#the lack of empathy for him from a lot of viewers is wild

[lurkingshan]

It’s not that Tae can’t do things for himself or be alone, it’s that he’s fucking heartbroken. His partner of four years who he was planning a future with cheated on him and then basically blamed him for it. Who wouldn’t feel lost under those circumstances? He does do things for himself and he never asked her to take care of him, but the absence of that care is a reminder that she’s gone, and he misses her. We have seen him doing things on his own, but he’s not having a fun time with it because he’s sad. He wants her back as his girlfriend, not as his caretaker.

[blackradandmad]

why blippi is rotting yr children's brains

preface: i literally expect no one to read this. it is an essay length, strong opinion piece critiquing a niche youtube-based children's show that i don't expect most of y'all to even have knowledge of lol. but like, i promise that even if you know nothing about what i'm talking about, in my incredibly, super humble opinion, it's a good piece of writing and interesting nonetheless. anyway if you read this whole thing for some reason yr really hot and we should kiss.

i thoroughly vet everything my child watches before he watches it, episode by episode. and we rarely watch youtube for entertainment; we usually just look up educational videos when he has a question about something and wants more detail than i can provide him. and that's mainly because children's content on youtube is so fucking troubling and distressing. i don't judge parents who give their children a tablet at a restaurant at all bc i've been there and sometimes it's easier on everyone to just put on a video and avoid a giant scene, but i do judge parents who just leave their children alone with youtube kids on autoplay.

take stevin john, a literal millionaire who got famous from dressing up as a silly character called blippi and going on tours of places like aquariums, zoos, construction sites, etc and posting it on youtube. this has branched into a whole empire of blippi videos, hulu shows and specials, live shows and tours (that he outsources to another character actor), merchandise and so on. this 30-something year old man cites his main influence as being mr. rogers, but i question if he's ever even seen an episode of that program.

mr. rogers had no background in early childhood development or media production, but he revolutionized the world of children's media, because he respected his audience and didn't shy away from real world situations, all while creating a show with an enormous heart. mr. rogers begins his episodes by inviting the viewer in, literally changing his attire to be more comfortable, and talking about/doing things he genuinely cares about. whereas mr. rogers calmly and maturely addresses the viewer, blippi puts on a high pitched, contrived voice, interjecting every other sentence with a forced exclamation such as, "teehee! we're having so much fun!"

i don't find it a coincidence that john (blippi) is a veteran, either. his videos are completely devoid of the absurd, abstract, childlike thinking that makes children's media fun, creative, and entertaining. his thinking and process is methodical, devoid of emotion, and very superficial. this line of thinking clearly shows the kind of creative sterilization and emphasis on sameness and conformity instilled in the military. blippi simply observes things and interacts with them in a stale, matter-of-fact way. "this ball is purple! this ball is pink! anyway... what's over there? teehee! a car! vroom, vroom!" objects are colors, toy cars don't do anything but drive, curiosity is simply not encouraged.

he uses the "it's educational!" excuse to hide the fact that his show lacks everything that makes media a valuable resource for children to consume in the first place. further than identifying colors, numbers, and the occasional letter or shape, there is just this total lack of children's need for social and emotional development. when mr. rogers breaks the fourth wall to address the viewer and let them know they're special, it feels authentic and natural, because we've spent the last half hour building whole worlds with diverse characters and unique stories in a pretend neighborhood, learning about and enjoying different musical instruments, being exposed to and making friends with (even if parasocially, it is still a real bond to children when done properly) children who are similar to us in character regardless of physical or environmental differences, feeding the fish, making art together, and so on. when blippi tells the viewer, "you are very special, and i enjoy spending time with you!" it falls completely flat and feels unearned, because the last half hour was spent running around a soft play center pointing at bright, colorful objects, visiting interesting locations like farms or fruit production factories while failing to acknowledge the humanity of the humans actually working there (everything is machine or product focused; the human workers are simply an extension of the machine), learning "fun facts" about elephants that just list attributes of elephants, not taking the opportunity to inform the viewers of elephants' intelligence, or diet, or matriarchal society. it is a loud, sensory overwhelming display of a man so disconnected from the social and emotional needs and desires of children that he assumes they're stupid, easily entertained idiots who only need some silly dances and fast-moving cartoon graphics to give their attention (meaning time and desire to purchase products meaning $$$). john clearly views his audience as a means to gaming the algorithm and ultimately a paycheck by the hollow way he addresses them.

the show is so narcissistic, so focused on all the fun blippi is supposedly having, but he lacks any of the character traits that make individual children's show hosts memorable, so much so that he was able to have someone else who doesn't even vaguely resemble him dress as blippi and impersonate him and host the show or appear at live shows, and it went unnoticed by most of his toddler and child audience. the show is so formulaic and the character of blippi is so unmemorable that instead of taking the blue's clues route of developing a story of the host leaving for college and his brother now stepping in, or making some sort of believable excuse for the change in actors, they can simply swap him out with some random guy and not acknowledge it at all. although a comedy show for older children, the amanda show in no way could or would try to replicate the show with the same name but swapping out amanda bynes with a random teenage girl who is clearly not amanda bynes. it's weird and nonsensical and shows that his character is so much of a farce put on for a paycheck that not even his dedicated audience is affected or even cares when he is replaced by a random, unknown person.

this is completely garbage content made by an opportunist with no experience with children who saw his nephew watching children's youtube content, took it at complete surface level and still hasn't realized that while children's content only looks and feels so easy, entertaining, and enriching because it is so hard to do well. even with outsourcing his music, that aspect of the show still sucks. famous and successful children's musician, raffi, is known for his song describing the life of a little white whale, called "baby beluga." it opens with a calm strumming of his guitar, followed by the lyrics, "baby beluga in the deep blue sea/swim so wild and you swim so free/heaven above/sea below/and a little white whale on the go." is it silly and kind of pointless? yes, but the point is that he is captivating children and showing them the fun of listening to music, dancing, singing, and appreciating art. the "excavator song" featured in an episode of blippi about construction vehicles opens with what sounds like a default garageband loop and the flatly sung lyrics, "i'm an excavator/i'm an excavator/hey dirt, see you later/i'm an excavator." i don't feel i have to meticulously analyze the aforementioned lyrics; the stark contrast should speak for itself.

i have a million more criticisms about both blippi specifically and youtube children's content as a whole, but this is already so long and i doubt many people will get this far anyway. it's an issue i was completely apathetic towards until i had my own child and had to wean him off these kinds of junk food shows because i realized the fast-paced visuals and bright colors and repetitive songs/lyrics were putting him in this spaced-out, fugue state, and he thought he could demand this show or that show whenever he wanted. the moment he started regularly yelling things like, "watch! cars!" or "no! click it!" i knew i had to be a lot more invested in the things he watched even if just for entertainment or as a soothing message. i showed him an episode of mr. rogers yesterday and feared it would be too slow to hold his attention, but he was mesmerized, greeting and interacting with mr. rogers verbally, asking me, "what's that?" to different objects on the screen. since purging this low-brow children's entertainment, he has had a noticeable increase in attention span and concentration, can focus on a task for longer amounts of times, is more likely to "read"/look through books without me initiating it, and doesn't throw a fit when the tv/my laptop is off.

i just know that for me, growing up with so much unsupervised internet access definitely led me to real-world pain and consequences, and it seems like now children are born with an iphone as an extension of their arm. if my child is going to be consuming videos, i'm definitely supervising every second and am going to be highly critical of the videos and the credentials (or lack thereof) of the creators and team behind it. but i also know, from pure observation admittedly, that parents letting youtube kids autoplay parent their children for hours at a time is not an uncommon occurrence. and it worries me that a generation of children are being raised on videos that rely on being as loud and bright and superficially enjoyable as possible. what's the use of a child knowing their colors and alphabet if they don't know how to treat people with kindness and empathy and respect? there is something wrong for a children's show host to plug the spelling of his name at the end of his videos ("well, that's the end of this video. but if you wanna watch more of my videos, just type in my name! can you spell my name with me? b-l-i-p-p-i!") after essentially rotting his audiences' brains for a half hour. there's something so insidious about the prioritization of naming different parts of construction vehicles over honest depictions of and conversations about dealing with feelings, or why someone with autism may act differently than you, or what to do when you feel lonely, or ways to make art and express yrself creatively. also, not to mention the blatant police propaganda and outright worship is seriously jarring; as a black mother to a visibly non-white child, i cannot sit there and watch blippi show kids how to be a bootlicker for the shittiest profession on earth, but that could be a whole essay in and of itself.

anyway, thanks for reading, if yr looking for quality children's content, i recommend, in no specific order: mr. rogers, sesame street, the electric company, molly of denali, daniel tiger, bluey!, blue's clues, the odd squad, word party, trash truck, puffin rock, uhh... that's definitely not an extensive list but that's just off the dome!!! ok bye y'all <333

[walkwithheroes84]

Saved By the Bell (2020) Thoughts

 When the original Saved by the Bell ended in 1992, I was still in elementary school and certainly hadn’t watched it’s first run. But over the years - via repeats - it has become something of a comfort show for me, that I turn to when I’m feeling down or just need something cheesy to chill out to. So, hen I heard about a reboot on the Peacock network, I was unsure. 

Now, having finished the ten episode season in just two days, I’m really hoping people give this show a chance. It knows what it is and what it is the child of and it lovingly pokes fun at and embraces it. All while actually showing real issues that people are facing today.

Here are my real-time after thoughts on each episode. Warning for spoilers. 

1.01: Pilot

Zack becoming Governor to get out of a parking ticket and then having no idea what to do is a very Saved by the Bell plot line. But, I love that he's not getting away with doing a bad job and the people of California actually seem to be upset with him. Also random, but - I wonder if Kelly is a doctor and why she hasn't kicked Zack to the curb if he's become such a skeevy person? I guess it is true love.

Jessie and Slater and still adorable, even as platonic friends. However, it's sad that she's kept her son so dependent on her and that it appears that Slater peeked in high school.

Lexi and Mac would be completely unlikeable if played by anyone other than Josie Totah and Mitchell Hoog. Right now, they are just unlikeable, but could grow as the series goes on.

Devante and Aisha are good and I look forward to their characters being explored more.

Daisy is fine, but I don't think she's a strong enough character to be the "lead". Many reviews have called her the "lead" and the "character viewers follow the most" and I'm not sure the character is strong enough for that. Haskiri Velazquez is capable in her role and is doing fine, but the character is a bit bland at the moment.

Principal Toddman: finally a principal that is trying to make a difference and isn't bumbling around and letting the students get away with anything.

The "running for school president" story felt straight out of the old series, with Lexi and Mac doing it for a parking space. But, I liked that in the end (it was 2 days show time and just 30-something minutes our time) they only let Daisy have the job because they didn't want to give up their spring break - not because they learned any sort of real lesson.

From previews I was a little worried that they might try and go with a Mac/Daisy pairing, and I really glad that it doesn't look that way. Yes, it feels like they might pair them down the road (if the show gets a season 2 and beyond), but for now Daisy seems more annoyed with him and Mac seems indifferent to her. It looks like the show might go with Jamie/Aisha, which could work.

1.02: Clubs and Cliques 

The theater clique is basically so cliché that its amusing. I love that they were all desperate to get Devante involved and keep him in the group chat, but he was just so disinterested. Lexi's line that she would fall for him if he kept ignoring her? Ha.

Jamie's inability to basically function as a normal fifteen/sixteen year old is alarming. The fact that he couldn't tell he is bad at football and that he makes raw food? Like, Jessie, who did you raise? That said, the football team having a "Feelings Helmet" was just amusing to me. The Bayside students are just so over the top insane.

There is a large part of me that wonders what the heck happened in the raising of Mac. Kelly had six siblings. She was raised in a working class family. I can't see her raising her son to be this entitled brat who apparently calls her stupid. And, I honestly can't see Zack allowing his son to end up an idiot who just floats through life.

But, I guess that's the point of the series: the Bayside students are all clichés and over the top archetypes of rich kids. None of them are really all that likeable and I find myself rooting for Devante, Daisy, and Aisha while wanting Mac, Lexi, and Jamie to grow up.

1.03: The Bayside Triangle

Knowing that Jamie and Lexi have been friends since they were little kids and she now has a crush on him and doesn't know how to handle it? Very relatable and makes me like her a bit more. She's right - for a lot of reasons, it can be weird to have an old friend like you.

Aisha trying so hard to fit in with the Bayside students is a bit sad, actually. It feels like she's giving up a part of herself to be who they think she should be.

Mac and Jamie's fight felt like it was straight out of the original series.

It's sad to know that Zack and Slater are no longer friends. I wonder why.

Devante is totally my favorite at this point. He just wants a fresh start and it's sad that Aisha and Daisy suspected him of wrongdoing because of his past.

Again, the fact that the students do all this weird stuff and no one at the school seems to notice or care . . .I feel that is purely making fun of the original show, but I love it.

1.04: The Fabulous Birchwood Boys

Lexi and Devante need to become best friends and stay best friends forever. Let's keep it platonic and fabulous. Also, his friends from his neighbor? I need to see more of those boys.

Jamie and Mac Freshmen year? Dorky as all get out. Lexi's fear that no one would like her. So heartbreakingly real.

Daisy having access to money for one day and becoming an entitled monster...that also felt very real. And, I'm really glad that she didn't take the easy way out and said she was sorry to the other members.

Since Mac never even asked Post Malone and since he got the other kids back - I'm starting to think the kid has more depth and empathy than I originally gave him credit for. That or Daisy is rubbing off on him. If they did Daisy/Mac down the road, I think it could work.

I felt so sorry when Lexi realized that Jamie had asked Aisha. I think they are headed for a Lexi/Jamie/Aisha love triangle, and I have to say that while I see Lexi/Jamie (because of her crush), I don't see Jamie/Aisha just yet.

Finally, Slater obsessing over the gym floors? He really did become a stereotype of a gym coach.

1.05: Rent-A-Mom

Jessie still having anxiety about caffeine and knocking what she thought was caffeine pills away from Mac was great.

Speaking of which - poor Jessie and her marriage. :( How did she end up with such a wishy-washy husband?

Slater and Aisha bonding while trying to making the team tougher was great. I cannot believe Jamie gives heartfelt speeches before games. What the hell, man? They really are pushing Jamie as the "sensitive man-child".

Jamie also mentioned that he was starting to like Aisha, but I still don't really see it. Am I alone in this? A start of a friendship, sure. But, a romance within the next few episodes - that would move too fast. Then again, it is a "teen show" and romance on those tend to move quickly.

Lexi and Mac trying to help Daisy was kind-of sweet in a weird sort of way. I like the looks into the home lives of the gang. It gives us a better understand of who they are as people.

1.06: Teen-Line

DeVante clearly facing racism and even classism at Bayside was really well done. I love that Lexi was ready to help him, because he has become such a great friend to her. Those two have really bonded and I love it.

Mac becoming a payphone, but not realizing it kind of made me smile. But what was even better was the way the school completely went into chaos after the students lost their phones. It couldn't have been more than three hours and the school already looked like a deleted scene from a post-apocalyptic film. Oh, and Mac using the rope to get in and out of the room, while the rest of the group used the door. . .loved it.

Aisha and Jamie. . .I feel like she's with him because he's attractive and sweet. There doesn't seem to be any real depth to their relationship. Though to be fair, there isn't much depth to Jamie's character - he's a satellite love interest to Aisha and Lexi.

1.07: House Party

Lexi finally seeing that she is a good (or at least better) person? I like that she is growing. Out of all the characters, I think she has gotten the most character growth (out of the kids) this season.

So. . .Mac does all his schemes because he's scared of being abandoned by the people he cares about and feels neglected by his parents? It's cliché, but. . .okay.

I'm still not really feeling Aisha/Jamie, but I'm not hating it. The relationship lacks depth, so I'm not terribly invested. But, I'm sure if I went back and watched any of the TNBC shows (without my nostalgic glasses on) those romances won't have much depth either.

Daisy trying to go wild, but instead having to be locked in a closet and making out with a coat? Eh, I get that they were poking fun at the darker and "edgy" teen soaps, but, eh.

Slater really grew during the episode and realized that it's time to leave high school behind and start acting like a real adult, and I'm proud of him.

1.08: The Todd Capsule 

Lark looked amazing. I'm so happy that she is doing so well these days.

So now we know where Screech is: on the Space Station with Kevin the Robot.

I was actually sad to learn that Kelly didn't follow her dream of becoming an actual doctor and is instead selling a fake wellness brand or some nonsense. Though, I will admit the Zack/Kelly scenes had me giggling a bit. They have become so shallow and weird, but I'm living for it. And when Zack said she was the only woman he's ever been with? That was a great jab, at least to me, at the way teen shows always do the "one true pairing" thing.

So glad Jessie now knows that Slater still has feelings for her. Can't believe her husband is having an emotional affair with one of his characters. This show can be so ridiculous.

The time capsule was a great addition to the episode, especially as they remembered all the plots that didn't make sense or were just weird: Jessie's caffeine addiction, putting on a ballet so Zack could graduate, saving a hotel in Hawaii.

How dare the gang (expect Lisa, who is a Queen) not remember Ron-Ron!

I hate - hate - that the PTA basically went behind everyone's back and is going to use the money to send the Douglas children back to their school. Yes, they can use the money to buy new things, but they will still have issues in that school. It's pure racism and classism.

Devante having a crush on Nadia (I think that's her name?) is super cute.

Loved Lexi and Daisy bonding and Lexi seeing that sometimes guilting people into things works just as well as being fake-nice. Though, you think she would have learned that by now.

So, Mac has always struck me as a character that is straight out of a 90s teen sitcom, and he still acts that way. But, I love that the show is trying to show some depth to him: he's acting out for attention from his dad. He has modeled his whole personality after his dad's high school personality in order to get attention. It's a storyline that has been done a million times (and will be done a million more times), but it fits his character.

1.09: All in the Hall

The Douglas principal saying that every few years people try and come in to "save" the school ,but than get bored and leave, because they've already gotten what they want - to feel good about themselves? Yeah, I felt that. It was so true to life, the way people rush into some new cause and than abandon it once they have gotten praise or its no longer trendy.

So happy to see Principal Toddman standing up Jade and sticking up for his students. He and Devante should have more scenes together. I like how they play off one another. I really just love Devante - he's probably my favorite.

Aisha finding a way to stay at the school via sports was very smart, but I can also see how Daisy would see it as selfish. Aisha does have a way of thinking about herself first and than others after. I think that has to do with her ultracompetitive nature - she wants to win, even if it mean leaving others behind.

Jamie got a bit more depth in this episode - finally. It was sweet that he wanted Aisha to stay, despite only having dated her for six weeks or so. He went about it completely wrong, but it was sweet. It's good that he sees that he's more emotionally intelligent than anything else.

The Aisha/Jamie stuff - eh. I never felt it to begin with, so it was no big. I'm glad that they sort of acknowledged that while he loves her, she just likes him and it was a relationship built more on physical attraction and sweet moments than anything else. I mean, they are fifteen.

Mac and Lexi feeling empathy and trying to help Daisy was nice. It's clear that they have both grown to care about Daisy (and Devante and to a lesser degree Aisha). I also enjoyed the small tease of Mac/Lexi with them both agreeing that they would totally hook up, because they are both so hot. Who doesn't love two shallow people admitting they are shallow? Though, I still think the writers are slowly - maybe - setting up something with Mac/Daisy. Maybe. Possibly.

I laughed out loud when Daisy ran into Jean (or is it Dave?) at city hall and he just kept denying that they had met before, but they clearly had.

Daisy's breakdown and her nearly doing drugs and the group hug - complete with Jamie discussing some random talent show we never saw (a jab at the original show airing episodes out of order?) - was just so classic teen sitcom. I loved that they pulled back from that by showing Mac reaching for the joint during the group hug.

1.10: Showdown

Overall the season was much better then I thought it would be and I'm really hoping that they are able to work in a season 2. I don't know if they could do several seasons, but I think they could probably do 2-3 more seasons of 8-10 episodes each. They still have a lot to focus on: relationships, class differences, the fall of the Morris family, Jessie's marriage breaking down and how that plays out with Jamie and even Slater, etc.

I really liked the two throw away lines of: Zack asking "Remember Tori?" and Kelly responding with a confused: "Huh?" and then Kelly quickly telling Mac that his father is not Jeff.

I wouldn't say Zack learned a valuable lesson, so much as he realized that he only wanted to stay Governor because he didn't want to be a loser. Which I guess is a lesson in a way, but he's still a bit of a slime ball.

I'm so glad that Slater told Jessie he was sorry for teasing her in high school because she protested and that he's happy today's teenagers are more willing to speak out about their beliefs. And, I'm even happier that Jessie stood up to her stupid and selfish husband.

Aisha and Daisy ganging up on Devante and than realizing that the clicks at school need a common enemy was great. What was better was Lexi, who has had the most character grown this season, willingly becoming the scapegoat.

Mac still needs to work on his daddy issues, but he's getting there. Hopefully he and his parents can really bond during quarantine.

Jamie telling Lexi that the only reason he wasn't sure if he wanted to date her was because she's been mean in the past was very sweet. Do I think the show is headed for Lexi/Jamie? Yes. Do I think it will last? No.

I still have a feeling that, at some point, they will do a Mac/Daisy pairing. Or at the very least have Mac develop a crush on Daisy, which will be interesting to see.

Other thoughts: I love that the show was able to poke fun at the clichés, corniness, and weirdness of all the late 80s-early 00s teen sitcoms/dramas that people my age grew up on; while at the same time exploring current day issues, without getting too preachy or pushy. They used pop culture well, without it feeling overly done. Someone else has mentioned in several threads that the show reminds them of the show Community, and I have to agree - it really does have an "early" Community vibe to it. I know a lot of shows are being cancelled or not renewed due to Covid, but I really do hope they give this one a second season. I really want to see where they go next.  

Cast List:

Main Haskiri Velazquez as Daisy Jiménez Mitchell Hoog as Mac Morris Josie Totah as Lexi Haddad-DeFabrizio Alycia Pascual-Peña as Aisha Garcia Belmont Cameli as Jamie Spano Dexter Darden as Devante Young John Michael Higgins as Principal Ronald Toddman Elizabeth Berkley Lauren as Jessie Spano Mario Lopez as A.C. Slater

Recurring Mark-Paul Gosselaar as Zack Morris Tiffani Thiessen as Kelly Morris Ed Alonzo as Max Cheyenne Jackson as René

Guest Lark Voorhies as Lisa Turtle

[siren-theories]

Maddie Bishop's treatment by the writers in Season 3

(tl, dr: Maddie deserved better this season) SPOILER WARNING: This post includes spoilers up to and including Episode 308 “Till Death do us part”.  I apologise to the readers for - after a long hiatus - not writing another analysis post first. But I felt the way Maddie was written in Season 3 deserves its own post. So let us take a look at the the way Maddie was written in Season 3, the inconsistencies with her earlier established character traits and the possible justifications for this treatment of her by the writers. 

I. Introduction

I generally do not like to post about a show which has not finished its current season. That is because a lot of developments only make sense in retrospect and only then the viewer can know why the writers decided to emphasize certain developments. As such, I am usually trying not to write episode reviews and engage in wild speculation about what will happen next episode. I much prefer writing after the end of a season. 

Looking back on all the shows I have seen in my life, there are only a few that come to mind that had a great third season. The West Wing and the Wire are the prominent examples that come to mind. 

(Shameless West Wing Plug. I so miss this show and its intelligent characters, especially in the current political climate). 

Other shows meanwhile go completely off the rails (like Andromeda, which never recovered from its Season 3). So in general I tend to be very forgiving to shows entering their third season, not expecting much. Thus I would usually not write something like this. 

But: I worry about the treatment of a character I feel very protective of, the chracter who is my favourite character in the show: Maddie Bishop. 

(Vivat regina.)

Her being my favourite character might be surprising to the reader considering most of the posts on this tumblr are about Ryn (and to a lesser degree Ben), while I have written only sparingly about Maddie. But that is simply because Ryn and Ben are more interesting characters to analyze. Emotionally, they tick the "lets root for them" box for me, despite - and because of -  their character flaws. Those flaws always add to the story in a fascinating and dramatic way. 

But Maddie Bishop I RESPECTED right from the start. This is in no small part because I always felt drawn to her analytical, logical, scientific side. In cheesy terms, I felt a bond with her because I could easily think of me acting the same way she did in many situations. For me, she was easy to emphatize with, easy to like and very easy to root for. 

But this season has been hard to swallow in some respects.

In the words of the Godfather: 

(Tremble in awe of my awesome MS Paint skills) 

Note that this does not apply to all of Maddie's actions. In fact, the vast majority of her actions this season are no big deal to me and fit her character. Many of the actions Maddie seems to catch a lot of flak for on other parts of the internet seem perfectly justifiable to me as they do not go against the core traits of her character. 

I have no issues with many major decisions Maddie made this season, including but not limited to: 

She is totally right to re-evaluate her relationship with Ben. Everybody should probably do so when their boyfriend confesses that he let somebody intentionally drown. (It also is not the first time they have broken up. One breakup per season seems to be the norm with those two, not the exception.)

Her hiding the fact of Ryn being her girlfriend to Robb was the right and logical choice. Most people do not talk about their sexuality in face-to-face situations with strangers.  Let’s remember that they all agreed to hide their relationship even when having dinner with Ben's family...so why would people expect Maddie to refer to Ryn as her girlfriend to strangers? 

I am also okay with her deciding to pursue a relationship with Robb. Even though I view him as a giant waste of screentime he seems like a good guy in total. (I really hope his introduction pays off in future seasons because right now it feels as if he has taken double or triple the screentime he should.) 

I could go on but I feel the point has been made. What I am however definitely not okay with are the instances where Maddie acts like a complete idiot. Those show a massive failure to respect established character traits by the writers.

Because one thing Maddie Bishop is not is an idiot. 

She probably is the smartest character on the whole show. And she is definitely not a hypocrite - in fact, her strong moral core is what made her that great of a character in Season 1 and 2. 

Let me just highlight a few situation this season where I disliked heavily how Maddie was written.  

II. Revealing the secrets of the Sirens and their existence to a total stranger ?

“Remember this big secret people are literally getting killed over? I wonder if I should talk about it to this guy I met for a few coffees...not like letting other people knowing about it has ever hurt somebody....Ian? What is an Ian?”

Over the span of a few days, Maddie does the following in Season 3:

Reveal information about the Sirens to a total stranger, even going so far as to show him secret Siren history in the cave

Bring a complete stranger into the maritime laboratory (what exactly could have been her thought process here, what did she hope to gain by this?)

Doing the above despite being repeatedly warned not to do so

I can live with Ben being an idiot and refusing to heed warnings until it almost kills him because that is who his character is - somebody who lets his emotion, empathy and character flaws get the better of him at times despite his good intentions. Him taking stem cells is thus consistent with his character and at the very least a justifiable writers decision. To a lesser degree this also applies to Ryn and her total lack of impulse control. Ben and Ryn making bad decisions it is very consistent with their characters - and yes, this even applies to making stupid decisions. (For Ryn, agreeing to work with the military in Episode 207 “Entrapment” is but one example). 

But this is NOT Maddie and never was.

The Maddie from previous seasons was so very invested in keeping the secret that she hid it from her own father in Season 1. This led to the awesome scene between her, her father Dale and Ryn In episode 107: “Dead in the water”.

She hid this secret from her own mother in Season 2 (heck, she even hid her relationship with Ryn from her). She hid Ryn from her best friends, her former boyfriend and her coworker. And yet, suddenly some stranger from outside town waltzes in and within the span of a few coffee dates she goes and spills the beans to him? After being explicitly warned not to do so? Without even being in a relationship with Robb at that point and knowing next to nothing about him?  If you had held a gun to my head and forced me to pick somebody who would be dumb enough to just reveal the secret of the Sirens to outsiders, Maddie Bishop never would have been my answer. 

I could see Ben “Bad Judgement” Pownall and Ryn “No brakes on this train” Fisher doing so. I expect Xander and Calvin to be trash at keeping secrets because that is consistent with their past behaviour. But Maddie? No. Not Maddie. Not the girl who hid her mother’s addiction from the world as best she could. Not the woman who was okay keeping Ryn a secret from her own father. And not to a total stranger. 

This is Ben-level stupidity. Actually, it is worse than that. Blabbing about the mermaids to a total stranger without being under any kind of duress is by far the most stupid thing any character has ever done in this show. It risks not only Maddie herself, but also the Sirens as a species. It is even worse than Xander telling Nicole about Helen's family burials at the end of season 2. It is irresponsible and completely outside Maddie's established character traits and her past actions. It is unbelievable. 

III. Killing is different when my (animal) girlfriend does it 

Besides turning her into an idiot, the writers also turned Maddie into a hypocrite in stating Ryn letting Ian drown is different than Ben doing the same. Nevermind the fact that Ryn has actively killed people (and probably will continue doing so). 

(Why is it different when two people react exactly the same?Because.....reasons. The best reasons. People tell me they are the best reasons. My uncle went to MIT and invented these reasons. Big brain time.) 

So the writers had Maddie claim it is different when Ryn does exactly the same thing as Ben. It also is okay for Ryn to kill somebody who was no real threat to Ryn (or Maddie with Ryn being there). Remember when Ryn killed the drug dealer in Episode 205? Ryn was toying with the guy throughout the whole fight and clearly enjoyed killing him in a brutal manner. She even grins during the fight once she realizes the guy has no chance against her.

And yet, Maddie was okay with this. But it is not okay for Ben to let somebody drown who was  a) a homocidal maniac who used his car as a deadly weapon, having attempted to run Ben over twice previously b) somebody who could not be trusted c) who had just kidnapped a drugged-up Ryn.

I cannot remember when I ever groaned in frustration at anything Maddie had done or said throughout the course of the show. This must have been the first time and it is especially jarring in response to the following scene in 206:

(Ryn does not. The writers might.) As I said above, I am more than okay with Maddie evaluating her relationship with Ben, what I am not okay with is her immediate declaration that Ryn killing people is different...because she is Ryn? And I hate how it has one particularly ugly implication - that to Maddie, Ryn killing people is just what she does. The conclusion to be drawn from that is that Ryn is indeed a predator/animal first to Maddie than a human being. 

And this is obviously inconsistent with Maddie's earlier actions. 

First, she did not mind somebody eliminating threats before. She was okay with potentially having to hurt people in order to defeat the sonic cannon in Season 2. She was “willing to fight” to protect Ryn and her species. And several times Maddie carried loaded guns and was ready to use them herself in the series. 

She also always believed in Ryn's humanity. I am sure the many scenes between Ryn and Maddie in Season 1 and 2 are fresh in everyone's mind. Suffice to say that Maddie has always believed in the humanity of Ryn, starting with the car scene between the two in Episode 102 or the trust scene in Episode 103, which I have linked below. 

(and where did this dynamic go btw?)  Which ties in neatly with my next point: 

IV. The Marginalization of Maddie regarding Ryn and Ben  

Let me start by saying that breaking up the trio to focus on Ben/Ryn (and probably continuing to focus on those two) is not something I want to critize from a storytelling perspective. Final judgement on the storytelling will be reserved until the end of the series. As this issue is inextricably linked with “shipping” preferences, I think at this point I have to explain where I stand on the issue. I would prefer Polymarine as I think it really fits the characters best...but I can live with Ben/Ryn. This is in no small part due to Eline Powell and Alex Roe doing some of their greatest work on this show playing off each other. See for example how in Episode 306 they improvised with her hair sticking to his body after a hug and turned that into a tender gesture...great impromptu acting without breaking character. If the writers want to explore this (or any other) relationship  further I can respect that decision from a storytelling perspective because I think the payoff will be satisfying to me as a viewer.  Even though I feel it would have been better to explore Ben/Ryn in the context of Polymarine I begrudgingly accept the right of the writers to tell the story the way they want to.  

And If nothing else it leads to stunning visuals - image credit to @crayonboxhearts, more gifs from this scene at the link. 

But I dislike the way in which the writers set it up and executed it this season because (as outlined above) it sacrificed some of Maddie’s core character tenets and had her acting out of character. 

Having the trio become a duo on its own in an organic way without the above would have been preferable IMO. There were enough angles the writers could have chosen to facilitate that in a believable manner. They could have focused on the connection Ryn has with Ben, they could have had family reasons...et cetera pp. And they also could have used some of the issues Maddie has in her own past to justify a breakup. All of this would have been (IMO) preferable to what we got. 

What we got was something that felt as if it was written to check some boxes to set up the future plotlines and in doing so marginalized Maddie with regards to her importance to Ryn, Ben and the overall story. 

Granted, the show tried to show Maddie and Ryn's feelings for each other and they spent some time showing Ben moping after her - but in light of the significant strides made in the Ben/Ryn dynamic these scenes feel more than a bit hollow. 

And anybody who has watched episodes 308 could just see the role of Maddie as it relates to interacting with Ryn and Ben getting smaller by the minute. Ryn and Ben now have their own little circle, one which only seems to include Maddie on the periphery. Nowhevere was this stronger on display than in Episode 308, with Ben and Ryn making lifelong promises to each other.

Ryn: “I will live on Land. With you.” Ben: “On land. You mean, stay human?”  Ryn: “Yes. Here. Together. Human.”  Ben: “What about Hope?”  Ryn: “She can be with us. As a family.” Ben: “I can’t ask you to do that.”  Ryn: “It is my choice. When it is time, I will be human with you.”

Notice how Maddie was not even mentioned once during that conversation? And yes maybe it would have been a bit weird to include her in the dialogue . However this is not an isolated incident.  Later on Maddie is not even in the same frame when Ryn and Ben actually exchange a wedding ring and make a “til death do us part” promise. Let me repreat this: They are exchanging wedding vows and Maddie is not even in the frame.

(Yes, technically not wedding vows, but only due to the circumstances surrounding them - the sentiment and meaning was there. FFS, she is even wearing white). 

And sometimes it is something as simple as Ryn in 308 kissing Maddie on the cheeks and Ben straight on the lips. 

There could not have been a more clearer message than the contrast here.  And this was clearly intentional on part of the director considering these frames followed each other immediately.  

And then of course we get the followup scene on the docks where Ben is literally standing in the middle between Maddie and Ryn, before turning and following Ryn, both leaving Maddie behind. Observe the contrast between that scene and the pier scene in Episode 203. 

203: 

308:

(Ngl,seeing her standing alone there in the dark hurt) And some of that can be viewed as a logical development of Maddie no longer being in a relationship with Ben (and whatever kind of relationship Maddie has with Ryn, it is clear that Ryn is not staying at Maddie’s place at all). Siren has always been about the relationship of the main characters within the tight-knit circle and it is clear that at this point in the story Maddie is not part of the inner circle anymore. 

V: Maddie’s role in the story

And if Maddie would be doing something else, something central to the story of Bristol Cove, something that would valiate her character and make her essential to the plot in other ways, it might be enough for me or at least end up softening the blow. But is that the case? 

The side characters that have the closest connection with her (Dale and her mother Susan) have not even appeared once this season. And we had Xander replace her in her role as the gun-carrying backup which Ben calls first when stuff goes down in episode 306. So far there has not been a critical “Maddie moment” this season that was absolutely essential to the plot. She figured out the reason why the pool was not working in Episode 307 but it was Ben who came up with an actual solution to the problem.

(A caveat: Ben usually is the one who figures out solutions in the show (cf 208) so I might just be overreacting here.) But what exactly is left of the crucial role that Maddie had at the start of this season? Is she still as important as the other two main characters with regards to story development? I really hope the Finale will make me look like a fool for even asking that question. But I hate having arrived at a point where it even is a question once can ask legitimately.

VI: Previous acts of plot

This is not the first time the writers have decided to ignore established character traits in order to tell a certain story.  I have written before how it made no sense for certain storylines of Season 2 to play out the way they did in Episode 214 and 215 - except in the context of them serving the overarching plot.

Specifically, Ryn not knowing Ben's last name despite living together for weeks and months and suddenly going haywire after hearing it made little sense. And yet it was clear why it had to happen - because the writers wanted to tell a specific story. (A longer argument for what happpened and why can be found in the middle of this post if you do not want to take my word for it.) They wanted to do so because it led to great payoffs for the viewer:

1) We had an awesome discussion between Maddie and Ryn in Episode 214 

(Remember how emotionally intelligent Maddie was in that situation? Where did scenes like that go?)

2.) It led to several great scenes between Ben and Ryn and also provided further justification for Ben’s choices in 216. 

In retrospect,  the plot contrivances of 214 were done by writer's fiat to setup a scenario that would test the relationship of the trio. This created more drama and paved the way for a satisfying payoff at the end of Episode 215/216. In doing so, the writers allowed character inconsistencies and plot contrivances to steer the story towards a predetermined outcome, to the detriment of character logic and past character developments. 

And we can see a similar trend developing here. The end goal of the writers seems to have been the rock scene between Ben and Ryn at the end of Episode 308. 

And if you assume this to be the end goal in the current plot development...if the goal was to focus on Ben and Ryn...then there needs to be a breakup. Because huge parts of the storyline (stemcells, them going swimming, them making promises to each other etc.) do not work with Maddie in the picture. 

But was it necessary to sacrifice parts of her character and have her acting in a manner inconsistent with her established traits in order to do so? (Maybe they had to rush it because of lack of episode time, but then why waste so much time on Robb and Helen’s ghost stories?). 

And there is another problem: The success of this plot development will heavily depend on whether it will fit the personal preferences of the viewership. As I said above, while I would have preferred Polymarine I can live with and enjoy Ben/Ryn or Maddie/Robb. 

But for die-hard polymarine and Maddie/Ryn shippers, I feel the results might be somewhat different. And this is only made worse by Maddie being unfairly treated by the writers in order to facilitate the overall plot development. I suspect many Maddie fans (regardless of their shipping preference) will have been disheartened about how the writers made Maddie behave this season. 

I know I was. 

VII: The parallels between Episodes 108 and 308 - and why they worry me

And there is another meta-reason why I am deeply worried about Maddie and her role going forward. And this has to do with the way in which Siren’s previous ten-episode season has been set up. In Season 1, it was Episode 108 that cemented the character development happening in that season. Episodes 109 and 110 served to defeat the big bad of the season and to introduce temporary setbacks that had to be solved at the start of the following season before the characters returned to the dynamics establied in 108. 

In short, while Episodes 9 and 10 were exciting, Episode 8 of Season 1 is the pivotal episode of the season. Ryn’s desire to learn and to stay on land, her first steps into human society...all those happened in that episode. There are also strong parallels in the way 108 and 308 treated Ryn’s relationship with Ben, even ending their screentime in the episode with a impactful scene between the two (”Will you sing to me” / “Til death do us part”). Other parallels include both episodes featuring an important event in a human’s life (a wake/a marriage), both episodes involving the whole Bristol Cove community etc. 

And like 108, 308 was (IMO) a near-perfect episode in terms of performances, pivotal scenes and dialogue. Just by the sheer number of extras, costumes etc. involved the writers clearly wanted it to be important. And it was important.  It greatly drove forward the plot and I personally rate it as one of my favourite episodes of the show on its own for that reason. 

But there is one major difference that seperates 108 and 308: Maddie was very much still in the picture (literally) and a plot-driving force in her own right.

And this worries me. 

I expect the final two episodes will be about defeating the big bad of the season, as it was with Season 1. Maybe the season will even end the same way as Season 1 - with Ryn being on her own for a bit. Maybe she even goes back to the water for a longer time (or is forced to do so due to circumstances). But I also expect character development in season 4 to largely use 308 as its base. 

And now you can see why I am getting concerned here about Maddie’s diminished role. I really hope the writers have not forgotten what a wonderful character they created in her and find better ways to use her in season 4.

There are plenty of options within Siren to give her meaningful screentime again (her spending more time with Xander and Calvin for example would also give more screentime to those two, which I would love to see). But whatever the writers chose to do in the future, I really hope that it does not involve Maddie acting out of character again. 

Conclusion:

The way the writers wrote Maddie in Season 3 is not something that I agree with, nor does her diminished role in the central dynamics of the story sit well with me. Did it completely ruin the show for me? No. The mysteries of the sirens, the Pownell family saga, the question of whether Ryn has to permanently return to the sea, her child and the whole Ryn/Ben dynamic kept me entertained - and will do so in the future.  

But Maddie being this off-base and not being in the main picture definitely does diminish the show for me - and I think I am not alone in this. When I look at the failed opportunities for her character it saddens me in a major way. Even though Season 3 is still an enjoyable and entertaining season for me, it could have been much more. 

[thelightningawardsofficial]

Review | Northern Star

Judged by Mary Seph (ArimaMary)

Category: Simple Is Best

[ Author: Tieg2001 ]

>Title 3/5: "Northern Star" does the trick. It tells the reader the story is about Fubuki. Perhaps it is merely bad luck, but I have read that title being used recently in other stories so it does not come across as impressive or eye-catching. It is an alternate ending of Fubuki's arc, so something like Rising Star or taking another step and tie the title with something referenced in the story itself (basically, using a metaphor) will make it more relevant and eye-catching, making the reader go "ahhhh" or "ohhhh "when they understand why the story was named that way.

>Plot 16/25: I have to say, it took me quite a few reads to understand what was going on. Perhaps it was the word choice or the lack of physical description that made the story feel as if the characters were floating. This caused a snowball effect that affected your other scores in its respective categories. I would say half was the plot shown in the anime, and another half was your own twist; although at the first read I didn't see any divergence as you mentioned because of the first thing I said. I judged only on the plot of your own creation. What made the story fall in this item is how these new events were handled. The beginning is interesting; it would be so much better if the word choice improves considerably. The second twist didn't quite work as well because it seems to come out of nowhere. Starting from the beginning of the story, I don't know the protocol when an avalanche occurs so I will guess it is similar to a landslide. Someone reports it, and authorities like the police and the ambulance come to investigate. It is unclear if the sirens are getting close because of the accident or because of the avalanche (which has to be cleaned of course). On another topic, it would have been interesting to have had a solid visual of the state of the scarf when it was first mentioned. Was it hanging from a branch, a piece of metal, or in the floor? How come the lady asked if it was Fubuki's and not who did it belong to? On the topic of the lady, someone definitely should have stayed by his side to get a testimony or for emotional support. I was sure it was going to be her. He's just a little boy after all!

The next scene suffers from the recurring fault I first mentioned, unclear wording. I had no idea which soccer match it was because there were no pointers at the very beginning, grounding the scene. And it was just as hard to know who this goalkeeper was without a name--recommendations for these points are in Grammar and Style where I bring up more of these examples. The part I had the most trouble understanding was the turning point which hints a time skip, I think. Because I am still confused after thoroughly dissecting this one-shot. The change in the characters around Fubuki after this skip seemed baseless, out of nowhere. First being aggressive then supportive. Where did that come from? It needs a trigger, a strong one; and it will raise the emotions--the rising action--to swipe the reader off their feet. The ground has plenty of potential. You need to dig deeper.

>Characterization 11/20: I will be scoring the following characters: Shirou (little and teen), Atsuya, the lady, and those two characters whom I won't name due to spoilers. Firstly, Little Shirou didn't portray much of his personality save from "Atsuya. . ." which by this point is a trope. Personality is best shown through actions, and the most distinct, the more a character's psyche is exposed. With third person narrator, this is where I recommend you place your focus. Secondly, the lady seemed really cold, leaving little Shirou alone. Her dialogue seemed to be merely for plot purposes rather than anything else. I want to bring up the turning point again, the rising action, and this is a key point where Fubuki's personality would--should-- have shone. He was like clogged water where he should have risen like a tsunami and flood the reader with emotions: anger, sadness, helplessness, and hope. With a character as beloved as Fubuki which rose the popularity polls (like the wind!), it was this strong relatability and capacity to make the viewer feel empathy that he became a favorite. From the ten points of his character, I gave you five, and a two for Atsuya because, sure, the dialogue was in-character, but his personality/actions were inconsistent. The lady didn't do much, and those two characters seemed to be for plot purposes rather than having actual personalities.

>Grammar and Writing Style 11/15: Now for the good stuff. I put extra effort in this part because of the time you have been writing. I hope this can help a lot. The way you used spacing is quite messy and at times confusing--those short scenes in which extra spacing. Sadly, Wattpad doesn't quite work well with an extra space like in books. But! I just read a story which made great use of this spacing. In general, you have three options: spacing, symbols, and transition phrases. For this part, a transition phrase might work well. You need to find when to use which. But the symbols were used appropriately. Good job.

On another topic, there was some glaring use of passive voice, two clear examples being "Silence reigned, no sound was to be processed by Fubuki" and "By the use of skilled faints, the football got carried away forward by Gran." Use active voice instead. This is big. Always check for passive voice while editing. Onto style, there were instances in which some descriptions were too vague like "creature of [the] wild". "Wolf" delivers a clear and concise image in the readers head. Use clear words. I can say this the whole story. This is crucial. Fortunately, this can be easily fixed with adding sensory descriptions: the yells from the team, the grass at Fubuki's feet, the distance he feels from the match as if he weren't there. Ground the story, and you can ground a reader to it. Perhaps you are trying to sound fancy (and I apologize if those words sounded rude) but trying to make something seem bigger than it is in the narration shows the writer is trying to make something seem bigger than it is. Dialogue-wise, it seems the lack of dialogue tags in the italicized dialogue ended up backfiring, merely adding to the confusion. Save from the lines that were obviously Atsuya's, I had no idea who this person was or how to follow their lines. If you want to add mystery to the identity, you can describe their voice or throw hints about their appearance for the reader to put the pieces together, like breadcrumbs leading to a house made of candy.

You requested some analysis in your use of metaphors and I will focus on that now. One of the best metaphors was mirroring Fubuki's actions with his tears, and I will mention this again in Feels Factor. Using his tears as a starting point glued the tragedy tighter. You also compared the pure white snow with the smoke. To make this one more effective, you could add what the black smoke represents (tragedy, loss, trauma, etc) to the purity of the snow, because both are blinding but in different ways. The white snow seemed to represent Fubuki's desire to escape from reality aka the black smoke! Years passing like a blizzard was really nice too!

>Originality 8/10: I took two points for half of the one-shot being about events shown in the anime. I like you chose to show the accident at the very beginning and write about Fubuki in his best and its worst. My scoring is harsh enough so I will cut this part short.

>Feels Factor 11/15: Readability definitely seems to be the rock Northern Star bumped and fell face first on. It didn't make me feel because I was busy trying to understand what was going on, and in some moments when I felt a ripple, it was because the phrasing seemed out of place. As I said previously, clear words. "The boy with no family" would be easily replaced with "orphan boy" and be saved from a weird sense of pity that didn't quite belong there in my opinion. The events in this story are crucial moments for Fubuki as a character and a person. The readers should have felt all the emotions that flooded him: despair, helpless, sadness, anger, emptiness, and whatever else you wanted to show.

One thing that worked really well was "One tear fell. And then the boy." That's tragedy. The impact that caused the second sentence being the start of a new paragraph was so effective. Also, when he found Atsuya. I winced a little. Third person point of view is detached, but can also allow some strong imagery and description that are limited in other POVs. Tell me about the bloody snow, the smell of gasoline, the yells of Raimon, Gouenji's angry frown. I know I have said this quite a few times, but your writing reminds me of the first years I started to write. Don't lose faith, each story counts!

Total: [Raw] 60/90 [Final] 67%

[neurodivergent-media]

Review of Nightcrawler (2014)

Nightcrawler is a 2014 thriller movie starring Jake Gyllenhaal.

I went into this film completely unaware of the wild ride and downward spiral is would be for me in terms of representation.

Potential minor spoilers below:

I knew very little about the film beforehand and so early on into I was initially very pleasantly surprised watching it by the main character, Lou Bloom, who possessed a lot of traits which came across to me as autistic. He tends to speak rather matter-of-factly, often with flat effect. He more than once performs what could almost be deemed monologues which are clear examples of scripting - his words clearly parroted from the business sites on which he researches.The way he speaks about business models also comes across as infodumping, with such a subject seeming to be a special interest and as the film develops, news gathering becomes one too.

Furthermore, his whole demeanour indicates someone that is not neurotypical, he generally seems awkward and struggles communicating with people and expressing his emotions. Additionally, some other characters highlight his traits and general "weirdness". As a result of this, Lou was to me, a relatable and rather endearing character initially. But that was soon to change...

Without going into detail that would be too spoiler-y, as the movie progresses, Lou is revealed to be an all-round terrible person, exhibiting abusive and manipulative behaviour to the people he works with, and caring little for anyone, simply using people for his own gain.

While it is bad to assume that autistic people are always innocent angels, and to depict them as such, the portrayal in Nightcrawler felt like blatant demonising. It really seemed like the autistic traits were put into his character to give the sense of a creepy "other"-ness - and his neurotype felt portrayed as something mutually inclusive to his awful behaviour. He seemed to just not care about other humans at all, and was cold and calculating. It was just like the common negative stereotypes of autistics - that we can’t relate to people and because of that we do horrible things and don’t care when horrible things happen to them. And when combined with the fact that in real life, violent crimes are all-too-often being blamed on neurodivergence, including autism, it is all around very uncomfortable to watch.

While this is personal, Lou in particular - in terms of his mannerisms and persona - was a very relatable character to me at first. To see him turn out to be a terrible human being really felt like a betrayal - especially when realising, in retrospect, that his autistic-seeming behaviour was used to intentionally make him seem "off" or creepy. After watching the movie I couldn't help but be struck with the feeling that people will see/interact with me or someone like me, be reminded of this character and assume the very worst.

Truth be told, Lou is not actually explicitly stated to be autistic in the movie - perhaps that is one small saving grace. However, it does feel like some heavy coding, which has been noted even by some allistic viewers (link - trigger warning for mentions of ableism and violence). The director of the film did state that Lou was a "sociopath". However, as many neurodivergent people out there probably know, this is an outdated and rather ableist term, especially considering that it implies a lack of empathy and that this supposedly explains his terrible behaviour, despite the fact that people with autism and other neurodivergencies can lack empathy but still be kind, moral people 

Note: Sociopath/psychopath is often used informally to describe people with Antisocial Personality Disorder but this diagnostic label is of questionable validity since it is a common tool for criminalising disability and other marginalisations (link - trigger warnings for racism and ableism).

Overall, I would definitely not recommend Nightcrawler in terms of autistic or otherwise neurodivergent representation. For any neurodivergent folks who shares the mannerisms and demeanour of the main character, it is a very unpleasant experience. 

Trigger warnings: a lot of blood, violence, violent crimes portrayed realistically, generally intense/gritty scenes, Lou's abusive/manipulative treatment of other characters, depictions of racism (not explicitly shown, but through things some characters say).

[preserving-ferretbrain]

Been There, Done That

by Wardog

Thursday, 19 February 2009

Wardog is also having thoughts about Dollhouse.~

“I have existed merely to perform tricks for you, Torvald. But you wanted it like that. You and father have committed a great sin against me. It is your fault that I have made nothing of my life. Our home has been nothing but a playroom. I have been your doll-wife, just as at home I was papa's doll-child; and here the children have been my dolls. I thought it great fun when you played with me, just as they thought it great fun when I played with them. That is what our marriage has been, Torvald.”

Given my willingness to talk extensively about Dollhouse, I thought I’d probably better actually better watch the thing. Given that I’m in the UK, let’s not think too deeply about how I managed to do that.

So, as all the world knows by now, the Dollhouse is a top secret facility containing a bunch of hot young people (mainly female, it appears, but I did see some Ken-like men in the shower scene) who have had their memories and personalities wiped so that they can be fitted with new ones in order to carry out missions for those wealthy and powerful enough to be able to afford to hire them. The scope of these missions is limited only by the writer’s imaginations. In the pilot we had our heroine doll – Echo – playing companion to a sleazy playboy and then being refitted to negotiate with a bunch of kidnappers. Between assignments, the Dolls are childlike and obedient and sleep in weird coffin like things fitted into the floor, for no apparent reason whatsoever beyond the production of a creepy atmosphere. This being a Whedonwork, as well as the individual episode plot, the pilot is also rife with hints at longer, deeper story arcs – there’s a random FBI dude is seeking the Dollhouse, Echo is showing very slight hints of a developing sense of self, who did Echo used to be, what is going on here etc. etc.

Although the pilot isn’t precisely gripping, it is – I suppose - intriguing. The eerie, dystopian atmosphere is very successful and Eliza Dushku is actually surprising competent in a role demanding a high degree of versatility. She is also hot as mustard, but more on this later. Sadly, the episode-storyline itself is much less successful and, as yet, there are no characters in this show, which I cannot help think is mildly problematic. I mean, there are people in it – there is “immoral tech guy” and “melancholy, scarred Amy Acker girl” and “morally concerned black dude” and “cold, British woman who might be in charge” and “I seem to be Russian chap” – but none of them are really presented with sufficient force for them to be any more than a succession of faces. I know it’s only the pilot but I didn’t care about any of them, I wasn’t even curious. It’s a combination of lack of screentime and rather depressingly bland dialogue. I don’t know how long it will take Echo to develop sufficient self-awareness to be a person but there are real problems associated with a show without a protagonist. It feels shallow and empty, and there’s nothing really to keep you watching except perhaps intellectual curiosity about the premise.

I know, arguably, this is kind of the point. But, again, this only highlights some of the problems with Dollhouse. By reinforcing the emptiness of the fantasies offered by the Dollhouse by confronting you with an empty show … what you’ve still got there, Joss, is an empty show. And there is something fundamentally quite problematic in a text that chooses to explore themes such as exploitation and social roleplaying, by forcing its viewers into a weird state of complicity with the more exploitative aspects of the show itself. There’s plenty footage here of Eliza being wild and sexy and/or wide-eyed and helpless and/or wearing a very short skirt and/or any of the other things that you can’t help but find titillating, but without these bits the show is ponderously melancholic. There’s no snappy Whedon dialogue to enliven it. And, as I said above, at the moment there are no actual characters to utter it. So, yes, I did spend the pilot wondering when I was next going to see Eliza do something fun but this is not me being exploitative (aaaah d’you see?), this is Whedon being manipulative. If Dollhouse had more to offer me as a viewer, I’d be less interested in Eliza Dushku’s legs. Maybe.

It’s just a cheap shot, really. You can’t keep up a parade of beautiful people in revealing outfits and expect that to constitute a criticism of society’s attitude to beautiful people in revealing outfits.

It’s like Ricky Gervais using his current fame to whinge on about how hard it is being famous.

I think I’d have reacted less badly to this if Dollhouse wasn’t so self-consciously gendered all the damn time. So it feels very much like you’re watching the show with Joss Whedon sitting next to you and yelling in your ear: “Isn’t it terrible the way society treats WOMEN?” and “Do you see the way we all unconsciously exploit WOMEN” and “Look at the way the televisual standards of female beauty to which you yourself subscribe abuse WOMEN” and “Sometimes WOMEN never get over the horrible things that happen to them.”

The main story of the pilot involves Echo taking on the personality of a hard-as-nails, super-experienced kidnapping negotiator. Let’s not spend too much time dwelling on the fact she looks like Eliza Dushku (i.e. about 21 and super hot – but they put her in glasses, so that’s okay). Of course, it turns out that the reason why she’s poured all her life and energy into Getting Really Good At Something is because she was kidnapped at the age of 9 and horribly abused by her captor.

Because WOMEN, you see, are incapable of empathy and we’d never bother to lift a finger to help other WOMEN if we didn’t have direct experience of abuse ourselves.

I was really annoyed by the sex abuse plot (the real woman who suffered the abuse ended up killing herself because society does terrible things to WOMEN, or had you forgotten that?) because for a split-second I half-believed the Dollhouse setup had a whisper of moral complexity to it. I mean, having your personality erased so you can become the idle hour plaything of a pointless playboy is, y’know, unspeakably awful but genuinely being able to saving live and do things you couldn’t otherwise do is another matter. It still might not be the worth the death of yourself, but it’d be worth consideration.

But, no, the Dollhouse is evil. Because it’s a metaphor for how society treats WOMEN.

The truly tragic thing is that it’s an awesome premise for a TV serial. It’s like all the best bits of Quantum Leap and all the best bits of Alias smooshed up together. The scope is practically limitless and I think I could accept an argument that you might agree to have your personality erased if it was going to allow you kick ass and save lives on an entertaining weekly basis. I think it would even be quite empowering.

But, no, the Dollhouse is evil. Because it’s a metaphor for how society treats WOMEN.

And the show continually reinforces this by showing you attractive women in sexy outfits and then condemning you when you look at them.Themes:

TV & Movies

,

Whedonverse

~

bookmark this with - facebook - delicious - digg - stumbleupon - reddit

~Comments (

go to latest

)

Arthur B

at 17:15 on 2009-02-19

I think I might have guessed where Joss got the idea from.

permalink

-

go to top

Rami

at 17:47 on 2009-02-19Yep, Joe 90 is acknowledged (I think even by Whedon) as one of the major influences...

permalink

-

go to top

Nathalie H

at 21:53 on 2009-02-19Ooh, very interesting! I still haven't seen it and probably won't bother, so it's interesting to hear about the gender angle because I haven't read one really decent review on the internet so far. allecto did one but she's a bit mad, and everyone else is like 'oh it's Joss, he is a feminist so it's amazing.'

And considering how dicey it sounded before, it makes a lot more sense to me that he's using sexy mind-wiped prostitutes to make a really heavy-handed feminist point than that he hasn't even noticed, (because I think it would have been too stupid if he'd never thought the women would be looked on as sex objects, considering how much he supposedly knows about feminism).

Of course, the other problem then is that by setting up a sexy premise and condemning you for being taken in by it, is the question of how much this counts as reinforcement. And of course the fact that being aware of your own prejudices is a very important part of the lib movement (for example the problems of l/b women in being feminists and viewing women as sexual objects) so condemning the viewer is maybe a little too holier-than-thou when I'm sure he likes Eliza in a mini-skirt too.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 23:49 on 2009-02-19Natalie, where's allecto's

Dollhouse

review? I agree that she's a bit mad (in the same way that the Sun is a bit hot), but I find her rants weirdly compelling. But I can't find the review anywhere...

As an offering I present you her take on the

Buffy "Season 8" comics

. Gems: allecto opines that lesbians simply "don't look like" the girls depicted in one of the panels she depicts, sneaking a little homophobia into her heterophobia, and in the comments she reveals that

Buffy

almost brainwashed her into being straight.

permalink

-

go to top

http://descrime.livejournal.com/

at 05:51 on 2009-02-20I was disappointed by the dialogue too. (Hello, new person. Pleased to meet you.) It was especially jarring because earlier that day, I had looked up an episode summary of a Firefly episode where people had submitted pages of funny quotes and memorable lines.

Joss is good at humor, one of the best in television at the moment, I would say. It's what allows him to take otherwise silly ideas and make them work in a way that actually lets the audience take them seriously. The Scooby Gang might have quipped their way through Sunnydale High and Vampire Master Ascensions, but they dealt with real issues teenagers faced. If Buffy had been serious, it would have been depressing as hell.

At a time when every show seems to be trying to one-up each other to be seen as the most Serious (aka depressing as traumatic things happen one after another and people make stupid decisions that serve to make them even more unhappy), I had been looking forward to Joss's brand of comedy-adventure. Dollhouse left me alternatively bored and laughing at their Hollywood spa dungeon.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 09:47 on 2009-02-20

If Buffy had been serious, it would have been depressing as hell.

And when it was serious, it was terrible. The magic-is-heroin plotline being a case in point.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 12:55 on 2009-02-20I might re-watch Firefly and sob quietly to myself.

so condemning the viewer is maybe a little too holier-than-thou when I'm sure he likes Eliza in a mini-skirt too.

Nathalie! How can you say that?! Joss Whedon is a FEMINIST, he would never objectify Eliza Dushku!

I was disappointed by the dialogue too.

I'm glad it's not just me; I mean obviously it's a darker, setting etc. but everybody is so terribly bland and dull, that it's hard to remember who they are. I read a book on the linguistics of Buffy once, and it was actually fascinating to trace the complexities and cleverness of Scooby Gang slang. I know he was quite consciously creating something that would sound like "youth culture" but not date the show and there's no particularly *need* to do that for Dollhouse but ... blah.

Joss is good at humor, one of the best in television at the moment, I would say

I have feeling that are things that are funny are meant to be less worthwhile than things that aren't, hence his move ever more towards "darker" shows. Buffy Season 2 still strikes me as one of the most painful story arcs I can call to mind, albeit tinged by adolescence (eeek, I have slept with my boyfriend, and now he is a different person) - but it's done with such a light touch that you never get bogged down in woe.

permalink

-

go to top

http://sistermagpie.livejournal.com/

at 17:10 on 2009-03-02I've seen a number of comments about this show (which I haven't seen) lately referring to the skimpy clothing, for instance, where people claim that the only reason it's there is because "the network" forced Joss to put that in. Which I think is kind of bizarre, and reminds me of those elaborate theories about how co-stars are having sex but "the network" or "the producers" made them sign a contract that says they're not allowed to openly be together.

It just seemed like a really interesting addition to the "Joss is a feminist therefore it is amazing" idea.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 18:41 on 2009-03-02

I've seen a number of comments about this show (which I haven't seen) lately referring to the skimpy clothing, for instance, where people claim that the only reason it's there is because "the network" forced Joss to put that in.

It's something you always get with auteur-types. Everything that is brilliant about their work is a result of their genioos, anything that is less great about it is a result of other people interfering with their genioos.

To be fair, I can see that it's unfair to criticize Whedon for having to work within the limits of his medium - a TV drama about a hot young woman will get made, a TV drama about a dumpy unattractive young woman won't get made. On the other hand, one cannot be entirely absolved of responsibility for the standards of a group of which you are a part (and this, again, is my problem with the whole Man!Feminism thing).

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 21:33 on 2009-03-02Also, for the love of god, it's Whedon. He's one of the few people in TV whose name next to the words "Writer", "Director" or "Producer" is, in and of itself, a massive draw. (Auteur writer/directors tend to be vastly more common in film because it's a medium which is just plain friendlier to them - witness David Lynch's failure to get the coherent half of

Mulholland Drive

accepted by ABC). Whedon is arguably more free of the networks' meddling than 99% of the other writers and directors in his medium, simply because the networks

want his name attached to the product

.

Which of course brings its own dangers. When

Firefly

wasn't working out for the network, they didn't try to change it: they just killed it.

[pankopop]

(Dis)Content Creators

Youtubers, 2014’s lasting models of Harrasment, and how the internet is suddenly a lot more left than you’d think.

(Note: pardon the messy mishmash of Unicѻde characters here and there, I’d rather not be part of the witch hunt for masturbatory mass-debαting, and I find flying under the S.E.O. radar helps that endeavor.)

Recently, Јѻntroп’s been acting the right dick. He’s never been the smartest cookie, and it’s not his paid job to be the shining example of internet public figuredom. But people are kinda reasonably pissed about his “whats wrong about locking refugees out lol” tweetstorm of late. And a lot of it, I’m sure, is a kind of disappointment. There’s a lot of people out there who look up to him, know his life story, and I guess for some reason expected more compassion from him.

To be honest, this isn’t super surprising to anyone who’s familiar with the circles of the Youtube creators. While there’s lots of crossover, and some inevitable bickering here and there, you can roughly feel out the corners of the map.

There’s a contingent of mostly fairly funny and talented animators who met on Nҽwgrѻunds and ended up on Youtube (which ended up sucking for said animators). It’s a tremendous shame that the general humor of the group turned so obsessively toward “Fҽmιnαzϊ SЈש censorship” and anti-sheeple insular rhetoric. But nonetheless, they and Јѻn ended up being quite close knit, and yeah, of course he was going to be a bit emboldened.

Јѻn has always been a bit politically green – I remember him in a podcast (might have been one of the old TGS Co-Optionαl podcasts) where he was trying to defend his claim that people shouldn’t get mad about videogame representations of women, with a woman present. It was like watching a cat fight its collar. He was a consequence free child of the 2007 internet age where “rape” and “retarded” were words to throw out for shock effect. He ended up on rҽddιt, the magical internet island of lost boys who never grow up. Women aren’t oppressed, racism is over, yadda yadda.

In turn, a symbolic partnership with Sӑrgѻп of Ѧkҟӓd, a non-face of gӑṃеrgatҽ, was nothing special. It doesn’t take much to join in the circle jerk; tweet about cultish sheeple being racist toward MEN and you’ve earned yourself a seat.

Still, how dangerous can the partnership of such a pop icon and a chin stroking self-acclaimed genius of a cock get? How will this play out?

To be honest, I think it’s been playing out since it began. It got us into this political mess, and remains the swarming gadflies of twitter we know and love today.

MECHANISMS OF THE GATE

This cybercultural partnership between pop culture and the rҽichwing should remind us about the ways in which Gӑṃеrgatҽ still affects the current political climate, specifically in online spheres. Notably, it’s interesting to see the cultural attitudes remain the same. Even in the face of finding something absolutely ridiculous to defend, the urge to take the pseudo-philosophical discѻurse to fucking prove intellectual superiority™ is apparently too delicious.

During my Bachelor, I researched that 2014 pissbaby fiasco to death. I would work it in to whatever essay I could, and for a while compulsively hoarded every available peer- reviewed article on online-shittiness-culture I could find. Something I wrote a lot about when I was filtering through gӑṃеrgatҽ’s language was not only a unified lexicon of insult, posturing, and argumentation, but a specific frameworks and ideologies of rationality.

Almost all of gӑṃеrgatҽ was hinged on insisting on two things:

-Race doesn’t exist, it’s not a thing, so stop making it a thing. If you’re talking about race, then you’re using PoC as an argumentative crutch, and surely no better than a racist. Erasure must occur, because I don’t want to have to defend my view that whiteness is normalcy.

-Gender does exist, it’s binary, and all common-sense differences between genders are rooted in biological fact. For example, women don’t play real video games because their biological drive for empathy stops them from shooting baddies.

(Queerness, and expression thereof, are often side stepped. Usually lumped into the race category - “gay people have nothing to do with it”. Sometimes lumped into the gender category, as often non-normative heteromasculinity is seen as performed.)

Regarding race, it is an argument of who belongs. Regarding gender, it is an argument of who is superior. These tenets of social structure in the world of “whoever debates wins” are still smeared across the comment sections of the world today. It’s only been two and a half years. The people who felt empowered in the gӑṃеrgatҽ movement will hold these attitudes close. 

It appears to me that the biology-backed “common-sense” ideologies regarding gender superiority remain at wild play here. It’s a language of caricatures, and the SЈש is a woman.

The ideological transposition seems to go like this:

The woman, who lacks rationality, and is more prone to emotional outbursts of empathy. is not endowed, biologically, with the clearheaded, objective rationality of men. Therefore, even their empathy is comparatively feigned and weightless, and like the difference between a three year old crying over spilt milk vs. a grown man’s grievance over the death of a loved one.

The thing about worldviews like this is that once the first egg becomes a chicken, it doesn’t take long for the chicken to lay an egg.

Where maybe at first, the SЈש was a kind of woman, but types and tokens blur. All women become likely SЈשs. Women become SЈשs when they have a point that doesn’t align with a man. Eventually, the SЈש is just the woman out of line, refusing to virtuously lick the philosopher-king’s boots and parrot their objectivities.

But this accusation would be an affront to a gӑṃеrgatҽ-minded uberṃҽinsch! Pure sexism actually! Who’s talking about gender here!? We were only talking about how SЈשs are unreasonable! YOU’RE the one being sexist.

You can trace some of that same DNA of the Discѻurse™ around the refugee crisis. As soon as you reframe/move the goalposts of a racist problem to a Nationality problem, then you cannot by definition be islamophobic, because you’re not talking about humans anymore. You’re talking geography. Even though you did just totally say something incredibly racist, it doesn’t count cuz the tweet was deleted.

I’ve seen the term “Virtue Positioning” being tossed around recently. It’s interesting to note that as the subjects for debate get bloodier and messier and death counts become necessarily attributed to it, the goobermeinsch’s rebuttal is that empathy is sidestepping the issue. Who cares if people die, the important part is I’m taking you to town in INTELLECTUAL CHESS! WHOO! (It matters not that I will only frame the debate in ways where I win).

The positioning that’s actually going on is ideological frameworks of gender being set up so that the left is female, the right is male, and therefore the right wins. It’s what fuelled gӑṃеrgatҽ in 2014, and I guess the tactic’s effective enough to keep around.

“WHATEVER-DUDE” SOLUTIONS

What do you do when confronted then? I feel it would be pointless bringing this similarity up and leaving it hanging. If there’s been two years of resisting this harassment, then there’s gotta be some methods to employ.

When you’re asked to play house-rules calvinball, you know that you’re not going to win any medals. What can debate possibly hope to accomplish right now?

“Whatever dude. Have a good life.”

We are not here to debate. We are here to donate. We are here to protest. We are here to resist.

(DISCLAIMER: I mean, for god’s sake listen to the people who have legitimate problems and call-outs. Intersectionality is not divisive, it is the all-too-frayed twine that will unite people together, and everyone resisting would do well to strengthen our bonds with allies by throwing out our fuckhead perceptions about immutable goodness of the ego.)

The march does not halt to win over a “well AAAAaactually...” Your arguments belong with the demanding of accountability. Your energy should be spent doing what you can to help those who you can help. Internet progressives, just do your thing. Be there for the oppressed, and win the day - or as many days you can.

The Right’s not winning people over right now – when you get what you want out of a scam, you don’t hang around and try to patch up friendships. The thing about supporting and defending fascism is that before long, they turn you into an outsider. It doesn’t matter who you are, if your eyebrows are a bit too thick you’ll become a muslim. Your sexual deviancy makes you dangerous. Your chronic illness makes you a leech. Could just be a wrong place, wrong time. No matter how many boots you lick, they will step on you.

Sooner or later, people will see the trouble they’re in. They’ll convert. The Right’s numbers are always borrowed. Until that point, we’re gonna look real cultish to the cult. That’s how cults work: the world’s gone to shit and you’re the only “sane” ones.

YOUR HEROES ARE LEFT

There’s at least one silver lining to this cross-section of internet personality and this general craziness: a good majority of Youtube personalities know what’s up. In the last few weeks, I’ve seen a lot of people drop the apolitical guise. It’s not that they were centrists before - talking politics was just dodgy in the industry. But there’s a healthy amount of “fuck it” right now, and I’m happy for all of those sore, long-bitten tongues. I’m glad there’s enough of a contingent of generally older, 20+ viewers and consumers and patrons to send words of support and relief that their podcast hosts aren’t ทαzi sympathizers. There’s still a wall of sludge, but skins are being quickly hardened.

I’m most happy for all the kids. All of those 15 year olds who thought they were on the culture war’s hateful winning side, to wake up one day and their twitter feed is filled with distressed, active, and empathetic people. Marching and resisting.

Although it’s certainly not the entire story, a lot of these personalities are looked up to. They are the adults who “get” videogames, who talk about Anime and comic books – they’re 2017’s equivalent to the cool record shop owner in the 70’s who introduces you to punk.

I hope this “fuckit” storm shattered a lot of assumptions, and I hope that it spurs a reconsidering of the places where the good stuff on the internet comes from. (Hint: it’s not hatred).