#and deconstructing and reconstructing narrative and characterization | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

lakesbian · 1 year ago

Note

i have had like 10 friends rec worm to me but nobody’s given me a good like, gist of its vibe and what its abt because ‘its best blind’, could u please give a like brief summary and vibe check of it 😭 it’s so long i dont wanna try and invest that much time without knowing much abt it

so, worm is a 1.7 million word long webserial written in 2010. 1.7 million words seems like a lot, but it was also written over a relatively short period of time, which means the writing style is very easy to parse--the ideas aren't without complexity, but the language itself isn't intimidatingly dense. you can get through it at a very decent pace. i agree with your friends that there are vast portions of worm that hit best when you're unspoiled, but the thing is that worm is long enough that giving you the basic plot pitch is in no way spoilers for any of the things that i wouldn't want to see spoiled for someone. i'm actually kind of baffled they're not telling you Any Thing, because it is in my estimation one of the best books i've ever read, but it also Needs a briefing before you get into it for like five different reasons. which i will now provide. i swear to god this is brief by my standards it's just that i am very thorough

worm is a story about superheroes and supervillains, set in a world where superpowers are traumagenic--rather than appearing randomly or innately, some people gain powers after a traumatizing event happens to them. the protagonist is taylor hebert, a 15yo girl who has the power to control insects and desperately wants to be a superhero. and then accidentally finds herself scouted by a team of teenage villains instead. who's to say how she's going to react to all that!

one of the most compelling things about worm is that the superpowers in it serve as visceral, hyper-literal metaphors for the trauma and traumatized coping mechanisms of the characters with those powers. each power is incredibly specific and thematically relevant to the person who has it, and it's incredibly interesting and evocative. it feels so natural and well-done that it comes off like how superpowers are just meant to be written.

the fact that superpowers stem from trauma also means that worm is fundamentally a narrative about trauma. specifically, about traumatized teenagers and the relationships they form as they cling together while struggling through growing up traumatized & mutually coping with an increasingly intriguing, intense, and far-reaching escalating plot. worm's depictions of trauma + mental illness--including unpalatable trauma responses, including traumatized characters who are allowed to be complicated and nuanced and messy while still receiving narrative respect--are deeply real-feeling and impactful, and they're placed in the context of a well-spun + engaging story.

i really do have to stress how excellent the character writing is. worm is fully deserving of being as long as it is. over the course of 1.7 million words of character development, the average reader's reaction to the main characters goes from "sorta interesting" to "okay, i want to see where this goes" to "augh...really likable" to "i am now on hands and knees crying and these characters are going to stick around in my brain forever." wildbow has incredible talent for efficiently conveying complicated, real-feeling, and viscerally evocative characterization. many of the interlude chapters (chapters written from the perspective of different characters other than taylor) are so interesting, fleshed-out, and emotionally affecting that they make you wish you could read an entire novel about just the side character being featured. with that level of characterization for just the side cast, it's not surprising that taylor (& co) are genuinely just downright iconic. and i do not say that lightly--taylor is truly one of the best-written protagonists i've seen in anything. ever.

the other main pitch-point for worm is that it's a fascinating deconstruction/reconstruction/examination of the conceits of the superhero genre. it answers the question of--what would the world have to be like, for people with superpowers to act the way they do in classic cape media? and it does this well enough that it's interesting even if you have only a passing familiarity with cape media. i am not a big superhero media fan, but worm addresses virtually every aspect of cape media that was under the sun around 2010 in a way that's so interesting i still find it incredibly engaging. the approach it takes makes the narrative very accessible even to people who aren't usually cape media fans.

and speaking of the narrative: the end of the story is coherent and satisfying and deeply thematically resonant*. the way worm follows through on all of its main mysteries & plot threads is excellent. you don't have to worry about getting thru 1.7 million words and being dissatisfied by the author shitting the bed at the end, or anything like that. he does an amazing job of weaving together plot events in a way that makes each successive one feel rationally, thematically, and emotionally connected to what came before. there's really only one part where i feel the story stumbles a bit, but i think it was the best option he had for the narrative, and it's by no means a dealbreaker. it's in fact really impressive how cohesive and satisfying worm is for such a long webserial released over such a brief period of time.

*this is subjective ive seen some people who didnt love it but ive never seen anyone who downright Hated it who didnt also demonstrate egregious misunderstanding of literally everything worm is about. so thats a good sign

as for the downsides of worm/things that might put you off:

there is a very long list of trigger warnings for it. if you have any trigger warnings you want you should ask your friends to let you know about the relevant parts, because the fact that it's About Trauma (& about typical cape media circumstances presented very seriously) means that traumatic and violent things & their realistic aftermath are constantly happening and/or being discussed. i would not classify worm as needlessly dark or spiteful to the audience by any means, but it is intense and covers a lot of heavy topics. i do assume if your friends are all recommending it to you, they think none of the material would be too much for you, though!

worm was written in 2010 by a white cishet guy from canada. it's typical levels of 2010-era bigoted, it has a deeply lesbophobic stereotype character, it has some atrociously racist stereotype characters, the author really hates addicts, It's Got Blind Spots. i think worm is generally fully worth reading despite these, but very fair warning that it can get bad. i think what exacerbates this is that worm is generally extremely nuanced & sympathetic regarding ideas such as "crime is a result of systematic circumstance vs people just being inherently evil" and "mentally ill people who are traumatized in unpalatable ways are still deserving of fundamental respect as human beings" and so on and so forth, so it's extra noticeable and insufferable when you get to a topic the author has unexamined biases on and all that nuance drops out. the worst part is that a lot of this is most concentrated in the early arcs, so you have to get through them without being super attached to any of the characters yet. it is worth it though.

worm like. Does have a central straight relationship in it. and it's a very well written straight relationship for the most part and i like it quite a lot. but worm also passes the bechdel test with such flying colors that it enters 'unintentionally homoerotic' territory. which means a lot of people were shipping the main character ms taylor hebert with her female friends while the story was being released. which caused the author to get so mad he 1. posted a word of god to a forum loudly insisting that all of the girls are straight and 2. inserted a few deeply awkward and obvious and out of character scenes where he finds an excuse for the girls to more or less turn to the camera and go "i'm not gay, btw. this is platonic." This is fucking insufferable, and will piss you off immensely, but then you will get to any of the number of deeply emotionally affecting scenes between them, and at that point you will be too busy sniffling piteously and perhaps crytyping an analysis post on tumblr to be mad about all that other shit. also they're only a couple tiny portions out of an entire overall fantastic novel

overall: if those points don't sound like dealbreakers (i hope they aren't they're really massively outstripped by the amount of devastatingly good moments in worm, worm still has a thriving fandom over a decade later for a reason), you should absolutely give it a shot and see what you think. my final note is that you have to read up until the end of arc 8 to really see where what makes worm Worm kicks in, so aim for at least there to see how you feel about it if you're just thinking about dipping your toes in vs fully committing. i hope that was helpful and not too long :)

oh and don't go in the comments section on wordpress if you don't want spoilers. or anywhere else in the fandom at all. you will be spoiled. quite possibly for things you could not even have imagined were topics to be spoiled on.

#ask #wormblr #parahumans #ill tag it to save it so i can reference later. and maybe other people will find it helpful

364 notes · View notes

kaurwreck · 8 months ago

Note

i'm so curious if you have anything specific you would like to say about your processes regarding mirroring different bsd character's mannerisms and methods of speaking, because 👀 (-> person who recently picked up writing bsd fic but struggles wrt matching character voice as a rule). completely fair if it's something that you either have said all you intend to about for rn or if it's something you would prefer to engage with only in more direct conversation though!!

oh, all i ever want to do is talk about writing as a craft; i'm delighted to chat about it.

much of what I do for bsd is the same as I do for characters in other fics. I'm never aiming to necessarily mirror the characters as they appear in the source materials, because I write fanfiction to explore the characters outside of the confines of canon. instead, I aim to recreate the "look and feel" of the characters, so they still feel like themselves, even when adapted to my authorial voice and lenses of interpretation.

There are a several principles of canonical interpretation that I use to guide my characterizations, which I've listed below.

Characters are storytelling devices that serve the canonical narrative's key themes. Even if I'm writing outside of canon, I'm not going to be able to make them feel like themselves without first understanding canon (genre, themes, tone, thesis, etc.) and the characters' roles in the context of canon.

Characters are comprised of component parts (such as goals, motivations, flaws, experiences, preferences, skills) that, if conflated, obscure or make it very easy to misidentify their behavioral patterns.

Characters are designed and written intentionally. There is no random detail; every scrap of canonical information survived multiple drafts, rounds of revisions, and editorial scrutiny for a reason.

If I don't understand why a character behaved the way they did, or if the "why" seems out of character or incongruent with the overarching narrative and themes of the story, then I assume I'm missing details; I have misunderstood some aspect of either the character or the context; my bias or experiences are clouding my perspective; or I am operating from a false premise or place of ignorance. This is especially important for engaging with works outside my own cultural context, and for cultivating discernment, emotional intelligence, sincerity, compassion, and curiosity (which are core to my values).

I continue to deconstruct and reconstruct and reconcile characters and their narratives, constantly testing the patterns I've previously identified against new information or canonical material, and refining or reworking them accordingly. In other words, I remain flexible in my interpretations, and I continue applying those interpretations to ongoing canon. I don't want canon to validate my interpretations, I want to understand canon.

To write characters that feel like distinct, whole people, I observe people, myself and others, both granularly and holistically, with insatiable curiosity. Otherwise I risk writing my own ego, patterns, and mannerisms over and over. That doesn't work for me, because I write and read to explore the expansiveness of existence, not to force existence to fit into the narrowness of my present perception.

You only asked about characters' mannerisms and methods of speaking, so many of the above principles may seem out of scope. They're not. If you only observe patterns without analyzing their causes and context, you'll, at best, only ever be able to caricature them, but never replicate, adapt, or expound upon them.

But, with the above principles in mind, my process for learning to write characters' manner of speaking includes revisiting their canonical dialogue to identify their (1) speech patterns like vocal rhythm, pace, intonation, and pausing (sources of which may vary based on the medium, e.g., narrative descriptions and punctuation for written canon; expressions and other characters' reactions for visual canon; etc.); (2) vocabulary, dialect, frequently used phrases, favorite filler words; (3) nonverbal modes of communication (e.g., Chuuya screeches like a vixen in heat when he's either in Corruption or really, really, really riled up by or in regard to Dazai).

Then, I note variations in (1)-(3) across interactions with other characters and in different settings, noting where, how, and potentially why those changes occur (e.g., Kunikida doesn't usually use honorifics, but he does for Ranpo and Fukuzawa; it's explicitly because he immensely respects them and desires to learn from them, the former perhaps because of the latter).

For Japanese speaking characters, I research which type of keigo they use in canon, and which particles of speech indicating tone they commonly use, and why/when/to whom they code switch. I don't speak Japanese, so I generally rely on analyses provided by native speakers, but I also listen/read the raws to confirm the formality or type of keigo they're using in situations relevant to whatever I'm writing. For other languages and dialects too, the process is roughly the same; I look for resources from native speakers and translators that provide insight into patterns I wouldn't otherwise hear or recognize as a monolingual English speaker. I don't do this with any intent to try and replicate them, but to better and more precisely adapt the character's speech patterns to the English version of them. For example, I've noticed a lot of MDZS/Untamed fanfiction writes Lan Wangji speaking very brusquely. This is because he does so in Chinese. But in Chinese syntax, his short sentences indicate his formality and noble character. In English, which requires packing way more context into sentences than Chinese, short sentences with minimal context can come across as informal, clipped, and sometimes rude/dismissive/abrupt.

There's also the matter of code switching, which transcends any one language, and lends lots of insight into our relationships and dynamics. We do not usually talk to our best friends the way we speak to strangers, for example. Our accents and dialects also shift with our settings; I'm from the Deep South, you call EVERYONE "ma'am" or "sir" if they are even slightly older than you or you otherwise respect them; using "ma'am" or "sir" where I currently live is liable to offend someone. Paying attention to this in characters can really, really help you capture them across contexts. It's also just generally respectful to engage with the cultural and linguistic context of the stories you love.

For their body language, it's very similar to the above, in that I revisit canon, note patterns, and compare contexts. (Also still salient are my notes about culturally specific details and code switching -- body language, like any form of communication, is also informed by our upbringing and cultural backgrounds.)

Then, I write, revisiting my notes and canon as necessary, but mostly focused on drafting. During revisions, I more carefully compare my dialogue and body language against canon, and pay closer attention to refining my dialogue to sound more like the character. Sometimes I watch or read relevant canon before writing specific dialogue so that the rhythms are fresh in my mind.

I'm never trying to erode my own authorial voice, and I make all sorts of choices with how I adapt character voices to my writing style and preferences. But, I can do that without compromising the character's "look and feel" because I've done the above work to understand the essential elements of their communication, and how those elements relate to their overall characterization (essential to which is applying the principles I listed at the outset to the speech and body language patterns I notice).

But, like, all of this amounts to just revisiting canon a lot and connecting patterns in the characters' speech and body language with their characterization + being curious about the cultural layers you may be missing.

Also, with regard to bsd, I recommend reading, even if just in snippets, works by the irl!authors, since Asagiri almost literally quotes them sometimes, and certainly uses the irl namesakes' authorial voices to guide the tone, inflections, and speech quirks of the characters he writes. (I love, love, love to invoke irl!Chuuya's symbolist and sometimes bewildering habit of mashing together imagery and bastardizing words/turns of phrase in ways that are nonsensical when taken literally, but which are evocative or meaningful in the tone, atmosphere, and meter of his poetry. I'm not as clever as him, so I'm silly with it, but nevertheless, it sparks joy.)

I have no idea if any of this is helpful, but it's how I enjoy approaching it. I'm also inclined to think it works for me; the element in my fics I'm complimented on the most in comments and feedback tends to be my characterizations.

#bsd #bungou stray dogs #fic writing #character writing #fanfiction

20 notes · View notes

syrupspinner · 1 year ago

Text

i defeated Everhood

undertale... 2! [spoilers]

ill start with the non-plot stuff, i really like the look of the game. a lot of effort went into making all the characters feel distinct and likeable. knight lost-a-lot has an australian accent, and im not saying that because he called me a sheila or whatever, its just something that i think fits the character. yknow youve made a good character when you can imagine stuff like that, yknow? and the environments are all memorable too, even with places that risk being samey like the nightclub and the carnival

and the writing's a lot of fun too! so, i feel like were all on the same page of saying its hard for media to take itself seriously nowadays. serious emotion has to be undercut with a whedonesque quip, that kinda thing. Everhood knows what its doing; it knows when to tell a joke and it knows when to stand back and let a scene emote. it does this without feeling like its two segregated games, in my opinion. like, even after *that moment* where things get serious, theres still levity, and theres still serious character moments before that too.

and the gameplay is great too! yknow that thing where you look out the window of a car and you imagine a ninja or something running on the rooftops? its kinda like that, but youre imaging a little guy jumping between the notes in a rhythm game. thats such a fun gameplay gimmick

so, a lot gets posted about "quirky earthbound-inspired rpgs (which may or may not be about depression)". i always thought that its was kinda stupid, because people can only ever name omori if you ask them for examples. and thats not even to say that theres a drought, no theres tons of em! Jimmy and the Pulsating Mass, Knuckle Sandwich, Heartbound, Oddity, the LISA trilogy... oh, and obviously Undertale. all of those seem like direct reactions, but none of them (to my knowledge) seem like call-and-response answers that directly build on their inspirations like how Undertale subverts traditional rpg game mechanics...

except everhood. if undertale is about building and examining a world with plot-important 4th wall breaking where rpg mechanics are deconstructed, everhood painstakingly reconstructs them. this isnt to say that its not post-modern, quite the opposite. it intentionally builds a world that has the same post-modern sensibilities, where the rpg mechanics are welcomed entirely

this is your last call for spoilers. if youre an Undertale fan, or just a fan of the narrative analysis of traditional game mechanics, you need to play this game

for example, Undertale makes a point of emphasizing to the player that the monsters arent just disposable enemies, theyre people who deserve to live. Everhood does the inverse: everyone is an immortal going insane, and they deserve to be put out of their misery. this still humanizes and makes you sympathize with the encounters without removing the violent conflict. instead of everyone deserving to live, everyone deserves to die, but not in a no-mercy style "im a monster because im bored" way. honestly, i think Everhood improves on this from Undertale. everyone has an overworld sprite, they all reoccur in multiple locations, and theres only one of them. its hard to feel a connection to just another vulkin or just another woshua; here even characters like the goth store clerk form more of a connection through repetition.

another thing i like is the silent protagonist. Undertale characterizes Frisk as a reveal, telling you that you the player are not this character just because youre controlling them. enforcing your will over the narrative is a bad thing: that means youre retroactively making chara evil. in Everhood, the player controlling the character is diegetic, and entirely welcomed.

basically, Undertale was designed with the notion "lets make a game where the player treating it like a normal rpg (the player is the main character, killing is good) is unwelcome and unfulfilling by subverting normal tropes" to which Everhood answers "okay, now lets build a world with the same level of subversion, but playing it like a normal rpg (the player is the main character, killing is good) is VERY welcome and fulfilling".

so yeah, wonderful game, totally recommend it. if i had to pick one thing it does best, i gotta go with the narrative resonance, but the characters are a close second. green mage is such a cool dude.

closing this out, the sequel has been announced and theres a trailer out. i have... no idea how theyre going to continue the narrative. i figured the buddhist imagery was hinting at reincarnation so the new game+ was diegetic too... my guess is that either theyre gonna do something narratively disconnected but with evolved gameplay like how final fantasy works, or its basically gonna be like... a different everhood. as in the place. looks killer either way

#defeated #everhood

1 note · View note

mfelewzi · 1 month ago

Text

No, more generally WHAT THE FUCK THEY ARE PLANNING WITH THEIR FANTASY UNIVERSE

Because I say you: they are destroying it.

They started with LoK, creating all those Retcons and incoherences in characterization of the characters and plot that everyone with a working brain sees.

But everyone refuses to see It, because "Look, is modern now, Who cares if It is exagerated as progress and without the elements of the show, but a simple reconstruction of USA", "Look, the Korrasami, Who cares if Asami never had a real characterization and their relationship was forced like Makorra", and goes away, refusing to see the bad flaws and the seeds of destruction, like the Total inexistance of complex characterization, the lack of Real Adventures, and how all the Good things of the original show were cancelled.

And that because they wanted their Perfect Sci-Fi Show of their original plan!

Because the problem with Azula isn't the worst, o no.

The most damned thing in this comic, no in the majority of these comics, is that they are all boring! All things that could be Adventurous, Exotica, Fascinating and Fantasy are destroyed, all reduced to American Comedy and Super-Heroes' Tales! A lot of good ideas, but all simplified and understood under a single view: the Libertarian. Not a more Rich Presence of different Ideas like in AtlA, when socialist, liberal, distributist, even some conservative and libertarian views were present at the same time, in a dialogue when some of them found a conclusion good for everyone: It was all dominates by the view of American Libertarians Thinking! So, be progressive about you individuality, but when You're poor, probably is your fault. Social and cultural influences, imperialism? Suck them: they were simple illusions! And if you think differently, Well, your are just lies that you give to yourself and the other.

Frankly, first the Avatar Studios start a reboot of all their sources, starting with the comics and LoK, cancelling all the Retcons to the original lore, first the Studios will survive.

If they accept that they can't be te eternal mirror for two libertarians when they can masturbate about themselves thinking that they are making sex, the Avatar Studios and Avatar franchise Will survive.

But It will be problematic. And they will never do a similar thing.

We have to stop with fake deconstruction without purpose.

We have to stop with being fake progressives, Who accept everything that appear as progressive when It isn't in its substantial nature.

We have to see narrative as a way to tell stories, with some Rules.

We have to accept that Classical Literature should inspired us more than usually.

Di Martino and Konietzko made simple deconstruction After AtlA.

That's what we have. A boring spin off comic, with many incoherences and retcons of an important character.

#atla #avatar the last airbender #avatar the legend of aang #anti bryke #bryke critical #anti lok #lok critical #atla comics #atla comics critical #save avatar #save atla #stop libertarian propaganda #save lok #save this fucking franchise #save narrative #narrative #classical literature

183 notes · View notes

driftbending · 4 years ago

Text

i keep writing and rewriting my reaction to vincenzo because there are a lot but also i'm not certain i articulate everything i hated about the ending.

i will say that i knew no matter what that i wouldn't like the ending because murdering a character as punishment for their misdeeds is not something that appeals to me. i grew up watching kirikou et la sorcière, avatar: the last airbender, lilo and stitch, and (more recently) moana. all of these are stories that say "here is an evil character that we'll stop in a way that doesn't involve jail/murder," and the only exception i make for this is light yagami's death in death note and that's because ryuk killed him as a way to end their relationship, not as a punishment for his crimes. (and gothic lit is exempt bc they have to be resolved with murder.) so, whatever happened, regardless of how much violence the babel four did, none of their deaths would have held any emotional satisfaction for me. yet i prepared myself to be unimpressed by the finale since this is what the set up has always been: vincenzo will kill hanseok, and maybe myunghee, seunghyeok, and hanseo.

i knew this from the beginning. the narrative repeated it so often i got annoyed. there were so many close calls with vincenzo pulling a gun on hanseok that that got boring. by the time ep. 20 rolled around i was just fed up and wanted someone to die because this show had already failed me so many other times with their set ups that i wanted at least one good payoff.

lo and behold, they did end up killing the four characters i thought would die. hanseo died, and though he was my favorite character, and though i felt sad he didn't get any funeral scene or help while he was fending off his brother and that his death served as a sacrifice for vincenzo instead of literally anything else, i didn't cry or even get mad about it. he died and i felt free to stop caring about the rest of the story. yay me! i do understand the fans who hated that he was killed and that he should've survived bc abuse victims don't deserve the storyline hanseo got, but this is not a show i expected to actually care about victims. despite what it says, i knew i wouldn't get this for hanseo waaaaay back in ep 8 when they brought up the victims of that gay banker and just used it as a way for us to root against the banker. they didn't treat those victims with any respect at all and so i was already prepared for them to do it all over again. and they did and it sucks, but again for me i couldn’t get as angry as i normally would about this bc i always knew that the deaths from this show would never mean anything to me bc there was just so much of it it became meaningless.

another thing i knew that was going to let me down about this show is that it didn’t have a single “good” character for me to root for. mr. hong existed, but he was murdered early on. every other character on the show is too corrupt to be the ones i would want handling a reconstruction project for a more ethical world. yes, they made hanseo go through a redemption arc, but they didn’t let him stay did they? they focused so much on deconstruction they never cared about reconstruction. so when they got to the ending where vincenzo just leaves, chayoung and the tenants are thrown into a familiar cycle of court cases and defending their plaza from it being redeveloped, vincenzo just goes on to be a mafia boss again, and the guillotine file is back in the hands of the corrupt intelligence agency that created it on the orders of their president. the only thing that changed was babel group was destroyed bc their two ceos were murdered and the lawyers of their legal rep. were also murdered.

and yet, despite my expectations being so low they were basically non-existent, i was still disappointed. they didn't let chayoung do anything (which i knew would happen because i knew something about her characterization never felt fully fledged to me the way it did to fandom, so i wasn't surprised when they delegated her as a damsel-in-distress/love interest.), they killed myunghee the way we used to burn witches (which how fitting for a female character that is cunning and cruel), and the way they killed hanseok literally made me feel faint and nauseous (i wish this was an exaggeration; the second i saw the drill pointed at him i started feeling this way and i couldn't listen/watch his death scene because it was so brutal).

so, the ending satisfied nothing for me. if people who shipped the main characters were satisfied, whatever. i was never interested in them as a ship (i tend to ship vincenzo and chayoung with other characters), so the ending was even more disappointing bc it really held nothing that mattered to me.

i was also not a person that liked the way each character idolized vincenzo because i preferred his relationships with other characters to be filled with more tension* and the narrative just told me that the writers didn't, that vincenzo's word was what mattered, that the other character's conflicting needs were meant to be eclipsed by vincenzo's needs. so when the characters were all looking into the horizon hoping that vincenzo would some day come back (for what, i ask you?) i was just like :|

(*what do i mean by tension? i mean my favorite version of chayoung/vincenzo was the early eps when she hated him for being liked so much by her father that her flaws as a daughter were highlighted more and chayoung's own hesitancy with murder bumping up against vincenzo’s lack of hesitancy. mr. cho/vincenzo were most interesting when mr. cho wanted the guillotine file to use for his own purposes. the tenants/vincenzo were the most interesting when the tenants wanted to take the gold and vincenzo was trying to stop them. even hanseo/vincenzo was the most interesting when they had the "will you kill me? will you betray me?" tension as they worked together to get rid of hanseok. these dynamics added layers to the characters and reminded us they had their own motivations that were as equally important as vincenzo’s, but not enough of these tensions lasted past a few episodes and almost always would vincenzo's needs prevail with most of the other characters going along with his plans in the end.)

and this is all without mentioning how fandom sort of ruined a lot of the show for me, too. they took the characteristics that made the myunghee/hanseok dynamic one of my favorites and gave it to chayoung/vincenzo to the point where i was always left baffled and feeling like i was watching a different show. (a good point about the end for me is that i feel vindicated watching the scene where chayoung was basically like "i don't like your methods, vincenzo, but i needed to use them as the lesser of two evils to destroy hanseok," bc it did sort of reinforce for me my own reading of chayoung which was that she doesn't mind being corrupt and blackmailing people or scaring them into compliance, but that she was not going to get her hands covered in blood or dance over the corpses of her enemy. those traits belong to myunghee who accepts her role as a villain in a way that is as cool and collected as vincenzo. and lord, imagine what a show it would've been if the writers had made the kings chayoung/hanseok, the last ones that should ever be taken, while the queens were vincenzo/myunghee who would be the ones that would make all the moves, kill all their enemies pieces, and try to destroy one another first as the two most powerful players in the game? imagine if fandom had been able to read chayoung and myunghee accurately enough that i wouldn’t have to read post after post talking about how they needed to see myunghee brutally murdered/tortured by chayoung because they would understand chayoung’s character isn’t going to do that, posts which i hated seeing bc, as i said before, violence for violence’s sake means nothing to me? imagine if the writers cared enough about chayoung/myunghee to develop them more fully? sigh.)

i feel like i'm going nowhere with this and that i'm repeating myself a lot or not making much sense. but i'll end with this: i knew the last two episodes were going to be garbage when they all gathered at toto's restaurant post-fight in ep 19 and all they were talking about was vincenzo this and vincenzo that instead of worrying after the ones that were momentarily kidnapped/injured. like thanks show, for instead of pushing the narrative along we get a vincenzo fan club meeting and another round of "i never had anything to fight for until you came along" which is a convo we've had plenty of times before.

(footnote: i edited this on may 6, 2021 for clarity.)

#anyway i'm glad i don't have to worry about the nonsense idea of a season two #and if there is one i won't have to subject myself to it bc they killed not only my favorite character #but also the 3 others that made the show interesting #so anything of value a potential season 2 would have is already nixed #i have been set free from a drama that started out extremely promising but petered out into a series of bad tropes & nonsensical metaphors #and bc there is nothing in the final eps that interests me i don't have to scroll through the tag and subject myself #to scenes of myunghee's or hanseok's deaths which were extremely upsetting to me #now time to think about writing that one chayoung character study fic that has been swirling around in my head for a bit #and those hanseo aus i've been playing around with that make me happy just thinking about #e.e.c. watches vincenzo

6 notes · View notes

savage-rhi · 5 years ago

Text

🥐

I’ve been MIA for a while because of stress. There’s a lot going on in real life that’s needed my attention. One of my snakes passed away too. It’s been difficult cause I see my reptiles as my babies cause I can’t have kids. I spoil and try to give them a good life. I know nature is out of our hands though, but it hurt. The other crap I won’t get into detail on cause most of its adulting, but I’m getting to the good. I hope you guys have been doing okay and staying safe.

I’m planning on getting drabbles out next week. So prepare for an avalanche when I update. My heart wasn’t in my work lately, so I needed to take a step back and reassess. I’m feeling refreshed about it and I can’t wait for you to see some of the requests people have sent in.

I’ve mapped out the general plot for TLOU2 fanfic I’ve been brewing in my head. I’m taking a lot of stuff that happened in the game, but also heavily reconstructing parts of the story to fit the revenge narrative the team was trying to shoot for. For me, I personally felt the plot of the game was sloppy and could have used some fine-tuning. Granted, I am not the best writer (hell fucking no I ain’t lol) but it’s going to be a fun writing challenge to deconstruct and rebuild a canon plot and hopefully make it make more sense. I got 21 chapters plotted so far, but before I go to town I’m gonna watch the playthrough of the game again along with playing the first game so I can get characterization down. I’m nervous about writing Joel and Ellie, but we’ll see where this goes.

Plotting out more of my zombie book is going great. I’m gonna be writing the first few chapters soon.

Anyway, sorry for the rant but I figured some peeps wanted to know where the fuck I’ve been. Well, here it is.

Love you and thanks for sticking around.

#jay is okay #jay is just healing #get to the good

16 notes · View notes

gallantblade · 15 days ago

Note

I've been holding them up side by side for A While Now and while I don't have any coherent thesis statement there are a few things that have been bouncing around in my head other than the stuff you've already mentioned:

Magical girls and idols have been compared, conflated, and conceptually crossbred for basically as long as they've been a thing, so yeah I think it makes a lot of sense that there are strong the parallels here that I think go way beyond just PMMM and OnK.

There's some interesting parallels to be made between Ruby and Sayaka's character arcs. They both take up the role of magical girl/idol after the death of a beloved mentor/parent, and then become disillusioned after their idealism causes them to swim against the current of the system they're working within. Black Hoshigan!Ruby is the result of her hitting a VERY witchlike despair event horizon, becoming cruel, controlling, and vindictive in a twisted reflection of her previous ideals. I kind of wonder how much of Ruby's messy characterization in late OnK has to do with how difficult it is to bring a character back from that point.

Kana and Kyoko are also pretty similar in that they're smart-mouthed veterans who've lost their idealism in favor of survival? Yes this is a Ruby/Kana post now /j

The Movie Arc was like if Rebellion was bad.

Rebellion's main contribution to PMMM's story is complicating Homura and Madoka's relationship via a deep exploration of Homura's psyche in which she tries to process and understand what happened to her. Characters are brought back in new contexts and hanging relationship threads are tied together in ways that build into a grand, alarming twist that fits perfectly but wasn't in the original draft of the story.

Meanwhile the Movie arc is at least in theory focused on complicating Ai and Hikaru's relationship via a deep exploration of Ai's psyche as her children try to process and understand what happened to her. Characters are awkwardly slotted into new roles and the promise of resolving emotional threads is mostly left unfulfilled as a result, leading into a finale that fails to adapt to the direction the story has taken since.

In general the most notable contrast between the two I think is that PMMM delights in deconstructing and reconstructing its own premises, while OnK is not nearly as brave.

Because of this, Aquamarine's suicide fails to parallel Madoka's wish. It isn't a grand sacrifice that serves an important role in softening or co-opting an exploitative system, and it isn't an existential enshrinement of his values into the world, and it doesn't right a single wrong done by the idol industry, no matter how much the writing really wants to believe that it is doing those things.

I guess if I do have a thesis statement it's "I think Akane should get to go back in time and try to fix OnK's story herself," but I think instead of trying to write out a fix-it-fic on an already really long post for me I'll just leave on the observation that Walpurgisnacht is the Stage Constructing Witch, and that one of the less obvious themes of OnK is "who gets to control narratives?"

Would you say there are any narrative parallels between Kyubey and Ichigo Saitou?

Oh for SURE. Obviously they both exist in very different contexts and are approaching the topic from varying levels of abstraction and such but both OnK and PMMM are at least in part about engaging with (specifically misogynistic) systems of exploitation that turn the societally imposed expectations of women's emotional labor into a commodified resource.

Kyubey and Ichigo are both agents of their respective systems acting to further its goals and ends, not necessarily out of malice but because they see exploitation as just the done thing within the framework they operate in.

Ichigo, obviously, is a businessman and I've talked before about how interesting I find the slightly manipulative undertones in the early days of his and Ai's relationship and how disappointed I am that it's something the series seems to want to downplay/retcon these days. Either way, he was still the one managing B-Komachi and therefore, he was the one who decided to market a bunch of middle school girls as 'gachikoi' idols to grown men who were way too fucking old to be thinking of them as romantic interests.

Kyubey is even more manipulative than Ichigo at the end of the day, but more out of this obsession with raw, razor's edge efficiency that the Incubators as a whole operate with. It's not that he feels... basically anything about the girls he's exploiting, but that it's just easier to bullshit them if it gets them to agree a little faster.

On that note, both of them are also pretty obviously similar in the ways they disguise exploitation as opportunity. The big hook of the MadoMagi magical girl system, after all, is the promise of having your wish granted up front and Kyubey constantly goes out of his way to emphasize to the girls just how much they could do with the opportunity that represents. The entertainment industry in OnK is framed in much the same way - Ai lets slip a certain lack that she's wrestling with and Ichigo immediately leaps at the chance to prescribe idolhood as the cure to all her ills.

Where they differ is in their actual personhood as characters as opposed to their utilitarian function in the greater narrative. Kyubey obviously doesn't really HAVE personhood, from both a Doylist and Watsonian perspective. He's an anthropomorphized representation of the system the girls spend all of PMMM fighting against and The System does not feel any sort of way about you or anything. It just Is.

Ichigo is, at the end of the day, an actual person who can and does have feelings about the exploitation he perpetuates and - at least in theory - comes to regret his hand in it. His entire role in the story post-volume 1 is (at least when Aka lets him do anything lol) about him trying to make sense of his grief in the wake of Ai's death and the role he ultimately had in making it come to pass.

TBH, there's a lot of interesting parallels between OnK and PMMM as a whole now I'm rolling them around in my head - the tension of trying to retain your personhood and agency within a system that's rigged against you, the way said system will use your desire for agency to make you complicit in your own abuse, the discussion surrounding the way girls 'fall from grace' and become monstrous once their emotions are no longer pure and palatable enough... A lot of this is just naturally emergent from being a story about systems that cannibalize girlhood, but it's interesting all the same. It's been way too long since I've properly engaged with PMMM for me to dig into it more but if anyone is at the right cross-section of OnK and PMMM brainrot, I'd love to see if you pick up on any of these same ideas too!

#oshi no ko #pmmm

28 notes · View notes

timeclonemike · 4 years ago

Text

Write Who You Know

Inclement weather forced me offline earlier today, and while that made it impossible to write (among other things) it did allow for some reflection on my many, many writing projects. Specifically, why some of them are proceeding while others are stuck fast. The result was enlightening, though perhaps not encouraging:

The stories that are making no progress are all stories where I don’t actually understand the characters I’m trying to write, in any way. Because my writing style is so character driven, this is a GINORMOUS PROBLEM.

Birthright was intended to be a deconstruction / reconstruction of Harry Potter. It takes the idea of a secret society / civilization of magical people living isolated from industrialized non-magical humanity and shows how that would actually work, and how it would fall apart. I had high hopes for it, but I just could not get into the headspace of the protagonist that I had created for the setting; he’s gay, he’s adopted, his parents are loving and supportive... the only thing he and I have in common are a love of books, and that’s not enough for me to work with.

Mirror, Mirror was already collapsing under its lack of effective characterization, so much that I wanted to totally revamp it into a reverse isekai with a fantasy adventurer transported to our world to fight its monsters (cops and capitalism). The original character was a college drop out working at Dollar General thrust into the adventure of a lifetime; all outside my frame of reference. Flipping the script leaves me with a fantasy character in our modern world, and while a sorcerer / rogue multiclass burning cops alive is cathartic to write, there’s no narrative meat to sink my teeth into, so it didn’t go anywhere either.

The Bad Guys is the same problem multiplied by five. Each of the newly minted supervillains comes from a walk of life I only have a limited understanding of; Dr. Axiom and Hazmat are Physics / Engineering Majors (I majored in Mass Communications), Digital Chameleon is an actor and social engineer (I can’t even get Dollar General to hire me let alone talk my way inside a huge company to steal important documents), Gentleman Caller is a proper gentleman concerned with dress and decorum and honor (nobody could accuse me of that with a straight face) and Memento Morrie is from the Big Apple (I’m from the middle of nowhere, for better or worse) so taken all together I put together a team of characters I have NO IDEA HOW TO PORTRAY.

Consequently, these three projects are being put on indefinite hiatus, until such time as I can re-engineer the characters to something easier for me to work with. There’s a few ideas that come to mind but for now, I think it’s better that I focus my attention and effort on the stories that aren’t fighting me:

Like Clockwork is basically, after a few plot rewrites and adjustments, a novelization of an RPG campaign in a bespoke fantasy steampunk setting. The characters draw heavily from fantasy conventions, but the motivations and key personality traits of each member of the party are essentially mine: Alice’s love of steam powered technology, Dr. Spatchcock’s disgust at the medical establishment’s treatment of mental illness, Sylvia’s rebellion against her family’s restrictions, and Edgar’s desire to connect with the memory of his late grandfather. Even the antagonist’s motivation, outrage at being betrayed by people he thought he could trust, is mine. The only problems are those of narrative clarity and pacing, which will be solved in the fullness of time.

The Last Machine is a post apocalyptic story, and that already gives me considerable leeway in depicting the apocalypse; all post-apocalyptic fiction is a commentary on existing society at the time it was written anyway. More importantly, the protagonist is dealing with the same “who am I and why am I here and what the hell am I doing” existential fuckery that hounds my every waking hour, so that’s a solid foundation right there. The protagonist’s friends were already loosely based on some impulse or emotion I found relatable; kind of wish I’d been able to do that with The Bad Guys, honestly.

The Gamble is also a post apocalyptic story, one that allows me to explore a different flavor of the apocalypse. The two main characters, Eric and Lyla, are written based on my floundering for purpose after graduating from college and not being able to find a regular job, and my sense of I-can’t-believe-I-have-to-babysit-this-grown-ass-man that comes from working for my dad on the farm, respectively. The Gamble is the second part of a trilogy, and the final part, The Signal, is a “humans through alien eyes” perspective shift, which gives me more leeway in narration. Both of those stories are proceeding, if slower than I like.

After some reflection, I have deduced that my fanfic is still ongoing, it’s just that the stress and strain from the pre- and post-election politics has fucked up my focus. Frisk is one of those characters that is very easy to project on (arguably by design) and that by itself makes the characters easy to write. The small town setting is also very familiar. The Frostpunk and Deltarune fics not so much, although they are not abandoned, just stagnant. We’ll see if I can get some updates out before 2021.

My non fiction work doesn’t fall into this same characterization bottleneck, so any delays are a result of research into the appropriate topics. The Post Apocalyptic Civilization Kit is currently waiting on some detailed analyses of disaster relief / response efforts and how well they worked, and after that there will be other blanks I need to fill in, but that’s all part of the process. Same with So They Called You Mad, my facetious how-to guide on becoming a Mad Scientist, and The Super Villain’s Starter Guide, which is the same thing as applied to becoming a criminal mastermind. (The overlap between the two means progress or delays with one book also carries over to the other.)

#writing #mike's mind #write who you know

3 notes · View notes

pyroexcape · 1 year ago

Note

I already commented on the post but

"#bc they are my own and not canon. and i don’t want people to think i’m wildly misunderstanding the character#bc i more than understand and am also invested in the boundaries of canon. but i also like doing what i want#and deconstructing and reconstructing narrative and characterization#and i feel like people won’t know that but i also feel so silly putting a disclaimer over everything i draw of being like#‘oh this is my own thing actually’ LOL"

I relate to that so hard with soooo many of my stories. Like I brought up my own version of The Boys™ but genuinely I feel this with so many of my interests. Like, Undertale most of them because it genuinely has a super deep complex story a lot of people tend to misunderstand or not care about or not get the themes, and I love talking about The Themes and How Cool The Game Is and Common Misconceptions

Then I make a fanfiction that's like. Nothing like canon even a little bit. Genuine it is sometimes the fucking opposite of the Point Of The Game and like if someone ever pointed that out to me I would shake them and go I KNOW I KNOW I CARE ABOUT IT WAY MORE THAN YOU DO LET ME EXPLAIN IN DETAIL JUST DON'T INSULT ME OVER IT I KNOW WHAT I'M DOING

YEAA U GET IT HAHA! i don’t feel that way about every series bc i like to think im pretty decent with Media Literacy and like to respect authors wishes whatnot but like.. in particular stuff that’s both extremely oversaturated to the public and/or purposefully vague enough in either character or plot so it has room for exploration (like pokemon and undertale) by its Very Nature people are gonna take it and run with it! that’s why so many of those undertale aus got crazy popular, people just like pondering the “what ifs” and i think that’s wonderful. on the other side i know how frustrating as it is to see people obviously misunderstand smth in a piece of work you hold dear but in the end i don’t think it’s very productive to be mad about esp if you don’t have Ownership over that work. for better or for worse putting things out there for an audience people will always engage with it differently and it’s fine tbh. in the end if u aren’t hurting anyone then who cares!

ON A SIDE NOTE thank u for the extremely nice tags and comments 😭😭 it’s smth that i get so easily self conscious about even if i know it doesn’t really matter but its always so kind to hear that you enjoy my stuff and can relate to my plights haha

#oh the trials and tribulations of engaging w stories in a vacuum #it’s so case by case basis and my autistic ass more than understands how personal it can feel with certain shows/series/ect.#but sometimes..people take this shit way too seriously LOL #i’m just trying not to step on anyone’s toes and do my own thing bc i’m passionate about it #asks #ask

3 notes · View notes

starberry-cupcake · 7 years ago

Text

The Princess Problem

As a part of my ongoing Disney project of analyzing archetypes and characters through history, the Wreck It Ralph 2 trailer hit me hard. But despite my negative reaction to the princesses’ portrayals in what I could see in the trailer, and albeit I haven’t seen the full movie yet and my opinion may change when I do, I feel it’s still a good opportunity to raise a subject that has been increasingly conflicting in Disney as of late: the portrayal of their princesses, which has been erratic at best. So, in order for you to understand my point of view, we need to go a little further back in time than just the trailer. Come with me to a world of fantasy, dreams and pettiness.

The “Pixarization” of Disney Animation

One thing I’ve talked about before has been what I call the “pixarization” of Disney Animation in the last years, especially as the Pixar “Boys Club”, with Lasseter at the helm, took over Disney Animation.

We’ll get to Lasseter, I promise you, but let’s walk this one step at a time.

Disney buying Pixar in 2006 wasn’t the only factor that allowed this process, it was also directly linked to the fact that, while Disney Animation was struggling in their Post-Renaissance Era, Pixar was thriving in the box office and receiving critical acclaim, including many awards. It wasn’t a long shot to expect that Disney would want to rely more on those who were providing Pixar with successful films (whether they were as good as critically regarded is a personal and subjective matter I won’t discuss here, you all probably have your personal views on this, as do I).

The slow but steady influence of the Pixar folks into Disney Animation can be seen in events that go from very obviously influenced to more debatable things (including Disney’s decision, in 2013, to dismantle their hand-drawn animation division, shelving and cancelling all projects that relied on it to happen, including, very importantly for our current debate, Princess Academy, which was also probably furthered damaged by the legal conflict between directors David Kawena and Oliver Ciappa which didn’t happen at the time but could be a factor for us to never see it again, given that they were to direct together, but we’ll never know).

Like I said in another post, one of the many things to note about this process is related to the fact that Pixar’s founding feature length film, Toy Story, was done in the basis of being an “anti Disney” film, to stand out from the rest of the movies in the Renaissance. Up to Toy Story’s release, the movies were often characterized by the musical theater aspect, heavily influenced by Ashman & Menken, and the resurrection of the Disney Princesses, after 30 years without them.

“John Lasseter has said that the first thing they did when they began thinking about Toy Story was to make a list of things that they did not want to be in it. Foremost among these was anything that resembled the ingredients of Disney movies of the period. (…) The Toy Story Brain Trust had grown up with movies, television situation comedies, and action shows rather than Broadway extravaganzas. They decided to make a buddy picture”. (x)

Like I said in that post, one of the characteristics of this “pixarization” has been to try to mock previous Disney tropes instead of reconstructing them, very much like Katzenberg-era Dreamworks attempted, but in a less crass manner, if you will.

And here’s the main point of my essay, folks: deconstructing a trope and destroying a trope are not the same thing.

When you deconstruct a trope or an archetype, you need to understand it, study it, dissect it and criticize it in order to build upon it a different perspective. When you destroy one, you’re mocking it, denigrating it, in order to make a different version seem better by comparison. Deconstructing, you build upon what was there before, respecting its basis but understanding its limitations and extending its boundaries. Destroying, you eliminate what was there and devalue its existence.

But let’s put all the cards on the table and give a few clarifying examples.

The deconstruction of the archetype: Enchanted & Tangled, the series

We’ll begin with what I call the deconstruction of the Disney Princess “archetype”.

The first good example of Princess trope deconstruction I can think of is Giselle from Enchanted (2007).

In my opinion, Enchanted is, to the Revival Era, what Roger Rabbit was to the Renaissance Era. I think (for a lot of reasons too long and off topic to disclose in this post) that the Disney Renaissance wouldn’t have been what it was without the push of a game changer like Roger Rabbit, and Enchanted gave the Revival a push by bringing back old Disney tropes (magic?) while successfully adapting it to a modern audience.

In the midst of that was Giselle, a Disney Princess through and through (although not in the official lineup for money reasons), who is placed in a context in which the archetype she’s built upon doesn’t work in the same way, but who doesn’t discard her identity in the process. Giselle’s development as a character isn’t in ditching her entire self because her context changed, but in learning through that context and adapting her own self to new experiences that evolve her character, while staying true to the same identity.

Giselle learns and grows, she is influenced by the modern perspective she’s inserted in, yet offers some of her own ideas and values to that new context, finding a balance between both. There is nothing wrong with being kind and generous, with being resourceful and dreamy, yet some of her ideas are too naive and hinder her own agency, which is what she ultimately learns. Giselle’s relationship with the modern context is one of mutual influence, not of transformation in exchange of her identity.

A more recent example, yet still in development, is Rapunzel through the Tangled series (2017).

Doing a Tangled show was a risk I didn’t expect Disney to take, considering that Tangled was, for the most part, a pretty self-sufficient movie. Still, the show is providing opportunities for not only movie characters to develop (I like Eugene 100% more in the series than I did in the movie) but also for new characters to add to the overall story line (Cassandra is an amazing addition to the main cast, Lance also provides a lot more to the story and, what can I say, I do like Varian quite a bit).

Rapunzel herself gets an unexpected development through the series, because her narrative of becoming a princess and having responsibilities goes further than just learning which fork goes with which food or what the names of the aristocrats are. Rapunzel isn’t a princess because she married a prince, she’s a princess by birth, and by Corona’s laws, it means she’ll be her father’s successor, not Eugene. And Rapunzel’s isolation during 18 years of her life are a tough burden when it comes to having an entire kingdom depending on her.

The series allows Rapunzel to make mistakes. Her entire plot with Varian is a turning point for the series and having an antagonist born from a close friend is a tougher narrative than what I’ve seen in a lot of similar premises. It was, ultimately, Rapunzel’s rejection what turned Varian around, and that was born from choosing what she thought she had to as a future Queen. And it hurts her. There isn’t right or wrong, it’s about making choices, and sometimes those choices change you in ways you didn’t expect.

Rapunzel’s princess status isn’t just a title and a crown, it’s becoming a task and a burden, and she’ll have to learn more about herself if she wants to be ready to rule. But that doesn’t mean she goes against who she was in the movie, it doesn’t mean she rejects her identity, it gets more complex, more complicated, as she grows up and the story develops. Her personality and identity are a key to her character development and her status as a princess is less romanticized as she realizes that there’s an entire kingdom depending on her choices and that sacrifices can take a toll on her own person and those she holds dear.

If you’re wondering why I’m not talking about Merida in this section, I promise she’ll come to my aid later. I haven’t forgotten her. I promise.

All of this doesn’t mean Enchanted and Tangled are bulletproof movies or that their narratives don’t have any issues whatsoever. What I’m focusing on here is in the development of the “princess archetype” and how the writing isn’t relying on them ditching their identities in order to develop as characters and fit more modern audiences or more complex story lines. Ok? Ok.

With these examples set for you to get what I mean by “deconstruction”, let’s move on to the opposite of this spectrum.

The destruction of the archetype: Wreck It Ralph, Frozen & Moana

Before I start with the examples of the destruction of this archetype, I want to clarify that my opinion on these uses of it do not mean that I dislike the movies or the characters themselves, but that I argue with the way in which the portrayal is conceived and why it is used in this way. As a human being with critical capacity I believe I’m able to like a thing and still find faults in it, something the internet can sometimes forget it’s possible, which is why I’m writing this essay in the first place. So don’t take my comments as condemning the movies or the characters in general. Please. I beg of you.

Chronologically, we have to start with Vanellope von Schweetz from Wreck It Ralph (2012). I’ll make a small comment on her because we’ll come back when discussing the trailer properly, but I’m interested in showcasing her specifically because she became a bit of a starting point for this destructive attitude towards princesses.

The status of Vanellope as a princess is a reveal in the movie, which is constructed in both the plot of the film (she was supposedly a glitch) and her personality. Vanellope’s character is a lot less independently conceived once you realize she was meant to throw you off from the fact that she’s actually a princess, because all her traits and quirks become less of her own design and more of a list of things “a princess wouldn’t be like”. For her status to be a surprise, you need to be presented with a conception of what the story line presents as the furthest from the archetype.

This is accentuated in the last portion of the film, when she rejects her title, discards her pink fluffy dress and makes jokes as to what she’ll do with the people who bullied her. She treats the idea of being a princess like lesser than a “president”, in this very P!nk in 2006 idea of what a girl should want and what she shouldn’t.

All of this didn’t seem that questionable at the time, because we were unaware of the overall context that she was inscribed in. Vanellope isn’t a character in a vacuum rejecting an idea of femininity, she’s one in an ongoing list of “anti Disney” ingredients, and her being around princesses was a moment to make or break this, but we’ll discuss the trailer later.

Let’s move on to Frozen (2013). And isn’t this a complicated subject to talk about on the internet.

To start, we need to make something very clear: Frozen is a movie that is based on one of the most female-centric fairy tales that exist. The Snow Queen places a girl in the center of the story, who has to rescue a boy and goes through an array of diverse female characters who will either hinder or help her throughout the way. So, contrary to popular belief, Frozen’s idea of not centering its premise in romantic love and putting female characters in the forefront isn’t really as unexpected as it’s often regarded (as it isn’t either having at least one female character who is often interpreted as gay, homosexuality not being a rare theme for Hans Christian Andersen for personal reasons, and which is also present in The Snow Queen). But we digress. I just wanted to put that out there first and foremost, because we’re talking about being “progressive” here.

My favorite part of Frozen is Elsa. I love Elsa, I love what she stands for, I love what she represents. She could be a step forward for Disney princesses (I know, she’s a Queen, but you know what I mean) because she’s offering a glimpse of something I’ve been asking for Disney heroines to have: to be allowed to mess up and make conflicting choices.

For ages Disney heroes have been allowed all the messes in the world. They’ve been liars, thieves, jerks, tricksters, diamonds in the rough. They’ve been questionable characters who are allowed to learn from their mistakes (sometimes repeating them a lot) in order to grow up and become better people. Nobody has been worried that their kid would learn to become a liar or a thief because a Disney hero starts up as one.

Princesses, on the other hand, haven’t had that choice. Historically, they’ve been set as examples of good and honorable behavior, in which their mistakes, if we could call them that, are excused or diminished by the narrative of their stories. They are always well-intentioned, always kind-hearted, and if they ever mess up, it isn’t a big deal. Yes, Ariel wasn’t the most responsible girl, but she was 16 and wanted to know a world her overprotective father denied her to even be close to. Yes, Tiana was missing some important things in sight, but she did so because she was working harder than anyone for a dream that was hers and her dad’s. Yes, Mulan lied, but she did it to save her father and, in the meantime, saved China. Yes, Merida messes up, but she’s trying to get her mother to understand that she can’t lose herself for a man she hasn’t met so she can appease a kingdom that clearly doesn’t respect her much if they expect that from her.

The only female heroine I can think of whose actions could be seen as knowing mistakes and who grew from them was Meg from Hercules. In that movie, Hercules is more what a typical Disney Princess is: new to the world, having his first adventure, kind-hearted and heroic, wants to see the world and know himself through it. Meg, in this scenario, is the Disney Prince: has already an experience in life and love, has been treated badly in it, is trying to move on with the coping mechanisms she has at hand and tries to let feelings out of her choices in order to do whatever it takes to get back her freedom. Meg actively helps Hades, up to a certain point, knowing that Hercules is a good guy, but she values her freedom more and is about to see him die in the hands of a Hydra. By the time she sacrifices herself for him, she has learned, evolved and become a new version of herself, willing to open herself to feelings once more.

Elsa is a step towards this, without fully getting here. Because yes, Elsa isn’t the typical princess, but she isn’t in Meg territory either. Her development creates a complex character, representing mental illness with a narrative devoid of key external influence, who goes through an internal path of discovery and identity, which is quite remarkable in Disney storytelling. Elsa’s biggest enemy is, ultimately, herself, self-acceptance and a quest for identity that is hindered by guilt-induced isolation.

But then, there’s Anna. And with Anna, comes the thing. The “you can’t marry a guy you just met” thing.

Frozen wasn’t the first movie to address this (Brave came out before, let’s remember, and Enchanted also included this topic among the tropes it discussed). And it wasn’t either the first to place sisterly bond in the center of a girl-targeted Disney film...sisterly bond between an ice-powered white-haired teal-clothing-wearing girl and her chirpy bun-haired resourceful estranged sister who sacrifices herself to save her and who is ultimately saved by the power of that bond. Yes, I’m talking about Secret of the Wings.

But, in any case, this “don’t marry a guy you just met” thing was one of the topics they chose to address through the character of Anna.

Anna is the more “conventional” Disney Princess for the lineup. She is again the one that embodies goodness, whose mistakes are merely quirks, who is well-intentioned and kind-hearted, who is starting out in the world and this is her first adventure and experience with love. She was, in a way, a lot more of a safer bet for Disney than Elsa was but, on the other hand, she offered the possibility for a deconstruction, if they wanted one.

So, on the one hand, the movie plays with this idea of love at first sight and how it isn’t that simple. The movie intends to shatter the trope to shreds by making Hans not only uninterested in her but also using her for power and attempting to murder her and her sister (the topic of “surprise” Disney villains who aren’t a surprise anymore after having like 20 of them in a row is a subject for another post entirely).

But then, you have Kristoff. If Hans represents the oldie Disney Prince, at first sight, the Prince, the Charming, the Philip, the Eric type; then Kristoff is the “allowed to be flawed” Prince we got in the Renaissance, the Aladdin, the Beast, the John Smith, the Naveen, the Flynn Rider (Shang, my friends, is in an entirely different category, which sadly, we don’t have time to discuss that in this post).

And then you would probably say “but Kristoff isn’t really that flawed, is he? He’s unkempt and socially isolated, but he isn’t a thief or a liar or a jerk in any way?”. Well, I’m going to direct you to the part of Frozen that makes my skin crawl, my blood boil and my overall lest favorite Disney song ever made, dear readers I give to you: Fixer Upper.

In this single musical number, the trope they were trying to combat not only comes back in full force, it gets worse. Exponentially worse. Fixer Upper is an entire sequence in which Anna, blamed by the movie in the voices of Elsa and Kristoff for falling in love in one day, gets tricked into almost marrying Kristoff by this band of stone trolls of hell.

Not only that, the song is about how Kristoff isn’t really that much of a catch, actually they rip him to shreds (”His thing with the reindeer / that’s a little outside of nature’s laws!” W H A T) then they proceed to say that he can be fixed by her love (”You can fix this fixer-upper / Up with a little bit of love!” Yeah, movie, I’m not sure about this...), then they say they’re not saying people can change because they don’t (��We’re not sayin' you can change him / ‘Cause people don’t really change” movie, what the fuck) and then they say that breaking Anna’s engagement isn’t a big deal because that can also be fixed by not even giving a crap about her feelings, wishes or her fiance’s (”Her brain’s a bit betwixt / Get the fiancé out of the way and / The whole thing will be fixed” by god, trolls, I hate you so much...).

Ok so, let’s just think about this for a bit. The trope they were trying to destroy was meant to throw shade at Princesses who fell in love at first sight/married soon. We could say that, in different degrees, this could be aimed at Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora, Ariel, maybe Jasmine, for the rest is a bit more complicated than just to call it “love at first sight”. And yeah, I totally agree, relationships are complicated and they deserve a bit more than just a song and a promise of love, it’s interesting when you see a relationship develop in a movie. But at least these princesses had agency to choose, their own perception of who they were falling for (Aurora didn’t know she was engaged to the same dude at the time, so it still counts). They weren’t pushed into considering it out of some questionable trolls trying to get them with the guy.

Anna’s relationship with Kristoff isn’t really shown because it isn’t the point of the movie. The main relationship in this film is the one between the sisters, it’s the sisterly bond and family, not romance. But instead of going the Brave route, which allowed itself to focus on that relationship by not giving Merida a love interest to take up half the screen time, they throw TWO OF THEM at Anna, making every relationship depicted suffer from the lack of screen time.

So Anna’s relationship with Kristoff feels forced and bland, because its development is tied to some funny moments, some awkward moments, a terribly problematic musical number, and an attempt of rescue that doesn’t really work in the end because their relationship wasn’t the point of the movie.

For a film that is trying to destroy a trope, all they do is mess it up with confusing slogans of changing or not changing people and settling or not settling with a partner. In the end, it feels as if the line is thrown there to make it seem “progressive” but isn’t there in essence, because instead of showing how a relationship should be depicted, they argue the trope yet fall back into it in an even worse way.

Moana (2016), much like Vanellope, also decides to throw around this idea that she isn’t a princess, as Maui mocks her for the tropes of the archetype. The animal companion, the singing, he makes fun of the trope and, by doing so, it pushes his judgment to the audience.

Instead of holding her ground on it and defending that, Moana’s character tries to stay away from the archetype and mentions she isn’t a princess. And yes, plot-wise, it is true, but that’s not why the dialogue was put there. It wasn’t inserted in mid-movie to make technical specifications of what is or isn’t a princess or to discuss euro-centric parameters of political power for female rulers, it was there as a sign of “we’re not like these others movies”.

And this is a very important thing I want you all to understand: Moana is a character. Her words aren’t hers, they’re her crew’s, and the directors of Moana, Ron Clements and John Musker, are two white men. Two men who also directed The Little Mermaid, Aladdin and The Princess and the Frog (and Hercules, actually, but we talked about that already). Moana saying “I’m not a princess” to avoid Maui’s mocking is meant as a way to separate herself from other princesses in what men think is a feminist move.

Moana is a female lead without a male lead much like Merida, but Merida didn’t need to reject her status or the narrative she was inscribed in to develop herself as a character. She didn’t have to stop mid-movie and remind us all she wasn’t “like other girls”, she was too busy forming a meaningful relationship with her mom. Also, Brave was created and originally directed by a woman, Brenda Chapman.

And let’s stop right here a little bit, because if we’re talking about Brave and Brenda Chapman, and we’re talking about the “Pixarization” of Disney, then we’re going to throw some serious shade in the process.

Brenda Chapman was the sole director of Brave originally, as well as the concept creator, basing the story in her own relationship with her daughter. Brave was a personal story for her, but Pixar decided to take her away from her spot and bring Mark Andrews to it. But, let’s quote her on this:

“We are replaced on a regular basis — and that was a real issue for me. This was a story that I created, which came from a very personal place, as a woman and a mother. To have it taken away and given to someone else, and a man at that, was truly distressing on so many levels.”

“Sometimes women express an idea and are shot down, only to have a man express essentially the same idea and have it broadly embraced. Until there is a sufficient number of women executives in high places, this will continue to happen.” (x)

Brenda’s experience at Pixar isn’t a rare occurrence for a woman trying to make her way into the “Boys Club”. Rashida Jones left Pixar and Toy Story 4 due to their track record with female directors and, quoting Will McCormack “it [Pixar] is also a culture where women and people of color do not have an equal creative voice” (x). To add insult to injury, as all of this happened, Darla K. Anderson left after 25 years of work at the company, a period in which she was involved in countless movies.

All of this not to mention the elephant in the room which is Lasseter himself and the ongoing and disastrous attitude he’s had with female co-workers, which led to him being suspended from the company for sexual misconduct and which Disney was very silent about for years. And also, let’s put it out there, Iger in his speech about Lasseter leaving Disney didn’t mention any of that, as a matter of fact, they’re keeping him as consultant for the reminder of the year, and the entire case seemed, to media, more of a voluntary leave, like a way to end a fruitful and eventful career with Pixar, than a last nail in a coffin for a studio with a sordid history with female representation and its treatment towards female employees.

Let’s also remember that Ed Catmull has been involved in a money scandal of his own, to further damage the “Boys Club” reputation, but Pete Docter is still on the running towards becoming Disney’s Next Top Name, supposedly sharing chances with Jennifer Lee. We’ll see how that turns out.

But, for now, let’s leave this and get back to the actual trailer that prompted this lengthy essay. I know, I know, I took my damn time.

The trailer: Cindy goes berserk and Belle’s “enslavement”

One of the things people in this website have been saying is how the Cinderella from the trailer is “the princess we need in 2018″. I beg to differ.

Cinderella’s extreme reaction was funny, in a way an SNL skit can be funny, out of context and in the tone of a parody. But if we’re going canon with it, if we’re calling this a “progressive” move from Disney, like so many people and media outlets are doing, then I’m going to have to start pulling receipts.

Cinderella is the princess from the Walt days who was allowed the most development in the passing years. Actually, the Cinderella sequels are some of my favorite Disney sequels ever, considering they actually add on to canon rather than ruin it.

Cinderella 2 and 3 dig deeper in characters who were mere archetypes in its origins, with very interesting results. Anastasia gets her independence from her mother and finds true love in a sweet baker who cares for her truly. Drizella is allowed to show the fear she suffers from her mother’s pressure and how it hurts her to have to leave her sister behind, but is visibly unable to face her mother’s abuse. Charming is actually funny and his interactions with his father and the mice are priceless.

When it comes to Cinderella, she remains true to her essence yet is shown to be extremely mature and not at all compliant to letting things get the the best of her. She is kind and caring, faces her foes with empathy, but she isn’t shown as weak or cowardly, and not at all naive. In the 3rd movie, she’s at her best, without any magic or fairy godmother to rely on, and with the limited help from her friends, she has to use her wit and persistence to face the situation at hand, and she doesn’t back down at all.

The Cinderella I need in 2018 is this one, not the live action one, where they tell me she’s good but don’t show how, or the one brandishing shattered glass against a child, it’s the one that tries her hardest to fight for what’s right with her optimism and bravery and who doesn’t let people walk all over her happy ending. But maybe that’s just me.

Another thing I want to talk about is Belle. When the Princesses are naming the god awful things that make them Disney Princesses (”should I call the police?” well, wow...just wow), Belle is paired up with Rapunzel to unify the “kidnapped and enslaved” slogan. And this is a big problem for me.

I am tired of people saying B&B is about Stockholm Syndrome. Tired, I tell you. I don’t have the time or the patience to talk about this here, so if you’re one of those folks, here’s a Lindsay Ellis video for you to watch. There, go have fun. I pair up those saying this with the ones who say Quasimodo was “in the friendzone”, that’s what happens when you see the surface of what you think the movie is but don’t bother dwelling on it as critically as necessary to actually hold a strong argument. That’s what the internet loves to do, generate aggressive online fights with only the surface of a fact and the minimum information possible, without actual solid ground or valid sources.

But Disney itself shouldn’t jump on this bandwagon. I mean, unless the idea is to represent the internet’s opinion on the princesses rather than the princesses in all fairness (maybe that’s the plot of the movie? unlikely, but who knows), they should stay away from these cheap jokes based on simplifying notions of the legacy their predecessors have built and which they stand on.

Using the word “enslaved” is already...questionable, at best, but placing Belle and Rapunzel in the same spot is a huge problem.

Rapunzel was kidnapped as a child by a woman whose toxic treatment had her staying captive through inducing in her fear towards the world and her own limitations, so she could use Rapunzel’s power for her own self. Gothel is the Frollo of the Princess lineup.

Belle made an agreement with the Beast in exchange of her father’s release, an agreement she broke repeatedly by doing everything opposite to what he said, because a) he was too busy trying to figure out how to be less of an animal and more of a person and b) she was, logically, trying to find a way out of the mess and didn’t want to be ordered around. Belle leaves the castle twice, neither time is she stopped, and returns out of her own volition both times, to help the Beast out of situations he got in, partially because of her and partially because of him.

Is the Beast a jerk? Yeah, sometimes. Does Belle break her agreement? Yes, sometimes. Does the Beast make terrible decisions? Yes, pretty often at first.

The Beast is actually a socially awkward young adult with an attitude born of a sense of false pride that is his coping mechanism to his self-loathing and self-imposed isolation. Belle is a nerd unwilling to give in to social expectations who isn’t willing to let anyone walk over her and is looking for adventure and new experiences. They bond in their shared identity of being outcasts. Belle & the Beast are more like Darcy and Elizabeth than they are like their fairy tale counterparts, but that’s a subject for an upcoming essay on the Beast.

There isn’t “enslavement” in this scenario. The power imbalance in the relationship exists for 2 seconds, up to when you realize that the Beast actually has no idea what he’s doing or how to handle the situation he got himself into and even Mrs. Potts orders him around. Comparing the two situations is...unfair and actually pretty sad, considering it’s mocking a movie that doesn’t need any more bashing after the internet being what it is and the live action doing what it did (also, a subject for my Beast essay).

I’m being objective here folks: there are problems but this isn’t “enslavement”.

In addition to this, Vanellope’s attitude seems, in the trailer, like the one she had in the first movie. She rejects the princesses at first, being more into the Star Wars aspect of the Oh My Disney space, and later is acting as what the movie imposes like “the voice of reason” among the princesses. She is the Patrick Dempsey in Enchanted but, being a female character, introduces this idea of “not being like other girls”. The simplification of the princesses’ storylines and Vanellope’s rejection of camaraderie, only to be joined by the fact that “people think you need a strong man to save you” feels to me like that kind of commentary that thinks feminism can be reduced to rejecting ideas of femininity that aren’t your own and hating men. It’s like the Steve Buscemi meme saying “how do you do, fellow feminists?”.

It’s left to be seen if this will change and all my assumptions are invalid, but this is what I picked up so far and it’s enough to have me worried. Despite the final result, there’s enough to talk about with just this.

Deconstruct, don’t destroy

This “crossover” was an opportunity for Disney to strengthen a line that has more force than any other ever did. Because the MCU might have been 10 years in the making, but the Disney Princess lineup has been 80 years in the making. Because each time the Disney studio was in dire need of rescue, it was a princess movie what saved them from ruin. And Disney has ruined the opportunities to do what was right for these characters countless times before.

What they did with those dreadful redesigns back in 2014 was terrible. Because they homogenized the lineup to make it more marketable, more sell-able, and by doing so, erased the diversity the princesses are trying to, slowly, represent.

There’s also an important element to consider and it’s that female-centric-targeted products are always less respected in Disney, especially when it comes to animation and not live action sitcoms.

The Tinker Bell franchise, which I loved very much and which offered a lot of positive elements for a female-centric narrative, got ditched for lack of sales. Shows in Disney XD seem to always need the male counterpart to work and be respected (Star has Marco, Ducktales is 90% male-driven, Gravity Falls has Dipper, and you can go on with the rest).

Even if big franchises like Star Wars, Marvel and The Muppets have female characters here and there (I mean, they aren’t as many, but sure), the franchises aren’t centered around them nor do they allow a female-centric project of the franchise to exist on its own (like a female superhero solo film, for example).

So while franchises primarily aimed at boys (because we aren’t talking about who consumes them but who they’re originally intended for) like Cars, Planes, Marvel, Star Wars, etc. throw a sprinkle of girl in there, at most, for girls to feel somewhat integrated (and not without complaint from the male crowd, look at the Star Wars fandom, dear god), franchises aimed at girls like Tinker Bell or the project of Princess Academy get ditched and shows with female characters seem to always require the male figure to stand on their own. And I apologize for the binary-centric dissection of this market situation but, sadly, this is the offer from them at the moment and all it’s limited too, hopefully that changes.

It is in this context in which the princess crossover in Wreck It Ralph stands on.

Vanellope coming together with these princesses could be a good way to showcase this hint of diversity as well as the camaraderie that comes from how they complement each other. It could be a way of showing that all forms of femininity are valid and none of them is less than the other for whatever social expectations or pre-conceptions of the archetype.

A princess crossover can showcase that differences can make a good alliance, that support is the way to move forward, and this can be accomplished by deconstructing the archetype and allowing more leeway to the development of narrative complexities, not by making one “cooler” than the others because “she’s not like other girls”.

You don’t need to mock and destroy the princesses to make them relevant and current, you need to explore in the archetypes they represent what makes them classics and what could extend their limitations now. What it is that people love about them and why, as well as how to strengthen that bond through a development that doesn’t erase their identity or insults their individual conceptions of femininity. A blend of what they were conceived as and what is needed today.

Leave the “I’m not like the other girls” premise for pop singers of the last decade. Bring me the female support these girls are meant to represent and let kids know that wearing tiaras is totally valid.

I am unaware of whether the trailer is a good indication of what the crossover will result in, but it was a worry of mine since the start, because of the tone in which Vanellope herself had been written in. I hope this ends up being a step forward and that I have to come back and say “I’m glad I was wrong about this”.

Prove me wrong, Disney. I beg you.

59 notes · View notes

siflshonen · 8 years ago

Note

#1: what made you start shipping Dende/Gohan? #2: how the heck did you come up with the plot for Heavy?? like,, it's such a well thought out au idk how you had the imagination for it,..

Aw, haha! Thanks for the ask! And thank you for reading Heavy!

I started shipping Dende/Gohan around the same time I started planning for Heavy, so the answers to these questions are kind of related.

The revelation of how just incredibly nonsensical the whole “Dende comes to Earth” subplot and other pretty basic and glaring holes in character choices, worldbuilding, and main plot are what crystallized into Heavy, since initially the story started as a place to explore who Gohan actually is and what went into that, but then expanded into repainting the Dragon World and giving it a real depth as well as trying to retain that magic, mystery, and wonder of the original series in some form or another, even if that meant looking at it through a slightly less flattering lense. In truth, Gohan’s not so much the main character of Heavy as he is the crux of the entire story, since all the conflict revolves around him in one form or another and coincidentally he’s at the center of all the things that bothered me MOST about the original series.

This thought vis a vis Gohan/Dende: I’d always thought Gohan marrying his high school bully was just really… weird and uncomfortable, you know? Like I LOVED the episodes when he and Videl are actually learning to be friends and just generally being silly (that episode with Angela and the teddy bear underwear? A personal favorite of mine), but the minute it just suddenly became OVER THE TOP romantic at the tournament, I didn’t like it one bit- not when I was a child and first saw the series (I actually own the first Saiyaman episodes on DVD!) and definitely, definitely not now. It was all in the way it was portrayed and how it (abruptly, unrealistically- especially since the initial Saiyaman saga unfolded and characterized Gohan to be more like his father in the dating and, ah, “interest” department) unfolded that I didn’t like, and so I started thinking much more critically about the kind of person he was and the people he knew growing up, and in the interim I ended up watching some Frieza-to-Cell DBZ and realized that the character who most supported and echoed his values and philosophy AND who could identify with his background was Dende. That, and rewatching the show made it abundantly clear that Gohan was like 80% of the reason Dende was down to go back to Earth, with Krillin being the other 20%. (The clencher was the TFS jokes about Gohan/Dende. The moment they pulled that joke, the moment I realized “holy shit it was apparent enough to get knocked a little!” much like you’d have to be a slack-jawed fool not to notice at least the REASON so many people like, ship, or otherwise at least see a shred of validity in Kakavege within the show for all the crap Goku and Vegeta do in scenes together - which is exactly why they knock THAT one in TFS, too.) But the drive to deconstruct and reconstruct nonsensical and weird stuff about the series and open the doors to new possibilities was the exact conduit to what became Heavy.

As for the structuring of the actual plot of Heavy itself - I tend to think in narrative format and I especially jive well with storytelling devices like simultaneity and just… total complicated melodrama, honestly, so I don’t actually think the plot is all that spectacular, myself! I just think in terms of character and worldbuilding, I guess! Hahah! I didn’t think anybody would like it once I actually started to wade in the deeper waters! In fact, there was one point I almost quit because I set up the whole red herring in like Chapter 8 or something (when Gohan has that heart-to-heart with Goten) and absorbed the positive reaction to the idea that humans were pretty puny and powerless compared to Saiyans….. all while I the writer knew very well that I’d reveal the main antagonists as human not three chapters later, especially considering the general climate of the DBZ fanbase!!! The surprise of the concept and thought experiment (that humans are actually pretty formidable and have their own secrets) I was initially so excited to share, I then felt SURE was going to actually just tick a bunch of people off. And so, I was scared to actually reveal that until I got a really, REALLY disgruntled review from a reader who chewed me out for spitting on humans when it was humans who taught Goku the basics and also advanced stuff like how to sense ki- and then I realized that there were, in fact, people who were THINKING about that kind of thing besides myself and had any sort of interest in the Earthlings of Dragon World!! I think that particular person stopped reading the second they hit “send” and left that review, ‘cause BOY, they were pissed, but if not, and they’re still out there somewhere, reading this or reading Heavy at least until Terpsichore’s introduction, I’d like to say thank you for making your feelings known because you gave me the push I needed not only to simply introduce Terpsichore and the Circle (who is, in Heavyverse, in possession of the single greatest amount of raw ki of ANY human alive, even though he is not the best fighter), but to unabashedly put Thalia in as the strongest human being on the planet and not let the VERY IMMEDIATE naysaying on that latter choice deter me. In fact, soon, you’ll be learning quite a lot about Thalia’s backstory and the true reason for her strength, and I’m quite excited to see how the readers react to it, both for better and worse, since it’s actually deeply involved with the backbone of the Dragon World’s canon structure and mysteries.

TLDR; The point of Heavy was to explore all the holes and tie the loose ends together into something new and that could carry water.

#dbz #gohan #dende #gohan/dende #heavydbzfic

11 notes · View notes

juniperpublishersjojdc · 6 years ago

Text

Beauty, A Social Construct: The Curious Case of Cosmetic Surgeries-Juniper Publishers Authored by Vandana Roy

Abstract

In this article we deconstruct the social norm of beauty and cosmetic beauty treatment, an issue that is seldom discussed in medical circles and is often lost to popular rhetoric. In doing so, we also reflect on the institutionalized system of social conditioning.

A Historical Perspective

Cosmetic surgery, as with reconstructive surgery, has its roots in plastic surgery (emerging from the Greek word ‘plastikos’, meaning to mold or form). The practice of surgically enhancing or restoring parts of the body goes back more than 4000 years. The oldest accounts of rudimentary surgical procedures is found in Egypt in the third millennia BCE. Ancient Indian texts of 500 BCE outline procedures for amputation and reconstruction. The rise of the Greek city-states and spread of the Roman Empire is also believed to have led to increasingly sophisticated surgical practices. Throughout the early Middle Ages as well, the practice of facial reconstruction continued. The fifth century witnessed a rise of barbarian tribes and Christianity and the fall of Rome. This prevented further developments in surgical techniques. However, medicine benefited from scientific advancement during the Renaissance, resulting in a higher success rate for surgeries. Reconstructive surgery experienced another period of decline during the 17th century but was soon revived in the 18th century. Nineteenth century provided impetus to medical progress and a wider variety of complex procedures. This included the first recorded instances of aesthetic nose reconstruction and breast augmentation. Advancements continued in the 20th century and poured into present developments of the 21st century.

Desires and Demands in Contemporary Times

In recent years, the volume of individuals seeking cosmetic procedures has increased tremendously. In 2015, 21 million surgical and nonsurgical cosmetic procedures were performed worldwide. In the United Kingdom specifically, there has been a 300% rise in cosmetic procedures since 2002. The year 2016 witnessed a surge in the number of such treatments with the United States crossing four million operations. Presently, the top five countries in which the most surgical and nonsurgical procedures are performed are the United States, Brazil, South Korea, India, and Mexico. Such demand can be viewed from different perspectives. At one end it is a product of scientific progress, growing awareness, economic capacities and easier access and on the other, something on the lines of a self-inflicted pathology. This article dwells on the latter and attempts to address a deep-rooted problem of the social mind.

Lessons from History

History is witness to a number of unhealthy fashion trends, many of which today appear extremely irrational and even cruel. Interestingly, the common thread connecting all of them is the reinforcement of social norms and stereotypes. Forms of socialization which lie at the intersection of race, class and gender-based prejudices. To elaborate, hobble skirts and chopines restricted women’s movement and increased their dependence on others. Corsets deformed body structures, damaged organs and led to breathing problems. The Chinese practice of binding women’s feet to limit physical labor was regarded as a sign of wealthiness. Dyed crinolines and 17th century hairstyles made people vulnerable to poisoning and fire related injuries. Usage of makeup made of lead and arsenic, eating chalk and ‘blot letting’, reflected a blatantly racist obsession with white and pale skin. Lower classes faked gingivitis to ape tooth decays of the more privileged who had access to sugar. Furthermore, other practices like tooth lacquering, radium hair colors, mercury ridden hats, usage of belladonna to dilate pupils and even men wearing stiff high collars, all furthered societal expectations and notions of class superiority. Till the 1920’s, there was rampant usage of side lacers to compress women’s curves. Even today many ethnic tribes continue with practices which inflict bodily deformations. In the urban context as well, trends like high heels, skinny jeans and using excessive makeup dominate the fashion discourse. Cosmetic procedures are the latest addition to the kitty.

The Social Dilemma

What is it that leads the ‘intelligent human’ of today to succumb to archaic and regressive notions of beauty? What motivates them to risk aspects of their lives to cater to selflimiting rules of ‘acceptance’? The surprising part is that this anomaly is often placed in the illusory realm of ‘informed consent’. In common parlance, ‘to consent’ implies voluntary agreement to another’s proposal. The word ‘voluntary’ implies ‘doing, giving, or acting of one’s own free will.’ However, when the entire socio-cultural set up and individual attitudes validate certain behaviors, there is very less space left for an alternate narrative. Let alone free will.

Pierre Bourdieu once argued that nearly all aspects of taste reflect social class. Since time immemorial, societal standards of beauty have provided stepping stones to social ascent and class mobility. Better ‘looking’ individuals are considered to be healthier, skillfully intellectual and economically accomplished in their lives. Such an understanding stems from well entrenched stereotypes in complete disregard of individual merit and fundamental freedoms. An inferiority complex coupled with external pressures and self imposed demands, subconsciously coerce individuals into a vicious cycle of desire or rejection. Active and aggressive media has played a key role in forming societal perceptions of what is attractive and desirable. In addition, lifestyle changes reflect an image obsessed culture, reeking of deep-rooted insecurities. At the root of a submissive and conformist attitude lies a subconscious mind lacking selfesteem and self-worth. People continue to look for remedies in the wrong places. The only difference is that corsets and blot letting have given way to surgeries and cosmetic products. The biggest question is, how have ideas otherwise seen as deviant, problematic and inadequate retained control over minds of millions of individuals?

A Gendered Culture

‘Beauty’ is understood as a process of ongoing work and maintenance, its ‘need’ unfairly tilted towards the fairer sex. History has demonstrated the impact of dangerous beautification practices on women. Contemporary ideals aren’t far from reaching similar outcomes. Today, there is a powerful drive to conform to the pornographic ideal of what women should look like. There has been a growth in the number of adolescents who take to cosmetic surgeries to become more ‘perfect’. In many countries, the growth of the “mommy job” has provoked medical and cultural controversies. Presumably there is an underlying dissatisfaction which surgery does not solve. Furthermore, where does the disability dimension fit in here? What happens to the ‘abnormal’ when the new ‘normal’ itself is skewed? For those with dwarfism and related disorders, new norms become even more burdensome.

The massive pressure to live up to some ideal standard of beauty, particularly for women, reeks of patriarchal remnants of a male dominated society. This kind of conformity further nurtures objectification and sexualization, reducing women to the level of ‘chattel’ to feed the male gaze. There is a also a power struggle at play where biased standards help maintain the unequal status quo. Today, there is idolization of celebrities, beauty pageants and advertisements by cosmetic companies over sane medical advice. They set parameters of size, color and texture to be followed by the world at large. Moreover, people who deviate from such norms are made to feel stigmatized or ostracized from social spheres. The existence of male-supremacist, ageist, hetero sexist, racist, class-biased and to some extent, eugenicist standards reflect a failure of society as a whole. It is thus high time that we revisit and deconstruct skewed standards of beauty.

Mind Over Matter: Psychological Dimensions

Culturally imposed ideals create immense pressure of conformity. Consequently, they have been successful in engendering insecurities via their influence on perception of self and body image. Such perceptions often become distorted and discordant with reality, leading to serious psychological disorders. One such disorder is the body dysmorphic disorder (BDD). This is a psychiatric disorder characterized by preoccupation with an imagined defect in physical appearance or a distorted perception of one’s body image. It also has aspects of obsessive-compulsiveness including repetitive behaviors and referential thinking. Such preoccupation with self-image may lead to clinically significant distress or impairment in social and occupational functioning. With reference to cosmetic surgeries, patients with BDD often possess unrealistic expectations about the aesthetic outcomes of these surgeries and expect them to be a solution to their low self-confidence. Many medical practitioners who perform cosmetic surgery believe themselves to be contributing towards construction of individual identity as well. The notion that beauty treatments can act in much the same way as psychoanalysis has led countries like Brazil to open its gate of cosmetic procedures to lower income groups. This happens while the country continues its battles with diseases like tuberculosis and dengue. The philosophy behind such ‘philanthropy’ is that ‘beauty is a right’ and thus should be accessible to all social groups. While on one hand we may applaud such efforts of creating a more ‘egalitarian’ social order, on the other hand it is hard to overlook the self-evident undercurrents of social prejudice and capitalistic propaganda.

Medicalization of Beauty

Traditional notions of beauty embody a kind of hierarchy and repression which alienate individual agency and renders them as powerless victims. Such is the societal pressure which normalizes cosmetic procedures and subverts serious health effects. These include adverse effects due to cosmetic fillers like skin necrosis, ecchymosis, granuloma formation, irreversible blindness, anaphylaxis among others. Other dangers like heightened susceptibility to cancer and increased suicide rates. However, patients are often unaware of the risks which are hidden behind a veil of expectations and reassurances. Furthermore, quackery and inadequate standards such as lack of infection control also compound the problems of this under regulated field.

Role of Stakeholders

At the heart of any successful social transformation lies the power of united will and collective action. Thus, the consolidated and sustained effort by all stakeholders is the key to realizing an ecosystem conducive to tackle negative social norms. At the outset, government regulation is needed with respect to cosmetic procedures and the cosmetics industry. These regulations should encompass all private and public avenues and should also work against misleading advertising. Spreading awareness is the key to a better informed society. The state should fund and run specialized awareness sessions pertaining to psychological problems and aid mechanisms, gender sensitization as well as those aiming at spiritual and introspective personal development of individuals. NGO’s, medical professionals, academicians and members of the civil society, must come together to eradicate forms of social discrimination which undermine social institutions and individual agency around the world. This would help facilitate discussion, data collection, coalition building, and action that may eventually lead to behavioral changes.

Aesthetic surgery today seems to be passing through an ethical dilemma and an identity crisis. And rightly so for it strives to profit from an ideology that serves only vanity, bereft of real values. Nevertheless, there are exceptional cases where medical-aesthetic inputs have been vital in restoring morale by subverting stigmatization.

The Way Ahead

Beauty is unfair. The ‘attractive’ enjoy powers gained without merit. The perfectionist in humans seeks outward validation of external beauty over inner virtues. Scientific progress and an increase in human expertise to manipulate natural phenomena has paved the way for these desires to become a reality. There is no denying that advances in plastic and reconstructive surgery have revolutionized the treatment of patients suffering from disfiguring congenital abnormalities, burns and skin cancers. However, the increased demand for aesthetic surgery falls short of a collective psychopathology obsessed with appearance. This article expresses trepidation about such forms of social consciousness that first generates dissatisfaction and anxiety and then provides surgery as the solution to a cultural problem.

We have to work towards a social order which embraces people as they are and facilitates free choice, individual liberty and informed decision making. This is particularly pertinent when these decisions work towards framing cultural perceptions and expectations for millions around the world. We should open our hearts to diversification of beauty and aesthetic. Let our entertainment, fashion, capital and media revolve around heterogeneity of ideologies and cultures. In the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent”. So, let us all come together and create a better society.

For more Open Access Journals in Juniper Publishers please click on: https://juniperpublishers.com

For more details JOJ Dermatology & Cosmetics (JOJDC) please click on: https://juniperpublishers.com/jojdc/classification.php

To read more…Full Text in Juniper Publishers click on https://juniperpublishers.com/jojdc/JOJDC.MS.ID.555556.php

#Juniper publishers #Juniper publishers online #Nanotubes #Nanotechnology #Medicine

0 notes

universalessays-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Critical Social Work Research Paper has been published on http://research.universalessays.com/sociology-research-paper/social-work-research-paper/critical-social-work-research-paper/

New Post has been published on http://research.universalessays.com/sociology-research-paper/social-work-research-paper/critical-social-work-research-paper/

Critical Social Work Research Paper

This sample Critical Social Work Research Paper is published for educational and informational purposes only. Like other free research paper examples it is not a custom research paper. If you need help with writing your assignment, please use research paper writing services and buy a research paper on any topic.

Abstract

This research paper examines the history and development of critical social work as an approach and a practice. It reviews the major historical perspectives on a critical social work approach and then outlines an approach to critical social work based on the major tenets of critical social theory, which includes postmodern thinking about how beliefs about how knowledge is made and is inextricably linked to power. Specific concepts (knowledge, power, language, and identity) and some specific ways that might translate into the practice of critical social work are also considered. These include critical reflection and deconstruction/ reconstruction, problematization and research, narrativity, and contextuality.

Outline

Introduction

History of Critical Social Work

Contemporary Understandings

Key Concepts

Common Ideas Underpinning Critical Social Theory

Common Ideas Underpinning Critical Social Work Practice

Knowledge

Power

Language

Identity Creation

Major Practice Applications

Critical Reflection and Deconstruction/Reconstruction

Problematization and Research

Narrativity

Contextuality

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Critical social work practice is still developing as an approach, and there are varied perspectives on exactly what theoretical frameworks underpin it. In this research paper, I outline a framework using a conception of critical social theory which incorporates common aspects from several related contemporary theoretical approaches such as postmodernism and feminism.

History of Critical Social Work

The idea of a critical social work is relatively recent idea in the history of social work. It is an idea and an approach, which is still developing, and this means that there are many different meanings of the term.

Most writers would, however, agree that critical approaches to social work were born around the 1970s. They were based on the common critique during that era. Social work was characterized, like many other helping professions, as an agent of social control and the state. Contrary, therefore, to its stated helping ideals, the social work profession was seen to support the status quo, and social structures, which worked against the best interests of the very communities and people it purported to help. The social fabric, which justified and supported social inequalities, was viewed as the cause of social problems themselves, and so social workers could not really help people unless they assisted in dismantling the very structures which brought about social ills in the first place. Social change was, therefore, seen as an imperative of social work. This included challenging social oppressions, and empowering disadvantaged groups. Most criticism was directed toward casework, or individualized work, which was seen as founded on personal pathology. Individualized practice was seen as ‘blaming the victim,’ or as pathologizing and changing the people who were actually the blameless victims of a faulty system. This individualized type of approach was regarded as the major influence in the 1950s when the ‘psychiatric deluge’ swamped social work’s initial conceptions of the ‘person-in-context’ (see Fook, 1993 for a full discussion of these terms and trends). These early criticisms were labelled as radical, and spawned a whole body of literature on radical social work, largely underpinned by Marxist analysis (e.g., Bailey and Brake, 1975; Corrigan and Leonard, 1978). These Marxist critiques tended to focus on macro level criticisms directed at material structural inequalities, embodied particularly in class differences. Much of this literature was subsequently criticized for its lack of attention to social work with individuals (Fook, 1993) and indeed for its lack of attention to practice per se.

There was room, therefore, for the radical critique of social work to become more sophisticated. There was a need to include the importance of gender, and gendered inequalities, as an additional aspect of the social structure. Feminist social work (e.g., Dominelli and MacLeod (1982) therefore developed in the 1980s as an important approach in addressing structural inequalities. Critiques of racist and ableist social work were also relevant to this (Dominelli, 1988; Oliver, 1990; Morris, 1991). This development continued, as further types of analyses were introduced which better theorized the nature and causes of social inequalities, and which allowed more sophisticated understandings of power, and the relationship of individuals to their social contexts. How these issues are theorized accounts to a large extent for different perspectives on critical social work which are in contemporary development.

Contemporary Understandings

There are now a number of perspectives on critical social work, which include: postmodern, antioppressive, structural, and new radical perspectives based on neo-Marxist analysis. What each of these shares is a commitment to understanding how power operates to sustain social inequalities. However the specific analysis used, and therefore the specific actions recommended, and the types of social changes called for, vary depending on the perspective taken.

Structural perspectives emphasize the importance of a structural analysis in social work practice, and are more materialist in their orientation (Allan, 2009). A key contemporary Canadian author in this genre is Mullaly (2007). Antioppressive approaches emphasize intersectionality and the imperative against oppression of all types (e.g., Dominelli (2002). Postmodern, and postmodern critical perspectives tend to include more complex analyses of power and difference, and therefore are useful for understanding the operation of exclusion at the everyday level. In social work, the major exponents of this approach include Australians Healy (2000), Pease and Fook (1999) and Fook (2002, 2012). Newer perspectives including human rights, reflexive materialism, and critical race theory are covered in a volume, which includes authors from several different country contexts (Hick et al., 2005).

To a large extent, these varied perspectives are also associated with different country contexts, although there is some overlap. For instance, antioppressive social work is mostly written about from Britain, and is used to some extent in Canada. The term ‘structural social work’ originated from Canadian writers as noted above. Postmodern and postmodern critical perspective have largely been developed by Australian writers (e.g., Fook, 2002; Healy, 2000; Pease and Fook, 1999). Neo-Marxist approaches are having a comeback in the United Kingdom (e.g., Ferguson, 2008). In the United States, it is possible to argue that no specific approach exists, which even roughly equates to critical perspectives (Reisch and Andrews, 2001), although there is significant writing on empowerment (e.g., Simon, 1994). In the United States, there is some argument that critical perspectives have adhered most strongly with postmodern and social constructionist perspectives and it is noteworthy that the term ‘critical’ is rarely used.

Key Concepts

Common Ideas Underpinning Critical Social Theory

Agger (2006) argues that there are common ideas shared by many social theorists (e.g., Foucault, Derrida, the Frankfurt School, feminism), which can be loosely grouped together as critical social theory. These include theories termed critical, postmodern, feminist, multicultural, and selected theories from cultural studies. He terms this a critical social theory “theory cluster” (2006: p. 4), which can be identified by seven common features (Agger, 2006: pp. 4–5):

Opposition to positivist understandings of knowledge making. Knowledge is not wholly ‘objective’ (i.e., simply constructed as an empirical ‘truth’ distinct from and outside of ourselves as knowing human beings). It is also actively made by people (e.g., researchers, theorists, practitioners). We, as members of society are all active participants in creating knowledge from our own social positions and perspectives, and cannot help but bring inherent value stances and biases. (The pronoun ‘we’ is used to refer to us all as people who are ‘social subjects’ i.e., as individuals who live in a society in which we participate to cocreate a shared sense of reality.) Knowledge cannot be value free.

The possibility of progress. Critical social theories build on the past and present to envisage and create a better future, to be achieved through social and political action. Critical social theory both raises awareness of oppression, and demonstrates the possibility of a different nonoppressive society. It not only seeks to facilitate social change, but also offers an analytical base for change.

Domination is both personal and structural, that is, people’s everyday lives are affected by structural institutions and constructions such as gender and race.

Structural domination is also sustained at the individual level through false consciousness or ideology, (or discourse). Ideological or discursive thinking involves believing that there are ideas which are unchangeable, and therefore, taken-for-granted. Continuing to believe that these ideas cannot be changed therefore serves to maintain existing power relations and inequities. The role of critical social theory is to expose these beliefs (and false consciousness or discourse), thereby creating the basis for social change and transformation. By undermining false consciousness (and revealing the discursive functions of ideas, personal, and collective agency are enabled, bringing about personal and social change.

The belief that social change can be brought about by exposing false consciousness at individual levels implies voluntaristic (rather than deterministic) assumptions about people and the possibility of change. It opens the way for social changes to begin at the site of everyday life.

A dialectical relationship exists between structure and agency. Although social structures do influence everyday experience and lives, knowledge of how this happens also enables people to change the ways this happens.

The focus on the connection between everyday life and social structures also places responsibility on personal liberation, rather than on oppressing others in the name of distant future liberation.

Critical social work, based on the foregoing understanding of critical social theory, is therefore an optimistic approach, based on the possibility of personal and social change for the better, achieved through working together in dialogue. It can be summarized as follows. Critical social work is as primarily concerned with practicing in ways, which work toward a society without domination, exploitation, and oppression. It involves understanding how structures dominate and also how people construct and are constructed by changing social structures and relations, recognizing that there may be multiple and diverse constructions of ostensibly similar situations. This understanding of social relations and structures disrupts dominant arrangements, and changes these so that they are more inclusive of different interest groups and perspectives.

Knowledge to inform this understanding is derived in different ways. Empirical knowledge is needed in order to understand how material structures shape lives. But processes of critical self-reflection are also crucial to ensure that dominant structures and relations are challenged in the way they are implicitly enacted in individual people’s everyday lives. Communication and dialogue are necessary in order to ensure that diverse perspectives are included in forging new and inclusive ways of working. Thus, in a postmodern and critical social work both the kinds of social changes that are sought, and the ways in which they are enacted, are important. Outcome and process are integral to each other (Fook, 2012: p. 18).

Common Ideas Underpinning Critical Social Work Practice

This approach and these common theoretical underpinnings can be distilled to four key concepts, which are crucial to the practice of critical social work, namely, knowledge, power, language, and identity creation.

Knowledge

The nature of knowledge and how it is generated are both technical and political issues in critical social work. What constitutes legitimate knowledge (and truth?); who accepts it as such; and what are the legitimate ways to generate and create it involves questions of hierarchies of knowledge and people (and therefore power).

It is important to note that critical perspectives recognize that knowledge can be generated by more scientific; means – commonly accepted methods which purport to discover the nature of ‘facts’ about our empirical world. However, these ‘facts’ may also be disputed because not everyone will agree with the methods used to develop them, or indeed, some ‘facts’ may not be relevant in different historical times, social contexts, or for different players. In this way, the more subjective nature of knowledge, and its generation, must also be taken into account. Knowledge in this sense can never be value free as it is necessarily influenced by who creates it, using what type of methodology, and in what context.

Reflexivity, or our ability to recognize how aspects of ourselves and our contexts influence the kinds of knowledge we produce and value, is an important concept in understanding how we as individuals can actively participate in creating and maintaining knowledge (which may or may not be relevant for other people in other contexts).

Additionally, to promote particular social actions, the knowledge that supports them is promulgated as factual, and therefore, universally agreed upon as true. To do this successfully, alternative perspectives are often suppressed or denied. Thus, knowledge and power are inextricably linked. In this way, views which are touted as ‘true’ may simply reflect the views of whatever group is dominant. This concept is highly relevant in understanding the operation of knowledge and power in professional life. For example, service users must often conform to a predetermined set of criteria about their situation and themselves as people, in order to qualify for legitimate services under particular policy provisions.

Furthermore, a similar process can occur in a more subtle way, with individual people in their personal and professional lives. For instance, most of us, base our actions, at the microlevel, on barely recognized assumptions, which mirror and support social arrangements. These may not be of our explicit choosing, and can work against our interests, or the best interests of the people we, as social workers, are working to assist. An everyday example of this is the decisions about how we behave in meetings. What culture(s) are we choosing to go along with when we decide where to sit, or who and what to support?

Critical reflection is an important ingredient in becoming aware of how we as individuals may create and support knowledge which excludes different (perhaps marginal) perspectives and which may therefore work to maintain social inequalities. I will discuss this in more detail in the last section on practice applications.

In social work practice, assumptions about knowledge are linked with assumptions about theory, what constitutes legitimate theory, and how it is made distinctive from practice. How we construct theory and practice, and the relationship between the two, is therefore a critical issue (Fook, forthcoming). How ways of understanding the relationship between theory and practice can be empowering or disempowering is an important site for social change.

Power

The concept of power, from a postmodern critical perspective, is seen as a dynamic force, which can be shaped and created differently in different contexts. The Foucauldian concept of power, as something, which is exercised, rather than something which is possessed, captures the essence of this idea. This conception of power as something, which can be made in social interactions is vastly different from the more commodified view, which seems to dominate accepted thinking. In dominant thinking, power is seen to reside with social position, and therefore, empowerment involves transferring power from one (more powerful) person to another (less powerful) person or group. This finite view of power is problematic because it infers that empowering one group necessarily involves disempowering another. This means that all situations, which involve empowering people are necessarily conflictual. However, in a postmodern view, this need not be the case. Different people and groups, starting from different social and power positions, may actively work together to create more power and in the process empower each other.

We discussed the relationship between knowledge and power above and it is important to remember that they should not be separated. A site for creating power and empowering others or ourselves, therefore, lies in how we conceptualize power, other people’s power, and our own abilities to influence or act in a situation. This understanding of personal agency is crucial to a critical perspective on power.

Language

How we speak about our world and social phenomena is integral to our understanding of how we actively participate in shaping social structures and relations. Firstly, language involves labelling and categorizing which orders the phenomena we experience. Secondly, language functions to socially recognize phenomena – if something is not named, it is harder to speak or communicate about it, and therefore harder to legitimize or value it.

Furthermore, language is about more than words or phrases. It also includes implications about the phenomena we speak about. This is where the concept of discourse becomes important. Discourse refers to the ways of speaking about, and the messages, which are conveyed about phenomena. In this sense, it is about more than the specific words used in the language itself, but may involve nonverbal messages, implied messages, or messages communicated by the way a situation is structured physically. It may also be about more hidden meanings that are assumed in any given cultures, which are operating in a particular situation. For instance, when binary (‘either – or’ type) categories are used, it is implied that there is no other category or way of being. Often the two elements of the binary are pitted against each other, which suggests that they are mutually exclusive and sometimes opposed to each other. Hence, when we use binary categories, such as ‘theorypractice,’ we get the message that the two are very different and that much education and intellectual gymnastics go into ‘integrating’ the two. Such a split can support other binary categorizations (e.g., the split between academia and practice, or the split between research and practice). So where does ‘practice theory’ fit in such a split? In this way, it is easy to see how any more complex ways of understanding theory and practice may be easily left out. It is this leaving out of other perspectives, categories, or experiences which can also act as a form of power, to silence or devalue alternative views.

When we recognize the power of discourse, and also the power of dominant discourses to discount different perspectives, the concept of narrative becomes important. Narrative in a simple sense refers to the idea that whatever perspective is being touted represents that person’s own story, told from their own social position, experience, and background. Thus, narratives may only represent one perspective, but may also represent a perspective, which has not formerly been recognized. This becomes particularly significant when people have not been allowed to tell their own narrative about themselves, their own biography, and identity. The concept of narrative is an important concept in applying the notion of discourse to practice. This will be discussed further in the last section.

Identity Creation

People’s sense of themselves and who they are socially and personally can change over time, and can also include contradictions. Identity making involves both personal and social elements, and these can be reworked in the light of new experiences. This means that people do have the opportunity to remake a sense of themselves in relation to changing social contexts. It is possible that identities can:

Change

Be contradictory

Be multiple

This perspective represents a major departure from the accepted way of understanding identity, which assumes that people hold an idea of themselves, which remains relatively coherent and constant over time. Indeed, it may sometimes be assumed that a stable identity is crucial to mental health. However, from a postmodern and critical perspective, we acknowledge that because identity is made in context, then an important aspect of coping in life may involve adjusting a sense of self in relation to changing experiences and contexts.

Since identities are changeable, it is important to understand how identities are made, and how these processes can be crucial in constructing social difference (and also in creating discrimination, inclusion, and exclusion). The process of ‘othering’ is a process whereby individual people or groups reinforce their existing identities by creating binary oppositional categories for other people or phenomena, which do not fit their preconceived notions. The ‘other’ group is by definition different. This type of thinking preserves and strengthens boundaries, and presumably, social comfort and certainty. This then forms a basis for discrimination.

Identity politics, as mentioned in relation to the concept of narrative, is therefore important in critical social work. How, and to whom, we accord power to make their own identities, and to coin their own language, becomes an important aspect of making social changes in our everyday lives. And how and whether we recognize and value these new categories are also an important part of critical practice.

Major Practice Applications

There are four major practice strategies which derive from the key concepts as follows: critical reflection and deconstruction/ reconstruction, problematization and research, narrativity, and contextuality.

Critical Reflection and Deconstruction/Reconstruction

As discussed earlier, critical social work includes the notion that knowledge cannot be value free, and that the way knowledge is constructed, and the sorts of knowledge (theory), which is believed to be true, often reflects the exercise of power. In the practice of critical social work, it is therefore important to be able to uncover how this power operates through the knowledge that we choose to believe. Deconstructing language and ways of thinking to discover the operation of power is a method integral to critical social work practice.

In essence, deconstruction is a form of analysing discourses, or “uncovering the ways we talk about and choose to label experience, and how these shape experience” (Fook, 2012: p. 105). In other words, deconstruction involves uncovering the ways that power operates through the ways we label and interpret our experience. What preconceived labels or categories do we accept and choose to maintain? What are we leaving out? What is being distorted? What social rules are being affirmed or created? Whose perspectives are they and what do they have to do with power differences and inequalities? These are the sorts of questions, the answers to which help pull apart our own language and thinking to see how power operates in our own experience.

In the critical reflection model I developed (e.g., Fook and Gardner, 2007), the discourse being analyzed is a person’s narrative about their own experience. Although there are many different perspectives on critical reflection, in critical social work practice, it is relevant to theorize critical reflection as a type of deconstruction of the narratives of personal experience, in order to uncover the hidden assumptions, which inform our practice, and therefore the hidden ways we participate in creating power. These can exist at a very deep and personal level, and uncovering these may help reveal how we can be complicit in supporting views or actions, which can also work against us or the people we as social workers are trying to help.

My model includes two stages (Fook, 2012): the first is deconstruction, where hidden assumptions are uncovered and examined; the second is reconstruction when assumptions (thinking) may be changed, and new ways of practice developed accordingly. This second stage of reconstruction must be an integral part of any critical social work practice. Deconstructing practice experience and thinking must be accompanied by concrete ideas of how practice can be rebuilt on the basis of what is discovered. Critical social theory in this sense provides an analysis, a way of enacting this analysis, and a blueprint for making social changes toward a more equitable and inclusive society. These are contained in a structured and purposeful way, through critical reflection.

Problematization and Research

How we conceptualize and understand the daily ‘problems’ that we deal with as social workers is an integral part of the way we work as practitioners and researchers. Much has been made in the past of the way professionals ‘pathologize’ people and problems, often through a process of ‘othering’ so that any behavior or culture, which appears deviant from the norm is categorized as problematic. How then do we choose to understand and categorize social and personal issues in a way which respects them from an insider’s perspective, but which also values the uniqueness of the perspective enough so that it can be acted upon effectively in a broader social context?

A first step is to see the task of conceptualizing and understanding an issue first and foremost as a research task. The aim of the research is to form a complex and deep understanding of the issue fromthe point of view of the person/people experiencing it. The task of the researcher is to stay open to discovering what this perspective is, and to use methods, which enable this to occur. Thismeans starting with as little preconceived idea as possible, to listen to and accept the language of the person/people involved. It may also mean using communicative and investigative methods, which are most culturally comfortable or appropriate. These will vary greatly depending on your (the researcher’s) gender, social context, age, ethnicity, and so forth, and those of the person/people you are interacting with. It may also mean accepting apparent contradictions (or even new viewpoints which differ vastly from your own), multiple perspectives, and changing interpretations (in line with the postmodern acceptance of fluid identities). Rather than glossing over or leaving out contradictions or changing viewpoints, the task of the researcher is to provide a communicable understanding of the issue or experience, which includes these differences. A complex picture (which derives from the person or situation itself) is aimed at, rather than a consistent or even balanced view.

The second task of the practitioner/researcher is then to mold this understanding into a narrative, which can be communicated to those who need to hear it. Who this audience is will depend on context. For instance, a social worker developing an assessment of a person to receive some form of social assistance may wish to use the language of the relevant policy, and choose to leave out aspects, which will diminish the person’s chances of receiving the assistance. Or aspects that appear not to fit may be reworked in appropriate language. An audience of policy makers may need to hear about aspects of individual experiences, which sit outside the norm, so that their own critical thinking can be stimulated. A target group of social work colleagues might need to know about supporting statistics which will broaden their understanding of the social extent of the issue at hand, and give a context to their practice experience.

This process of coming to a comprehensive appreciation of social problems and issues from insiders’ perspectives may be used equally well for assessment of individual or community situations. The key is to view the assessment not as an attempt to pathologize or fit the issue at hand into a preconceived category, but to be open to creating new categories or labels, and ways of communicating about the issue or situation, which suit the context in which the assessment is being made. This recognizes that conducting an ‘assessment’ is really more of a construction of a professional narrative, constructed to be effective, and relevant in a particular context.

Narrativity

The concept of narrativity refers to an understanding that a perspective on particular phenomena may represent only one perspective from a particular vantage point – social, historical, or political. Narratives, constructed as they are by particular people in particular contexts, function as a form of meaning making. Since the meaning is made in a social context, narratives also perform social functions. Narratives, like discourses, embody power. The principle of narrativity builds on this awareness to suggest strategies for destabilizing this power, and this provides the opportunity to remake it.

The principle of narrativity is related to concepts of discourse analysis, deconstruction, and critical reflection. However, it has special mention here as narrative therapy (see White and Epston, 1990) has become particularly well developed as a movement in its own right. The approach is based on the idea of examining and changing harmful narratives. In summary, it involves: identifying narratives, dominant, empowering, and disempowering; validating the positive ones and externalizing the harmful ones; and rebuilding alternative narratives and validating these further by creating an audience. Such an approach has been used successfully in many different fields of therapeutic work (Duvall and Beres, 2011). Narrative methods, however, can also be used more broadly, in work with communities and also in organizations, and are, therefore, an important component of the critical social worker’s repertoire.

Contextuality

The principle of contextuality arises through recognizing that context influences much of analysis and practice in social work. Contextual practice (practice both within and with context) emphasizes several new ways of approaching practice (Fook, 2012: p. 162):

Understanding the nature of the different contexts in which we work at different times and to developing relevant practice strategies. This may involve recognizing the role of a particular context in shaping certain attitudes or practices; or it may require adapting our ways of working to incorporate methods from past times or other contexts.

Positionality – assuming a reflexively aware stance, simultaneously being able to see outside but also within contexts. This involves being able to understand and identify how we are inextricably part of a situation can also allow us to see outside it, and to use this dual awareness to be sympathetic to any resistance to change, but courageous enough to seek change.

Working with whole contexts (rather than a number of disparate players or aspects). This involves the ability to see beyond the separate elements of a context to appreciate how they work together to create a dynamic whole. This enables working with how people work together, rather than working separately with the people themselves.

Developing practice knowledge/theory that is transferable (not generalizable) between different contexts. This involves understanding that preexisting knowledge is not imposed top-down or from outside a situation, but rather preexisting knowledge is remade as relevant in new situations. New contexts are not made to fit preexisting knowledge, but rather preexisting knowledge is constantly remade from experience with new contexts.

Reframing skills in contextual terms – developing ‘contextual competence’ is the ability to read the cultural climate of different contexts and to practice effectively with and within these contexts (Fook, 2012: p. 187).

Conclusion

Critical social work practice is still developing. Outlined here are some ideas about what it might look like using a conception of critical social theory, which incorporates common aspects from a number of related contemporary theoretical approaches (including postmodernism, feminism). An important concluding thought is that the practice of critical social work requires an openness to new experiences, people, and situations which allows engagement with each other in contexts of uncertainty which are often outside our control.

Bibliography:

Agger, B., 2006. Critical Social Theories, second ed. Paradigm, Boulder.

Allen, J., Briskman, L., Pease, B. (Eds.), 2009. Critical Social Work, second ed. Allen & Unwin, Syndey.

Bailey, R., Brake, M. (Eds.), 1975. Radical Social Work. Edward Arnold, London.

Corrigan, P., Leonard, P., 1978. Social Work Practice under Capitalism. Macmillan, London.

Dominelli, L., 1988. Anti-Racist Social Work. Macmillan, London.

Dominelli, L., 2002. Anti-Oppressive Social Work. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Dominelli, L., MacLeod, E., 1982. Feminist Social Work. Macmillan, London.

Duvall, J., Beres, L., 2011. Innovations I Narrative Therapy. Norton, New York.

Ferguson, I., 2008. Reclaiming Social Work: Challenging Neo-Liberalism and Promoting Social Justice. Sage, London.

Fook, J., 1993. Radical Casework: A Theory of Practice. Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

Fook, J., 2002. Social Work: Critical Theory and Practice. Sage, London.

Fook, J., 2012. Social Work: A Critical Approach to Practice, second ed. Sage, London.

Fook, J., forthcoming. The relationship between theory and practice. In: Pinto, C., Carvalho, M. (Eds.), Social Work Themes: Research and Practices, PACTOR.

Fook, J., Gardner, F., 2007. Practising Critical Reflection. Open University Press, Maidenhead.

Healy, K., 2000. Social Work Practices. Sage, London.

Hick, S., Fook, J., Pozzuto, R. (Eds.), 2005. Social Work: A Critical Turn. Thompson Educational Publishers, Toronto.

Morris, J., 1991. Pride against Prejudice: Transforming Attitudes to Disability. The Women’s Press, London.

Mullaly, B., 2007. The New Structural Social Work, third ed. Oxford University Press, Toronto.

Oliver, M., 1990. The Politics of Disability. Macmillan, London.

Pease, B., Fook, J. (Eds.), 1999. Transforming Social Work Practice. Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

Reisch, M., Andrews, J., 2001. The Road Not Taken: A History of Radical Social Work in the USA. Routledge-Brunner, Philadelphia.

Simon, B., 1994. The Empowerment Tradition in American Social Work. Columbia University Press, New York.

White, M., Epston, D., 1990. Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends. Norton, New York.