#Extention Rebellion

[msclaritea]

Monet’s red period

He was the sugar-sweet Tchaikovsky of impressionism. But as the Royal Academy's blockbusting new exhibition will show, Claude Monet was also a radical

By Andrew Mar, Sat 9 Jan 1999 22.19 EST

The Guardian

"...There is not much cachet in liking Monet; rather the reverse. This is art for the easy-on-the-eye brigade, the philistine rich and the know-nothing middle classes. Isn't it? He is soft, luscious and commercial; the Tchaikovsky of the paintbrush, turning out sweet, dancing little Sugar Plum fairies of paintings, isn't he? It's clever, technically brilliant; but eye-candy. No?

Such snobbery tends to drive curators to justify Monet exhibitions by insisting on his political and art-revolutionary relevance. There is a slight embarrassment about the very popularity of Monet shows, as if they were like the 'erotica' section in posh bookshops which keep them in business but are hardly the sort of thing one would wish to be judged on.

So the curators of this show have gone to some lengths to reclaim Monet as a hard-edged artist, just as happened with the 1990 show, 'Monet in the Nineties'. Then, the emphasis was on putting Monet's images of haystacks, poplars and Rouen cathedral in the context of resurgent patriotism, closely connected with the land and traditional art: he was political, see. Now, the catalogue includes an essay on the connections between late Monet and New York abstract expressionism - almost as if Monet has to be excused, or validated, by linking him with Jackson Pollock.

In each case, the arguments are meticulous - the US academic Paul Hayes Tucker worked on both exhibitions and contributes a superb essay to the catalogue. And indeed, these are not only deliriously beautiful but also radical, extreme and sometimes even difficult paintings, created by an artist who might have been old - he was 60 in 1900 - but was a full, wide-eyed observer of the first quarter of our tragic century.

When it opens, he is recovering from the great trauma which ripped French society apart a few years before: the Dreyfus Affair, in which a Jewish captain was wrongly accused of passing military secrets to the Germans, court-martialled, degraded and deported to solitary confinement. It split a worried nation in two, with viciously anti-semitic, Catholic and right-wing forces, against the Left and the liberals.

The anti-semitic, anti-Dreyfus campaign included, to their shame, Degas, Renoir and Cézanne. But when, with huge courage, Emile Zola led the charge for Dreyfus, Monet sprung quickly to his defence. Zola was convicted of libel and sentenced to imprisonment; instead he fled to England in 1898..."

"Zola was not a Marxist, but he was anti-capitalist; almost everything he writes is a denunciation of the greed, brutality, corruption and hypocrisy that characterised French capitalism in his day"

Emilie Zola, A Political Reading

[professor-beaker]

Today my (homophobic) mom said "we dont want anyone else to move to florida, especially anyone with democratic views" so in response i think everyone on tumblr should move here. Clog the streets. Wear your pins and kiss the same gender under the pink sunset on the fort myers beach. Make her scared to leave her house without encountering her worst fear: bloggers

[v-arbellanaris]

here's the thing, right. like. okay, let's take everything up to the title showing up as the 'origin' style opening for dai, where you establish character. but like. literally what about that opening establishes character. you get brought to the chantry in haven where they briefly discuss executing you before declaring the inquisition. you can either begrudgingly support the people who have actively threatened you repeatedly or you can go uwu i'd love to help you guys out im so excited to be working with you. like. hello.

[jadelotusflower]

I’ve mostly found the prison plot a little meandering, but I do appreciate it as a microcosm of the rebellion. When you oppress a populace by forcing them to bond and work together as interconnected cogs in the machine, once turned, the machine works back against you. The Empire builds the weapons that are used against them.

[fideidefenswhore]

Thomas Stafford was the ninth child and second surviving son of Henry Stafford, 1st Baron Stafford and Ursula Pole. Little is known of his early life, first being mentioned in 1550 as he travelled to Rome, where he associated with his uncle Reginald Cardinal Pole. He spent three years in Italy before travelling to Poland, obtaining the recommendation of King Sigismund Augustus who requested Mary restore him to the Dukedom of Buckingham. Augustus's appeal appeared to have no effect. When Stafford returned to England in January 1554 he joined the rebellion led by Thomas Wyatt; this arose out of concern of Mary's determination to marry Philip II of Spain. The rebellion failed and Thomas was captured and briefly imprisoned in the Fleet Prison before fleeing to France. There, he intrigued with other English exiles and continued to promote his claim to the English throne. On 18 April 1557 (Easter Sunday) Stafford sailed from Dieppe with two ships and over 30 men. Landing in Scarborough on 25 April 1557, he walked into the unprotected castle and proclaimed himself Protector of the Realm,[2] attempting to incite a new revolt by denouncing the Spanish marriage, railed against increased Spanish influence and promised to return the crown "to the trewe Inglyshe bloude of our owne naterall countrye".[1][3][4] Stafford claimed he had seen letters at Dieppe showing that Scarborough and 12 other castles would be given to Philip II and garrisoned with 12,000 Spanish soldiers before his coronation.[5] Three days later, the Earl of Westmorland recaptured the castle and arrested Stafford and his companions. Stafford was beheaded for treason on 28 May 1557 on Tower Hill, after imprisonment in the Tower of London. Thirty-two of his followers were also executed after the rebellion.[6].

[elysianymph]

i just saw ur bellatrix post and yess to all of that esp the “she was the first disappointment” line like i literally have a post about her in my drafts that says just that bc that’s what she always would be to druella, she was the first one and after her everything went wrong for druella

as always ur brain is simply <3333

ik we talked about walburga sirius and regulus but i think we might've touched on the black sisters and said something along these lines too??? or maybe i'm going crazy idk

but yeah bellatrix was like the omen of what was to come. eldest daughter, first disappointment and — to cygnus' horror — a mini walburga.

bellatrix acted like an heir during her childhood, much like walburga and sirius, but she was criticized for it like her aunt because she was a woman. she doesn't need to act like that, her job is to stay quiet and wait for some older, rich pureblood to ask for her hand in marriage. bellatrix wasn't meant for a life like that and her deteriorating mental state was enough proof of that

[xiakeponz]

😩the slow burn in love's rebellion was good while it lasted but not slow enough, why do the characters get together hdfgjkdhfgk do it slower much slower don't get together until the end shdfjhawjkhdua

[cashewally-sarcastic]

*points at Found Family Deca au's NB* he is an eepy guy

For all of the stuff he's been through you gotta understand it i guess

[starlooove]

He is in fact not cool with his friends killing people he just can’t do shit about it and the fact that he thinks he can do smth about (and does!) when it comes to his kids is like a major point

[heniareth]

It's interesting to note how the Tabris Origin, which involves a wedding, kidnapping and attempted sexual harassment, and fighting your way through an estate full of guards, is the Origin where gender plays a huge role in what story you experience. M!Tabris will always storm the castle coming to the rescue of his cousin and his betrothed, while F!Tabris will always have to fight her way out because the men in her life can't fully protect her (Nelaros dies, Soris literally hands her the sword, Cyrion is powerless to stop the abduction. Okay, this may be a little unfair to Soris who does fight side by side with Tabris and counsels caution the same way regardless of Tabris's gender). I'd go so far as to say that Tabris is the only Origin where the gender of your PC has a definite impact on the story.

TLDR to the rant in the tags: Tabris is constrained on all sides by being an elf, by their gender, in part by their family, and by society at large (both the Alienage and the wider city).

[msclaritea]

Environmental Costs | Costs of War

The U.S. Department of Defense is the world’s single largest institutional consumer of oil – and as a result, one of the world’s top greenhouse gas emitters.

The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan have had a serious impact on the natural environments of these countries. Military vehicles consume petroleum-based fuels at an extremely high rate, with the vehicles used in the war zones having produced many hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and sulfur dioxide in addition to CO2. Air pollution from military vehicles and weaponry has adversely affected public health among civilians in the war zones and US service members.

Heavy military vehicles have raised more dust than usual, particularly in Iraq and Kuwait, and service members’ exposures to inhaled toxins from that dust have correlated with respiratory disorders that often prevent them from continuing to serve and performing everyday activities such as exercise.

The water supply in the war zones has been contaminated by oil from military vehicles and depleted uranium from ammunition. Along with the degradation of the natural resources in these countries and a radical destruction of forest cover, the animal and bird populations have also been adversely affected.

Iraqi medical doctors and health researchers have called for more research on war-related environmental pollution as a potential contributor to the country’s poor health conditions and high rates of infections and diseases.

The U.S. Department of Defense is the world’s single largest consumer of oil – and as a result, one of the world’s top greenhouse gas emitters.

Destruction of military base garbage in burn pits and other military operations have exposed soldiers and civilians to dangerous levels of pollutants.

Deforestation in Afghanistan as a result of illegal logging, particularly by warlords, has destroyed wildlife habitat.

In Iraq, increases in cancer, birth defects, and other conditions have been associated with war-related environmental damage and toxins.

Recommendations

The Pentagon should track war-related injuries, illnesses, and deaths among service members as a result of toxic dust exposure during deployments.

It should regularly disclose its own fuel consumption for each war zone and supporting operations.

Page updated as of November 2019

[tweedfrog]

Thinking too much about Rhaella in your au and how the children of her friends are lost to her 😭. Jaime in a hated position, Cersei not a pleasant person, and Elia driven away by her stupid son. I’m glad she has her younger kids and her grandchildren but god she deserves so much more! I hope she finds peace and joy and more companionship eventually.

She has friends and companions! I've got her being friends with the septas who were sequestered with her when Aerys was all paranoid and forced her to stay inside Maegors holdfast.

It's sad that her friends Joanna and Princess [insert dornish female name here] are dead and she isn't good friends with any of the children they had anymore but i wouldn't say her life is awful or extremely lonely. She's made her peace with where she's at and she's a lot happier now that Aerys is dead.

[bookwyrminspiration]

What do you think of Mr. Forkle’s relationship with Sophie? I don’t think he crosses any boundaries in how he treats her, but he seems to care for her very little. This is something I can understand because he has to maintain a figure of authority in order to lead her and the Black Swan, but it is creating many issues between them because Sophie thinks he views her as a means to an end. Do you think Mr. Forkle should treat her like a father would treat their child or how is currently?

interesting question! The way I see it, their relationship currently is near the best option. There's some aloofness he's had to assume as Sophie was younger to protect her, but now she's older and it feels more balanced and appropriate

I don't think Mr. Forkle should be a fatherly figure; Sophie has other people to fill that role, and it may even interfere in what they both want. If he was someone like Grady, I think there'd be too much familial investment to properly conflict and challenge each other in the ways they need to. Mr. Forkle might shelter her to the point of hindering progress and become too occupied with the specifics of her well-being to focus on his other responsibilities. Sophie might struggle to push him the way she needs to out of concern for their relationship.

The way I've posed that makes it sound like it's an emotionless relationship, but I'd actually disagree with the assessment that he cares for her little. I think he cares for her in a different way and capacity, but one that still matters.

Mr. Forkle and Sophie need to both be strong figures related through the Black Swan and their shared passions, because that's how they get things done. Sophie pushes back and demands things of him because that's how they're tied together, and Mr. Forkle understands there are other people who can care for her like parents so he can move past that and address her as an equal in what they do.

He does have to maintain a measure of authority, but I don't think that negates his ability to care for her. We can see it in how he lets her chose when he can (whether to manifest her enhancing), how he tries to teach her to flourish on her own (explaining the mistakes of her storehouse fire so she'll be smarter next time), encouraging the statements she makes (complimenting her new moonlark symbol), being very careful and concerned with how he created her (testing on himself before on her), and how his mistakes linger with him (reflection on her star-shaped scar from his needle-injected allergy remedy).

Being a father figure isn't the only way he can care for her, and their relationship of butting heads and pushing each other serves them best. I've bashed Mr. Forkle plenty before, but when it comes down to it I think he is in the best role for him. He cares, but like a mentor. Guiding her and watching her flourish, sometimes their interests conflicting, but ultimately bettering each other.

At least that's how I see it! I just don't think father figure is what they need from each other, but that's my interpretation

[tired-needs-sleep]

speaking of sleep schedules. sara has been constantly tired throughout the events of desolation because their natural sleep schedule was turned backwards, upside down and inside out. there's times where they don't feel tired like during battles or other major events but eventually their sleep debt catches up to them. so i think that's my explain for sara being able to just sleep for a whole 24 hours if they're allowed to, they're just really deep in sleep loss.

[v-arbellanaris]

one of my favourite parts of dai, which i don't usually speak about, is when you get to halamshiral, and they announce the inquisitor. at least half my inquisitors recruit the mages as free allies of the inquisition, and yet at halamshiral, the inquisitor is credited as vanquisher of the rebel mages, crusher of the vile apostates of the mage underground. sera says 'he's so full of it! that's not how it went.' and it's vivienne who says 'remember to smile. this is all for show, my dear.'

this, amongst many moments, really encapsulates the heart of the story inquisition is trying to tell, and there's a hundred little moments that build towards this story. i have talked before on this blog about the original purpose of the inquisition, in-world, which was both to bring the mages back under chantry control and, if necessary, to recreate a loyal templar order. that is explicitly the context in which the herald is brought into as a character - that is the 'problem' they are to address, the same way the warden's narrative problem is posed as 'there is a blight that needs to be stopped' and hawke's problem is posed, interestingly in a dual-layer kind of way which is both 'i need to keep my family safe and secure' and 'how did we get to this [gestures at the aftermath of da2]?'. the narrative then goes ahead to fill in that story. and even in these stories, throughout, there are so many things building up to the narrative beats in inquisition. everything from the portrayal of the grey wardens as a heroic force in dao and how quickly the origins goes to show the wide depth of perspectives and feelings you can actually have around being conscripted and how the joining ritual - and jory's death - expose the true heart of the order's utilitarian approach, to loghain's status as the hero of river dane and his role in the rebellion and the man he actually is under that mythos, to the entire narrative of da2 being framed around this "champion" who the chantry is painting as a deliberate saboteur and conspirator (with the grey wardens) to bring the chantry and the circles down, to the ameridan reveal in jaws of hakkon, and the evanuris reveal in trespasser. there is so much story and deconstruction throughout the series of the 'chosen one' narratives - each story's protagonist has been a "chosen one" who was never really chosen, survived through chance, and shouldered responsibility for a wide variety of reasons. and their actions become legends and myths that consume any trace of who they really were. and this culminates in an extreme way in dai, because the role of the herald - which is who your pc is before they're the inquisitor - has religious significance, and in-world, andrastianism is the most dominant religion. and the religion is SO culturally pervasive, to the extent there are no governing bodies in the entirety of thedas are secular, and most are andrastian-aligned. even orzammar's belief in paragons and the stone is aligned to a religion, even if it's not andrastianism - atheism and secularism is something entirely unthinkable within a thedosian society. so of course the impact of the herald of andraste is different to the hero of ferelden or the champion of kirkwall.

but i think it's disingenous and outright insulting to insist that this was done well, or with finesse, or that the narrative tools used to convey these themes should somehow be overlooked in light of the mere presence of The Theme in the Narrative. i've spoken before on how often the writing in dai doesn't want you to think - it removes the options to argue, to present you with a statement that is The Objective Truth, as though if enough of your companions repeat the statement, it will become true. and i, myself, and plenty of people in the fandom - particularly people of colour - have been vocal about the implications around the framing of these Objective Truths, when you consider the real life analogues that these Truths are drawn from, by bioware's own admittance. that's not even touching the inherent problems with the narrative push of "imperialism is better than chaos". therefore, i cannot and do not understand responses to criticisms of dai that essentially come back around to "well, you have to understand that the dai pc is not written to be a leftist, they're written to be a centrist" - inquisition, especially, rewards conservatism specifically, as a first point. as a second point, why would having an option to have a pc with leftist or progressive views - not just progressive for thedas, but progressive according to modern values - take away from either the deconstruction of chosen one narratives or the idea of losing your identity that's pervasive throughout dragon age as a whole?

i have spoken to the blank-slate feeling to the inquisitor as a deliberate writing choice, one that people suggest is actually feeding into the themes of dai, but i argue that it's actually a deliberate writing choice so that new players come in without any opinions or experiences of the world at all, and thus become more primed to accept Objective Truths from the companions. thus, criticisms -- certainly mine are -- around the lack of options to argue with your companions stems not from wanting to be right, but from being allowed to have a different opinion. how does having a different opinion to what's publicly acceptable, or desirable, actually not enhance the themes of identity loss in dai?

yes, you cannot decide that your warden does not become a warden - but you live through the experience of becoming a warden, to show why it's necessary. you are allowed to have complicated opinions about being a warden, and act based on those opinions. yes, you cannot choose to not play as hawke, but you can choose exactly what kind of hawke you want to play - someone pro-templar, or pro-mage, or someone who starts out at one end and comes out of it the other end, someone who values family or money or status and prestige, someone who is funny or diplomatic or violent. you have a choice. and when the inquisitor doesn't have any background at all, there is no justification for why the inquisitor needs to be a centrist, or why they would be one. my circle mage pc could have been part of the rebellion. my cadash could have been someone kicked out of orzammar as a child or someone who lived in dust town before they got to the surface. the lack of backstory for the inquisitor, similar to the warden or hawke, actively weakens the story - how do you write a story about someone losing their personal identity to their growing myth/legend, when there's literally nothing that is ever establishing what they've lost? how do you write a story about someone losing their personal identity, or being subsumed by their role, when there's nothing to indicate their personhood? how much more jarring would it have been to have been proudly and loudly and unapologetically pro-mage and pro-rebellion the entire game, only to get to halamshiral and be called vanquisher of the rebel mages? all of your personal politics and values disappearing and smoothed over in such a visibly visceral way? how much more gutting would it have been to have these values, and speak to them, and argue for them articulately, and still never be able to change your companions' minds, instead of constantly being put in a position where your companions get the last word in on absolutely everything, right down to arguments about slavery with dorian? how much more intense would it have been to have had a wide array of options in dealing with main quests and situations, only to have it boiled down to one thing or one of two decisions, with all the complexities stripped from it? how can you say that being forced to be centrist as the pc is central to the story being told, and not something that actively hampers the themes dai is trying to draw on?

i especially don't know how people can insist to overlook how - as in the methods chosen here - bioware's writing team in dai pushes the deconstruction of the 'chosen one' narrative that is present throughout dragon age. inquisition choses to do this by doubling down and retconning and two-sidesing every single complexity under the sun - from suggesting mages oppressed themselves by rebelling/not every mage even wanted to be free of the circle (while offering limited voices otherwise, and making sure to clarify the voices calling for mage freedom are Evil and Bad), to blaming the dalish for being slaughtered by the exalted marches in the dales, right through to the decision to make ameridan a dalish elf and yes even the decisions made around the writing for the evanuris. and we have to be clear about it, that if the overarching themes of dragon age are deliberate, then this was also a deliberate writing choice, to further emphasise the idea that history is written by the victors, that stories warp and change over time, etc etc. the series' successes in storytelling have been around the subjectivity of absolutely everything; there is no objective truth in dragon age, there is something that happened, and then there is 50 different opinions about it. the codex entries are not objective truth, they're biased reportings from people with agendas and pre-existing beliefs and notions. you can live through the battle of ostagar, and there are still 50 different perspectives on it, and all of them valid from that person's standpoint. inquisition takes a hard swerve from this, to insist on Objective Truths, not because it was the best way to make their point - they've been making their point with subtler storytelling for years - but because it's lazy, racist, colonialist writing. and worse, still, is that this writing is then forced as Objective Truths to you, the player character, with no way to argue even when you have the knowledge, or your pc could reasonably be expected to have the knowledge to counter this information, or to even argue about the interpretation of the "Evidence" you find of these Objective Truths.

and i suppose, if it's not your stories and histories being co-opted, it's easy enough to say having those choices don't matter to the overarching theme. i suppose, if it's not your religions or cultures being borrowed and frankenstein'd into this fictional world and the religion and culture you do identify with are primarily portrayed as inherently correct and superior in a way you were never taught to question, it can seem like questioning those beliefs and opinions in your companions and in npcs is a waste of effort. it's not, but i can see how it might feel that way.

inquisition itself, as a game, does not simply deliver a theme - the narrative tools used to deliver that theme throughout the story are frankly abhorrent. on top of that, key decisions in the plot have little to no immediate, serious consequences (for example, siding with the mages or templars only really has narrative consequences for who you face at fall of haven and in the temple of mythal; there are almost no consequences for kicking the wardens out of orlais; etc etc). companion character quests revolving around whether or not to change and strive for better, or to stay with their old regressive patterns have absolutely no narrative consequences because the world re-sets to status quo. 2/3rds of your choice for divine essentially reinstate the old systems, and only one (vivienne) actually makes any systemic changes to those systems, and the game mechanic itself is incredibly slanted towards choosing the divine that brings everything back to "normal". all following mentions of the media neatly dodge the question of whether you have made any lasting change at all. all to push the narrative that change isn't really possible, because society will always go back to the status quo. and if you try to challenge that status quo, you will just make things worse, so it's better to just stay as it is. nothing matters, no change is permanent, and anything you try to do, people will warp for their own agenda anyway, because you are not you anymore, you are a caricature people will use to justify the way things are and insist it is how it must continue to be.

which is a stupid hill to die on, if you're going to defend the ways inquisition tells its story. even trick weekes themselves find it a trite and bleak storytelling mechanism. when even bioware itself is going "our next narrative will Not be that" - will even be the opposite of that, that it's bullshit not to try to change things at all - it's as good as an admission that the ball was dropped on that in the previous installment.

anyway, i just think it's actually incredibly disingenuous and insulting to address criticisms around narrative framing and the limitations of character responses and choices in inquisition as if its overlooking the story's themes, or somehow missing the point that has been staring us in the face since origins. we know the themes they intended to convey. that still doesn't mean inquisition satisfactorily delivered. which i frankly think even bioware themselves recognised and are actively trying to do better in for da4.

[books-and-omens]

So.

I wonder. I wonder when Aziraphale is going to know.

How long until he realizes what Heaven needs him for? It’s not reform. The Second Coming, they need him in Gabriel’s place to organize the Second Coming, to try and end humanity and time itself.

They were planning a nuclear war to start it off, yes? And then Gabriel literally said, ‘naaaaah’.

(I am laughing hysterically over that moment. “Naaaah.” “Naaaah?” “Yep. Naaaah.”)

They need Aziraphale to stand in Gabriel’s place and repeat after them. To say that amen. And do we think, for a moment, that Aziraphale would? Gabriel is deposed for ‘refusing to exercise his celestial authority’; yes, they can threaten Aziraphale with this same thing, and would he go along with it then?

No. No, he would not.

What does Metatron say about Gabriel’s punishment? “For one prince of Heaven to be cast into the outer darkness makes a good story. For it to happen twice makes it look like there is some kind of… institutional problem.”

“Which there isn’t,” Michael hurries to add.

Two rebellions, in themselves, would look like a pattern. Hey, Heaven—so how about three?

They (or anyway, Metatron specifically) think they can keep Aziraphale in line. Make him do what they need him to do. He is soft, he needs validation, he needs praise, he needs to be separated from his demon and there, that’s it, the bad influence’s gone, he is in their pocket.

He won’t be. Metatron thinks he knows humans; “So predictable,” he says in the coffee shop, condescending.

He thinks he knows Aziraphale, too. And—sure, he does to an extent: Heaven has molded Aziraphale so much, has exercised so much control.

But d’you remember what Crowley says—a side-note, such a seemingly small thing—to explain why Aziraphale is hosting the meeting of the traders’ association? “He’s… unpredictable. He has discovered his civic obligations.”

And I hope it turns out fucking prophetic.

Aziraphale, give them hell.