying to nab some children. Roy was fighting at his back, having agreed to come on patrol with him. An outing of sorts, considering that Roy had taken a step back to spend more time with his daughter.

Christ, he needed to take the man out for real sometime. Their only interaction could not be fighting idiots in the dark.

"Almost done here," Roy called out

"Same here," said Jason, clocking the last one of his half. He straightened up, ignoring that his muscles hurt more than usual and that his skin was crawling in a way it had never before.

"You good?" asked Roy

"Yeah," said Jason, voice a little rough, "let's go,"

On their way back, Jason kept fidgeting with his jacket. It was supposed to be a cold night but he felt too hot and clammy, a weird feeling in his stomach.

"Hood?" asked Roy

"Nothin'," said Jason, "Might be coming down with something,"

"Okay," said Roy, "You should get some rest when we get back. I'll stay the night,"

Jason winced, feeling a little guilty, "No, you don't have to-"

"Nah man, Lian's probably having a blast with uncle Ollie and aunt Dinah. They'll be happy to keep her for the night,"

"Okay," said Jason

Roy smiled at him and that was that.

XXX

Roy hit the showers first while Jason waited took his armour off at the couch. He must have dozed off at some point because he woke up disoriented and too hot for his skin.

"Rnggh," he tried to call out but his throat was too parched. He tried to move next but his limbs felt too heavy and his vision swam as soon as he moved his head.

What as going on? Why was it too hot? Was he dying again?

Oh god, was he dying again?

Sitting there building up to a panic attack, he got the urge to wrap himself in a blanket, preferably with lot more bodies around. Maybe Roy and Damian. And his dad-

Wait, what, no he didn't want his dad!

But maybe Bruce would know was wrong with him.

If he still wanted to see him after that fight they had had.

Oh god, Bruce probably didn't want to see him and neither would the others and he didn't know why he cared and what about Alfie-

"Whoa," he heard Roy say, "Hey, hey, Jay what's wrong? Why are you crying?"

Was he crying? He moved his hand to his cheeks and sure enough, he had tears on his face.

"I-I-" He tried to speak but he couldn't, and his only anchor was still too far away

He reached out his hand to Roy again but the movement was too much and he could feel himself stumbling away.

xxx

Roy was so panicked at seeing the other man in tears that it took him a minute to recognize the scent in the air.

Heat.

Except Jason didn't have heats. They had talked about it.

"I don't have heats," said Jason, "Never presented. I was late presenting because of early malnutrition ad then I died. I haven't presented since I came back. At this point, I think I'm just sterile. Don't know whether its the dying thing, the pit thing or just a 'me' thing,"

So if Jason hadn't presented-

Oh shit, he was presenting.

And it was going badly from the scent of distress that was now taking over his senses.

Okay. Okay.

Step 1. Make sure he's okay.

"Hey, Jay," said Roy, slowly moving closer, "Hey it's me,"

Jason's head turned toward him-good he could hear him-and slowly raised a shaking hand toward him. Roy gently took it in his and tugged the omega close.

"It's okay," said Roy, "It's okay. Everything is okay,"

Jason opened his mouth but the only thing that came out was a harsh cough.

"Give me a minute," said Roy, "I'm gonna get you some water,"

The pained whine Jay let out almost had him sitting back down. Almost.

He had to be the rational one here.

Roy brought the water back and Jason drank it greedily. It seemed to help.

"Roy," he whispered

"We need to get you help," said Roy, "Any preferences?"

"I-um-Pa," he muttered eyes starting to close again.

"Shit," muttered Roy as Jason slumped forward, "Jason, please, come on stay with me,"

"Dad," he whispered, letting out a sob, "Dad,"

Roy froze.

There was only one person the batboys referred to as that. Well everyone but Dick anyway.

"Jason, are you sure?"

But Jason's eyes were already drooping, skin warming under Roy's hands.

Roy took a deep breath, took out his phone and dialled Dick's number.

xxx

Roy had never been in the Batcave before. Dick had offered when they were younger but Roy had refused, not wanting to get the other boy in trouble with his mentor.

Now that he was finally here, he should be looking around, taking in a place even some of the original leaguers hadn't seen yet.

However, all he could focus on was the shaking omega in his arms.

"Just bring him over here," said Dick, gesturing to a cot where Leslie was already waiting.

"We're going to run some quick tests for toxins but I think it's just the stress of his abnormal heat, in which case we just have to let him ride it out.

Roy nodded and helped the omega lie down, careful to keep their hands locked together. Dick sat down on Jason's other side, holding his other hand.

Jason gave no reaction. Neither did he give nay reaction when Leslie came over to take some blood.

"He's out of it," said Roy

"He's shutting himself down because of panic," said Dick

"What does that mean?"

"Vicious cycle," said Dick, "He panicked because he didn't know what was going on, the panic made his heat worse and so on. We just need something to break him out of it,"

"But what?" asked Roy, gently stroking the omega's hair

"Well, you said he asked for Bruce right? I'm hoping-"

The young Alpha was cut off as roar filled the cave. The batmobile stopped a few feet away from them, and batman jumped out, getting rid of his cowl as he walked toward them.

"What happened?" asked Bruce

"He presented," answered Dick

The older omega frowned, "That's- okay, okay,"

"Hey Jaylad," Bruce murmured, coming to stand beside Dick, hand carding through Jason's hair, "Can you look at me?"

After a long few seconds, Jason turned his head and his eyes seemed to clear a bit.

"Dad," he whispered, "Daddy,"

"Oh, sweetheart," murmured Bruce, lifting Jason's head a little to scent him, "It's okay. I'm here,"

Roy wondered if Bruce had forgotten he was here too.

"What is it, lad? What can I do?"

Jason's answer cam in soft whines and whimpers but Bruce must have understood because he nodded.

"Stay with him," He told them both, "I need to go start a family nest upstairs,"

"Okay," said Dick

Except as soon as Bruce moved away, Jason gave out a pained cry and reached out again. They tried again with making Dick leave.

Same reaction.

"I have an idea," said Bruce, "Both of you help him up and sit at either side of him,"

Dick and Roy gave each other confused looks but moved to comply. They propped him up so that he was sitting with his back to Roy's chest and legs curled up in Dick's lap, both Alpha's making a 90 degrees angle with their bodies.

The surprise came when Bruce unclasped his cape and put it over them. Not just Dick and Jason but all of them. Roy shuddered as the comforting scent of smoked apples and honey washed over him.

Bruce tried to move away and this time it seemed to work. Jason closed his eyes and snuggled into Roy's chest, one hand holding on to Dick while the other pulled the cape to himself.

After a few minutes, Jason's breathing started to even out, indicating that he was falling asleep. And he wasn't the only one. Ray could feel himself nodding off too.

"Nice isn't it?" asked Dick, "His scent?"

"Yeah," murmured Roy, "It's been a while,"

"Hm," said Dick, understanding. Roy had been part of Oliver's pack when he was young but then life had happened and there weren't a lot of people that would start a pack with someone like him, addict and sort-of vigilante single father. The outlaws were great but they weren't that kind of pack.

Maybe they could be one now. Omegas were known to bring packs together after all.

"Go to sleep, Roy," said Dick, "Everything is fine,"

"Yeah," he murmured before letting sleep overtake him.

xxx

Jason woke up slowly.

Even before he opened his eyes, he noticed the weights on either side of him. By their scents, it was Dick and Roy. He opened his eyes and was met with the ceiling of the den room.

Huh. When had he gotten here?

He looked down and found Damian and Kori curled up there on his legs.

"What?" he whispered, voice coming out in a soft purr

And then it hit him.

He had presented.

"Holy shit," he said instantly waking everyone around him. And there were a lot more people then he had first thought. Cass and Steph were curled up in the outskirts of a tower of blankets. Artemis and Biz right there with them.

And there was Bruce, watching over everyone from the comfy armchair.

"Hey, Little Wing," said Dick, "How are you feeling?"

"Uh, confused," said Jason, sitting up, "Embarrassed,"

Roy snorted, "No need. You did freak me out a bit though. Why didn't you say you were feeling bad and don't deny it. Even I know the heat doesn't just sneak up on you,"

"He's right," said Bruce from his seat, "You were obviously feeling the effects,"

Jason shrugged. What was he supposed to say?

"Either way," said Tim, spreading his arms, "Welcome to the club!"

"What club?" he asked warily

"The omega club," said Bruce, smiling at Tim indulgently

"More like the gross body fluids club, and the 'so many blankets club' and the cramps club, I mean seriously what's with the cramps? I know for a fact Alphas do not get that many cramps,"

Bruce snorted, "What Tim's trying to say is, you are now the third presented Omega in the Wayne pack and the first one with the outlaws,"

Oh yeah, he was the outlaws' pack omega now.

"This is gonna cause some changes isn't it?" he said

"We'll handle it," said Dick

"Yeah," said Roy, gently pulling him in

Jason smiled and nodded.

He believed them.

[resinatingbeauty]

Real Talk Time #RTT - On Political Correctedness, Oppression, Freedom, and Segregation

I know I'm probably going to catch a lot of flak for this post because people won't actually read it. They'll pick out some tags, words, and phrases they dislike or are 'triggered' by and start typing a 15 page rant in the comments that, HEADS UP, I'm going to actively ignore so please don't waste your time and energy (ranting, that is).

Some of you may already know a bit of my back story growing up. I moved around a lot as a kid because of my father's job as a Field Technician for fishing tournaments working on outboards for the fishermen. While I rarely saw my grandparents and extended family (if at all, some of them I didn't physically meet until we moved back down to FL and re-settled in 2000), they were really the ones influencing my mother's decisions on how to handle issues and changes in me when I was growing up.

When those changes went from reading all the Bibles that were thrown at me since I was old enough to read to wanting to read the entire New Age section at Barnes & Noble, everyone got real weird. My parents were never religious and openly allowed me to explore my spirituality. The rest of my family was hyped up by the Satanic Panic of the 1990's. As my mother and I were together most of the time my father was away, we had it out often because of that oppression that was a result of my relatives breathing down her neck. I know now that my mother always meant well.

Unfortunately, everyone else had to die before I could actually be myself.

This caused profound depression as I grew into my teens, developed addictions, attempted to make friends that I couldn't have over because they didn't fit the mold which lead to more alienation and depression. I never understood why until I hit my twenties and already practically destroyed myself in the process. My parents and I have a good, even great, relationship now. The misunderstanding and confusion took several years, even decades, to overcome. I destroyed other relationships and myself in that process, doing things I am not proud of but do not regret, as these experiences made me the person I am today. Far more strong, confident, and fearless than I was before.

At the same time, I absolutely refuse to be oppressed. I will fight to the death for your freedom to express yourself even if I don't agree with anything you say or stand for. You are allowed to be you and I accept our differences. I'm not going to silence you because I don't like your presentation or fundamentals, nor am I going to attempt to change the way you speak or behave. It's really not my problem.

This response is directed toward anyone who is offended by someone's word choice when they had meant no offense.

Let me be simple. My friend was dating an asexual biological female who would change gender pronouns daily. On a whim. Whichever they felt like at any time. I can't keep up with that. I'm not naturally inclined to call you an 'it' or a 'they' either. I'll do my best to appease you and keep the peace, but YOU cannot expect others to change the way they speak, think, and behave because, well, because you did. That was your choice. If you would like people to respect this choice, then you should be tolerant of their choices in turn. This comes down to intent. I grew up speaking this way. Perhaps another generation of children will speak differently, but until that happens, my conscious effort to accomodate you should be evidence enough that I care enough to not say the wrong thing or hurt your feelings.

If I accidentally called them a 'he' on a 'she' day, they would get mad. It was my mistake. I really wasn't too invested in a relationship with this person either, I just tolerated them because my friend was in a relationship with them. I would apologize, but it was admittedly an ongoing problem that left me feeling actual relief when they broke up. That's a shame. Rather than having empathy for my best friend who was just dumped, I was relieved I didn't have to worry about which gender pronoun this person wanted me to use at any given time.

Don't misinterpret my words about choices, either. They may not have chosen their sexuality or preference (I don't think anyone does) but they DID choose their gender pronoun confliction. I understand that you may find 'she/her' offensive if your true self is really a 'him', but unfortunately, we don't have any other words to go with in English other than 'they' and I feel like I'm referring to someone with DID (dissociative identity disorder) when I say this as in you have multiple people living inside you, which to my knowledge, they did not.

Words are words. They mean nothing without a clear intent. The same logic can be applied to the now controversial term 'baby witch' in the New Age/Neo Pagan community. Ironically, I remember people who similarly hated the word 'witch' all together. Naturally, I wouldn't use that word to refer to them at all. But when you look at identity and labels, subgroups, denominations, etc. These terms serve to identify you as part of a collective. If you're new to the concept and practice of Witchcraft, then you may find the term 'baby witch' helpful, as these articles, kits, books, blogs, etc. Are catering to those who are new to The Craft and written / designed in a way that is typically easier to execute or understand.

While, some elitist butthole could use the word to insult you, I have yet to see this. The internet has invented this culture of politically correct oppression that asks for freedom of speech but only as deemed appropriate by the proponents and THAT is censorship. *hiss* BAD.

We will never be able to move beyond segregation and overt differences until we move beyond using terms like these to identify ourselves as part of a collective. While some may be derogatory and offensive, and some may hurt and were meant to hurt and cause anger, I believe it is your right to speak freely and your words aren't as important as the motives and intentions behind them. Who isn't guilty of a poor choice of words? Nobody. Will there always be someone there to point out that poor choice? Yup. But should we all tread egg shells around each other, worrying about what random term will offend whom today? No.

Let the word fascists and PC renegades spit on me and tell me I'm wrong. You are allowed to and I have tough skin. I will defend your ability to tell me I'm wrong until the day I die, but I will never defend oppression, no matter how well meaning you believe you are. The fantasy world of rainbows and unicorns you have in your mind may as well be a world where no one speaks at all out of fear.

I know what it felt like to be told for over ten years how to dress, act, talk, and behave. I could point out other historical examples of cultural oppression like slavery, but that's an entirely different discussion that will probably go in the same direction. Oppressing one's manner of expression is just wrong. In an effort to be right, we have committed so many wrongs. So let's just all agree to disagree and accept those differences. Accept that yea, we are going to say and do dumb things. And with that acceptance, when we inevitably say and do dumb things, I beg you to ask yourself, "What was the intent? What was the actual motive here, if there is one at all?"

I think one day, we may be better than we are now. This just isn't the way about it.

EDIT- I also think that a lot of this is created by pundits who are trying to covertly censor everyone without active censorship. Me? Paranoid? Yes. I am.

[drsilverfish]

The Kiss of the Queer Gorgon in 14x14 Ouroboros

This whole episode is a master-class in queer subtext.

<cracks knuckles> Let’s go!

In 1x08 Bugs it is insinuated (in subtext) that perhaps Dean doesn’t just hustle pool on the road, to get him and Sam by for cash, but that he maybe hustles sex too. He comes out of a pool hall with a wad of cash, to where Sam is waiting patiently in the Impala, and a neon “billiards” sign is illuminated behind him, partially obscured, so that it reads “Billiar...” as in “Bi liar” (bisexual liar).

We also see Dean hustling pool at Donny’s bar in 10x17 Inside Man and part of his hustle involves getting his sex-hair on and giving Donny a wink, again (in subtext) associating the overt pool hustle with a covert sexy-times hustle:

Ouroboros opens with another on-the-road place where MSM (men who have sex with men, but who don’t identify as LGBT) cruise in the liminal spaces of Americana - here, the truck stop.

Noah, the bisexual Gorgon, hustles a trucker, offering sex in exchange for food and a ride: 

Of course, the poor dude has no idea that he is the food, and that Noah’s kiss is poison:

When Dean and Cas first arrive at the scene to investigate, we get this shot:

This frames the mis-en-scene of the earlier queer kiss, juxtaposed against no-personal-space Dean and Cas. Just as Dean announces their aliases, Agents Page and Jones, as in Jimmy Page (for Dean) and John Paul Jones (for Cas) from Led Zeppelin. 

In subtext, hello reference to Dean’s romantic-as-hell “XX” (kiss kiss) Led Zeppelin mix-tape for Cas (12x19 The Future):

Cas also presents his badge upside-down (if you are paying close attention) which recalls Free to Be You and Me (5x03) the episode in which Dean gives Cas his (sublimated) “last night on earth” speech - “There are two things I know for certain - one, Bert and Ernie are gay, and two, you are not gonna to die a virgin.” 

The local cop hands Dean a note which Noah the bisexual Gorgon has written specifically for him (note - not for Sam or Rowena too, although the Gorgon has also seen them in his visions). The note tells Dean to stop hunting the Gorgon or else:

Cas wonders why he’s not in the Gorgon’s vision.

CAS: “But you’re not standing alone. Why doesn’t he mention me?”

DEAN: “Maybe you’re not his type.”

So Dean makes a queer association with the (familiar cruising ground of the) truck-stop and the Gorgon’s note to him.

NB: while Dean and Cas are investigating the crime scene of a queer kiss, Sam and Rowena are at the vets pretending to be a married couple - by mirroring association, we thus have married couple Dean and Cas.

Yockey really knows how to subtext. 

Also note that the Gorgon is textually bisexual (sedution-wise).

VIC: “You’re just preying on helpless men?”

NOAH: “”Helpless men? That’s rich! No, I do eat ladies too, but women have become so cautious lately, must be all that finally waking up from centuries of misogynistic oppression. Good for them.” 

And the Gorgon kisses Castiel (note, not Jack, who is also present). 

The Gorgon wrote the warning (in subtext the targetting “seductive”) note to Dean, and he kissed Castiel - in other words our bisexual Gorgon queer-targets Dean and Cas specifically.

Sure enough, when Dean and Sam arrive at the scene, the Gorgon addresses only Dean, “Hello Dean, wish I could say it was nice to meet you in person.”

The (did I mention, textually bisexual) Gorgon whammies Cas and Dean - both are literally out cold on the floor together - one from the poisoned kiss and one from a head-wound. 

Cas tries his healing touch on an unconscious Dean, back at the bunker:

And immediately, we see AU!Michael once more pounding on the door of the fridge-locker in Dean’s head (in subtext, Castiel’s touch rattles Dean’s mind-closet). 

 Then we have Cas and Jack’s emotional talk (set to romantic sad strings) where Jack mirrors and draws out Castiel’s emotion. 

JACK: “I can’t think about losing him [Dean] or Sam, or you. I hate... I hate thinking about it...” 

CAS: “Yes, so do I...”

In Jack’s mirroring language - Dean comes first (i.e. Dean comes first for Cas).

This is given extra resonance, because we recall the earlier cafe scene where Dean and Cas, briefly alone, spoke, and Dean brought up to Cas once again the “Plan B” of sinking him and AU!Michael to the bottom of the ocean in the Ma’lak box. So we understand, Cas has been thinking about losing Dean, painfully (in subtext, to the frigging eternal closet) a lot. 

CAS: “Humans burn bright, but for a very brief time, compared to, y’know, things like us. And eventually, they’re gone, even the very best ones, and we have to carry on...”

....

JACK: “What’s the point of being a cosmic being, if everyone I care about is just gonna... leave?”

CAS: “The point is, that they were here at all, and you got to know them, you... When they’re gone, it will hurt, but that hurt will remind you of how much you loved them.”

Anyone think <clutches heart> Cas has given himself this talk several times before?

Immediately following Castiel’s speech about love (in very thinly veiled subtext, Castiel’s love specifically for Dean, as Dean is currently the Winchester in immediate jeopardy) Dean wakes up, and the fridge-locker in his mind in which AU!Michael was trapped (and remember AU!Michael has been used as a symbol for Dean’s self-repression all season - see my meta AU!Michael and the Closet (14x10)

http://drsilverfish.tumblr.com/post/182120562849/aumichael-and-the-closet ) 

is bust open:

To conclude: in subtext, the kiss of the queer Gorgon has led to Castiel’s articulation of his love for Dean and the breaking of the closet door in Dean’s mind. 

(NB; that does not mean I think Dean is about to come out of the closet in text).