#also it's been five years and the pandemic and etc etc.

[godofsmallthings]

anyway as a middle aged swiftie (became one in 2014 so i can't rlly call myself elderly) it is your responsibility to educate ur new swiftie friends on the epic highs and lows of swiftiedom. hope this helps.

[aquilaofarkham]

Dying Has Never Frightened Us: Intergenerational Trauma, Healing, & the Burden of Legacy in Castlevania

An analytical and interpretation essay that discusses how the concept of family legacy and duty can lead to intergenerational trauma in the Castlevania franchise. Focuses primarily on the Belmont who found strength from his pain by honouring his family’s legacy no matter how heavy it felt or the burden that came with it and the Belmont who found his own strength from the ones he loved and who loved him in return.

☽ Read the full piece here or click the read more for the text only version ☽

THE BURNING NEED FOR RETRIBUTION: INTRODUCTION

The world has trauma. It is deep, collective, spanning its roots over centuries and territories dating back to when the borders of today never existed, and it has largely gone untreated—but not undiscussed.

From children’s cartoons to award winning dramas, trauma has become one of the most common topics for media to discuss, depict, and dissect. It makes sense given the sort of physical and mental gauntlet which society has been through in the past five years. Sometimes even in just the past twenty-four hours. From an uptick in disasters stemming from climate change, the rise of publicised policy brutality, genocide as a result of settler colonisation, new developments coming to light after decades of denial regarding the residential school system in Canada, and of course a global pandemic which is still making ripples. Then there is the recent examination of generational trauma which differs from culture to culture. The open wounds we’ve already left and will be leaving for future age groups.

Seeing how fiction reflects reality and vice versa, it isn’t any wonder that movies, television shows, and video games find ways of processing this worldwide sensation of frustrated ennui along with the need to find answers as to how regular citizens can fix things, including ourselves, when politicians and world leaders cannot. When reality cannot provide satisfying resolutions, when we are left confused and even angrier than before due to the apparent shortcomings of institutions meant to provide relief towards the average person, it’s natural to look towards specific media. Whether for coping mechanisms, validation for this collective and personal trauma, or simply for cathartic release so the emotions don’t have to remain bottled up.

Castlevania , both its original 2017 series and the most recent entry of Castlevania: Nocturne (as well as the video games which the show is inspired by), is no stranger to this popular trend of storytelling and characterisation. Yet this trend also comes with its own controversy. When done with a deft writer’s hand and a layer of empathetic critical thinking, trauma in fiction and how we heal from its intergenerational effects can be a powerful tool in raising awareness in regards to something left forgotten by the larger public or it can allow viewers to look inwards at themselves. Done poorly or with a lack of empathy and taste, then the floodgates open.

But beyond the usual discourse surrounding trauma in fiction (how to portray a “realistic” panic attack, what makes a “good” victim, the problematic connotations of forgiving one’s abuser, etc.), Castlevania has its own things to say about the lingering effects of grief, guilt, and pain over the course of thirty-two episodes (now a fourty episode runtime with the inclusion of Castlevania: Nocturne season one). The series—particularly the first which ran from 2017 to 2021—has now gained a reputation for being one of the darker animated ventures tackling themes of religious corruption, abuse, sexual manipulation, and injustice among many others. The value and thoughtfulness of each depicted theme ranges from being genuinely compelling to delving into mere shock value yet the series is also known for its uplifting ending and cathartic release from such dark themes.

One could write entire dissertations on each complicated character and their developments. From Dracula’s suicidal tendencies as a result of unchecked grief to Isaac’s conflicted redemptive journey beginning with his unflinching loyalty to the king of vampires and ending with him forging down his own path in life. How characters such as Carmilla, consumed by her inner agonies and burning hatred towards the world to the bitter end, was left isolated from her sisters until she was forced to choose the terms of her own death, while others like Alucard, Sypha, and to an extent Hector rose above their individual torments in favour of hope and survival. However, this examination will focus on the series’ titular family of vampire hunters. Namely, the Belmont who found strength from his pain by honouring his family’s legacy no matter how heavy it felt or the burden that came with it and the Belmont who found his own strength from the ones he loved and who loved him in return.

Note: this essay will delve into speculations and purely interpretative hypotheses stemming from the author’s own opinions in regards to how they personally read the presented text. It will also discuss heavy spoilers for the majority of Castlevania games and the first season of Castlevania: Nocturne.

—

WHAT A HORRIBLE NIGHT FOR A CURSE: THE CYCLE OF TRAGEDY IN THE CASTLEVANIA GAMES

This examination begins in the exact same place as the show began with its inspirations and references: the original video games developed and distributed by Konami Group Corporations. It’s easy to get swept up in the notion that because of the technological limitations with video games at the time, the Castlevania games are devoid of story or characterization. Yet even the most bare bones of a story found in the games can still have something to say about the burden of legacy and how trauma left unconfronted has the possibility of tearing down that legacy. The most prominent example being Castlevania: Symphony of the Night , arguably the first game to begin delving into a deeper story and character driven narrative. It follows the events of Castlevania: Rondo of Blood , a game which portrayed its protagonist Richter Belmont as a force of nature in the face of evil, always knowing what to do, what to say, and emerging victorious without so much as breaking a sweat (or candelabra).

In keeping with the time of its release and the landscape of popular media particularly in Japan, Rondo of Blood feels like a traditional 1990s action anime complete with brightly coloured cutscenes and character designs reminiscent of Rumiko Takahashi and Rui Araizumi (despite the usual classic horror elements present in every Castlevania game). This is most evident with Maria Renard, the second playable protagonist who attacks with her own arsenal of magical animals and even has her own upbeat theme music during the credits when players complete the main story in “Maria mode”. Richter also shares many similar personality traits with his counterpart, namely his optimism in the face of danger and the confidence that he will be the hero of this narrative.

Of course all this changed in the direct follow-up to Rondo of Blood , the aforementioned Symphony of the Night . Arguably the new staple of future Castlevania games to come, not only did it change the gameplay and aesthetic, it changed the very core of the characters as well. The game even begins with the same ending as Rondo of Blood where Richter fights and defeats Dracula with the help of Maria. Then during the opening crawl, we discover that during a time skip, Richter has vanished and Maria is searching for him. Surely this will be nothing less than a heroic rescue and the most powerful Belmont of his century will be restored to his rightful pedestal.

Yet for the first half of Symphony of the Night , the player is faced with a sobering realisation—the villain we’re supposed to be fighting, the one responsible for conjuring Dracula’s castle back into existence, is Richter himself. No longer the hero we’ve come to adore and look up to from the previous game. Of course, the player along with new protagonist Alucard both know that something isn’t right; perhaps Richter isn’t in his sound mind or some nefarious force is possessing him to commit evil deeds. But unless the player solves the right puzzles and find the right in-game items, Symphony ends with Alucard putting down Richter like a rabid dog. However, this ending can be avoided and a whole second half of the game is revealed.

Richter’s canonical ending is left ambiguous at best, tragic at worst. He laments over his moment of weakness, claiming the events of the game were his fault despite Alucard’s insistence that confronting Dracula was always going to be inevitable. Still, the tragedy of Richter’s fate and how he is portrayed in Symphony of the Night comes much later, when it’s implied the Belmonts are no longer capable of wielding the fabled Vampire Killer, a leather whip imbued with supernatural properties that has been passed down generation after generation. One mistake and misjudgment left the Belmont legacy in a perpetual long lasting limbo with the titular hunters themselves seemingly disappearing from history as well, leaving others such as the Order of Ecclesia to pick up the fight against Dracula’s eventual resurgence. It isn’t until the height of World War II (the setting of Castlevania: Portrait of Ruin ) when the whip’s true potential is finally set free thanks to the actions of Jonathan Morris, a distant relative of the infamous vampire slaying family. However, the only way in which Jonathan can reawaken the Vampire Killer is by defeating a manifestation of the person who last wielded it and also whom the whip abandoned nearly two hundred years prior—Richter Belmont.

Yet players and fans don’t get to see it in the hands of another Belmont until the events of 1999 when Julius Belmont defeats the latest incarnation of Dracula and seals his castle away in a solar eclipse. Even then, he loses his memory until thirty years pass and he’s forced to do battle with Soma Cruz, an innocent transfer student who is also the reincarnation of Dracula. If the protagonist of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow succeeds in defeating the cosmic threat that has awakened his supposed “evil” destiny, then Julius can finally lay down the Vampire Killer in peace (until the sequel Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow , of course). If not, the game ends with Julius keeping his promise to Soma should he lose sight of his human side and let Dracula be reborn once again. In a scene that directly mirrors the beginning of Symphony , Julius enters the castle throne room, Soma throws down his wine goblet, and the screen goes black. The cycle continues anew. Julius has upheld the duty of his family name but at what cost.

The theme of tragedy getting passed down through different generations, permeating from person to person even with those who are not Belmonts, is a staple of later Castlevania games following Symphony of the Night . In some instances, pain and trauma is what jumpstarts the story moving forward. Castlevania: Curse of Darkness begins with its protagonist Hector in a direct parallel to Dracula swearing revenge on the one responsible for the murder of his wife; an ultimatum that follows him every step of the way, fuelling his rage and determination up until the penultimate moment when his goal is within reach. Yet even then he cries out, claiming this “murderous impulse” isn’t truly him—it’s the result of an outside force he himself once aided before defecting before the events of the game.

Something similar occurs in Castlevania: Lords of Shadow , an alternative reimagining of the franchise that while still a topic of division amongst most die hard fans has also seen a resurgence of popularity and reevaluation. It begins with Gabriel Belmont grieving over the death of his own wife (a trope which is unfortunately common amongst the majority of Castlevania titles). This is a wound that follows him throughout his journey until an even more painful and shattering twist regarding Marie Belmont’s demise is revealed to Gabriel later in the game.

However, there is one example from the games that stands above the rest in regards to the sort of damage which generational trauma as a result of familial duty and legacy, upheld to an almost religious degree, can inflict. So much so that even a declaration of retribution can evolve into a generational curse.

—

HUNT THE NIGHT: LEON BELMONT & THE MYTH OF FREE WILL

The Castlevania timeline didn’t always have a set beginning. An inciting incident by which all future stories, characters, and inevitable calamities could base themselves off of. Rather it changed from game to game until a definitive origin was settled in 2003 with the release of Castlevania: Lament of Innocence . For at least two games, the starting point was supposed to be with Simon Belmont, making his way through a labyrinth of dark forests and cursed towns, before finally traversing the ever changing fortress in Transylvania to defeat Dracula. He even went as far as to gather the remains and resurrect the eponymous lord of his own choice just to rid himself of another curse entirely. 

Castlevania protagonists are always cursed by something. Whether it be the cause of Dracula’s influence, their own actions as seen in Lords of Shadow , a curse of the flesh like how Simon had to tackle his own ailment in Castlevania II: Simon’s Quest , or something else just as common as Dracula’s curse: the burden of honouring a family duty.

A basic yet iconic 1986 entry followed by a sequel that had potential especially with the first appearance of the now famous “Bloody Tears” track but suffered from a rather confusing and lacklustre end product. Then suddenly the starting point for the franchise timeline changed drastically. Castlevania III: Dracula’s Curse despite the numerical inclusion in its title stands as more of a prequel, detailing the exploits of the Belmont who came before Simon. Not much was altered in the grand scheme of things; the titular vampire hunter still essentially slays Dracula with the help of three other playable characters, said final boss having been driven mad and more violent than ever by humanity’s slight against him. However, not only were the methods by which Dracula is defeated changed but players were given more insight into the sort of burden placed upon the Belmont family name.

When the story of Dracula’s Curse begins, protagonist Trevor Belmont isn’t revered as a legend or hero but rather a blight on larger society who the people only turn to as a last ditch effort against rising evil. The regular god-fearing people of Wallachia now fear the Belmonts and their power (it is also implied that some still feared the barbarian-esque Simon despite his legendary status) so the family is excommunicated. Trevor is forced to enlist three other outcasts—or simply two other fighters, depending on which version of the story you examine—in order to carry out the family business. Even when the rest of the world has shunned them and there are plenty of others just as capable of stopping the forces of evil, a Belmont still has a destiny to fulfil. 

Yet once a series has gone on for long enough, things within the established canon are bound to change—again and again. Whether through re-examination in order to line it up better with present day morals and sensibilities, or through good old fashioned retconning in favour of something more interesting, more thought out, or less convoluted. Other times, it’s simply because either the creator or viewers wanted it to happen. In 1997, this occurred with the release of Castlevania Legends on the GameBoy, a prequel to Dracula’s Curse that was meant to serve as the actual origin for the Belmonts, Dracula, and even his son Alucard. Instead of Trevor, the very first Belmont to fight Dracula is now his mother, Sonia Belmont, seventeen years old and already burdened with the glorious purpose of her bloodline.

Sonia is undoubtedly the protagonist of her own story with agency and drive. However, the game ends with a stark reminder of why the Belmonts have a place in the Castlevania universe. The last we see of Sonia in Legends is in the form of an epilogue where she holds her newborn child and states that one day when he’s grown, he will “be praised by all the people as a hero”. Despite her triumph over Dracula—a monumental feat itself—it seems that her purpose in the end (the purpose of most Belmonts other than to forever fight evil in fact) was to merely continue the bloodline so that descendants can carry out a promise made centuries before by another Belmont—someone that neither Simon, Trevor, Julius, or Richter ever knew.

The inevitability of sudden retcons within long-running media was not as kind to Legends as it was to Dracula’s Curse . Because of how the in-game events conflicted with subsequent entries (for example the implication that Trevor is actually the son of Alucard, thus further tying the Belmonts to Dracula through blood as well as duty), both Legends and Sonia were completely removed from the canon timeline. This is merely one reason why the next attempt at creating the definitive origin for the franchise, now a cult favourite among certain subsections of the fan community, was regarded with some animosity. However, twenty years after its release, Castlevania: Lament of Innocence is considered by many as an underrated entry. It is certainly the darker title where both the hero and villain stumble through their own hardships yet neither emerges completely victorious by the end.

The opening narration crawl of Lament of Innocence describes the lives of Leon Belmont and Mathias Cronqvist. They spend most of their lives as reflections of each other; one grows into more of a fighter while the second is coveted for his intellect and ambition. Both are valorous, honourable, and products of their own respective plights. Despite his service to the church, Leon is soon systematically stripped of everything save for the clothes on his back because he wouldn’t follow their orders blindly. While Mathias is forced to watch as an uncaring god (the very same god he serves) takes away a figure of pure virtue and love. This figure, Elisabeta Cronqvist who appears to be a splitting image of Dracula’s next deceased wife Lisa Tepes, was the last remaining tie Mathias still had to whatever bit of morality he still feels, which he eventually throws away when deciding to drag his only friend and everything he holds dear into hell alongside him.

The difference is how both men react to those personal horrors and how they let it govern their pasts, presents, and futures not just for themselves but for others who follow after the dust has supposedly settled. Two men, two best friends turned hateful enemies because of an interlinked tragedy. Not only that, but also because of their perspectives, morals, and the way they view a world that is unkind to them. Both were spurred by the death of loved ones, both used it as a conduit, or rather a catalyst for the radically opposing directions in which their choices take them and their families. Leon chooses to struggle onwards towards a world free from darkness and horror despite his pain. Mathias chooses to revel in that very same darkness and pain with a fire that would burn for aeons. In the end, one thing is absolute. A single thing the two men can agree upon as they flee down adverse paths: one of them will destroy the other.

Yet the timeline of Castlevania proves that this choice comes at a great cost for the Belmonts in particular. By the end of Lament of Innocence , Mathias has revealed himself to be the great manipulator pulling the strings behind the scenes. Due to the immense grief he felt over losing Elisabeta to a presumably common illness made untreatable because of the time period’s medical limitations (coupled with his own arrogance and narcissism), Mathias finally becomes Dracula. Dominion over death and even god by has been achieved by doing what Leon’s righteously moral mind cannot comprehend: transforming himself into an immortal creature driven by bloodlust. All he had to do was lie, cheat, and cruelly outsmart everyone else around him. That of course includes Leon as Mathias’ manipulation tactics were also the cause of the mercy killing of Sara Tarantoul, Leon’s fiance, to stop her from turning into a vampire herself. After watching his former friend escape before the sun can rise and disposing of Dracula’s constant right hand man Death, Leon finally feels his anger over such a betrayal boil over. He gives one final message to Mathias, now the new king of the vampires: “This whip and my kinsmen will destroy you someday. From this day on, the Belmont Clan will hunt the night.”

This is how Castlevania: Lament of Innocence ends. Unlike other entries like Symphony of the Night, Aria of Sorrow, or Harmony of Dissonance , there is no good, neutral, or bad ending that can be achieved if the player is aware of certain secrets and tricks. There is only one for Leon and Mathias. The inclusion of multiple endings in some Castlevania games versus a singular set ending in others may seem like a small coincidental narrative choice in conjunction with evolving gameplay, but it matters in the case of Lament of Innocence. From the moment Leon enters the castle to rescue his fiance, the wheel has already started turning and his fate is sealed. Mathias has already won and Sara, along with future Belmonts, are already doomed. And Leon’s ultimatum made in the heat of the moment would go on to have repercussions centuries later. “Hunting the night” gave the Belmonts purpose but it also burdened them with that exact purpose. While Dracula deals in curses, so does the Belmont family—a curse of duty that gets passed down throughout the bloodline.

Leon Belmont was of course never malicious or cruel like Mathias was. He never wanted to deliberately curse his family because he suffered and so should they. His choice was made out of anger and retribution. Still, it goes on to affect Simon, Sonia, Julius, and others in drastic yet different ways. Yet in the case of specific Belmonts like Trevor and Richter, we see how this family legacy can have varied consequences in far more detail through the introduction of animation and serialised writing into the Castlevania franchise.

—

SOMETHING BETTER THAN A PILE OF RUINS: TREVOR BELMONT & STRENGTH FROM LEGACY

If there’s one thing that Castlevania makes abundantly clear with its four season runtime, it is that trauma does not inherently make people better or more virtuous. We of course see this from the games with Mathias and his personal crusade against god which leads to the complete dissolvement of his closest friendship. Or with Hector and the rage he feels towards his wife’s murderer, who also happens to be his former comrade under Dracula’s employment. Even Leon’s promise to both his friend, now his most despised enemy, and future descendants can also be an example of how gut reactions to pain, grief, and betrayal can have damaging consequences in the long run. This particular dissection of trauma when it affects a survivor negatively and in almost life-altering ways while still giving them a chance at achieving their own method of healing is most apparent with the animated representation of Trevor Belmont.

At its core, the first season of Castlevania airing in July of 2017 with four episodes in total is inspired by the events of Dracula’s Curse with the following seasons taking more from Curse of Darkness along with original story elements. It begins with the brutal execution of Lisa Tepes after she is falsely accused of being a witch. Shortly afterwards, Dracula declares war on all of humanity in an explosion of grief-riddled vengeance (a declaration that is not dissimilar to Mathias’ cursing of god after Elisabeta’s admittedly more natural death). Hundreds of civilians are slaughtered in the capital city Targoviste and hoards of night creatures descend upon more townships across Wallachia. 

This would be the perfect opportunity for a Belmont to stand up and fight back except there is one problem: the Belmonts have been eradicated from this world on false grounds of black magic and aiding the vampire lords instead of hunting them—much like how Lisa was slandered and paid the price with her own life.

The only Belmont left surviving is Trevor himself and his introduction does not paint him in the most optimistic or even heroic light. In the midst of being excommunicated by the church, he’s been wandering aimlessly for the past few years while languishing in whatever tavern he stumbles upon. In one particular bar Trevor finds himself in, he overhears the other patrons cursing the Belmonts and blaming them for Dracula’s siege upon humanity. He tries to stay out of it and not bring too much attention to himself until one glance at the family emblem stitched into his shirt breast is enough to ignite an all out skirmish.

Trevor hides his true identity not because he’s ashamed of it, but for his own safety and self preservation. In fact, the opinion he holds of his family is the total opposite from disdain for the sort of legacy they have saddled him with even in death. He reacts strongly to false accusations directed towards the Belmonts, angrily correcting the bar patrons by stating that his family fought monsters. However, he quickly realises he’s said too much and tries saving face by once again detaching himself from possibly being connected to the aforementioned Belmonts.

It’s only when Trevor is backed into a corner and is fresh out of snappy drunk retorts (thanks to a few hard hits to his nether regions) does he finally admit to his real lineage. As mentioned earlier, Trevor finds himself caught up in the first real brawl of the series not because of the pride he feels in himself but the immense pride he feels for his bloodline. All the while, he’s given up trying to hide what he is—a Belmont—and what he was born to do—fight fucking vampires.

Every time Trevor has the opportunity to bring up his bloodline whether in a fight or in conversation, it’s usually spoken with some bravado and weight even when he’s inebriated. However, when visiting the ruins of the Belmont ancestral home in season two and thus directly confronted with what little remains of his family legacy, Trevor loses all that previous bluster and becomes far more contemplative. He doesn’t reveal much of what it was like to actually live as a Belmont, only that it was “fine” and “no one was lonely in this house”. Even when staring up at the portrait of Leon Belmont, he says nothing and instead firmly  grips the very weapons which his ancestor must have also wielded.

It’s clear that Trevor feels no shame, bitterness, or lack of respect towards his family history despite the hardships that have come with it. Still, it’s difficult for him to truly accept the duty of being a Belmont and Trevor continually struggles with it over the course of two full seasons. Upon arriving at the ruined city of Gresit which is under constant threat of night creature attacks, Trevor doesn’t seem particularly concerned with the people’s plight or with helping them. He inquires about what’s been happening by speaking with a few local merchants but it’s only in order for him to gain a better picture of the situation that Gresit finds itself in. Otherwise, he’s simply passing through on his way to another tavern, fist fight, sleeping spot, or all three. Until he puts aside his own needs for self-protection in favour of saving an elder Speaker (a fictionalised group of nomads original to the Castlevania show who have made it their mission to help less fortunate communities and pass on their histories via oral tradition) from a potential hate crime committed by two supposed men of the cloth.

This moment acts as a representation of the first chip in Trevor’s carefully maintained armour. During the bar fight, he claimed over and over again that he was a Belmont in both skill and purpose. However, Trevor hasn’t done much to prove such a proclamation. Because of his ennui and poor coping mechanisms due to lingering trauma, he’s been all talk and not a lot of action—until this point. At first he tells himself to walk away, this sort of confrontation doesn’t concern him. Then he remembers where he comes from and uses the very same family heirloom to help someone physically weaker than himself.

Yet when he accompanies the elder back to where the other Speakers have found shelter from the monsters repeatedly demanding their heads as well as future night creature attacks, Trevor’s metaphorical walls are erected back up. He won’t take any part in this eradication of humanity whether as a victim or perpetrator and especially not to stop it. The people of Wallachia made their choice in the unjust murder of Dracula’s innocent wife, they made their choice when they decided to massacre what was left of his family, and the church made their choice when they decided to fight Dracula’s armies themselves without the Belmonts. Why should he lift a finger (or whip) to save the masses?

Despite this nihilistic attitude, Trevor proves to be a poor defeatist. He still desperately wants to protect the Speakers and warns them of an oncoming pogrom planned for them. A massive hate crime fueled by superstition and facilitated by the corrupt Bishop of Gresit which will supposedly save the city from night creature ambushes (this can be interpreted as a direct allegory meant to comment on how minority groups such as Jewish and Romani communities were used as scapegoats during the Mediaeval period). However, the Speakers refuse to budge and decide to face the angry and misled crowds head-on. They instead tell Trevor to leave in their place which, in a burst of frustration, spurs him to finally act like a member of his clan should. 

What follows next is one of the most defining moments of the series for Trevor, cementing his place as a Belmont. Another corrupt member of the church demands to know what he could possibly stand to gain from fighting back considering his downtrodden state and the fact that he’s entirely outnumbered. Trevor’s answer is simple: nothing. The Belmonts don’t protect everyday people for any great reward or because of any strong personal ties. They do it because it’s their duty and the right thing to do. Trevor even mirrors something which the elder Speaker told him; a family mantra that encompasses the very purpose of the Belmonts, dating back to Leon: “It’s not the dying that frightens us. It’s never having stood up and fought for you.”

Trevor’s healing journey does not end at this moment. He still has moments of hesitation where someone like Alucard has to forcibly remind him of his place as Belmont, saying he needs to choose whether he’s really the last of a long line of hunters or a drunkard. This leads to a fight sequence that nearly spans the length of an entire episode where Trevor further proves himself by taking on at least three different creatures all with varying degrees of strength, skill, and fortitude. Episode six of season two is the ideal example of not only Trevor’s determination but also his quick thinking. Moments such as him wrapping his cloak around his hand so that it doesn’t get cut while his sword slices through the throat of a minotaur or using a set of sticks to beat against an adversary when his whip is knocked away. Being a Belmont means using one’s intellect (no matter how unconventional it may seem) as well as one’s muscles. 

There is also another albeit less violent instance at the start of season three where he still feels the need to hide his surname while in an unfamiliar village. Then there is the revelation that malicious stories about the Belmonts and their supposed demise still circulate amongst rural Wallachian communities. Yet despite coming from a family of old killers (a term Trevor uses before facing off against Death in the final season) his family name remains his strength and the weight of both the Vampire Killer and Morningstar whip keep him grounded rather than burden him. The Belmont name carries such weight throughout the series that by the end, there is strong consideration from Alucard of naming a new township nestled in the shadow of Dracula’s castle after that family.

Trevor deals with his pain and trauma quietly, almost numbing it with the assistance of alcohol and dodging the harder questions regarding what his family was really like. He still finds strength in remembering what the Belmonts are here for despite the tribulations that come with the family name. Hardships that continue and evolve nearly three hundred years later.

—

THE THINGS THAT MAKE ME WHO I AM: RICHTER BELMONT & STRENGTH FROM LOVE

Depending on what sort of mood you might find the author of this essay in, their favourite Castlevania game will vary. At the moment, it’s a three way tie between Symphony of the Night for its artistry, Lament of Innocence for its story and characterisation, and Aria of Sorrow for its evolved gameplay. However, one personal decision remains relatively consistent no matter the mood or time of day: Richter Belmont is the author’s favourite Belmont and the inclusion of him in the latest animated adaptation Castlevania: Nocturne has only cemented that fact.

It makes sense from both a narrative and marketing standpoint as to why we’ve suddenly gone from the events of Dracula’s Curse/Curse of Darkness depicted in the previous series all the way three hundred years later to Rondo of Blood . Narratively, Richter and his companion Maria Renard already have a direct link to Alucard through the events of Symphony , which Nocturne will most likely cover and be inspired by in its second season. Marketing wise while also appealing to the largest demographic possible (even those less familiar with the games), amongst more recurring characters like Dracula and Alucard, Richter is arguably one of the most recognisable Castlevania figures right down to his design.

Certain traits and visual motifs of other Belmonts have changed drastically over the years and with each iteration. Meanwhile, from Rondo and Symphony , to Harmony of Despair and the mobile game Grimoire of Souls , to finally Nocturne and the inclusion of Richter as a playable character in the fighting game Super Smash Bros Ultimate , specific elements of Richter never waver. This includes his blue colour scheme, his tousled brown hair, and his iconic white headband. All of which carry over in the first season of Nocturne which not only expands upon Richter’s character first established in Rondo of Blood but also further examines said character.

For example, Richter’s true introduction directly following the downer cold opening is without a doubt the farest cry from Trevor’s. While Trevor’s first scene acted as a sobering depiction of what happens when physically/mentally damaging coping mechanisms mix with unacknowledged grief, Richter’s first fight gets the audience’s blood pumping, complete with a triumphant musical score and a showcase of his skill with the Vampire Killer. Richter is cocky, but not reckless. He’s sarcastic, but not sullen like Trevor was. Because of his upbringing after the death of his mother, filled with positive affirmations, he values the wellbeing of others along with their fighting experience. Yet his confidence does not overshadow his acknowledgement of the family burden. Richter is well aware of how heavy the Belmont legacy and duty can weigh upon an individual’s shoulders along with how closely it can tie itself around a person’s life and their death—a reminder as well as memory which haunts him for nine years.

When Nocturne begins, its first major fight sequence takes place between Richter’s mother Julia Belmont (an original character for the show) and the vampire Olrox, an enemy taken from Symphony of the Night now reimagined as a seductive, complex Indigenous vampire on his own path towards vengeance against the very person who took away the one he loved most in this world—just one of many thematic parallels to the first series, this time referencing Dracula’s motives and justification for his grief. Just when it seems like Julia has the upper hand thanks to her magical prowess, Olrox transforms and ends her life in a swift yet brutal manner. All of which happens right before ten-year-old Richter’s eyes.

Julia was simply doing her duty as a vampire hunter and her life as a Belmont ended the same as most of her ancestors did: in battle while fighting for the life of another. Why then did it hurt Richter most of all? Why does it haunt him well into his early adult years? And why was it seemingly more so than how Trevor’s trauma haunted him? There are two probable answers to this, one being that Richter was only a child, directly confronted by the cause for his mother’s sudden and graphic death with no way of fighting back despite being a Belmont.

In the case of Trevor, although he was a few years older than Richter when his entire family and ancestral home were burned in front of his eyes presumably by the same people they were supposed to be defending, the circumstances which followed them afterwards are vastly different. For nine years Richter was surrounded by those who loved and cared for him whereas Trevor only had himself and the hoards of average Wallachians who hated him because of superstitious rumours and the church’s condemnation. Trevor had over a decade’s worth of experience in becoming desensitised to his pain and trauma, masking it beneath self deprecation and numbing it with alcohol. He wasn’t even aware of the fact that he was a deeply sad and lonely individual until Sypha pointed it out to him.

Despite his bravado and brighter personality than his ancestor, Richter is also an incredibly sad, hurt person who suffers somewhat from tunnel vision. He obviously has empathy and wants to protect people from monsters, vampires, and the like. More so than Trevor did during his introduction before his moment of self-made rehabilitation. However, he doesn’t seem to care much about the revolution itself or what it stands for. He attends Maria’s rally meetings but he doesn’t take active part in them, opting to stay back and keep a watch out for any vampire ambushes. He admits that he doesn’t really listen to Maria’s speeches about liberty, equality, and fraternity. And in the most prominent example of his disillusionment with fighting for a larger righteous cause, when given a revolutionary’s headband, he shoves it into his pocket and mumbles about how tired he is of everything.

This could be interpreted as defeatist if Richter wasn’t already trying so hard to uphold his family duty and maintain a level head. He needs to have a sense of control and almost achieves it until Olrox so casually confronts him in the middle of a battle which Richter and his friends seemed to be winning until they’re forced to flee close behind him. When Richter runs away and emotionally breaks down the moment he’s finally alone, it isn’t because he’s weak or cowardly. On a surface level, it was due to his fear and panic over not being able to face his mother’s killer (someone who has proven to be much, much stronger and more powerful than any Belmont). Yet it was also a form of harsh admission to himself. He couldn’t maintain that aforementioned sense of control and perhaps he never will, not where he is right now at least.

It isn’t until he’s reunited with his grandfather Juste Belmont (long thought to have died, leaving Richter as the final Belmont) that this negative mindset brought on by unresolved trauma begins to shift. In many ways, Juste is another callback to what happened with Trevor. He suffered an immense tragedy in the past and has since spent his entire life drifting from tavern to tavern, avoiding his own grandson and instead leaving him in the care of people far more capable of raising him and instilling better morals within the youngest Belmont.

Other mentor-esque characters appear in Nocturne such as Tera who raised Richter alongside her biological daughter Maria. There is also Cecile, the leader of a Maroon group which Annette joins after escaping slavery. Despite their individual pains, these two women maintain the hope that humanity can be changed and the evils of the world can be defeated. Meanwhile, Juste has thoroughly lost his own hope. He reveals to Richter that “evil will always win” because of how it permeates everything and is far stronger than any Belmont, even the most magically inclined members. No matter how many Draculas, Carmillas, or Lord Ruthvens are defeated, it will always find a way to creep back to the surface whether through the upper class of France or through the very colonisation that nearly wiped out Olrox’s people or enslaved Annette’s family. 

One of the first things that Juste says to Richter directly references the sheer weight of the Belmont legacy, all of which culminates within the whip itself. This can also be a reference to the Vampire Killer carrying a living soul as Leon Belmont was only able to awaken its true power by sacrificing Sara Tarantoul. The whip has both a metaphorical and literal weight which the Belmonts must come to terms with.

Yet for Richter, family is maintained not through blood ties, which can easily die out or be abandoned because of generational trauma, but through the people we find and attach ourselves to. Under the immediate threat of losing his found family, all of Richter’s pain and anguish explodes when his magical powers violently return to him in one of the most visually impressive and cathartic moments of Nocturne season one, complete with an orchestral and operatic rendition of “Divine Bloodlines” taken straight from Rondo of Blood as he ties the same headband he nearly discarded earlier around his head. Then once the dust settles and Richter is asked by Juste how he managed to tap back into that great power, he simply responds with the most obvious answer he can come up with: there are people who love him and he loves them in return. 

This is reiterated when Richter is reunited with Annette and describes the same revelation when she asks how he was able to regain his magic. Not just a mental revelation but for Richter, it was a physical sensation as well. Just when he believed he had lost everything, something reminded him of all the things worth protecting in his life and all the pain he’s had to endure.

Richter finally donning his iconic white headband is symbolic of not only his decision to actively join the French Revolution but also his revelation that the love he feels for Maria, Annette, and Tera is his own righteous cause. That, to him, is worth defending just as much if not more than the concept of a centuries old curse turned legacy.

—

SLAVES TO OUR FAMILIES' WISHES: CONCLUSION

Richter, both his game depiction and his recent Nocturne iteration, acts as a reflection and subversion of what a Belmont is along with what that family duty means to different members. Trevor found healing from his trauma through his duty. Richter found his healing through love. Of course Trevor loved Sypha and Alucard in his own way, but throughout the entire first series, from the moment he removed his cloak at the end of season one to standing up against Death in the finale, his driving motivation was always to preserve his family’s legacy despite his own shortcomings. The Belmonts were all but gone and Trevor had been exiled, excommunicated, and turned into a societal pariah. Had he given into despair and continued with his vagabond ways, who else would wield the Morningstar, the Vampire Killer, or any of the knowledge cultivated by previous Belmont generations?

But for Richter, family legacy is more of a nebulous concept. It gets mentioned in conversations and we see its varying effects on individuals, but even when Richter is reunited with Juste, the immediate priorities of his found family takes the place of his blood family. This, according to him, makes him a Belmont. 

It is also important to consider that we are still only on the first season of Castlevania: Nocturne with season two having been renewed and in production merely a week after its initial premiere. With the reveal of Alucard as a last minute cliffhanger in the penultimate episode, it will be interesting to see how his own characterisation as well as his close tie with both the Belmonts and his own family burden will further develop especially after three hundred years within the show’s timeline. One of the biggest possibilities is that in contrast with his youthful brashness and instability that was the crux of his character in the first series, Alucard might serve as a sort of mentor figure or perhaps his own generational pain will bond him further to Richter and Maria, more so than he was in Symphony of the Night . Then there is the question of whether Richter in the midst of the apparent losses he suffered during the finale of season one will follow down the same path that his video game counterpart did.

In 2020, the author wrote another Castlevania -centric essay which detailed the visual, thematic, and aesthetical shifts of the franchise from its inception during the 1980s all the way to the 2017 adaptation through focusing on how these changes affected Alucard. By the end of that essay, it was mentioned that despite the show being renewed for at least one more season, the overall future of Castlevania remained unknown. This is still the case for now. 

Though one can make educated assumptions and theories, there’s no way of knowing what sort of direction season two of Nocturne will take with its themes and characters. This is doubly true for the games themselves. Despite the anticipated releases of the Silent HIll 2 and Metal Gear Solid Delta: Snake Eater remakes, as of now Konami has not revealed any official decisions to remake, rerelease, or produce new Castlevania titles. One can hope that due to the success of both shows along with the anticipation for Silent Hill and Metal Gear Solid remakes that something new will be in store for Castlevania in the near future.

Castlevania , both its games and animation adaptations, prove that there is a place in this world for every kind of story. In the last episode of season one airing in July 2017, Alucard states what could very well be the thesis of the entire franchise: “We are all, in the end, slaves to our families’ wishes”. Yet even if we cannot escape the narrative we’ve been latched onto or, for dramatic purposes, cursed with, there are ways in which we can combat it and forge our own healing process.

—

MEDIA REFERENCED

Castlevania (1986)

Castlevania II: Simon’s Quest (1987)

Castlevania III: Dracula’s Curse (1989)

Castlevania: Rondo of Blood (1993)

Castlevania Legends (1997)

Castlevania: Symphony of the Night (1997)

Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow (2003)

Castlevania: Lament of Innocence (2003)

Castlevania: Curse of Darkness (2005)

Castlevania: Lords of Shadow (2011)

Castlevania (2017—2021)

Castlevania: Nocturne (2023—)

[annaholak]

Inktober, Tiffany Aching, Barbie, and a General Life Update

The Plan: Read the Tiffany Aching books during the summer, re-make her, and use her as the main character for my next Inktober.

The Reality: while I was finishing Cupid Cafe my landlord decided to sell the apartment I've been renting for over a decade. It was an extremely shitty one (no heating, broken air-conditioning units, dark, moldy, etc), but it was dirty cheap, and the best I could afford.

It was sold in mid-June, and the new owner (surprising no one) wanted to raise the rent. I don't know how the rental market is wherever you live, but here (in Athens, Greece) it's a right nightmare (Airbnb has a lot to answer for...). I couldn't find anything in the same price bracket that wasn't basically a tiny basement-turned-into-a-studio. I was panicking. Heavily.

In the end a (really good) friend came to my rescue. She convinced her mom (who had moved to her vacation home during the pandemic) to rent me the city apartment she was rarely using anymore. With the same money I was paying for the previous one. A fucking life saver let me tell you.

It's a much bigger, and generally much nicer, one than the previous shithole I was living in. I finally have enough space for an actual studio. It's also in a much nicer neighbourhood. One I normally would not be able to afford. Lots of green spaces, and very pet friendly (I don't have a pet at the moment, but I'm greatly enjoying meeting all the happy puppers on their walks, whenever I'm out and about).

I moved in in mid-July. I'm still working on it, as I've been going through a lot of the things I had in storage, deciding what to keep, donate, or throw away, and that takes time. The studio is still a mess, but here is a sneak peek of my current working space (the walls were supposed to be lilac, but I'm not complaining - Peppa-the-pig pink it is):

Anyway, back to Inktober. As you can imagine I had hardly the time to read anything during the summer, so the Tiffany Aching idea will have to wait. I also felt extremely uninspired by this year's Inktober prompts. I dug around a bit and found a prompt list I actually like. It's the Mystical Witchtober one, hosted by agingerly aianaiya isabee Madie Meri Marigona Suli Aria and Talita on Instagram. Here's the prompt list (by isabee):

As I was going through the things I've had in storage I found some of my childhood Barbie magazines and sticker albums. So I'm thinking of riding the nostalgia wave, and turning my Witchtober into a slightly Barbie-esque, and a bit late 1980's/early 1990's themed, witch-vampire romance.

I will be working on it at a rather leisurely pace, since I'm still busy working on my new space, and also recovering from a recurring freak throat infection I've had since mid-August (was it strep? was it mono? Who knows? Not my doctors). I've been through two rounds of antibiotics and I'm still not completely well, so please be patient with me.

I think that's all for now. Stick around for a very soft and pink Witchtober. And worry not, I have a lot of Wyrd Sisters things planned once this one is over.

P.S.

Oh yeah, I've also somehow managed in the middle of all the chaos to acquire a new boyfriend. Which hasn't happened in a while. So that's nice.

P.P.S. (bonus for still reading this essay of an update)

I made last year's Wyrd Sisters Abroad Inktober into a zine for the Comicdom Con in May. In true ADHD fashion it was written at five a.m. the morning it had to be at the printer's, after the third all nighter in a row. So typos were inevitable. But the fact that this was the only typo that made it through to the printed version, had me giggling uncontrollably once I discovered it (a couple of months later, it took me a while). Enjoy:

[borgevino]

so, since last june i've been having about as stressful a time as it's possible to have in an office job. luckily this era is over (i'm still in the same job but now working 10h/wk) and i'm starting to recover.

it's hard to identify burnout / extreme stress while you're going through it (although maybe i'm speaking for myself here). here are some things i've noticed.

major stress symptom i've observed in myself and others: the narrowing of appetite until you're essentially only eating 3 or 4 "safe" things while everything else, even if you have enjoyed it in the past, sounds nauseating. for months, i could only eat taco bell and pizza. this has dramatically improved since i reduced my hours

various life skills i've developed simply vanished. i could not put together a grocery list at all -- i couldn't think ahead to what i would do with ingredients i bought. i also could not handle cooking -- I could barely make rice in the rice cooker. it was like i'd forgotten how. (this is back i'm happy to say! i did have to go "well let me shop like i'm 23 again" to get it but i made two home cooked meals this week)

i also lost a lot of coping mechanisms. all of my bad old protestant thought patterns came back with a vengeance. for example, i was taught growing up that complaining was A Sin -- i've unlearned this but found myself putting "cw complaining" on various tweets (this also is better now)

it became much harder to connect with my friends or my partner. luckily my wife (he/him) and i have done a bunch of work on communication already, but it became harder for me to spend time with him, simply because so much of my energy was spent on work (also improving!)

while i was in the high stress state i tried various remedies:

being comfortable physically and grounded somatically was essential. taking baths with lavender in them, petting the cats (and being sat on by them), taking deep breaths: small things, but incredibly helpful.

weed seriously helped. it affects everyone differently: for me it quiets all the anxiety alarm bells and gives me a 30,000 foot view of the situation. putting things in perspective was often humbling and reassuring at the same time. (i did not try alcohol because of the hangover factor)

there were a couple times when i took a week or two off to try and get some rest. these actually did NOT help; mostly they made things worse. i'd relax a little and then five things would go wrong in my body at once (presumably because i wasn't producing as much cortisol)

notes on recovering:

i'm taking a college class and that little bit of structure on my week is very helpful. also it gets me out of the house -- i've been WFH since the start of the pandemic, and i've gotten out of the habit. days i leave the apartment and do something besides just go for a walk or shop tend to be good ones

i've been sleeping a ton -- 12-14 hours a day, long naps. i'm lucky i can just let it happen -- i'm letting my body's instincts take the lead. if we need to sleep until 1pm occasionally, sure.

in the same vein, i'm not pushing myself. could i have made cornbread or corn waffles with tonight's chili? sure! a year ago i would have. but that sounded tiring, so i didn't. etc etc. i haven't started on the monumental task of getting the apartment to its pre-stress uncluttered state yet, because that would be too big a push for right now. "i will be compassionate with myself" is something i've been telling myself over & over.

it's surprising and encouraging how much things have changed for the better in the course of the past three weeks.

[robbiefischer]

i hate this paper i'm writing and i'm sick of looking at it. could i ask for some fun facts about julian and niko? anything you want to tell me, i'll take ANYTHING.

On the one hand, I feel like I shouldn't distract you from what you should be doing. But on the other hand, I empathize and will take absolutely any excuse to talk about Julian and Niko - if you don't mind I'm just going to throw out some basic stuff because it's been so long. But do your paper, okay? You'll feel so much better once it's done. Cut to save a life (and your dash).

Julian's a musician - he's the lead singer, songwriter and guitarist for a band that he started with his best friend Saoirse, called fables. Other core members include Zoe (Saoirse's girlfriend), Annika, Lachlan and Avery. They've released five studio albums, and tour regularly. He's also an artist - he's done most of the band's promotional materials, merch designs, album covers, etc. and occasionally does work on commission. Niko is an art historian and museum curator (he has his PhD), and works as the chief curator at the largest art museum in New Islington.

Julian's family... are sort of evenly split between absolutely awful and wonderful. His bio-mom is (well, was - I ended up killing her off during the pandemic because honestly, she needed to go) pretty much evil and his dad was an extreme enabler of her narcissism and abuse. They're slowly developing a bit of a relationship again now that Julian's mom is gone, but they were essentially no-contact for years. On the other hand, his aunt (dad's sister) Clare and her wife Ana are fantastic. They basically acted as his second moms as much as they could during his childhood and teenage years and their home was always a refuge for him when he could get away. Niko's family is great, even if his relationship with his father has had some rough spots. His dad's really not bad, but he's very high-achieving and always expected that out of Niko as well. Very much a "where are the other two points?????" person if Niko brought home a 98% on a test, and while Niko's always been very academically and achievement-oriented, it wore on him a lot when he was younger. Niko's family still lives in Greece, so Julian's aunt Ana has basically adopted him as her own honorary son - they're thick as thieves.

Niko's favorite flower are sunflowers, and Julian's are tulips. Julian loves roses and peonies as well, but don't give him lilies.

They both share a love of traveling and are lucky enough that they both have to do quite a bit for work. Julian will often join Niko on work trips if he can, and it's not at all uncommon for Niko to fly out for a few days at the end of a tour so they can explore whatever city the band's in. They're all about the local culture when they travel - they'll check out a few museums and monuments, go on neighborhood walking tours to look at beautiful architecture and learn about the history of wherever they are, go to lectures and concerts, and spend their evenings checking out fun little wine or cocktail bars and local restaurants. Neither of them are beach people. Julian burns so easily even with sunscreen, and Niko's really not a fan of getting sand everywhere. Plus, they both find lying there listening to the ocean boring.

One thing they don't share is their feelings on birthdays. Niko is such a birthday person. The anniversary of his fabulous self being unleashed upon the world? Heck yeah, he's going to celebrate. He doesn't go as far as having a birthday month, but he definitely has a birthday week and will usually have multiple celebrations with different friend groups. He's such an extrovert, has tons of friends and wants to see everyone. They throw a big, fancy party every year for his birthday and he looks forward to it and works on planning it down to every last detail for months in advance. Julian, on the other hand... he has a lot of complicated feelings surrounding his birthday. Between how awful his mom always made it for him, and then how his shitty ex-boyfriend would be on his birthday, he used to prefer ignoring it entirely. He's come to enjoy a smaller, more low-key celebration with Clare, Ana and his bandmates and then a fancy birthday night with just Niko but it's taken him a while to get there. And he does not want a big, fancy party like his husband does - Niko made the mistake of planning him one the first year they were together and, while Julian did his best to enjoy it and be grateful, it really wasn't his thing at all and he asked Niko to please never do that again. It was just so stressful and anxiety-inducing for him.

Julian's asthmatic just in case that's relevant to anyone's interests. Also, an insomniac. Both are relatively well-controlled usually, but he'll have insomnia flare-ups a few times a year and his asthma acts up more if he's sick.

Niko's had a bit of a bad back ever since he threw it out at work helping to move a few big pieces for an exhibit the museum was putting on. He's been through a lot of physical therapy for it, had an injection or two and has (mostly) controlled it ever since with yoga, swimming, regular massages and occasional courses of anti-inflammatories and muscle relaxants when it's flaring up. Julian's started doing yoga with him, although he's really more into it for the stress reduction benefits. He does it every night before bed and it's helped a lot with his sleep issues.

I know there's SO much more I could talk about for them, but my brain's doing the "Jules and Niko? I have never met them in my entire life" thing right now and I think I need to take a break. But I hope you enjoyed this!

p.s. Go write your paper if you haven't by now!

[nyxtheshipper]

I just came out of a five year relationship. Yes, five years. Five and a half almost six. The first five years we worked fine, then great, sometimes okay, but always good. We met in a private high school that was very prestigious. He didn't have a scholarship, I did, so imagine the disparity between his life and mine.

In the beginning it wasn't so obvious, he lived with his mom in a decent house, not too ostentatious, so our daily lives were kind of the same. He did his chores, helped his mom cook, cleaned the house or sometimes had someone to help them clean - something surprisingly common here in Mexico. My family also sometimes had someone to help us clean, but most of the time we cleaned our house ourselves. The point is, even if he clearly had money, he didn't flaunt it.

But you know what happened? Slowly, during college, during the pandemic, and when we moved cities to go to college after the pandemic, it started to show. The funny thing about school is that it's still a controlled environment, doesn't matter whether you're in college or already working while in college. We had it relatively easy. We knew our lives were here, right now, gearing towards graduation - towards the void that was being filled up by maybe an assured position thanks to the fact that the colleges were also private.

You can plan an entire life in school, dream about it, even play house. But the reality is harsh, and once you lose the structure, it's not playing anymore. The bubble pops.

That's when things get real. For a long time, my ex and I lived in that bubble. I was working and studying, trying to pay my bills while also keeping afloat my grades and a relationship. I kind of managed, but believed that it was gonna pay off once we finished and my ex and I were finally going to live together and actually start our own lives. That's how you manage to stay sane with a lot of pressure on top of you.

It also helps to see that your ex is more down to Earth than you expect, having been born and raised in a life of privilege. He's also living alone, paying bills, but his family is the one that gives him the money, and it shows. It shows in your meals, in the dates he takes you to that you can't afford. And, honestly, you start sympathizing with those Hallmark/Kdrama girls that get everything from their rich love interest. It sucks.

And before you come for me about privilege, etc. I. Know. But also, what they don't show you and what I had to learn the hard way is the rules. Once that bubble pops, and you're presented with your partner's reality, you see the incredible amount of strings that that money has attached. And it fucking sucks! For a long time, being in college, away from our families, we were able to be ourselves, and in a traditional household, that is gold!

Mexican families are still so misogynistic with many many things. And I had the privilege to have a mom that doesn't take shit from the patriarchy, especially when my dad tries to enforce it, but my ex? The moment he stepped out of that bubble, he had to go back to the traditions. It didn't matter whether I had shown him that women are equals, that he didn't have to be the sole provider, or that I was teaching him that he's allowed to cry, to feel, to get angry, to just be!

The moment he stepped out of his bubble, he fell apart. Since I had moved to the same city as him during college, he was never truly alone. But now, having left the country for a semester, on the brink of graduating, he was truly for the first time ever alone. And he couldn't cope. He asked a lot from me, making me his whole world and expecting me to be there 24/7, and I didn't react kindly to that. We discussed - not fought, discussed - and we tried to reach agreements. For me, he was being too clingy, and I had my own problems and my own life to look after. I also saw the opportunity he was in as something amazing and to be taken advantage of, and that he needed to make friends desperately.

For him, it was the worst time of his life.

Did I know he was having SUCH a bad time? No. Why? Because, as is tradition in his particular socioeconomic circle, men are not allowed to show emotion. He could only be calm. Even when he told me he was tired, it was the same as a robot telling you they're tired.

He could not show anger, he could not show he was sad, hell, whenever we "fought" it was more like a business meeting of what steps we were going to take to not let the discussion happen again. Everything I had tried to show him, that he could express his feelings, of me asking him to show me he was angry instead of just telling me, all gone.

And today, we broke up. He broke up with me, more like, and he did it amicably. Without showing emotion, just telling me what he feels. As usual.

And that's not okay. Can you imagine someone breaking up with you as if you were business partners only? When I asked him one last time to be angry, to show emotion, he said it wasn't appropriate nor polite. And as much as it pisses me off, I can't blame him entirely.

He's 2 meters tall in a country where you are considered tall at 1.80. Of course many people have told him he's scary, especially when he gets mad, even his ex told him that.

There are many things wrong with today's culture here in Mexico, don't even get me started on the way his family started trying to put me into the stereotypical housewife box. But today, I saw something that hurt me more: a man who couldn't express his feelings, not even while breaking up a five year relationship, simply because it was deemed impolite and even scary if he expressed himself.

[americanrecord]

Hi, Kelsey! I hope you’ve have a nice holiday season. I was wondering if you had any tips for me? I’m starting university again after dropping out three years ago. I’m a pretty anxious person and am already feeling overwhelmed with my upcoming courses. How did you deal with pressure? Thank you ❤️

hi, ella! i have had a nice holiday season (despite the weird health issues going awn)!! and i hope you have too :-)

of course, i have tips! first of all, congratulations for making the decision to go back! that’s really exciting and a really big step toward wherever in the future you want to end up. i’m not sure if you’re going to attend online or in-person (either commuting or through living on campus), but i’m pretty sure all of my tips will be mostly applicable for all forms. (edit: they were mostly on-campus)

i also totally understand the anxiety. i got a little lucky when i was thrown into college life during the peak of the pandemic because we were all kind’ve bound to our dorm room and made to socialize, so i had nothing to do (beyond write fanfic lol) besides make myself be social with the other girls. however, i did experience really heavy bouts of anxiety when i was put back into standard in-person classes after a few years of luxury in online schooling (i found this method just agreed best with me — working at my own pace and not having to prioritize socializing. i actually became much more introverted during college/post-pandemic), just because i found it very difficult to make friends in an environment where nobody—including myself—really wanted to be there.

but i won’t start there.

firstly, i’m not sure if this is applicable to you, but do not mind any sense of “feeling behind.” it’s not like high school — absolutely nobody judges anybody of any age being in any level of a college class. in my upper level classes, i regularly had 35+ year olds either finishing their degree, returning for a second degree, etc etc, and that was just life. in college, absolutely nobody is working on the same time table and nobody will bat an eye at you saying “yeah, i decided to come back” or even if you just say “i took a few gap years and worked instead while i figured out what i wanted to do.” that is — if they even ask! most of the times, people don’t. you’re just going to be ella from class in their head. nick, this man from my writing class, was 36, and he was nick from writing class in my head all semester (until he read out some really misogynistic work he wrote that he praised as real literature and also rewrote the work of other students, then he was just nick the arrogant asshole.)

find your schedule. you unfortunately asked the loser for advice, so i’m going to address school first. i know that can definitely be a source of anxiety - either the desire to do it perfectly or just from the overwhelming sense of having an average of four or five class loads dropped onto your lap at once. i will say that the first thing i learned about college was that i had more free time than i ever conceptualized having. i also did not work a job. but even my friends who did — always had several hours of homework/tv/what have you time per night. the monday/wednesday, tuesday/thursday set up of each class is very helpful, i found! in between those class blocks — use it to eat and study. like, please. this might’ve just been what worked for me, but when i used the several 5-6 hours during daylight between clases + before dinner to exclusively work (i rarely even had working lunches), i was always able to have my work done before dinner and therefore take so much stress off my shoulders when i knew i’d have all night to unwind. doing that homework in general is just a great way to take off needless anxiety. it’s the only way i ever felt okay to walk into class unless i had something figured out with my professor.

other miscellaneous homework tips are to: (1) do the readings at first and keep doing them unless you get to class and realize they really don’t matter and won’t be showing up at any other point to bite you in the ass. most of the time, they do matter and are necessities for those who want As. (2) stay organized. find a rhythm. take notes by hand for better retention and use them to create study materials later (rewriting flash cards or rewriting quizlets were what helped me. rewriting in general.) (3) do not force yourself to stay up to an ungodly hour to study or do something (unless this really does work for you) because the chances are that your retention rate will be obliterated or the dip in quality will be noticeable. just get up early the next morning. (4) if you’re worried about missing out on socializing because you’re always holed up & working — offer to do homework with somebody else. my roommates and i would have “homework parties” where nobody talks/everybody has headphones in, but just being in the same vicinity was a motivator/a good way to not feel isolated. either that or just go sit at a library or in a cafe so you feel surrounded by people; the library was my personal go-to. i lived there my last semester on campus! #lawclasses

interact with your professors! it will only benefit you as a student. shoot them emails when you have questions or stay behind after class, introduce yourself, and ask your questions in person. going to office hours or basically doing anything to establish yourself beyond a name on a roll sheet and a vague figment at a desk is a great look in their eyes. it will make them friendlier, more likely to give you assistance or cool extra materials, or even much more sympathetic in times of need (like when you’re struggling with due dates or toward the end of the semester.) literally every professor will tell you their least fave student is the silent and absent one who shows up four days before the end and goes: please, mrs. so and so, can you turn my D- to an A :)? no! all my professors that i worked closely with, either through frequent communication or just through writing projects are the ones that live with me. my last writing professor and i got along so well that they invited me to work on their book with them. it never came to fruition because both of our schedules fell through, but just the idea of being asked was really special to me and it was only because i made the effort to make myself a real person in their eyes. sorry for all the personal anecdotes btw, it’s the only way i know how to relate.

GPA, at the end of the day, is not the end all be all. you do not need a 4.0. it’s a very good thing to have, but you don’t need it and you won’t be left out of future employment if you don’t have it. just do your best. a B in that really hard class is an A in a blow-off class. if you do all that you can do & take advantage of all of your study materials + do all the work, you’ve done the best you can as a student. the world will keep turning if you don’t get a perfect mark, and i like to think it turns smoother when you can reassure yourself you’ve done your best.

know when to take a break. burnout is real. it’s so real. my sister just experienced it so bad because she was working at her interior design coursework for like 14 hours a day, 7 days a week (she’s a perfectionist to a fault). don’t do that. don’t neglect copious amounts of sleep, or food, or hygiene routines, or social hours, or brain-numbing time because all of that is as useful and important as time devoted to studying. it’s the only way to guarantee that you will survive long enough to continue studying! just save a certain amount of time per day for yourself and your interests and your mind just for your mental health.

if attendance isn’t mandatory and your mental health needs it, it’s okay to skip a class here and there. it’s always best to do this strategically - when you know you won’t be missing anything or if you have access to whatever materials you missed, either through the class site or a friend — but sometimes those days off are the only way to recharge. i would sometimes skip my classes without mandatory attendance to just work in advance on those very classes. if you have a better way to devote your time (genuinely better) and won’t get knocked for it, it’s not the end of the world to miss the class. i didn’t embrace this until my very last semester on campus, always way too anxious to miss.

this is all that i can think of off the top of my head. please let me know if there’s something you’d like me to hone in on, but this kinda covered all the getting started bases!! i know you will do great and that you will find your niche and your schedule, but if you ever need me for anything, you know where to find me!! another thing that got me through college, perhaps the only thing that did so mostly happily, was tumblr!! it’s why i never felt lonely! 🩷

remember, life exists outside of academics! you are worth so much more than a letter grade or a number <3 what matters to employers is you got the degree!

[maguneedsalife]

the judaism weeaboo

back with another fun work story bc this has been going on for five years and we all finally got sick of his shit 

Okay, so. This guy. Let’s call him Bob.

Bob is a non-Jewish individual in our local community who has a deep fascination with Judaism, but has said he has no desire to convert. Instead he seems to like talking with Jews in order to show off his knowledge and explain our traditions back to us. I’ve taken to calling him a Judaism weeaboo, as his general know-it-all attitude and lack of respect for actual Jews is similar to the way weeaboos behave around Japanese people.

Bob has been in contact with us for a few years now, with most of our contact in 2018 and waning considerably in the pandemic. He is usually cordial and friendly on the phone, but in reality he does not have a lot of self awareness, nor does he demonstrate any real respect for synagogue staff or the Jewish community. When he calls he keeps staff on the line for a really long time, either showing off his own knowledge of judaism or trying to get us on his side. He’s never threatening or angry, just persistent.

Things Bob has asked about:

whether he can email us entirely in hebrew

whether i speak hebrew (and when I responded that I didn’t, he said “the conservative movement has great resources for learning hebrew” implying that i should know hebrew)

whether it would be alright for him to attend a bat mitzvah so he can say mazel tov to a 13 year old girl he does not know and who does not know him

whether it would be okay for him to record a class (and when we said no because our members aren’t comfortable being recorded by a stranger he tried to debate us on it)

whether he can add a message to our refuah shlemah/get well list wishing the (then-pregnant) rabbi an easy birth in hebrew (not what the list is for)

Bob attended services occasionally pre-pandemic. At the after-service lunches he consistently tried to corner the rabbis for a discussion, and on at least one occasion ran over a synagogue member’s toes with his chair. He has also attended classes held at the synagogue, and made the other people in the class uncomfortable with his know-it-all attitude. He even had an appointment with one of the rabbis once, during which he made her extremely uncomfortable with the endless mansplaining/debating/etc. Bob has been trying to get another appointment with that rabbi for years. He has not specified why he wants to talk (only that he likes talking with her and “appreciates her wisdom”) so I can only assume he is looking for another chance to debate an expert and show off.

I don’t have a mean bone in my body so I unfortunately haven’t been able to be clear with him that he’s not going to get that appointment, just continually telling him the rabbis aren’t available to meet with non-members and hoping he’ll either get the hint or give up. My previous boss tried to tell him off more clearly in the past, and it only resulted in him calling the front desk to complain that she was rude to him and that he would like a written apology from her. He has called multiple times asking for the written apology.

Anyway. He hadn’t called in a while so I assumed he finally decided to move on, but today he calls and I unfortunately answer the phone before I notice the name on caller ID. He wants to know if the rabbis are available between shavuot and “the 17th of Tammuz” (when prompted for the english date he just repeated the hebrew one). I passed him to my coworker for backup because they have an easier time telling folks off. Bob proceeded to keep them on the line for almost an hour, holding them past closing time so he could air his various grievances and try to get them on his side. He barely let them get a word in and did not answer their questions. He also apparently referred to one of our rabbis as a “Jewess” (which is a SLUR). 

They finally managed to end the conversation and then were like “ok so I’m going to send him an email explaining why we aren’t going to speak to him and I’m copying our boss.” Tomorrow I’m learning how to block numbers in our phone system so im just like. prayer emoji that we never hear from him again

anyway. now you all know about bob

(please don’t send me advice for what to do about bob, i’m not looking for help with my bob-related problems nor looking for possible explanations for his behavior. we are going to very clearly tell him we’re done talking to him and then block his number.)

[sharkneto]

for the ask game — 🏅🤔💭

🏅 What is something you recently felt proud of in regard to your writing (finished a fic, actually planned for once, etc).

"Recent" is my forever and always pride over Holding It Together. That's a novel! I wrote that! I finished that! And it's good! But it's also two years old now - how time does fly.

I think the Shifting Together series in general, though. Joining Together was one of my very first writing projects when I first sat down and started dabbling in really writing wayy back in like September 2020. I wrote it to kill time in the pandemic and it was a fun little Just For Me Project That Will Never See The Light Of Day and because I couldn't stop thinking about The Shifting Mirrors. The fact that it's grown into the series it is, and that we are so close to finishing JT is really something. A full circle kind of moment.

🤔 What is the hardest part of writing fic?

Writing.

I'm only half joking, but sometimes I get in my head and I'm looking at what I've written or what I'm in the middle of writing and I have the bad brain worms and it's like "what the fuck am I doing this is so dumb". Gotta step away for a bit when those hit to let things settle and the love for it smash back through, usually by figuring out what specific little detail or scene is bugging me and needs an edit to get things back on track. Currently having it a bit with the latest chapter of JT and I think I've figured out the bit that's bugging me, so hopefully almost through this particular slump.

💭 What is a headcanon you have about your own work?

Headcanon about my own work... Huh. The thing is with this question, is that... if it's your own work that's just canon babey.

First things that came to mind are Rob (head)canons - Rob is a nerd for bad, cheap sci-fi. I'm talking B- and C-list made-for-TV SyFy Channel Original movies Bad Cheap Sci-Fi. Sure good CGI is fun, but terrible CGI is even more fun. It's not all that relevant ever but it is why he's so fast to be like "hey - Five Time Travel?" Because he likes watching movies with horrendously ignored time travel paradoxes that give Sarah headaches, so he's not as hung up on the inherent problems of time travel like others (Sarah) would be as an idea to even consider. Second Rob (head)canon is that he has atrocious Doctor Handwriting and it kills me it has never been relevant in Shifting Together to bring up.

response to this fanfic ask game

[liminalweirdo]

6 / 17 / 34 for the fic writer q's! <3

Thanks for such interesting questions! <3

6. Do you have your work beta'd? How important is this to your process?

I try to have my work beta'd/edited when I can. With fanfiction it's not always possible or practical. The only beta I have atm is my husband and I write faster than he feels up to editing which it absolutely fair, so usually I post things with just my own editing.

I say that the worst writing advice anyone ever gave me (or anyone) was "you don't need an editor," and I think that's mostly true. Fanfiction is... maybe not so serious, you know? I forgive other writers their typos and mostly just gloss over them and barely notice, but I hate when I find them in my own stories haha. But if you're doing something for publication, even if it's a self-pub — if multiple people are gonna be spending money on your finished product, please please please get an editor. Just my opinion as a writer, an editor, and a bookseller for over a decade. I've seen many an awful self-pub that could have been improved so much by editing.

I think a trusted second eye can make your work better. If I can't find an editor/beta reader I'll usually write something and try to edit it myself, but even though I have experience editing professionally (i.e. for money) I am still catching and correcting at least grammatical errors in my published work even months later, which sucks for the reader (sorry!). It's harder to edit your own stuff because you know what you meant so you tend to accidentally miss errors and not catch things that don't make sense/don't line up just right plot-wise, if that makes sense.

One of the tricks I use is handwriting my story and then, when I type it up I can often flesh out the story better, but that may just be how my brain works. Idk, see if it works for you!

Also, I'm usually willing to beta people's stories if they want me to so just lmk and I'll try to help out if I feel like I'm qualified (i.e. I know your fandom, and if I have enough time).

17. What do you do when writing becomes difficult? (maybe a lack of inspiration or writers block)

I never ever had writer's block until a few years ago, which fuckkinnnggg suuuuucks. The pandemic messed me up, I guess. I think the best thing is either just sitting down and writing either a set amount of words or for a set amount of time even if I hate every moment of it and if that's too much -- because let's face it, sometimes life/shit is hard — I will ... take a break! I'll either do something totally unrelated and let my brain chill out, or I'll re-watch the movie/film/read essays or other fic etc., just to get excited about it again. This is a lot harder in small fandoms or with things that have limited source material. When that happens I read/watch/find things adjacent to it and hope to find inspiration there.

34. Five years from now, where do you see yourself as a writer?

I mean, I think and I hope I'll still be writing fanfiction. I hope that in five years things will be different with the pandemic and I'll be able to be more out in the world, actually having wider experiences again. If I ever publish anything, I think it will probably be nonfiction before it's fiction, but we'll have to see. I'd like the opportunity to write for film.

[an-isolated-lifeboat]

“Isolation Activities” versus Isolation as Lifestyle

When people ask me how long I’ve been isolating I usually say something like February 2020. But in all honesty, I hadn’t been leaving the house much at all for about 3 years prior. In 2017, I became quite ill and it quickly escalated to the point where I dropped out of college and couldn’t really drive more than a few minutes from my house. 

So as I reflect on five years of isolation and see news of ever more infectious variants, it’s really interesting to look back at what people’s ideas of “isolation activities” were at the beginning of the pandemic. I searched for “isolation activities” on YouTube and found video after video of long lists of activities to do “when you’re bored” or “how to fill your time”. A couple videos come up for people who are quarantining after testing positive with a lot of the same tips.  Even now, it seem to be how people talk about it - pandemic hobbies, pandemic relationships, etc.

I...don’t completely know how to feel about people thrust into isolation thinking their biggest issue would be “filling their time” but it does touch some sort of nerve for me. There’s a reason why I regularly talked to friends who were like “I’ve tried all the “pandemic things” and I’m still really depressed” and who immediately went back to life as normal after getting vaccinated. I personally think that reason is people think their needs are one way when they’re actually quite different. 

The only good video on the topic I saw come out early in the pandemic was CPG Grey’s Spaceship You video. Which isn’t really a surprise considering in a later video he talked about he and is wife often lock down for flu season each year because of her health concerns. And it’s clear from the video that he gets it because he doesn’t give a list of activities - he addresses core needs all humans have and talks about researched back ways to address them. 

It’s one I’ve come back to time and time again when I get into a slump and without fail, there’s some part of it I’ve let go. Either I’ve slacked off on exercise or I’m not maintaining my sleep station or I stopped setting my alarm. And without fail, when I go back to following the advice, I gradually feel better and better about my life. 

It got me thinking about how many people looked at isolation as a temporary issue to get through and not what it effectively was - a lifestyle change. And for many of us - that’s still our life. And for a lot of people, it’s about to become their life again. 

This is all just a long winded way to say that if you’ve been isolated for a while or just coming back to it and you feel like you should be better at it than you are - the vast majority of the advice out there doesn’t address the specific needs that come up during isolation. So you’re probably doing the best you can in the absence of quality information. But it’s also worth shifting your thinking from “how do I get through this” to “how do I make this sustainable”. 

I know people don’t like thinking that way because it means admitting that this could go on for a long time - but that’s reality. It was already reality for disabled and elderly folks everywhere. The virus only brought that into the consciousness of people who weren’t already aware of that reality. 

I’m hoping to use this blog as a repository and resource for isolation lifestyle advice, resources, and maybe even community. I wanted to establish the perspective I’m writing from - as someone who’s life will quite possibly never again resemble normal. I still firmly believe I deserve to thrive as much as I’m able - dandelion in the sidewalk style. 

So consider this kind of a “what this space” post and I’m sending all you fellow isolated lifeboats out there best wishes. 

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Eddie Waldrep, PhD, MSCP

Published: May 15, 2023

This is a guest post by Edward E. Waldrep, Ph.D, M.S.C.P. Dr. Waldrep is a Veteran of the War in Iraq, Purple Heart recipient, and is currently a clinical psychologist for the Department of Veteran Affairs specializing in PTSD. Views expressed here are those of the author and are not the views of the Department of Veteran Affairs.

Our country, and indeed the world, has gone through a lot in the past couple of years. The COVID-19 pandemic, the murder of George Floyd by a police officer, a racial reckoning, rioting, and a tumultuous transition of presidential power that has marred our democratic institutions to name a few. With so much going on, the radical political changes within the American Psychological Association (APA) may have easily escaped the attention of many.

For example, the APA has been gradually changing the way race is approached. Officially, in 2017 it updated standards on multiculturalism to include embracing “intersectionality,” a conceptualization of the myriad ways in which one is oppressed via group identity. In 2019, a Task Force on Race and Ethnicity Guidelines in Psychology noted drawing upon Critical Race Theory (CRT) as a guide and in 2020 the definition of racism promoted by the APA was officially changed. The redefinition changed it from internal prejudicial beliefs and interpersonal discrimination to a “system of structuring opportunity.” What led to this change and why does it matter so much?

Social Justice versus Critical Social Justice

These changes came as a result of the changing focus of APA, and academia in general, from traditional social justice movements to Critical Social Justice (CSJ). Traditional social justice sought to end institutional oppression, discrimination based on immutable characteristics, focus on universal humanity of every individual, and for equality of opportunity for each to pursue their own self-directed goals. These are indicative of aspirational goals found in Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I have a dream” speech. There are contemporary organizations promoting the same pro-human ideals such as the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR) and many others. On the other hand, there is CSJ that has skyrocketed in the public sphere in recent years and is much more pernicious.

The boom of CSJ is not a mere phenomenon. It is the result of decades of planning referred to as “the long march through the institutions,” a neo-Marxist approach to establish the conditions for revolution. This built upon the work of Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci who developed the concept of “cultural hegemony.” Cultural hegemony was posited as an explanation for why the grand Marxist revolution and utopia had failed to manifest itself. Basically, if people were able to have a comfortable life in a free market society, then they lack the motivation to burn down western society to make way for the grand utopia.

Critical Critical Theory Theory

The hegemony is thought of as an invisible, largely undetectable, ubiquitous force that nobody intentionally directs but by which all are influenced. This is where the “fish in water” analogy stems from the that is commonly used to explain “white privilege.” In their book, Black Eye for America, Swain and Schorr (2021) note that the strategy to bring about communism is to dismantle or undermine western society by attacking five societal components that maintain the hegemonic “oppression”: educational establishments, media, the legal system, religion, and the family. Douglas Murray also noted this attack in his recent book, The War on the West.

CRT is just one iteration of the application of Critical Theory(1) to different aspects of society (e.g., race, gender, sexuality, queer, colonialism, etc.) and often is presented as diversity, equity, and inclusion. CRT and intersectionality have been encouraged to be adopted in cultural competencytraining and stem from the same origin. Intersectionality, applied socially, is designed to get people to think of how they are constantly oppressed, in any variety of ways, in any given situation, to promote social divisiveness. The concept of intersectionality was popularized by Marxist lawyer and key developer of CRT, Kimberle Crenshaw. In her 1991 article for the Stanford Law Review, she argues that universal humanity ought to be rejected and focusing on race should be retained and be used for political power.

This is the exact opposite of Dr. King’s approach.  She makes the distinction between “I am black” vs. “I am a person who happens to be black”. She is critical of the latter and states, “’I am a person who happens to be black,’ on the other hand achieves self-identification by straining for a certain universality (in effect, “I am first a person”) and for concomitant dismissal of the imposed category (“Black”) as contingent, circumstantial, nondeterminant” (pg. 1297). Hence, the CRT focus on “centering race” to achieve ideological and political goals associated with imposing Marxist ideology to “dismantle” western norms and practices centering individual human rights and liberties.

The Modern Echoes of the Ugly History of Collectivist Ideologies

This ideology has a horrendous track record for humanity. Simply relabeling the ideology does not change that fact. American Psychologist, the “flagship publication” of the APA, went so far as to dedicate an entire special issue promoting this ideology in 2021. The edition editors criticize the field of psychology for “failing” to focus on structural power dynamics and for not creating “lasting social change” (Eaton, Grzanka, Schlehofer, & Silka, 2021). These are references to postmodern philosophy, Marxist structural determinism and social engineering. The authors go on to state “articles in this special issue build the case for a public psychology that is more disruptive and challenging than simply aiming dominant, canonical, and mainstream psychological research and practice outward” (pg. 1211).

Flynn and colleagues, 2021, discuss civil disobedience and criticize nonviolence as the only acceptable form stating, “we encourage psychologists to think critically about the effects of privileging certain acts of civil disobedience over others on the basis of decontextualized tactics alone, such as the assertion that property destruction invariably denotes a protest tactic outside the bounds of civil disobedience” (pg. 1220). They go on to describe strategies to twist and manipulate APA Ethics to justify any means they appear to see fit to dismantle “systems of oppression”. For example, regarding Principle C: Integrity, they state, “we also read it as authorizing clandestine methods of civil disobedience to contest injustice (e.g., deception, evasion) when methods maximize benefits and minimize harm” (pg. 1224). This stretches the intent of the use of deception from research methods, a researcher pretending to be a student for example, to justifying outright dishonesty.

And of course, the special issue would not be complete without an article criticizing “good” psychology. Note, the use of “Critical” in this context is related to neo-Marxist “Critical Theory” and not critical thinking. Grzanka and Cole, 2021, make an argument for what they describe as “bad psychology”. They argue that “good psychology” (maintaining rigorous methodological, scientific, and objective standards) is a problem because it gets in the way of the radical political agenda of transforming society the way that they think is best.  They state, “we contend that what is commonly thought of as ‘good’ psychology often gets in the way of transformative, socially engaged psychology. The radical, democratic ideals inspired by the social movements of the 20th century have found a voice in the loose network of practices that go by the term critical psychology and includes liberation psychology, African American psychology, feminist psychology, LGBTQ psychology, and intersectionality” (pg. 1335).

The authors do, conveniently, leave out the fact that the ideology underlying the radical social movements of the 20th century are attributed with mass murder on an unimaginable scale. Throughout the special edition, the argument is made, consistently, that this ideology, advocacy, and radical social transformation should be incorporated through all aspects of psychology: research, training, and delivery of clinical services.

How could the American people continue to trust the organization if this ideology is being actively promoted? What would psychotherapy look like within this ideological framework? I would argue that society would not and should not continue to trust APA if this continues. This is not sound, competent, professional, empirically informed psychology. This is Psychological Lysenkoism.

Critical Theory Ideas are Bad Psychology

APA has allowed, even endorsed, the miscommunication of psychological science that has the potential to negatively affect the mental health of individuals and society overall. Concepts such as implicit bias and microaggressions have questionable validity yet are so prominently displayed that they have the effect of gaslighting society. The net effect is to have people wondering if every interpersonal interaction is racist or bigoted and second guessing each encounter for intent and impact. These are reflective of the precepts and goals of CRT itself. The implicit idea is that almost everything is or can be racist is a central tenet of the ideology. From there, the goal is to then create the critical consciousness necessary to give rise to social unrest and revolution. The first paragraph of the intro to CRT, written for high school students, sets itself aside from traditional civil rights, and “questions” equality theory, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law. Delgado and Stefancic (2017) state, “Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law” (pg. 3).

An additional tenet is that the voices and “lived experiences” of marginalized groups ought to be accepted unquestioned. However, the hypocrisy of the framework is laid bare when the “voices of color” dissent from the prevailing narrative. Prominent examples are those of John McWhorter, Glenn Loury, Wilfred Reilly, Roland Fryer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Darryl Davis, Jason Hill, Coleman Hughes, Eric Smith, Ian Rowe, Thomas Sowell, and the list goes on and on. The same dissociation occurs with members of various marginalized communities when anyone of that community doesn’t toe to line with the ideological framework. The individual does not matter, only the prevailing ideological narrative and political agenda. Anything, or anybody, that interferes with that agenda is inherently loathsome. The most common response to any individual expressing skepticism or dissent is to label the individual (any applicable variation of -ist or -phobic) and should not even be allowed to have a voice!

APA Should Adopt a Pro-Human (All Humans) Orientation

In psychological practice, we should focus on the individual with inherent dignity, value, and careful consideration of how factors influence the individual. APA ought to return to a pro-human orientation. The “critical” movement denies the individual and views them as simply a representative of a superimposed group identity or combination of identities. This is antithetical to our field. The adoption of radical political ideology has even led to the resignation of at least one leadership role in protest. When we focus on our universal humanity, we can celebrate our differences. If not rejected as morally abhorrent as it is, then the American people would rightly lose trust in the organization and damage trust in our profession.

--

(1) “Critical Theories” (Critical Race Theory, most varieties of postmodernism, fat studies, etc.) have taken that name because they endorse deep skepticism of liberal democratic norms and practices that pervade … liberal democratic societies. I (this is Lee writing here) sometimes have a bit of fun with this by referring to critiques of Critical Theories as Critical Critical Theory Theories — i.e., turning the lens of critique that includes revelations of implicit, empirically flawed or moral dubious claims & assumptions back on Critical Theories themselves, as Ed Waldrep has done here with respect to APA.

[kylesvariouslistsandstuff]

SUPERHERO CHOOSINESS

It’s strongly being suggested that the superhero movie bubble is bursting…

There’s the more mixed critical reception of the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s remarkably stuffed but hasty Phase Four, and then there’s the equally fast Phases Five and Six… whose ending feature AVENGERS: SECRET WARS is still set to open in the summer of 2026… Meaning that this Multiverse Saga only will last five years, compared to the eleven year span from IRON MAN to SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME… Like, wow!

And not only are there a lot of movies, but there were plenty of shows. So many from 2021-2022 alone: WANDAVISION, THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER, LOKI Season One, WHAT IF…? Season One, HAWKEYE, MOON KNIGHT, MS. MARVEL, and SHE-HULK: ATTORNEY AT LAW. In addition to those, you had the “Special Presentation” featurettes WEREWOLF BY NIGHT and the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY HOLIDAY SPECIAL.

For me, it was starting to become homework to keep up with what was going on. And this is coming from someone who has seen all but two Marvel Cinematic Universe movies in a theater. The two that I missed were THE INCREDIBLE HULK, and BLACK PANTHER: WAKANDA FOREVER.

Then of course you have the DC movie-verse, which is being hard-reset in a few years under the new leadership of James Gunn and Peter Safran. Prior to that, it was an always-changing mess of visions and intentions. Faithfuls kept up with the series, some left afterwards because of these changes, general audiences seemed to stick around for most of the movies. It’s a clustercuss of its own, and further discussing that will likely get me into hot waters… But what happened with The Rock and his apparent strong-arming of the DC movie-verse with his BLACK ADAM project and plans really shows just what kind of directionless mess the whole thing was for ten years…

So we’re now left with a few movies that were locked and ready to go before the Gunn/Safran take-over, the first of which, SHAZAM! FURY OF THE GODS… Opened with roughly $30m. A pretty blah take, and well below the $53m take the first SHAZAM! took in back in 2019. It’s been said before, but the whole “these won’t matter in the long run” attitude has probably deflated attendance… But many other things do as well… People being choosier with movies, ticket and concession prices being absurdly high… A statistic in 2014 stated that the average American family hits the flicks four times a year. I believe it. I’ve been working at a movie theater since August of 2015, and I see what I charge my customers… Both movies and for snacks… Yeah, I do not wonder why… Especially in the pandemic era, that people are choosier with movies. I feel we see the same thing with animated movies as well. Those are also usually four-quadrant family titles... And then around the corner, them being on streaming. Be it Disney+ for an MCU movie, or HBO Max for a DCU movie.

A month earlier, ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA opened pretty great with $106m. That was way above ANT-MAN AND THE WASP’s mid-70s opening weekend haul, and an overall fine opening for an MCU movie... but the legs? Abysmal so far. It looks to barely score a 2x multiplier, which is pretty bad… It might be the first MCU movie to completely miss that. I don't even know if I'll make time for it, myself. (I've missed a lot of movies in theaters lately because of other lifestuff going on at the moment.)

What does this all tell me?

Is it truly superhero movie fatigue? Are audiences catching on to the perceived problems of these big budget shared universe movies?

Here’s what I think is happening…

Choosiness...

I, in true form, am going to relate this to animated movies… And I mean “animated movies”, because let’s face it… There’s lots of animation in your average MCU or DCU movie. QUANTUMANIA, from the looks of it, is an animated movie with some real people in it. Much like GRAVITY, AVATAR and its sequel, Jon Favreau’s THE JUNGLE BOOK, LIFE OF PI, etc. etc.

Once upon a time... $100m at the domestic box office was a magic number for an animated feature film. And I mean a $100m gross on the film's first ever theatrical release, not $100m via the original release and added theatrical re-issue totals (like classic pre-Renaissance Disney films, like SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS and 101 DALMATIANS)...

Only Disney scored $100m domestic totals for their animated movies. Hybrid WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, released through Disney's Touchstone banner, broke the barrier first and grossed $156m in the summer of 1988. Then, an all-animated movie broke the barrier nearly four years later in early 1992... That was Disney's BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, which got to its high total through strong word-of-mouth and legs throughout the holiday and post-holiday season. It was slow to start in November 1991, because back then... Theater-to-video release windows were longer. BEAUTY AND THE BEAST was released in American movie theaters in November 1991, and the videocassette and LaserDisc release wouldn't be until... October 1992!

So, an unreachable number for everyone else. Don Bluth, former Disney animator and hot competitor, seemingly peaked with AN AMERICAN TAIL and THE LAND BEFORE TIME, both of which collected in the upper-40s at the domestic box office. His last box office hurrah, the 20th Century Fox-released ANASTASIA (now owned by Disney), grossed $57m by the end of its run in early 1998. Warner Bros.' Looney Tunes hybrid movie SPACE JAM came very close with $90m, two years prior. BEAVIS AND BUTTHEAD DO AMERICA put up a decent fight, with over $60m in 1996/97. That was a record high for a TV-to-movie animated adaptation back then, beating out A GOOFY MOVIE, JETSON: THE MOVIE, DUCKTALES - THE MOVIE: TREASURE OF THE LOST LAMP, and plenty of others.

In fact, Disney *themselves* missed $100m on occasion. HERCULES, made up at Feature Animation, the mainline studio, just missed it with a $99m domestic gross in 1997/98. The Disney MovieToons GOOF TROOP movie, A GOOFY MOVIE, made less than $40m stateside. THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS made an impressive $50m back in the day, and became a massive cult classic through video and TV. Hybrid JAMES AND THE GIANT PEACH, which was also a Henry Selick-Tim Burton Skellington Productions joint, missed $30m.

Then there was a little movie called TOY STORY... The first-ever all-digital animated feature film.

By the end of its theatrical run in early 1996, TOY STORY grossed $191m domestically... No doubt helped by being a Disney release and being the first of its kind, and a genuinely really good movie that audiences loved. So in a way, the only movies to make $100m domestically *before* TOY STORY were Disney Feature Animation movies (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, ALADDIN, THE LION KING, and POCAHONTAS), and a hybrid movie made by Amblin and Richard Williams Animation but released by Disney...

So Disney still had $100m under lock and key, and TOY STORY was their first non-Feature Animation endeavor since ROGER RABBIT to get it...

Believe it or not, the first-ever animated movie that was a NOT a Disney release, to score $100m domestically... Was... THE RUGRATS MOVIE. No doubt getting there off of the show's sheer popularity at the time. Despite first airing on Nickelodeon in 1991, some seven years earlier, RUGRATS seemed to be at the peak of its popularity in the late 1990s, after the show was renewed for more seasons following highly successful re-runs and the few specials that Nick and studio Klasky-Csupo did after the show's early seasons. I was there. I was 6 when THE RUGRATS MOVIE came out, and I felt the hype. Everybody I knew back then watched and liked the show, I watched it frequently with my sister back in the day. RUGRATS was one of those cartoons that everyone knew and everyone watched. Almost as ubiquitous as THE SIMPSONS, I'd argue. Paramount released THE RUGRATS MOVIE, and it broke that barrier, in addition to being the highest grossing TV-to-movie adaptation animated movie... By a country kilometer.

THE RUGRATS MOVIE came out in November 1998, just one month before DreamWorks rolled out THE PRINCE OF EGYPT, the second animated movie to cross $100m domestically... Two months prior... ANTZ came out, and grossed an impressive $90m. Pixar's sophomore feature A BUG'S LIFE opened, infamously, amidst this four-movie fall shakedown, and won the race with $163m.

So two not-Disneys made $100m domestically, and two not-Disney Feature Animation movies made $100m domestically... This was a turning point in theatrical feature animation, and it would come to benefit - for a brief while - all CGI animated movies.

We'll focus on those now...

1999 saw the release of Pixar's TOY STORY 2, which broke $245m. That was above every Disney animated movie *except* THE LION KING. Wow!

In 2000, Disney released their hybrid live-action/CG feature DINOSAUR, which has been counted as a Walt Disney Animation Studios canon movie since 2008... While that movie didn't make enough money to justify a sequel or to keep the collaboration studio behind it (The Secret Lab) alive, it still broke $100m domestically.

2001... DreamWorks' SHREK and Pixar's MONSTERS, INC. break past $250m domestically. Paramount/Nickelodeon's pilot movie JIMMY NEUTRON: BOY GENIUS takes in a respectable $80m. 2002... Newcomer Blue Sky's ICE AGE makes over $175m domestically. By this point in time, several hand-drawn animated movies... From all the studios: Disney, DreamWorks, 20th Century Fox, Columbia, etc. Largely losing money theatrically, with few exceptions in between. Many of them are missing the titan $100m threshold. For context, only Disney Feature's LILO & STITCH broke that barrier in mid-2002. CGI movies seemed foolproof. Guaranteed blockbusters...

2003 brought Pixar's FINDING NEMO, which became the highest grossing animated movie of all-time, unseating THE LION KING... Then SHREK 2 came out the year after, made that record look like nothing, becoming the first animated movie to break **$400m** domestically. In addition to SHREK 2, 2004 saw the release of DreamWorks' other CG hit SHARK TALE ($160m+), Pixar's THE INCREDIBLES ($260m+), and Warner Bros.' motion-capture pic THE POLAR EXPRESS ($160m+). In 2005, DreamWorks' MADAGASCAR came super-close to $200m, Blue Sky's ROBOTS cleared $120m...

So, unstoppable, right?

The one exception seemed to be the 2001 release FINAL FANTASY: THE SPIRITS WITHIN, a mocap feature based on the game series of the same name. That one puttered out at $32m domestically, and fell well below its hefty budget with all the worldwide take factored in... But this seemed like an anomaly more so than anything. You also had a few super-limited releases of foreign CG films, like KAENA: THE PROPHECY, which was a French film.

2005 was when it all seemed to be up... VALIANT, a British animated movie distributed stateside by Disney, performed quite badly... Despite it being a CGI movie and touting "producer of SHREK" cred. Disney Feature's first all-CG feature, CHICKEN LITTLE, managed to make more than $100m domestically, but its worldwide total didn't measure up to the budget. HOODWINKED!, an independent venture that only cost $8m to make, was released by The Weinstein Co. at the end of 2005. It made less than $60m domestically.

Then... 2006 happened...

The features that crossed $200m domestically: Pixar's CARS, and only CARS. ICE AGE: THE MELTDOWN and Warner Bros.' HAPPT FEET came very close. ICE AGE 2 won the race worldwide.

The features that crossed $100m domestically: DreamWorks' OVER THE HEDGE.

Everything else... Missed $100m. Some movies got by on being lower budget, like Sony Animation's debut picture OPEN SEASON, and the Nickelodeon TV show launcher BARNYARD. But some of the big flops included DreamWorks/Aardman's FLUSHED AWAY, the Disney-released Canadian feature THE WILD, and Warner Bros.' THE ANT BULLY. CGI and celebrity casts and talky scripts couldn't save them. Then you had movies that just did abysmally, like Fox's EVERYONE'S HERO, and DOOGAL: the Weinsteinized version of THE MAGIC ROUNDABOUT.

For a little while, computer animated movies were a novelty for audiences. No one had seen anything like TOY STORY when it first came out in Thanksgiving 1995. Like, this wasn't an episode of REBOOT or a glossy production company ident... This was over 70 minutes of fully animated 3D characters in convincing 3D environments, that stayed watchable the whole time, and on top of that... It was really well-written! Lots of people tend to make remarks about TOY STORY's more, dated, visual qualities... But it remains a classic because of the passion that went into it. And despite some of the aspects that didn't age well, it still *looks* appealing and watchable. Woody and Buzz and the rest of the gang have pretty much kept the same designs over the sequels and shorts/specials, only the human characters have seen slight design changes that matched the much-better rendering over time. (It's already a big difference with Andy and his mum from TOY STORY 1 to 2.)

But enough about that. My point is, audiences ate CGI up circa 1995-2005. Big time. It was the future, it was the **way** to make animated movies. Even with CG incorporated into them, hand-drawn movies failed to keep up. Whether the movies did actually appeal to audiences (TARZAN, LILO & STITCH) or not (TITAN A.E., TREASURE PLANET)... It just wasn't enough. $171m from TARZAN just didn't compare to, say, SHREK's $267m haul. When even your best isn't enough...

Capitalism, ya know?

But soon, audiences began choosing what computer-animated family movies they'd go to see, not seeing all of them each and every calendar year. In 2007, for every RATATOUILLE, there was a HAPPILY N'EVER AFTER. Even a good film like SURF'S UP that year had trouble. Release that movie in 2002, it would've made **bank**... In 2007, it had a hard time appealing to audiences. Let's apply this to 2008 as well. WALL-E and KUNG FU PANDA do great, THE TALE OF DESPEREAUX - a book adaptation - makes $50m and fails to double its budget. So every year, there are the family-friendly CGI movies that do pretty great! And then the ones that lose money.

And eventually, it caught to everybody. Even the heavies.

Pixar saw their first money-loser in 2015 with THE GOOD DINOSAUR, breaking an astounding 15-film hit streak.

Disney Feature Animation's CHICKEN LITTLE did so-so, MEET THE ROBINSONS two years later outright lost money. BOLT did so-so as well. They wouldn't have a genuine CGI flop until STRANGE WORLD, because we gotta mulligan RAYA AND THE LAST DRAGON and ENCANTO. Ya know, COVID and release strategies and such.

DreamWorks suffered badly in the mid-2010s, with money-losers like RISE OF THE GUARDIANS, TURBO, and MR. PEABODY & SHERMAN... It was to the point where it seemed like the lights would go out.

Blue Sky's final film, SPIES IN DISGUISE, lost money. After a streak of successes (the ICE AGE sequels) and respectable hits (FERDINAND). That likely played a big part in its shuttering, after Disney had bought 21st Century Fox's film and TV assets.

Sony Pictures Animation had some financial losses, too. The aforementioned SURF'S UP was one such flop, and there was also their Aardman collaboration ARTHUR CHRISTMAS.

So much, like a good hand-drawn animated movie, a competently-made CG film wasn't gonna cut it every single time... Even from a big studio. That's why many of those studios got smart with budgets... Especially Sony Animation and DreamWorks.

Now... Superhero movies...

Superhero movies have been around for a while. Serials, yes, all the way back to the Golden Age of Hollywood. Max Fleischer's SUPERMAN cartoons from 1941-42, every modern superhero movie owes it to those in particular. Long-form superhero movies, I believe, really got their start with the 1978 SUPERMAN movie... But you'd get a big superhero movie every once in a while, or a comic book action hero movie if you will. In the 1980s, you had SUPERMAN II - starting off the decade, and then Tim Burton's BATMAN ending the decade with a blockbuster gross. A big phenomenon. What else was in-between? Well, there was Lucasfilm's infamous adaptation of Marvel's HOWARD THE DUCK that tanked hard. You did see a brief boom in this kind of movie in the 1990s because of BATMAN '89, but plenty of those movies actually went belly-up. DC adaptation STEEL did poorly, movies like THE PHANTOM didn't make much of a mark, but you did have the TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES movie doing quite well, ditto BATMAN RETURNS and BATMAN FOREVER. BATMAN & ROBIN's not-so-great performance in 1997 put the Caped Crusader's theatrical future in limbo. SUPERMAN puttered out back in 1987 with a badly-received fourth movie. So, this was a bit of a false start, if you will? Batman, Ninja Turtles, maybe something else that did okay-ish at best... That was about it, circa 1999.

Then along came BLADE in 1998, which would be the first Marvel movie to do pretty well. HOWARD THE DUCK bombed back in 1986, and the 1989 PUNISHER and 1990 CAPAIN AMERICA went straight to video in the states.

Then, X-MEN came out in 2000, that did even better.

Then, SPIDER-MAN came out in 2002, made a **gargantuan** amount of money...

After the release of X-MEN and SPIDER-MAN, both Marvel adaptations, you saw **some** action going on. More Marvel movies came along. HULK, an ambitious film from Ang Lee, opened big in summer 2003 but had trouble staying afloat. FANTASTIC FOUR did okay in 2005 despite poor reception. GHOST RIDER did okay in 2007. SPIDER-MAN 2 and SPIDER-MAN 3 made biiiig money, and there was also a FANTASTIC FOUR sequel that also did okay. The next Batman-inspired DC movie, CATWOMAN, came about in 2004 and bombed quite badly. The year after CATWOMAN came BATMAN BEGINS, Christopher Nolan's then-bold new take on the Caped Crusader *and* the superhero movie in general. It did pretty well, a sleeper hit that relied on strong word-of-mouth. Then in 2006, a year later, you had an attempt to reboot SUPERMAN with SUPERMAN RETURNS. While it made money, it wasn't enough to cover its then-titanic budget, so it seemed like a non-starter. The other DC adaptation released amidst this was CONSTANTINE, whch did pretty well (and is finally getting a sequel after all these years). Funnily enough, amidst these Marvel and DC movies, you had Pixar's THE INCREDIBLES... A then *rare* animated superhero movie, and it did great business. There was also HELLBOY, too. Non-Marvels and non-DCs had their time to do pretty okay, too. So, superheroes had a healthier time in the early-to-mid 2000s...

But where it really all took off was in 2008...

IRON MAN started the Marvel Cinematic Universe with a BANG! in May of that year, and BATMAN BEGINS sequel THE DARK KNIGHT - no doubt accelerated by the tragic passing of Heath Ledger, who gave his iconic performance as The Joker - was **massive**. It was the first movie since TITANIC to clear $500m at the domestic box office, and make the then-magic $1b worldwide... Only TITANIC, THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING, and PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST made that amount of money... Nowadays, it seems like there's one billion-dollar smash every year, excepting 2020 of course... Back in 2008, though? Magic number. Very few movies did **that** well...

And from there... Lots of hits. The MCU had barely a stumble, and their highest highs at the box office went very high. They had no trouble getting audiences to come out in big numbers for... Checks notes... Movies based on THOR, GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, and ANT-MAN. Warner Bros. had tried very hard to keep a consistently successful DC movie-verse going, but despite the valleys (JUSTICE LEAGUE, BIRDS OF PREY), they too saw some big peaks: WONDER WOMAN and AQUAMAN. BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE and SUICIDE SQUAD made a lot of money, too, despite not meeting particular expectations. Animated superheroes brought home bacon, too! BIG HERO 6, INCREDIBLES 2, SPIDER-MAN: INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE, need I say more? Sony's own Spider-Man villain movies VENOM and its sequel did very well, too! Almost everybody was winning the superhero sweepstakes post-2008, with very few actual losers in-between.

But now... Well, with so many of them around, and both cinematic universes from the heavies... Again, Marvel and DC. Known commodities... We don't see any movie-verse for, say, Image Comics, no do we? Well, again, money is tight, theater visits are costly, and the movies aren't always delivering satisfying experiences when other endeavors are next door...

Last year, we saw TOP GUN: MAVERICK, a legacy sequel to a 1986 blockbuster that isn't a superhero movie in any way, mop the floor - domestically and even worldwide - with both Marvel and DC's most anticipated movies. AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER was in second place domestically, top dog worldwide. We're starting to see other movies have a say again, and smaller movies are having their fun again, too. ELVIS and NOPE did very well, as did BULLET TRAIN and THE LOST CITY. Bread-n-butter movies that used to fill up the yearly box office charts quite nicely. We see that nowadays in the form of things like WHERE THE CRAWDADS SING, THE BLACK PHONE, THE WOMAN KING, TICKET TO PARADISE, BARBARIAN, SMILE, VIOLENT NIGHT, A MAN CALLED OTTO, M3GAN, CREED III, etc.

So... With QUANTUMANIA and SHAZAM! FURY OF THE GODS past us... Here's what I think... Much like in 2006, where some computer animated family movies did great and others not-so-much... That'll happen with this year's crop of superhero movies.

I think the guaranteed hits are GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY VOL. 3 and SPIDER-MAN: ACROSS THE SPIDER-VERSE. The former? Well, those two movies functioned well as a standalone story not connected to the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe. Like you had some things here and there, like an Infinity Stone or the presence of Thanos, but they're both self-contained, VOL 2 even more-so. They're genuinely good space adventure movies that audiences actually quite dig, the characters are so likeable, and the movies have director James Gunn's authorship all over them. That's a night and day difference from many of the other MCUs... SPIDER-VERSE... Need I say more? The original is beloved, it was a passion project for everyone involved. It was not just a great Marvel or great superhero movie, it was a great movie, period. Rian Johnson himself described it as "The Velvet Underground of superhero movies." That is *high praise*.

Those are both poised, I feel, to make beaucoup bucks.

Everything else? Well... The DC movies coming out this year are much like FURY OF THE GODS. They don't really matter, because the hard reset is coming up with SUPERMAN: LEGACY two years from now. I suppose THE FLASH could do well because of Michael Keaton **and** Ben Affleck's Batman returning, in a sort of NO WAY HOME-esque manner. I don't think much of the general public is in tune with star Ezra Miller's controversies and wrongdoing, so I think this one's appeal hinges on whether fans/audiences see it as pointless or not. I think the novelty of both Batmen being back, alongside some other DC faces (such as Michael Shannon's go at General Zod from MAN OF STEEL), could help it a bit. BLUE BEETLE? I couldn't tell ya, it'll probably come and go. AQUAMAN made over a billion back in 2018/19, and is the highest-earning DC film ever... But will fans and audiences be back for, again, a movie that seems pointless in the long run? Also at the end of the year comes the MCU film THE MARVELS, the sequel to CAPTAIN MARVEL and also a follow-up to the MS. MARVEL TV series... Plus you have Monica Rambeau in it as well, who - as an adult - was a major character in WANDAVISION. That all could help it, but I'm starting to think it falls quite short of CAPTAIN MARVEL's impressive take in 2019. CAPTAIN MARVEL had the benefit of opening right before AVENGERS: ENDGAME, the penultimate episode to the big climactic event... THE MARVELS is just, well, the sequel... With two other faces. I think it'll do pretty well, but not excellently. Disney and Marvel Studios were smart to delay the film from July to November after the CEO-switcheroo with Bob Iger this past autumn. I can only hope they delay all of the other movies, too. Like, two a year is fine, guys. AVENGERS: THE KANG DYNASTY and AVENGERS: SECRET WARS can wait. They don't need to come out in 2-3 years from now, in addition to like 10 other movies and 10-20 other Disney+ shows...

And next year, I think, will show as well where this is all going... Like, I don't see the likes of CAPTAIN AMERICA 4, THUNDERBOLTS, DEADPOOL 3, and BLADE hogging up the top slots anymore. I forgot to point out that these movies seem a lot more frontloaded. Big fans and those who were always going to be there *will* be there on opening weekend, but it collapses after that, as OTHER audiences save their money for other things that they'd rather see... Maybe the JOKER sequel, not really a superhero movie but still based on a DC villain that's tied to one of their most well-known superheroes, could repeat the massive surprise success of the original. Maybe not. BEYOND THE SPIDER-VERSE should do pretty great... I think other biggies are what's gonna surprise this year and next year, and take the Top 3 slots... A new INDIANA JONES movie, a MARIO movie, a two-part MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE epic, AVATAR 3, maybe even something like GLADIATOR 2. 2025 is when the DC hard-reset comes, so it'll be interesting to see how SUPERMAN: LEGACY does, in addition to whatever Marvel movies end up coming out that year. KANG DYNASTY or no KANG DYNASTY...

If anything, the budgeting should be smarter from here on out. Then these movies can come and go, make adequate amounts of money, give *other* kinds of movies the Top 3-5 for once, and then the wheels will spin. Something new will come along and spam up the top slots, even. Maybe we're in for an area of legacy-quels following TOP GUN 2's massive success. I really do think INDY 5 has the chance to somewhat repeat that, and GLADIATOR 2 even. How long till, say, another sequel to a beloved '80s or '90s movie drops? And then too many of those happen and they get tiresome?

All a cycle in Hollywood...

But yeah, I do see the parallels between superhero movies now and CG animated family movies circa 2006...

[the-nihongo-adventure]

はじめまして～ Hello! I'm Aster from @asterlearns, this is my main blog. I'm on Week 1, Day 7 of the Langblr Reactivation Challenge, so I'm sending out some asks.

How long have you been studying Japanese for? What is your favorite part about studying the language? Have you read or watched anything interesting in Japanese lately that you would recommend?

Is that too much?? Feel free to interrogate me back if you want!

はじめまして、アストルさん!　質問を送ってくれてありがとう!　(⁠◍⁠•⁠ᴗ⁠•⁠◍⁠)

Thank you for your ask!!

I started learning Japanese back in May, 2020, when our country was in lockdown because of COVID. Back then, I had been desperately looking for something that would keep me engaged and busy since I was really overwhelmed by the overall situation of uncertainty caused by the pandemic. It was then that I chanced upon this video by JapanesePod101 on YouTube, teaching all hiragana characters in an hour. I challenged myself to learn all the hiragana characters from that video, and started by practising five hiragana characters daily. Before I knew it, I had already started enjoying learning Japanese, and so ended up continuing with the katakana video, followed by learning Kanji on WaniKani and learning the structure/grammar on Cure Dolly Sensei's YouTube channel. I joined college in November 2020, so while I could no longer devote as much time to learning Japanese, I still continued to study the language in my free time. So yes, to answer your question, I've been studying Japanese for around 2.5 years (my answer ended up being longer than I thought it would be😅).

Ah, this one is a really hard question! I'm tempted to say everything, but probably my favourite part about studying Japanese is actually getting to use the language in real life. Over time, I've slowly become able to enjoy certain media in Japanese - songs, interviews, podcasts, stories etc. - with a deeper level of understanding. This year, I've also had the opportunity to attend events where I got to interact with fellow learners and native speakers in Japanese, which was almost a dream come true moment for me. It's also one of my biggest sources of motivation at the moment, the hope that one day I'll finally be able to understand and use Japanese the way I use English - incorporating it in my daily life, making it an irreplaceable part of my identity, and being able to help others fall in love with the language as well.

Yes! I very recently discovered the podcast Let's Learn Japanese with Movies thanks to Tofugu, and I'm already loving the stories as well the format in which the host of the podcast, Aki-san, delivers them. My favourite episode/story so far is The Reader. You can also check out the official website of the podcast to read the transcriptions and watch the videos from which the stories are inspired. Highly recommend it!!

It's not too much at all! I had fun answering all of your questions - please feel free to send in more of them if you'd like - I might not be able to answer right away since I'm giving my exams, but I'd definitely try to get to them as soon as possible! Also I hope I didn't bore you with my long answers😅

Kudos on participating in the Langblr Reactivation Challenge - I'll be looking forward to your posts! And best of luck for your Japanese learning journey, 一緒に頑張りましょう!😃

これからもよろしくおねがいします!　(⁠◍⁠•⁠ᴗ⁠•⁠◍⁠)❤️

[organchordsandlightning]

15 Questions Game

Thanks for the tag! @captaincravatthecapricious

1. Were you named after anybody?

Not specifically - my driver's license name is the most common name for girls in the year I was born, which is partially the reason I try to go by another name! it's also very. soft and i'm not a particularly soft person 😅

2. When was the last time you cried?

It's uhhh. It's been a couple of years. 😅 workin on it

3. Do you have kids?

how funny would it be if i said yes. how funny would it be if i secretly had five children that nobody knew about.

4. Do you use sarcasm a lot?

nnnnever

5. What sports do you play/have played?

I used to do gymnastics for a while and did basketball even shorter!

6. What’s the first thing you notice about someone?

you mean besides their mannerisms and their presentation and their body language and what they're doing with their hands and the choice of words they use and their affect and their emphasis and what do you MEAN every IRL conversation is not a game to be won

7. Eye color?

Baby cow brown

8. Scary movies or happy endings?

I can rock with both, though I do have to admit a happy ending usually affects me more profoundly - I'm somewhat of a pessimist IRL, so i tend to gravitate more towards reading/writing happy endings. there's a quote somewhere along the lines of 'life only ends one way, i'm looking for more variety 😅'

9. Any special talents?

I can do the Vulcan salute and the one where you put down your ring and middle and touch your pinky and index together. that's mostly what i got goin on

(i also have a typing speed of 120-130 wpm when i'm copying and can write decently quickly otherwise! i'm a published academic researcher and not too bad at ICP-MS repair.) (clawing, screaming, kicking, etc. i'm also coherent at writing i guess)

10. Where were you born?

In a hospital

11. What are your hobbies?

I read and write a fair bit! for reading, it's about 75% fiction, but my current nonfiction interests are: Arctic explorations, shipwrecks/lifesaving, Prohibition era US, pandemic/infectious diseases, obligatory chemistry/forensic stuff. Fiction-wise, it tends to be mystery and horror, but I've been trying to branch out into other fields.

I've been slacking at it lately, but I'm also really into checking out new audio dramas. Sort of related, but I also like to walk around/do stuff in the city near me which is a good bit of fun.

12. Do you have any pets?

I am the animal that I take care of

13. How tall are you?

5'2" baybeeeeee but ya girl wore thick shoes to the driver's license appt and my license says 5'3" as a result.

14. Favorite subject in school?

English and Latin!

15. Dream job?

If I could wake up and be the level of author famous where my main job is writing without worrying about building up a readerbase or w/e, my god.

(Additionally, if I could wake up tomorrow and be a chemist on a maritime archaeological vessel - give me shipwrecks, give me chunks of ice, w/e - that would also be Excellent.)

[tranquilitytotani]

Eastern and Southern Africa is a new sub-group within sub-Saharan Africa that includes 26 countries.1 According to the latest global poverty database, the region had the world’s highest extreme poverty rate—40.8 per cent in 2018 (Figure 2). Moreover, since 2017 it has been the region with the highest number of people living in  extreme poverty, surpassing South Asia. As of 2018, almost 40 per cent of the world’s extreme poor, or over 262 million people, live in Eastern and Southern Africa. More importantly, not only is this the region with the highest poverty rate and concentration of the extreme poor, but it’s pace of poverty reduction has also been very slow. The extreme poverty rate in Eastern and Southern Africa has declined by only 0.43 percentage points a year since 2010, less than half the global average of 0.93.

Why has poverty reduction in Eastern and Southern Africa been so slow? There are many possible drivers. First, the population growth rate in the region, at 2.6 per cent in 2019, is more than double the world’s population growth rate of 1.2 per cent. Second, its annualized growth rate of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita between 2010 and 2018 was only 0.1 per cent, while all other regions had an annualized growth rate higher than 0.8 per cent. Third, high inequality is a concern for the region. Five of the world’s ten most unequal countries are in this region, and all but two countries had higher Gini coefficients than the global median.2 Fourth, various shocks, including those related to climate, hit countries in the region more frequently than before. For example, since 2016, Malawi has experienced one drought, two cyclones and the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2022, the Horn of Africa experienced its worst drought in 70 years. The pace of poverty reduction is further exacerbated by surging inflation region-wide. Finally, fragility is an important challenge for this region. It includes multiple fragile States, such as Burundi, Somalia, South Sudan, etc., and refugees from those countries flow into other countries in the region.