#an entirely different set of values and struggles to understand Normal Society

[shiawasekai]

I remember I did catch one of them with Bokura no Kiseki and he was essentially like 'I was worried at first it would focus too much on relationship drama but it was your recommendation so I stuck with it'. Then he came to me after devouring the entire thing fawning about the writing.

👍Mission Success

[defensefilms]

Paying Homage To HBO’s Oz

 *This Review Contains Mad Spoilers*

The 00′s television scene was largely dominated by HBO with shows like The Sopranos, The Wire, Six Feet Under, Entourage, Band Of Brothers, and my favorite as a teenager, The L Word.

All that marvelous television greatness, would not have been possible if it weren’t for Oz.

For all the ways HBO’s executives and writers perfected the spiral story structure within the medium of television, they would have not succeeded, or even had the nerve to try this ambitious narrative format, had they not first created Oz.

Where do we even start with this show?

It’s gotta be the characters, and one of the upsides of the narrative requirements of this show, was that it needed to be about the characters, because the setting/location doesn’t change and the entire story for the most part takes place within the prison.

That helped both the production, because they ain’t moving gear all around the city, and it helps the actors because, this is their time to shine and performances have to carry the show.

I think shouting out these actors matters a lot, because before Oz, I can’t remember a show that had so many memorable characters like this, and yet the story didn’t really revolve around any one of them.

This was groundbreaking for it’s use of the spiral story structure, and HBO would fall back on this many times in creating shows later.

Starting with Augustus Hill who functions as the show’s thematic and narrative voice, often introducing new characters and prodding the audience towards understanding the episode’s theme and/or message.

Those scenes where Hill would address the camera directly, became the ones audiences would remember outside of the really violent ones. 

Here Hill would usually begin by questioning or even attacking one of the sacred cows or virtues of American society and/or psychology, or even the human condition. Hill would usually go on to present outliers to what the prevailing thought might be or show how convicts are an outliers/ outside the norm. 

These scenes often serve to contradict the pre-established narratives, or long held beliefs regarding the prison system or society at large and those that live in it, and in particular, what brought them to the prison system.. 

They are outright attempts to mock any normal person’s view on any subject presented, and as much as they serve to challenge the audience’s views or opinions. They also serve to explain the actions of a people’s whose value systems the audience are not familiar with.

At their most challenging they can make you see a prisoner’s actions in a new light, even explain their psychological or moral dilemma, or at their most functional, they can mark the beginning or ending of an episode’s theme or a character’s episodic narrative.

For this reason, Hill is the closest thing to a main character the show has, outside of guys that featured from season 1 right through to the show’s ending and that’s a hard call to make, given the absolute myriad of talent featured on this show throughout it’s run.

From Kareem Said and his never-ending stream of issues with authority, to Ryan O’Reilly’s constant manipulation and deal-making, to Miguel Alvarez’s daily struggle to stay alive, there was never a shortage of interesting characters placed in crazy situations often with life-or-death consequences.

The concept of group, tribe or gang affiliations is one that is central to the show but it’s one that would be hollow had the show not added employees of the institution as characters that receive a lot of focus.

Starting with the major players like Tim McManus and Warden Glynn, to some of the less featured guys like Martin Querns, their conflict always centered on differing ideologies around how a prison should be run, and more importantly, how power should be redistributed among the prison population itself.

McManus’ character was always among the more fascinating to watch, he is a fan of a more liberal and rehabilitative approach to his job, while Warden Glynn, and his years of experience in the prison system, is closer to an old school hardliner.

However, there are other people within the institution, and these people serve to make the point throughout the show, that the prison system has plenty of employees of the state, both at the top and the bottom, who are a law unto themselves.

Oz was not shy about critiquing the prison system, prison administration or the governing bodies and the politicians that oversee this system.

Starting with Governor James Devlin, who repeatedly uses the prison for public relations purposes, but takes no interest in the prisoners or the prison administration itself, unless it directly threatens his political ambitions.

Corrupt prison officials are exposed over and over again throughout the shows run, mostly to make the point that, the prison system cannot plug every hole and limitations like state spending, politics, the media’s very inconsistent attention regarding the prison system, misinformation regarding felons, and the fact that prisons are not anyone’s first choice for employment helps paint the picture of an institution at the mercy of anyone but the prisoners and the administration.

Oz without doubt had one of the messiest endings of any tv series, and that’s a direct consequence of being the first in HBO’s line of shows, but the tradeoff was well worth it.

[swordduels]

Headcanon: Clarimonde as a witch

When thinking about Clarimonde being a witch I started to think of Loki in norse mythology but also Wanda Maximoff aka Scarlet Witch from the Marvel comics. Clarimonde’s role as a witch

Clarimonde will be a witch connected to nature, changes and growth while they learn to walk their own path in life. While figuring themself out they might or might not want to help others and show kindness despite their violent past. I believe their role will look different depending on the starting point. If Clarimonde is still heavily influenced by the cult’s teachings their role as a witch can be destructive and based on a selfish belief system. But if Clarimonde for one reason or another wants to change it will affect how they view and use magic as well. The core issue with Clarimonde is that they struggle to make personal connections and are starving for love, mainly platonic but can also be romantic love. They also struggle with their own identity since the cult has brainwashed its members to mainly serve the chosen deity Blood Father while working for a collective identity.  Redeeming arc The theme of redemption is rebirth. In a redeeming arc they will carry a lot of guilt mixed with doubts about themself and their place in the world as a witch. A part of Clarimonde feels like they cannot be redeemed because of the horrific acts they had done. How can someone who has slaughtered people with glee live normally in a society? Do they have any right to still live and help others with their new abilities? It’s a big responsibility and something they have never been taught. What fuels Clarimonde’s desire to walk the narrow path is their childhood dream of becoming a preacher but instead of using it to spread violence they want to do good deeds.

At the start they will make many mistakes as well as selfish deeds. Clarimonde will learn the hard way that magic has its own set of rules that need to be followed or else there will be heavy consequences. 

Inspirations

Here I want to point at Loki who per say is not entirely connected to nature as far as we know, though the scholars have different opinions about his place in norse mythology. From what I’ve heard Loki can very well be connected to chaos but also changes since he is a deity who always creates and solves problems. It’s thanks to him Thor has his hammer, Odin got his horse Sleipnir, Frey has the ship Skidbladnir among other things. He has great value among the Gods and is often mentioned in stories but at the same time they have distrust for him. Loki kickstarts a series of events that lead to the beloved Balder’s death, the sun is swallowed which lead to twelve years of winter and then the ship Nagelfar steered by the death Goddess Hel arrives as well as hordes of soldiers. Ragnarok is known as “The twilight of the Gods” where many of the known deities are killed in battle before the world is ending and a new era of men and Gods starts. I’ve heard one theory that the story about Ragnarok, if it’s not entirely made up my christian monks, could be a story about seasons changing and rebirth as the sun returns again. It would fit very well as the nordic winters at the time were dangerous periods of cold, darkness and death. 

Using magic Magic is not entirely good or evil, magic is magic and as I mentioned before each spell or curse has its own rules. There can be grave consequences if one breaks rules or makes mistakes but a spell in itself can be dangerous towards the spell caster or the ones getting hit by the spell. Since Clarimonde never studied magic before they are first obvious to the things happening. They can’t understand or control it which creates dangerous situations. Trying out spells without grasping the basics would be like handing out chemicals to toddlers. Clarimonde wasn’t born with magic but was for one reason or another hit with it by accident from a magical storm cloud. There is some magical electricity which moves along their skin and has taken place in them. At the start of the journey they are like a massive magnet to all forms of magic as their gate is wide open. Knowledge is seeping into their mind without any form of filter, some things come in fragments, half a spell or half a story. They can sense things in the air. Suddenly they know that there is war on a continent they have never heard of, the wind brings them memories from places or there are instructions on how to enter someone's mind. Other times Clarimonde accidentally walks outside their own body while sleeping and is fully aware of doing so or they can transform people into animals. 

As the gate is open constantly I imagine it would attract magical beings from other realms with less than friendly intentions. It could open up for experiences they don’t want to deal with, like spirits of dead people whispering in their ear at night or some ghoul trying to grab their foot. The gate will be open until they learn how to close it off. 

Since there is a strong connection to nature and magic their own emotions or silent wishes come through with magic. If they are scared there is a turbulence in nature itself with large cracks, shakings or buildings being destroyed. When Clarimonde has a strong wish to become a preacher with a community built with their own hands they suddenly have a filled church but it’s up to them if people decide to stay or leave.  

When I write about characters with powers I always want to make sure it’s not too easy for them. My characters either make horrible mistakes or are burdened with something which makes it hard for them to use powers. When it comes to Clarimonde I want to make it clear they have no idea how to properly use magic or guard themself from attacks in the beginning. In one moment Clarimonde manages to turn someone into a donkey but if someone tosses a fireball they have no idea how to counter it. A lot of it comes from insecurities, mental trauma and inexperience. 

I’ll make another post about what would be Clarimonde’s magical abilities, limits and more details about how it works for them once I’ve developed my thoughts. 

Inspirations Wanda Maximoff is a character who has done horrible things and tries to redeem each action with good deeds while also suffering from mental issues. 

I’ve only read a few comics about Wanda but I really enjoy the chapters where she tries to help people with magical problems. It feels more occult rather than the classical super power fantasy. Every spell she casts affects her body and there are rules to follow that more resemble folklore’s view on magic. Certain rituals that need to be done at a specific time or place. Things that can protect people from being cursed. Someone having a poltergeist, another who has been taken over by a demon and so on.  

She can affect reality by creating sentient beings as stand in sons, she can walk through different realms or take away the powers of every mutant on earth with one sentence. Her skills are gigantic but the lore of magic usage and actions creates a very flawed character which makes her feel more human which I find interesting. 

Hopefully I can develop Clarimonde into something interesting and nuanced when exploring their identity as a witch.

[lovehealgrow]

How to Move on After a Friendship Breakup

As a society, we spend a lot of time talking about romantic breakups. From movies to advice mavens, everybody seems to have something to say about what happens when a romantic relationship is over. But romantic relationships aren’t the only kind of relationship. For many people, friendships are just as important as romantic partnerships– for some people, they’re even more important. And just like a romantic partnership, friendships can end in breakups, too.

Unfortunately, many of us don’t know how to deal with a friendship breakup. We often struggle with our emotions around the end of these relationships, not knowing where to put our feelings or how to deal with the emotional fallout. Today, we’re going to talk about how to handle a friendship breakup and how to move on and cope with the complex feelings that crop up around them.

What Is A Friendship Breakup?

A friendship breakup refers to the ending or deterioration of a close friendship between individuals. Similar to the end of a romantic relationship, a friendship breakup involves the distancing or separation of friends due to various reasons such as conflicts, differences in values, life changes, or personal growth.

It can be a challenging and emotional experience, often involving a sense of loss and hurt feelings. Just like romantic breakups, friendship breakups can be a natural part of life, leading individuals to reassess their social circles and prioritize relationships that align with their well-being and personal development instead of causing negative feelings or friendship anxiety. In fact, a friendship breakup can feel like a romantic breakup in a lot of ways. After all, as Ashley Mateo pointed out, the brain “doesn’t know the difference between a romantic or platonic relationship… There was intimacy and trust, and then there wasn’t.”

Allowing Yourself To Grieve a Friendship Breakup

The first thing you need to do when a friendship breakup happens is realize that your feelings are valid– no matter what they are. Even if you initiated the breakup, it’s likely that you will want to grieve. And that’s ok! Acknowledge your feelings and allow yourself to grieve the loss of the friendship.

It’s important to understand that it’s entirely normal to experience a range of emotions when a friendship ends. You may feel sadness over the loss, anger about what led to the breakup, confusion about the situation, or even relief if the friendship was causing distress. Allowing yourself to recognize and validate these emotions is the first step towards healing.

Suppressing or denying your feelings may prolong the healing process. It’s essential to create a safe space for yourself to express and process these emotions. Whether it’s through journaling, talking to a trusted friend, or seeking professional help, find a healthy outlet for your emotions. Grieving takes time, and it’s important to be patient with yourself during this period. Healing is a gradual process, and there is no set timeline for when you should feel “over it.” Allow yourself the time needed to navigate through the emotional aftermath of the friendship breakup. If you give yourself the grace, patience, and time that you need, true healing from a friendship breakup can occur.

Tips for Dealing With A Friendship Breakup

While time and patience with yourself and your feelings are the key to surviving a friendship breakup, there are other things you can do to help yourself work through it. Here are some of the best things you can do to help yourself through.

Reflect on the Relationship

Take dedicated time to reflect on the reasons behind the friendship breakup. Consider the dynamics, communication patterns, and any contributing factors that led to the end of the relationship. Reflecting on the relationship can provide clarity about your own needs, boundaries, and expectations. This self-awareness can be empowering, guiding you in making healthier choices in future friendships and helping you grow from the experience.

Set Boundaries

If necessary, establish clear boundaries to create space for your emotional healing. This may involve limiting contact with your former friend for a defined period to prioritize your well-being and prevent reopening emotional wounds. Setting boundaries is an act of self-care that allows you to focus on your own emotional recovery without the added stress of continued interaction. Clearly communicating and enforcing these boundaries is crucial for creating a supportive environment for your healing process.

Focus on Self-Care

Prioritize self-care both physically and emotionally by engaging in activities that bring joy, relaxation, and a sense of well-being. Exercise, pursue hobbies, or spend quality time with supportive friends who uplift and understand your feelings. Taking care of your physical health, getting adequate rest, and nourishing your body can positively impact your emotional state. Self-care serves as a foundation for resilience, helping you cope with the emotional challenges of a friendship breakup and promoting overall well-being.

Acceptance

Acknowledge and accept that not all friendships are meant to last forever. People evolve, and relationships may outgrow their initial dynamics. Recognizing this reality is a key step in letting go of attachment to the past. Embrace the concept that endings can be a natural part of life, allowing space for new beginnings and personal growth. Acceptance facilitates the emotional closure needed to move forward with a healthier mindset.

Learn from the Experience

View the friendship breakup as an opportunity for personal growth and self-discovery. Reflect on the lessons learned from the relationship—both positive and challenging aspects. Consider how these insights can shape your future interactions and contribute to the development of more fulfilling friendships. Learning from the experience positions you to make informed choices in future relationships and fosters continuous personal development.

Avoid Blame

While it’s natural to seek answers, try to refrain from placing blame solely on yourself or the other person. Friendships often end due to a combination of factors, and understanding the complexity of the situation can ease the process of acceptance. Avoiding a blame-centric mindset helps in cultivating empathy and forgiveness, allowing you to release negative emotions and move forward with a more open heart.

Engage in New Activities

Explore new activities and social circles to broaden your experiences and meet new people. Engaging in novel pursuits not only serves as a healthy distraction but also provides opportunities for personal growth and connection. Building new connections can be a positive step forward, offering fresh perspectives and a chance to create meaningful relationships. Embracing new activities and social environments contributes to your overall well-being and reinforces the idea that life continues to unfold with opportunities for joy and connection.

Seek Support

Share your feelings with trusted friends, family members, or a therapist who can provide a listening ear and emotional support. Open communication about the friendship breakup can be cathartic, allowing you to express your emotions and gain insights into your own thoughts. Talking to others may offer different perspectives and coping strategies, helping you navigate the complexities of the situation. Knowing that you’re not alone in your experience and having a support system can be instrumental in the healing process.

Professional support can be highly beneficial when dealing with a friendship breakup. If you’re going through a friendship breakup, or thinking about initiating one, don’t hesitate to reach out to the therapists at Love Heal Grow. Our relationship experts are here to help you deal with your emotions and advocate for yourself through this difficult scenario!

[nightswithkookmin]

Dear new friend,

I just finished reading your messages. First of all, thank you. I think I would have been less traumatized out here if a lot of people took to sharing their thoughts on matters such as these in the manner in which you do.

I think I set myself up too because I be wanting to participate in certain topics and discussions and so often I find myself trying to sieve through the vitriol and pejoratives.

The gender of the word is feminine not masculine. I don’t see how that is misinformation.

"Sorry, the misinformation bit was because I was thinking about that tweet that went viral about this word being used only for woman. The person said it was an adjective, and you said it was an adjective, so I thought you were basing this information on that tweet. That day was crazy, some people spread this, wanted to change his pronouns, trend a hashtag and were saying he had came out... This was too much. And the "debunked" thing was about this tweet, as well. Not about the words being feminine and masculine. That's a fact, you're right."

I had no idea a tweet went viral like that claiming he wanted to change his pronouns. That's wild and I disagree. Lol. I think I've always maintained he uses He/him pronouns and said time and again I do not think he wants to be emasculated at all. As I said, that would have made him transgender not bigender and thus defeat the purpose. To be bigender he has to be two genders at the same time not one.

But I have been following the discussions on this topic on the bird app and I try my best to bring nuance to certain discussions. I try. Lol.

I take note of the differences between your language and Latin as you rightly pointed out. But I also do see the similarities and I think the explanation you gave and the examples you provided gives me a better understanding of the language structure.

"Yeah, totally fine hahah We tend to interpret things according to our own experiences; for me, a gendered word is part of my daily life, normal, and I don't bat an eye about it. Is just a word, the importance is in its meaning ─ and it suits filter SOOO well. For you, it's something more. At the end of the day, art is here to be interpreted, and if Jimin doesn't explicitly explain the filter performance, tattoos, set, outfits... It's open for interpretation. (And I'm not a person that tries to find hidden meanings. I simply enjoy what I enjoy. I have this thing about being as accurate as possible, so I try to stick to facts (like: I don't feel comfortable saying he chose these words, because I don't know if HE was the person that chose it (in the sense that he was the one that bring it up to the staff/company). Maybe someone else showed it to him and he was like: "Nice! I want it!". But I feel okay saying he's had a tattoo with these words (A fact). Also I don't make a big deal of most things ─ for me Jimin is Jimin and I'm supporting him regardless, he's precious)

(But Memories 2020 is coming and I'm almost sure they are going to show filter behind the scenes!!!! So we're going to understand better this masterpiece (I HOPE SO))

I understand what you mean. Some people are inclined towards taking the literal meaning of texts or in this case art and not read much into situations beyond what is presented at face value- not me🤣🤣🤣🤣

I do the magnifying glass and errthang👁

I think humans are complex and there's always a possibility of a psychological and or pathological stimulus underscoring their behaviors, choices and actions in most cases.

But that aside, I think it's easier to take a heteronormative view on things sometimes because cis straight has always been the norm even in appreciating art- but truth is, coding and co opting codified expressions is almost always part of queer culture and behavior too. If any other queer celebrity had used that expression, I would be reading much into it too beyond its semantics.

For me it's simple, would I be reading too too much into the language and art choice of someone I thought was cis straight? Hell No. Straight is boring and blunt as fuck.

Unless of course they were being intentionally witty or secretive about something, I'd assume and expect their expressions to be pretty much straight forward- generally. I went home to be would mean just that.

If I sensed the author were queer coding Home would mean something else entirely to be. Home becomes a symbol not a word. And if he chose to write that in Latin and not the language they spoke naturally, I'd assume there's something about that language that he likes and perhaps uses to code a queer message.

For closeted queer people who live in a world where they are constantly coerced to take on a duality and have an expressional alter egos- two identical identities with one being the facade and pretense through which they openly and largely perform normalcy of self, the other being their real self which they tuck away because it is inconsistent with the acceptable norms- I'd a take a very different approach to their art. But that's me.

If a straight person said they needed escape, it would mean something totally different to me than say if a queer person said they needed escape. Because those two are escaping two very different things.

For example, the words Moon and moonlight used by a straight person means nothing to me- perhaps because I just don't care much to look for its deeper meaning beyond the literal meaning of the words as presented. If it appears in a queer person's parlance, even if in passing, I assume immediately they are referencing something much more deeper, meaningful and coded.

Queer coding is a thing you know? And it's born out of necessity not choice sometimes.

Take for instance BTS's proclivity to 'queer codify' their music. Moon and moonlight has become symbolic of the inner struggles of a queer person amongst black 'educated' queer men and women. It's come to symbolize cultural norms and expectations and how those affect queer people- perhaps of all race.

In the Movie Moonlight, which has become the epitome of queer black struggles and desires for liberation, this motif was used to represent the struggles of a black boy dealing with the pressures of a hyper masculine society.

When RM references this in 4 Oclock, 'the whole world is blue under the moonlight' is he queer coding or just appropraiting queer parlance as buzz word? That expression takes on a whole new meaning were he queer. Blue symbolizes queerness- a theory popularized of course by the Film. When V who once wrote an allegedly 'queer coded song' Stigma says he is blue- what does he mean now? On the surface blue means blue. Would you take a straightforward view on this or assume its symbolic? And what is it symbolic of?? Sadness?? Gayness?

If RM had an accompanying tattoo as compliment to the song in his performance that evoked similar sentiments or hinted at a possible second meaning I wouldn't assume that that tattoo meant nothing or that it didn't have a deeper meaning behind it.

It's just as how Lil Nas X posted a city of rainbows and people said 'rainbows are rainbows. Y'all shouldn't read much into it.' But for queer people that was pretty much a declaration of his sexuality.

Later he had to post again and reiterate that that rainbow post was his coming out moment. 'I thought I made it obvious.'

Somethings are pretty much obvious.

For JM who don't speak Latin- unless he is secretly fluent in which case my bad- I don't think he cares so much about the grammar of the language beyond it's meaning. And perhaps gender? Grammatical gender I mean. That's just because the first thing you learn about Latin is that all the nouns are gendered?

I won't lie. When I first learned that I was supper fascinated about grammatical gender and why speakers of the language felt a need to gender every word of the language.

In the end, we all don't know. I'm out here convinced two Asian men are so gay they can't straight to save their asses. I have a tendency to view everything they do through queer lens. If they are not gay I'm pretty much gaslighting them you know?

I'm always fascinated by different point of views on a myriad of subjects. Just as you said, our diverse experiences inform our experiences and perspectives. I just hope people acknowledge how their straightness informs their understanding of queerness too and how that has a tendency to be invalidating and dismissive of queer issues and experiences.

But to me it's like, if Jikook are gay why do you have to interpret what they do through straight lens?

Personally, I wouldn't interpret straight through queer lens and force that view on to straight people. That would be homonormative? Assuming rainbow means straight people are gay when they are not, moon means feminine to straight men, that the use of the word God makes one a Christian- that's just silly and bizarre.

I use Namaste often and suddenly some people here think I'm Indian. I wish. They have one hell of a culture.

When I was reading through your messages, all that kept playing in my head was- that's a very 'straight' view on the matter. Lol. Please tell me you got the pun. Lol.

I think my opinion will remain the same on the matter if you placed any queer person in Jimin's stead. Any queer person that I believed was queer and had hinted a few times at exploring a dual identity or going through that phase at least.

I think I'd enjoy your blog if you had one.

I love love the lesson on Italian or is it Spanish?

Also, I would love your take on V and Stigma. A lot of queer stans have a queer reading of the lyrics- I see the appeal however I don't have a queer reading of it at all. Thoughts??

Namaste.

Signed,

GOLDY

[lizzibennet]

Is it bad if I see Percy as white? I always feel bad when I see posts about why poc!Percy makes sense bc I still just have the same picture of him in my mind :/ I'm not against it at all! It's just not the way i see him

it’s not inherently harmful to see percy as white. if i’m being honest, it’s what i think rick intended him to be when he was written. i think rick pictured a white boy too. that doesn’t mean he can’t be non-white or that him not being white goes against canon or cheapens his character. in fact, i think his character only has improvements if we read him as not white.

see hermione: some of the most defining features of her character were that she had frizzy, curly hair, that she was teased for a natural feature of her face, her teeth, so much she used magic to permanently alter it, and she was clearly one of the most intelligent students at hogwarts, but she wasn’t taken seriously and called bossy and annoying. are these struggles exclusive to black people? obviously not. do black people deal with these struggles more often than white people? absolutely, because of racism. it’s one thing to be teased for your hair when you’re white and another to be bullied for it when you’re black. the reading of hermione as black not only makes these struggles more believable, it also gives her character more layers as to why she works so hard and why she is so set on freeing house elves. her character is improved through this reading, so much so, in fact, that a black woman was cast to play her in the harry potter play. so even if jk rowling intended hermione to be white at first - which i totally think she did - she understood that this reading of the character is valid and makes sense, so she incorporated it into her canon.

the same can be said for percy: a genuinely nice kid who had a literal manhunt set for him when he was twelve, who has labelled a troublemaker for things out of his control, labelled violent for the disappearance of his mother that he had absolutely no involvement in, for who was clearly used to dealing with this from adults his entire life. again- are these struggles exclusive to non white kids? of course not. do non white kids face this more often and often in more severe ways? yes. it’s time we stop pretending they don’t. every single form of oppression exists under the weight of racism. non-white women deal with misogyny differently than white women, non-white men deal with toxic masculinity differently than white men, and non-white kids deal with prejudice because of their neurodivergences differently than white kids. to pretend it’s all the same is to excuse racism in those circles. intersectionality has to be considered in order to fully understand the situation. so does this mean percy can’t be white? of course not. does it mean that percy being a person of color gives his character more nuance in dealing with the issues named in the books? yes, it does. maybe that wasn’t a concern back in 2005 when the books were released, them dealing with neurodivergence was already pretty amazing for the time, but it’s 2020. if rick riordan is really set on writing fiction for the kids like his son who were ostracized for simply being the way they are, then he knows that making percy not white in the adaptation of the books would hold a different weight and meaning for all these groups he says he wants to help.

this is the case for non-white percy. it makes sense, and that’s not up for debate. it does. just because it makes sense doesn’t mean you have to adopt it. 

but the thing is, why wouldn’t you?

if this reading enriches the character, why wouldn’t you at least entertain it for the sake of bringing up valid issues in fandom? 

if, as you said, it’s just the way you see him and that’s all there is to it, that’s perfectly fine. but you have to remember we all live in a racist society. we all live under the pressure of it and we are all affected by it. seeing percy as a white boy in your mind is not the problem - the problem is denying that he could maybe possibly perhaps not be white, the problem is advocating against it, saying that he cannot possibly be white. he can, we’ve discussed it. why wouldn’t it be possible? is it because heroes are always white? is it because you’re so used to seeing heroes be white your brain just cannot marry the two images - a hero who is latino, black, native, asian? is it because these people are meant to stay in the sidelines?

you may think these things subconsciously. as i said, we all live in a racist world. we, white and non-white people alike, pick up on racist values from the moment we are born, and once we’re made aware of racism and xenophobia, we start a process of deconstructing these values that is lifelong. some of us have a TON of baggage that we need to deconstruct. so let’s say you have worked through the majority of it - you support blacklivesmatter and non-white artists, you think racist violence is outrageous, but you still can’t fathom the thought of percy jackson not being white. why? is it a visceral reaction you have? is it unconscious? why would you be so against it?

it’s important to question that, always, whether or not you think you’re racist. if you can honestly, truthfully tell me it’s not based on any sort of prejudice and it’s just because you sincerely imagine percy as white and that’s all there is to it - great, carry on with your day. but if you have any doubt on your reasoning, there may still be issues you need to confront. that’s normal and part of becoming a better, more respectful person. if you’re going around and advocating against non-white percy, questioning why would people think he isn’t white, replying to posts with Um Actually He’s Greek, then i desperately need you to ask yourself why, and reflect hard on your answer. “i just think he’s white” is seldom all there is to it.

tldr: it’s not bad to think he’s white, it’s bad to outright deny the possibility he could ever not be white, and to try to stop people who think he isn’t and tell them they’re wrong

[ratingtheframe]

So 2020 sucked... but the films didn’t! The top twenty films of 2020 (in my humble opinion).

AT LAST. This godforsaken year is over and as we venture into a new year, let's hope and pray that the art’s industry finds a way to build themselves back up again, in a way that is safe and necessary for them to bring us the entertainment we so crave. It has been a crazy and unprecedented year for the film industry, a year that it has never seen with losses of an estimated $5 Billion at the end of March. Some of the most anticipated blockbusters of all time had to be put on hold and postponed for hopefully next year with No Time to Die, A Quiet Place II, Wonder Woman 1984, Dune and Black Widow being a slim few that never got onto a silver screen this year. However, there is no reason to fret or relinquish the loss film has had this year, as hopefully next year once we’ve had a better understanding of this virus, these films along with many others will have their audience. Amongst the postponed releases, many films have been resilient to the virus and still managed to gain a spot in the cinema despite the circumstances. 

Christopher Nolan’s Tenet was the only multi-million dollar film to be released this year and even though the risk of release could have meant nothing for the film, it still managed to rake in a staggering $361 million, an expected profit for a film of its size. However, despite the film's success, Nolan made it clear that this shouldn’t be taken lightly and that the safety of film consumers comes before the profits themselves. 

Even though we will have to be more cautious in the cinema, films will return, once we have regulated safety measures in cinemas and film festivals to ensure that customers can feel comfortable. For now, HBO has planned to put many releases from Warner Bros. straight onto its streaming platform as well as in the cinema next year, in an attempt to prevent the spread of COVID whilst still being able show the films we’ve been craving. There’s no telling what next year will bring, what the Oscars will look like or if filming for the next Batman film will ever end, however it's clear to see that the film industry has shown resilience amongst this pandemic and will continue to do so in years to come, no matter the challenges.

Here are twenty of the films that made it to the cinema (or streaming platforms) this year, that proved the durability of the film industry during this time. 

20. Tenet directed by Christopher Nolan 

We can all agree that Chrisopher Nolan’s Tenet should be handed the award of Most Confusing Yet Entertaining Film of the Year, or ever made in fact. The sci-fi epic adventure that sees its lead (named “the protagonist) travel back in time and then forward in time and then back in time again (?)... yup, I didn’t get it either, but I’m not the only one seeing as Robert Pattinson who played alongside John David Washingston hadn’t a clue what was going on either. And he was in the film. However, despite the film's confusion, it doesn’t make it a bad or “lazy” film, for every aspect of this film from lighting, sound design, casting, direction, stunts WAS ON POINT and those elements are truly what sets this film apart. The story may have been perplexing but at least there was one. 

19. Nomadland directed by Chloé Zhao

It is such a shame that Nomadland may not get the audience it deserves due to the COVID-19 pandemic as it is a truly moving and rich film. The Nomads are a group of real Americans who’ve hit the road in various mobile homes after the Great Recession in 2008 caused millions to be homeless and redundant. Frances McDormand plays Fern, one of these Nomads and child of the road whilst the film follows her simple, yet melancholy journey across Western America.  Chloé Zhao has been tipped several times for an Oscar with Nomadland after winning the Golden Lion at this year’s Venice Film Festival. Let’s hope that if this goes onto the Academy Awards, Nomadland will find the audience it so craves. 

18. Uncut Gems directed by the Safdie Brothers 

YES, Uncut Gems came out THIS YEAR, which is an insane thought seeing as I saw the film in a packed cinema before it was released onto Netflix. The Safdie Brothers, Josh and Benny brought us Uncut Gems this year, a declining tale of a man’s test with fate and the many many second chances he gets at life, only to f*** all of them up. Adam Sandler plays Howard Ratner, a pawn shop owner and frequent gambler. This is Sandler’s best ever role and the multifaceted, gritty work of the Safdie Brothers (Heaven Knows What, Good Time) really brought something brilliant out of him. 

17. The Half of it directed by Alice Wu

The Half of It wins the Most Surprising Film of the Year. A highly credible film directed by Alice Wu, The Half of It is EVERYTHING we want and need in this world. In fact, it’s everything we kind of already have in this world, but hardly see on screen. Non white leads, queer non stereotyped relationships, unpredictable endings; The Half of It was an all rounder for me. Some may roll their eyes at the amount of diverse elements to the film and see it as a way of gaining brownie points, but why does that have to be a thing? Why can’t having active and authentic representation across all films just be normal rather than political? If anything, it should be encouraged. The story was brilliant (and made me cry) as it had so many layers to it as well as the characters.

16. 7500 directed by Patrick Vollrath

Definitely the wildcard of this list, 7500 is an Amazon Studios film starring Joseph Gordon Levitt. I’ll admit, my hopes weren’t high, but after taking the time to watch this film I was truly blown away. And who KNEW Joseph Gordon Levitt could be so deep and in tune with his emotions on screen. He plays a pilot whose plane gets hijacked mid flight. There. Enough said. I could hardly BREATHE throughout this film in apprehension of what was going to happen next.

15. Kajilionaire directed by Miranda July

2020 thus far has been the best year for female filmmakers. From Céline Sciamma’s Portrait of a Lady on Fire, Josephine Decker’s Shirley, Rose Glass’ Saint Maud and Miranda July’s Kajilionaire, a clear cut foundation has been carved effortlessly for female filmmakers this year. Miranda July’s Kajilionaire especially rocked my senses a little as I saw so much unfamiliarity yet beauty within this film. A simple storyline that follows Old Dolio (Evan Rachael Wood), a young woman trying to feel more connected with her parents. A certainly bittersweet tale that has this rose tinted like vibe to it that attaches itself to the visuals and music of the film, that make everything feel light and playful. This contrasts well with the story itself as being sad and melancholy, further proving the fact this film is more than face value. Face value films have never gotten us anywhere and its films that go beyond entertainment that truly last in the industry. 

14. Bombshell directed by Jay Roach 

Bombshell is a PERFECT title for this film; a film that left me angry, sad and questioning the immorality that is still prevalent in the mostly male dominant society we live in. Charlize Theron, Margot Robbie and Nicole Kidman (best trio ever) star as three news anchors on Fox news whose lives are brutally torn apart when the Head of Fox News, Roger Ailes is accused of sexual harassment on many different occasions by female members of the workplace. Despite the silence being now broken, these three women still face a whole load of other problems that come in speaking up against a powerful, white and rich male. Threats of permanent job losses, victim blaming and a weak image are the consequence of speaking up about sexual assault as a member of Fox news. The brand itself has an incredibly misogynistic view of women and continues to have an idealised image of how women should be on the news with those working at Fox actually admitting it brings in viewers. Women with tons of makeup and dresses shorter than is comfortable is Fox news and Bombshell went above and beyond exposing this scandal that truly shook American broadcasting forever. 

13. Borat Subsequent Movie Film directed by Jason Woliner 

Borat Subsequent Movie Film wins the award for Most Jaw Dropping Film of the Year, as its protagonist and creator Sacha Baron Cohen, went above and beyond to show us the true dark depths of America. Ballsy, outrageous, jaw dropping, scandalous; every bold word can be used to describe this film and the lengths it went to get right to the heart of American society. The ugly heart. By now you should be aware that the ex president’s attorney was shoved right into the firing line after he was taken into a hotel bedroom by a reporter who happened to be an actor. Rudi Gulliani was left red faced after Borat bursts into the hotel room proclaiming the young reporter is his daughter, with Gulliani still unaware the entire outrageous event had been caught on camera. And not just any camera. A MOVIE camera. A true triumph in free speech and comedy, Borat Subsequent Movie Film will live on forever as the most outlandish film there is.

12. Miss Juneteenth directed by Channing Godfrey-Peoples 

A real eye opener into current American society using a touching story between mother and daughter as a backdrop. Turquoise is a single mother struggling to get by and support her daughter Kai through the Miss Juneteenth pageant, held annually in Fort Worth, Texas. A real competition, the Miss Juneteenth pageant promises one lucky young woman of colour a full scholarship to a black historical college of their choosing. Turquoise desperately wants this for her daughter as it’ll give her the opportunities in life she never had. A truly moving and authentic film, this scored 100% on Rotten Tomatoes which is a highly impressive and deserving score.

11. The Trial of the Chicago Seven directed by Aaron Sorkin

Aaron Sorkin’s lyricism in words was again brought to us on screen this year with his depiction of the Chicago 7 (eight if you count Bobby Seale); seven men who were accused and put on trial for eliciting the Chicago riots of 1968. When in actuality, the police themselves had more to do with riling up the protestors than anyone else, even pushing a crowd of protestors through the front window of a restaurant to make it seem like they had vandalised the property. If anyone was going to make such a film, Sorkin would be the one to do it as with any event or idea he covers, Sorkin’s words as a writer MAKE YOU CARE. Even when you had no recollection or understanding of something, the way Sorkin depicts these events on screen has you absorbed into the story till the last second. An incredible and powerful story and a film that I could constantly go back to in order to learn about the injustices of American politics.  

10. The Devil All the Time directed by Antonio Campos 

I feel like The Devil All the Time still hasn’t got the recognition it deserves. There is something incredibly powerful and priceless about having a group of exceptionally talented people come together to create something for screen. This film wins Best Casting of the Year (if you don’t count Dune) as the likes of Tom Holland, Robert Pattinson, Eliza Scanlen, Sebastian Stan, Bill Skarsgård,  Mia Wasikowska, Harry Melling, Riley Keogh, Jason Clarke and Haley Bennett graced our screens in this dark and ominous tale. Any story that is set in a small town and is about stories interweaving is bound to be interesting and thought provoking in it’s telling, with this adaptation being no different. The star of the show was Robert Pattinson’s thick Tennessee accent along with his clean yet filthy character interpretation of a perverted priest. Not one line in this film was thrown away and every single moment held a weighty tension, further confirming to us each character’s downfall by the end. An amazing adaptation and something you will reeeeeally enjoy.

9. Soul directed by Pete Docter 

What was supposed to be Pixar’s second release of the year, Soul is Pixar’s most highly executed film to date. The amount of detail and care the animators and creators of Soul had taken to this picture is INSANE; insanely beautiful. With the black community going through so much this year, having something like Soul be put out to audiences shows support of this ever changing and growing movement. Even though having black representation on screen isn’t on the top of everyone’s priority list, it’s still important that the effort is there in order to really show what the world is like on screen and to cater to more audiences. Soul itself had everything; diverse, three dimensional characters, a clear and heart warming story and comedic, uplifting points that only strengthened the important message of this movie; life itself.

8. The Lighthouse directed by Robert Eggers 

Again, another film that came out right at the beginning of the year, Robert Egger’s The Lighthouse was a whole new world that we had never seen before. Shot on a Panavision Millennium XL2 using a lense from the 1930s and black and white film, The Lighthouse was a decrepit, eerie and brilliant movie to watch throughout. It just makes me satisfied as a viewer when a director not only creates a film, but creates one that is so beyond anything we’ve ever seen and could likely have been made in an entirely different era altogether. Robert Pattinson KILLED IT in his role as a surly drunken sailor alongside Willem Dafoe, whose Irish accent was enviable. Overall a highly executed film that exudes brilliance and a creative mind.

7. The Hater directed by Jan Komasa 

I would say The Hater is the second wildcard on this list. It’s a Polish drama that hasn’t had a lot of rep in the media, however, this doesn’t detract from the film’s execution and drama. A real downfall story that sees a jealous ridden man go from a media intern into illicting terrorism. Like, HELLO how does one go to such an extreme? The only way to find out would be watching the film...The film really spoke to the dangers of social media and the ease of getting someone to insight violence onto someone else, all through a computer. My mouth was hanging on the floor during several moments of this film and I can 100% guarantee the Netflix film will have the same affect on you.

6. La Belle Époque directed by Nicolas Bedos 

La Belle Époque (or “The Good Times”) wins the award for Most Heart Warming Film of the Year. A surprisingly unique concept that follows a man trying to relive the best moments of his past after his wife wishes to divorce him. A company that specialises in creating your past memories offers him the opportunity to go back to the time when he and his wife first met, using actors, set design and music to recreate the moment. The French film emits a strong sense of nostalgia throughout with brilliant music and set design. It’s just one of those films that heavily expresses the idea of “what if” within a film whilst answering it boldly through its unique story.

5. Ema directed by Pablo Larraín 

Ema took me a few days to fully absorb and appreciate as an experimental film, rather than one with a clear cut narrative. It's a film that expresses an idea, a feeling as opposed to a story which is completely okay and doable in this day and age. Ema is a liberating, freeing and psychedelic world of a film, with the message of the film being wrapped up in Ema’s attitude as a woman and the way she sets fires to things wherever she goes. Literally, as the opening sequence is of her setting alight a basketball hoop. There is some strong, vivid imagery within this and the MUSIC...definitely the best sound track I’ve heard this year. Ema’s in my top five for its uniqueness, rawness and the weird sense of liberation it gave me after watching it.

4. Saint Maud directed by Rose Glass

Probably the biggest breakthrough film of the year and despite the pandemic, Saint Maud certainly got the rep it deserved. An entirely new perspective of horror was brought to use in troves in the form of this Irish film created by first time director Rose Glass. I cannot express how brilliant and revolutionary Saint Maud was for its simplicity, story and filmmaking techniques. An ambitious and all round brilliant film that sits prettily in my top five films of the year.

3. Portrait of a Lady on Fire directed by Céline Sciamma

Portrait of a Lady on Fire wins the award for Best Foreign Language Film and it still hurts to think it never even made it to the Academy Awards this year. One of the most moving and earthy films that I’ve seen this year, Portrait of a Lady on Fire is a slow, sensual and ambiguous picture that shows a love story between two women through the form of art. I became quite obsessed with the music of Antonio Vivaldi after seeing this as the time period and music intertwined really well in this film. Exceptionally made and incredibly raw, Portrait of a Lady on Fire went straight for the heart in this film by also putting the grievances of love at the forefront of this film. 

2. Parasite directed by Bong Joon Ho 

You are probably extremely bored and tired of hearing of the success of Parasite as a breakthrough picture, however there are an abundance of reasons for it! Winner of Six Academy Awards including Best Picture, Parasite really pulled the rug beneath the Academy Awards feet and certainly proved that no matter your race, it's the story that sells and that will bank you an Academy Award. A wonderfully crafted story, one that could have been found in theatre or even opera and those sort of structured narratives are what really grab people’s attention. 

1. Another Round (Druk) directed by Thomas Vinterberg 

And finally, my favourite, Most Enjoyable Film of the Year had to be without a doubt, Thomas Vinterburg’s Druk, which I had the pleasure of seeing at the BFI London Film Festival this year. The theatre-like structure of a narrative has been implemented seamlessly into this film and even if structure means nothing to you, you can feel when a film has been crafted differently to bring about a dynamic and earthy narrative. I’ve previously watched two films of Vinterberg’s; Festen and The Hunt and even though those two films hold a high rating, Druk is definitely Vinterberg’s best film yet. Extremely entertaining whilst also carrying a rather dark side to it, Vinterberg sells you the best and worst of two worlds whilst exposing the effects of alcohol consumption. 

And that’s it! 2020 in films! If you agreed or disagreed with anything on this list or think something else should’ve made the list that came out this year, be sure to leave me a comment on this post or via instagram on @ratingtheframe. It’s crazy to think that this obsession of mine turns two years old next year and there are still so many amazing pictures to be seen! And as always, you will find each and every one of them right here on @ratingtheframe.tumblr.

Bring on 2021!

[lgbtqia-representation]

Monogamous Trap

Monogamy is yet another game at people trying to continue the cycle of heteronormativity that sadly even the LGBTQIA community falls into the trap for. However, with powerful forces backing this idea ranging from religious doctrines to national laws, it is easy to understand why this entire realm of relationships is brandished.

Under the realm of non-monogamous relationships there are far more than most would like to acknowledge ranging from the number of partners to inherent rules. To start simply is the difference between “-somes” and polyamory. “Three- “, “four- “, etc. -somes are specifically used to reference the idea of an intercourse-based relationship that has little to do outside the bedroom. Pretty much any relationship that has aspects outside the bedroom is more likely to be referenced as a throuple or polyamorous relationship. There are obviously going to be people who do not use the “more standard” language so specifically asking someone about is the best bet in any situation.

Aside from just numbers there is also “attitude” towards the relationship. What I mean by this is whether it is “open” or “closed”, or perhaps somewhere in the middle. An open polyamorous relationship can have a few different concepts such as each individual partner can look for other partners or it might mean the relationship is open to adding new people to it. This concept might be hard to understand if you only view relationships as a line. Instead think about each individual letter in the alphabet and imagine those as ways to depict different relationship set ups, you might be getting close to the vast number of options out there.

Just based on all of that it almost becomes easier to understand why the community is so misunderstood. There is no guide nor clear idea of what any given relationship would look like. This is one of the big controversial issues as to why the community is not so accepted into LGBTQIA despite clearly being a sexual orientation. This community receives backlash from the queer community as well as from society itself, this is sadly one of the most outcasted sections. This even comes down to the fact that many within the community wonder if this should not be in the community because it should be its own category of identity, relationship style perhaps. In a way it is ironic that it is not considered its own category whereas when looking at the animal kingdom one of the earliest facts for any animal we learn about is what is its mating style- for life or season being one of the largest aspects to that question. So, if we analyze an animal's mating partners why are we so weird about humans having those same sorts of characteristics?

As I mentioned earlier, this could largely come down to the idea of laws and doctrines working to guide the perceptions of “normal” relationship styles. This is a concern for the whole of the LGBTQIA community and yet they cannot even find safety within that community. Despite same sex relationships being actively opposed in most religions, many within the relationships still actively practice, believe, or agree with the ideas presented in their previous religion. This is one of the reasons so many people think it is wrong. Other people completely misunderstand the fundamental concepts of a polyamorous relationship which is communication between all partners. Many people say that these sorts of relationships are simply an excuse to cheat on each other with no consequence. Whereas when examined and understood, these situations are heavily communicated about from beginning to end to ensure all partners are content and satisfied. If someone cheats, they are not protected by the polyamory umbrella if anything they disrupted the core values of the system.

One of my biggest struggles with this community is that lesbians and bisexuals are often overlooked in this community. There is a prevalence or assumption that only gays and straight women primarily operate these kinds of relationships. This dynamic is often turned into the idea that straight women simply want another guy or are willing to let their male partners experiment as opposed to women having this sexuality. Countless articles are written about why men should join a threesome at least once listing off all sorts of benefits, that I do agree with- but that are not dependent on sexual or gender identity. They included:

It forces you to work on jealousy issues.

It forces you to become a better communicator.

Can get different needs met by each partner.

Two heads are better than one (intellectually speaking)

Two Shoulders to cry on

Cuddling

Your family triples.

Your friend group expands exponentially.

You have an additional hand parenting.

The sex

(Zane)

On the other hand, Females simply looking into this community are deemed to be “sleeping with enemy” which erases the entire concept of a three women relationship, which is entirely possible. This also works to marginalize female bisexuals despite them being approximately 60% of the bisexual population.

This sadly more comes back to gay men being fetishized as well as being more accepted in society due to them being a larger percent from the beginning. Also, celebrity inclusion, with many stars and actors suddenly coming out as being part of throuple with two, if not three, males, exposure is distinctively increasing for them while women are seemingly at a standstill. Stars like, Frankie Grande, brother of pop sensation Ariana Grande, even publicly announced his participation in one of these relationships.

Frankie even comments on his own impact and inclusion in the community, “A lot of people come up to me and say, “Oh my God, you are in a throuple? I am in a throuple,” ‘the star said. ‘It’s been cool to see people do that as well. Love is love is love is love.’” (‘Love is Love’)

Women even in their sexual identities are still looking to be fully accepted and noticed. Only with time and strong efforts can this hopefully change.

In Netflix’s new show “Insatiable” is another mainstream media representation of polyamory which ironically very accurately depicts the plights within this realm. “During the season finale, Bob A. [left in the above picture] speaks about his poly relationship (at this point still intact), explaining how embracing his identity as a poly bisexual man makes him feel "loved completely" and fully "satisfied."” (Foreman) This was a wonderful depiction of what polyamory actively works to achieve, a balance between the partners that allows each of them to feel satisfied and safe within the relationship. In contrast, “Bob B. [right in the above picture] unexpectedly breaks up with them. He explains, "I didn't agree to a relationship. I just thought the three of us would have sex sometimes so she would not feel left out.”” (Foreman) Whereas this shows the darker side of it, where certain relationships/individuals do not understand the poly individual(s). This specific instance Bob B. Believes Bob A. to be completely gay, negating his bisexual identity, as well as preventing him from balancing the two relationships to at least meet his desires. This especially shown when the women (center of image) and non-polyamorous Bob (right) confront the bisexual and polyamorous Bob(left) into picking only one of them when it is clear throughout the entire series, he truly loves both.

Resources:

Barrett, Kim. “Does Polyamory Fall Under the LGBT+ Umbrella?” Medium, Polyamory Today, 25 Jan. 2020, medium.com/polyamory-today/polyamory-and-the-lgbt-community-3a8a52debbc3.

Foreman, Alison. “We Need to Talk about That Throuple in 'Insatiable'.” Mashable, Mashable, 20 Aug. 2018, mashable.com/article/insatiable-throuple/.

Lewis, Jessi, et al. “The Great Divide: Polyamory, 'Throuples' and the LGBTI Community.” Star Observer, 18 Dec. 2016, www.starobserver.com.au/features/in-depth-features/great-divide-polyamory-throuples-lgbti-community/154564.

Outmagazine. “10 Reasons Every Gay Man Should Try a Throuple Once.” OUT, 17 Oct. 2018, www.out.com/lifestyle/2018/10/17/10-reasons-every-gay-man-should-try-throuple-once#media-gallery-media-1.

Rosenblum, Karen Elaine, and Toni-Michelle Travis, editors. The Meaning of Difference. 5th ed., McGraw-Hill Education, 2008.

Tabberer, Jamie. “'Love Is Love': Frankie Grande Reveals All about His Three-Way Relationship.” Gay Star News, 23 Nov. 2018, www.gaystarnews.com/article/love-is-love-frankie-grande-reveals-all-about-his-three-way-relationship/.

Wandrei, Karin E. “'Sleeping with the Enemy': Non-Monogamy and 1970s Lesbian-Feminists - Karin E Wandrei, 2019.” SAGE Journals, journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1363460717750074.

Image:

“Polyamory Infinite Heart Love Honesty Communication Vinyl: Etsy: Polyamory, Polyamory Relationships, Polyamory Quotes.” Pinterest, www.pinterest.com/pin/144326363036694494/.

“Throuple.” Facebook, www.facebook.com/pages/category/Musician-Band/Throuple-645110832488889/.

[asoiaf-source]

Fighting Hate with more Hate. That always works, right?

“Sansa’s fans are so defensive of her because of the rest of the fandom demonize her and hate her for no reason.” - helenakey

So then the answer is to demonize the other women characters for no reason?

Of course there are going to be ‘fans’ that hate on a character for no reason, I’ve seen people post unnecessary and unreasonable hate on many of the characters, not just Sansa, and they can be as annoying, but they are not representative of the entire fandom. Not ALL fans are hating on her, and some are just looking at the character critically. I’m new to the tumblr metas (avoided for a long time due to the toxic reputation), but i’ve been on ASOIAF forums for a long time and there are plenty of Sansa supporters, even if she is still quite a polarizing character due to how people wish to interpret her... but Sansa stans on tumblr take it to the next level!

I’ve never seen this side of her fans before, or at least so much nearly every day, and subsequently the many rebuttals! And how often they like throwing other characters under the bus, often for hypocritical reasons. Like the OP yendany said, they ignore the trauma in other characters or dismiss it as not as bad, when it is often much, much worse. They criticize and attack other female characters to prop up Sansa ‘better’ survival skills, or attribute qualities to her she doesn’t possess (I see this a lot in fanfiction, before I realized the self-insert aspect), or use her age as excuse when all the main characters are young or even younger than her. The line porcelain to ivory to steel... can really apply to any character that has to grow up and face the harsh realities of the world... so it is really hypocritical to think Sansa is special in some way for overcoming her situation, all the characters are going through the same struggle, and many have it much worse. That is where I think so much of the anti-sansa stans come from, the hypocrisy and the tearing down of other just as deserving of sympathy/empathy characters, especially other women characters. It is a weird juxtaposition, that anyone with a reasonable sense of objectivity can pick up on and often do.

I mostly see it done against Arya and Dany, the two more prominent female characters in the books (thus the 2 who draw more focus than #3 Sansa?). The two female characters GRRM is telling a lot of his story through and spending a large amount of the text (right from book 1) to develop their growth as characters and showcase their strengths, intelligence, determination, fortitude, agency, cleverness, resilience and so much more. It’s as if because the other women are not ‘pure’ or see themselves that way and stronger in personality and character that somehow their suffering doesn’t affect them as much because they are tougher and didn’t let anything that happened to them stop them from growing stronger. They aren’t dwelling in victim-hood too long before they pick themselves back up and move forward.

And yet, they cheer when Sansa starts to grow stronger... Sansa’s growth has been much slower, we are moving into book 6 and she is just starting to gain a bit of agency, but she is still heavily under the tutelage of Baelish. We will see how far she gains in the next book and if she will break with Baelish by the end of it and be a fully independent player. But her development isn’t nearly on the same scale as Daenerys and Arya. That isn’t to imply that she isn’t going to be important, but it is clear from the text that she is not one of the main focuses for GRRM, or he would have developed her faster and given her more to do. We will see how much ground he can cover in 1-2 books, but there is only so much he will be able to accomplish and have it be believable, especially with so many POVs and story lines that he needs to develop.

I actually think their attempts to (over) defend her backfire, as so many feel the need to point out the falsehoods and misinterpretations, especially when they are wildly mean-spirited and completely refutable by the text. As I traverse through the ASOIAF metas I often come across fans metas writing rebuttals to other posts, to ‘correct’ their conclusion or ‘facts’. I’ve read so many of these they are starting to get repetitive, I also read some of the Sansa-stan posts they are rebutting and, yeah I can see why so many get upset. If you don’t like it when others tears down or dismisses Sansa, why do you think fans of the other characters wouldn’t comment when you go after their favs, especially so mean-spiritedly.

I don’t think I ever felt so much negativity towards the Sansa character until I had to read so many skewed and biased metas turning her into some kind of saintly YA Disney princess type that is just too good for this cruel world. That kind of character has no place in a series like this. You can’t help but want to point out the wild inaccuracies, and it makes me feel a negativity towards a character I didn’t feel negative to before. And I don’t want to feel negative towards her, she is a Stark and I root for the Starks, especially the kids. I often defended her against those who (I feel) just don’t understand what it is like to be a preteen girl, I relate to a lot of Sansa’s weaknesses and how she feels, especially at that age, and that is her appeal (to me) - the fact that she starts off very weak.

Sansa is weak both physically and mentally, she cares too much about rank, privilege, and what others think about her, her desire to conform, for everything to be proper, and properly in their place. She has the luxury to think that way because she is a rich, pretty, noble girl who ranks at the top of society, of course she sees life as great and never questions it... she is already at the top and winning from birth. This is why (I think) she is so hard on Arya, she messes with her idea of what is proper/good/right.  Arya isn’t pretty and doesn’t try to be, she acts more boy than girl, she plays with dirty, smelly, poor children, etc... Those are all an embarrassment to Sansa and go against what a proper lady of her rank should do and care about. Once they head south, all the things Arya gets away with at home will stand out even more and reflect badly on Sansa, by association. So, she criticizes and distances herself even more, because she wants to join the elite glamorous world of the nobility.

The other girls don’t have those weaknesses, that is why they are seen as better able to cope than Sansa does.  They grow quicker and stronger faster because they are not as inhibited by what the ‘rules’ are. This isn’t a criticism of Sansa, this is an observation and I think it is the entire point of including a character like her in the story. GRRM could have followed the original outline for her, but he wanted to ‘reform/rescue’ her character and give her (I hope) a better path back to her family and happiness. I think it is GRRMs way to show how young girls should NOT romanticize noble life or being pretty will lead to a ‘perfect’ life. That thinking of yourself as a lady or being a princess/queen isn’t what is important. That marring a ‘title’ (lord/prince) or a handsome face is not enough to lead to happiness. It is what you do with your life, and how you care about others and who cares about you - that is what is important. But some Sansa fans seem to miss that and want her to have all those thing and more... they want it both ways, her to learn all those things, and yet still get all those things... a beautiful princess life clear of the harsh actions to gain it and also a happy family married to the best, more heroic and honorable man - a fairy tale ending. And that is not ASOIAF.

They are reducing her entire arc to becoming a nicer, more pure, and pretty, prize for a man to love, marry and make their queen. If so, GRRM will botch the ending of his series and all the points he *seems* to be making thus far.

A major theme (to me) in Sansa arc is her lack of value in her home and family. Sansa (to me) is like the small town girl who can’t wait to leave her family / Winterfell behind and to move to the big glamorous city (King’s Landing) and become royalty. But once she got there wasn’t able to accumulate with its more complicated and corrupt realities of the court. Even setting the cruelty of Joffrey aside (he is an aberration, not a normal example), how everyone else ostracizes or ignores her (except the hound, and to some extent Tyrion - although he isn’t all that great). The way the Tyrells treat her before and after her wedding is much more representative of how typical court life and nobility behaves normally (I think). Sansa never saw the true value of being surrounded by people who love and care about YOU and whom you can trust and rely upon - until that is all taken from her. She slowly sees how the people at court are corrupt and deceitful under all the beauty and glamor she so aspired to only after being fooled more than once, and (to me) no longer wants any part of it, but is forced to play, thanks to Baelish.

This is a point I find many of her fan miss, they think Sansa is going to learn to play the game, destroy everyone with her cunning and beauty and rise to the top to be queen or a ruler - a path which will ultimately lead to down a very dark and cynical path... but somehow they think Sansa will be different, and her rise will be more like a Disney princess story, one where she will gain power without having to sink low to do it. That is NOT the kind of book GRRM is writing.

”I’ll make them love me.” - another childish statement, you can’t make people love you, you earn love and respect. And Sansa hasn’t done that once the entire series, she hasn’t made a single friend. No one is looking to follow or fight for/beside Sansa, save Baelish, and we all know that plan is doomed to fail, as he isn’t to be trusted or relied upon and wants to use her. I would even question her friendship with Jeyne Poole as it is clear she never saw them as equals, and that is not real friendship... more like Jeyne was a companion/lady-in-waiting type.

The few people who care about her (other than family) either are working on behalf of an oath to Catelyn, or have their own ambitions/sexual desires/pity for her and not necessarily care about her for herself because she was a good and loyal friend to them. Maybe this will change in the next book, but with Baelish keeping close tabs and guiding her, who knows how well she will be able to make any genuine relationships with others given all the secrets she has to keep.

Her only realistic path to leadership is through marriage and that is hardly giving her agency as a heroic rise to a leader of a men... more like sleeping her way to the top.  Not something I want for Sansa, and I hope her ‘marriage’ to Tyrion works as plot armor against her being used like that.

Besides GRRM has kinda stressed that ‘real’ leadership comes from understanding people, observation, and experience, and not just from strategics marriage (Margaery, Cersei) or inheritance (Joffrey, Tommen, Cersei - she could prove the point all on her own :). Every leader in the book so far has to make compromises, make hard decisions and even make harsh, sometimes very bad decisions and live with those consequences. None of the characters in the series have escaped this as much as Sansa has, since so much of her story thus far is about her lack of agency, and being a pawn used by others (and to some extent she still is with Baelish). For her to make it to the end w/o doing anything and staying ‘pure’ and that is how she ends up on top, by essentially not taking many large personal risks, allowing others to do all the heavy lifting morally, mentally and physically. If winning means standing on the sidelines watching everyone else do the WORK, and just giving suggestive nudges here and there to have things turn out in your favor so you can just coast to the top (that is the Baelish way)... well, that is kinda the worst message GRRM could leave us with.

If GRRM wants Sansa to become a leader, she will have to get her hands dirty too, she will have to take great personal risks to gain power and accept the consequences good or bad that result, learn from them and move forward... otherwise it defeats one of the main points of his series and turns her into a simplistic cliche version of a character.  Every character with a POV has gone through this, it is one of the major themes in ASOIAF, a more realistic, less easy way of looking at how you obtain power and learn by experience and a series of victories and defeats. Thus far Sansa has also avoided examining her actions and how they have affected her, she either never thinks about them, changes the facts to suit her better, or blames others without seeing the part she also played... I’m not blaming her, but her action did contribute to the situation... she never seems to realize this and I feel it is going to eventually hit her hard, she has to mature and grow out of her ‘unreliable narrator’ eventually, and it must lead to something for GRRM to make it such a large part of her narrative of coping with her trauma. I assume he wrote her this way for a reason and is going to do something with it.

I’m looking forward to a darker more realistic Sansa who has more agency and understanding, and I expect her to make her own mistakes and moral compromises (well she already has, but there was some coercion - but it also means she is capable of doing so) just like all the other POVs have had to do. I also look forward to her finally owning up to her past actions and how they also contributed to where she is now. If she can’t take some personal responsibility she will never grow. That is a part of having agency, understanding how your decisions and actions affect you and others.

I wish all the back and forth would stop, cause I’m tired of seeing it in my feeds, but I guess it has been going on for years - the same arguments/rebuttals - so I guess it will continue, even after we get the next book... I think only the completion of the entire series will end some of these arguments, but who knows - after some of the meta I’ve read, there will probably be even more, lol.

Well, I wanted to comment and give my two cents, but it ended up being longer and I guess for me all this is still new and offsetting.  I guess I had more to say that I thought, even though I edited A LOT out because I wanted to keep it focused. I’ve just started to dip my toes into this crazy platform, so I’m sure this is just the tip of the toxic metas that I heard can be found here... can’t wait to read the anti-dany metas... that is sure to fill me with a sad rage as well, i know the show did her no favors, sigh....

[star-anise]

why would your social environment affect if you identify as a woman or nb?

I don’t know if you meant it to be, but this is a delightful question. I am going to be a complete nerd for 2k+ words at you.

“Gender” is distinct from “sex” because it’s not a body’s physical characteristics, it’s how society classifies and interprets that body. Sex is “That person has a vagina.” Gender is “This is a blend of society’s expectations about what bodies with vaginas are like, social expectations of how people with vaginas do or might or should act, behave, and feel, the actual lived experiences of people with vaginas, and a twist of lemon for zest.” Concepts of gender and what is “manly” and “womanly” can vary a lot. They’re social values, like “normal” or “legal” or “beautiful”, and they vary all the time. How well you fit your gender role depends a lot on how “gender” is defined.

800 years ago in Europe the general perception was that women were sinful, sensual, lustful people who required frequent sex and liked watching bloodsport. 200 years ago, the British aristocracy thought women were pure, innocent beings of moral purity with no sexual desire who fainted at the sight of blood. These days, we think differently in entirely new directions.

But this gets even more complicated, in part because human experience is really diverse and society’s narratives have to account for that. So 200 years ago, those beliefs about femininity being delicate and dainty and frail only really applied to women with aristocratic lineages, and “the lower classes” of women were believed to be vulgar, coarse, sexual, and earthy, which “explained” why they performed hard physical labor or worked as prostitutes.

Being trans or nonbinary isn’t just or even primarily about what characteristics you want your body to have. It’s about how you want to define yourself and be interpreted and interacted with by other people.

The writer Sylvia Plath lived 1932-1963, and she said:

“Being born a woman is my awful tragedy. From the moment I was conceived I was doomed to sprout breasts and ovaries rather than penis and scrotum; to have my whole circle of action, thought and feeling rigidly circumscribed by my inescapable feminity. Yes, my consuming desire to mingle with road crews, sailors and soldiers, bar room regulars–to be a part of a scene, anonymous, listening, recording–all is spoiled by the fact that I am a girl, a female always in danger of assault and battery.”

She was from upper-middle-class Massachusetts, the child of a university professor. A lot of those things she was “prohibited” from doing weren’t things each and every woman was prohibited from doing; they were things women of her class weren’t allowed to do. The daughters and sisters and wives of sailors and soldiers, women who worked in hotels and ran rooming houses, barmaids and sex workers, got to anonymously and invisibly observe those men, after all. They just couldn’t do it at the same time they tried to meet the standards educated Bostonians of the 1950s had for nice young women.

Failure to understand how diverse womanhood is has always been one of feminism’s biggest weaknesses. The Second Wave of feminism was started mostly by prosperous university-educated white women, since they were the people with the time and money and resources to write and read books and attend conferences about “women’s issues”. And they assumed that their issues were female issues. That they were the default of femaleness, and could assume every woman had roughly the same experience as them.

So, for example, middle-class white women in post-WWII USA were expected to stay home all the time and look after their children. Feminists concluded that this was isolating and oppressive, and they’d like the freedom to pursue lives, careers, and interests outside of the home. They vigorously pursued the right to be freed from their domestic and maternal duties.

But in their society, these experiences were not generally shared by Black and/or poor women, who, like their mothers, did not have the luxury of spending copious amounts of leisure time with their children; they had to work to earn enough money to survive on, which meant working on farms, in factories, or as cooks, maids, or nannies for rich white women who wanted the freedom to pursue lives outside the home. They tended to feel that they would like to have the option of staying home and playing with their babies all day. 

This is not to say none of the first group enjoyed domestic lives, or that none of the second group wanted non-domestic careers; it’s just that the first group formed the face and the basic assumptions of feminism, and the second group struggled to get a seat at the table.

There’s this phenomenon called “cultural feminism” that’s an attitude that crops up among feminists from time to time (or grows on them, like fungus) that holds that women have a “feminine essence”, a quasi-spiritual “nature” that is deeply distinct from the “masculine essence” of men. This is one of the concepts powering lesbian separatism: the idea that because women are so fundamentally different from men, a society of all women will be fundamentally different in nature from a society that includes men.

But, well, the problem cultural feminism generally has is with how it achieves its definition of “female nature”. The view tends to be that women are kinder, more moral, more collectivist, more community-minded, and less prone to violence. 

And cultural feminists tend to HATE people who believe in the social construction of gender, because we tend to cross our arms and go, “Nah, sis, that’s a frappe of misused statistics and The Angel In the House with some wishful thinking as a garnish. That’s how you feel about what womanhood is. It’s fair enough for you, but you’re trying to apply it to the entire human species. That’s got less intellectual rigor and sociological validity than my morning oatmeal.” Hence the radfem insistence that gender theorists like me SHUT UP and gender quite flatly DOESN’T EXIST. It’s a MADE-UP TERM, and people should STOP TALKING ABOUT IT. (And go back to taking about immutable, naturally-occuring phenomena, one supposes, like the banking system and Western literary canon.)

Because seriously, when you look at real actual women, you will see that some of us can be very selfish, while others are altruistic; some think being a woman means abhorring all violence forever, and others think being a woman means being willing to fight and die to protect the people you love. As groups men and women have different average levels of certain qualities, but it’s not like we don’t share a lot in common. The distribution of “male” and “female” traits doesn’t tend to mean two completely separate sets of characteristics; they tend to be more like two overlapping bell curves.

So, like I said, I grew up largely in rural, working-class Western Canadian society. My relatives tend to be tradesmen like carpenters, welders, or plumbers, or else ranchers and farmers. I was raised by a mother who came of age during the big push for Women’s Lib. So in the culture in which I was raised, it was very normal and in some ways rewarded (though in other ways punished) for women to have short hair, wear flannel and jeans, drive a big truck, play rough contact sports, use power tools, pitch in with farmwork, use guns, and drink beer. “Traditional femininity” was a fascinating foreign culture my grandmother aspired to, and I loved nonsense like polishing the silver (it’s a very satisfying pastime) but that was just another one of my weird hobbies, like sewing fairy clothes out of flower petals and collecting toy horses.

Within the standards of the society I was raised in, I am a decently feminine woman. I’m obviously not a “girly girl”, someone who wears makeup and dresses in ways that privilege beauty over practicality, but I have a long ponytail of hair and when I go to Mark’s Work Wearhouse, I shop in the women’s section. We know what “butch” is and I ain’t it.

But through my friendships and my career, I’ve gotten experiences among cultures you wouldn’t think would be too different–we’re all still white North Americans!–but which felt bizarre and alien, and ate away at the sense of self I’d grown up in. In the USA’s northeast, the people I met had the kind of access to communities with social clout, intellectual resources, and political power I hadn’t quite believed existed before I saw them. There really were people who knew politicians and potential employers socially before they ever had to apply to a job or ask for political assistance; there were people who really did propose projects to influential businessmen or academics at cocktail parties; they really did things like fundraise tens of thousands of dollars for a charity by asking fifty of their friends to donate, or start a business with a $2mil personal loan from a relative.

And in those societies, femininity was so different and so foreign. I’d grown up seeing femininity as a way of assigning tasks to get the work done; in these new circles, it was performative in a way that was entirely unique and astounding to me. A boss really would offer you a starting salary $10k higher than they might have if you wore high heels instead of flats. You really would be more likely to get a job if you wore makeup. And your ability to curate social connections in the halls of power really was influenced by how nice of a Christmas party you could throw. These women I met were being held, daily, to a standard of femininity higher than that performed by anyone in my 100 most immediate relatives.

So when girls from Seven Sisters schools talked about how for them, dressing how I dressed every day (jeans, boots, tee, button-up shirt, no makeup, no hair product) was “bucking gendered expectations” and “being unfeminine”, I began to feel totally unmoored. When I realized that I, who absolutely know only 5% as much about power tools and construction as my relatives in the trades, was more suited to take a hammer and wade in there than not just the “empowered” women but the self-professed “handy” men there, I didn’t know how to understand it. I felt like I was… a woman who knew how to do carpentry projects, not “totally butch” the way some people (approvingly) called me.

And, well, at home in Alberta I was generally seen as a sweet and gentle girl with an occasional stubborn streak or precocious moment, but apparently by the standards of Southern states like Georgia and Alabama I am like, 100x more blunt, assertive, and inconsiderate of men’s feelings than women typically feel they have to be.

And this is still all just US/Canadian white women.

And like I said, after years of this, I came home (from BC, where I encountered MORE OTHER weird and alien social constructs, though generally more around class and politics than gender) to Alberta, and I went to what is, for Alberta, a super hippy liberal church, and I helped prepare the after-service tea among women with unstyled hair and no makeup  who wore jeans and sensible shoes, and listened to them talk about their work in municipal water management and ICU nursing, and it felt like something inside my chest slid back into place, because I understood myself as a woman again, and not some alien thing floating outside the expectations of the society I was in with a chestful of opinions no one around me would understand, suddenly all made sense again.

I mean, that’s by no means an endorsement for aspirational middle class rural Alberta as the ideal gender utopia. (Alberta is the Texas of Canada.) I just felt comfortable inside because it’s the culture where I found a definition of myself and my gender I could live with, because its boundaries of what’s considered “female” were broad enough to hold all the parts of me I felt like I needed to express. I have a lot of friends who grew up here, or in families like mine, and don’t feel at all happy with its gender boundaries. And even as I’m comfortable being a woman here, I still want to push and transform it, to make it even more feminist and politically left and decolonized.

TERFs try to claim that trans and nonbinary people reinforce the gender identity, but in my experience, it’s feminists who claim male and female are immutable and incompatible do that. It’s trans, nonbinary, and genderqueer people who, simply by performing their genders in public, make people realize just how bullshit innate theories of gender are.. Society is going to want to gender them in certain ways and involve them in certain dynamics (”Hey ladies, those fellas, amirite?”) and they’re going, “Nope. Not me. Cut it out.” I’ve seen a lot of cis people who will quietly admit they do think men and women are different because that’s just reality, watch someone they know transition, and suddenly go, “Oh my god, I get it now.”

Like yes, this is me being coldly political and thinking about people as examples to make a political point. Everyone’s valid and can do what they want, but some things are just easier for potential converts to wrap their minds around.. “I’m sorting through toys to give to Shelly’s baby. He probably won’t want a princess crown, huh?” “I actually know several people who were considered boys when they were babies and never got one, and are making up for all their lost princess crown time now as adults. You never know what he’ll be into when he grows up.” “…Okay, point. I’ll throw it in there.” Trans and enby people disrupt gender in a really powerful back-of-the-brain way where people suddenly see how much leeway there is between gender and sex.

I honestly believe supporting trans and enby people and queering gender until it’s a macrame project instead of a spectrum are how we’ll get to a gender-free utopia. I think cultural feminism is just the same old shit, inverted. (Confession: in my head, I pronounce “cultural” with emphasis on the “cult” part.) 

I think feminism is like a lot of emergency response groups: Our job is to put ourselves out of a job. It’s not a good thing if gender discrimination is still prevalent and harmful 200 years from now! Obviously we’re not there yet and calls to pack it in and go home are overrated, but as the problem disappears into its solution, we have to accept that our old ways of looking at the world have to shift.

[dwightfortich]

Understanding the self: Sigmund Freud

“One day, in retrospect, the years of struggle will strike you as the most beautiful”. This was one of the famous lines of Sigmund Freud. If you want to learn more about Sigmund Freud click this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPMFXtGtHEM&list=PLsYXzLZzJ4p87aNvzKIZuDHmw-JgXPPix&index=6  this link is the reference of this blog. So who is Sigmund Freud? Well this man is very interesting. Sigmund Freud, one of the most influential thinkers of the twentieth century. Freud developed his ideas about personality from his work with psychiatric patients. Freud was very genius that he found out that the personality has structures which he called the id, ego, and superego. So let’s talk about the first one id consists of unconscious drives and individual’s reservoir of psychic energy. The id works according to the pleasure principle: the id always seeks pleasure and avoids pain. According to Freud, the id is the source of all psychic energy, making it the primary component of personality. Let’s talk about the second one, so what is the ego?  According to Freud, The ego develops from the id and ensures that the impulses of the id can be expressed in a manner acceptable in the real world. The ego operates based on the reality principle, which strives to satisfy the id's desires in realistic and socially appropriate ways. The reality principle weighs the costs and benefits of an action before deciding to act upon or abandon impulses.In many cases, the id's impulses can be satisfied through a process of delayed gratification the ego will eventually allow the behavior, but only in the appropriate time and place. And lastly the superego. So what is superego? According to Freud, the superego begins to emerge at around age five. The superego holds the internalized moral standards and ideals that we acquire from our parents and society our sense of right and wrong. The superego has two parts the first one is the conscience It includes information about things that are viewed as bad by parents and society. These behaviors are often forbidden and lead to bad consequences, punishments, or feelings of guilt and remorse. The second one is the ego ideal It includes the rules and standards for behaviors that the ego aspires to.  The superego tries to perfect and civilize our behavior. It works to suppress all unacceptable urges of the id and struggles to make the ego act upon idealistic standards rather that upon realistic principles. The superego is present in the conscious, precociousness, and unconscious. Can you believe it? Freud was able to identify these things that we normal people cannot do. When talking about the id, the ego, and the superego, it is important to remember that these are not three separate entities with clearly defined boundaries. These aspects are dynamic and always interacting to influence an individual's overall personality and behavior.With many competing forces, it is easy to see how conflict might arise between the id, ego, and superego. Freud used the term ego strength to refer to the ego's ability to function despite these dueling forces. If there is imbalance, what will happen? According to Freud, the key to a healthy personality is a balance between the id, the ego, and the superego.  If the ego is able to adequately moderate between the demands of reality, the id, and the superego, a healthy and well-adjusted personality emerges. Freud believed that an imbalance between these elements would lead to a manipulative personality. Sigmund Freud’s pyschosexual stages of personality. So what is this theory about? This is about universal stages of personality development and that at each stage of development we experience pleasure in one part of the body more than in others. The first one is the oral stage(from birth-1 year)  During the oral stage, the infant's primary source of interaction occurs through the mouth, so the rooting and sucking reflex is especially important. The mouth is vital for eating, and the infant derives pleasure from oral stimulation through gratifying activities such as tasting and sucking, because the infant is entirely dependent upon caretakers (who are responsible for feeding the child), the child also develops a sense of trust and comfort through this oral stimulation. The second one is the Anal stage(age 1-3 yo) during the anal stage, Freud believed that the primary focus of the libido was on controlling bladder and bowel movements. The major conflict at this stage is toilet training the child has to learn to control their bodily needs. Developing this control leads to a sense of accomplishment and independence. Let’s go to the third one the Phallic stage(age 3-6 yo)  Freud suggested that during the phallic stage, the primary focus of the libido is on the genitals. At this age, children also begin to discover the differences between males and females.​ Freud also believed that boys begin to view their fathers as a rival for the mother’s affections. The Oedipus complex describes these feelings of wanting to possess the mother and the desire to replace the father. However, the child also fears that he will be punished by the father for these feelings, a fear Freud termed castration anxiety. The term Electra complex has been used to describe a similar set of feelings experienced by young girls. Freud, however, believed that girls instead experience penis envy. The fourth one is the latent period (6-puberty) during this stage, the superego continues to develop while the id's energies are suppressed. Children develop social skills, values and relationships with peers and adults outside of the family. The development of the ego and superego contribute to this period of calm. The stage begins around the time that children enter into school and become more concerned with peer relationships, hobbies, and other interests. The next one is the Genital stage (puberty-death) the onset of puberty causes the libido to become active once again. During the final stage of psycho sexual development, the individual develops a strong sexual interest in the opposite sex. This stage begins during puberty but last throughout the rest of a person's life. Where in earlier stages the focus was solely on individual needs, interest in the welfare of others grows during this stage. The goal of this stage is to establish a balance between the various life areas. So that’s it this is all about Sigmund Freud and his theories.

[neverlearnedtoread]

The Power

⭐⭐⭐; ‘i wanna have a galaxy brain moment’ i cried, ‘give me a galaxy brain moment!’ but the Power did not answer; she just kept on changing POV

Oh?? 👌😉😏

definition of a ‘so many layers!!! it really makes you think!!!’ sort of book -  it slaps hard on gender equality issues

unique format, pushing the usual limits of what a piece of written fiction can be - it read like speculative fiction of a past that was a possible alternate present for us. galaxy brain stuff! i am planning to get back into this eventually to appreciate it the way i think it deserves

makes very good points about what feminism is actually about, and how important it is to keep true equality in mind in the struggle for womens rights. this book does an amazing job in showing all our asses on subtle and subconscious misogyny - and how easy it is to get into that mindset

No.. ❌🤢🤮

tw graphic violence - you know how sometimes overly graphic scenes have a veneer of unreality, because they’re so exaggerated/out of this world? this book gives you the opposite of that feeling.....lets just say my gluteus maximus was getting a workout while i read this book

tw all 50 shades of graphic sexual assault - practically all levels of body autonomy and privacy are violated here. if you’re going to read it, check the triggers, and don’t be afraid to tap out

Very Sad Take™ on how power corrupts us all, and tackles the many misconceptions of a utopian-esque ‘women-dominated society’. this is not a ‘three cheers for women! paragons of light and love!’ book - many of the scenes are meant to show how ridiculous and horrifying misogyny really is by flipping the script. not a ‘fun’ read, in any sense of the word!

Summary: This book has multiple levels to it - the main narrative is set as if in pseudo-present day, following a strange biological phenomenon where young women across the globe suddenly develop bioelectrical powers. Yet its foreword and added material were written as if the whole text is meant to be a piece of historical fiction, a manuscript trying to get published in a female-dominated future. It’s galaxy-brain level stuff packed into a ~400 page book, deconstructing the many ways misogyny and sexism continue to permeate modern society, and how impossible it is to end a cycle of violence by simply adding more firepower to the mix. In the end, power can only beget more power - it offers no sense of balance, let alone peace.

Concept: 💭💭💭💭

I knew I was going to pick this book up eventually - gender-flipped dystopian societies are always great sandboxes to play in, and I was excited to see how the new power imbalance between men and women would be handled. Usually novels like this a set in a parallel or alternate world - so placing it in our reality and generating a ‘new normal’ out of our own society would create another layer of complexity. I was really interested to see how the author was going to handle her unique premise.

Spoilers under the cut!

Execution: 💥💥💥💥

I was taken by the story, but it was starkly different from what I was expecting to get out of it. I still thought the premise was handled beautifully, and the author got the point she wanted to make across well - I enjoyed her hot takes on the subject. However, I was envisioning a clearer narrative voice and a closer third-person perspective; it was hard to connect with all the narrators as they kept cycling in and out of the story, which made it difficult for me to grasp what purpose their character arcs had in developing this book’s main themes. That doesn’t mean I didn’t manage to understand anything - it simply took a little longer than I thought it needed. The writing style was too omniscient narrator for me, like a documentary meandered too much to tell a hard-hitting story.

Favourite Moment: this book was one Big Bummer™ the whole way through so its hard to think of a genuinely enjoyable scene...but one that did stick with me was when Roxy’s //major spoilers// is taken out of her. The description was so poetically horrific....it just hit different. That’s a big part of the reason I need to read the book again, sometime down the line - I really believe that the entire rest of the book could be hitting in that higher weight-class, if only I was in a position to appreciate it.

Personal Enjoyment: ❤❤

I found it really difficult to stay focused on this book - some of that is on me, since I borrowed it from the library and left it until the last 3 days. Me sprint-reading this book made it hard to parse out all the nuance and intricacies of the story, and also likely compounded the ‘lack of clear narrative voice’ issue I mentioned earlier; I couldn’t shake the feeling that a lot of things were going over my head I should’ve been able to catch, if only I were reading this with more breaks in between to process it. And given the recent political atmosphere, I was in the wrong headspace for this story - seeing a lot of violence and vitriol on the news is really lowering my tolerance for realistic violence in fiction right now. I’m definitely planning to take another crack at this novel sometime in the future, because I think there’s a lot here to appreciate - I just wasn’t able to this time.

Favourite Character: Roxy’s characterization resonated with me - she was blunt and brutal and respected the value of power, the sort of person that would thrive in a world crumbling to shit. She had the clearest character arc to track throughout the book, but not because it was a simple one - her story made sense to me in a way the other main characters didn’t quite manage to do - all the different POVs kept ricocheting wildly all over the place.

[violentviolette]

So I was on your fandom blog and I saw that you believe Bakugou (at least in assuming) to have ASPD. Is wondering if you could expand on that? I personally see him as NPD but I'd love to hear your side of things

first off anon bless u for being on my fandom blog that takes courage cause it’s a wicked hot mess over there lol and secondly to everyone else yes im about to spend an embarrassing amount of effort overanalyzing an anime man, no u shouldn’t apply this logic to diagnosing real people u don’t know or urself, no its not that deep but yes u can fuck right off if u wanna cry about me headcanoning ur favs with “shitty” illnesses. eat my dick.

But now down to the good shit! So I actually think bakugou has comorbid aspd/npd. But for this since u said u already see him as having npd I’ll just focus on the aspd criteria but im totally down to talk more about npd as well if u wanna. (the rest is under a cut because frankly mobile users would have drawn and quartered me otherwise)

So first im gonna go thru the dsm v criteria that are required for diagnosis that bakugou fits/exhibits (leaving out the few things that don’t pertain to him just for length and also because not every person has to fit every single criteria to qualify)

1. Significant impairments in personality as manifested by

a. identity (self esteem derived from power, pleasure, or personal gain), self direction (goal setting based on personal gratification, absence of prosocial standards and culturally normal ethical behavior)

katsukis entire sense of self is built upon his ability to “win” and to always be number one and come out on top. He absolutely cant stand to be viewed as less than that because if so, his entire sense of self begins to crumble. Part of the reason he’s so antagonistic towards Izuku in the early chapters is the fact that Izuku challenges that identity. He (unintentionally and intentionally) challenges katsuki and wont give way to him (which is the right thing to do, but we see how “well” katsuki handles that). He also doesn’t have a good sense of “prosocial standards.” katsuki has created his own internal sense of morals and values, he’s decided whats worth his time and effort based on his own opinions and not on what society deems worthwhile behavior. He’s constantly getting admonished that his attitude “isn’t that of a hero” because his values are different than the ones of the society around him. But he doesn’t care, as long as he “wins” then everythings good. And its not until he stops “winning” and his behavior begins to get in the way of his goals does he begin to realize that he has a problem.

b. impairments in interpersonal functioning as manifested by lack of empathy (lack of concern for feelings, needs, or suffering of others) and lack of intimacy (incapacity for mutually intimate relationships, use of dominance or intimidation to control others)

I could frankly write a whole essay about just this bit alone but I’ll try to condense my thoughts. So. Lets talk about katsukis lack of empathy. This boy wouldn’t know another person’s emotions if they walked up and punched him in the face. Which they do. On multiple occasions. But I digress. Katsuki is known for his shitty bedside manner, his lack of concern for the feelings of others is literally what cost him his provisional license, but aside from with Izuku (who we’ve established is a source of Baggage for katsuki and shouldn’t be counted among his normal behavior because at the start of the series they BOTH bring out the worst in one another and overcoming that is part of both of their character arcs and growth and a main theme of the damn story. Win and save. Save and win. Ahem. But again I digress) katsuki isn’t vindictive or cruel in an unnecessary way about other peoples emotions. He doesn’t use them against people, it just doesn’t occur to him that they exist. But as we see katsuki grow and begin to try and change his unhealthy behavior, we see that he’s not oblivious of others emotions in the same way todoroki is (who I headcanon as autistic along with izuku (who also has adhd), but that’s a whole nother post lol), he just doesn’t know what to do with them. He can handle things like kirishima feeling insecure, because he can logically talk to him about how strong he is to encourage and support him, but really struggles with more intimate and open forms of emotional support, like with Izuku.

He also struggles with forming prosocial bonds and friends. At the start of the series katsuki doesn’t have friends, he has lackeys he controls with intimidation and fear because he doesn’t know any other way to be. He has trust and intimacy issues and doesn’t like people getting too close to him because he feels displays of vulnerability are what makes someone weak (see those asocial morals and values we talked about earlier). After his time at UA, a few large helpings of some humble pie, and the diligent and hard work of a small group of fearless idiots (aka kaminari whose literally too prosocial for his own good and has zero self preservation instincts, and kirishima who has an endless supply of patience and understands empathy and other peoples emotions to a degree that’s baffling to me) he is able to start deconstructing that idea and realizing that u can be vulnerable and let people close to u and still be strong. That the mortifying ordeal of being known isn’t actually the worst things ever. Also that when confronted with people who aren’t actually afraid of him, he doesn’t know how else to deter them from getting close to him. The fact that none of the other kids in 1-A take katsukis shit and even go so far as to pick on him and mock him and call him out on his bullshit is a MAJOR turning point for his socialization skills.

2. pathological personality traits in the following catagories

a. antagonism, characterized by hostility (persistent and frequent angry feelings, anger or irritability in response to minor slights or insults, nasty mean vengeful behavior), callousness (lack of concern for the feelings and problems of others)

I mean. Do I even have to expand on this point? I feel like no

b. disinhibition, characterized by impulsivity (acting on the spur of the moment in response to immediate stimuli, acting without a plan or consideration for outcomes, difficulty establishing and following plans), risk taking (lack of concern for ones limitations and denial of the reality of personal danger, engaging in potentially risky and self-damaging activities without regard for consequences)

this is a criteria where u have to adjust for the world these characters are living in. but even then, by hero standards, katsuki is still impulsive. His teachers are constantly admonishing him in the early series for charging headfirst into a situation, loosing himself to his emotions and anger, and letting things get the better of him because hes not taking the time to properly assess the situation, this also bleeds into katsukis inability to work with others or ask for help. He charges headfirst into a situation by himself, blows up anything in his way, and then asks questions later. His teammates are often left totally in the dark to his plans, motives, or other moves and have to just play catch up to him the entire time. In the deku vs. kacchan 1 fight we see this behavior come out in full force. He has no plan, he blows up half the building with zero regard for their goals, and leaves iida completely in the dark. Momo pointing this all out and dragging him for filth during the recap is another wakeup moment for him, having to confront the realities of his impulsive and negative behavior whereas before he was only praised for it.

so if we take a look at even just that, which is still about ¾ of the diagnostic criteria, I think u can see where this really starts to explain his personality. Katsuki is hot headed, angry, impulsive, stubborn, selfish, he gets in his own way more often than not, he struggles with prosocial behavior, making friends, and relating emotionally to others. He has a hard time comforting people and usually does so in a blunt and logical way, he isn’t great at sympathy and being soft, kind, or gentle with other people. It takes a considerable amount of effort for him to realize where his world view and his morals and goals are warped and doing him more harm than good, and he absolutely cant stand to be vulnerable or honest about his feelings with others. 

All those things, imo, as someone with aspd & npd, are what make me feel like hes a good character representation of what the complexities of living with these disorders is like. Katsuki isn’t inherently a bad person, and as we see him grow and change, we see the ways in which hes becoming better, but its still hard for him. And despite what a lot of fandom thinks, if u look at the canon, the main person katsuki hurts with his behavior is himself. And I think that’s really important because people with aspd & npd are so often catagorized as abusive villians whose only goal in life is to hurt others. Whereas with katsuki we see where these things and this kind of thinking gets in the way of his goals and ultimately hurts him. and thats what I think makes him the most relatable and makes his growth all the much more satisfying. Katsuki is both fundamentally the same and an entirely different person from when we first meet him. his personality didn’t magically completely change, hes not just a tsundere whose suddenly all mushy feely and hyper empathetic, he’s just learning how to deal with his emotions and the world and getting better at being a healthy person.

So yea, those are my thoughts! There was apparently a whole 1600 words of them so my apologies for writing u a literal dissertation on this lol I just really love this fucking character

[gh0st-patr0l]

Selfishness v. Selflessness: An Analysis of Deceit

So.

Since the latest episode came out, I’ve been thinking about a LOT, but especially about Deceit. He’s an amazingly complex character, and it’s a lot to wrap your head around. However, I felt that the thing I wanted to talk about most was his overall intention with this whole scenario- note, when I say that, I’m not talking about the call-back v. wedding debacle. Because, when you really look at it, Deceit’s true intent had little to do with those events themselves. It was just a convenient scenario that could be used to illustrate a point. And I’ve already gone on a rant about that part- how in the end it wasn’t even an issue of right or wrong, but staying true to your moral compass- so I won’t get into it here. What I really want to do is take a closer look at Deceit’s closing arguments, in context of the rest of the episode and his previous statements. 

I’ll be honest, the first time I watched the episode I was so invested in the drama that I actually didn’t even PROCESS what he meant with this scene, but now that I’m looking back it’s absolutely critical to understanding Deceit’s true intentions. Written out, it’s actually a pretty short exchange, but there’s a lot to pick apart here. Let’s start from where the actual argument begins.

Thomas: I don’t understand... you got what you wanted. You proved that I’m not as honest as I’d like to believe. Deceit: But you’re still missing the point! Didn’t it seem kind of ridiculous to take this matter SO seriously, to the point of settling it in a legal setting?! Everyone else: [mumbled disagreements] Roman: We do that kind of stuff all the time...

Alright, so this is where Deceit has obviously become frustrated that the others haven’t picked up on his intentions with this whole scheme. (Tbf Thomas’s Single braincell had been omitted from most of the situation so it’s really not totally their fault,) 

Here, we see a BLATANT distinction between him and the rest of the sides. The sides all consider these elaborate scenes and lengthy discussions and journeys over their dilemmas to be a completely sensible way of dealing with their problems. It’s just how they do things, it’s how they work best.

But Deceit, despite being a part of Thomas, doesn’t get it.

Unlike the other sides, he doesn’t give equal weight to all issues Thomas has. He sees the choice between a social obligation and a career opportunity as obvious and pointless to agonize over. 

It’s important to think about this in combination with what he says in the courtroom- his ultimate goal is to fulfill Thomas’s wants and look out for him. At first, that simply sounds like the same benevolent thought process that all the other sides have, and to a point it is. But when you think about that along with the fact that he considers his friends and family as inconsequential- not just a little lower on his list of priorities, but not even worth considering- it becomes clear that Deceit’s protection and concern of Thomas takes on a whole nother form in light of his outlook and actions. But we’ll come back to that in a bit, let’s get back to the argument.

Deceit: WHOO, okay, let me put it this way- life... is like a pinata.  Patton: Colorful, and full of stuff that makes you happy??? Deceit: ...SURE. And you WANT that stuff that makes you happy, right?! Patton: Do I?! Roman: Do I... Deceit: Then in order to get that stuff, you must ATTACK the pinata!

THIS is where Deceit’s language comes into play. Thomas and the rest of the Sanders Sides team are fantastic at writing, especially dialogue, and I think the specificities of the metaphor Deceit’s chosen to use here are critical.

When Deceit describes the human experience and life in society, he describes it as an object that must be looked at through a gauge of offense. He doesn’t use language like take, obtain, earn- he says attack. He views life as a struggle, as something violent that must be beaten and won. And this is reflected in the court scenes. Specifically, when he’s talking about his motivation for wanting Thomas to lie, he uses the word disadvantage. Again, referring to life as a competition, or a game. (This actually made me wonder why Thomas didn’t choose to bring up Conflict Theory at any point, but now that I think about it more I suppose an anarchistic viewpoint would fit Deceit better than one rooted in socialism.)

And Deceit wants the others, and most importantly, Thomas, to look at life that way as well. He sees life as a competition against others, and because of that, sees no value in putting other’s wants and needs above his own. In my mind, this is where his rhetoric crosses the line from sensible into overly cynical. He was right in the point that sometimes selfishness can be good- but that’s not what he’s saying anymore, and I think it may have never even been in the first place, and that he was simply being less radical in the case to appear more favorable. Deceit doesn’t just think that selfishness isn’t inherently evil, he thinks that selflessness is damaging. 

And, from a character standpoint, that makes sense. Because inherently, Deceit is a selfish concept. It’s lying at someone else’s expense to achieve your own goal. And, as Deceit pointed out, that isn’t always bad! Your goal can obviously be benevolent. But as a character, he is quite literally a personification of deceit, with the goal of getting Thomas what he wants and/or needs. In a concept like that, there’s little to no room for morals or empathy.

Which brings us to our last bit of relevant dialogue from that scene;

Deceit: But you’re wearing a blindfold right now. You can keep playing with the blindfold on, if you like the game better that way. But if you take it off, it’s easier to get that stuff that you want!

Admittedly, this bit is a little harder to understand, but I think it’s clear that by blindfold, Deceit is symbolizing what he sees as disadvantage or hindrance; morals and empathy. 

Throughout the entire episode, and his other appearances, Deceit has never responded with concern towards the feelings or circumstances of anyone other than Thomas himself- it may look like that on the surface from his first appearance and his acknowledgment of Thomas wanting to be a good friend, but in reality, he only reacts to those things when they’re directly related to what Thomas wants. In the lying episode, he doesn’t actually want to spare Joan’s feelings; Thomas feels bad, Thomas wants Joan to think he’s a good person, and Deceit sees a way to fulfill Thomas’s want in that scenario. In that sense, he’s actually very similar to Logan- function over feeling. He doesn’t care what he’s doing or why, as long as Thomas gets what he wants.

And this is when Deceit’s argument finally becomes clear and concrete. Deceit wanted this trial to prove that being selfish is better. This is when his intentions are no longer agreeable, at least to me, because what he’s trying to say is his core philosophy is that Thomas should ignore his morals towards the people around him, because it will be easier to then achieve his own goals. The argument goes from what was seemingly encouragement towards self-care, to a complete disregard of others. He sees caring for the people in his life to be an optional difficulty and a burden that only makes it harder for Thomas to get what he wants. He places no value in Thomas’s relationships, and only serves, or attempts to serve, in their benefit when it is Thomas’s immediate goal to do so. 

And that is interesting- Deceit has no control over what Thomas wants, but an obligation to help him achieve them, and apparently, opinions on what his priorities within those wants should be. And this is when we need to remember that the sides are not full personalities, but facets of Thomas himself.

Of course, the main four are such broad concepts that it’s easier to fit more of a “person” into each one. Morality is a vast understanding of right and wrong, but has a lot of room to move around in as far as demeanor and actions, and is combined with an interesting representation. The same with logic, and the same with passion- their representations combined with the flexibility of their definitions and interpretations offer a lot of room for filling out characters. Anxiety is a little different since at its core, anxiety and fear are really only an instinctual reflex. However, by extending that out into vaguer definitions and related traits like insecurity and morbidity, and once again tying it all up with a wonderfully engaging persona, Thomas still makes him feel like a character. 

But the sides are not real people. They are built to represent a certain trait, and because of that, their behavior and motivations are more extreme and less well-rounded than normal people’s would be. They are written to be, for the most part, single-faceted characters. Their personality is only a specific section of someone else’s, and because of that they don’t act or think with the complexity of a real human person. And that is SO important to understanding Deceit.

To a point, Thomas managed to fully characterize Deceit as well- however, he’s a bit different. Because unlike the others, Deceit is a much more limited concept. He is a personification of lying and dishonesty. He doesn’t represent any emotions, any other traits, he’s just Deceit. Because of that, he can only be so emotionally complex (which is why I’m very impressed that Thomas and the team managed to give him so much life and feeling!). And that is partially why... I don’t really see him as sympathetic as many do, personally.

(This is where I’m gonna move away from Just Facts to more opinion based reasoning, so just skip to the end if you’re not interested in that.)

I’m not sure if I’m maybe missing something, but from what I saw, I don’t actually think Deceit was ever sad or hurt in that exchange- only frustrated because he couldn’t understand why the others didn’t see things the way he did. In the end, I don’t feel like him blowing up was from a place of emotional hurt. On the contrary, I think the source of conflict for him was in his reasoning. It was the fact that his logic couldn’t make sense of the choices around him, because he’s physically incapable of understanding the situation from a place of empathy like the others do. What he saw was Thomas making a decision that goes against what he directly wants, and Deceit literally just can’t understand that. He can’t understand the concept of Thomas choosing to uphold his morals over his personal desires, because he just doesn’t have the personal capacity to do so. So he loses his temper, gets bitter, and leaves. 

I hope that this doesn’t give you the impression that I dislike Deceit as a character. I actually LOVE Deceit, from the standpoint of a writer and a fan. He’s a wonderful addition to the cast and adds a lot to the series.

However, I don’t fully sympathize with him, and I don’t feel comfortable idolizing him as he is in the show, because I honestly don’t see him as benevolent. I appreciate his motives, but I disagree too strongly with his outlook and logic to relate to or support him. I think that’s what I was trying to communicate with this analysis- it felt to me like a lot of people completely overlooked the intention of Deceit’s actions in this episode, which in my opinion does a HUGE disservice to the complexity of his character. He’s not a helpless, misunderstood victim. He’s a character who pairs good intentions with manipulation, carelessness, and immoral methods, which is a lovely thing to appreciate as an element of a show. But when you ignore those parts of his character to either idolize OR demonize him, it does a huge disservice to both him and the writers. I think I’d just like to see more people appreciate the intricacies of his character, especially in terms of his moral implications.

But, I think I’ve rambled enough as it is, so Imma end it here. This was a LOT of fun to write, and I might do more if yall like it, cause I have a LOT of thoughts about this series in general. Let me know if you’d want to see that! Bye for now!!!!

[toomanytentacles]

I’ve been thinking a lot about this film THE DUKE OF BURGUNDY lately, about how perfect and beautiful it is, and figure this piece of writing I did is worth a revisit. You ever do that, go back a year later and see if your opinion on something has changed any? Well, in this case, it hasn’t.

Text that follows was published at www.cinepunx.com

REKT: The Duke of Burgundy

by Elbee | May 29, 2018

Adrianna has been trying to get me to watch The Duke of Burgundy for what seems like decades; this is an absolute fact. When we first discussed the film all those years ago, I told her I had started watching it once and was intrigued, however (as I often do) I fell asleep moments after the opening title sequence. But I always wanted to come back to the film because what I (briefly) saw of it was striking, and lo and behold, she put it on her recommendation list this month, giving me the final push I needed to move the film from “need to watch” to “watched.” Boy howdy, am I glad she did.

There are so many artful elements to this film to sink into, but first I need to talk about the music. The Duke of Burgundy’s beautifully haunting soundtrack (available via Caroline Records) is performed by indie act Cat’s Eyes, a band I have been enamored with since their first album dropped in 2011. Once I recognized Rachel Zeffira’s voice singing over a familiar kind of hazily sullen melody as the opening credits started, I felt a definite sense of being at home with this movie. Couple that with a late ‘60s-slash-early ‘70s vaguely European aesthetic, and I was on board faster than you could say “Rosemary’s Baby” (That kind of look and feel is mysteriously special to me, and I’m not entirely certain why. You know how sometimes things aren’t exactly nostalgic, but they speak to your soul like they are anyway? The Duke of Burgundy is that.).

But let’s get to the meat of this story. We’re introduced to main characters Evelyn and Cynthia through what appears to be a scene taken from classical literature: Evelyn arrives at Cynthia’s petite countryside mansion via her bicycle on what seems to be her first day as Cynthia’s hired help. Cynthia is cold to the young woman (dressed like a wealthy businesswoman with designer heels and pencil skirt, her hair in a neat updo), and commands her sternly to begin her chores — which must be done correctly. The meek Evelyn begins work, and it is when we see that one of her duties is to hand wash and dry Cynthia’s delicate panties that we begin to think perhaps there is more to this relationship than a simple employer/employee dynamic. Indeed, shortly after, it is revealed the two women are a couple roleplaying, and the submissive Evelyn is more than eager to be punished by Cynthia when she neglects to do her chores properly. But, as we learn, their dynamic is even more complicated than that (I don’t want to give too much away, but there’s a reveal that blurs the lines of their dom/sub roles in a very subversive way.). So now, instead of a classic Miss Havisham-type scenario, we have a tender look into the relationship of two women who are trying to give enough of themselves over to each other in order to satisfy each individual’s needs while still maintaining their own personas.

This film is valiant in its attempt to show how we all struggle with the same types of relationship imbalances; the moral here is that relationships which go beyond the scope of so-called traditional values are really no different than those which are held in that tradition. I don’t exactly want to spoil anything because this film goes above and beyond what any other I’ve seen does as far as examining the dom/sub relationship in a realistic way, but this film thoughtfully introduces important ideas that need to be shared. I think that fetishes and kink often have one of two reputations to “normal” people: either kink is looked upon as disgusting, or it’s fetishized in itself as being “new” or “exciting” or “playful.” Normal society doesn’t really take kink seriously, but this film does its part to provide the example that kink can be absolutely serious and real, and it can constitute as much emotional turmoil as any regular type of sexual relationship. One element to that sameness is what I’m going to refer to as “the shackles of a relationship,” when one person feels tied down or has been sacrificing a part of his/her identity in order to maintain what is perceived as a happy couplehood. In the case of Evelyn and Cynthia, the struggle for control is what leads to their apparent downfall, and the film presents this imbalance in a way that is entirely relatable. Eventually their game becomes redundant to at least one participant, which shows that even in kink relationships, people grow tired of one other. Evelyn starts to blame Cynthia a bit, saying things like, “It would be nice if you would do it without being asked,” in reference to Cynthia degrading her, in quite the same way Jennifer Aniston tells Vince Vaughn “I want you to want to do the dishes” in the 2006 romantic comedy The Break-Up. The film goes on to show us more relationship tropes including infidelity, jealousy, and pettiness, all of which play out in an interesting way; we are once again compelled to ask ourselves how anyone could not be willing to understand how love plays into our similarities as human beings instead of focusing negatively on our differences in sexual identities.

Performances in this film are strong, especially in the case of Sidse Babett Knudsen as the graceful-yet-fragile Cynthia. One of the things this film does beautifully is exhibit how complex women can be in their characters; Cynthia is an expert in lepidopterology (the study of butterflies), and her experience in the scientific academic field sets her up to be a possible authoritarian. And even though this is probably what appeals to Evelyn about her the most, Cynthia does show a softer and more nuanced side to the typical authoritative stereotype at home. Throughout the film, Cynthia seems as if she’s only going along with Evelyn as she indulges in her kinky fantasies (this is where the theme of sacrifice first comes in to play), and the reservation she secretly holds about their roleplay is expertly shown with restraint by a few forlorn looks in the mirror. Evelyn (Chiara D’Anna), like Cynthia, shows both strength and weakness: even though she is the submissive, she knows exactly what she wants from their relationship, and she’s determined to get it. However, when Cynthia shows timidness with delivering on her agreed role, in a moment of instability, Evelyn seeks out her desires elsewhere. The vulnerability the two show as they work out the impact of their mutual issues is phenomenally relatable; again, it all goes to show these themes are universal.

I’m not sure I can fully express how extraordinarily shot and thoughtfully crafted The Duke of Burgundy is. And what is fantastic about it is that it is a highly erotic film — these women are both incredibly sexy, and given the subject matter, almost every scene evokes a sort of amorous curiosity. But, it’s also a film treated with so much care that the eroticism doesn’t get in the way of the story; to put it plainly, you can watch this film and be intrigued — I would go so far as to say “stimulated” — but you can also watch it without the distraction of your metaphorical dick. Eroticism? Yes. Smut? No. Is this the highest compliment I can give a film of this sort? Yes, probably. So, thank you again, Adrianna, for pushing me to watch this film. And in turn, I’m probably going to start pushing it on everyone else.

[to-read-is-to-breathe]

Regarding Nesta

I saw an anti-nesta post earlier today and I’ve been thinking about it forever and so: a list of my thoughts

I want to start this off by saying that I do not see Nesta as a “cinnamon roll” but neither do I think she is the epitome of evil; I think Nesta is a remarkable example of a morally gray character. As a writer, I would be thrilled to create a character like her and I think to dismiss her actions as simply ‘villainous’ would be sad. 

*EDIT: Under the cut because this is way longer than I intended it to be*

A common anti-nesta argument: “Nesta was mean about Feyre/The IC being Fae.” And this is true. Nesta was raised with prejudices created by the society around her. Those prejudices were wrong, but if you have no opportunity to learn otherwise, how are you supposed to think any different? She is growing as a character. She is Fae now and is finally able to see the world from a different point of view.

Another common argument: “Nesta treated Feyre like shit.” And you’re right. She did. There is no excuse for this. Nesta was angry at her father and she took it out on Feyre, too. She was lashing out. She wanted her father to suffer, and she wanted Feyre to feel the pain that she felt. It isn’t right, but it is a very real thing that happens. 

One more argument I hear a lot: “Nesta acts like she is the only one suffering after the war/she expects special treatment now/Everyone else has PTSD why can’t she just get it together?/etc.” Well...This is probably the worst Nesta has ever had it, and that’s saying something. Nesta was cruel, they lived in a hut, but at the end of the day nothing “bad” ever really happened to her regarding war or impending death. Feyre took care of her, and while she may have been without the lifestyle she was used to before, she was healthy and whole. She let her anger propel her. During the war, Nesta watched her father die--and she had not ever really experienced death like that before. She did not fight in the war. She did not have names to put to faces--may not have even really been close enough to any of the fighting to see the gruesome details of death. And then when it finally does happen, it happens to someone that she has an extremely complicated love/hate relationship with. She nearly died--she laid down on top of Cassian and looked death in the face. She almost lost Cassian--someone else that she has an extremely love/hate relationship with. She almost lost her sisters multiple times. Her soul has been shredded in a way that she has never experienced before. So yes, she suffers--understandably, since these are all new experiences--and yes, she is self-centered about it. This is in line with her previous characterization. 

In addition to the previous point, Nesta suffers the worst because she is alone. And this is partially self-inflicted, but she has always believed herself to be alone. Her entire life, she has been an island. She didn’t get along with her mother. Her father let her down. Feyre didn’t need her. Nesta viewed Elain almost like Elain was her child--hers to protect. So she wouldn’t dare put any of her issues/worries/pains on Elain. She has never had anyone to lean on--and it’s equally true after the war. Yes everyone is suffering, but the IC have the support of each other, and Feyre and Rhys also have one another as mates to lean on. Nesta is still an island with no real and healthy coping mechanism. It is hard to reach out when you feel unwanted and unneeded, and when your pride is in the way. This doesn’t excuse her actions, but it makes them understandable. 

The key word here is understandable. You don’t have to side with morally gray characters, but the great moments come from being able to understand why they make the decisions that they do. From being able to see how they exist in that middle space based on their actions and emotions. 

People get mad that Nesta actually grieves for her father after hating him for most of her life. And I do not understand this. As someone that has shitty familial relationships, I know what it is like to love someone despite the pain they cause you. To continue to hope that one day things will be ‘normal’. So of course Nesta is grieving her father. She loved him. Even when she didn’t want to. And now she will spend the rest of her life wondering if she should have forgiven him sooner--because in the end, he came for his daughters. It doesn’t forgive what he did in the past, but it meant that in some way, he cared and he loved them. She will always wonder what could have been if he hadn’t died on that battlefield. Her grieving is complicated, and therefore intense. This emotional aspect of her is another thing that allows Nesta to exist in a morally gray space. She is able to feel/see from both sides of herself. The ‘evil’ side would not want to grieve, the ‘good’ side of her does regardless. And therefore, she struggles. 

Nesta is unapologetically herself. Which often comes across as being mean and cruel, but it’s not always that. She refuses to be trampled on. She went into the woods searching for Feyre after Feyre was kidnapped. She put herself between Cassian and death. She protected Elain at all costs. She agreed to let her home be used as a meeting ground between the queens and the inner circle. She fought before she was pushed into that cauldron. She begged for her father’s life. She cut off Hybern’s head as an act of revenge. He had already been stabbed through the neck--he was already dying. But that was vengeance for everything he had done to her.  

In conclusion: Nesta is a ‘bitch’. She’s hurtful, she’s mean, and she pushes people away. But at her core, she has an unwavering loyalty to the moral standards she has set for herself. Her moral compass may not point true north, may not line up with what others expect, but her standards leave her firmly planted in the middle. She is neither good nor evil. She makes both good and bad choices. She is an exemplary morally gray character and that’s what makes her so interesting to read about--and I have a hard time understanding how she can be so steadfastly hated when her actions are both good and bad. 

P.S. I also feel like when it comes to morally gray characters, the males are applauded for their behavior and actions because they are edgy bad boys--i.e. William Herondale, Kaz Brekker, and even, on the more extreme end of things, the Darkling--and the females are ridiculed, called names, and then dismissed as villains. In reality all of these characters are complex and of value both as characters in a story and as reflections of what it is to be human, but alas that is a post for another day.